Matrix Games Forums

When watching the combatreplay in bad weather, the "no-fly" graphic appears over my unspotted TF's. Does the opponent see these as well? In other words, can intel be gathered purely from the "no-fly" graphic?

I have watched out for this too, but have not seen any disclosure of my fleets that have not been sighted.

What might have happened is your TF moved onto a coastal base or dot, and the weather for that hex was "no-fly". You got the symbol over your TF as well. Or your unspotted TF maybe over an enemy sub that has been spotted (but did not fire), so the "no-fly" is displayed on the map over your TF again.

Or you might be the Japs and the coast watchers watched you and the "no-fly" was up over your sighted TF.

I think Mandrake is right, and No fly icon appears over the hex, only if there's something in it, be it single sub, 20 soldiers stranded on some islet, or a full sized TF. And even if it's not "officialy" sighted by enemy.

This is what I believe happens: game calculates "no fly" zones based on weather only above "populated" hexes. Unpopulated hexes are of no interest to game algorithms and, prehaps to save on CPU time, game omits "no fly" calculations over empty hexes.

Unwanted by-product of this is - what Mandrake says: no fly icons are sure sign that the hex is populated with something: maybe it's single sub, maybe something more...

I hate no fly icons anyway, and I think they should be taken away from the game.

O.

Oh and BTW this thread should be taken to bug board for developers to see.

Daniel U2 can you take care of this?

O.

Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko
Daniel U2 can you take care of this?

O.

I could if Matrix gave me that power:)

BTW I've had issues with my hidden land units. The have not been detected but the hexes gets a no fly sign. I did not like it at all. Another customer wrote me about this issue so I've passed it along a few weeks ago.

This is just one of myriad reasons why a general representation of weather systems and fronts is needed. The map is great, the symbols on it are fine, but how did we ever get to where bad weather in the South Pacific only exists in isolated hexes and flits around almost at random?

I ain't no meteorology freak, but I sure would like to see the weather depicted as handsomely on the map as deep and shallow water and terrain features are (especially thanks to long-since-gone Rowlf). Studying weather system movements in an effort to coordinate movement, attacks, air strikes, recon, and all the other stuff that was so heavily influenced by weather is an element of command that I think is sorely missing from this game system.

I like the no-fly symbols personally. Actually, I hate the graphic and have replaced them with the clouds posted by another player. The reason I like them is it gives me a reason why my planes didn't fly. It makes it less frustrating when I have an explanation for something not happening that I was counting on.

Yes, I've received extra info from unspotted land units in no-fly hexes and that is too bad. One way to game the system is to drop supply in dot hexes because the game checks every hex that is a base and has at least 1 supply in it.

I'd like to see no-fly symbols appear only over bases size one or greater and over task forces that have planes and the task force already has a detection level of one or higher.

Yamamoto

I don't know anything about programming but is it even possible to historically reflect the weather over all the areas of UV on a day-by-day basis without needing a mainframe? Every town and ports recorded weather on for every day over 600+ days?

I think there is actually no need in these symbols. The list of explanations for something not happening that you was counting on, is pretty short:

1.) Heavy weather over base or over a target area.
2.) Low morale or high fatigue
3.) No units for escort within a range
4.) Insufficient ready aircraft quantity
5.) Airbase size matters
6.) Target DL of 0
7.) No supplies needed for that mission type
8.) Damage to airfield over 50
9.) Your own interface mistakes
10.) Reasons that I forgot but which are listed somewhere in UV documentation or were mentioned on this forums.

As you can see only #1 and to a lesser degree #6 are unpredictable factors. If something on what I was counting did not happened, I can find the reasons after brief analysis of particular air unit menu. If it’s all right with air unit and it did not fly when ordered, it’s most probably because of weather. So I really do not need those symbols, cause I can’t use information they’re giving during reaction phase and they don’t give me any clues to make any valuable weather forecast for a next day.

Those symbols can be used now for cheating only, hope next patch will fix this, they must appear only over TF and bases with DL of >0. If I have no information about enemy base being build at unmonitored site or about lonely enemy ship in a middle of ocean, who is providing me such info? NASCOM satellites or my Japanese agents?

I believe UV don’t need weather system like the one used in Grigsby’s 12 O’clock high: BTR, with all weather fronts shown and moving, cause in UV you can’t do anything with this, you can’t change orders, reassign targets nothing during reaction phase. Btw it will be unrealistic as well, “hey we should not fly to Munda tomorrow I saw forecast on CNN, it’s raining cats’n’dogs over there”. What we need is additional weather forecasting phase to make right conclusions for a next day. Or another graphical way to deliver such info, how is can be done, may be hexes of probable heavy weather should be marked with red line along their perimeter. Big fronts can be visible by this but without satellite photo help.

For those who don’t want play with ‘illegal’ intel info coming from these symbols I made another mod, most questionable mod of the year, just two black squares instead of various fancy clouds and storms. And now you can’t see any weather symbols in game. Yes, I know all shortcomings of that move, but I think it worth it, in general playability aspect.

Originally posted by Subchaser
I believe UV don’t need weather system like the one used in Grigsby’s 12 O’clock high: BTR, with all weather fronts shown and moving, cause in UV you can’t do anything with this, you can’t change orders, reassign targets nothing during reaction phase. Btw it will be unrealistic as well, “hey we should not fly to Munda tomorrow I saw forecast on CNN, it’s raining cats’n’dogs over there”. What we need is additional weather forecasting phase to make right conclusions for a next day. Or another graphical way to deliver such info, how is can be done, may be hexes of probable heavy weather should be marked with red line along their perimeter. Big fronts can be visible by this but without satellite photo help.

I agree in principle with what you say, but I am not advocating "CNN forecasts" or "satellite photo help." I merely suggest that the meteorological staff's intelligence and input need to be factored into the theater commander's decisionmaking process. There is no such thing as a "probable" weather front. There are clouds that are observed by recon and naval search, pressure systems and isobaric gradients observable by the weather guys and their instruments, and a certain rational process engaged in by command staff (including the CO) that are sorely missed in this system's attempts at putting the player in that CO's shoes.

I would dare say I can guess why detailed system a la 12 o clock high is not used here (although the "weather engine" could have been copied from the older game).

Weather in Pac was much more unpredictable, and developers obviously felt they could "cover" (or "get away with") the weather problem with this what we have in UV - almost totally random weather events with occasional (also random) hexes being closed because of thunderstorms.

Whether this decision was right or not I wouldn't comment. We don't know what would be trade-offs of the more complicated engine (in terms of developer hours, and CPU power)

Atlantic/Europe have more predictable weather situation, and both sides devoted respectable resources to weather/meteo observation and prognostics. I believe Germans even coined the term "Wetterkrieg" for their various meteo overflights of northers Atlantic, and meteo ships that went as far as NE Greenland and Spitzbergen.

As far as I know - combatants in South Pacific didn't allocate as much efforts to meteo prognostics, simply because the weather was as unpredictable as it gets.

What I'm saying is that this kinda simplistic model may work in UV, but it would be totally unsuitable for any game dealing with Atlantic and European theatres, with their weather situations.

On the side note: I have this great little "globetrotter" software for my Pocket PC, it's called WorldMate. One of the features of WorldMate is simple "meteo advisor" that updates the weather situation for five selected cities over the Internet, wehnever PPC is docked. Since I got UV, one of the five cities for me is Port Moresby, and looking at the actual weather situation in PM day in day out for almost a year, I can say UV developers got the picture very right!

O.

Then what we need is "weather fog of war."

Are these weather reports reflecting current weather? Can we get weather predictions from our own meteorological units the week before or day before?

Here is some interesting reading on this subject.

A Glimpse of the RAAF Meteorological Service

War History of the Australian Meteorological Service in the Royal Australian Air Force April 1941 to July 1946

Also here (re Atlantic "Weather war")

http://www.atc.army.mil/meteorology/ww1.htm

O.

Modeling weather in a game is not a CPU hog....PREDICTING weather in the real world purely from starting values is a massive computative undertaking. I'm with Pasternaski on this one. I would like to have a text weather briefing from the SOPAC weather guys. Maybe even a pic of some pencil-neck officer with a squeaky voice. Of course, they would be wrong much of the time