Poll - How long should turns be:

[IChristie]

Let's try this again:

[Rob Roberson]

Do you mean length it takes to complete a turn? I generally can pound through mine in 15 minutes (particually early when neither side has that many units).

Rob

[Reiryc]

Originally posted by Rob Roberson
Do you mean length it takes to complete a turn? I generally can pound through mine in 15 minutes (particually early when neither side has that many units).

Rob

lol...

No, he means when you hit the turn button, should it process 24 hours of time or less...

Reiryc

[Slaughtermeyer]

Is continuous allowing interruption what Harpoon uses? I really like that about Harpoon but you would need to implement internet play capability in order to have multiplayer games. Assuming that will not be done to UV, I voted for one hour turns although I'd probably use 6-hour turns in PBEM if it were available unless I was playing a short scenario in which case 1-hour turns would be a possibility.

[Erik Rutins]

It can make sense in a modern naval game. For something of UV's time period, frankly at this command level 48 hour turns would make more sense than reducing it to 12 hour or 1 hour.

I realize there are folks for whom this makes perfect sense, but I can't figure out how 1 hour turns fit together with WWII operational warfare at the theater command level. Are you guys familiar with the time it took to plan operations, send out orders... i.e. get all the ducks in a row?

Most "quick" operations were based on local initiative. That's what your lower level commmanders do. Pick your local commanders wisely, give them the proper strategy and you'll get into the rhythm of this game.

Regards,

- Erik

[Slaughtermeyer]

Originally posted by Erik Rutins
Most "quick" operations were based on local initiative. That's what your lower level commmanders do. Pick your local commanders wisely, give them the proper strategy and you'll get into the rhythm of this game.

"Giving them the proper strategy" is in some cases impossible, such as an order to TF commanders to stay away from enemy land-based bomber range regardless of circumstances. It seems that even the most cautious commanders in UV do not consider land-based bomber range when making their decisions.

[IKerensky]

From an other topic but it deserve a place there :

Originally posted by Erik Rutins
Do you folks who want shorter turns really think Ghormley could pick up a line to Fletcher as a battle was starting, get a sitrep and just tell him what to do or how to change his plans? I'm afraid I don't understand the problem here. In my opinion, UV is not only accurate for its scale in terms of command level, but the need to turn local operations over to your commanders to some degree increases the suspense and immersiveness for me.
- Erik

And of you do think it is normal that Mc Arthur send a line every day to all his ship to tell them how what portion of they air component need to be flying ? setting the CAP ? enquiring about the pilot stats and asking them to rest ?
Plotting the route of all and every convoy ? subs ?

Why is the problem of when we ask for a bit more control we are rebuffed as it isn't operationnal scale and when we ask for less control and more automation we are rebuffed too for the very sake of detail ?

Why did you provide us with the tactical command feeling but just keep it away from our grasp , is it a new Tantalus torture ?

Frankly if you want to keep us with those 24h turn , ok, but get away with all the micro management too !! If we cant orer our TF to react to the ennemy we haven't to order them how to use their air component too ! ( at last the rest/CAP part ).

[Erik Rutins]

Torture? Please, set aside the hyperbole for the moment.

Wargamers love detail and control. We all understand that. However, taken to the nth degree, it makes games of this scale and complexity (not to mention the upcoming War in the Pacific) totally unplayable.

In my opinion, Uncommon Valor does an excellent job of blending a great interface with Gary's traditional grognard-level detail. I don't think anyone here is against more automation or interface improvements.

I'm stating my own opinion that one of the key design choices that in fact I consider a great success in defining the game's scale is the 24 hour (or longer) turn. I've played 3 day turn games without any problem - you just have to plan ahead further. This game has the tools at your disposal to make and execute some excellent plans. Sometimes success or failure depends on your local subordinates but I've found skilled players make all the difference.

The whole react/range suggestion was certainly noted. I state again that we're not discarding or dismissing any suggestions. However, I personally can't understand mixing 1 hour or 6 hour turns with this scale of game.

Regards,

- Erik

[IKerensky]

neither do I, in fact. I am barely ok with 24hours game turn. All I want is that we cant get ride of all that we are not supposed to control as we are not the TF commander. If he choose how to react given our direction , ok . But so why isn't he smart enough to make all the others decision about his TF ? why is it to us to make them ? especially the rest/training/Cap one.

What I mean is : let us make all the decision or none this middle ground is unsettling .

[Reiryc]

Originally posted by KERENSKY
neither do I, in fact. I am barely ok with 24hours game turn. All I want is that we cant get ride of all that we are not supposed to control as we are not the TF commander. If he choose how to react given our direction , ok . But so why isn't he smart enough to make all the others decision about his TF ? why is it to us to make them ? especially the rest/training/Cap one.

What I mean is : let us make all the decision or none this middle ground is unsettling .

Unsettling? That's a bit strong...

Personally I have no problems with the middle ground. Every game has to make some choices on where to 'fudge' things in the interest of gameplay. UV seems to have made the choice in areas of rest/cap etc. I don't find these things to be unsettling by any stretch.

If one doesn't like these choices, so be it. But to call them torture, unsettling, etc is just being overly dramatic.

Speaking of being overly dramatic, are you my wife secretly playing this game and not telling me? :p

Reiryc

[Spooky]

I would really enjoy a PacWar-based game allowing interruption at any time ... but in this case, it should be an upgraded /updated CAW and not UV.

GG's BTR was a continous play game on a Grand Theater scale ... and it was not by far the best GG game ! Too much micromanagement !!!

BTW, since SSG is now working with Matrix on Decisive Battles of World War II: Korsun Pocket, maybe we can hope for a new Carrier At War published by Matrix

Spooky

[NorthStar]

Actually, I'm not sure this is a middle ground, as Kerensky says.

Consider that if you order a squadron on Training or Rest, you are basically telling it that no matter what, it will take no part in any current operations. To me, this seems more like a Theater Commander's authority, not a base or TF Commander.

Similary (and I admit this is a bit more of a stretch) the CAP setting can be viewed as doctrine instructions. How many planes should be commited to offense (Escort) as opposed to defense (CAP). This argument would be stronger if you set CAP levels on a base or TF level rather than a squadron level, but I think it is still valid.

Basically, these settings affect the availability of assests for Operational plans, and as such it is reasonable that they be placed within the Theater Commander's control.

This would be as opposed to making a descision as to the exact composition of a strike (based on the guidelines set), which are fully within the Base or TF Commander's responsability.

As usual, just my $0.02

[IKerensky]

Originally posted by Reiryc

If one doesn't like these choices, so be it. But to call them torture, unsettling, etc is just being overly dramatic.

Reiryc

Tantalus torture is a common image about something you can see and nearly apprehend but never actually reach. And unsettling doesnt sound that much strong in my french mind.

Remember that not everyone is english/Us speaking

Sorry if my english words go farther than my french mind.

[Hartmann]

As a supporter of the current system, I concede the following:

Indeed there is *some* inconsistency in that we are allowed to micromanage some things which a theater comander never would dream of, especially the CAP level. I gather, though, that the actual *need* for extensive CAP micromanagement will be much reduced in the patch.

I get the feeling that people do not that much grieve about the orders intervall, but more about not having the opportunity to manually assign strikes to sightings (especially as it works with bases and ground forces). So maybe the patch could, as an option, introduce this feature with respect to naval strikes. I know very well that the problem is that the target is moving and may vanish during the turn. But the effect of a naval strike assignment would just have to give a certain target priority over everything else *in case* the sighting can still be traced during the execution of the turn.

Hartmann

[Reiryc]

Originally posted by KERENSKY


Tantalus torture is a common image about something you can see and nearly apprehend but never actually reach. And unsettling doesnt sound that much strong in my french mind.

Remember that not everyone is english/Us speaking

Sorry if my english words go farther than my french mind.

I understand kerensky, and in fact I am in support of your concerns with the surface battles...

I just don't want someone sitting on the fence, deciding to buy the game being turned off because the game is 'tortuous' or 'unsettling'... In the end, a loss of sales could mean a loss of matrix and yet another gaming company that supports our hobby/love/past-time/whatever go down the drain because of over zealous grogs complaining without concern for what damage their complaints can have in the long run.

Reiryc

[IKerensky]

Dont feel concerned.

Believe me each and every game forum have thoses kind of post of people disappointed or with some things that they dont completly lack in the game. And every good game have many more favorable post, just like U.V.

And if I keep from not being cynical or un-informatively negative then I dont see what impact I will have onthe long term ( not that I always was ). But frankly if I have read more post like mine or other about the real feeling of the game play and not the AAR then perhaps, and I really say perhaps I wouldn't have ordered the game before its release.

I am not tottally dispointed by my buy, and I dont want to say that U.V. is a bad game, it certainly wasn't. But in its current state it just doesn't suit my taste and I guess it will quickly join other games on my shelf. I guess I will reinstall it after each patch ( like I do with many game ) do see if things are going more like I want them or not.

Finally if people want to buy a game they dont come to forum to make decision, digging in to post reeal they are already involved enough to buy it anyway. But finding in a forum different review and comment of the game, as objectives and different as possible isn't a basd thing. I am sure Matrix doesn't want people to buy U.V. then feel disappointed by it not being what they want and thus dont buying any other Matrix product.

My final comment is :

If you love Gary Grisby games Buy it.
If you love South Pacific games buy it.
If you love operationnal setting buy it.
If you love tactical management of your task force and CAW type of game then ... dont buy it, because it isn't what you will find in U.V. and you will be disappointed. Unless of course you have the bucks and are willing to try a real good game , greatly designed with nice graphics and an operationnal way of mind.

[brisd]

The game's description on the site was pretty specific that this was an operational game not a tactical one. So I am surprised at the comments concerning lack of tactical control.

Anything less than 24 hour turns would be impossible for me to play. It has taken me a week to play about one hundred 24 hr turns. So the very idea is frightning - we need time to sleep and eat and work!

[1089]

I'm with Kerensky on this. I like the current turn scheme, but the details of CAP management, transferring portions of HQs to various places to keep support levels up, organizing supply convoys, getting aviation support to where the planes are, and such other minutiae should be selectable to be handled by staff (computer). The AI knows how to handle this now, so it should not be hard to implement a toggle for computer control of those things...

kp

[Rob Roberson]

Originally posted by Reiryc


lol...

No, he means when you hit the turn button, should it process 24 hours of time or less...

Reiryc

Now I feel stupid too many hours on this game for me!

Rob

[Didz]

Well it looks like 75% of the players are happy with the current system so things don't look hopeful for my future gameplay.

Personally, I just voted for an option to switch down to a 6 hour turn duration for those, like me, who find 22 hex movements too extreme. That should reduce TF movement to around 6 hexes between opportunities for player intervention which should at least enable me to stop my carriers trying to ram Rabaul every turn and ought to make bomabardment missions a bit more exciting.

I also agree with the others who consider that at present this game is an odd mix. On the one hand it claims to be a operational strategy game and so will not allow detailed player involvement in tactical decisions but at the same time it expects us, the supreme commander, to check the number of torpedo's on each sub after a turn of combat just in case they've run out and need to head home.

Consistency please am I the playing the CinC or the killick.