Why I'm getting fed-up with UV?

[Reiryc]

Originally posted by Hartmann


Well, we can do that, too! For starters, dimes don't take as much room and are lighter than an equal amount of quarters in the wallet. This is backed by the fact that dollar bills, which are definitely worth more than quarters, are lighter than quarters, too. Finally, if someone sells dimes for quarters, he only adds proof to our opinion that dimes are valued more than quarters. So how can this individual dare to come here and think we are idiots falling for his dirty little tricks! Never will he get our precious dimes in exchange for totally worthless quarters!

Hartmann

LOL...bravo! Well done sir!

Reiryc

[juliet7bravo]

I think the best analogy would be being the owner AND pitcrew of a race car...you pay the bills, do all the scut work, and get left at the pit wall biting your nails while the driver gets all the fun (and is prone to periodically crashing into the wall while you watch in horror).

[Burch]

After playing UV for several days, I have to agree with several of these posts. I think the answer to many of our problems (at least mine:D ) would be a "player operational control" like in PacWar. I would love to be able to turn the tedious supply runs over to the AI and yet have the option to manage it myself if I wanted/needed to. At the same time I would like to tell an air group to bomb the Shortland airfield and it actually happen, weather permitting, turn after turn!
One really annoying thing that I have experienced is loading a task force with troops, supplies, fuel etc., the next turn they are not quite loaded so I leave them loading and continue to the next turn only to return and find them unloaded or unloading on the next turn!!!!!:mad: Or they get halfway to the target base and turn around (I'm not talking about running from carriers etc)!!
Someone posted earlier that UV bored them, I can relate to this. While I love the game, it can become needlessly tedious and/or frustrating. It is not a lack of turn by turn action that is boring it is the turn by turn micromanagement.
Let me say again that the subject and scope of this game is great as well as the game as a whole. I enjoy the ability to micromanage but don't want to do it all the time. If I do micromanage I want my orders carried out!

[Didz]

Originally posted by Hartmann


Yeah, I forgot the SNIPs, sorry. I probably misunderstood your remark about the long term strategy gamers, still it seems to me that "proven beyond ...." was
meant to relate to "design flaw" in the next sentence, which is the reason I quoted those two sentences together. (For "design flaw" was your alternative to my "player's preference", no?)

Sure! No problem:)

I was just concerned that having tried hard not to incite a debate that would divide this forum into a war of two camps my words were being quoted as a rallying call for just such a division. I was therefore keen to put the record straight.

I tried to word my initial post carefully to reflect the fact that this thread is about 'Why I' am getting fed up with UV and it was never my intention to suggest that the game was unenjoyable or unplayable for everyone else.

What has transpired since is that a significant number of other players have come forward with similar concerns. Enough I think to prove that there is an issue here to be addressed.

I accept that this game was advertised as having 1-7 day turns and a 30 mile hex scale but with the best will in the world its difficult to assess the impact of that in playing terms without actually playing the game particularly if your main area of interest is Napoleonic's. I was merely re-assured by the statement that this game would be based upon Gary Grigby's PACWAR which is a game I have always loved playing and I am surprised at how much difference the change in ground scale has made.

At the end of the day it is the game designers job to produce a game thats playable and enjoyable and for the vast majority of purchasers they have succeeded but I'm afraid in my case they have failed.

My only interest at this point is:

a. Can an option for a shorter move be introduced in a later release so that I can enjoy this game too?

b. Will this issue be avoided in WiTP?

[JJKettunen]

Originally posted by Henri
I went this morning after a long absence to the Combat Mission forum to check on the status of their upcoming game only to find a similar thread where a participant was criticizing the game for not being what he wanted (more operational). He was being raked over the coals, tarred and feathered with personal attacks, told to program his own game if he was not happy, and so on and so on. IT reminded me of why I voluntary left that forum last year never to return.

The big difference between these cases is that Didz´s criticism of UV was presented in a civil mannered way. The criticism of CM was NOT presented in a civil mannered way.

[Erik Rutins]

Burch,

I'm jumping in here since your post raised some specific points that I wanted to comment on.

Originally posted by Burch
I would love to be able to turn the tedious supply runs over to the AI and yet have the option to manage it myself if I wanted/needed to. At the same time I would like to tell an air group to bomb the Shortland airfield and it actually happen, weather permitting, turn after turn!

While there is apparently a bug with some CS convoys, they are working here and certainly do fulfill the automated supply role. Set them up, send them out and forget them.

As for bombing Shortland - they will bomb regularly (weather permitting) in my experience as long as you've also assigned them enough escorts. Bomber pilots hate being shot down.

Originally posted by Burch
One really annoying thing that I have experienced is loading a task force with troops, supplies, fuel etc., the next turn they are not quite loaded so I leave them loading and continue to the next turn only to return and find them unloaded or unloading on the next turn!!!!!:mad:

That only happens if you forgot to set a destination. Always set their destination immediately after you start them loading. Otherwise, you're simply conducting a loading/unloading training exercise as you've told them to stay in port.

Originally posted by Burch
Or they get halfway to the target base and turn around (I'm not talking about running from carriers etc)!!

This sounds like that CS/Routine Convoy bug, which is being worked on. We hope to have that fixed soon.

Originally posted by Burch
Someone posted earlier that UV bored them, I can relate to this. While I love the game, it can become needlessly tedious and/or frustrating. It is not a lack of turn by turn action that is boring it is the turn by turn micromanagement.

I have to say I respect the position of those who feel this way, but I found that PacWar required much more micromanagement from me each turn than UV does. Nevertheless, I'd love to see even less micromanagement. We'll make improvements as we can.

Regards,

- Erik

[Sid]

UV takes some learning because the manual does not explain it all in detail (hint hint). The matter of a cargo unloading in its port of loading is a function of software. Irritating it is, but it is a USER error, not the program. WHEN YOU DESIGNATE THE CARGO DESIGNATE THE DESTINATION. If you do that, when the cargo loads, it will go there to unload! IF THE DESTINATION HAPPENS TO BE WHERE YOU ARE, IT GOES THERE - which is to say it stays there! Perfectly reasonable simple if you think the way a computer does. The game WORKS, but you have to grasp you are dealing with an itiot that does not reason, it literally does what you order! If you TF says "Destination = Noumea" and you ARE IN Noumea, then the computer thinks you want to unload in Noumea, no matter where you got it (even in Noumea). Make sense? Repeat, if you want the cargo to go to Lungy, SAY SO at the time you load it, which means you don't have to remember to say so later. If you don't want to leave port at once, say "patrol/do not return" and you won't leave either! Just learn to use the controls.

[Marc von Martial]

He was being raked over the coals, tarred and feathered with personal attacks, told to program his own game if he was not happy, and so on and so on.

Aha, so nothing changed over there hmm . It´s not a matter of how you present something over at Battlefront´s board, it´s just about the game. You don´t like the simplest feature oc CMBO, you get flamed big time. Even worse then on "comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical" , hehe. The Art of War board here is a sandbox compared to the newsgroup, LOL.

[Burch]

Thanks for the lesson guys. I was foggy on the whole destination thing, and it sounds like it will take care of some of my problems. However, that being said, there are still nuances in controlling TFs of all kinds that are hard to get a handle on (trial and error). Some manual help as in "TF Control for Dummies" might have been helpful.
PacWar did have a lot of micromanagement IF you chose to do it. It also had a few little quirks. Air group control was something I never got very good at with PacWar.
I am enjoying the game very much. I love the Pacific Theatre in WW2!!

[Sid]

Let us try to remember this is a good game. It is more respectful of integration of land units with navair ops than any other. I cannot stand PACWAR - mainly because no one in a whole club of gamers in a major metroplex can understand what it is about. It is too abstract to comprehend or use. This game we can understand and it mainly works.

Game scale DOES matter - it is the MOST IMPORTANT design decision. But so does the level of command. We mainly play games that are too operational or tactical - this is a STRATEGIC game and your have to let your (computer) subordinates make their own decisions.

That said, it IS frustrating the AI does not allow the Japanese to take advantage of longer range planes. Indeed, for unclear reasons, a Kate cannot use her longer range - she is limited to the range of the Val -- which is not correct - albiet she does not carry as much to extended range. And the TBD for some reason has too much range with a torpedo!!!! It uses its lighter loading but carries a torpedo all the way! But that does not change the fact it is a wonderful game. Data creates opportunities for errors and there is massive data here.

[Burch]

Sid,
I am very pleased with this game and it does everything it was designed to do. Yes there are some things I would like to add but I feel this is an excellent game.
My comparisons to PacWar are only because IMHO PacWar and possibly QQP's Battles of the South Pacific are the only games that I have played that could even be comparable.
I like the operational strategic level it is why I bought the game, but do feel some of my subordinates are morons at times!
Burch

[Henri]

Originally posted by Burch

I like the operational strategic level it is why I bought the game, but do feel some of my subordinates are morons at times!
Burch

I like to have a few morons among my commanders, it allows me to blame them for my own shortcomings when things go badly, not to mention increasing the nail-biting in tight situations like when your planes go after the wrong target...

Henri

[FAdmiral]

Check your history guys, we had alot of morons back then too.
But fortunately, it got balanced out with some fairly smart ones.
I dearly love this type of game but if you want to see
why your orders are sometimes not carried out to the
letter, check the units morale level. When it is very low, things
don't go as planned.

JIM BERG, SR.

[Sid]

Actually, at Metro Seattle Gamers, we LIKE the fact that weather and maybe staff or command problems mean your missions do not fly (etc.) In particular we like the fact that leaders have an influence, and that we can assign them (at least in the campaign games). This is much more a simulation of high command than I have seen before commercially (I do private sims much more complex, with HUMAN judges playing computer in the middle, but that is much harder to do -- this is just start it and play).

But it SHOULD be possible to plan an attack ahead of time and have SOME chance of events going as planned for much of the first day. Indeed, it is TOO easy to do an amphib op, and there is NO delay to do it as far as I can tell -- which is unrealistic. I was first of all a Gator (Navy slang for amphib sailor) and it STILL don't work that way. Indeed, if you rush it, the chance of mess ups should be greater. It is said among professionals and historians that amphib ops are the most complex military operations in history.

[Burch]

Originally posted by Henri


I like to have a few morons among my commanders, it allows me to blame them for my own shortcomings when things go badly, not to mention increasing the nail-biting in tight situations like when your planes go after the wrong target...

Henri

Good Point:)

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Henri


I like to have a few morons among my commanders, it allows me to blame them for my own shortcomings when things go badly, not to mention increasing the nail-biting in tight situations like when your planes go after the wrong target...

Henri

Got any openings in your Navy?:D