Matrix Games Forums

When measuring UV as a playable, worthwhile investment of gaming hours, it has to bear scrutiny against AH's masterpiece Flat Top. That is the yard stick - UV, and WitP for that matter, need to provide a big enough reason for us to decide to put away FT and turn to the computer.

Why then is UV still apparantly riddled with bemusing things that, some 10 turns into a new PBEM game, has us asking ourselves... "Why don't we just stick to Flat Top, because this is just plain dumb?"

As examples....

Jap fleet at PM - unloading
Multiple airstrikes hitting it... however allied pilots prefer to target Minesweepers and Destroyers rather than Transports

Jap transports moored and unloading - some allied aircraft fail to find the target???? If a task force is in friendly coastal waters then the probability of an air attack not locating them should be zero... you've got "eyes on" havn't you?

Transports loaded with troops and ammo, when hit, never, ever sink.

12 unescorted Betty & Nell get through a US task force cap & flak and score hits on a US flat top

30 escorted SBDs going the other way can't hit anything.

US subs choose to attack IJN destroyers rather than transports

Non SOPAC units cannot be commanded/transported making them useless.. why have them in the game?


We've now had loads of patches and updates, and we really do appreciate the Matrix folks, but some of these NPEs (Negative Playing Experiences) have to get taken care of - and it begs the question "Why havn't they already?"

Naval air attacks seem to have little cognacence of:
Screening (i.e. bombers having to negotiate AA ships before getting anywhere near a Flat Top)
Target Priority (Bombers should always attempt to attack targets of value and not useless auxilliaries)
Damage modified by cargo (Just ask the folks on the Galahad in the Falklands Conflict what a 500lb bomb can do to a loaded troop transport - Any hit to such a vessel is catastrpohic. 3 500lb bomb hits to a AP loaded with an invading force should be enough to sink it, not just cause "18 troop casualties")

Sure fixing the little bugs is nice, but isn't it about time to fix some of the massive NPEs now?

ORIGINAL: Flat Top Junkie

When measuring UV as a playable, worthwhile investment of gaming hours, it has to bear scrutiny against AH's masterpiece Flat Top. That is the yard stick - UV, and WitP for that matter, need to provide a big enough reason for us to decide to put away FT and turn to the computer.

(snip...)

Some of us feel your pain. My worst experience with UV was watching 144 F4F Wildcats on CAP get defeated and chased away, one air group at a time, by 12 superior Zeros escorting 10 B5N Kates ...on their way in to torpedo my CVs.
No kidding, the 12 Zeros didn't get touched, and 144 US Navy F4Fs melted away on CAP over their own hex - and did nothing! When Air Combat Phase ended, I still had 40 Wildcats on the screen but they never had a chance to get at the 10 Kates. The 10 B5Ns got through unharmed...I don't know if their torpedoes went home afterwards...I didn't bother to watch, I turned off the computer muttering a few expletives!

I can't say that I have come across many of these yet ( in my so far limited experience of UV ). But these would annoy me also.

My LRB tend to target transports at Jap bases when other more important ships are present - must be the low AA defense that attracts them !
Attacks should be on Capital ships ( if any ) at Jap bases and Transports at ( or near ) Allied bases ( as you suggest ).

US subs should attack transports in preference to destroyers. As I understand it this was US doctrine - although this may have applied in other Far East Theatres. Mine have yet to sink much at all - but are doing better than the Jap subs!

My SWPAC units can be moved to anywhere - have you been trying to move the Australian Northern Command units ( which cannot leave Australia )? [&:]

My biggest bugbear ( apart from Subs going inland and getting stuck there ) were the multiple attacks on the same vessel ( AG's ) when attacking with PT boats. I understand this has now been fixed.

When measuring UV as a playable, worthwhile investment of gaming hours, it has to bear scrutiny against AH's masterpiece Flat Top. That is the yard stick - UV, and WitP for that matter, need to provide a big enough reason for us to decide to put away FT and turn to the computer.

I agree. Flat Top is a masterpiece. Wish I still had it.

Jap fleet at PM - unloading
Multiple airstrikes hitting it... however allied pilots prefer to target Minesweepers and Destroyers rather than Transports

Targetting has always been an issue. Targetting will always be an issue. It's not going to change. IRL pilots usually had a first target sighted - first target attacked philosophy. Sometimes it wasn't even a worthwhile target or even the wrong one (e.g. Neosho/Sims?, late war picket destroyers, Sheffield [WW2 and Falklands], etc.)

Jap transports moored and unloading - some allied aircraft fail to find the target???? If a task force is in friendly coastal waters then the probability of an air attack not locating them should be zero... you've got "eyes on" havn't you?

What you know and your pilots know are not necessarily the same thing. At Midway Nimitz knew there were 4 IJN carriers in the main body, his pilots sure didn't. They failed to see/attack the Hiryu, even though it was in the same task force as the other extremely flammable ones. Check the weather. In war a sure thing isn't and the impossible is possible.

Transports loaded with troops and ammo, when hit, never, ever sink

Haven't noticed that.

12 unescorted Betty & Nell get through a US task force cap & flak and score hits on a US flat top

30 escorted SBDs going the other way can't hit anything.

If that happens in an early scenario, it's not particularly surprising. CAP vectoring was an art only perfected in '44. How much CAP did your CVTF have? What was the morale/fatigue/altitude of your SBDs? What about the same for your escorts? What kind of CAP did they run into? For SBDs, have them at 15k or above so they make a 9-plane attack. They seem to be more effective than the 4-plane formations (only an opinion tho, never tested it out).

US subs choose to attack IJN destroyers rather than transports

It may have been firing defensively. You have to get through the screen to get to the targets. USN subs were pretty ineffective in 42 anyway.

Non SOPAC units cannot be commanded/transported making them useless.. why have them in the game?

I wouldn't say that they were useless. They free up other troops from garrison duties and they're handy to have when Australia gets invaded. Historically, they represent limited service-area troops.




Hope you don't get rid of the game. It may take a while to accept the results that you can't control, but it's worth it. Overall, it's the best WW2 pacific theater computer game I've ever played.

Targetting has always been an issue. Targetting will always be an issue. It's not going to change. IRL pilots usually had a first target sighted - first target attacked philosophy. Sometimes it wasn't even a worthwhile target or even the wrong one

But this in one of the things where UV falls flat on it's arse. You can't keep dishing out NPEs without players kicking the game into touch. Can you imagine if the bomber crews at Midway had decided that it would be better sport bombing an auxilliary rather than a CV... obviously ridiculous.

Targetting priorities should be easy to incorporate even if you want to include an element of chance. There is no way that an air attack launched against an IJN invasion fleet, currently unloading in Port Moresby, should concentrate fire on MSWs and DDs rather than go after the bigger, anchored, not moving (because they're unloading, transports.

BTW, this is one more thing that UV seems to not take into consideration, that if APs are unloading then they are anchored and stationary - the proverbial sitting duck.

What you know and your pilots know are not necessarily the same thing. At Midway Nimitz knew there were 4 IJN carriers in the main body, his pilots sure didn't. They failed to see/attack the Hiryu, even though it was in the same task force as the other extremely flammable ones. Check the weather. In war a sure thing isn't and the impossible is possible.

Back to the Port Moresby 'incident'. The IJN are in the harbour unloading. Civilians can watch from the dockside! Weather was fine, the aircraft only had to fly zero distance (from PM to PM).

Another question - Do search results, i.e. finding a target, take into account loiter time over the target hex? doesn't look like it. If the air unit has no distance to travel then it can spend it's entire movemenr allowance (in time) looking for it's target. This makes it even more dumb that units would rush in and attack low value targets when they have plenty of time to identify and attack the important ones.

Haven't noticed that.

I always find it amazing. A warship gets hit and sinks after barely a 'scratch'. A nice fat cargo ship, with no armour, takes multiple High Explosive bomb hits, suffers secondary fires, explosions and 'catestrophic' & 'critical' damage but stays afloat ad infinitum and the troops packed in on board take practically no casualties - e.g. IJN AP takes 4 500lb bomb hits. Internal explosions, catestrophic damage etc. etc. Thing is still afloat, total troop casualties 18. In fact more Jap infantry died from appendicitis and a bad case of the mumps during the voyage from Truk than died due to 2000lb of high explosive!

It may have been firing defensively. You have to get through the screen to get to the targets. USN subs were pretty ineffective in 42 anyway.

So, why do subs have a concept of 'screens' and yet TF's don't? If a sub has to get through screening ships to attack transports - which is a quite advanced bit of 'coding', then why don't air units have to negotiate a TF's AA screen before attacking the CVs? It seems to me that this makes the fast BBs useless e.g. South Dakota, as it's sole goal in life was to provide AA screen for the carriers it escorted.

I wouldn't say that they were useless. They free up other troops from garrison duties and they're handy to have when Australia gets invaded. Historically, they represent limited service-area troops.

Then perhaps it is the scanrio set up which is unbalanced then. Take Coral Sea as an example. The bulk of the Allied transport fleet is at Brisbane, with nothing to transport. Sure there are loads of infantry their, 4 Aussie brigades to be precise, but they are all Northern Command forces. So, to transport thing worth while you need to send the transports to Noumea where there are engineers that can be loaded. Useful because engineers are the only troops who can improve a runway.

So... what's the point of having the merchant fleet in Brisbane and have no troops available to transport their?

Hope you don't get rid of the game. It may take a while to accept the results that you can't control, but it's worth it. Overall, it's the best WW2 pacific theater computer game I've ever played.

Against FT ir's proving to be too frustrating and some of the results are such large NPEs that we're quickly contemplating going back to the board game. UV 'looks' great, but just does to many frustrating things. The last thing I want is to be playing a PBEM and lose because of the PC 'AI'. if I cock-up then fine, but there's a world of difference between a dodgy dice roll (acceptable luck) and a barmy 'decision'... ok, lets all bomb that penguin rather than that nice pretty CV.

But this in one of the things where UV falls flat on it's arse. You can't keep dishing out NPEs without players kicking the game into touch. Can you imagine if the bomber crews at Midway had decided that it would be better sport bombing an auxilliary rather than a CV... obviously ridiculous.

I can imagine that the Jap Admiral felt the same way when his planes attacked the Neosho instead of the american CVs. Ridiculous! [:)]

Targetting priorities should be easy to incorporate even if you want to include an element of chance. There is no way that an air attack launched against an IJN invasion fleet, currently unloading in Port Moresby, should concentrate fire on MSWs and DDs rather than go after the bigger, anchored, not moving (because they're unloading, transports.

You have any proof of this? A combat report/replay etc? I find it hard to believe that in UV a sufficently large strike against a TF of APs and DDs will fail to even target the APs. I know i've observed several attacks to the contary.

That said I wouldn't mind an option which allowed you to set target priorites for attacks - like Transport, Flattop, warships, etc. It sometimes bothers me what TF my planes choose to attck, rather than what ships they attack inside said TF.

BTW, this is one more thing that UV seems to not take into consideration, that if APs are unloading then they are anchored and stationary - the proverbial sitting duck.

Perhaps - but then how many transports out of how many air attacks were hit at Lunga Roads? Historically? You know, they were sitting ducks!

Back to the Port Moresby 'incident'. The IJN are in the harbour unloading. Civilians can watch from the dockside! Weather was fine, the aircraft only had to fly zero distance (from PM to PM).

Well, technically they won't be at the harbour (since you would still control the harbour) [;)]. It's a 30milex30mile hex - quite a large peice of real estate - maybe there was a rain squal which moved over their ships.
Anyway UV hardly makes this an 'every time' thing. It's a rare occurrance though I can understand it's frustrating. But keep in mind what's an NPE for you is probably a great PE for you opponent. [:)]

Another question - Do search results, i.e. finding a target, take into account loiter time over the target hex? doesn't look like it. If the air unit has no distance to travel then it can spend it's entire movemenr allowance (in time) looking for it's target. This makes it even more dumb that units would rush in and attack low value targets when they have plenty of time to identify and attack the important ones.

Don't think so. Infact in UV if an aircarft has to fly a short distance pilot fatigue is low. Which would seem to imply that they just fly-attack(or not)-and return. No loiter time.

I always find it amazing. A warship gets hit and sinks after barely a 'scratch'. A nice fat cargo ship, with no armour, takes multiple High Explosive bomb hits, suffers secondary fires, explosions and 'catestrophic' & 'critical' damage but stays afloat ad infinitum and the troops packed in on board take practically no casualties - e.g. IJN AP takes 4 500lb bomb hits. Internal explosions, catestrophic damage etc. etc. Thing is still afloat, total troop casualties 18.

AFAIK the "'catestrophic' & 'critical'" damage reports are just eye-candy.
I've seen several troop ships sink when loaded - I guess your point is that these ships don't suffer more damage compared to unloaded ships. That is correct, but it's never really bothered me. APs are pretty easy to sink as it is. In your example I would expect the AP to sink pretty soon or be very babdly crippled, unless some of the bombs were duds.

In fact more Jap infantry died from appendicitis and a bad case of the mumps during the voyage from Truk than died due to 2000lb of high explosive!

[:D]Thanks! I'm going to use that!

So, why do subs have a concept of 'screens' and yet TF's don't? If a sub has to get through screening ships to attack transports - which is a quite advanced bit of 'coding', then why don't air units have to negotiate a TF's AA screen before attacking the CVs? It seems to me that this makes the fast BBs useless e.g. South Dakota, as it's sole goal in life was to provide AA screen for the carriers it escorted.

AFAIK they do. Strike aricraft are subject to AA fire from the entire TF upto for the first 15 ships or some such thing.

Then perhaps it is the scanrio set up which is unbalanced then. Take Coral Sea as an example. The bulk of the Allied transport fleet is at Brisbane, with nothing to transport. Sure there are loads of infantry their, 4 Aussie brigades to be precise, but they are all Northern Command forces. So, to transport thing worth while you need to send the transports to Noumea where there are engineers that can be loaded. Useful because engineers are the only troops who can improve a runway.

So... what's the point of having the merchant fleet in Brisbane and have no troops available to transport their?

You can't trasport Northern Command Units, but Brisbane is the supply and reinfrocement hub for Australia. Thus it makes sense that the transports would start the senario there... and it's not like you can't move them. To claim that just becasue your transports start the game a few hexes out of position makes the game unbalanced is a stretch IMO.

Against FT ir's proving to be too frustrating and some of the results are such large NPEs that we're quickly contemplating going back to the board game. UV 'looks' great, but just does to many frustrating things. The last thing I want is to be playing a PBEM and lose because of the PC 'AI'. if I cock-up then fine, but there's a world of difference between a dodgy dice roll (acceptable luck) and a barmy 'decision'... ok, lets all bomb that penguin rather than that nice pretty CV.

Ofcourse one should not keep playing the game if all the NPEs stand out. Though if the game produces a result/situation you and your opponent deem un-historic, unfiar, and obviously ridiculous you can always go a turn or two back in your PBEM. Games are supposed to be fun as well. [;)]

You have any proof of this? A combat report/replay etc? I find it hard to believe that in UV a sufficently large strike against a TF of APs and DDs will fail to even target the APs. I know i've observed several attacks to the contary.

Yep, I'll dig them out. 5 Air attacks across 2 days at different altitudes. One of which didnt even find the target even though they were moored in the harbour.

That said I wouldn't mind an option which allowed you to set target priorites for attacks - like Transport, Flattop, warships, etc. It sometimes bothers me what TF my planes choose to attck, rather than what ships they attack inside said TF.

In a game such as UV I would have expected this to be an option.

Perhaps - but then how many transports out of how many air attacks were hit at Lunga Roads? Historically? You know, they were sitting ducks!

But it's always easy to fid one exception to quote... but what is the 'norm'?

I'd rather have the air attack go for the APs and miss, than drop ordnance on a minesweeper!

AFAIK the "'catestrophic' & 'critical'" damage reports are just eye-candy.
I've seen several troop ships sink when loaded - I guess your point is that these ships don't suffer more damage compared to unloaded ships. That is correct, but it's never really bothered me. APs are pretty easy to sink as it is. In your example I would expect the AP to sink pretty soon or be very babdly crippled, unless some of the bombs were duds.

Nope. I'm guessing that these transports will only sink once they've completed unloading. Something I've seen happen before in both Computer opponent and PBEM.

Currently in the PBEM game, the IJN has 4 APs that have taken multiple bomb hits each (ranging between 2 and 5). Stuffed with troops and ammo they're still there, in Moresby, happily unloading.

Ship damage HAS to be based on type and loading, otherwise what's the point?

I'm just waiting for a 500lb bomb to hit an oiler, to see all the 'eye-candy' effects and then still have it complete it's mission and refuel it's attendant task force. [X(]

AFAIK they do. Strike aricraft are subject to AA fire from the entire TF upto for the first 15 ships or some such thing.

Then can you explain how unescorted bombers at low altitude get through to a CV without taking a single hit (or even attack from the destroyer/crusier escorts)?

You can't trasport Northern Command Units, but Brisbane is the supply and reinfrocement hub for Australia. Thus it makes sense that the transports would start the senario there... and it's not like you can't move them. To claim that just becasue your transports start the game a few hexes out of position makes the game unbalanced is a stretch IMO.

It's just daft. OK, to make any use of transports and troops, let's have a 'useful' scenario. Allied forces want to expand Lunga and make it operational for land based air. A base on Guadalcanal.. not too far fetched.

OK, to actually do this, you've first got to move your transports from Brisbane to Noumea.

Next you have to march all those engineering units faffin around on Noumea to the port.

Then you have to freight them to Lunga

Then you have to expand the airfield

By my reckoning, by the time you get to that last bit the scenario is over as time has run out.

BTW, how come you can't parachute troops into bases from Dakotas?

Ofcourse one should not keep playing the game if all the NPEs stand out. Though if the game produces a result/situation you and your opponent deem un-historic, unfiar, and obviously ridiculous you can always go a turn or two back in your PBEM. Games are supposed to be fun as well.

Oh I agree. But the AIM of a PBEM should be to produce a non-biased environment where the players decisions decide the outcome and not some dodgy programming. Back to Coral Sea - the Japs have a big enough advantage in Carriers without the game making the transport/invasion force invincible as well.

You have any proof of this? A combat report/replay etc? I find it hard to believe that in UV a sufficently large strike against a TF of APs and DDs will fail to even target the APs. I know i've observed several attacks to the contary.

Here you go, try this...I replayed the combat and here is the breakdown of the only attack (yep, just 1) from Port Moresby to Port Moresby.

Weather broken cloud, low altitude attack

Strike - 24 Marauder, 6 B-17, 3 Havoc + 30 fighter escort

Enemy ships unloading at PM... i.e not maneuvering in open sea...

1 x CL
4 x AP
2 x DD
1 x ML

APs are the most numerous, largest and most important targets yes? Fully laden with troops.

OK, here goes of the attacks, the breakdown was...

3 formations attacked the CL (total 6 Marauders + 3 B17s)
4 formations attacked the APs (total 11 Marauders)
2 formations attacked the ML (total 3 Havocs + 4 Marauders)
2 formations attacked the DD (total 3 B-17s + 3 Marauders)

So a total of 20 aircraft, about 70% of the strike went after the escorts rather than the transports. Only 11 Marauders actually attacked the APs.

Results.
CL Yubari took one bomb hit
AP Akibasan Maru took one bomb hit, lots of pretty fireworks and apparantely is 'heavily damaged'
AP Mito Maru took one bomb hit, is apparantly on fire

Total Jap troops lost... 41!

Forty friggin one?

Not quite so much on fire, heaviliy damaged, critically hit, explosions below deck....etc etc etc. then.

We're back to a bad case of the chicken pox again.

Jeesh.. when the Forrestal and Enterprise suffered fires in Nam, they suffered hundreds of casualties and they had far more advanced fire control than in WWII.

So, a 500lb explodes below decks on a troop transport and the thing carries on like nothing happened.

Like I said.... NPE!


Oh, I missed something... PM did launch a 2nd attack that day.. 3 B-17s attacked the DD Ushio... go them... they missed.

I can appreciate how many of you feel

Brian Costello, in his book The Pacific War, goes into detail about some of naval/air battles that took place, especially in the early years.

I was amazed how many times pilots got lost, failed to find ships, bombed the wrong ships, and/or flew to the wrong locations. Talk about getting things screwed up...

If some of the things that happened in real life had happened in UV, we would be shaking our heads.

Even if planes are bombing ships anchored in port at PM, we still need to consider the problems of pilot fatigue, experience, being scared, low-level fog, inability to identify proper ships, etc, etc...

The more I read about the real war, the more I can appreciate the results of some of the battles in UV.

Perfect results amd perfect control will never happen in a real war... UV tries to simulate this...

Just remember what happened at Midway.... The results of the real Midway should NOT have happened... but they did occur...

As they say: "Situation normal, all screwed up..."

Perfect results amd perfect control will never happen in a real war... UV tries to simulate this...

Even if planes are bombing ships anchored in port at PM, we still need to consider the problems of pilot fatigue, experience, being scared, low-level fog, inability to identify proper ships, etc, etc...

Pilot Fatigue? They havn't been doing anything else. One mission per day at most.

Experience? They're bomber crews arnt they?

Scared? I think they should be more scared of PM getting invaded, but hang on, 1 CL, 2 DD and an ML escort... exactly what are they scared about? Hardly flying into a wall of Ack-Ack

Low level fog? OK, are we making parameters up now? If so can we include sea state and wind speed. On how many occassions were carrier aircraft operation hindered, if not stopped completely because of a lack of wind?

Inability to identify the proper ships? They're the ones unloading Japanese troops and shooting at you! Also, this goes back to the 'time over target' thing... the more time over the target the better targetting should be because they *can* take their time on target selection.

I wouldn't mind so much, if the combat results, when you do finally get a hit, were at all realistic. Two 500lb bomb hits on a troop transport... total casualties 18? Never sinking transports.... amazing how they stay afloat just long enough to unload. On the Galahad in the Falklands, wasn't it one 250lb bomb that killed 50 guards and injured about 200?

I'm not expecting perfect, I am expecting repeatable, explainable and sensible combat results. Not randomness to the point of being ridiculous.

The game should hinge on the decision making of the player not on the vaguaries of the AI.

Like I said before, we're regretting coming back to the PC because we're both disheartened by daft goings on... Flat Top still rules and it still has random results, but at least they're not ridiculous.

[:@]

Remember that you have pilots that are flying in aircraft that on an average start out at around 9k-15k above thier target. So you have that height problem on top of that AAA in any form is very unsettling; I use to fix A-6's and was in during Desert Storm, even though most of my pilots flew above the AAA a number of them came back drenched in sweat (and we had to replace a couple of the seat cushion on the ejection seats) just from raking the aircraft around the fire that was coming up at them, one of the pilots that I had in my outfit was on the JFK in 83 when they bombed Lebanon. There the fire was estimated to be about a 4-5 batteries (about 5 guns to a Soviet AA Battery) of 57mm and 23mm guns firing up at them. He talked about being scared then and talked about being scared when flying over Kuwait then. So if you add in to that most of the reports were from aerial scouting platforms or scared troopers on the ground most of the time. Even then they are going to mix up what thier targets are and what the biggest priorty are. For any troops on the ground it wasn't the transports, but the ships with the big guns that needed to be taken out. The transports and the troops on them could be delt with as needed.
I can understand your complaint against the bomb hits and damage model. However, again you have to go back and understand unless there is a recon bird right afterwards or even another pass by a patrol bird, then what you have is bomb damage assements done by the aircrews in real life. So you have 20 guys all reporting dropping bombs on 10 transports and all of them reporting hits, but what may be hits as observed by them may be near misses that explode next to the waterline, or even right on the superstructure. So instead of a bomb exploding in the bowels of a ship rather you have bombs that may be exploding on the crane booms or forward gun mounts. Witnesses are not reliable and witness under an adrendline rush are very unreliable, that is a fact. I have always assumed that this was the way they do the damage model and combat reporting in this game and in WiTP. The damage model and combat reporting was done the same way in the previous games by these guys. Great games such as Carrier Strike and Pacific War.

However, again you have to go back and understand unless there is a recon bird right afterwards or even another pass by a patrol bird, then what you have is bomb damage assements done by the aircrews in real life. So you have 20 guys all reporting dropping bombs on 10 transports and all of them reporting hits, but what may be hits as observed by them may be near misses that explode next to the waterline, or even right on the superstructure. So instead of a bomb exploding in the bowels of a ship rather you have bombs that may be exploding on the crane booms or forward gun mounts. Witnesses are not reliable and witness under an adrendline rush are very unreliable, that is a fact.

No, this isn't the case because the 'action' we are talking about is taking place in Port Moresby's hex and the enemy transports are unloading along the Allied coast. The 'recon' is being done by a few hundred guys with the Mark 1 eye-ball.
Weather is not an issue as if the aircraft can take off from the airfield in the same hex, then they should have no problem locating the target.

In my case I have 33 combat aircraft reporting a total of 3 hits... combat report says two of those were critical, so either they were, or they wern't. If the combat reports is so wildnly and unpredictably inaccurate, then what is the point of having it? It just becomes a piece of useless arcade game 'fluff'.

But if I interpret you correctly, perhaps the transports are more badly hit than they are, they're not really unloading thousands of troops onto the shoreline and just perhaps, they're not really their at all.

Keep remembering all the while that this is happening in Port Moresby, currently occupied by, what, about 100,000 allied troops?

This is all based on the combat processing and your claim that it is all 'Fog of War'. But basically this would make the game totally unplayable as you could never, ever, place any reliance into any combat results.

As one person has commented, are all the fancy messages during a combat replay just 'eye candy' or is their really something going on.

I have to assume that for an attack:
1. AI determines if a hit has been scored
2. If so, determine if it is a critical hit
3. If so, determine the nature of the critical damage
4. If not, determine the nature of the normal damage.

Now, if I can do this using two d6 and a piece of paper then surely the PC can perform this task a little better?

But from what you say, am I to also gather that I havn't hit the ships at all... could be.... you see, this is another fundamental flaw in UV. Whenever a BDA is filed it should have an accompanying 'accuracy score' - in fact, that's exactly what they do in real life. Otherwise any commander wouldn't have a clue as to what was actually going on. Corroborating reports would improve that accuracy. Proximity of the recon also. Why not in UV?

Are we to just spend the entire game guessing as to what damage we've really done?

Sorry, but UV still falls way short of Flat Top. Sure it 'looks' pretty, but some of the fundamentals are just too screwed up.

Remember that you have pilots that are flying in aircraft that on an average start out at around 9k-15k above thier target. So you have that height problem on top of that AAA in any form is very unsettling; I use to fix A-6's and was in during Desert Storm, even though most of my pilots flew above the AAA a number of them came back drenched in sweat (and we had to replace a couple of the seat cushion on the ejection seats) just from raking the aircraft around the fire that was coming up at them, one of the pilots that I had in my outfit was on the JFK in 83 when they bombed Lebanon. There the fire was estimated to be about a 4-5 batteries (about 5 guns to a Soviet AA Battery) of 57mm and 23mm guns firing up at them. He talked about being scared then and talked about being scared when flying over Kuwait then. So if you add in to that most of the reports were from aerial scouting platforms or scared troopers on the ground most of the time. Even then they are going to mix up what thier targets are and what the biggest priorty are. For any troops on the ground it wasn't the transports, but the ships with the big guns that needed to be taken out. The transports and the troops on them could be delt with as needed.

BTW, I had and lost friends flying RAF Tornados in Gulf War I dropping JP233 on Iraqi airfields on the deck. Now that's scary!

[&o]

Facing the combined AA firepower of a light cruiser and two destroyers... probably what... a handful of light machine guns between them... isnt!

Troops on land arn't worried about non-capital ships, a shore bombardment isn't going to be carried out by destroyers. If a herking great heavy cruiser or battleship was sighted off shore, that would be a different matter.

I think the player should have to ability to set target priorities, this would seem to be more logical and 'real world'

e.g. When the British were unloading in San Carlos the Argentinians primarily attacked the military vessels having been ordered to not bomb the troop transports in particular the Canberra. Now, perhaps this was a political decision, but in any case they did hit a number of RN frigates to devastating effect with dumb bombs that in many cases didn't even explode (because they were dropping from such a low height that many didn't arm).

Now, the carnage they couldv'e inflicted on the transports given different target priorities could have been catestrophic!

e.g. When the British were unloading in San Carlos the Argentinians primarily attacked the military vessels having been ordered to not bomb the troop transports

To paraphrase: Not " logical and 'real world' ". Those Argentinian pilots were obviosuly trained in the UV flight sim. [:'(]

Flat Top Junkie:

You seem to want to have perfect control over all of your units and the attacks they carry out. This will not happen.

You are the Theatre Commander. You give orders for what you want done, and then hope things don't get screwed up (as they did in the real war). Some pilots get lost; some pilots turn tail; some bombs don't detonate; some bombs are released early; some pilots are tired; etc....

UV tries to simulate this uncertainty of war. The combat reports are mostly correct, except for the fact that some of the data is wrong or misleading (just like in the real war when several pilots claimed hits on ships that never happened).

Again, FoW, faulty pilot reporting, pilot error, and a hundred other variables are going to give you unpredictable results in battle.

Again, I would suggest reading Costello's book. It's an eye-opener as to what happened in the real war. The screw-ups will amaze you...

I would also suggest reading up in detail about what happened at the Battle of Midway.

After reading the book I began to appreciate how much UV really models what happened in the war.

You seem to want to have perfect control over all of your units and the attacks they carry out. This will not happen.

You are the Theatre Commander. You give orders for what you want done, and then hope things don't get screwed up (as they did in the real war). Some pilots get lost; some pilots turn tail; some bombs don't detonate; some bombs are released early; some pilots are tired; etc....

Nope, I don't want perfect control - I'd just like SOME control.

As it is as Theatre Commander, I have little to no control, so, what's the point of the game? If the idea is to have no control over what your sub-ordinate commanders attack and over what their sub-ordinates actually do then UV should make this patently clear.

The problem with UV is that these so called 'mistakes' happen all the time. Jeesh it's so bad that it would almost being like having the Normandy landings miss France and pitch up in Spain by mistake.

UV tries to simulate this uncertainty of war. The combat reports are mostly correct, except for the fact that some of the data is wrong or misleading (just like in the real war when several pilots claimed hits on ships that never happened).

Combat reports should have a 'Confidence Level' as they do in real life, indicating the likelyhood of the information being accurate - otherwise combat reports are useless.

Again, I would suggest reading Costello's book. It's an eye-opener as to what happened in the real war. The screw-ups will amaze you...

I would also suggest reading up in detail about what happened at the Battle of Midway.

After reading the book I began to appreciate how much UV really models what happened in the war.

I've read more books on the subject than I can remember - I'm not saying that screw-ups didn't occur. The problem is that in UV they ALWAYS occur and the player has no control over it.

You cite Midway... well, luck played a huge part, but the US bomber strokes still hit the IJN carriers didnt they? I havn't read any reports to indicate that the SBDs mercilessly pounded IJN auxilliaries.

And once again, can I just say, that in the case of this invasion of PM I can see the ships from the coast, heck they're in the shallows unloading... I can see them hit or not, I can see them burn... but UV treats them exactly the same as if the action was happening 1000 miles out at sea - daft.

ORIGINAL: Veer
To paraphrase: Not " logical and 'real world' ". Those Argentinian pilots were obviosuly trained in the UV flight sim. [:'(]

Well, they did exactly what they were told to do by their commanders. Good for the Brits that they chose self preservation over the arming requirements for the bombs they used. [:)]

But we were talking about the ships they targetted.... i.e. the Theatre Commander had total control over the prioritisation of targets. They were told not to attack troop transports and hospital ships... and they didnt.

Flat Top Junkie:

I felt the same way you do when I first started playing UV.

Then my feelings changed. Some battles didn't go my way, but I slowly learned when and where to attack, etc...

When my units don't find ships or carriers I chalked it up to the vagaries of war...

Often, however, over the course of the campaign my troops got more experience and did better in battle.

I personally love the uncertainty that UV has built into the game.

But others may feel differently; we all have our own tolerance levels...

Just keep playing and look upon the battles and the results as being a part of war, and soon you will appreciate the uncertainty that UV offers.

Just keep playing and look upon the battles and the results as being a part of war, and soon you will appreciate the uncertainty that UV offers.

Actually we decided today that we're done with UV... today's turn was the straw that broke the camel's back for both of us. Amazingly enough my opponent was the first to say "screw this, that's ridiculous". Why? well....

1st off yet another unpredicatble, all day thunderstorm pops up over Port Moresby and prevents ALL flight operations from that base. Same thunderstorm doesn't prevent IJN invasion force unloading though.

Next, a US sub find the IJN CV Shokaku, but decides instead to launch not one, but two torps at a destroyer.

Next, weather is fine for flight ops out of Buna, bomber crew's fatigue is low, plenty of escorts, enemy ship sightings all around, but only a Recon flight takes off bound for Shortland. Everyone else sits around talking about doing nothing.

And then the final straw...

Allied task force engages IJN ships

Allied forces have surprise (4x CA, 1x CL, 5x DD)

Against IJN (1x CL, 3x DD, 1x AP)

Two IJN ships lose turrets before the fights even started, but continue to fire for the entire combat with those same turrets.
Allied ships never fire a single shot at the IJN Transport and break off the fight at 10000 yards. Allied ships concentrate all fire onto a single IJN DD even though the thing should sink halfway through the combat.

Combat Result
IJN
CL Tenryu hits 4, on fire
DD Yayoi hits 2, on fire
DD Yuzuki hits 16!, on fire!!!!
DD Kikosuki hits 1
AP China Maru, hits 0... not even fired at!

Allied
CA Portland 2 hits
CA Chicago 2 hits
CA New Orleans on fire (no hits, but on fire?????)
CA Australia
CL Hobart
DDx4
DD Phelps Torpedo hit, on fire

Oh, and the Allied fleet didnt fire any torpedos either.

So, we sat down had a chat and decided that this was just to plain stupid for words. We're just plain wasting our time with UV because the game is ridiculous. The whole weather thing is stupid and the combat resoultion seems to be just ridiculous. In short, UV just spoils our enjoyment of the game.... ho hum... guess we're going back to Flat Top...

[:@]

Allied ships never fire a single shot at the IJN Transport and break off the fight at 10000 yards. Allied ships concentrate all fire onto a single IJN DD even though the thing should sink halfway through the combat.


Enough with the whining! [:-]
Hisotrically, (mid 1942 to late 1942) US radar control was less than perfect in that often all the US ships would blast the closest IJN ship and everything else would be left alone.
So this is not a particularly ahistorical result.

UV is far from perfect, but in the war there is fog of war. And less than smart attacks happen all the time..

Also, are you playing PBEM or vs computer. If one plays vs the computer on hard or very hard levels the computer "cheats". Ie, the results are purposely skewed. SO if you are playing on that level and the computer gets outrageous luck...Well that is how it was designed. It forces you to pick off the weak pieces one by one...I agree that is stupid and not fun, but then play PBEM....

I also remember that during the Marianas Turkey shoot
A. 1 of the Japanese attack groups attacked the AA screen which was 40 miles in front of the CVs and got reamed...
B. Another attack force completely missed the USN.

And historically some ships went down pretty easily it seems and yet others took a ton of punishment (the US Alciba transports took a torpedo, was beached and then took another torpedo...Yet the crew managed to fix it up)...