Ok, lets talk about surface ships.

[Veer]

Originally posted by Drongo

On a related note, it's not just the current total supply/fuel level that allows almost unrestricted operations. Its also the "instant" top up that the major bases receive each day. If that is not changed as well, you'd be able to avoid a lot of the restrictions by just shuttling your transports in and out on different days.

Maybe change the instant top up to once a week? This won't really have much an effect on the IJN as the run between Turk and rabaul takes a week anyway, but it will be more accurate and the IJN will have to make a choice of wheater to base his ships out of Turk or Rabaul, not both as he can do now.

[XPav]

Alright, something here irritates the hell out of me.

There are some people here that are going "This problem will be solved with WiTP comes out."

Huh?. WiTP and UV, while sharing a similar engine, are different games. At this point, I'm not very inclined to buy WiTP because it looks like it'll be a micromanagement hell.

I suspect that other people are also also somewhat off-put by the assertion that "WiTP will fix all the realism problems in UV."

In addition, I'm slightly annoyed that "well, the users on the board back before the game released decided to have unlimited fuel and supply, so thats what it is", because, well, how the heck could they make a good decision without even having the game? Plenty of other things have changed in UV, maybe this should change to, eh?

If Matrix adds a "historical supply and fuel" switch, great. If they don't, we'll all survive somehow .

But this isn't something set in stone and isn't something that will automatically by fixed by the mere release of WiTP.

[Nikademus]

another factor that seriously affects the BB bombardment routines is the reletive game-invulnerability of the type against small caliber weapons.

While this is correct in terms of armor penetration of citidel or critical systems protected by heavy armor, (to which FLT and SYS are devoted too) smaller warships, including humble DD's could still make things dicey for the big ships by virtue of the incendiary effect of their HE fire.

As i alluded to earlier, night combat was not an environment well suited to expensive and highly valauable battleships. The simple reason being that night battles invariably mean close range "knife fights" vs the longer ranged more orderly lines of battle planned for pre-war in which these big ships would play a key role.

While most medium and small caliber shellfire would still be largely ineffective even at these closer ranges in terms of penetrating the vital areas of BB's , the HE fire (from DD and other small caliber weapons) could and did cause serious fire hazzards and affected the warship's ability to both control a battle as well as participate effectively. The closer range also means potentially alot more hits as well, so while a few HE incendiary hits might not cause a BB much concern, throw in a few dozen or more and things become less certain!

This is what happened to the Hiei at Guadalcanal and is a perfect example of the risk involved of commiting a capital ship to such an environment. Let us remember that it was not "logistical" issues that stopped the Japanese BB bombardments, it was the losses caused by actual combat.

However because of the way the damage model currently works, BB's (and many CA types) can operate with impunity vs HE small caliber fire.....torpedoes being the only threat (and USN torps of the period are of little in that area) I have even read of a "game tactic" where TF's made up entirely of BB's are formed to counter the game mechanics which stipulate that not all ships in a TF may participate in a battle due to a mryiad of historical factors (visibility.....fog of war....communication issues etc etc) Since "all" of the TF's ships are either BB's or CA's, the degredation effect of FOW issues is thus minimized. However this belies the whole purpose for escorts!

For WitP I have preposed modifcations and enhancements to the Damage Model which i feel will address this area of concern and help, along with fuel and supply conditions, eliminate the overuse of capital assets in shore bombardment.

Details of the changes i have preposed are still available for scrutiny over on the WitP forum but in regards to this specific issue, the primary "fix" would be the addition of a non SYS/FLT damage Hit Location that is nevertheless, unarmored to represent those non-critical, but volumous and unprotected areas of a large warship. While immune to SYS and FLT damage the HL would however be highly vulnerable to FIRE damage on a per hit basis. If accumulated in high enough quantities the FIRE levels would in turn cause the SYS and weapons systems damage normally reserved for "penetrating" hits in the present system and even more importantly, would incur increasingly likely and heavy penalties on warship efficiency in the battle it's particpating in the heavier the FIRE levels are (to represent disruption among command and crew)

On a side note....the additional benefit of this HL would be to eliminate the consistant low # of (penetrating) shell hits required to cripple/sink warships.....the tendancy of which becomes more extreme as warship size decreases in ratio to weapons size.

If implenented correctly, it would mean that one player would not necessarily have to have BB's of his own on station in order to thwart the bombardment attempts by his opponent. Even if the defender still comes up on the short end of the stick.....his efforts will have a greater chance of having affected the enemy at least enough to allow air assets to get in a strike on the withdrawling TF the next turn.....something already possible if enough damage is accrued (via direct penetration)

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by XPav
Alright, something here irritates the hell out of me.

There are some people here that are going "This problem will be solved with WiTP comes out."

Huh?. WiTP and UV, while sharing a similar engine, are different games. At this point, I'm not very inclined to buy WiTP because it looks like it'll be a micromanagement hell.

I suspect that other people are also also somewhat off-put by the assertion that "WiTP will fix all the realism problems in UV."

In addition, I'm slightly annoyed that "well, the users on the board back before the game released decided to have unlimited fuel and supply, so thats what it is", because, well, how the heck could they make a good decision without even having the game? Plenty of other things have changed in UV, maybe this should change to, eh?

If Matrix adds a "historical supply and fuel" switch, great. If they don't, we'll all survive somehow .

But this isn't something set in stone and isn't something that will automatically by fixed by the mere release of WiTP.

Can understand that position. Like i said, i agree with and suggested long ago with other like minded individuals that the unlimited supply situation in UV was not entirely satisfactory and should be lowered. In fairness to Matrix though i also felt it should be pointed out that there were (and are) some issues more important than the supply issue.

The issue of unlimited supply in the Sopac theater in Witp "will" be solved by WitP because it simply will not exist therefore IMO its a low priority issue here. Feel free to disagree and i'm not saying your wrong, but thats how i see it.

I fail to see though how that statement can be translated into "all realism problems will be fixed by WitP" Were that the case then I could save myself alot of midnight oil :p

Finally, i myself push WitP because of the acknowledgement that Matrix has made major efforts above and beyond the call of duty to patch UV and acknowledge that at some point they have to devote more time to the next project to which all the lessons learned here will (hopefully) be applied.

Thus i dont personally push for more patches for UV. I'm satisfied with the effort Matrix and 2b3 have put out for it, and now look forward to seeing it all come together in WitP.

Suggestion for that game i still have aplenty

[Mr.Frag]

Hmm, repairs USE supply instead of being automatically done coupled with player controlled repairs should pretty much deal nicely with this whole issue.

The fact that Truk gets unlimitted supplies doesn't really help one when repairing wear and tear on ships requires ships to travel back to Truk or you to carry the supplies forward to another base, which in turn increases damage thereby burning more supplies ... diminishing returns on repairs at the front ... would really add to the planning of operations and stop the virtual unlimited use of ships that we have now ...

[Knavey]

I really don't have a problem with USN and IJN having unlimited supply points at certain bases. WitP will be different but given UVs limited scope, supplies coming from outside the theater should really not be a problem.

[Bulldog61]

Originally posted by Veer
There was a thread/discussion a long time ago about this very issue. It was pretty much established that the Japs that little trouble getting fuel into Turk during the time period of UV, and so it was decided not to restrict their fuel supplies.

Actually The IJN had sever difficulties getting fuel to Truk. Mogami wrote several excellent pieces obout their difficulties supply Truk. If memory serves me correctly in Sept of 42 the IJN fuel reserves at Tokyo was only 65,000 barrels. The Yamato and Mutsu were moved to Truk for use as fuel bunkers as fuel storage facilities were totally inadequate.

There was a poll about what players wanted to do and
the poll came back that enough players didn't want to be hamstrung by logistic considerations.

The daily battleship bombardment is a result of this unlimited capability. System damage is a seperate issue.


Mike

[Yamamoto]

I like the current system and find it immensely playable. It’s impossible to run more than five or six bombardment missions before a ship has enough damage to be sent back for repairs. I think most of the people complaining about bombardment missions have been the ones on the receiving ends of those missions. Perhaps they would feel differently if they saw the amount of system damage the bombarding ships were taking.

I was one of the ones who wanted unrestricted supply back before the game came out (and I still feel that way). The reason is the same reason I don’t like playing scenarios with the Midway option: I don’t like being hamstrung by conditions outside of the theater of which I can do nothing about. In WiTP I will accept the limitations Japan has on fuel and supply because I will be able to do something about it. I will be responsible for getting that supply to Japan and the allied player will have a chance to stop me. If you don’t like the supply situation in UV you can always send your subs up to Truk and hit every tanker the Japanese player has. After all, you know they all have to go there eventually. THAT’S how you “switch” off unlimited supply.

Yamamoto

[gus]

Originally posted by Yamamoto
I like the current system and find it immensely playable.

Yes the current system is fine in terms of playability, there is enough action to keep folks interested over the 19 months of the long campaigns and people appear willing to accept some obvious lapses in historical behavior to accomplish this. No matter how well intentioned our suggestions are they will never satisfy everyone in the playability/realism tug of war that inevitably occurs with games like this. But having the ability to determine for one self the supply level of the theater for both sides in the options menu as XPav suggests is a brilliant idea as it allows the user to customize the game more readily to their own taste without the need for the UV developers reworking the guts of the game engine. It is analogous to the fix for mine warfare which many people thought was harsh at first but severely curtailed those activities. Mines are still heavily abused in UV but at least I can no longer walk from Rabaul to Brisbane on all the mines I have laid. In the same manner, limiting supply does not address system/gun damage issue directly but it keeps the ships in port longer thereby reducing their activity and also limits land and air operations which is closer to what occurred IRL.

-g

[Yamamoto]

For the sake of hypothetical discussion… For those who think Japanese oil and/or supply should be lower than it is, what do you think it should be? I prefer the current system but I just thought I’d ask everyone to get some opinions.

There is also the matter of Australia’s supply and/or oil. In PacWar the allies had to supply Australia. One of the main reasons Japan went into the theater where UV takes place was to cut Australia off from allied supply. Would it be nice to have an option to eliminate Brisbane’s auto supply too? It would certainly be more of a challenge for the allied player if he had to run supply to Australia. Personally, I liked it better before the auto-supply on the paved roads in Australia went in to effect around patch 2.0.

Yamamoto

[bilbow]

I'd like to see each side's supply and fuel repleishments be closer to average historical levels. Overall theater supply should be a constraint, and require the player to plan ahead. The allied player should choose the portions that go to Noumea and Brisbane, depending on which area he was gearing up for an offensive.

I understand there was some debate about this pre-release. Why are the supply and fuel levels essentially infinite? If it was to allow a higher tempo for "fun" reasons then could that be a realism choice at the beginning of each game?

This would also serve to limit the massive amounts of supply one can cram into a size 1 forward base since there wouldn't be all that extra supply and fuel around anywhere.

[Ron Saueracker]

Just about every unit in UV has the inherent ability to suffer from morale and materiel/effectiveness degredation. Land units suffer disruption, pilots performance can suffer fatigue, both can suffer reduced effectiveness to low morale. Not so for ships however. They just suffer an abstract system damage model.

Sailors are people too, although bar owners in port cities may beg to differ. And ships require CONSTANT maintenance, as just about everything in a ship is CONSTANTLY online during a ships commission period.

So, ships should have additional ratings fields added to each unit. Morale is one, crew/materiel fatigue is another. Both would go a long way in abstractly modelling both ship crew/materiel condition and greatly effect the combat effectiveness/readiness of the specific unit and perhaps reduce both the size of force commitment and pace of force commitment in UV.

Also, because each unit now has a fatigue/materiel condition value, which rises and falls whith a short period of upkeep, I propose a much less rapid but much more severe system damage model. Let system damage accrued through operations be a much less frequent but theatre permanent value, requiring drydock/refit time off map.

And yes. An historical/non historical supply toggle in the realism menu would be greatly appreciated.

[marc420]

On the subject of more patches for UV, I would say that I've been very impressed with what John Tiller has been doing over at HPS.

For his Panzer Campaigns series, everytime he makes changes in the game for future games, he also goes back and creates patches for the previous games to add these changes back into those games.

So I would very much hope that when WITP is released, there will at some point be a patch for UV that updates UV with all the changes of the WITP system.

I fully understand that at some point all or most of Matrix Games' resources need to go into getting WITP out. What I'm saying is that once that is done, at that point I'd hope to see a patch for UV that updates UV to match the WITP game system.

In terms of the general debate, I'd like to see a game where there is at least the option of playing under a system that closely models historical conditions. Options can be turned on and off, or scenarios designed to create more "playable" conditions. But in a game like UV, I'd like at least the option to get conditions close to what the commanders really faced.

[Yamamoto]

Originally posted by Ron Saueracker

And yes. An historical/non historical supply toggle in the realism menu would be greatly appreciated.

So what kind of a number are we talking about? Right now it's 90000 a turn. What should the number be to be realistic?

Yamamoto

[Ron Saueracker]

Originally posted by Yamamoto
So what kind of a number are we talking about? Right now it's 90000 a turn. What should the number be to be realistic?

Yamamoto

That is a VERY good question. Hard to say what is realistic, but the present is obviously too high as fuel is never an issue for Japan at Truk. Perhaps the toggle should say fixed fuel levels/variable fuel levels for Japan, with the max value being more in the range of 45,000 (0 as the minimum as tankers did not arrive like clockwork at Truk or anywhere else for Japan) as this more accurately describes the effect I and many others are looking for. As Mike Kraemer stated, fuel was such an issue that for major IJN units to sortie, the IJN haad to plan ahead and stockpile the liquid gold.

[ADavidB]

A thought for all you folks who are coming up with "realism improvements" for UV - just remember what happened to Pacwar once the "realism or death" folks took over...

Dave Baranyi

( Who finds UV version 2.2 quite a lot of fun as it is. )

[Ron Saueracker]

Originally posted by Yamamoto


There is also the matter of Australia’s supply and/or oil. In PacWar the allies had to supply Australia. One of the main reasons Japan went into the theater where UV takes place was to cut Australia off from allied supply. Would it be nice to have an option to eliminate Brisbane’s auto supply too? It would certainly be more of a challenge for the allied player if he had to run supply to Australia. Personally, I liked it better before the auto-supply on the paved roads in Australia went in to effect around patch 2.0.

Yamamoto

True enough. Can't just dump over the Japanese, now can we? Perhaps the fuel and supplies in Brisbane should have a lowered max as well (cut in half like Truk but not variable to represent shipping off map which was unaffected by IJN naval activity). Any further supply comes from Noumea via theatre assets, to represent supply and fuel from North America.

[ADavidB]

Originally posted by Yamamoto
For the sake of hypothetical discussion…

There is also the matter of Australia’s supply and/or oil. In PacWar the allies had to supply Australia. Yamamoto

Huh??? As long as you had command centers there with leaders, you got lots of supplies automatically in Australia in Pacwar, just like everywhere else where you had leaders. Sure, if the Japanese player could isolate those leaders, the supply could be cut off, but you could always move Mac or any of the Anzac leaders anywhere you wanted to base them where it wasn't isolated.

In any event, what you and most folks are suggesting may be reasonble in WitP, but as far as UV goes, the system is working, so why fiddle with it too much?

As I said before, "beware" of trying to bring the reality level beyond the playability level - Pacwar is a "horrible example" of what can go very wrong when tweaks get out of control ( or get into the hands of someone with really strong biases ).

Dave Baranyi

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by ADavidB
A thought for all you folks who are coming up with "realism improvements" for UV - just remember what happened to Pacwar once the "realism or death" folks took over...

Dave Baranyi

( Who finds UV version 2.2 quite a lot of fun as it is. )

Great post. 2.2 is as good as it got, although I am looking forward to the results of Jeremy Pritchard's Herculean efforts in v. 3.2. 2.3, 3.0, and 3.1 made me wonder "who let the dawgs out?"

For purposes of UV, we've got something that works competitively and no longer suffers from most of the early "teething problems," so I sez, "Play on, Garth" (maybe with a little noodging of the naval strike mechanics and elimination of the "one hex reaction" idiocy).

[Ron Saueracker]

Originally posted by ADavidB
Huh??? As long as you had command centers there with leaders, you got lots of supplies automatically in Australia in Pacwar, just like everywhere else where you had leaders. Sure, if the Japanese player could isolate those leaders, the supply could be cut off, but you could always move Mac or any of the Anzac leaders anywhere you wanted to base them where it wasn't isolated.

In any event, what you and most folks are suggesting may be reasonble in WitP, but as far as UV goes, the system is working, so why fiddle with it too much?

As I said before, "beware" of trying to bring the reality level beyond the playability level - Pacwar is a "horrible example" of what can go very wrong when tweaks get out of control ( or get into the hands of someone with really strong biases ).

Dave Baranyi

I don't think the intent of this thread is to reduce the playability level...simply improve it. Doing so along historical baselines should not doom the game at the hands of realism freaks. In fact, conveyor belt bombardments TAKE AWAY from the playability of an historical wargame such as UV, they don't add to it. By having an optional setting for supply would not take away from the playability level for players who want to, well...play.

Cheers.