Matrix Games Forums

The happy median to me between the "super historical accuracy/graphics dont matter" people and the "command & conquer 3D and graphics is everything care nothing about reality and historical accuracy"... is to simply use graphics where they can help improve the interface of the game. For instance, close combat allowed you to have a selectable "highlight" around each unit to indicate its level of damage/fatigue/disruption/etc... Id list other examples but you get the point. UV has a nice interface but I really think it could be taken much much further... I think the UV interface as is is not sufficient for a WITP sized game and I've had trouble as it is getting others to try UV due to its obnoxious looking interface. I don't think we need 3D here and I don't care much about animations... but to get back to the "highlight" example.. if you had an actual 2D or even 3D ship image for the TF.. then you would see damage level etc.. just one more way to use graphics to help communicate info in the game..
Also..as I like to point out...TOOOOOOOOOO much emphasis and time is being wasted on historical accuracy in development... NO way do that many players care about that... If you wanted to TRULY make UV/WITP historically accurate, you would force each player to make the same moves and decisions as were historically made, and all combat outcomes/weather/ and so on would perfectly mirror what happened... ID personally like more variables across the board... Who says the Allies cant get a second argonaut sometimes? Or that a particular ship had less or more AA... mix things up a bit... its not "historically accurate" that we know EXACTLY what we are up against...

Having a couple of different, random, animations for each level of damage to ships might be nice. Currently, all of the animations of smoke loop around in the same amount of time. This creates a very noticeable effect when there are several ships burning in the same screen. I’d like to see different animations so each one looped back to the beginning a little differently. Then when you had 10 ships burning the looping wouldn’t look quite so obvious.

Yamamoto

Well, in my own experience, I found the graphics to UV appealing but not overly exciting. Kind of plain. I was a fan of the old Avalon Hill "Flattop" and suspect that Gary played it a few times himself. The game has that sort of feel to it.

I was worried that with the simple graphics that I might eventually grow bored with UV and started out playing it only on occasion for that reason. The game has now grown on me and I love it to death. The detail is awesome and it is the best game-board or computer, on my favorite subject.

Let me just say that I also loved "Fighting Steel" and Great Naval Battles"-both real time games that allowed you to play both on the strategic and tactical levels-to the point of micro managing your own vessels. Very nice games with good graphics for their day, but buggy and poorly supported by their companies. If only they had the kind of support and dedication that Matrix gives. I resolved never to by a computer wargame from a large company after that. And have held to my promise.

I do love my UV. I would like to see my bombers hit a carrier with "planes on deck" once in a while though. Would be a nice little feature.

`

Wouldn't it be great to see a combination of Fighting Steel and UV? I think it would. You could actually opt to direct a naval battle in real time if you liked.