Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Feedback on v2.50 (final beta)

 
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 >> Feedback on v2.50 (final beta) Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Feedback on v2.50 (final beta) - 1/26/2007 2:21:18 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 36487
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
Those of you who have tried the final (now current) installer for 2.50 beta and started new games with it... any remaining installer problems? Any game issues? I've seen a few reports, but it's not clear if those were old saves updated to 2.50 or new games started with 2.50. We'd like to make sure we have any significant issues that show up in new 2.50 games cataloged for a fix ASAP. Thanks for your cooperation.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC




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

Freedom is not Free.
Post #: 1
RE: Feedback on v2.50 (final beta) - 1/26/2007 3:42:02 AM   
Al Boone

 

Posts: 205
Joined: 7/27/2000
From: Cobleskill, New York, USA
Status: offline
I have about 20 hours in with version 2.50 and there appear to be no problems. I loved the game, but stopped playing 2-3 years ago because of the bugs. Now I am back and it is the best wargame that I have ever played and I have been a computer wargamer for almost 30 years back to the Apple II! I even worked on development on the SSI computer wargame "War In The South Pacific" back in the 1980's. I wish that someone would do more to develop this gaming engine using this scale rather than the WITP scale. This game really would be great with an editor and more FAQ information. I bought Age of Empires III and it's strategy guide 2 weeks ago and I haven't even looked at them yet (and probably won't), say nothing about my new Hasegawa B-26 Marauder plastic model kit. UV rules, only distantly followed by SPWAW.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 2
RE: Feedback on v2.50 (final beta) - 1/26/2007 3:57:47 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline
All seems to be well with V2.50.  I too wish for more refinement of the UV game though.  Some of the enhancements provided for in WITP would make UV the perfect game IMHO.

(in reply to Al Boone)
Post #: 3
RE: Feedback on v2.50 (final beta) - 1/26/2007 9:09:46 PM   
Skyfire7631


Posts: 223
Joined: 7/6/2001
From: Toulouse, France
Status: online
No problems so far, but I'm not very far : started scenario #16, and only 1 month into the game

If there's one thing I'd like to request (and I did it many times before ) it would be the ability the limit the range at which planes will strike. Otherwise, I'm pretty happy with the current state of UV

Regards.


< Message edited by Skyfire76 -- 1/26/2007 9:21:30 PM >

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 4
RE: Feedback on v2.50 (final beta) - 1/26/2007 9:10:48 PM   
DEB


Posts: 687
Joined: 1/29/2005
From: Bristol , England
Status: offline
It would be nice to get the Flying/Grounded Sub. problem in Sc. 11 fixed so it can't occur again! See Bug Reports & Problems : 11/4/2005.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 5
RE: Feedback on v2.50 (final beta) - 1/26/2007 9:26:47 PM   
kriegspiel2

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 8/15/2005
Status: offline
Almost a full month of game time so far.  Everything is fine.  No vanishing squadrons, no weird pilot allocations.  Yes, some enhancements existing in WITP/WPO would be great. Even simple stuff like no automatic commander selection for TF. I hate to find out that i have sent Lee with 2 DDs on a non critical sub hunting mission and he is no longer available for my main engagement.

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 6
RE: Feedback on v2.50 (final beta) - 1/27/2007 12:08:43 AM   
Mike Wood


Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline
Hello...

Will fix today.

Bye...

Michael Wood

quote:

ORIGINAL: DEB

It would be nice to get the Flying/Grounded Sub. problem in Sc. 11 fixed so it can't occur again! See Bug Reports & Problems : 11/4/2005.


(in reply to DEB)
Post #: 7
RE: Feedback on v2.50 (final beta) - 1/27/2007 7:44:57 PM   
Mark Ezra

 

Posts: 340
Joined: 12/29/2000
From: Jasmin Ranch, Acton CA
Status: offline
First let me say thank you for the contiued support of this fine game.  On start up I have noted that P 39 ready air crews are zero.  This does note effect the game as the next turn correct ready crew numbers show up.   Otherwise she plays great.  This was noted on a fresh install of the game with no old saves, ect. 

_____________________________

All Hail Marx and Lennon

(in reply to Mike Wood)
Post #: 8
RE: Feedback on v2.50 (final beta) - 1/28/2007 12:24:26 AM   
Reg


Posts: 2786
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline
I installed v2.50 without a problem and it seems to run just fine though I haven't played it enough to call it a comprehensive test.

If you are looking for final fixes could I suggest a minor enhancement. Some aircraft have a replacement rate of zero (ie Spitfire). Could these rates be changed to one or two per month as in WITP to represent the work of the Repair and Salvage units. Otherwise these units fade away and can't be ressurected. I wouldn't bother you by asking for this but it can't be done with the editor.

Picture Caption: NOEMFOOR ISLAND, DUTCH NEW GUINEA. 1944-10-23. GENERAL VIEW OF NO. 22 REPAIR AND SALVAGE UNIT RAAF CAMP ON THE BEACH.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Reg -- 1/28/2007 12:36:51 AM >


_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to Mark Ezra)
Post #: 9
RE: Feedback on v2.50 (final beta) - 1/28/2007 2:32:50 PM   
Miller


Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline
I know this request is a long shot, but would you be able to make it possible through the editor to change aircraft replacement rates and armour values of on ships - for example the older CA's and CL's were vunerable to 5" hits, but they always bounce off.

(in reply to Reg)
Post #: 10
RE: Feedback on v2.50 (final beta) - 2/1/2007 2:05:32 AM   
Joe D.


Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
I've just installed 2.5 -- on top of 2.3 -- w/o incident. However, playing the Green Hell" scenario, I noticed that my Hellcat fighters on Lunga go into "sweep" mode after one turn when put at any CAP under 100. Is that something new, or is it that I haven't played UV for a while.

I also noticed that some (Allied) planes started the scenario with few or no pilots, but these empty slots filled fast after the pilot assignment phase.

Is there a readme file for this comprehensive patch?

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 11
RE: Feedback on v2.50 (final beta) - 2/3/2007 6:19:15 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
Please see my "problems with v2.5" posting re disappearing numbers and text when playing as the Allies in the "Turning Tide" scenario.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 12
RE: Feedback on v2.50 (final beta) - 2/3/2007 7:35:58 PM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline
This problem happened to me also and then corrected itself , thankfully, on the next turn and hasn't appeared since then.  In scenario 19 I haven't had it happen.

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 13
RE: Feedback on v2.50 (final beta) - 2/4/2007 1:58:26 AM   
Joe D.


Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
Thank you tocaff: I thought I was losing my mind as everyone else posted that they were not having problems with the new 2.5.

Yes, the problem seemed to correct itself -- very odd.

The first two scenatios I played were relatively short; I wonder if this problem will pop-up again in the longer scenarios, i.e., the ones where you can send ships back to Pearl or Tokyo? I wonder if that could be a connection to the problem, or if the disapearing text was just a strangely spurious event?

There also seems to be some other textural problems, i.e., moving paras by land gives me a message stating that they "jumped' to a new cite.

I've enjoyed UV for years (at 2.3) and was looking forward to UV Deluxe, but if the developers can't solve UV issues w/o creating a whole host of new ones, then I may rethink any future purchase.

What do you think?

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 14
RE: Feedback on v2.50 (final beta) - 2/5/2007 8:20:52 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
On more than one game under the new patch(es) I transported a unit to Nadzab (after first securing the post by land), only to later find that somehow they managed to combine with other parts of their unit in Brisbane! Apparently they never made it to Nadzab, despite the msg that said it had first combined there after the initial air-lift.

Anyone else experience this?

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 15
RE: Feedback on v2.50 (final beta) - 2/6/2007 7:27:06 PM   
Skyfire7631


Posts: 223
Joined: 7/6/2001
From: Toulouse, France
Status: online
Another potential problem : I have 2 DDs and one AK anchored in Brisbane which are loosing endurance day after day, while the base is fully supplied. Not sure if it's a know problem ? No such problem with other ports (at least Noumea and Luganville for example).

Also, I'm unable to disband or withdraw a squadron of P39D Airacobras in Port Moresby with only 1 plane left ( ) : it keeps saying that I need squadrons of the same type in the base to do it. Ok, but the problem is I have 2 or 3 squadrons of P39D in PM

EDIT : Strangely I was able to disband a P39D squadron earlier in PM. Maybe the one I'm trying to disband now is the one which received the previous planes ? Not sure, I can't remember. /END EDIT

That's playing scenerio 16, I'm towards the end of July 42. Hope this helps.

Regards.


< Message edited by Skyfire76 -- 2/6/2007 11:15:05 PM >

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 16
RE: Feedback on v2.50 (final beta) - 2/6/2007 11:39:22 PM   
Miller


Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline
With regards the P39 disband problem.......I think you will find that one sqd is RAAF whilst the other is USAAF........cannot be disbanded into different nationality

(in reply to Skyfire7631)
Post #: 17
RE: Feedback on v2.50 (final beta) - 2/7/2007 12:19:40 AM   
Skyfire7631


Posts: 223
Joined: 7/6/2001
From: Toulouse, France
Status: online
That makes sense, must be that, thanks for the answer

Regards.

(in reply to Miller)
Post #: 18
RE: Feedback on v2.50 (final beta) - 2/22/2007 5:39:11 AM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7522
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
I have seen several problems with 2.50:
Fresh install with UV 2.30, then patched to 2.50.
All reports from playing Scenario 19

Often when two TF (one AP each) are loading the same land unit then one TF continues normal loading while the other stops mostly after their initial loading (without loading extra supply) and steams to the set target. I have seen this with two ships not having the capacity of loading all of the land unit (like two 1500 AP loading a 4100 land unit) as well as with a 3000+1500 combination.

Once in a while TF with CS orders move to their target but forgot to load their cargo (not yet seen in new campaign but in continued save game, was much worse in earlier patches).

TF just leaving Townsville somehow managed to detect enemy CV taskforces my search planes were not able to detect yet( just southwest of Rabaul). Thus they retreat but not to their homeport but to Brisbane (proably to Noumea on the eastern side of the map). This is really dumb especially if TF from PM start to move to Brisbane as they are coming even closer to those enemy TF.

Some DD in this scenario 19, one Porter and some Farragut, did not receive a radar installation regardless how often I send them back. Other ships of these classes received Radar on their first voyage back to PM.

Some carrier torpedo groups upgraded from TBD to TBF but TBD pool somehow exploded to 800 planes, in a continued savegame it reached 2200 planes after all upgrading finished.
-> The TBD production stopped in 1939, why does it have a production at all? It is reported that only about 100 of them were in service as the US entered WWII.

Ghost squadrons appearing. I sent Lex and Yorktown back to PH for AA refit but left their fighter groups at Noumea for CAP. Somewhere in the process, either at arriving at PH or during the move, a ghost squadron appeared on these carriers as a subordinate to the carrier's fighter squadron with the usual A-20 image and a max size of 24. No aircraft or pilots available for these units once the carriers were back in Noumea. It is possible to move them to other carriers but the next turn they'll be back on their carriers but without merging into their parent unit. Maybe it is related to an upgrade from F4F-3 to F4F-4 that seem to have happenend in the process?

F-5A replacements, three months into the game with two months listed as having a replacement rate of three each. I have only received three in total yet.

I really wish to have an option to have some air units out of the aircraft upgrade mechanism, especially early on you want to keep at least one F4F-3 squadron in service until replacements run out.

Land units and lost equipment, sometimes when equipment is lost on the way (transport aircraft crashed or ship damaged) this lost equipment is not listed in the units equipment stats (neither as active nor as inactive) and they do not appear back as subunits some days or weeks later in Brisbane or Noumea. I'm speaking of rather small numbers of soldiers or material like cannons or engineer vehicles but they are missing somehow, especially hurting if your badly needed AA unit is missing some of their heavy guns. Equipment lost with sunk ships is usually reappearing like they should do.

(in reply to Skyfire7631)
Post #: 19
RE: Feedback on v2.50 (final beta) - 2/22/2007 3:57:54 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
I can't recall off the top of my head what scenario 19 was?
I did a fresh install of 2.5 on v. 2.0 -- no patches after 2.0 except 2.5 -- and had no problems w/Turning Tide. I'm now playing Green Hell and so far, so (very) good; the Jap AI seems more fiesty and effective, esp. its long lance torps.
Did you actually buy/download a 2.3 version of UV?
If you can get it down to 2.0, then try patching w/only 2.5. Otherwise, you're going to have the same problems I and tocaff did.
I'm afraid if you can't get back to 2.0, then your best bet is to stay at 2.3.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 20
RE: Feedback on v2.50 (final beta) - 2/23/2007 2:04:06 AM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7522
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline
My CD came with 2.30, reverting to this version is impractical because of the excessive pilot problems and other bugs.
Scen 19 is the hypothetical scenario, Midway did not happen so all ships sunk there are available (until sunk in UV ).

It looks I have to test a more standard scenario to see what happens there.

(in reply to Joe D.)
Post #: 21
RE: Feedback on v2.50 (final beta) - 2/23/2007 4:15:48 PM   
Joe D.


Posts: 4004
Joined: 8/31/2005
From: Stratford, Connecticut
Status: offline
I could be wrong, but I never had pilot -- or other serious problems -- when I was patched to 2.3; 2.5 made the UV text more readable and added a few features, but more importantly it corrected serious flaws in the infamous 2.4 series of "fixes."
Maybe you could start a new thread re how to get back to 2.0 from a CD w/2.3 in order to patch to 2.5? But Matrix may not respond as they've taken a lot of grief from us re this old game of theirs.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 22
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Feedback on v2.50 (final beta) 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

0.238