Uncommon Valor, I hate it already

[battle]

I wish I wouldn't have paid to rush this over cluttered monstrosity via UPS. I couldn't stand the game engine of Twelve O'clock High Bombing The Reich by Talonsoft. Had I known that Grigsby was going to go that route again, I would have avoided this completely. Uncommon Valor has a very similar game engine. A thousand lines of microscopicly printed details that will give you a headache just to stare at before they create any fun. A completely unfriendly user interface, even resolving combat is difficult to follow. That should be the best part! Gary Grigsby designed better games when he kept them less cluttered with too many unnecessary details to keep track of and more emphasis on strategy and ease of game play. USAAF for the C-64 was good. Pacific War, Carrier Strike, Carrier Force, even War in The South Pacific (which was a much friendlier version of Uncommon Valor) was fun to play, but Uncommon Valor in my opinion, is a nightmare.

[Yamamoto]

Some of us LIKE details in our games. You should have known this would be a complicated game by looking at the screen shots and reading the FAQ.
As for the interface, I find it quite user-friendly. When they included the option to set all planes of a certain type the same at a base by setting one of them...that was pure genius.

Yamamoto

[Drongo]

Battle,

I think there's a storm approaching in the distance.

Yes, it is a very detailed game. If you thought Pacific War was fun to play, I would have expected that you would enjoyed the added sophistication of UV without the huge scope of Pacific War.

Did you get a chance to read the UV forums before you bought it? The posts should have indicated that this is a very detailed game, as much about logistics as it is about combat. Most posters seem to see UV's detail as the big plus to the game.

Don't get me wrong, you paid your money, you're absolutely entitled to voice your opinion. I'm just interested in what your expectations were based on. Did you know anything about the game beforehand?

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by battle
A thousand lines of microscopicly printed details that will give you a headache just to stare at before they create any fun.

I used to get this on acid, but a couple of downers always cleared it up.

A completely unfriendly user interface, even resolving combat is difficult to follow.

Hannibal Lecter was the original unfriendly user interface. This one's a little better, says I.

Gary Grigsby designed better games when he kept them less cluttered with too many unnecessary details to keep track of and more emphasis on strategy and ease of game play. USAAF for the C-64 was good. Pacific War, Carrier Strike, Carrier Force, even War in The South Pacific (which was a much friendlier version of Uncommon Valor) was fun to play, but Uncommon Valor in my opinion, is a nightmare.

Let's see, what do I have for you here ... AH! A game of checkers! And especially for you, a board that only has 16 squares - and they're all the same color so that you don't get confused.

[Long Lance]

Originally posted by battle
I wish I wouldn't have paid to rush this over cluttered monstrosity via UPS. I couldn't stand the game engine of Twelve O'clock High Bombing The Reich by Talonsoft. Had I known that Grigsby was going to go that route again, I would have avoided this completely. Uncommon Valor has a very similar game engine. A thousand lines of microscopicly printed details that will give you a headache just to stare at before they create any fun. A completely unfriendly user interface, even resolving combat is difficult to follow. That should be the best part! Gary Grigsby designed better games when he kept them less cluttered with too many unnecessary details to keep track of and more emphasis on strategy and ease of game play. USAAF for the C-64 was good. Pacific War, Carrier Strike, Carrier Force, even War in The South Pacific (which was a much friendlier version of Uncommon Valor) was fun to play, but Uncommon Valor in my opinion, is a nightmare.

Hi Battle,

I agree, 12 o'clock high is a lot of work to do for a few fun you get, but please don't hate this marvellous game!!

At the start, don't worry about details like flight altitude, armament of ground units, computer controlled TFs, creating barges etc etc. Just learn the game by playing it, start a short scenario against the AI, get creamed, start again and try to change your strategy. After 3-4 hours playing time, you'll be familiar with the game basics and you will start to love the game.

And as soon you scratched the first flattop, your family and friends won't see you again for a very long time!

Concerning combat resolution: Are you playing with V 1.20?
Do you have combat reports and combat animations on?
Then perhaps increase the delay time. The Combat resolution is done very well in my view.

If you like those GG-Classics, just force yourself to get into the game!!! You won't regret it!!! I promise!!!

[pad152]

I've played all of Gary's games from the early days of the Apple II to UV. I agree 12 O'clock should be to used to cure insomnia, every time I played it, I fell asleep, all I remember is spending an hour or more setting up a single turn only to watching icons crawl across the screen only to end with B17 crashed on landing, B17 crashed on landing, B17 crashed on landing,... ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz.

I also had a hard time with the UV interface, and still think it takes too many mouse clicks to do things, but UV is one of the best wargame released in years. It takes time to learn how to use the interface effectively and the game rewards patience.

If playing as the allies don't try to rush into carrier battles you'll get creamed.

If the game is playing to slow or to fast adjust the message delays in the game options.

Nobody is making wargames like this. Matrix and 2by3 Games are listening to users and releasing updates to improve the game.

[Jupo]

I liked C64 War in the South Pasific game and I like also this Uncommon Valor. Pasific War is a game that i have never liked and i have never learned to play it.

[Echo]

Some are more intilectually inclined than others.

Not enough detail in my opinion. Many things are still abstracted. If you can't handle the game, how would one handle the realities of being a task force, or even fleet commander. (I'm up for it if the pay was'nt so shitty).

[John Carney]

Yes the pay is crappy, but the spray of the salt air in your face on the open ocean is wonderful. Just have to get out in the real world ASAP, before the politics of the Navy eats you alive, and so you can retire at 65 maybe.

[Mark W Carver]

Originally posted by battle
I wish I wouldn't have paid to rush this over cluttered monstrosity via UPS. I couldn't stand the game engine of Twelve O'clock High Bombing The Reich by Talonsoft. Had I known that Grigsby was going to go that route again, I would have avoided this completely. Uncommon Valor has a very similar game engine. A thousand lines of microscopicly printed details that will give you a headache just to stare at before they create any fun. A completely unfriendly user interface, even resolving combat is difficult to follow. That should be the best part! Gary Grigsby designed better games when he kept them less cluttered with too many unnecessary details to keep track of and more emphasis on strategy and ease of game play. USAAF for the C-64 was good. Pacific War, Carrier Strike, Carrier Force, even War in The South Pacific (which was a much friendlier version of Uncommon Valor) was fun to play, but Uncommon Valor in my opinion, is a nightmare.

And from all the AAR and many, many, many other posts on this forum you did not realise that this game was full of details?

[Mark Ezra]

I never got headaches from Acid. Is that why I love this game so much?...LOL....Seriously...A good PBEM buddy turned me on to UV and he ended up getting headaches (suffers from migraines, poor man) and found the game ultimately not his cup of tea. So that's the way it goes. I've bought a hell of a lot of games over the last 5-6 years. I'll bet 90% never made it a total of an hour on my hard drive. This is the first large scale strategic game to do so. So maybe UV is the Acid test of wargaming...LOL...well ya never know!

[Wilhammer]

"A game of checkers! And especially for you, a board that only has 16 squares - and they're all the same color so that you don't get confused."

Have YOU actually played checkers?

Thar be 64 squares, of 2 different colors, and the pieces are of 2 different colors, with each side having 8 pieces.

64 squares, 16 pieces, and 4 different colors (at least shades).

Sounds pretty complex for an interface.

And get this, you can only use HALF the squares for movements, and only diagonally, and only forward.

And, if an enemy unit blocks your path, you can jump over him and move two squares, but only if he does not have a friendly unit in immediate tactical blocking reserve.

If the enemy tries to deploy a defense in depth, you can multiple jump at each encountered MLR.

And if your piece is so lucky to get to the opposition's board edge, you get to stack a dead body on top of it, and call yourself 'King', and you can move forward OR backwards along the diagonals.

I find it interesting that the only way you can become King also requires a dead friendly national.

[byron13]

Any bets on whether Battle responds?

Very unfair of you to suggest in the title of this thread that there is something inherently wrong with the game. You would have to admit that the problem is that the game does not fit your gaming style - not that the game itself is defective or lacking.

Your post is akin to me posting a message on a Porsche web page declaring that Porsches suck because I bought one and am pissed that I can't haul bales of hay in it. Yes, indeed, Porsches suck.

[CBase]

UV can be a little overwhelming at first and isn't for everyone. Frankly, I would not recommend it for the average video/computer gamer. But for those who don't mind games that require some work, I would say it is an outstanding effort.

[Cpt. Canuck]

Originally posted by battle
I wish I wouldn't have paid to rush this over cluttered monstrosity via UPS. I couldn't stand the game engine of Twelve O'clock High Bombing The Reich by Talonsoft. Had I known that Grigsby was going to go that route again, I would have avoided this completely. Uncommon Valor has a very similar game engine. A thousand lines of microscopicly printed details that will give you a headache just to stare at before they create any fun. A completely unfriendly user interface, even resolving combat is difficult to follow. That should be the best part! Gary Grigsby designed better games when he kept them less cluttered with too many unnecessary details to keep track of and more emphasis on strategy and ease of game play. USAAF for the C-64 was good. Pacific War, Carrier Strike, Carrier Force, even War in The South Pacific (which was a much friendlier version of Uncommon Valor) was fun to play, but Uncommon Valor in my opinion, is a nightmare.

TROLL!!

[DSandberg]

Originally posted by Wilhammer
"A game of checkers! And especially for you, a board that only has 16 squares - and they're all the same color so that you don't get confused."

Have YOU actually played checkers?

Thar be 64 squares, of 2 different colors, and the pieces are of 2 different colors, with each side having 8 pieces.

Umm ... I assumed the previous poster's point was that he was even providing a dumbed down version of checkers (with a board 1/4 of the normal size and only one color of squares) to the guy who hates UV so much, because he feels even normal checkers (as you described it) might be too complex for the guy.

Either you missed his sarcasm, or I'm missing yours.

By the way, doesn't each side in checkers have 12 pieces rather than 8? Although I haven't played checkers since childhood, so maybe my memory is faulty. But if so, it's even MORE complex than you made it out to be!

- David

[Wilhammer]

Yeah, it is 12 pieces.

Duh.

As for catching sarcasm, I know what the author's intent was, but the way it is read suggest he does not know a thing about checkers. (I, in fact, know that he knows about the details of checkers, for his sarcasm is biting and truthful.)

So, it is a mini relflection of the riducolous allegation of the thread author.

[battle]

Originally posted by pasternakski


Let's see, what do I have for you here ... AH! A game of checkers! And especially for you, a board that only has 16 squares - and they're all the same color so that you don't get confused.

Checkers is far too difficult and time consuming just to read the 200 page instruction manual. I could finish a May 1942 - December 1943 Uncommon Valor campaign , before figuring out which way checkers are supposed to move on a checkerboard.

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by DSandberg


Umm ... I assumed the previous poster's point was that he was even providing a dumbed down version of checkers (with a board 1/4 of the normal size and only one color of squares) to the guy who hates UV so much, because he feels even normal checkers (as you described it) might be too complex for the guy.

Either you missed his sarcasm, or I'm missing yours.

By the way, doesn't each side in checkers have 12 pieces rather than 8? Although I haven't played checkers since childhood, so maybe my memory is faulty. But if so, it's even MORE complex than you made it out to be!

- David

Jump - jump - jump - KING ME! (now I suppose the next poster will think I'm gay - not to be confused with happy, of course, or any of the other seven dwarves, like Sleazy, Crappy, or Whoever).

Jeez - do you think I'm sarcastic? Try this ...

[Wilhammer]

"Checkers is far too difficult and time consuming just to read the 200 page instruction manual."

That would be the world's smallest 200 page book.