Matrix Games Forums

this has been a very interesting thread , just look at all views.
Matrix is what gaming should be about. regardless of how many idiots post (i might just be one of them........)at least these forums are read and responded to by the Matrix team. That alone says volumes of how they support and try to get the most out of there games. The game is after all , just a game. Realistic , of course not . Fun and entertaining, yes. Informative and history related , of course. Is the game all things to all people , no. with that all said , if you like the game , play it !! otherwise , move on....................

Hi, sorry I'm late.

I think that something needs to be done about UV's target selection routines to stop air strikes selecting really dumb targets. Um, any opinions? Or has this been brought up before?

Also, how many posts does it require to become a Matrix Idiot? Or do I have enough already?

Originally posted by Drongo
Hi, sorry I'm late.

I think that something needs to be done about UV's target selection routines to stop air strikes selecting really dumb targets. Um, any opinions? Or has this been brought up before?

Also, how many posts does it require to become a Matrix Idiot? Or do I have enough already?

Maybe if get enough, you could be "prize idiot".

Just make sure you ask them what the prize is first before accepting that title.

I'm more curious as to just how many "jwilkersons" there are
out there who haven't even bothered to send a post when
they gave up on UNCOMMON VALOR? Who looked for help
with a serious game problem and found the Matrix attitude
of "we might get it right in the next one---spend more money
to find out" too much to take? And now they're GONE and
won't even look at WitP.

UNCOMMON VALOR is so close to a great game it makes your
mouth water..., but if Matrix can't field a patch NOW that fixes
the more lunatic efforts of the AI in chosing targets for naval
strikes, it shows a total disregard for an awful lot of it's current
customers. Maybe it's 1/3rd, but it could just as easily be
2/3rd's---most people who buy a game don't bother to get
involved in online discussions. Whatever the number is, it's
TOO MANY to ignore (as Matrix seems to want to do) and still
expect them to blindly buy the next game using this engine.

Unlike "jwilkerson", I don't want to give up on a POTENTIALLY
great game with so many clever innovations just because ONE
KEY PORTION is hopelessly broken. Like the guy whose glass
is eternally "half-full", I keep hoping they will "see the light" and
fix UNCOMMON VALOR. But just like him, I'm damned if I'll spend
more money buying WitP if Matrix can't show me that they CAN
and HAVE fixed this problem!

I think this thread has gotten way out of hand and has long passed from the point of productivity into the realm of sillyness.

Are the naval attack routines perfect? no.

Do they need refinement? Yes.

Should players be given more control over naval airgroups in naval attack? Conditionally yes. See below

That means, no i dont believe target prioritization is necessary or desireable. Futz-ups did happen in real life in terms of target selection. All of the examples i've seen to the contrary were unique circumstances set up mainly by codebreaking (Midway the best example)

However for every Midway, you have a Coral Sea.....I'm sure Jack Fletcher would rather have attacked Shokaku and Zuikaku vs little Shoho, and I'm very sure that Hara would rather have attacked the Yorktown and Lexington vs the tanker Neosho and the Simms

I'm also sure he'd have loved it if his B5N's which became seperated from their escort that same day in a followup attack, hadn't met that bunch of F4F's which happily scythed them to the point that the next decisive day, they didn't have enough left to properly set up one or both US carriers for a kill shot.

The only problem i see with the naval attack routines is that there is no range function. Put in a range function to limit the attack range of LBA aircraft and you eliminate 90% of the complaints. No more unescorted bombers attacking heavily defended ports or TF's at those locations instead of more juicier targets closer to home.

Originally posted by Grumbling Grogn
The game UV is limited in scope (i.e. time). ONE day in a campaign such as those portrayed in UV can very well decide your fate.

IF you think that the Battle of the Coral Sea was not a huge defining moment in the conflict in the SWPAC in WW2... Well, that is fine I guess. But I think many would disagree. :rolleyes:

My point was ONE turn means a LOT in this game when you can lose a huge portion of your ability to carry on the fight in a single series of airstrikes.

While your previous post was simply a lame attempt to ridicule my abilities (of which you have no clue) by saying that one day is not that important in UV and if it is then I am doing something wrong. You are quite simply incorrect as history shows that in the very conflict this game portrays one day can make a huge difference.

I am interested in what you count as a single day's action deciding your fate (seriously)? Say playing allied. Loss of all CV's in theatre? (which isn't really in the scope of this land based air debate). Loss of PM 'against the odds', taking say a full division with it? JPN getting ashore at Noumea? (I am concentrating on events where your land based air plays the main role, so pretty much eliminates Allied landings)

I would not count any of these as deciding the game. I cannot think of a single base that loses the game in one go, that I have ever seen happen, or likely to happen. Now, if the IJN could sortie a landing from Truk in August 1942 (or anytime for that matter), and land on Noumea due to an adequate air defence just completely fouling up, I would agree with you that the game was very broken. However (whilst I have never tried it, even against the AI), I suspect that such a landing would struggle to get ashore, and would be impossible to keep supplied. The same goes for a US landing on Truk anytime before the IJN are seriously defeated.

Please do tell me, I am seriously interested - it is possible that my failure to have an issue with the problems you think are critical is because I am not trying hard enough.

I agree strongly with the opinions expressed by Mike Scholl in his recent post. Well said, Mike.

Sorry, Nikademus, but I think dialogue is still useful. And I don't think range limitations will solve 90% of the major problems. If we position our CV TF's the way Spruance did at Midway, they will almost certainly hit the transport TF rather than the enemy CV TF, because we would not have the input to our "Spruance" that the theatre commander (our role in this simulation -- i.e. Nimitz historically in this case) had in real life. I've had this happen to me even when both types of TF's were identified -- whether correctly or incorrectly doesn't bother me, but the lack of command input in response to spotting reports does bother me.
We cannot even tell the CV's to await further reports before responding, if that's our preference (as it was Nimitz' at Midway, as I understand it).