UV: a dead end?

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
CapAndGown
Posts: 3078
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Virginia, USA

UV: a dead end?

Post by CapAndGown »

I have read many posts here a) anticipating WitP and b) stating that no more development of UV will be done except bug fixes because development is focused on WitP. While many of you might want to play out the whole war I am only interested in this particular theater. I bought UV because I wanted to play this theater and if WitP had come out instead I would not have bought it. So I hope that UV is not finished. For instance, it would seem that many players agree that jap torp doctrine in night battles is not adequately modeled. I would like to see that fixed so the japs can recreate Savo and Tassafaronga. Other people are suggesting ideas all the time on this forum as well. I would hope to see many of the better ones implemented in UV, not just in WitP. I would be very disappointed if I had bought a dead end product.

Bottom line: I like UV so far, have a few problems here and there, don't want to buy WitP, and want some of these things addressed in the game I own, not one I am not going to buy.
pad152
Posts: 2835
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2000 8:00 am

Post by pad152 »

Matrix is still supporting and releasing updates to PacWar and have no doubt that they will still be supporting UV but, updates will be slowing down.

There are still a lot of things I would like to see in UV but, may have to wait until the release of WiTP for some of them.
Black Cat
Posts: 604
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2002 6:46 pm

Re: UV: a dead end?

Post by Black Cat »

Originally posted by cap_and_gown
I have read many posts here a) anticipating WitP and b) stating that no more development of UV will be done except bug fixes because development is focused on WitP. While many of you might want to play out the whole war I am only interested in this particular theater. I bought UV because I wanted to play this theater and if WitP had come out instead I would not have bought it. So I hope that UV is not finished. For instance, it would seem that many players agree that jap torp doctrine in night battles is not adequately modeled. I would like to see that fixed so the japs can recreate Savo and Tassafaronga. Other people are suggesting ideas all the time on this forum as well. I would hope to see many of the better ones implemented in UV, not just in WitP. I would be very disappointed if I had bought a dead end product.

Bottom line: I like UV so far, have a few problems here and there, don't want to buy WitP, and want some of these things addressed in the game I own, not one I am not going to buy.
While I like your idea, I doubt your going to see specific Tactical level operations and battles ( Savo, etc ) in this game. The code just does not support that and I doubt WITP will either.

Even the ship VS ship Toyko Express battles in UV are highly abstracted.

Over the years there has been much talk among Fans of combining Grigsby`s " Carrier Strike" as a module within PacWar to play out the CV vs CV tactical battles but nothings ever come of so I suspect it`s not do-able.
User avatar
Joel Billings
Posts: 33034
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Contact:

Post by Joel Billings »

UV patches will continue, but at a greatly reduced rate come mid September when WitP work increases. Changes made to improve the system for WitP will likely be made in UV. What isn't likely is changes that would only go in UV but not WitP that are not bug related. UV is not an online subscription game in which we get ongoing revenue, so I don't see how we can be expected to continue to change a game other than to fix bugs. This game has already had more features added after release than 99% of the published products in the world. That's my $.02.

Joel
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
Erik Rutins
Posts: 39324
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
Contact:

Comment...

Post by Erik Rutins »

I have to agree with Joel. There will always be someone who wants something added or changed in UV. It stands as an excellent wargame that has had support well beyond the norm since release to bring it as close to perfection as humanly possible. I would hope that the effort Matrix and 2 by 3 have put in here has been appreciated rather than taken for granted.

I don't follow how a game that was outstanding out of the box and has seen not only bug fixes but feature additions on the order of 50 or so per update is a "dead end". By your definition, which games are not "dead ends"?

Regards,

- Erik
Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC


Image

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.
elmo3
Posts: 5797
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 10:00 am

Post by elmo3 »

Cap

I don't think we're going to see anything like what we have with the Panzer Campaigns. That, for those not familiar with it, is a series of WWII grand tactical games based on the same game engine. As a new game comes out the older ones are updated with the newer code. If UV were the first in a "Carrier Campaigns" series then I think it would be fair to ask for enhancements to be retrofitted to it as the series progressed. However I don't think the game was ever touted as being the first in a series.

IMO if we get the necessary bug fixes and any appropriate enhancements that are part of WitP then that is fair. On your specific example of IJN night torpedo doctrine being modeled properly, that certainly would be something that should be done correctly in WitP too. So if Matrix/2by3 decide it needs fixing then it would be fixed in both games if I read Joel correctly.

elmo3
We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
User avatar
Erik Rutins
Posts: 39324
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
Contact:

Zigackly.

Post by Erik Rutins »

Elmo,

Yep, you've pretty much got it.

Regards,

- Erik
Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC


Image

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.
User avatar
Oleg Mastruko
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2000 8:00 am

Post by Oleg Mastruko »

Originally posted by elmo3
Cap

I don't think we're going to see anything like what we have with the Panzer Campaigns. That, for those not familiar with it, is a series of WWII grand tactical games based on the same game engine. As a new game comes out the older ones are updated with the newer code. If UV were the first in a "Carrier Campaigns" series then I think it would be fair to ask for enhancements to be retrofitted to it as the series progressed. However I don't think the game was ever touted as being the first in a series.

IMO if we get the necessary bug fixes and any appropriate enhancements that are part of WitP then that is fair.
To be perfectly honest to Matrix and 2by3 we (or at least - I) must say PzC (Panzer Campaigns) are wwwaaaayy more "generic", and I would dare say - more simple, than UV.

Indeed, PzC is more like "series of scenarios" for the same engine, than it is a "game series". I guess it's very easy to "retrofit" new fixes to what is basically identical game engine.

I expect UV and WITP to be lot more different than average games from PzC series are between themselves.

I agree with you elmo that if they do what is announced in this thread, that would be perfectly fair. What bothers me is number of new bugs some of patches manage to introduce, and disregard for some pretty old and nasty bugs (ie. I don't get the impression they are being fixed).

O.
elmo3
Posts: 5797
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 10:00 am

Post by elmo3 »

Originally posted by Oleg Mastruko


...snip...What bothers me is number of new bugs some of patches manage to introduce, and disregard for some pretty old and nasty bugs (ie. I don't get the impression they are being fixed).

O.
Erik nicely addressed the issue of new bugs being introduced in the "Should i buy this game" thread.
We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing. - George Bernard Shaw

WitE alpha/beta tester
Sanctus Reach beta tester
Desert War 1940-42 beta tester
User avatar
CapAndGown
Posts: 3078
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Virginia, USA

Post by CapAndGown »

Thanks for the replies.

Yes, I am thinking of Panzer Campaigns which has been steadily evolving over the years. I would also mention that TOAW was an evolving system until Norm Kroger was cut out of the loop by the new owners of Talon Soft. I guess this with the wargamer community being small as it is I have come to expect this level attention. Let me add that one reason I bought the game was because of the support level Matrix and 2x3 have shown on this board.

The designers comments above are enough to satisfy me. As long as those ideas that make their way into WitP find their way into UV as well, I will be happy.
User avatar
Sabre21
Posts: 7877
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2001 8:00 am
Location: on a mountain in Idaho

Post by Sabre21 »

Ahhh...so now I know the rest of the story...pertaining to Talonsoft that is. I visited one of their boards recently and was appalled that nothing had been posted in months...oh well...all the good wargamers have migrated either here or over to Shrapnel over the last year or so. Time flies so fast can't remember, must be having to much fun:)

Matrix is definitly got a lot of new games coming out that I'm interested in...I am thankful there is a dedicated wargaming company still out there.

OK...enuf buttering up...where's my copy of WiTP, Battlefields, and the Napoleon Wars:D :D


Sabre21


PS: Erik...are you ever gonna try and make any of the WWIII games...I got a bzillion 35mm slides on that kindof stuff I can digitize not to mention a few mpegs..including a couple using thermal imagery.
Image
User avatar
siRkid
Posts: 4177
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Orland FL

Post by siRkid »

Talonsoft cut their own throat as far as I'm concerned. Some of the best companies have gone to the dogs. Its like going to my old AH link and seeing Hasbro pop up. Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha Matrix, please, please don't let the suits buy you out.
Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

Image
ReDDoN45
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 10:00 am

Post by ReDDoN45 »

YES!!!! SSI dead! Talonsoft DEAD! GRRRRRRRR they left excelletent TOAW alone - this game, if it would have been further improved (beyond COW) would be really unbeatable. Still there are too many bugs/things to be improved in air/ground and supply routine..........

It´s really a pitty!
Bis dat qui cito dat!
XPav
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 2:25 am
Location: Northern California
Contact:

Post by XPav »

Talonsoft could not make enough money selling wargames to keep themselves afloat. They bailed out, and sold their assets to Take 2.

Whose fault is that really?
I love it when a plan comes together.
User avatar
siRkid
Posts: 4177
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Orland FL

Post by siRkid »

Originally posted by XPav
Talonsoft could not make enough money selling wargames to keep themselves afloat. They bailed out, and sold their assets to Take 2.

Whose fault is that really?
Not mine. I bought every Battle Ground and Campaign series they put out. I think it was when they tried to expanded into the RTS and RPG arena that they fell on their sword.
Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

Image
User avatar
Erik Rutins
Posts: 39324
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA
Contact:

Sabre21...

Post by Erik Rutins »

Andy,

Funny you should ask... :D I was just mentioning you today to Robert Crandall, who's looking for research help with our Flashpoint: Germany title. I think that would be right up your alley as it's modern NATO/WP and is coming together very well. Head over to the Flashpoint forum here (a few links down) and let Robert know I sent ya. :)

Regards,

- Erik
Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC


Image

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.
chrisp
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 4:45 am
Location: Wichita, KS

Post by chrisp »

Originally posted by XPav
Talonsoft could not make enough money selling wargames to keep themselves afloat. They bailed out, and sold their assets to Take 2.

Whose fault is that really?
I'm not blaming Talonsoft. But Take2 has ceased support on all Talonsoft products. This means the cave bug in Rising Sun will never get fixed, no night rules for WF, no changes to the atrocious Divided Ground. Norm Kroger has said that he has patches to ACOW that he can't put out because Take2 won't let him.

I can't understand Take2's attitude. Or maybe I can, and just don't want to admit it.

Chris P.
XPav
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 2:25 am
Location: Northern California
Contact:

Post by XPav »

Its very simple.

Take2 doesn't care.

Not in the slightest.

Will it make them money? Probably not. Therefore, they don't do it.
I love it when a plan comes together.
Mojo
Posts: 434
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Portland, Oregon USA

Post by Mojo »

Divided Ground was what soured me on Talonsoft and Take 2. Great concept but tech support?

What tech support?

they won't make another penny from me. I don't care what they put out.

I almost gave up on the genre until I found Matrix.
If something's not working you might want to tunk it a dite.
Mojo's Mom
ReDDoN45
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 10:00 am

Post by ReDDoN45 »

Ain´t there a way that Norm Koger can bypass Take 2 and put out his patches nevertheless.

BTW is Divided Ground build on the same engine as EF/WF?
Bis dat qui cito dat!
Post Reply

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