Matrix Games Forums

New Screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTYCommand: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTY is now available!Frontline : The Longest Day Announced and in Beta!Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

CF Progress 28 Feb 2009

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> CF Progress 28 Feb 2009 Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
CF Progress 28 Feb 2009 - 2/28/2009 8:43:11 PM   
Mike Wood


Posts: 2094
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline
Hello...

Sent a build to testers, last night. This week, worked in a couple areas.

Added new editor changes to game code. These included air group missions and targets, task force missions, including the new ASW and crippled ship escort missions, ability for task forces to begin scenario with land units loaded, carrier capable toggle for aircraft and carrier trained toggle for air groups, air group and aircraft type upgrades, home bases for task forces, ship class refits, aircraft nationalities, aircraft dive rates and attack aircraft toggle. Most of these were also used in WIP or will be in AE: WIP. Some are unique to CF, as scale differences dictate needs.

Made some interface changes. When sending a ship to Pearl or Tokyo, the player can choose to have ship refit or not. Added tactical phase aircraft out loads to encyclopedia for long range, normal range and naval attacks. The out load is selected, when the player is preparing the flight, before he launches. Added a number of new data to group and aircraft screens, to better inform player of capabilities of groups and aircraft.

The new code for bombing missions determines how planes attack. Dive bombers will dive bomb from high altitude, from lower altitudes, dive bombers will glide bomb. Depending on altitude, fighter bombers and fighters will either strafe of glide bomb. Torpedo bombers and level bombers will toss bomb, level bomb, skip bomb or launch torpedoes, depending on out load and assigned altitude.

Added code for new kind of aircraft, attack aircraft. These would include planes like the A-20. They are generally twin engine bombers designed for low level attacks. At higher altitudes, they level bomb, but at lower altitudes they make a long strafing run from 1000 feet and toss bomb at 500 feet. These runs are made at high speed and not in formation.

There are also a couple fighter bombers which can also fire rockets or launch torpedoes.

Each type of bombing has unique code and is handled differently. Some are more accurate, undergo more or less anti-aircraft fire, are more useful against shipping or land based targets and when combined with the different out loads cloud base, cloud density and aircraft airspeed should take a while for the players to learn what attacks they feel are the optimal for any particular aircraft in specific weather conditions with a crew of a given experience level. As conditions change, the player can radio the flight and change orders, although so doing may allow enemy radio interception to increase detection level.

Expect to work this coming week on adding changes already made on carrier flight and hangar decks to airfields, as well as new code for airfields not found on ships.

Working...

Michael Wood
Post #: 1
RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009 - 2/28/2009 11:06:35 PM   
Long Lance


Posts: 273
Joined: 7/31/2002
From: Ebbelwoi Country
Status: offline
Very fine! Finally, A-20 is not the more or less useless or at least weak little Brother of the B-25/26 anymore.

(in reply to Mike Wood)
Post #: 2
RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009 - 2/28/2009 11:55:00 PM   
Custer

 

Posts: 92
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Each type of bombing has unique code and is handled differently. Some are more accurate, undergo more or less anti-aircraft fire, are more useful against shipping or land based targets and when combined with the different out loads cloud base, cloud density and aircraft airspeed should take a while for the players to learn what attacks they feel are the optimal for any particular aircraft in specific weather conditions with a crew of a given experience level. As conditions change, the player can radio the flight and change orders, although so doing may allow enemy radio interception to increase detection level.




This does not seem very historical and strikes me as being very "gamey". I have been trying hard to think of a time when a Superior used a radio to change strike orders of the on scene commander. I can think of no such example.

I do not think any on scene commander leading a strike group would ever listen to someone back at base about how to conduct the tactics on scene. This strikes me as being over controlling.

(in reply to Mike Wood)
Post #: 3
RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009 - 3/1/2009 9:00:22 AM   
Mike Wood


Posts: 2094
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline
Hello...

I agree.

However, there are only two kinds of people who play computer games, control freaks and adrenal freaks. The latter are off playing Doom, so I have to write games for the former. A truly 'realistic' game would frustrate the players so much, we could only sell to people who lived on the first floor, for fear of the fall. As theatre commander, the player could only give general, written orders and there would at least a day of two delay before the subordinate commanders would receive and decode the orders could start working up a plan to execute them. The subordinate would often misinterpret the orders. The player most likely would not hear anything for several days, and would then receive reports based on the Intel of the subordinate. So, the icons on the map would usually be in the wrong locations, the numbers of planes at the bases would be out of date, positions and compositions of the task forces would be out of date, he might not hear anything at all from a subordinate for several more days, as he waited to find out what happened. And, even then the reports received would be the inaccurate guesses of the subordinate, flavored by his own prejudices and fears.

Past experience with this series has shown that as supreme commander of all allied or Japanese forces on half the planet, players wanted specific and individual control over every airplane, every tank and every infantryman digging a latrine. The most common 'bug' report I have received has traditionally been that subordinate commanders took self initiative, disobeyed orders or did not do what the player thought he intended to order them to do.

Until now, if a target is socked in, the group turns around and comers home. This new rule simulates the existence of secondary, tertiary targets or targets of opportunity and gives the player a greater control over what targets of opportunity might be attacked. The new radio rule also allows the player to manually abort missions, in case he decides to run away and wants the aircraft to get back to the carrier. It allows him to change altitudes as the weather changes. It gives him a greater degree of control over the flights. Even if not used, I believe most players will want the option to have that control.

Players who have continually complained that their strike went after a tanker and a destroyer and not the carrier task force clearly showing on the map will now be able to manually direct the strike to that carrier task force and not blame my artificial intelligence. Of course, once the strike gets there and attacks a seaplane tender and two patrol boats which had been incorrectly identified, they may still suffer come angst. And, they will learn that the Japanese and some allied commanders (and some players) intentionally had screening forces travel in front of the carrier task force, so that enemy strikes would attack them instead.

As far as being able to radio flights and change orders, I talked with Joel Billings about that very issue, just today. There are disadvantages to so doing. The first is that a radio message may increase enemy detection of the flight or carrier sending the message. Too much time on the radio and the enemy will know exactly where your carrier is and where your flight is and is headed. The second is that new targets have had no preparation for attack and attacks against them will not fare so well. The third is that the flight in question may not have proper ordnance or enough fuel to accomplish the new mission or attack the new target and will abort the attack, anyway. These are some of the main reasons that carrier commanders did not talk a lot with the strike commanders. But, they could have and so we have added the option.

Hope this helps clarify my logic...

Michael Wood

quote:

ORIGINAL: Custer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Each type of bombing has unique code and is handled differently. Some are more accurate, undergo more or less anti-aircraft fire, are more useful against shipping or land based targets and when combined with the different out loads cloud base, cloud density and aircraft airspeed should take a while for the players to learn what attacks they feel are the optimal for any particular aircraft in specific weather conditions with a crew of a given experience level. As conditions change, the player can radio the flight and change orders, although so doing may allow enemy radio interception to increase detection level.




This does not seem very historical and strikes me as being very "gamey". I have been trying hard to think of a time when a Superior used a radio to change strike orders of the on scene commander. I can think of no such example.

I do not think any on scene commander leading a strike group would ever listen to someone back at base about how to conduct the tactics on scene. This strikes me as being over controlling.



(in reply to Custer)
Post #: 4
RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009 - 3/1/2009 12:42:36 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4658
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline
Thanks for the update and sharing those thoughts with us.

_____________________________

Todd

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

(in reply to Mike Wood)
Post #: 5
RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009 - 3/1/2009 6:49:19 PM   
RGIJN


Posts: 1057
Joined: 11/24/2006
From: far away from battlefield :-(
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Thanks for the update and sharing those thoughts with us.



yeah. Keep it up!

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 6
RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009 - 3/19/2009 7:47:59 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2084
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
Mike, thank you for the update. I think it's safe to say most of us are thrilled that the project is moving forward. Please keep us posted.

_____________________________


”How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” ~ Samuel Adams

(in reply to RGIJN)
Post #: 7
RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009 - 3/19/2009 10:57:22 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3615
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
Thanks for the update.

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 8
RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009 - 3/20/2009 4:07:40 PM   
xj900uk

 

Posts: 1218
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline
Speaking as ex-RAF aircrew with a keen interest in the historical air-war over the Pacific, I can confirm that it was very rare, if non-existant, for the strike target to be changed once the strike had actually been launched (I can actually think of only one case for the US in the War in the Pacific).  A recall, where the strike was ordered to return to the carrier or base, was more common,  but often when this happened not all the planes would hear it and continue to their target - in the case of the USN with their infinitly tunable HF receivers,  often the recall order would not be heard at all.
The FAA, with their 4 pre-set communication frequencies,  practiced changing strike target and recalls, although in practice these too rarely happened.  However it should be noticed that the FAA had far superior FDO-CAP & strike communication than either the USN or the IJN, thanks to months of training at Yeovilton & then hoaning their skills in the Med.
Re the IJN,  I am not sure but it was also pretty rare for strike targets to be changed once launched, or strikes recalled.  It is worth noting that not all of the Zero's even carried radios (to save on weight and improve dogfighting capability) which made ground-air or air-to-air communication extremely difficult

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 9
RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009 - 3/30/2009 6:26:53 PM   
Slick91


Posts: 215
Joined: 12/30/2002
From: Charlotte, NC, USA
Status: offline

Please excuse my ignorance, but I’m not patient enough to do a search.

Is Carrier Force an add-on to UV or a stand alone game?


< Message edited by Slick91 -- 3/30/2009 6:27:05 PM >


_____________________________

Slick
-----------------------------
"Life's tough, it's tougher if you're stupid."

-John Wayne

(in reply to xj900uk)
Post #: 10
RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009 - 3/30/2009 8:02:54 PM   
Splinterhead


Posts: 335
Joined: 8/31/2002
From: Lenoir City, TN
Status: offline
Stand alone

(in reply to Slick91)
Post #: 11
RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009 - 3/30/2009 9:09:20 PM   
Slick91


Posts: 215
Joined: 12/30/2002
From: Charlotte, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead

Stand alone


Thanks!!!

_____________________________

Slick
-----------------------------
"Life's tough, it's tougher if you're stupid."

-John Wayne

(in reply to Splinterhead)
Post #: 12
RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009 - 4/16/2009 6:29:41 AM   
RGIJN


Posts: 1057
Joined: 11/24/2006
From: far away from battlefield :-(
Status: offline
Mike´s last post is 6 weeks ago...
I really hope you don´t fall back into the darkness of earlier days...!

(in reply to Slick91)
Post #: 13
RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009 - 4/18/2009 5:00:22 PM   
Ike99


Posts: 1747
Joined: 1/1/2006
From: A Sand Road
Status: offline
quote:

Mike´s last post is 6 weeks ago...
I really hope you don´t fall back into the darkness of earlier days...!






Attachment (1)

(in reply to RGIJN)
Post #: 14
RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009 - 4/18/2009 9:22:05 PM   
borner


Posts: 1485
Joined: 3/20/2005
From: Houston TX
Status: offline

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 15
RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009 - 4/20/2009 9:27:55 AM   
RGIJN


Posts: 1057
Joined: 11/24/2006
From: far away from battlefield :-(
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ike99

quote:

Mike´s last post is 6 weeks ago...
I really hope you don´t fall back into the darkness of earlier days...!







yeah, gimme more of that funny stuff! Imagine the "robot style" voices...

ROTFL



< Message edited by RGIJN -- 4/20/2009 9:28:39 AM >

(in reply to Ike99)
Post #: 16
RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009 - 4/25/2009 9:58:57 AM   
Mike Wood


Posts: 2094
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline
Just finishing secure PBEM game code.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RGIJN

Mike´s last post is 6 weeks ago...
I really hope you don´t fall back into the darkness of earlier days...!


(in reply to RGIJN)
Post #: 17
RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009 - 5/3/2009 1:22:04 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2084
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
Thanks again, Mike. Keep plugging away . 

_____________________________


”How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” ~ Samuel Adams

(in reply to Mike Wood)
Post #: 18
RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009 - 7/15/2009 4:20:25 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2084
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline
Mike, thinking about Carrier Force is it possible to have an update and maybe a screenie or two/ with the knowledge of course that it isn't the final artwork. Thanks.

_____________________________


”How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!” ~ Samuel Adams

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 19
RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009 - 7/16/2009 2:07:56 AM   
Mike Wood


Posts: 2094
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline
Not yet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

Mike, thinking about Carrier Force is it possible to have an update and maybe a screenie or two/ with the knowledge of course that it isn't the final artwork. Thanks.


(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 20
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> CF Progress 28 Feb 2009 Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.129