Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bombur
6-Each aircraft would be rated for mechanical reliability, that would correlate with operational losses (that would be much higher in this new game)
13-Options to convert/not convert ships while being built (like the ability to end Shinano as a BB)

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

quote:

A system that reflects how the war is progressing in the game. If a player is suffering extreme pilot losses, then this should be reflected in the quality of pilots being produced, regardless of the year of the game or nationality.

quote:

I wish, we could get all these wishes into a database instead of in a thread which just creates fun work for someone to have to rekey these wishes into a database !

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

An idea for ground combat. Almost certain this would be out of the question for WITP I but maybe for II.

Base combat on percentage of hex ownership. Each side owns a percentage of the hex based on the number of forces it has and how long it has been there. Here are some ideas.

When a unit moves into a hex for the first time it begins to take ownership of the hex based on the size of unit and hex type. Example: A brigade which lands on an unoccupied atoll would gain ownership fairly quickly. Maybe 20 to 30 % per turn. A brigade moving into a mainland hex would gain control much more slowly, perhaps only 2 or 3 percent per turn. Movement through a hex would require some minimum % of control say 10-15 %. A much higher % (maybe 75%) would be needed to move into an enemy contolled hex.

Maximum unit control would be based on unit size and terrain type. It should operate on a logrithmic scale of some type. So for example: Two divisions occupy a mainland Chinese wooded hex. They might gain 5% control on the first turn, 3 % more on the second, 2% on the third up to a maximum control of maybe 40% after a few weeks of occupation. If a greater level of control is wanted then more forces would be required. So essentially it would be difficult to maintain high levels of control in large mainland areas. Allowing the weaker side some scope for activity which would tie down significant forces of the attacker.

Combat would have the effect of increasing the attackers hex control at the expence of the defenders. When a defender reaches 0% he is ejected from the hex, but this should be somewhat difficult to achieve. In the example above I mention 75% control as allowing movment into other hexes and so at this point the defenders supply line could effectively be cut and so in many cases he might feel compelled to retire at this point.

These are just some ideas and would need to be fleshed out and thought through. But this type of thing seems a reasonable way to simulate ground combat in 60 mile hexes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

quote:

I wish, we could get all these wishes into a database instead of in a thread which just creates fun work for someone to have to rekey these wishes into a database !

Isn't there some way to input, via the web, straight into a database ?

quote:

I've pulled 400 entires out of the exxisting wish list by hand and it only took about 2 days of huffin' and puffin' ....

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

quote:

I wish, we could get all these wishes into a database instead of in a thread which just creates fun work for someone to have to rekey these wishes into a database !

Isn't there some way to input, via the web, straight into a database ?

quote:


Good post, however with #6 I can see arguements develop over campaign situations. Here's an example, Japan is doing relatively well but still is getting poor mechanical reliability even tho home islands aren't being bombed. One would imagine that quality would go up without constant bombardment. Problem is that we don't really know how much better the latter model planes could be, so it's really a crap shoot to start with.

quote:


With #13, I'd go a step further and give industry points to the user and give them free reign to do with them as they please. Want 6 Yamato's and nothing else?...Sure! Just don't expect to win the game. This would require a fully interactive production system that updated daily. I'd love to have the option of ordering vessels as opposed to getting exactly what was produced in the war. While I understand this might not be wanted by others I don't see it being an option too out of the question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent


Having doctrines modelled in the game, and innovation points to change them, with the ability to decide how much points each side will have (in a historical situation, Allied will have far more than Japan, but what-if may be used).

For example:
_ there will be a "Jungle Training" doctrine that will be available to Japan at start but not to the Allied.
_ there will be an "ASW doctrine" that will be available to the Allied at start but not to Japan.
_ for CV TF there will be an "AA ring doctrine" available at start to teh Allied ,b ut not to Japan, and an "advanced CAP doctrine" that neither side will have, and a "strike coordination doctrine" available to Japan and not to US.
_ there will also be doctrines used to simulate the Japanese advantages at start of the war. That is until the Allid paid points for them, the Japanese initial advantages will held. Like "bounce and not dogfight" doctrine, and so on.

Each doctrine will give one side bonuses, and each player may decide what he can advance more or less historically. Any technological advance in the game (the ability to lay mines, the ability to rearm at sea with AEs) or tactical change (skip bombing, using Corsairs aboard CVs, using B-17 under 20k feet, using Kamikazes, using Kaitens) will cost points, that will simulate:
1) the time spend to develop new procedures and technics, and to train pilots to do it
2) the natural resistance to any human organization to any change

For the point 2), I will modifiy it by saying that the side that is losing should receive bonus "innovation points". So for example a winning Japan will never be able to use Kamikazes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

quote:

A system that reflects how the war is progressing in the game. If a player is suffering extreme pilot losses, then this should be reflected in the quality of pilots being produced, regardless of the year of the game or nationality.

Well if you're going to go there, why not a system that allows the player to choose the level of training. Want'em quick, low experience. Want'em good. Plan on not seeing them for awhile.

Would produce an interesting departure point between different playing styles .....

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

quote:

I've pulled 400 entires out of the exxisting wish list by hand and it only took about 2 days of huffin' and puffin' ....

This would be an interesting list to post/maintain. Doesn't mean you guys can do them all (definitely not), but would give some visibility as to what is on "a" list. Also, let's us avoid repeating the same old suggestion. Should be a separate, non-postable thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Did anyone mention toggles for being able to shut on/off the supply going automatically from place to place?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

An Air Interdiction mission.
Hits on LCU's would reduce a % movement gains that day.
They would also reduce a % of supplies in the hex.