Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: WitP Wish List

 
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] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: WitP Wish List Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: WitP Wish List - 8/23/2005 11:06:51 AM   
Stwa


Posts: 484
Joined: 8/12/2005
Status: offline 		These are my suggestions, I hope they have not been mentioned already. My aplogies if they have.

1. Combat Screens - re-title these Combat Sighting report. When combat occurs, simply display the units present (a graphical OOB) for a setable amount of time and thats it. Eliminate the animations, sounds, and text displays that go with combat in the current game, because combat would now simply be a Combat Sighting report. In the preference screens you would enable or disable Combat Sighting Reports, and set its delay.

2. Fix the IN-GAME preference, database, and save screens, to display and operate completely within a 512 x 768 popup that pops-up on the left (justified) side of the map. (i.e. the opposite side of the combat screens which are the same size).

3. Failing #2, at lease fix the database screen so the exit screen button is at the top left hand corner of the full screen, like all the other full screens. For some reason, this really annoys me. I can't explain it.

(in reply to Lord_Calidor)
Post #: 391
RE: WitP Wish List - 8/23/2005 10:19:51 PM   
51st Highland Div


Posts: 347
Joined: 7/23/2005
From: Glasgow,Scotland
Status: offline 		Chindit Brigades....maybe a case for making these airborne units as they were employed in that manner in the Burma campaign.

_____________________________

https://i.ibb.co/SRBTPGK/hmsglasgowmatrix.jpg
______________________________________________

The beatings will continue until morale improves....

Banner thanks to RogueUSMC

(in reply to Stwa)
Post #: 392
RE: WitP Wish List - 8/24/2005 11:32:23 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		I'd like to see the ship number with the name. Meaningless really. It's just the anal type of stuff I like to see.

(in reply to 51st Highland Div)
Post #: 393
RE: PBEM Improvement - 8/25/2005 1:57:02 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		I would like a few small things corrected/enhanced but it may be to late

3rd Commando Bde added pls
Chindits made into paras but without the immediate shock attack to reflect airmobile not paratroopers
More UK Air Gp commanders


Apart from these very minor points I am happy with the game as is

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 394
RE: PBEM Improvement - 8/25/2005 2:00:15 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		ps If making Chindits airmobile as I suggest I would probably swithc the compromise made on the Chindits and have the heavy 3rnd Indian Div arrive when the current Chindit bdes do and have the Chindit Bdes arrive when the current 3rd Indian does to prevent Indian/UK paras/airmobile troops being available too early.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 395
RE: WitP Wish List - 8/25/2005 5:18:48 AM   
Aawulf

 

Posts: 116
Joined: 7/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

(1) must be within supply range of a base with +20,000 (not 20K which is really 20480: as a programmer this bugs me ) supplies

Think "K" for kilo rather than kilobyte. The use of "K" for thousand predates most living programmers and "kilobytes" in our vernacular.

Not trying to bust on you, but I was recently "corrected" on this topic by one of my intellectually elite friends who didn't realize this world rotated on it's axis just fine before computers and programmers.

Regards,

Michael Fleshman

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 396
RE: WitP Wish List - 9/3/2005 11:07:53 PM   
akdreemer


Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline 		Is there anyone who is actually keeping track of all of this? Instead of wading through 13+ pages of comments to find out if a suggestion has aready been discussed.

_____________________________


(in reply to Stwa)
Post #: 397
RE: WitP Wish List - 9/4/2005 12:08:28 AM   
Sonny

 

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline 		Doesn't really make any difference - they are not going to go any further with this game.

_____________________________

Quote from Snigbert -

"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."

"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "

(in reply to akdreemer)
Post #: 398
RE: WitP Wish List - 10/6/2005 6:05:34 AM   
Jonny_B


Posts: 299
Joined: 5/20/2004
From: Dunnellon, Florida
Status: offline

I personally would like too see a new class of heavy bombers, so the allied player is unable to upgrade medium level bombers to liberators (heavy bomber class).


(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 399
RE: WitP Wish List - 10/6/2005 12:04:48 PM   
Honda


Posts: 953
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Karlovac, Croatia
Status: offline 		I second that!

(in reply to Jonny_B)
Post #: 400
RE: WitP Wish List - 10/7/2005 8:54:53 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

I believe the P-39(and P-400?) has a modification hard coded that incrementally reduces the aircrafts performance over 10,000 feet.

This is wonderful... Can we have a similar code modification for P-40/Kittyhawk types to take effect about 15,000 feet (which I believe was their big performance break) in the next patch?

B

_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard

(in reply to Honda)
Post #: 401
RE: WitP Wish List - 10/16/2005 5:56:06 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonny_B



I personally would like too see a new class of heavy bombers, so the allied player is unable to upgrade medium level bombers to liberators (heavy bomber class).




Don't use the player upgrade fantasy, and you won't have that problem.


_____________________________


(in reply to Jonny_B)
Post #: 402
RE: WitP Wish List - 10/16/2005 5:57:26 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

I believe the P-39(and P-400?) has a modification hard coded that incrementally reduces the aircrafts performance over 10,000 feet.

This is wonderful... Can we have a similar code modification for P-40/Kittyhawk types to take effect about 15,000 feet (which I believe was their big performance break) in the next patch?

B


This would be a nice feature for all aircraft on BOTH sides.


_____________________________


(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 403
RE: WitP Wish List - 10/25/2005 4:52:02 PM   
Jonny_B


Posts: 299
Joined: 5/20/2004
From: Dunnellon, Florida
Status: offline

Dear Kid:



I would like too see the leading commander names on the after action combat reports, for both sides.

And of course it would be nice to be able to withdrawal from naval combat and/or army combat situations (instead of the AI making this slow decisions) when it is very obvious that you will get your but kicked and then handed too you sideways.

An once again I wish that there would be a separate class for heavy bombers, not combine with medium level bombers, allowing players to upgrade level bombers to strategic bombers. (I just do not get it, I guess.)



(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 404
RE: WitP Wish List - 10/26/2005 10:05:40 PM   
Enforcer

 

Posts: 320
Joined: 3/14/2002
From: New Smyrna Beach, Fla
Status: offline 		sortable commanders by type such as surface, carrier,..ect

_____________________________


(in reply to Jonny_B)
Post #: 405
RE: WitP Wish List - 10/29/2005 5:29:35 PM   
showboat1


Posts: 1885
Joined: 7/28/2000
From: Atoka, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Enforcer

sortable commanders by type such as surface, carrier,..ect



AMEN!!!!! I drives me nuts sorting through that damned list! Once you get past the known commanders, it can take forever.

_____________________________

SF3C B. B. New USS North Carolina BB-55 - Permission is granted to go ashore for the last shore leave. (1926-2003)

(in reply to Enforcer)
Post #: 406
RE: WitP Wish List - 10/29/2005 9:36:44 PM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline 		Base size should limit the amount of fuel, at least, that can be offloaded there. Say 5000 tons per level or even better, an expanding capacity based on level (level 1=500, level 2=2000, level 3=5000, level 4=12000, etc.). Pearl Harbor in Dec. 1941 had a capacity of approx. 620'000 tons.

Many bases in the Pacific had little or no capacity in Dec. 1941 for any fuel.

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 407
RE: WitP Wish List - 10/29/2005 11:04:45 PM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline 		I apologize if this has already been suggested but I think it makes a great deal of sense. I think the--albeit infamous--Slaughtermeyer actually has a good point in one thread where he says that he thinks Japanese prep points on a non-historical first turn ought to be automatically set to 100 whenever they are changed, to represent the reasonable expectation that the Japanese planned months in advance for these "non-historical" attacks.

Is it possible to tweak the game so that this could be put into effect in an upcoming patch? Or is the game too hard coded to make such an adjustment?



Gary

< Message edited by Gary Childress -- 10/29/2005 11:23:59 PM >

(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 408
RE: WitP Wish List - 10/29/2005 11:22:57 PM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline 		One more "wish list" item:

it would be nice to be able to plot TF routes, instead of have the computer automatically set your TF from San Francisco to Sydney to go straight through enemy territory. For instance, it would be nice to be able to plot multiple way points on the map whereby a TF will go to the first way point, then proceed to the next so that I could circumvent an area. That would aleviate some of the micromanaging of convoys that I find myself doing just to evade enemy airbases and such.

Thankyou.

Gary

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 409
RE: WitP Wish List - 10/30/2005 8:52:27 AM   
kkoovvoo

 

Posts: 253
Joined: 10/1/2004
From: Slovakia
Status: offline 		1/ Two different CRs for Allies and Japan. You should see exactly how many of your planes/soldiers were lost in a combat, how much damage was taken by your ships but the damage you inflicted to the enemy should be inaccurate (for example your pilots claiming 10 kills of which only 3 occur in reality). Fighters should be credited for "phantom kills". In "planes lost/ships lost" table there should be no real numbers of your opponents losses displayed, only the claimed one.


2/ Increase a chance that fighter will be shot down by bombers defensive fire. For example there could be a 15 percent chance that fighter with 0 armor will be shot down when hit and 7 percent chance if the armor is 1. Now you only get plenty of damaged fighters, except when flying Allied heavy bombers.

For example when CV Lexington on February 20th 1942 attempted to perform raid against Rabaul and was attacked by unescorted Bettys, also two Wildcats (and one pilot) were lost in melee. Every bomer should have some chance to shot down fighter.

3/ Increase defensive efficiency of dive&torpedo bombers. These are still too easy fodder.

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 410
RE: WitP Wish List - 11/5/2005 9:59:27 PM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline 		Just to add a little more to the supply problem (sorry, I'm an inveterate believer that logistics dictated almost everything here and playability is not as important as having to run the logisitics first):

In addition to the fact that bases should be limited in what they can 'hold' in terms of supply points and fuel points based on their size,

There should be four types of supply points: construction, ground, air and naval. Only the appropriate supply type points can be consumed by the appropriate type of unit. Supply ships would be able to carry any mix of these as determined by the player (indicate the percentage of each, total equalling 100% of the ship's capacity). This would really underline the 'combat loading' problem....

There should be two kinds of fuel: air and naval (ground fuel would be included in the ground type supply points). The USS Neosho at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th, 1941, for example, was filled with aviation fuel, not ship fuel. Tankers and AO's should be able to carry a mix of both kinds.Tankers in 1942, filled with these different fuels, had to be based in the South Pacific in 1942 due to the lack of base storage facilities.

Base facility construction should be a little more complicated. Constructing an airfield is not the same as fortifications, a port, depots for different types of supply points, etc. It took MONTHS to construct decent fuel storage facilities in the South Pacific in 1942-43, for example. In any case the type of supplies needed for this was not generic...

This would all force careful planning on the part of everyone and certainly not make some easy base-building schemes possible as the case is now.

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 411
RE: WitP Wish List - 11/5/2005 10:40:03 PM   
akdreemer


Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

Just to add a little more to the supply problem (sorry, I'm an inveterate believer that logistics dictated almost everything here and playability is not as important as having to run the logisitics first):

In addition to the fact that bases should be limited in what they can 'hold' in terms of supply points and fuel points based on their size,

There should be four types of supply points: construction, ground, air and naval. Only the appropriate supply type points can be consumed by the appropriate type of unit. Supply ships would be able to carry any mix of these as determined by the player (indicate the percentage of each, total equalling 100% of the ship's capacity). This would really underline the 'combat loading' problem....

There should be two kinds of fuel: air and naval (ground fuel would be included in the ground type supply points). The USS Neosho at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th, 1941, for example, was filled with aviation fuel, not ship fuel. Tankers and AO's should be able to carry a mix of both kinds.Tankers in 1942, filled with these different fuels, had to be based in the South Pacific in 1942 due to the lack of base storage facilities.

Base facility construction should be a little more complicated. Constructing an airfield is not the same as fortifications, a port, depots for different types of supply points, etc. It took MONTHS to construct decent fuel storage facilities in the South Pacific in 1942-43, for example. In any case the type of supplies needed for this was not generic...

This would all force careful planning on the part of everyone and certainly not make some easy base-building schemes possible as the case is now.


I like, however I doubt it will ever happen or get implemented. I especially like the seperating out of the construction aspect. On the topic of aviation fuel, there were actually tankers that carried nothing but aviation fuel. Another aspect of this was the ability of tankers to carry deck loads of cargo, indeed many were modified to carry replacement aircraft.

_____________________________


(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 412
RE: WitP Wish List - 11/26/2005 8:06:55 AM   
BlackSunshine


Posts: 366
Joined: 11/22/2002
Status: offline 		Sorry, I'm not about to read through 14 pages of suggestions. Maybe someone should put them in a list on page 1.

Anyhow...

I would like to be able to track the amount of kills a unit has. Somewhere on its unit page, you should be able to click a link and see what sort of combat action the unit has seen.

Example:

58th BS

Kills:

1234 Infantry
10 Guns
SS I-XX
SS I-XX
DD ***

Etc.

Any chance of seeing this?

(in reply to Stwa)
Post #: 413
RE: WitP Wish List - 11/26/2005 1:10:27 PM   
Sneer


Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline 		1e a/c 1/4vp
2e a/c 1/2 vp
4e a/c 1 vp
this would balance air war
4e bombers better at strategic bombing and worse in ground attack and anything else


_____________________________


(in reply to BlackSunshine)
Post #: 414
RE: WitP Wish List - 12/11/2005 1:37:07 PM   
langley


Posts: 183
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Newbury, Berkshire, England.
Status: offline 		Battle Honour Screen for all ships and subs giving location of battle and results of combat.

(in reply to Sneer)
Post #: 415
RE: WitP Wish List - 12/11/2005 3:06:04 PM   
Przemcio231


Posts: 1901
Joined: 10/11/2005
From: Warsaw,Poland,EU:)
Status: offline 		Improve the Game preformance and do something about the game requirements... i have 1.2 Ghz Athlon with 256 SDRam and 128 DDR Radeon Graphic card and im only able to play Witp with no sound and even then the game crashes... last week i played Call of Duty 2 on my computer and it worked just fine with neary no hangs... and i say that CoD 2 has more requirements in it then WitP same with Fifa 2006

(in reply to langley)
Post #: 416
RE: WitP Wish List - 12/11/2005 8:37:52 PM   
Widell


Posts: 913
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: Trollhättan, Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

Is there anyone who is actually keeping track of all of this? Instead of wading through 13+ pages of comments to find out if a suggestion has aready been discussed.


I started a Wiki some months ago, and I guess this´d fit there. Unfortunately, activity has been poor lately, so unless it improves I may have to put priority on other stuff to conserve server space

If anyone feels like adding stuff to the Wiki, use this link. Activity means it´ll stay, no activity means it´s going down just as inevitably as the Jap CV's....Honestly, I´m a nostalgic geek, so it´ll probably stay around until I reach the limit on the server and must justify paying more, after which the girlfriend will treat me as even more insane than she already does

/Widell

(in reply to akdreemer)
Post #: 417
RE: WitP Wish List - 12/20/2005 8:48:27 PM   
scout1


Posts: 2899
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: South Bend, In
Status: offline 		Lord knows I've added many to this list, but at this point, I'd like to see (in order)

a) Elimination of unit teleportation
b) Elimination of unit disappearance during tranport
c) Elimination of Leader disappearance/re-assignment
d) lacking c (above), how about just setting ALL leaders to the SAME values (or at least the option)


Lots of other things, but they are really enhancements rather elimination of frustration items.

Kill the Bugs

(in reply to Widell)
Post #: 418
RE: WitP Wish List - 1/11/2006 2:28:58 AM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline 		Hand the code over to the public domain. There is so much here and elsewhere that the 'grognards' want to dive in and do a real re-work job....

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to Stwa)
Post #: 419
RE: WitP Wish List - 1/11/2006 2:36:11 AM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline 		The British must withdraw ships at times. Why shouldn't there be an external effect (whether the War in Europe is going well or poorly) for the US? For example, having to withdraw AK's, AP's and TK's. Having to withdraw other naval units? Slowing (or accelerating if things go well) the availability of ships, LCU's, air groups, etc.?

What about the withdrawl of Soviet units if the War in Europe is not going well for them? Or if it is going well, receiving more units, just as with the US, UK et al.?

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 420
Page:   <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: WitP Wish List Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
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

2.000