Suggestions For Next Patch

[XPav]

The interface is what I would call programmer friendly.

I know this because the program that I develop suffers from many of the same sort of issues -- namely, gratuitous use of modal dialog boxes and lots of clicking.

It takes time to make good interfaces -- and usually, you have to do it a couple times before you get to the point where the interface becomes less annoying. The other problem is that if you use something everyday, you become used to its idiosyncrasies to the point where they don't seem like such a problem anymore.

So, while I understand why the interface is the way it is, how it got there, and why major changes aren't likely, I STILL wish that it was better and hope that I will be listened too.

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by Von Rom
Aircraft Carriers

I hope in the next patch, or soon thereafter, that a change can be made to the orders given to aircraft carriers.

1) As it stands now, the "retirement allowed" command means that a carrier group may leave the battle scene. This is fine when I want to play conservatively, and may not wish to risk my carriers. Nothing needs to be changed with this command.

2) However, the "patrol/do not retire" command means that the carrier may charge straight into harms way (this happened last night). I think this command should allow for smaller movement towards the enemy, and that a MINIMUM distance should be kept between the carrier and ALL other spotted enemy forces at all times. It is after all, a carrier, and has the capability of striking targets from a distance.

Carriers can be aggressive but should keep a minimum distance (the distance their strike aircraft can travel) between them and all spotted enemy forces and land bases.

As it stands now, when placed on the "patrol/do not retire" command, the carrier will charge right up beside other enemy forces, including enemy carriers, surface forces, and land bases. This can be very frustrating, and I have lost more than one carrier as a result. I hope this can be changed.

I usually play pretty aggressively, so I don't want my carriers always to withdraw, but neither do I want them charging ahead on their own, especially into other enemy task forces.

Great game.

Cheers!

Methinks you need to make better use of the "do not react" command. Have you looked through the manual tables under 9. Task Forces and Ships for the general ways TFs act when given orders from the various possible permutations of "patrol-retire" and "react-do not react?" Sometimes, you get surprised, for example when you have a very aggressive TF commander, but, generally, you can keep things pretty much under control by applying the right combination.

[Von Rom]

Originally posted by pasternakski


Methinks you need to make better use of the "do not react" command. Have you looked through the manual tables under 9. Task Forces and Ships for the general ways TFs act when given orders from the various possible permutations of "patrol-retire" and "react-do not react?" Sometimes, you get surprised, for example when you have a very aggressive TF commander, but, generally, you can keep things pretty much under control by applying the right combination.

Hi

Thanks for the advice.

I'm new to the game, and I have read the options available, and I am trying different combinations to get things to work properly.

But still, why, when other enemy TFs are in the area and they have been spotted, would my carrier want to close within 60 miles of them? It doesn't really make sense, even for the most aggressive TF commanders that been set on the most aggressive settings.

In the real war, carrier TFs always tried to keep a minimum distance (their aircraft's strike distance) from the enemy. Often this distance was 200-300 miles or more (which in game terms would be about 7 to 10 hexes). Japanese carriers had planes that could fly longer distances and, therefore, should be able to stay further away from the enemy than the Allies. Yet, I have seen my carrier TFs close within two or three hexes of other enemy carriers.

Within the current game mechanics I'll try to play around with the settings, and see what I can do about the carriers. Those babies are just too valuable to lose. . .

Thanks again for the advice.

Cheers!

[Von Rom]

Carrier Movement

OK, I think I've got this whole "Carrier - Patrol/don't retire; react to enemy" thingy down properly. . .

When you want your carrier to stay put (ie you don't want it charging ahead blindly) and you want it to continue to attack known enemy forces that are in the area, place your carrier TF on "patrol/don't retire; react to the enemy". Then, each turn make sure you move that carrier TF at least one hex. Otherwise, it will scurry like a headless banshee into the jaws of death. . .

I only had to loose 4 carriers before I figured this out I'll bet you can tell I'm a fast learner. . .

[Pawlock]

Originally posted by Von Rom
Carrier Movement

OK, I think I've got this whole "Carrier - Patrol/don't retire; react to enemy" thingy down properly. . .

When you want your carrier to stay put (ie you don't want it charging ahead blindly) and you want it to continue to attack known enemy forces that are in the area, place your carrier TF on "patrol/don't retire; react to the enemy". Then, each turn make sure you move that carrier TF at least one hex. Otherwise, it will scurry like a headless banshee into the jaws of death. . .

I only had to loose 4 carriers before I figured this out I'll bet you can tell I'm a fast learner. . .

I really hope your joking, for your sake if you go by those settings. Anybody with more knowledge than me point it out please, BUT I still think you have the wrong end of the stick in regards to these settings.

Patrol/Do not retire means just that , hopefully the TF will remain in said hex and execute offensive actions from there. This can very often depend on the aggresiveness of your leader thought as an aggressive leader can and sometimes will overide this and charge in. Also with the Patrol Do Not Retire orders,, each turn hte Computer will AUTOMATICALLY move you one hex towards known CV task forces.

The one setting that you DO NOT want if want to avoid closing in, is React to Enemy, as this will more than certainly charge you into the fray.

Perhaps I have it all wrong too, but I dont think so.

[Von Rom]

Originally posted by Pawlock


I really hope your joking, for your sake if you go by those settings. Anybody with more knowledge than me point it out please, BUT I still think you have the wrong end of the stick in regards to these settings.

Patrol/Do not retire means just that , hopefully the TF will remain in said hex and execute offensive actions from there. This can very often depend on the aggresiveness of your leader thought as an aggressive leader can and sometimes will overide this and charge in. Also with the Patrol Do Not Retire orders,, each turn hte Computer will AUTOMATICALLY move you one hex towards known CV task forces.

The one setting that you DO NOT want if want to avoid closing in, is React to Enemy, as this will more than certainly charge you into the fray.

Perhaps I have it all wrong too, but I dont think so.

Hi

You may be right about the TF commander over-riding my commands. But so far, these settings have worked for me.

The situation: I currently have the CV Saratoga stationed just south-east of Lunga. I want it to remain there to continue bombing the Japanese Lunga airfield AND to attack any Japanese ships that approach Lunga in an effort to re-supply it with troops, etc.

BUT, I do not want the Saratoga to charge ahead into the enemy; nor do I want it to withdraw.

So this is what I have done: I have placed the Saratoga TF on "patrol/do not retire; react to the enemy", placed an AO oiler with it (for re-supply), and EACH TURN I move it just one hex in a "back and forth" movement so that each turn the carrier moves to the hex it occupied in the previous turn. The success of using these settings lies in MANUALLY MOVING THE CV TF EACH AND EVERY TURN JUST ONE HEX.

This has effectively given me control of the carrier TF. It has effectively and continually bombed Japanese ships that have tried to re-supply Lunga, AND it has also allowed me to effectively bomb Lunga. In addition, I have placed my carrier fighters on long-distance CAP to cover my AP/AK landing forces.

The short one-hex movements give me very little wear and tear on my carrier TF; the AO allows me to remain on station; and the settings I have indicated have given my carrier TF an aggressive, but controllable, policy.

So far, it has worked like a charm . . .

Cheers!

[Mad Daddy]

This game is just too good to not offer full editor support!!

Matrix games and 2x3 just have too realize that this game has so much to offer the gaming comunity. Editor support is vitale!!!

Please support the editor. The game is not complete until the editor is addrssed!!!!!!!!

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Mad Daddy
This game is just too good to not offer full editor support!!

Matrix games and 2x3 just have too realize that this game has so much to offer the gaming comunity. Editor support is vitale!!!

Please support the editor. The game is not complete until the editor is addrssed!!!!!!!!

If it is that good why do you need to edit it?:p

[BPRE]

VonRom,

Hi

You may be right about the TF commander over-riding my commands. But so far, these settings have
worked for me.

The situation: I currently have the CV Saratoga stationed just south-east of Lunga. I want it to remain
there to continue bombing the Japanese Lunga airfield AND to attack any Japanese ships that approach
Lunga in an effort to re-supply it with troops, etc.

BUT, I do not want the Saratoga to charge ahead into the enemy; nor do I want it to withdraw.

So this is what I have done: I have placed the Saratoga TF on "patrol/do not retire; react to the enemy",
placed an AO oiler with it (for re-supply), and EACH TURN I move it just one hex in a "back and forth"
movement so that each turn the carrier moves to the hex it occupied in the previous turn. The success of
using these settings lies in MANUALLY MOVING THE CV TF EACH AND EVERY TURN JUST ONE HEX.

This has effectively given me control of the carrier TF. It has effectively and continually bombed Japanese
ships that have tried to re-supply Lunga, AND it has also allowed me to effectively bomb Lunga. In addition,
I have placed my carrier fighters on long-distance CAP to cover my AP/AK landing forces.

The short one-hex movements give me very little wear and tear on my carrier TF; the AO allows me to
remain on station; and the settings I have indicated have given my carrier TF an aggressive, but
controllable, policy.

So far, it has worked like a charm . . .

Sorry if this is a dumb question but have you seen or been given any info regarding the presence of enemy CV TFs yet?
Your CV TF will only react to another carrier TF so if none has been around yet you might be in for a big surprise still.
Another nice surprise I think you might discover is that subs will converge on the TF also. Since the AI used to station subs around Guadalcanal anyway they might be very close already.

Good luck
BPRE

[Von Rom]

Originally posted by BPRE
VonRom,

Sorry if this is a dumb question but have you seen or been given any info regarding the presence of enemy CV TFs yet?
Your CV TF will only react to another carrier TF so if none has been around yet you might be in for a big surprise still.
Another nice surprise I think you might discover is that subs will converge on the TF also. Since the AI used to station subs around Guadalcanal anyway they might be very close already.

Good luck
BPRE

Hi

The Japanese have lost 4 carriers so far, so I think they're laying low for now.

The problem I am finding with the CVs, is getting them to remain on station AND attack without withdrawing. So far, this is the only setting that allows me to do what I want. BTW, I just took Lunga, and I have withdrawn my carrier TF to Noumea for re-fit.

I have been trying to test various combinations to see what works. I may have to revise things if I meet another carrier - heh

Thanks to everyone for the heads-up.

BTW, without giving away any trade secrets, has anyone else found an effective setting whereby your carrier TFs don't run away in the middle of a fight?

If my carrier TF reacts to an enemy carrier TF when I have it on this setting, then this fact brings me back to my original post about having a minimum distance between carrier TFs. Why would my carrier commander need to close within 60 to 90 miles of any enemy TF? I don't mind my carrier reacting to the presence of another carrier; it's how CLOSE it gets to that enemy carrier TF that I don't understand. . .

Historically, carriers remained hundreds of miles away from the enemy no matter how aggressive the commander was. After all, the carrier's main weapon is its planes. . .

Cheers!

[Von Rom]

I'm having a blast playing UV. Matrix has become my new pusher -UV has become my new fix. . .

All the suggestions offered here are to make a great game become a perfect game. . .

AGs, PT Boats. . .

I'm wondering if these little fellas should be left to enter the game like all the other air, land and naval forces do.

Currently, since any number of these little rootin', tootin' bad boys can be formed, the AI appears to be breeding its AGs like rabbits and padding its ports with them. Thus, when I carry out a bombardment, my BBs and CAs face these little guys, and I waste a lot of ammo taking them out. . .

BTW, these AGs are very, very tough. . .

At the very least pehaps there should be a maximum number that can be built. . .

Any other ideas that might work?

Thanks. . .

[XPav]

Originally posted by Von Rom

The problem I am finding with the CVs, is getting them to remain on station AND attack without withdrawing. So far, this is the only setting that allows me to do what I want. BTW, I just took Lunga, and I have withdrawn my carrier TF to Noumea for re-fit.

Patrol/Don't React. Even then, aggressive skipper will close the range when enemy CVs are in the area.

The "react to enemy" has no effect on the strikes launched from the carrier and only control movement of the TF.

[bilbow]

Originally posted by Von Rom
I'm having a blast playing UV. Matrix has become my new pusher -UV has become my new fix. . .



At the very least pehaps there should be a maximum number that can be built. . .



Thanks. . .

There are limits to both. Check the ship availability screen to see how many are left. The barges do get annoying but there is a finite number of them

[Von Rom]

To XPav and bilbow: Thanks for the advice.

The game is slowly starting to unfold for me. I kinda feel like those early commanders in the South Pacific who were trashed by the Japanese early in the fighting, but who slowly learned to fight their aggressive enemy, while military equipment rolled off the factory floors and naval yards back in the States. . .

[Von Rom]

General Suggestions

Just took a little time out from UV to offer a few more suggestions:

1) Activate the "Enter" key so it can be used to close non-decision type screens such as the Combat Reports, weather panels, etc. This would save on the 'ol mouse finger. . .

2) Implement mouse wheel scrolling for the Combat Summary screens, and it would be nice to have the map, itself, be mouse wheel friendly. . .

3) Include more information about the units that are seen on the main map. It would be great if, when I pause the mouse over a unit icon, additional information could be included in the small black box such as: the unit's destination, and whether it is carrying cargo or it is empty. For example, it would look like this:

Destination: Noumea; empty.

OR

Destination: Port Morseby; cargo

So all transports would include the above information, while warships would just have the destination included.

Just the addition of these few extra words would save the players a great deal of time by not having to click on the units, since we would know, at a glance, where they were headed, and whether they were going to unload or pick-up cargo.

Cheers!

[BPRE]

Von Rom,

1) Activate the "Enter" key so it can be used to close non-decision type screens such as the Combat
Reports, weather panels, etc. This would save on the 'ol mouse finger. . .

The Esc-key works fine for this.

Regards
BPRE

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

In choosing the task force that intercepts first, the game engine has a number of things to consider, including but not limited to, the aggressiveness of the task force commanders, the number of operation points available to each task force, the local weather, the maximum speeds of the task forces, the orders of the task forces and the awareness of each task force (one task force may be aware of the enemy, while the other is not or becomes so at a later time).

If you wish to insure the smaller task force does not engage, you might try changing the orders to something other than surface combat, as the engine assumes that if you order the DD to surface combat, it should engage enemy shipping, if possible.

Hope this Helps...

Michael Wood
Lead Programmer,
Matrix Games
___________________________________________________

Originally posted by Von Rom
How does the game engine decide what friendly surface task force will be sent to intercept an enemy bombardment task force?

... So it would seem that if two friendly TF are nearby, the TF that is the closest is the one that intercepts the enemy.

[Von Rom]

Originally posted by BPRE
Von Rom,
The Esc-key works fine for this.

Regards
BPRE

BPRE: LOL

I'm glad I posted that suggestion. You just saved me a parcel of mouse clicking. . .

Are there any other hot keys I should know about other than what's on the fold-out card?

If you wish to insure the smaller task force does not engage, you might try changing the orders to something other than surface combat, as the engine assumes that if you order the DD to surface combat, it should engage enemy shipping, if possible.

Mike Wood: Thanks for taking the time to give us that information. I'll have to be more careful in the future

[Von Rom]

ALLIED PT BOATS

I am amazed at the detail, research and work that has gone into the exhaustive collection of all the weapons and units in UV. It is mind-boggling to realize the efforts involved.

Most of these weapons work great. However, I think a little attention may need to be spent looking into the fighting abilities of the Allied PT Boats.

Example:

A Japanese Bombardment TF attacked Lunga with 2x BBs, 2x CAs, 1x CL, 4x DDs.

I quickly "built" 14 PT Boats.

The results?

At 1,000 yards, my 14 PT Boats devastated the Japanese Bombardment TF with their .50 cal MGs. Not a single PT Boat torpedo scored a hit, but those terrifying MGs tore into those Japanese battleships like a hot knife through butter.

The end result was all the Japanese capital ships suffered extensive damage, while I lost a single PT Boat. With results like these, I don't need to use my precious surface fleet for intercepting these Bombardment TFs.

I think against warships such as destroyers and above, the PT Boats' MGs should be completely useless. Which they were in the real war.

The real weapon on a PT Boat is its torpedo. Maybe these should be improved a bit. Historically, the PT Boats would move to within a few hundred yards of an enemy warship, release their torpedoes, and then speed away.

As it stands now, any Allied Commander can devastate a Japanese Bombardment TF for very little cost. I don't think this was the intention of the game designers.


Japanese Patrol Gunboats

This has been mentioned previously, but I thought I would mention it again here.

Many times these gunboats have taken dozens of hits from 3-inch shells and have not sunk. I think these boats were far more vulnerable than this. For example, in one encounter, a PG received hits from 33 3-inch shells plus two torpedoes, and did not sink.

The Japanese Patrol Gunboats currently have a durability of 10. I think this number may need to be reduced to 5 or less.

Thanks. Great game. . .

[BPRE]

Only one I can think of is F2 to display shallow water hexes.
It was added in a patch so that's why it isn't on the card.

I managed to enetr some kind of Terrain editor mode once without knowing how. Somebody else wrote that you press Enter to do it. They thought it was a bug but I would guess on a shortcut that might have been left by mistake.

I do wish that we had the old 'N' key for circulating through the TFs like in PacWar. That would really save a lot of clicking.

Regards
BPRE