Holy Moley, this can't be right.

[crsutton]

Playing scen #17

My Japanese opponent sends about 60 zeros to hit my 48 Wildcats at Nevea. I have medium morale and fatigue in low 20s, he was pretty fresh. In two rounds I lose 35 wildcats to his 8 zeros. That ain't right, I tell you.

Same turn. I send 60 sorties of medium bombers from cooktown to hit his large invasion TF unloading troops. All bombers go in at wavetop level and all have experience over 70. All bombers attack his lone escorting ML scoring 35 bomb hits, while ignoring a dozen fat transports. That ain't right, I tell you.

Well, I lost PM but I'll tell you what: I did sink the hell out of that lowly ML!


There is no justice.

[mogami]

Originally posted by crsutton
Playing scen #17

My Japanese opponent sends about 60 zeros to hit my 48 Wildcats at Nevea. I have medium morale and fatigue in low 20s, he was pretty fresh. In two rounds I lose 35 wildcats to his 8 zeros. That ain't right, I tell you.

Same turn. I send 60 sorties of medium bombers from cooktown to hit his large invasion TF unloading troops. All bombers go in at wavetop level and all have experience over 70. All bombers attack his lone escorting ML scoring 35 bomb hits, while ignoring a dozen fat transports. That ain't right, I tell you.

Well, I lost PM but I'll tell you what: I did sink the hell out of that lowly ML!


There is no justice.

Hi, At wavetop level they couldn't see anything. Poor ML was the only ship they found and they wanted to go back to the O Club at Cooktown.

[Luskan]

Originally posted by crsutton
Playing scen #17

My Japanese opponent sends about 60 zeros to hit my 48 Wildcats at Nevea. I have medium morale and fatigue in low 20s, he was pretty fresh. In two rounds I lose 35 wildcats to his 8 zeros. That ain't right, I tell you.

Disagree - zeroes outnumber wildcats by a little bit, and are fresh while the wildcats are in the 20s (higher than I like to fly CAP with!) and no doubt the zeros have much higher experience. This is exactly the sort of result I would expect - and exactly the result I would hope the game produces.

Originally posted by crsutton

Same turn. I send 60 sorties of medium bombers from cooktown to hit his large invasion TF unloading troops. All bombers go in at wavetop level and all have experience over 70. All bombers attack his lone escorting ML scoring 35 bomb hits, while ignoring a dozen fat transports. That ain't right, I tell you.
Well, I lost PM but I'll tell you what: I did sink the hell out of that lowly ML!
There is no justice.

Agree with this one though. If your bombers were above 70 exp, and most importantly were unfatigued, they should have skip bombed a bit better. Unless it was bad weather.

These planes aren't going to fly to their target at 100ft!!!! They're going to fly to their target at 2000 ft or so, and when they spot their target, then they drop down to 100ft. If there are other ships in the same hex, they are definitely visable from 2000ft (good visability, maybe 20 kms in all directions?). THEN they'd go down to wavetop level and have a go, after lining up on their tragets. If the ML was in the same TF as the transports, this is a dodgy result - be damned sure that level bombers don't choose one target and then go in "Line ASTERN" formation and bomb the crap out of it.

Can you imagine 30 level bombers all going for a ML? Tey'd have to do their attack runs 1 by 1 while the others flew around waiting to see the result (in flak range). If they went in all together they'd collide! More likely that no more than 2 bombers go for any one target isn't it?

[mogami]

Originally posted by Luskan
Disagree - zeroes outnumber wildcats by a little bit, and are fresh while the wildcats are in the 20s (higher than I like to fly CAP with!) and no doubt the zeros have much higher experience. This is exactly the sort of result I would expect - and exactly the result I would hope the game produces.



Agree with this one though. If your bombers were above 70 exp, and most importantly were unfatigued, they should have skip bombed a bit better. Unless it was bad weather.

These planes aren't going to fly to their target at 100ft!!!! They're going to fly to their target at 2000 ft or so, and when they spot their target, then they drop down to 100ft. If there are other ships in the same hex, they are definitely visable from 2000ft (good visability, maybe 20 kms in all directions?). THEN they'd go down to wavetop level and have a go, after lining up on their tragets. If the ML was in the same TF as the transports, this is a dodgy result - be damned sure that level bombers don't choose one target and then go in "Line ASTERN" formation and bomb the crap out of it.

Can you imagine 30 level bombers all going for a ML? Tey'd have to do their attack runs 1 by 1 while the others flew around waiting to see the result (in flak range). If they went in all together they'd collide! More likely that no more than 2 bombers go for any one target isn't it?

Hi, Dive bombers and Torpedo planes fly to and from the target at altitude you pick but change for attack. Level bombers fly to and from and attack at altitude you select. If you pick 100 feet thats what they fly at. And level bombers do use the line astern formation for anti shipping. (but it will be groups of 4 mostly)

My bet is there were 2 enemy TF's in the hex and the bombers attacked a lone ML. (35 hits they bombed pretty well)

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, Dive bombers and Torpedo planes fly to and from the target at altitude you pick but change for attack. Level bombers fly to and from and attack at altitude you select. If you pick 100 feet thats what they fly at. And level bombers do use the line astern formation for anti shipping. (but it will be groups of 4 mostly)(35 hits they bombed pretty well)

Mog, if this is so, it is absolutely ridiculous and highlights one of the many problems with altitude assignment mechanics in the UV system. Nobody in his right mind would order those LBs to fly at 100 feet all the way to their target. The game should have, instead of a "100 foot" setting, a "skip bomb/strafe" setting that treats planes assigned to these missions the same way that torpedo bombers are treated (fly at assigned altitude, then adjust to 200 ft. for final attack run).

[ADavidB]

Originally posted by crsutton
Playing scen #17

My Japanese opponent sends about 60 zeros to hit my 48 Wildcats at Nevea. I have medium morale and fatigue in low 20s, he was pretty fresh. In two rounds I lose 35 wildcats to his 8 zeros. That ain't right, I tell you.

Same turn. I send 60 sorties of medium bombers from cooktown to hit his large invasion TF unloading troops. All bombers go in at wavetop level and all have experience over 70. All bombers attack his lone escorting ML scoring 35 bomb hits, while ignoring a dozen fat transports. That ain't right, I tell you.

Well, I lost PM but I'll tell you what: I did sink the hell out of that lowly ML!


There is no justice.

A few questions :

A - About the Zeros :

1 - Where did the Zeros fly in from - a nearby carrier group or some land base like Lunga?

2 - What altitude did you have your Wildcats set to?

3 - What was your CAP set at?

4 - Did your base unit have radar at Nevea?

5 - Did you have any AA units at Nevea?

B - About the Bombers :

1 - Did you have a percentage "naval search" set for any of your bomber groups?

2 - Did you have other Naval Search aircraft flying out of Cookstown, Cairns or elsewhere within range?

3 - Did your opponent have any LR CAP flying around his invasion fleet?

4 - Did your opponent have combat ships in the main invasion TF?


An Observation :

One of the old "rules" of air attacks that seems to have been carried over from Pacwar to UV is the "Flak selection" rule, which from time-to-time takes over from the other target selection rules. This rule seems to tell the AI that when chosing between targets of the same "relative value" - e.g., two "soft" targets like minesweepers or cargo ships - take the target with the lower flak rating. One ML has less potential flak than an invasion fleet, particularly if that invasion fleet has combat ships in it too.

It's one way to mess up your opponent's strategy with carrier power - have lots of soft targets around, and have combat ships in your more important soft targets, and the AI will send your opponent's best attacks against the "softest" targets based upon relative flak. (This works well if you opponent likes to set up "mega fleets" instead of setting up multiple attack TFs.)

A Final Comment -

Cheer up, you can use the bombers for better use later by bombing PM into dust.

Take care -

Dave Baranyi

[mogami]

Hi, No body in their right mind would order attacks at 100 feet by aircraft capable of attacking at higher altitudes. Torpedo planes are screwed (and they know it, this is why groups making torpedo attacks often do not fly)

Skip bombing that everyone likes to claim they are doing in UV ("But the pilots are over 70") Was done at night. By specific air groups. Mostly against transports. These aircraft are not dive bombers. They don't fly out to target at 10k and then swoop down to 100feet bomb and climb away. A bombing mission takes off, climbs to mission height, forms up and moves to target and back. If you set 100 feet you have a very long line of bombers. And UV has them navigate way too perfect for me. I don't squawk about my opponents using 100 feet or 1000 feet. (The only aircraft I ever set to below 6k are ASW and Wirraways on Naval Attack (ASW flys at 3k and Wirraways attack from 5k) Medium bombers attack ships at 6k and 9k is the most common altitude I use for B-17/24 attacks (I don't normally use B-17/24 against ships).


Just like it is impossible to eliminate crime or immoral behaviour by passing laws, it is impossible to eliminate holes in a game system. The players have to use common sense and restraint. Every action that produces a strange result should not become part of their doctrine. (Night strafing by Jakes at 100 feet, anti ship attacks by level bombers at 100 feet. (I can just hear the B-17/24 pilots "You want me to do what? Oh no a feathered engine aborting mission") Making 25 ship TF with 10 of them carriers. It's not the game. There is no way to prevent these things without limiting the game. You have to decide before you begin. "Do I want to fight WW2, or do I want to win a game"
Then try to win, but don't allow yourself to do things you know were impossible.
If your PBEM opponet does not agree. So be it. You don't have to adopt curious tactics. Just be aware they are being employed.
It's not cheating it's just bad form.
I still think in the non Midway long campaigns the Japanese advantage is larger then the B-17/B-24 (since they do not arrive in enough strength to stop the Japanese. Japan has already lost long before the first 100 plane heavy bomber mission.)
However I think it is inaccurate to claim B-17s are not shot down.
They rarely fall from sky during the animation of aircombat but a significant number also do not return to base after the mission.
The average 100 B-17 mission opposed by 20-30 fighters (of any flavour) loses 10-12 B-17. Escorting the B-17 with P-38's cuts loss by 25-50 percent.

[crsutton]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Luskan
Disagree - zeroes outnumber wildcats by a little bit, and are fresh while the wildcats are in the 20s (higher than I like to fly CAP with!) and no doubt the zeros have much higher experience. This is exactly the sort of result I would expect - and exactly the result I would hope the game produces.


Nope, disagree right back atcha Point out any historical battle during the Solomons campaign where these results were obtained by either side. In reality in all air battles (fighter to fighter)-especially the large ones, many planes were claimed but the record reveals that actually few were shot down.

My point is if the game produces these kind of results then it is wrong and should be corrected.

[crsutton]

Originally posted by ADavidB
A few questions :

A - About the Zeros :

1 - Where did the Zeros fly in from - a nearby carrier group or some land base like Lunga?

Lunga

2 - What altitude did you have your Wildcats set to?

10,000 to 15,000

3 - What was your CAP set at?

about 50 but it looks like they most all scrambled.

4 - Did your base unit have radar at Nevea?

Yes

5 - Did you have any AA units at Nevea?

Marine defense battallion

B - About the Bombers :

1 - Did you have a percentage "naval search" set for any of your bomber groups?

always set them to 20 or 30%

2 - Did you have other Naval Search aircraft flying out of Cookstown, Cairns or elsewhere within range?

yes, forts and hudsons

3 - Did your opponent have any LR CAP flying around his invasion fleet?

none sighted

4 - Did your opponent have combat ships in the main invasion TF?

no, I now suspect that the ML was operating alone.


An Observation :

One of the old "rules" of air attacks that seems to have been carried over from Pacwar to UV is the "Flak selection" rule, which from time-to-time takes over from the other target selection rules. This rule seems to tell the AI that when chosing between targets of the same "relative value" - e.g., two "soft" targets like minesweepers or cargo ships - take the target with the lower flak rating. One ML has less potential flak than an invasion fleet, particularly if that invasion fleet has combat ships in it too.

It's one way to mess up your opponent's strategy with carrier power - have lots of soft targets around, and have combat ships in your more important soft targets, and the AI will send your opponent's best attacks against the "softest" targets based upon relative flak. (This works well if you opponent likes to set up "mega fleets" instead of setting up multiple attack TFs.)

A Final Comment -

Cheer up, you can use the bombers for better use later by bombing PM into dust.

Take care -

Dave Baranyi

[crsutton]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, No body in their right mind would order attacks at 100 feet by aircraft capable of attacking at higher altitudes. Torpedo planes are screwed (and they know it, this is why groups making torpedo attacks often do not fly)



Mogami.

I am not so sure about this. Tactics changed and allied mediums went in pretty low-although skip bombing was higher than 100 ft. Remember, this was an unescorted convoy of about a dozen merchants. Ideal for a low bombing run.

After, many of the B 25s were converted to straffers by the addition of the nose machine guns and the deletion of the bombadier, then low attacks were the norm. Why arm your planes with such killing power and then use them in a manner that would make these weapons useless? Besides, the absence of the bombadier made bombing at any altitude impossible since it was the pilot that was the bombadier.

I realize that this was a transition period and most B25s were the older version, but many conventional B25s were attacking low as well.

I just read Saburo Sakai's memioir and he was at Lae during the earliest fighting (April to August 1942). In all of his accounts of Mauraders and B25 attacks against his airbase, he reported that they came in low. Usually under 800 feet-daylight or night. Primarily to strafe as well as bomb. They shot a lot of them down but they still came anyways.

In the Solomon's, the Allies learned quickly that in order to kill ships and airplanes, you had to come in low.

Once my bombers reach 70 experience, I bomb soft ships at low altitudes. Losses are higher and morale drops real fast-creating the need for more rests, but the results are excellent.

Well armed ships, I don't go in low.

[mogami]

Hi, There is low and then there is low. I realize you have to do what the program makes you do. (You have to use 100 feet to strafe) But a .50cal M2 has a effective range of around 1850 meters. (6069 feet) (the round will travel 4 miles) So aircraft in WW2 could strafe from 5-6k rather easy. I understand the game makes you fly at 100 feet. I don't really have an issue with twin engine bombers coming in low (low to me is the 3-6k range) but 4 engine bombers at 100 feet IMO are silly.
I have no objection at all to fighters coming in under 2k.
I think the real problem is AA under 3k is too weak. When strafing LCU at 100feet there should be a lot of small arms fire that is not in game. When attacking ships at under 3k the flak should be very high. (even those otherwise weak AA ships become effective against a low straight flyer)

[Snigbert]

What do you think the maximum number of CVs in a TF is before it becomes 'gamey'?

I draw the line at 6, personally...

The only time I have a tf with over 15 or so ships is when it is a large tranport tf moving from one safe area to another.

Bombardment/Surface Combat TFs are usually between 6-15 ships.

Not sure how historical all that is, but that's how I like to do it.

[crsutton]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, There is low and then there is low. I realize you have to do what the program makes you do. (You have to use 100 feet to strafe) But a .50cal M2 has a effective range of around 1850 meters. (6069 feet) (the round will travel 4 miles) So aircraft in WW2 could strafe from 5-6k rather easy. I understand the game makes you fly at 100 feet. I don't really have an issue with twin engine bombers coming in low (low to me is the 3-6k range) but 4 engine bombers at 100 feet IMO are silly.
I have no objection at all to fighters coming in under 2k.
I think the real problem is AA under 3k is too weak. When strafing LCU at 100feet there should be a lot of small arms fire that is not in game. When attacking ships at under 3k the flak should be very high. (even those otherwise weak AA ships become effective against a low straight flyer)

Yes, I think you are right about the strafing level. However, I think that even medium bombers would come in at least one thousand feet or lower. (I am no expert here). However, as far as AA goes. I would like to see it a bit more effective. Seems to get knocked out very fast from sustained bombing.

However, planes were generally safest from light AA the lower they flew. That is when on the deck, rapid fire AA had very little time to accquire the target where as at 1000 to 3000 feet, light AA was deadly. You hear stories but I don't think small arms fire accounted for many downed planes.

Optimum strafing attack by fighters and medium bombers involved one pass only, in the hopes of surprise. Only if AA defense was light or disabled whould they return for second or third passes. Otherwise they were dead meat to fully alerted AA fire. The approach would be low as possible, on the deck, and then the planes would climb a few hundred meters for the firing run, then back on the deck for the escape. Planes would not go in in line astern but wing to wing in flights of three to even full squadron. Each plane would just aim straight ahead and hold down the trigger during the pass. If done right the target field was blanketed with fire.

I can imagine the effect of a dozen B25s with 12 forward firing 50 cals raking over an airfield.

Anyone else know more about this? Please jump in.

[pertsajakilu]

Originally posted by crsutton

I just read Saburo Sakai's memioir and he was at Lae during the earliest fighting (April to August 1942). In all of his accounts of Mauraders and B25 attacks against his airbase, he reported that they came in low. Usually under 800 feet-daylight or night. Primarily to strafe as well as bomb. They shot a lot of them down but they still came anyways.
[/B]

Hm..... Him ( Sakai ) also mentions about totally inept AA-crews. 800 < feet is awfully low if there are adequate light flak with good crews. Some AA-mg´s just "tickles".

I suppose that low flying daylight raids would have stopped if bombers would faced fighters and effective flak.

Here are certainly people who have read Pierre Closterman´s memoir. When he was squadron leader in France 1944 he forbid word flak ( one who mentioned that word had to pay 5£ penalty ). Morale was low because murderous German light flak.


And anyway those attacks would have been imbossible without fighter escort if Zeros hitting power would have been decent.

Lot of IF´s....

Arto

[pertsajakilu]

Originally posted by Snigbert
What do you think the maximum number of CVs in a TF is before it becomes 'gamey'?

I draw the line at 6, personally...

The only time I have a tf with over 15 or so ships is when it is a large tranport tf moving from one safe area to another.

Bombardment/Surface Combat TFs are usually between 6-15 ships.

Not sure how historical all that is, but that's how I like to do it.

Whole game is gamey!

IJN player can sacrifice whole Japanese fleet and fleet carriers in one sector. And there are more carriers than fish in sea.

But it´s game and it´s fun. Game is not historical but planes, ships etc. performance should have.

Arto

[mogami]

Originally posted by crsutton
Yes, I think you are right about the strafing level. However, I think that even medium bombers would come in at least one thousand feet or lower. (I am no expert here). However, as far as AA goes. I would like to see it a bit more effective. Seems to get knocked out very fast from sustained bombing.

However, planes were generally safest from light AA the lower they flew. That is when on the deck, rapid fire AA had very little time to accquire the target where as at 1000 to 3000 feet, light AA was deadly. You hear stories but I don't think small arms fire accounted for many downed planes.

Optimum strafing attack by fighters and medium bombers involved one pass only, in the hopes of surprise. Only if AA defense was light or disabled whould they return for second or third passes. Otherwise they were dead meat to fully alerted AA fire. The approach would be low as possible, on the deck, and then the planes would climb a few hundred meters for the firing run, then back on the deck for the escape. Planes would not go in in line astern but wing to wing in flights of three to even full squadron. Each plane would just aim straight ahead and hold down the trigger during the pass. If done right the target field was blanketed with fire.

I can imagine the effect of a dozen B25s with 12 forward firing 50 cals raking over an airfield.

Anyone else know more about this? Please jump in.

Hi, We keep changing our subjects. There are low level attacks against ships and low level attacks against ground targets.

Anyone actually assigning B-17/24 to under 6k when bombing ports or airfields? (Thats silly since it does not help the bombing but does hurt the bombers)

One reason you don't hear about small arms fire downing bombers is they stayed above it. But once again all conditions are not alike. A low flying aircraft coming in a straight path at 100 feet over water is not the same as an aircraft that appears for a second through a hole in the jungle canopy. So these skip bombers should be more then easy to shoot. (Deflection shooting is difficult. Firing at a head on in coming aircraft is easy)

I'd like to see this bomber formation, of wing tip to wing tip bombers at low altitude. Operational losses should be incured in groups of 3.

[Nikademus]

very true, and the motivations and reasoning behind the attacks were different for at sea vs on land, and also for the time period.

The B-25's and B-26's at Lae for example did not attack at low altitude to increase effectiveness in attack, they did it to minimize Japanese reaction time to allow them to get in, shoot their bolts and then firewall it back from whence they came. It was a defensive tactic designed to minimize bomber casualties.


Sakai's comments seem to confirm this....emphasing Tainen's frustration at the difficulty in catching these neusance raids before or even after the fact (particularily B-26) but if they managed to catch up to them, they could bloody them up. Unfortunately in UV, this is not the case, and the tactic can be used "offensively" from the get go, even in the face of larger fighter presences and even heavy AA.

Later in the war, at places such as Wewak, with adequate numbers, the right equipment (straffers), the right armament (para-frags etc), and the right training, low level attacks were refined into the best way to knock out an airfield......by damaging and wrecking as many planes as possible. At that point it was a true 'offensive' tactic.

Similar situation vs at sea. Skip bombing was proven deadly effective against ill-defended transport TF's, but what works there may not necessarily work against a well defended one, esp a well defended warship TF. One factor completely absent from UV is that gravity bombs (non skip bombing situation) require altitude to maximize their effectiveness in terms of penetration. While AP ability will always be marginal, a GP bomb dropped from 6-10,000 feet would have a greater chance to detonate below deck vs one dropped from 1000 feet (and by 'below deck, i dont infer below the armor deck itself, but meerly below the exposed weather decks vs a contact air burst)

[crsutton]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, We keep changing our subjects. There are low level attacks against ships and low level attacks against ground targets.

Anyone actually assigning B-17/24 to under 6k when bombing ports or airfields? (Thats silly since it does not help the bombing but does hurt the bombers)

One reason you don't hear about small arms fire downing bombers is they stayed above it. But once again all conditions are not alike. A low flying aircraft coming in a straight path at 100 feet over water is not the same as an aircraft that appears for a second through a hole in the jungle canopy. So these skip bombers should be more then easy to shoot. (Deflection shooting is difficult. Firing at a head on in coming aircraft is easy)

I'd like to see this bomber formation, of wing tip to wing tip bombers at low altitude. Operational losses should be incured in groups of 3.

Yes, I never use my heavies below 12,000 feet. But the other planes go in low. It is a bit ahistorical as the first B25 and A20 strafers really did not appear until November 1942 and only by early 1943 were most of the B25s in Kenny's air unit fully converted. However, once converted low level attacks were the norm against bases, ships and barges. Mind you that even a DD was feared for its AA and pilots were very careful about attacking them. However, at the battle of the Bismark Sea, the mediums and Beaufighters attacked low-even the old models. By that time (March of 1943) low level attacking was the preferred method. The introduction of parafrags in late 1943 made it more so.
Of course, a lot depended on the target. Rabaul was heavily defended by AA and the bombers used more conventional tactics.

Against ships, low level attackers attacked from the front and shot to take out the bridge and AA guns.

Against land targets.

"It was much better to come in low because we moved so fast. They did not hear us until we were on them. The treetop level, I felt as safe as you could be.....At 5,000 feet, you were in their sights for a long time. They can pump a lot of lead into you.... We lost aircraft from ground fire but I preferred low level.

When you pressed that fire button and fired all those machine guns the plane vibrated like crazy-that's a lot of lead flying out there. We'd go across abreast- wingtip to wingtip with maybe a whole squadron. So we would make only one pass over the target......We's sweep over the target, with twelve planes strung out over a maybe half a mile. Everybody was firing their guns. All you could see was a glow of flame about five-ten feet in front of the airplane." Rich Larson: 345th bomb group.

The reason that they flew in abreast is that a massed firing run served to disperse the AA fire by overloading the AA gunners with targets and gave them a much better chance of survival. This was a technique pioneered by the British against German coastal barges off the coast of Norway. The German barges were tough and covered with AA guns. They only way that the costal command Beaufighters could hurt them was by going in low and fast in a massed formations. There was no thought of a second pass. It had to work on the first and only pass.

Once again, it is important to point out that, the above example is from late 1943. In late 1942, low level attack doctrine was just being explored and refined. There was a lot to learn. In the terms of UV, low level straffing is probably misused in 1942, but then again the game makes Bettys and Nells into deadly ship killers, when historically they were not very good at it.

[mogami]

"but then again the game makes Bettys and Nells into deadly ship killers, when historically they were not very good at it."

Hi, I don't know, they sank 1 BB 1 BC 1 CA and hit 1 CV and a load of transports. They also damaged at least 1 CA and 2 CL

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by Mogami
"but then again the game makes Bettys and Nells into deadly ship killers, when historically they were not very good at it."

Hi, I don't know, they sank 1 BB 1 BC 1 CA and hit 1 CV and a load of transports. They also damaged at least 1 CA and 2 CL

Now, Mog, let's not transplant Prince of Wales and Repulse into the South Pacific.

Still, I think that Betty and Nellie are pretty much what they ought to be, considering how much better the Allied LBA is than what it was. If we tone them all down, how very boring a game might UV become...