CF Progress 28 Feb 2009

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

Post Reply
User avatar
Mike Wood
Posts: 1424
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Oakland, California
Contact:

CF Progress 28 Feb 2009

Post by Mike Wood »

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
User avatar
Long Lance
Posts: 274
Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 4:28 am
Location: Ebbelwoi Country

RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009

Post by Long Lance »

Very fine! Finally, A-20 is not the more or less useless or at least weak little Brother of the B-25/26 anymore.
Custer1961
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 7:46 pm

RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009

Post by Custer1961 »

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.
User avatar
Mike Wood
Posts: 1424
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Oakland, California
Contact:

RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009

Post by Mike Wood »

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
ORIGINAL: Custer

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.
User avatar
tocaff
Posts: 4761
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:30 pm
Location: USA now in Brasil

RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009

Post by tocaff »

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/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768
User avatar
RGIJN
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:18 pm
Location: far away from battlefield :-(
Contact:

RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009

Post by RGIJN »

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Thanks for the update and sharing those thoughts with us.


yeah. Keep it up! [:)]
User avatar
SuluSea
Posts: 2355
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:13 pm

RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009

Post by SuluSea »

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.[&o]
"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer
anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3931
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009

Post by anarchyintheuk »

Thanks for the update.
xj900uk
Posts: 1340
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:26 pm

RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009

Post by xj900uk »

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
User avatar
Slick91
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 8:05 pm
Location: Charleston, SC USA

RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009

Post by Slick91 »


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?
Slick
-----------------------------
"Life's tough, it's tougher if you're stupid."
-John Wayne
User avatar
Splinterhead
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 11:45 pm
Location: Lenoir City, TN

RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009

Post by Splinterhead »

Stand alone
User avatar
Slick91
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2002 8:05 pm
Location: Charleston, SC USA

RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009

Post by Slick91 »

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead

Stand alone

Thanks!!!
Slick
-----------------------------
"Life's tough, it's tougher if you're stupid."
-John Wayne
User avatar
RGIJN
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:18 pm
Location: far away from battlefield :-(
Contact:

RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009

Post by RGIJN »

Mike´s last post is 6 weeks ago...
I really hope you don´t fall back into the darkness of earlier days...!
User avatar
Ike99
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 11:06 pm
Location: A Sand Road

RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009

Post by Ike99 »

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


Image
Attachments
Tatoo.jpg
Tatoo.jpg (71.31 KiB) Viewed 53 times
¨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
borner
Posts: 1485
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:15 pm
Location: Houston TX

RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009

Post by borner »

User avatar
RGIJN
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 6:18 pm
Location: far away from battlefield :-(
Contact:

RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009

Post by RGIJN »

ORIGINAL: Ike99
Mike´s last post is 6 weeks ago...
I really hope you don´t fall back into the darkness of earlier days...!


Image

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

ROTFL

User avatar
Mike Wood
Posts: 1424
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Oakland, California
Contact:

RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009

Post by Mike Wood »

Just finishing secure PBEM game code.
ORIGINAL: RGIJN

Mike´s last post is 6 weeks ago...
I really hope you don´t fall back into the darkness of earlier days...!
User avatar
SuluSea
Posts: 2355
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:13 pm

RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009

Post by SuluSea »

Thanks again, Mike. Keep plugging away .  [:)]
"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer
User avatar
SuluSea
Posts: 2355
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:13 pm

RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009

Post by 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.
"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer
User avatar
Mike Wood
Posts: 1424
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Oakland, California
Contact:

RE: CF Progress 28 Feb 2009

Post by Mike Wood »

Not yet.
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.
Post Reply

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