Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

WitP II Air To Air model Discussion

 
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 >> WitP II Air To Air model Discussion Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 12:17:28 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline 		Just what it says. Matrix has always been responsive to their customers. What Say we start brainstorming in case this becomes a reality?

Let's keep it to constructive comments/criticism. I am starting this thread but hope the Mods will patrol it and keep things positive.

Ideas for the new model and limitations of/gripes about the old one are welcome. limit your post to posting ideas/gripes not engaging each other in pointless arguements. Feel free to agree and expand on each others concepts!

< Message edited by TheElf -- 3/19/2006 12:20:28 AM >

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES


Post #: 1
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 12:24:27 AM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline 		Well for starters, it seems too bloody - usually.

Perhaps if air combat included limits on ammunition (and/or possibly even more importantly) accounted for forces dispersing over a wide area of the sky after a round of combat - and therefore having no one to engage - that would definitely help.

My initial thoughts.

B

_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 2
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 2:07:22 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		That was the point of the Good,Bad,Ugly thread.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 3
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 2:27:25 AM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

That was the point of the Good,Bad,Ugly thread.



Gee, I thought you were just stirring up trouble again, Ron...

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 4
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 2:35:10 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline 		This is a specific thread on the A2A model. I think it would help to have segregated threads so they were easy to gather data on individual subjects. Seeing how A2A is one of the most popular gripe subjects and something near and dear to my heart I wanted to get the ball rolling.

I am looking for very specific player requested features and improvements related to a potential WitP II A2A model.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 5
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 2:38:29 AM   
Black Mamba 1942


Posts: 510
Joined: 12/7/2005
Status: offline 		Get rid of all ship commanders and pilots.
Stick with unit experience levels and officer assignment at the command level.

So only the air unit would have a leader, and only TF's would have commanders.
Same for LCU's, only HQ's would have a commanding officer.
The rest would rely on unit experience levels for everything else.

A little bit of simplicity for the game would make it more manageable, and faster to play.

No more WO's and Staff? in charge.
This would free up a lot of slots for real operational commanders.

< Message edited by Black Mamba 1942 -- 3/19/2006 2:40:56 AM >

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 6
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 3:05:55 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

Get rid of all ship commanders and pilots.
Stick with unit experience levels and officer assignment at the command level.

So only the air unit would have a leader, and only TF's would have commanders.
Same for LCU's, only HQ's would have a commanding officer.
The rest would rely on unit experience levels for everything else.

A little bit of simplicity for the game would make it more manageable, and faster to play.

No more WO's and Staff? in charge.
This would free up a lot of slots for real operational commanders.


Air to Air Only please. We can start other threads for the other areas of play.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to Black Mamba 1942)
Post #: 7
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 3:07:11 AM   
Black Mamba 1942


Posts: 510
Joined: 12/7/2005
Status: offline 		It's all related.

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 8
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 3:33:40 AM   
rogueusmc


Posts: 4583
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

It's all related.
So is my Aunt Bernice, but I don't wanna talk about her either...

_____________________________

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army


(in reply to Black Mamba 1942)
Post #: 9
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 3:58:01 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		You got a picture of Aunt Bernice?

_____________________________


(in reply to rogueusmc)
Post #: 10
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 4:14:15 AM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline 		Well T.Elf,

It looks like it's you and me,...does that mean we get the keys to the candy store?

B




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Big B -- 3/19/2006 4:17:01 AM >

_____________________________

Big B's Shipyard

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 11
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 4:32:25 AM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

Get rid of all ship commanders and pilots.
Stick with unit experience levels and officer assignment at the command level.

So only the air unit would have a leader, and only TF's would have commanders.
Same for LCU's, only HQ's would have a commanding officer.
The rest would rely on unit experience levels for everything else.

A little bit of simplicity for the game would make it more manageable, and faster to play.

No more WO's and Staff? in charge.
This would free up a lot of slots for real operational commanders.



So your unit experience would replace individual pilot experience... I like the idea.

As I am of the opinion that the game has been drilled down to such a level in some areas that some players are of the opinion that it should be a tactical game with a strategic flavor as opposed to a strategic/operational game with a tactical flavor.

Why not get rid of altitude increment settings as well or at least group them - Very High, High, Medium, Low, Very Low instead of by feet as is the current case.

Possibly figure a way to break up strikes into smaller engagements...perhaps tie it to a coordination roll and ammo see below with the discussion of Pacific fighters.

Simulate loiter time and such through op points for air units - Air Units are given op points based on endurance. the unit expends op points to conduct different actions - fight an A2A rd expend op points ---- move a hex , Op points ---- bomb, op points----land and reload, op points --- Units flying Cap over own base will be able to cycle aircraft Units flying longer range missions will not have as much loiter time and will be limited in how many A2A rds they can engage in before hitting an endurance limit....

Tie unit experience to the ability to stay in the fight.

Get rid of the combat animation...This is not a tactical simualtion and unless we want to get involved with pushing aircraft around a tactical map I see no use in it. Just give us a report ...On such and such a day x number of aircraft attacked such and asuch place and suffered Y number of casualties. I don't need to see that plane 231 was climbing ratta tat tat plane 231 climbing rata tat tat...

By the way the wine flowed freely tonight accompanied by Rack of Wild Boar finished with a French Silk Cake and a cafe' latte'. The meal was ok but way over p[riced the company was outstanding however.

Oh what else... Picked up Pacific fighters by Ubi... not enough 20 mm rounds for a Zero...my take WitP needs ammo limits for planes....The F4f turns like a pig. Granted I'm not a pilot but I keep putting it into a nasty spin that takes several thousand feet to recover from but it can take a beating... The zero on the other hand...turns nicely slightly faster not by much ....very fragile.

Apply Malaria to the aircraft---op losses.

Enough rambling for now...



_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Black Mamba 1942)
Post #: 12
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 4:57:16 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline 		I like the idea of individual pilots and ratings, so long as it can be made to work. So far I haven't had any pilot problems, though. I think if someone wants they can simply tune out or ignore the minutiae of pilots, etc. It gives an extra level of detail for those who want to be able to pull up a pilot list when they have nothing better to do and see who's kicking tail and who isn't.

I also like the idea of counting engines in VP scoring. That way 4Es will be a little more expensive to loose.


(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 13
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 5:16:22 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Why not get rid of altitude increment settings as well or at least group them - Very High, High, Medium, Low, Very Low instead of by feet as is the current case.


This is an idea I have been thinking about. Actual performance figures for Aircraft at different altitudes. Would take a lot of research but the info is out there. Would certainly make altitude selection mean something. Rather than calling them low, med, hi 0-10k, 10-20K, 20-30K would make it easier to convert real world stats into the game system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Possibly figure a way to break up strikes into smaller engagements...perhaps tie it to a coordination roll and ammo see below with the discussion of Pacific fighters.


Another mutual idea. I'm thinking that each leader has an Tactics Attribute that could be a modifier to a combination of factors such as Aggression, Leadership, Inspiration, and Prestige. Strike Coordination could be a skill that good leaders develop over time based on their overal EXP at the start of the gameand then improved as they fly more and more combat missions.

There should also be a distiction as to where an intercept occurs. Pre-target, over the target, Off-target. All of course dependent on the cumulative activity over the target that day, Weather modifiers, CAP availability, Radar coverage, Field conditions, Skill of the Opposing Intercept Leader, Etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Simulate loiter time and such through op points for air units - Air Units are given op points based on endurance. the unit expends op points to conduct different actions - fight an A2A rd expend op points ---- move a hex , Op points ---- bomb, op points----land and reload, op points --- Units flying Cap over own base will be able to cycle aircraft Units flying longer range missions will not have as much loiter time and will be limited in how many A2A rds they can engage in before hitting an endurance limit....


Yep. Agree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Tie unit experience to the ability to stay in the fight.


Yep Agree. Lots of modifiers could help determine this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Get rid of the combat animation...This is not a tactical simualtion and unless we want to get involved with pushing aircraft around a tactical map I see no use in it. Just give us a report ...On such and such a day x number of aircraft attacked such and asuch place and suffered Y number of casualties. I don't need to see that plane 231 was climbing ratta tat tat plane 231 climbing rata tat tat...


Are you trying to put me put of work or what? I actually think the Combat Replay could be made to provide more information. More messages with explanations to the player as to why things are happening.

Why did the Strike Abort? --> "Weather in the Target area..."

or

"Unable Rendezvous with Escort fighters" and the Formation Leader's Aggression attribute is not high enough to continue without Escort etc.

But I think it SHOULD all be available in an after action report should player A not want to watch the animation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Apply Malaria to the aircraft---op losses.


Yep. And malaria could be a dynamic modifier, as in different levels of negatiove modifiers based on level of Airbase development, supplies, Time of year, Location etc.


Great Stuff. Keep it coming...

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 14
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 5:19:30 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I like the idea of individual pilots and ratings, so long as it can be made to work. So far I haven't had any pilot problems, though. I think if someone wants they can simply tune out or ignore the minutiae of pilots, etc. It gives an extra level of detail for those who want to be able to pull up a pilot list when they have nothing better to do and see who's kicking tail and who isn't.

I also like the idea of counting engines in VP scoring. That way 4Es will be a little more expensive to loose.




Agree on individual pilots. Air to Air combat is dynamic and random. Having lots of pilots with variable skill levels and performance would only ADD to the Dynamic of any future Air model.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 15
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 5:41:08 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

There should also be a distiction as to where an intercept occurs. Pre-target, over the target, Off-target. All of course dependent on the cumulative activity over the target that day, Weather modifiers, CAP availability, Radar coverage, Field conditions, Skill of the Opposing Intercept Leader, Etc.



Why? What would the difference be?

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 16
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 5:43:48 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Get rid of the combat animation...This is not a tactical simualtion and unless we want to get involved with pushing aircraft around a tactical map I see no use in it. Just give us a report ...On such and such a day x number of aircraft attacked such and asuch place and suffered Y number of casualties. I don't need to see that plane 231 was climbing ratta tat tat plane 231 climbing rata tat tat...



Seconded - but I know a lot of people like to see it. Most definately have all info recorded in one or more combat reports files (maybe there's one summary and one detailed). My PC is slow enough on WITP, watching a combat animation makes playing the game torture.

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 17
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 5:45:49 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I also like the idea of counting engines in VP scoring. That way 4Es will be a little more expensive to loose.


How about all fighters are 1 VP (regardless of twin engine or not), and all bombers are VP = # of engines?

What do you think about transports, recon, patrol, etc. types?

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 18
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 6:33:45 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

There should also be a distiction as to where an intercept occurs. Pre-target, over the target, Off-target. All of course dependent on the cumulative activity over the target that day, Weather modifiers, CAP availability, Radar coverage, Field conditions, Skill of the Opposing Intercept Leader, Etc.



Why? What would the difference be?


Because that is the way it happened in the real world. The Job of the Interceptors is to Hit the Bombers (Ideally) before they ingress the target. The job of the Escort and Sweeps is to prevent the CAP from disrupting the Bombers. If the Escort and Sweeps are successful, The Bombers are more likely to arrive over the target with less disruption and in higher numbers. The end result is the raid can be more successful.

If factors work in favor the interceptors (ie. the player has given priority to defense by ordering higher % CAP, Radar provides good early warning, CAP units are healthy and well supplied, Field in is good working order, Weather is favorable, Leadership is effective, unit is skilled)then the CAP has more potential to provide a higher level of protection, and perhaps reduce the raid or even turn it away before reaching the target.

If Interceptors are "modified" by Weather, lack of radar, yet possess good doctrine and Excellent leadership and are unable to make a successful pre-target intercept but can effect an off target intercept then the Bombers can have a successful strike but still suffer horrible losses.

It all adds to the variability and randomness of Air to Air Combat. Makes smart play important yet also adds an element of "We did everything right, but the circumstances weren;t in our favor"...

< Message edited by TheElf -- 3/19/2006 6:36:44 AM >

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 19
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 6:54:12 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Get rid of the combat animation...This is not a tactical simualtion and unless we want to get involved with pushing aircraft around a tactical map I see no use in it. Just give us a report ...On such and such a day x number of aircraft attacked such and asuch place and suffered Y number of casualties. I don't need to see that plane 231 was climbing ratta tat tat plane 231 climbing rata tat tat...



Seconded - but I know a lot of people like to see it. Most definately have all info recorded in one or more combat reports files (maybe there's one summary and one detailed). My PC is slow enough on WITP, watching a combat animation makes playing the game torture.


But isn't there an option already in which combat animations can be turned off? I need to go back and check, I could have sworn there was. In any case, wouldn't that be a better option? That way it would please both sides of the issue. I'll admit I'm one of those who occasionally enjoys watching the anims. The ones I don't care about I simply hit the escape key.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 20
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 7:09:43 AM   
skrewball


Posts: 305
Joined: 12/10/2000
From: Belgium
Status: offline 		I think it would be best if the Aircraft formations were placed on a behind the scenes "checkerboard".

That way, squadrons could only engage squadrons that are close to them. Instead of just rolling the die for each and every plane vs every plane on the opposing side.

_____________________________

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 21
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 7:10:39 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

There should also be a distiction as to where an intercept occurs. Pre-target, over the target, Off-target. All of course dependent on the cumulative activity over the target that day, Weather modifiers, CAP availability, Radar coverage, Field conditions, Skill of the Opposing Intercept Leader, Etc.



Why? What would the difference be?


Problem faced by RAAF Spitfires over Darwin was getting up to the heights the Jap Bombers flew at. Therefore many combats occured after the bombs had been dropped.

If you have the various times of intercept, you could destroy/abort/disrupt the bombing raid. But need enough advance warning to be in position. Attacking over the target would need the AAA to either not fire or open yourself to friendly fire. Hitting them after they leave for home will see the Target hit, but any losses they suffer will lessen future raids.

It could be that your Mustangs scramble in time to hit the incoming raid, Spitfires hit them over the target and Airacobras pick at the stragglers as they leave for home.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 22
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 7:13:01 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Get rid of the combat animation...This is not a tactical simualtion and unless we want to get involved with pushing aircraft around a tactical map I see no use in it. Just give us a report ...On such and such a day x number of aircraft attacked such and asuch place and suffered Y number of casualties. I don't need to see that plane 231 was climbing ratta tat tat plane 231 climbing rata tat tat...



Seconded - but I know a lot of people like to see it. Most definately have all info recorded in one or more combat reports files (maybe there's one summary and one detailed). My PC is slow enough on WITP, watching a combat animation makes playing the game torture.


But isn't there an option already in which combat animations can be turned off? I need to go back and check, I could have sworn there was. In any case, wouldn't that be a better option? That way it would please both sides of the issue. I'll admit I'm one of those who occasionally enjoys watching the anims. The ones I don't care about I simply hit the escape key.


Yes, you can turn off the animations, I only watch them in WPO.

But the space taken up could be used to add extra slots or provide space for better Ground, A-A & Naval combat engines.


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 23
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 7:34:08 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I also like the idea of counting engines in VP scoring. That way 4Es will be a little more expensive to loose.


How about all fighters are 1 VP (regardless of twin engine or not), and all bombers are VP = # of engines?

What do you think about transports, recon, patrol, etc. types?


Auxiliary aircraft may present a problem. Should an Emily score as high as a B-17 when shot down?

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 24
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 7:39:49 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		Yes, the effort to build the Emily would see their loss as a major concern.

It would see the Jap use their Search planes with more care as well.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 25
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 11:23:49 AM   
1EyedJacks


Posts: 2244
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: The Eastern Sierras
Status: offline 		I would like some way to insure that fighters escort my DBs and TBs.

I think that there should be some random option for a surprise attack - something that lets you know you or your opponent were caught with your pants down

I would like to see the ability to have pilots that complete their tour of duty be used as trainers to increase the replacement pilots.

I would like to see pilots jump when their ride is dead.


_____________________________

TTFN,

Mike

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 26
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 1:49:23 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

I would like some way to insure that fighters escort my DBs and TBs.


To rigid. See Midway. Players shouldn't have that much control. Its a question of who or what the player represents in the game. Is the player Marshall or is the player Nimitz or is the player Fletcher or is the player Spruance or is the player McCluskey. I would venture that the players represent Spruance/Fletcher and above.



_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to 1EyedJacks)
Post #: 27
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 1:57:42 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

There should also be a distiction as to where an intercept occurs. Pre-target, over the target, Off-target. All of course dependent on the cumulative activity over the target that day, Weather modifiers, CAP availability, Radar coverage, Field conditions, Skill of the Opposing Intercept Leader, Etc.


Agreed. Perhaps break down the turn into internal phases that the player doesn't see but receives reports about. Time of interception is crucial to the succes of a strike.

My idea here could make things very complicated, Phasing could be tied to all sorts of activity outside of A2A - Naval Intercepts and Spotting come to mind.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 28
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 2:00:39 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Get rid of the combat animation...This is not a tactical simualtion and unless we want to get involved with pushing aircraft around a tactical map I see no use in it. Just give us a report ...On such and such a day x number of aircraft attacked such and asuch place and suffered Y number of casualties. I don't need to see that plane 231 was climbing ratta tat tat plane 231 climbing rata tat tat...



Seconded - but I know a lot of people like to see it. Most definately have all info recorded in one or more combat reports files (maybe there's one summary and one detailed). My PC is slow enough on WITP, watching a combat animation makes playing the game torture.


But isn't there an option already in which combat animations can be turned off? I need to go back and check, I could have sworn there was. In any case, wouldn't that be a better option? That way it would please both sides of the issue. I'll admit I'm one of those who occasionally enjoys watching the anims. The ones I don't care about I simply hit the escape key.


Yes there is an option to turn them off and I have chosen to do so...no offense TElf. The designers have indicated and stated on several different occassions that the combat animation for A2A and Naval combat are not accurate representations of what is occurring in the model.


_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 29
RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion - 3/19/2006 2:05:14 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

Are you trying to put me put of work or what? I actually think the Combat Replay could be made to provide more information. More messages with explanations to the player as to why things are happening.

Why did the Strike Abort? --> "Weather in the Target area..."

or

"Unable Rendezvous with Escort fighters" and the Formation Leader's Aggression attribute is not high enough to continue without Escort etc.

But I think it SHOULD all be available in an after action report should player A not want to watch the animation.



I could agrre to the above. As i stated earlier I have the impression that the current animation is not an accurate representation of what is taking place within the model. If the A2A model were revised and the animation accurately reflected what was taking place I could see including it.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> WitP II Air To Air model Discussion Page: [1] 2 3 4   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

4.922