Carrier Force - Matrix Games

[a1981stingray]

I have spent countless hours of my life, for the past 14+ years, playing Carriers at War[1994], UV[2002], WitP[2004], and Battles in Normandy[2004].
 
I can honestly say that these games have provided way too many enjoyable hours of distraction. Please, wife, just 1 more turn...and 1 more turn after that turn...
 
If the issues [bugs/errors/wife] were a serious problem, I would have quit playing the games.
 
I know of hundreds of games that were released with issues and zero support and/or the company closed shortly afterwards.
 
I believe people continue to play Matrix Games with the same addiction that I do, and...
 
If Carrier Force provides anything like all the previous games, I will wait, uncomplainingly, to play Carrier Force.[/b]
 
IF they decide to create additional patches to the existing games, I will apply them to my games, and...
 
I will spend even more time / years playing these games until my computers can no longer support them [uh... Vista 2012+] or the wife rips the power cord from the wall [poof!!!].
 
On a final note:
 
Can anyone honestly say that CAW, UV, WitP, or BiN can be perfected?
Somebody somewhere will find something they perceive as an [issue].
 
In addition, will the software will be able to run on the latest computers, or will the operating systems no longer support the "coded language" of old applications?
 
I am very appreciative for what I have today, and what may become available tomorrow.[/b]

[borner]

perfect? no. Known bugs addressed? Yes

[borner]

Erik
 
can you please address the subject of a patch being needed for this game? Considering that it's sill being sold by Martix, I think the question is valid.

[RGIJN]

ORIGINAL: borner

Erik

can you please address the subject of a patch being needed for this game? Considering that it's sill being sold by Martix, I think the question is valid.

I do join this request.

[xj900uk]

And me. It's a great game, but the bugs around are absolutely infuriating the hell out of me! [:@]

[borner]

Would anyone from Matrix care to address this request?

[borner]

Erik, or Matrix in General..... It is clear from your reaction to IKE's posts, that you do indeed read these forums. As such, I am at a loss to explain the lack of any type of reply to my question. Is UV still not being sold by Matrix. ( yes, I knwo the answer to this already), Is it also not accepted that the game still has bugs that need addressed? This is a huge concern. The fact that Matrix would release a product, continue to sell it, and then ignore bugs is shocking. Is this standard Matrix policy? I very much enjoy this game, but am tired of having to need in game work arounds to avoid some bugs. If this was something  matrix had discontinued it would be another story.
 
 
My last two games I have bought from your company, UV and EiA, are far from being de-bugged. I am looking forward to other products your company is working on WiF the most, but I have to wonder if the poor quality control will follow? Yes, I know that making such games is a huge undertaking. However when I pay $50/$60 or more for a product, I as a consumer, expect a quality game. If I went to BEst buy and bought a dryer that was defective, I would exchange it. If my Ford dealer sold me a truck with a bad water pump, they would repair it. Matrix seems to want to say that UV has "run it's course", and thank you for your money. This to me is professionally unacceptable.
 
So again, I ask, when will the bugs in UV be addressed?
 
 

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

Please list 'bugs'.

Thanks...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: borner

Erik, or Matrix in General..... It is clear from your reaction to IKE's posts, that you do indeed read these forums. As such, I am at a loss to explain the lack of any type of reply to my question. Is UV still not being sold by Matrix. ( yes, I knwo the answer to this already), Is it also not accepted that the game still has bugs that need addressed? This is a huge concern. The fact that Matrix would release a product, continue to sell it, and then ignore bugs is shocking. Is this standard Matrix policy? I very much enjoy this game, but am tired of having to need in game work arounds to avoid some bugs. If this was something  matrix had discontinued it would be another story.


My last two games I have bought from your company, UV and EiA, are far from being de-bugged. I am looking forward to other products your company is working on WiF the most, but I have to wonder if the poor quality control will follow? Yes, I know that making such games is a huge undertaking. However when I pay $50/$60 or more for a product, I as a consumer, expect a quality game. If I went to BEst buy and bought a dryer that was defective, I would exchange it. If my Ford dealer sold me a truck with a bad water pump, they would repair it. Matrix seems to want to say that UV has "run it's course", and thank you for your money. This to me is professionally unacceptable.

So again, I ask, when will the bugs in UV be addressed?

[borner]

You are kidding me, right? There are several threads here listing them, but off the top of my head are the issues with Japan loading transport convoys. late war Nell groups arriving empty, movement issues of TF's going far beyond the movement circles ( transport TF especailly. Air units not attacking a TF is a single AG is present. I will come up with additional ones when I get back home. I urge anyone else reading this to chime in as well with what they are seeing! 
 

[borner]

Let me add fighters for Japan set on Long range cap changing orders to escort or sweep

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood
Hello...

Please list 'bugs'.

Thanks...

Michael Wood

I know that most UV issues were addressed in V2.5, but since you asked:
Loading units for Fast Transport is always haphazard, if not hit-and-miss.

Even loading units for regular transport unto APs is "iffy" unless you load these ships one at a time, and then form the TF.

Finally, as we all know, level bombers are way too accurate w/bombs vs. ships at altitude.

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

"Bombers are too accurate", is not a bug. It works the way the programmer intended. You might argue that it is a design flaw. It is a little late to be redesigning the game, however.

I have no idea what "loading units being 'iffy'", means.

I have never heard of fighter groups changing orders from long range combat air patrol to sweep or escort. Might be a bug. Would need a save from the turn before it occurred.

I do not know the conditions under which a group might arrive without aircraft. It did happen historically. The case to which you refer may have been the intention of the scenario author or there may have been too few planes in the pool. Don't know. Would need more specifics to say. I can guarantee that it is not a bug. But, would be willing to look at it.

Not sure what is meant by, "movement issues of TF's going far beyond the movement circles".

Not sure what the sentence fragment, "Air units not attacking a TF is a single AG is present" means. Seems non sequitor.

Please see my new thread on bug reporting.

Thanks...

Michael Wood

[Kingfisher]

Not sure what the sentence fragment, "Air units not attacking a TF is a single AG is present" means. Seems non sequitor.

I believe this refers to the practice of adding a barge to a transport TF. For some reason air units will not strike barges (unless the altitude is set to 100 ft), so adding a barge will give the TF an unrealistic level of protection.

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

This would not be a bug, but a really bad design flaw. I will test it and if true, will fix it. Do not need a save for this one. Oh, and I just addressed the bombers too accurate issue. Maybe not to the satisfaction of the complainant, but I found a realistic feature I could add, without breaking the basic game design.

Thanks a lot...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: Kingfisher

Not sure what the sentence fragment, "Air units not attacking a TF is a single AG is present" means. Seems non sequitor.

I believe this refers to the practice of adding a barge to a transport TF. For some reason air units will not strike barges (unless the altitude is set to 100 ft), so adding a barge will give the TF an unrealistic level of protection.

[borner]

ok, then lets discuss both bugs and design flaws in an effort to correct glaring problems with a currently sold product.
 
Mike, with respect, it seems to tone of your email is to imply that there are no bugs, and I am others are making up issues.

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

No, just that some folk combine bugs, misunderstanding of the rules and game design disagreements and call them all bugs. As a programmer, I see a bug in a different light than game design issues. I can fix a bug, as it is something I did not intend. A game design feature could be something I intended and will not change or something I could change if players requested, although changing a game design feature could please one group of folk while angering another. Many game design changes could and would cause a significant number of real bugs and would require a testing team to determine overall game effects. I have no testing team. Some reported bugs are just rules a player does not understand or does not like. I have to make these distinctions as the various issues must be treated differently.

I am not saying there are no bugs. I am saying that a player may consider a game behavior a bug, when it is not.

Hope this helps clear up my viewpoint...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: borner

ok, then lets discuss both bugs and design flaws in an effort to correct glaring problems with a currently sold product.

Mike, with respect, it seems to tone of your email is to imply that there are no bugs, and I am others are making up issues.

[borner]

Good point. My Apologies for making that assumption.
 
 

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

I have no idea what "loading units being 'iffy'", means ...

Look at the context:

"... Loading units for Fast Transport is always haphazard, if not hit-and-miss.

Even loading units for regular transport unto APs is "iffy" unless you load these ships one at a time, and then form the TF."

Many times troops won't load on to a surface fleet set for fast transport, and when you attempt to load a TF of APs/AKs w/troops and supplies, not all the ships will load; it was suggested to load each ship separately and then form the TF, but that's very time consuming.

Or are these more design flaws?

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

Nope. Should load, if troops available and ships have available operational points. So, if some of the ships have refueled that turn, they may not be able to load, because they have used all Ops points. Will need to determine problem, so need save and bug report, to fix.

Thanks...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

I have no idea what "loading units being 'iffy'", means ...

Look at the context:

"... Loading units for Fast Transport is always haphazard, if not hit-and-miss.

Even loading units for regular transport unto APs is "iffy" unless you load these ships one at a time, and then form the TF."

Many times troops won't load on to a surface fleet set for fast transport, and when you attempt to load a TF of APs/AKs w/troops and supplies, not all the ships will load; it was suggested to load each ship separately and then form the TF, but that's very time consuming.

Or are these more design flaws?

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

... So, if some of the ships have refueled that turn, they may not be able to load, because they have used all Ops points.

Is this explained in the UV (pdf) manual?
If I click on the transport, where on the screen can I find its Op Points?