What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Uncommon Valor: Campaign for the South Pacific covers the campaigns for New Guinea, New Britain, New Ireland and the Solomon chain.

Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid

User avatar
tocaff
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: USA now in Brasil

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by tocaff »

How about not allowing squadrons using naval type planes that the pilots aren't carrier qualified from being used on carriers. Corsairs weren't carrier planes until 1944 so they should be LBA only in CF too. Short of banning pilots who aren't qualified from carrier ops, how about a severe penalty in the area of operational loses?
Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by decaro »

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

I didn't know the time period CF covers. Is their anywhere I can read about it? I've herard it spoken about but haven't read info on it. Thanks.[:)]

Since CF is a tactical carrier game superimposed on the UV engine, it may be safe to assume the time frame and theater are the same as in the (old) UV.
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
User avatar
tocaff
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: USA now in Brasil

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by tocaff »

...and another thing.  How about the Allied radar?  Can it be adjusted downwards in effectiveness as the equiptment was new and the operators green?  As the ships gain experience the radar could improve also.
Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by decaro »

I think I said that somewhere on this thread, but no matter.

Will there be clouds, as in CaW? You can't have carrier ops w/o knowing where the clouds are; you can toggle them on/off w/a wx filter.
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
User avatar
Ike99
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:06 pm
Location: A Sand Road

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by Ike99 »

I would like to see CF with all the extra features WITP has. Aircraft reaction range, more specific task force creation, etc., I think everyone would like to see that.

As well, I would like to have the ability to turn off, fighting the battles in the tactical mode and fight them out using the traditional combat resolution in UV. Fighting the battles in tactical mode might be great but then again it might not be so great. To some it may become tedious, or some may wish to speed a 2 player PBEM game along by skipping fighting the battle in tactical mode all together and use the traditional mode.

¨If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.¨ Che Guevara

The more I know people, the more I like my dog.
OG_Gleep
Posts: 302
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2002 10:45 pm

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by OG_Gleep »

This might be too late at this point, but the main thing that sucked me into UV was two screens....the Pilot screen that showed the experience of the pilots in the Air Group, and the Top Pilots accessed via the intel menu that showed the pilots who have downed enemy planes and their fate.

Watching the pilots grow, the tension of the combat screen ....flinching each time a plane went down that I know my elite airgroups fly, and as soon as the new turn started rushing to the Top pilots screen to see if any of my aces were KIA is the whole game to me.

It made all the tedious stuff worthwhile.

Heres what I'd like to see:

Being able to quickly issue orders to my assets without having to click each one.

Example: Opening the planes stationed at a base menu, and being able to give orders from there. That should have all the info I need at a glance needed to make a decision.

The current way it takes way too many clicks. If I want to issue more complex orders I can open up the unit the way it is currently implemented. But 90% of the time I am issuing really simple orders. This process should be streamlined.

2) The ability to give a name to assets. This would allow me to at a glance quickly know what the asset is and what its supposed to be doing. Currently I have to cycle through each unit to find the one I want. At times I totally forget what I originally had planned with a task force when it finally arrives where it supposed to go. This would fix that. Also Airgroups that have names would remind me who they are without having to go into the pilot menu and look at their experience. I don't know if every Airgroup had a name like "Flying Tigers"...if the did, having that in the game would be awesome. At the minimum let us do it.

3) Figure out more ways to let enhance the attatchment to our Pilots .....
Example: In the air combat screen, when an ace is involved in combat, instead of saying "P-39 attacking Range:1" it would say "CMD. Johnson Attacking Range:1".

4) I would also really like a summary screen where it shows if a pilot has gained experience and by how much. Sort of like Madden, when you look at player progression, it lists the skill a +/- and the amount the skill increased or decreased.

5) Fatigue and Disrupition in Malaria bases makes too big of an impact. IMHO it should be slowed down.

6) When a unit loses men, or weapons due to disruption or combat there should be a chance that replacements come in when a supply convoy arrives. Either as a base chance for every shipment, or only shipments from Truk/Brisbane/Noumea.

7) IMHO the impact of bombers is fine.  There has been many complaints but imho it shouldn't get any worse.

8) System Damage when ships are at sea. I get why it accumulates, and the need to have it modled, but it should be re-examined. The rate at which it accumulates vs the rate it is repaired is off.

9) I would really like to see a detailed AAR from combat, particularly with Airgroups. This would let me adjust my tactics a lot better. For example, I have no idea why after Fighter vs Fighter combat, my Airgroups climb and dive on bombers and then  combat just ends. I see 36th FS Climbing, 45th FS Diving on Bombers, 36th FS Climbing on Bomers, 45th FS Diving on bombers, Air to Air combat ends. WTH!?!

Thats all I can think of now. If you can figure out how to connect us to our Pilots, and crew, streamline the amount and how we deal with micromanagement, and give us the tools we need and the best way to use those tools....that would be a game I'd love.
User avatar
RGIJN
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:18 pm
Location: far away from battlefield :-(
Contact:

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by RGIJN »

ORIGINAL: OG_Gleep

Heres what I'd like to see:

Being able to quickly issue orders to my assets without having to click each one.

Example: Opening the planes stationed at a base menu, and being able to give orders from there. That should have all the info I need at a glance needed to make a decision.

The current way it takes way too many clicks. If I want to issue more complex orders I can open up the unit the way it is currently implemented. But 90% of the time I am issuing really simple orders. This process should be streamlined.

2) The ability to give a name to assets. This would allow me to at a glance quickly know what the asset is and what its supposed to be doing. Currently I have to cycle through each unit to find the one I want. At times I totally forget what I originally had planned with a task force when it finally arrives where it supposed to go. This would fix that. Also Airgroups that have names would remind me who they are without having to go into the pilot menu and look at their experience. I don't know if every Airgroup had a name like "Flying Tigers"...if the did, having that in the game would be awesome. At the minimum let us do it.

4) I would also really like a summary screen where it shows if a pilot has gained experience and by how much. Sort of like Madden, when you look at player progression, it lists the skill a +/- and the amount the skill increased or decreased.

5) Fatigue and Disrupition in Malaria bases makes too big of an impact. IMHO it should be slowed down.

6) When a unit loses men, or weapons due to disruption or combat there should be a chance that replacements come in when a supply convoy arrives. Either as a base chance for every shipment, or only shipments from Truk/Brisbane/Noumea.

7) IMHO the impact of bombers is fine.  There has been many complaints but imho it shouldn't get any worse.

8) System Damage when ships are at sea. I get why it accumulates, and the need to have it modled, but it should be re-examined. The rate at which it accumulates vs the rate it is repaired is off.

Nice things! I agree to them, especially bold to the last issue (wearing sys damage). Should be toned down IMHO.
User avatar
RGIJN
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:18 pm
Location: far away from battlefield :-(
Contact:

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by RGIJN »

ORIGINAL: Ike99

I would like to see CF with all the extra features WITP has. Aircraft reaction range, more specific task force creation, etc., I think everyone would like to see that.

As well, I would like to have the ability to turn off, fighting the battles in the tactical mode and fight them out using the traditional combat resolution in UV. Fighting the battles in tactical mode might be great but then again it might not be so great. To some it may become tedious, or some may wish to speed a 2 player PBEM game along by skipping fighting the battle in tactical mode all together and use the traditional mode.


want to stress my true desire for these suggestions too!
OG_Gleep
Posts: 302
Joined: Thu Dec 26, 2002 10:45 pm

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by OG_Gleep »

Oi! Forgot one that I've wanted since 2002:
 
10) When I look at the pilots in the Airgroup, I'd really like the option to see casualties from the Airgroup. The screen needs to have the experience of the pilot or it would be moot. Right now I have to count the number of +80 xp pilots and do a head check after each combat. Very tedious.
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7191
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by HansBolter »

The ability to stage to a forward base, refuel, and then fly on to a distant base for bombing so that my assets don't clog up forward bases.

I been reading Fire in the Sky and Bergerud repeatedly refers to harrassment bombing raids on Rabaul by B-17s flying out of Townsville by staging into Morseby for refueling. The game does not facilitate this.


The ability to scramble planes from a base so they don't get bombed on the ground.

Again Bergerud mentions time and time again that the early warning system allowed the Allies to scramble the P-39s so they could fly out to sea and avoid getting bombed on the ground. They were sometimes referred to by the troops as the "fishing fleet" as a result of this tactic.
Hans

User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7191
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by HansBolter »

ORIGINAL: Ike99

I would like to see CF with all the extra features WITP has. Aircraft reaction range,



I've been playing WitP for a few weeks now and I was unaware it has a "reaction range" for aircraft.

Are you perhaps referring to the ability to limit range for concentration of effort? That is not a "reaction" range as it does not entail reaction, it just limits the distance flown so that searches are more concentarted.
Hans

User avatar
Ike99
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:06 pm
Location: A Sand Road

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by Ike99 »

I've been playing WitP for a few weeks now and I was unaware it has a "reaction range" for aircraft.

Are you perhaps referring to the ability to limit range for concentration of effort? That is not a "reaction" range as it does not entail reaction, it just limits the distance flown so that searches are more concentarted.

In WITP when you give your aircraft missions it has a range setting you can set your aircraft at. For example in UV I may want my betty bombers to react and attack shipping up to 10 hexes away and no more. ¨Naval Attack¨ Otherwise I want them to sit. A problem with the Japanese bombers in UV is they react all the way out to maximum extended range. Anything beyond their normal range and they carry bombs, not torpedos. You may as well be dropping rocks.

What sticks out in my mind is Japanese bombers at Lunga flying all the way to Noumea to attack Allied shipping when really I just want them to attack Allied shipping if they come within say 12-15 hexes. Luganville or above. In WITP you can set this range restriction. In UV you can´t.
¨If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.¨ Che Guevara

The more I know people, the more I like my dog.
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by decaro »

So the inspiration for CF was Shattered Sword; how about a CF tutorial on carrier ops using Midway?
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
User avatar
tocaff
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: USA now in Brasil

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by tocaff »

It'll probably still be Coral Sea, just like UV, because the size is smaller and it's already in existance.
Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7191
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by HansBolter »

ORIGINAL: Ike99
I've been playing WitP for a few weeks now and I was unaware it has a "reaction range" for aircraft.

Are you perhaps referring to the ability to limit range for concentration of effort? That is not a "reaction" range as it does not entail reaction, it just limits the distance flown so that searches are more concentarted.

In WITP when you give your aircraft missions it has a range setting you can set your aircraft at. For example in UV I may want my betty bombers to react and attack shipping up to 10 hexes away and no more. ¨Naval Attack¨ Otherwise I want them to sit. A problem with the Japanese bombers in UV is they react all the way out to maximum extended range. Anything beyond their normal range and they carry bombs, not torpedos. You may as well be dropping rocks.

What sticks out in my mind is Japanese bombers at Lunga flying all the way to Noumea to attack Allied shipping when really I just want them to attack Allied shipping if they come within say 12-15 hexes. Luganville or above. In WITP you can set this range restriction. In UV you can´t.

I understand what you mean now, by the fact that you categorize all naval attack missions as a "reaction". The way they describe limiting air range in the manual focuses on concentrating searches by the limitation, rather than preventing bombers from wasting effort and possibly suffering attrition from extended range missions so I wasn't thinking of it in the way you were. You are correct in categorizing naval attcks as a form of "reaction" but the game never presents in in that vein the way it does with surface TF "reaction". [:)]
Hans

User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by decaro »

ORIGINAL: tocaff

It'll probably still be Coral Sea, just like UV, because the size is smaller and it's already in existance.

Yeah, way too wishful thinking on my part.
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
User avatar
SuluSea
Posts: 2377
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:13 pm

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by SuluSea »

ORIGINAL: Joe D.



Will there be clouds, as in CaW? You can't have carrier ops w/o knowing where the clouds are; you can toggle them on/off w/a wx filter.


Excellent point!!!


"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer
User avatar
Desertmole
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2004 6:22 am

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by Desertmole »

How about doing away with the "Zero Advantage" that has been in every game produced going back to "Great Naval Battles?"   The one that kicks in from Dec '41 to Dec '42.  GG is famous for it and it has been discussed in other threads.  This is over and above the normal advantage for more experienced pilots.  I have studied the F4F vs. the Zero extensively, and it just wasn't there, at least against the USN.  I once had a battle between about 100 Zeros against 100 Wildcats, and had 54 F4Fs lost to ZERO Zeros.  Never happened.  In fact, the actual loss ratios were just slightly less than one-to-one, with the Zero having a slight advantage.  I hate it when the Zeros will routinely get 2 or 3 to 1 kill ratios in fairly equal fights.
I only wish I had you, the gentlemen of the pen, exposed for once to a smart skirmishing fire...
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by decaro »

ORIGINAL: Desertmole

How about doing away with the "Zero Advantage" that has been in every game produced going back to "Great Naval Battles?"   The one that kicks in from Dec '41 to Dec '42.  GG is famous for it and it has been discussed in other threads ...

There has to be something that gives the Zero an initial advantage to simulate the historical conditions/perceptions that resulted in real consequences for Allied pilots.

The Allies didn't learn the truth re the A6M until they recovered one intact in the Aleutians.
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
User avatar
tocaff
Posts: 4765
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: USA now in Brasil

RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force?

Post by tocaff »

The Zero's mystique was also earned against obsolete planes flown by the Allies at the start of the war and by the fact that it was recognized as the 1st carrier fighter that could compete with land bases ones.  The pilots superb skill was due to their extensive training and experience.  It was a relatively short superiority enjoyed by the Zero as the Wildcat eventually (when used properly) proved it's equal and then came the improved planes which made the Zero a flying coffin.
Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
Post Reply

Return to “Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific”