Patch Progress Update...

[Jagger2002]

It is not a problem. I just have been putting off PBEM games until the patch is out.

Thanks for the feedback.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by WW2'er



Dgaad,

You're right, that is the point. You are "guessing" that it did. Matrix is asking you to do the research and show that it did. Then they might be willing to discuss changing it.

Are you speaking for Matrix, or do you normally quote things out of context all by yourself?

[PBYPilot]

Thank you Erik, Mike and Matrix for the work on the patch, the full communications, and the effort spent informing us re: the design choices that you've made. You've put yourselves into the top echelon of game companies as far as I'm concerned.

Got an ETA? Just to help plan PBEM'ing.

Oh and a new scenario was mentioned. Might it be (oh, I hope, I hope, I hope) a May 1st start, with historic Midway results?

PBYPilot

[JohnK]

Sabre,

I agree...I think the correct move is to err on the side of being TOO restrictive regarding mines, if one is erring (and Dgaad hasn't sold me that Matrix IS erring.)

There's just too much danger of PBEM (which I haven't tried yet, also waiting for the patch) of mines blowing up the game and turining it into Common Mines instead of Uncommon Valor.

Presumably, for WITP the mines rules will evolve, but I think the game is more easily ruined by not enough restrictions on mines than too many restrictions on mines.

And to be frank...mine warfare isn't that interesting...I don't know if I want to be playing PBEM games where the micromanagement of mine resources becomes all-consuming and crucial to victory.

Despite the existence of the supposed Japanese deep water mine, I'm still personally convinced that the main problem is that much of the Pacific is far too deep for mines and areas shallow enough for them are easily avoided other than RIGHT outside of harbor entrances.....and until the airdropped mines off Japan in 1945, THAT'S why mines were fairly irrelevant in the Pacific.

[Supervisor]

Originally posted by PBYPilot
Oh and a new scenario was mentioned. Might it be (oh, I hope, I hope, I hope) a May 1st start, with historic Midway results?

PBYPilot

Now don't get me wrong, or anything.

Just how would you have that work?

The Coral Sea outcomes directly influenced the events at Midway. What if the Americans decisively trounced the Japanese at Coral Sea? What if both Shokaku & Zuikaku are lost and both Lexington and Yorktown survive relatively unscathed? That would give the US 4 carriers that the Japanese would have to worry about (not the 2 that they thought that they were facing). Or conversely, what if Shokaku & Zuikaku got off unscathed and sank both US carriers? That would leave the 2 Japanese carriers available to be at Midway, thus giving them 6 carriers to only 2 for the US. Results could be drastically different one way or the other, all depending on the different outcomes from Coral Sea.

Also, there would have to have something coded to be able to have the carriers (and their escorts) withdrawn from the South Pacific as they would have been for service in the upcoming battle. Both sides viewed it as a major (if not "the" major) confrontation. They would have to be pulled sometime in mid-May to make it back in time, and wouldn't be able to return until mid-to-late June at the earliest. Therefore you would be without more than a CVL/CVE or so until almost July.

Starting in May and wanting a historical Midway to occur could only happen if your "new" Coral Sea had much the same effect as the real one did (IMO). Essentially, by intervening in history before Midway, you are introducing so many possible future outcomes that it would be a nightmare to try to code. Or you are calling for the programmers to make assuptions on how future events (in fairly specific terms) are affected by "current" events. At best, they would have to come up with some way to simulate the results of Midway with the (possibly) different combinations of carriers on both sides. And how can you come up with the luck of catching 3/4 of the Jap carriers with ammo & fuel scattered all over the decks like they did?

I'm just trying to point out that it isn't just a simple case of: "Let us start the historical scenario with Coral Sea and follow on through with what happened historically at Midway." Any change at Coral Sea would have implications in what would happen later. The closest that you could come is as I stated above: the carriers would have to be ordered back for the June battle of Midway (on both sides - and whatever survived in usable conditions for Midway). Then they would have to come up with some way to "simulate" the battle with the changed ships available. That would require many assumptions on the part of the programmers (and you can imagine the debate over their choices ).

By entering in May you are changing things so much that the cascading domino effect on events snarls itself into almost infinite possiblities.

Just a thought . . .

[Sultanofsham]

Originally posted by Mike Wood
Hello...

On the list for the next patch.

Bye...

Michael Wood

Thanks for the info

[Supervisor]

Originally posted by pad152
3. Won't the all mines in a hex disapear before the player can return to Truk to reload them? If so won't this make mines useless?

This is only for mines laid in deep water. So, I agree that it makes laying mines in deep water essentially useless (unless you lay directly in front of a TF - only possibly a viable tactic only when using a sub, I would say). But laying mines in shallow water will leave "permanent" minefields that will have lasting effects.

Since they will have a toggle key (F2, I believe) that will show shallow water, you will be able to figure out where to lay your mines for best effects.

[Spooky]

Originally posted by PBYPilot

Oh and a new scenario was mentioned. Might it be (oh, I hope, I hope, I hope) a May 1st start, with historic Midway results?

PBYPilot

I really do not see the interest of a May 1st start with Historic Midway results ?

If you want to get the Midway situation, there is already a scenario (#16 I believe) that begins at the right time.

Here are some informations about this new Scenario (post from David the 06-05-02)

Originally posted by David Heath


A new scenario close to what you want will be included as a free extra scenario in the next patch. The scenario has been designed by Rich Dionne. I am sure a lot you have enjoyed the scenarios already designed by Rich and this one should be no step above even those. The scenario will assume a lot events occured that changed the way World War II was progressing. The idea behind it was to even match Japan and the US and allow strategy to prove the winner.

Rich is working on one other scenario that will be later on. He is the historical notes from the new scenario below.

David

SOUTH FROM RABAUL

1 May 1942 -- 31 December 1943

The Japanese initiate an all-out drive into the South
Pacific; their ultimate goal is to cut the lines of
supply between Australia and the United States.

With the cooperation of the South Seas Army Detachment
and Combined Fleet, the Japanese plan to first occupy
key areas in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands.
Once these gains are consolidated, the Japanese plan to
capture key bases in the New Hebrides and effectively
isolate Australia from the United States.

The Allies must attempt to thwart the Japanese plans,
and at the same time, begin planning their own offensive
operations for the capture of the Solomon Islands and
Papua New Guinea.

Note: This is a hypothetical scenario. The following
assumptions are made:

1) The Battle for Midway is assumed not to occur. All
ships historically lost in that battle may become
available in this scenario.

2) The war in Europe is going badly for the Russians.
Moscow has fallen to the Nazis, and many Russian units
previously facing Japanese units in the East move West
to stem the tide of the German advance. As a result,
Japan has pulled some air and land units out of China to
make these units available in the South Pacific.

3) Japanese air and land unit reinforcement dates are
accelerated. Japanese Aircraft replacement rates are
also augmented.

4) The Japanese have undertaken a significant
improvement in their pilot training programs. The
quality of Japanese air units is significantly improved.

[vils]

..where is the patch??

Life is full of waiting...

[Matto]

... is on the way from Pearl ... estimated arrival is during next few days. But weather is bad, sea dangerous and Jap submarines searching for some good target. So prepare Long CAP and C-47s for fast air lift to the war zone
Refreshing each 5 minutes
Matto

[PBYPilot]

Originally posted by Rowlf


The Coral Sea outcomes directly influenced the events at Midway. What if the Americans decisively trounced the Japanese at Coral Sea? What if both Shokaku & Zuikaku are lost and both Lexington and Yorktown survive relatively unscathed? That would give the US 4 carriers that the Japanese would have to worry about (not the 2 that they thought that they were facing). Or conversely, what if Shokaku & Zuikaku got off unscathed and sank both US carriers? That would leave the 2 Japanese carriers available to be at Midway, thus giving them 6 carriers to only 2 for the US. Results could be drastically different one way or the other, all depending on the different outcomes from Coral Sea.

Also, there would have to have something coded to be able to have the carriers (and their escorts) withdrawn from the South Pacific as they would have been for service in the upcoming battle. Both sides viewed it as a major (if not "the" major) confrontation. They would have to be pulled sometime in mid-May to make it back in time, and wouldn't be able to return until mid-to-late June at the earliest. Therefore you would be without more than a CVL/CVE or so until almost July.

Starting in May and wanting a historical Midway to occur could only happen if your "new" Coral Sea had much the same effect as the real one did (IMO). Essentially, by intervening in history before Midway, you are introducing so many possible future outcomes that it would be a nightmare to try to code. Or you are calling for the programmers to make assuptions on how future events (in fairly specific terms) are affected by "current" events. At best, they would have to come up with some way to simulate the results of Midway with the (possibly) different combinations of carriers on both sides. And how can you come up with the luck of catching 3/4 of the Jap carriers with ammo & fuel scattered all over the decks like they did?

I'm just trying to point out that it isn't just a simple case of: "Let us start the historical scenario with Coral Sea and follow on through with what happened historically at Midway." Any change at Coral Sea would have implications in what would happen later. The closest that you could come is as I stated above: the carriers would have to be ordered back for the June battle of Midway (on both sides - and whatever survived in usable conditions for Midway). Then they would have to come up with some way to "simulate" the battle with the changed ships available. That would require many assumptions on the part of the programmers (and you can imagine the debate over their choices ).

By entering in May you are changing things so much that the cascading domino effect on events snarls itself into almost infinite possiblities.

Just a thought . . .

What you seem to be suggesting is having the game generate an outcome for Midway based on the units available for commitment there. That WOULD be difficult, and probably beyond the scope of Uncommon Valor.

But there might be a way of coming close to presenting the players with the strategic situation that resulted from Midway into a campaign that begins on the 1st of May. I'm suggesting an "historic" historic Midway. That is one where the ships (historically) sunk in that battle never become available for deployment to the Southwest Pacific. Those that were damaged (historically) in that battle would not be available until the appropriate time allowing for their repair.

In fact many of the ships of both sides that participated in Midway and the Aleutians weren't available to the South Pacific anyway. They had participated in recent operations and were earmarked for Midway. Nagumo's carriers were just back from the Indian Ocean and were refitting and rebuilding their air groups. Enterprise and Hornet were back from the Doolittle raid and were probably engaged in similar efforts.

The fact that Yorktown showed up for Midway was a result of extraordinary effort at making her combat ready again after her return to Pearl Harbor.

So in UV terms, Kaga, Akagi, Hiryu and Soryu along with Mikuma and I-164 would never be available to the Japanese. If the scenario editor cannot handle withdrawing ships permanently from the South Pacific, then a Yorktown class American carrier would never be available for commitment to the South Pacific (say Hornet), along with destroyer Hammann.

The other ships that participated in Midway or Aleutions ops, on both sides, would have their SOPAC availability dates set accordingly.

Obviously the best thing would be a modification that allowed the scenario designer to specify an arbitrary date for removal of an active SOPAC unit and whether or not and when that unit could return.

But failing that, keeping the five CV's mentioned from ever being committed to the SOPAC area would give both players a feel what it was like to operate in the shadow of the events at Midway.

Similarly other Midway outcomes could be generated by the scenario designer, different combinations of damage and loss of the various Midway participants, reflected in the removal of the lost units from the available ship list and the delay of the damaged units to availability for commitment to the South Pacific

Any gaps in logic of this post are solely the effect of grogily composing this at 3:00 in the morning.

PBYPilot

[PBYPilot]

Originally posted by vils
..where is the patch??

All the world wants to know...



PBYPilot

[vils]

Originally posted by Matto
... is on the way from Pearl ... estimated arrival is during next few days. But weather is bad, sea dangerous and Jap submarines searching for some good target. So prepare Long CAP and C-47s for fast air lift to the war zone
Refreshing each 5 minutes
Matto

ETA in vincinity! Good..

So you are sure its not anchored at Pearl then?

[Spooky]

Originally posted by vils


ETA in vincinity! Good..

So you are sure its not anchored at Pearl then?

Maybe we have already too much commitment points ... so patch availability is low :rolleyes:

[Spooky]

Originally posted by PBYPilot


What you seem to be suggesting is having the game generate an outcome for Midway based on the units available for commitment there. That WOULD be difficult, and probably beyond the scope of Uncommon Valor.

But there might be a way of coming close to presenting the players with the strategic situation that resulted from Midway into a campaign that begins on the 1st of May. I'm suggesting an "historic" historic Midway. That is one where the ships (historically) sunk in that battle never become available for deployment to the Southwest Pacific. Those that were damaged (historically) in that battle would not be available until the appropriate time allowing for their repair.

In fact many of the ships of both sides that participated in Midway and the Aleutians weren't available to the South Pacific anyway. They had participated in recent operations and were earmarked for Midway. Nagumo's carriers were just back from the Indian Ocean and were refitting and rebuilding their air groups. Enterprise and Hornet were back from the Doolittle raid and were probably engaged in similar efforts.

The fact that Yorktown showed up for Midway was a result of extraordinary effort at making her combat ready again after her return to Pearl Harbor.

So in UV terms, Kaga, Akagi, Hiryu and Soryu along with Mikuma and I-164 would never be available to the Japanese. If the scenario editor cannot handle withdrawing ships permanently from the South Pacific, then a Yorktown class American carrier would never be available for commitment to the South Pacific (say Hornet), along with destroyer Hammann.

The other ships that participated in Midway or Aleutions ops, on both sides, would have their SOPAC availability dates set accordingly.

Obviously the best thing would be a modification that allowed the scenario designer to specify an arbitrary date for removal of an active SOPAC unit and whether or not and when that unit could return.

But failing that, keeping the five CV's mentioned from ever being committed to the SOPAC area would give both players a feel what it was like to operate in the shadow of the events at Midway.

Similarly other Midway outcomes could be generated by the scenario designer, different combinations of damage and loss of the various Midway participants, reflected in the removal of the lost units from the available ship list and the delay of the damaged units to availability for commitment to the South Pacific

Any gaps in logic of this post are solely the effect of grogily composing this at 3:00 in the morning.

PBYPilot

What I do not understand is why you want to begin May 1st ?

Moreover, the Yorktown is a big problem since you cannot remove it from the beginning (otherwise, No Coral Sea battle) ... and who knows what would have happened at Midway if the Yorktown wasn't there because of an unhistorical CV battles in your UV May 1st game (ie : with Lex & Yorktown sunk) ?

Spooky

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Spooky


What I do not understand is why you want to begin May 1st ?

........

Actually the big question should be why discuss this in this thread?:D

[PBYPilot]

Originally posted by Sonny


Actually the big question should be why discuss this in this thread?:D

I was just answering a direct question. But I think a seperate thread would be appropriate.

I'll start one.

PBYPilot

[Admiral DadMan]

Originally posted by Erik Rutins
2) The program should no longer require 100% of CPU capacity.

Yea! It was crushing my poor CPU...

28) Please note that the program will now run inside of a window, instead of full screen, if in 1024x768x16 bit screen mode and if the command line parameter –w is used.

Yea!!!! Now I don't have to worry about crashing when I ALT/TAB...

[pad152]

Something for the patch:

Aviation Support is not always displayed correctly!

If you select a base your get something like this;
Aviation Support 152 +18 for a base with a seaplane tender in port, if you select the airbase
icon on the same base the you get Aviation Support 152, it doesn't show the +18 from the seaplane tender. Aviation Support should be the same for all screens?

[silkworm]

Make that something for the NEXT patch, PLEEEASE! My life has become dysfunctional (even more so) since I stopped playing UV on Sunday to wait for the patch! It's been four long days..