That was an interesting read throughout, Mogami. Thanks for the time and effort you put in.
I've only had the game since this past May (actually a birthday present for my son, I admit to hogging most of the screen hours) and have thus far only been able to invest a moderate amount of time with it--most of this, however, against human opponents, both of whom have more experience with the title than I, and this must be viewed as somewhat more challenging than AI play on balance.
I have a couple of comments to make re this game. As a preface I should say that I tend to view
UV as no more than a kind of preview to the greater
WitP system. That is, I've no problem looking at
UV as an individual game system in its own right, which in fact it certainly is, but my
reason for taking it apart and looking at it in a critical light is to try and understand, as far as possible, what might lie in store for us down the road with
WitP in mind in terms of system mechanics and designer preferences and overall (if any) bias as the latter could affect play vis-a-vis the game system and that portion of WWII history it wishes to model.
Overall, I've got to say that with
UV Gary Grigsby seems to have written yet another (in reality third-generation) winner into the books, and with
WitP still in the offing that must bode well for historical gamers everywhere. If nothing else,
UV plays like a game that . . . well, desires (and deserves) to be
played. It's fun to interface with, which is no mean statement when one considers the time scale at work and attendant drudgery of minutiae. Guns and butter, beans and bullets . . . say, does anyone ever feel like some poor forgotten quartermaster (can you say Mister Roberts?) when playing this monster?
Anyway, hats off to Gary and the team helping him.
Having said as much, as a WWII historical simulation per se (i.e., a more-or-less accurate model of land, air and naval doings in the South-West and South-Pacific theatres of action) I'm afraid that
UV tends to stumble.
Reading through this thread of yours, Mogami (I think of it as your thread, though of course in a venue of this nature a thread is an organic thing, which grows from and eventually becomes whatever it becomes based on the collective effort of all contributors), I'm struck by the total absence of any commentary whatsoever re the (very heavy and ahistorical) imbalance (based on my reading and understanding of WWII history) between the Japanese and Allied sides in
UV. I don't know why this should be--perhaps it is a convention on this board to go along with the "spirit" of a given thread (in this case an AAR of your joust with the computer opponent) and not let it digress into something else, something, let us say, more contentious. And I have no problem with that as far as it goes, though again, at the end of day I must wonder what we (in the collective sense) might have learned from it all.
How to beat the computer opponent as the Japanese? That has some value no doubt to many gamers, though given what I've seen of
UV thus far I'd venture to say it might be of more value to take the other (USN) side of the board versus the AI and distill from that a strategy worth close analysis--with an eye, always, to wringing some gaming truth from this title.
So, what about the system itself? Where does that wish to go (remember, my sights are set on
WitP)?
Based on my admittedly limited play (several sorties versus the AI, as both Japanese and Allied side) and three (one completed) bouts versus human opponents (all of whom desired to play the Japanese--does anyone wonder why?
) to date I feel comfortable in these two statements: the incredible bias (if you will, call it a misunderstanding of context with the hsitorical participants in mind) for all things Japanese military, most especially CV TF play and in general all air actions (but this bias pretty much creeps into most critical areas of the game system--at least before 1943--I stress to add I haven't gotten that far yet) in
UV) is 1) all too real and 2) has left me (my apologies, but there is no other word for it) stunned. And unless some serious questions are asked inhouse by the group of people who have
WitP in the works I'm afraid my dream for a realistic WWII simulation of the campaign in the Pacific will founder once again on the rocks of the general gaming public's reef of historical indifference.
(That's not given as a shot in isolation, by the way. But the thing is I've been around the hobby for some time--far longer than most, as long as just about anyone by now--and I've seen all this before with both wargames and sports simulations: the loudest voices holler long and loud for their favorite "features" and whatnot, and in the end more thoughtful players get somehow basically ignored, to the detriment of the "historical" side of the issue. Result? You get a game that may or may not be fun to play (Gary's almost always are the most fun--he's simply a genius at designing fun games) but a "simulation" which is ill-suited to teach anyone anything worthwhile in terms of actual history.)
Should anyone show interest I'll take polite questions and answer these to the best of my ability, otherwise I'll limit my comments here to those I've rendered and pursue my thoughts and impressions re this matter of historicity in another (which I believe to be a more appropriate) direction.
Again, thanks for your effort with the AAR here, Mogami, and your informative and helpful (to me at least) work elsewhere on this site. Perhaps one day when
WitP arrives you and I might hook up in a full campaign, replete with detailed AARs written with useful perspective from both sides of the Guadacanal parallel.
Tris
Thanks for the AAR and happy sailing.