RE: WPO Wishlist

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: WPO Wishlist

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 I] >> War Plan Orange: Dreadnoughts in the Pacific 1922 - 1930 >> RE: WPO Wishlist

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: WPO Wishlist - 12/16/2005 2:35:53 AM

Fallschirmjager

Posts: 6793
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The conversion's already been done:

Could someone do one for lbs as well?

_____________________________

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 31

RE: WPO Wishlist - 12/18/2005 2:06:05 PM

GreyCamus1

Posts: 8
Joined: 12/18/2005
Status: offline

I would like to see combat summaries be a small window to the upper right of the location where the action occurred. You guys have created IMHO the prettiest map out there, yet the program has you jumping away from it to the rather boring summary screen(that takes up the entire screen), and then at times only gives you a hex location. Having it part of the map routine would be a excellent visual aid on what is occurring to your strategy(or lack of ).In addition have the combat summary tell you in the first line what is occurring in more detail. It states what is occurring,but does not state who is the aggressor, If the aggressor is identified it would aleviate the looking down seeing who has the sub and who has the surface ship to find out what happened. This would streamline the scrolling of the combat summaries. This could also be resolved by having a left and right side to the results, with the japanese on one side and the US coalition on the other, so you could quickly run down the summary and see the effects to each side. A summary at the bottom would be great as well.

I realize that these appear to be rather minor issues(or anal if you choose), but having played WiTP as well, I could never play the game with the combat reports active as it just takes too long, in addition given the length of each turn(and game), any time saving for information gathering is precious.

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 32

RE: WPO Wishlist - 12/24/2005 9:32:16 PM

JagdFlanker

Posts: 689
Joined: 7/26/2003
From: Halifax, Canada
Status: offline

i realize this is likely source code stuff so i'm not expecting miracles, but as a beginner to the this interface there's 2 things that'd really make life easier when doing my turn.

...

since aggresive captains are often what you are looking for and all those other extra stats are not revealed unless you click on the captain (which you are often not allowed to do) it'd be VERY helpful if you could hover the mouse cursor over the captain and get ALL his stats without having to click on him.

just some observations - i know they don't have anything to do with the amazing job you did with the WPO!

< Message edited by Flanker Leader -- 1/12/2006 1:32:19 PM >

(in reply to GreyCamus1)

Post #: 33

RE: WPO Wishlist - 12/27/2005 7:07:06 PM

Rysyonok

Posts: 2138
Joined: 12/17/2005
Status: offline

...not to mention how helpful can it be to be able to sort commanders by their naval rating, air rating etc etc etc... or by their best assignments - it's a pain to browse through 200 fighter/bomber leaders to dig out the last remaining recon guy =)

(in reply to JagdFlanker)

Post #: 34

RE: WPO Wishlist - 12/27/2005 7:13:16 PM

Rysyonok

Posts: 2138
Joined: 12/17/2005
Status: offline

P.S. A brief FAQ on AO (colliers), AS (sub tenders) and all those other auxiliary classes would be nice.

(in reply to Rysyonok)

Post #: 35

RE: WPO Wishlist - 12/29/2005 3:35:47 AM

chili614

Posts: 23
Joined: 6/13/2002
Status: offline

I know it has already been said, but airships and blimps would certainly add a fantastic dimension to the game. The USS Akron and USS Macon were "flying aircraft carriers" and carried 4 Sparrowhawk fighters. Other rigid airships and blimps could be used for recon and light bombing. New ships could also be added such as the USS Wright (AZ-1), the first "lighter than air" tender, and the Aroostok class tenders, just to name a few off my head.

I am a game player, not a game maker so I am not certain this is possible within the code for the game but I think it would be great if it could be developed. The scenarios in WPO take place exactly when the Golden Age of the airships was beginning. As there are no other games that model this era of (hypothetical) warfare, I hope this is an area that can be explored.

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 36

RE: WPO Wishlist - 12/29/2005 4:27:40 AM

JagdFlanker

Posts: 689
Joined: 7/26/2003
From: Halifax, Canada
Status: offline

to take my previous request 1 step further and to shorten the learning curve it would be nice if you could hover your mouse over pretty much any unit and get the important stats without having to click directly on the unit. for example it takes a long time to figure out which ships are offensive and which are scouts by name, and if you could hover the mouse over them in any screen to show their gun mounts and armour stats you can quickly take stock and compare your forces without having to click in and out, in and out, over and over again. less clicking = good!

(in reply to chili614)

Post #: 37

RE: WPO Wishlist - 1/1/2006 5:49:45 PM

Philodraco

Posts: 61
Joined: 6/8/2002
From: War Room
Status: offline

The Giant airship Acron and Macon was very important unit in US navy, although they were finished after 1930.

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 38

RE: WPO Wishlist - 1/1/2006 8:35:29 PM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

Akron and Macon would certainly be fascinating, but unfortunately not doable in the engine. (Nevermind they are out of WPO's timeframe). However, with the 1.15 patch, we did introduce non rigid blimps into the game, though only for the US (Britain had no means of deploying them to the Pacific, and Japan never fully embraced the LTA concept).

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to Philodraco)

Post #: 39

RE: WPO Wishlist - 1/4/2006 3:13:21 AM

orabera

Posts: 74
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: Monument, CO
Status: offline

OB corrections/additions/ideas:

With the latest update (1.151), the Wisconsin (BB1917 class, never was BB class) appears in Mare Island in Scenario #2. When I check it using the database editor, it appears that the delay has been entered as 99999 (five 9's) vice 9999 (four 9's).

I've been looking at the ground OB in the Philippines and have a couple of suggestions:
Phlipine Division - This division was formed in 1922 and consisted of the 15th (only 1st Bn (Audy Murphy's Own) was in the Phiippines) and 31st US Inf Rgt and the 45th and 57th Ing Rgt (PS). Two additional PS Inf Rgt's (43rd, 62nd) had been disbanded in 1922. In our hypothectical scenario, the two disbanded regiments should remain and the Philippine Division should consist of the 43rd, 45th, 57th and 62nd INF (PS), with only the 26th CAV (PS),31st INF US and 1st Bn/15th INF US appearing independent units.

The Philippine Reserve Division - I really hate decisions made for game balance, the Japanese should have a cake walk in the Phlippines outside Luzon.

4th Marine Rgt - It was stationed in the Domincan Republic from 1915-24 (saving the Caribbean for American Capitalism), San Diego from 24-27, and in Shanghai from 27-Nov 41. It should not appear in the Philippines at all. In the 1922 scenario it should appear as a reinforcement in San Diego, and in the 1926 scenario it should start in San Diego.

Coastal Defenses - The individual forts should be represented, and there should be no coastal batteries at all in Manila, all Manila Bay defenses were based on islands to the south of Bataan.
An excellent site for reference for Philippinse defenses would be: http://www.cdsg.org/manila.htm, I have edited Scenario #2 for my enjoyment using this as source. Also http://corregidor.org/btty_histories/control/open.htm looks pretty good.

Subic Bay - It a long with Fort Wint (costal defenses based in Grande Island) should be represented some how. I would recommend placing it in the one hex north of Bataan to represent it being just a little too north to be contained in the Bataan final defense line, with a possible capacity of 2 or 3, with possibly 4 destroyers based there to start.

Hawaii - What about the Hawaii National Guard? Post-WWI it consisted of the 298th and 299th Inf Rgt's, probably should be represented as heavily understrength and untrained, but they should be represented.

Other Coastal Defenses - See http://www.cdsg.org/pacific.htm for a complete listing of all coastal defense installations on the Pacific Coast. My suggestion (I used in my scenario based on #2), would be to keep all the guns removed in the early Twenties (to represent heightened tension), add the 16'' guns installed in the early Twenties to The 1922 scenarios, and then add all 16'' and 6'' guns installed in the 40's to represent defense increases brought about by the arm's race between US and Japan to the 1926 scenarios.

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 40

RE: WPO Wishlist - 1/4/2006 5:38:49 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: orabera

OB corrections/additions/ideas:

With the latest update (1.151), the Wisconsin (BB1917 class, never was BB class) appears in Mare Island in Scenario #2. When I check it using the database editor, it appears that the delay has been entered as 99999 (five 9's) vice 9999 (four 9's).

Will fix.

I've been looking at the ground OB in the Philippines and have a couple of suggestions:
Phlipine Division - This division was formed in 1922 and consisted of the 15th (only 1st Bn (Audy Murphy's Own) was in the Phiippines) and 31st US Inf Rgt and the 45th and 57th Ing Rgt (PS). Two additional PS Inf Rgt's (43rd, 62nd) had been disbanded in 1922. In our hypothectical scenario, the two disbanded regiments should remain and the Philippine Division should consist of the 43rd, 45th, 57th and 62nd INF (PS), with only the 26th CAV (PS),31st INF US and 1st Bn/15th INF US appearing independent units.

The Philippine Reserve Division - I really hate decisions made for game balance, the Japanese should have a cake walk in the Phlippines outside Luzon.

Can adjust on Luzon units. However, I agree with the Reserve Division, but it represents peasants and civilians rising up. In the grand scheme of things, it is a pushover and doesn't seriously hamper the invasion.

4th Marine Rgt - It was stationed in the Domincan Republic from 1915-24 (saving the Caribbean for American Capitalism), San Diego from 24-27, and in Shanghai from 27-Nov 41. It should not appear in the Philippines at all. In the 1922 scenario it should appear as a reinforcement in San Diego, and in the 1926 scenario it should start in San Diego.

Already done (I do believe it is in the PI in Clash of Titans, but it is never in the PI in the campaigns). I left the unit in its original place in the OOB, but it is assigned to San Diego in all campaigns (with a varying arrival date).

Coastal Defenses - The individual forts should be represented, and there should be no coastal batteries at all in Manila, all Manila Bay defenses were based on islands to the south of Bataan.

As they are 60nm hexes, to provide for the historic fields of fire, the batteries are spaced out. As to indivdual forts, I may consider doing that. Ah you know what, I'm in a generous mood, so I'll do it.

An excellent site for reference for Philippinse defenses would be: http://www.cdsg.org/manila.htm, I have edited Scenario #2 for my enjoyment using this as source. Also http://corregidor.org/btty_histories/control/open.htm looks pretty good.

Subic Bay - It a long with Fort Wint (costal defenses based in Grande Island) should be represented some how. I would recommend placing it in the one hex north of Bataan to represent it being just a little too north to be contained in the Bataan final defense line, with a possible capacity of 2 or 3, with possibly 4 destroyers based there to start.

Hawaii - What about the Hawaii National Guard? Post-WWI it consisted of the 298th and 299th Inf Rgt's, probably should be represented as heavily understrength and untrained, but they should be represented.

Will add (again, while I tried to be as accurate as possible, it wasn't possible to gather information about every unit everywhere).

Other Coastal Defenses - See http://www.cdsg.org/pacific.htm for a complete listing of all coastal defense installations on the Pacific Coast. My suggestion (I used in my scenario based on #2), would be to keep all the guns removed in the early Twenties (to represent heightened tension), add the 16'' guns installed in the early Twenties to The 1922 scenarios, and then add all 16'' and 6'' guns installed in the 40's to represent defense increases brought about by the arm's race between US and Japan to the 1926 scenarios.

< Message edited by Tankerace -- 1/4/2006 5:52:23 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to orabera)

Post #: 41

RE: WPO Wishlist - 1/4/2006 6:41:51 AM

Treetop64

Posts: 926
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: 519 Redwood City - BASE (Hex 218, 70)
Status: offline

Authentic depictions of AKs, TKs, APs, etc. for the time period would be nice, instead of the ones we see hijacked from WitP.

Also, more of the marvelous music! The music has always been one of my favorites from both games, and I just wish there was more of it.

_____________________________

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 42

RE: WPO Wishlist - 1/4/2006 7:43:06 AM

TDeacon

Posts: 62
Joined: 12/25/2005
From: NE Illinois
Status: offline

I would like to have more control over whether my TFs engage in daylight. This would better simulate 1920s naval doctrine. This change would presumably require a code change (which I understand must be usable for WitP as well, in order to justify the effort by the programmers). Some ideas:

1) Provide a game setting which puts the day portion of a turn before the night portion. For WPO you would set the engine to run day first, for WitP you would set night first.

2) Or, add a new mission type for "daylight surface combat". This would make it probable (to a degree determined by various factors such as commander skill and aircraft/ship scouting assests) that a TF would maneuver so as to meet a sighted opponent during the daylight portion(s) of a turn. This mission type might require one's own AI to exercise some judgement as to which enemy TFs it should try to engage, if more than one has been sighted. For this new mission type, the reaction distance could be used to allow the player some control over which enemy TF is to be preferentially engaged. For this new mission type, the retirement allowed/not-allowed setting could be used to allow the player to specify whether the intent is to force battle, or merely to shadow the enemy TF. This new mission type could be used in WitP as well.

(in reply to Treetop64)

Post #: 43

RE: WPO Wishlist - 1/11/2006 7:51:22 PM

Rysyonok

Posts: 2138
Joined: 12/17/2005
Status: offline

How about an option to downgrade a plane?

If I only got 1-2 modern airplanes left intact, the rest shot down, in a squadron with the next replacement due only in 2 weeks, why not take a step back and mount those 50 slightly obsolete planes still in hangars =)

(in reply to TDeacon)

Post #: 44

RE: WPO Wishlist - 1/11/2006 8:27:16 PM

Helpless

Posts: 15793
Joined: 8/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rysyonok

How about an option to downgrade a plane?

If I only got 1-2 modern airplanes left intact, the rest shot down, in a squadron with the next replacement due only in 2 weeks, why not take a step back and mount those 50 slightly obsolete planes still in hangars =)

I think it should be possible with PDU on.

_____________________________

Pavel Zagzin
WITE/WITW/WITE-2 Development

(in reply to Rysyonok)

Post #: 45

RE: WPO Wishlist - 1/11/2006 9:26:19 PM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

You can downgrade any group, so long as at least one group still uses the plane.

For example:

You have five fighter groups, all are flying the Fairey Flycatcher. You can upgrade them, but cannot downgrade them. However, if four are flying the Flycatcher, and one the Sopwith Camel, then you can downgrade all the other groups if you wish.

As a general rule, I would set aside one group for each plane type to not upgrade, so that you can keep some old planes in reserve.

_____________________________

(in reply to Helpless)

Post #: 46

RE: WPO Wishlist - 1/13/2006 6:40:09 AM

orabera

Posts: 74
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: Monument, CO
Status: offline

Coastal Artillery Recommendations for 1922

I've searched up and down the excellent Coast Defense Study Group web site and have tried to put together a complete listing of US coastal defenses as they stood in 1922.

I've tried to list every Harbor Defense command, broken down to subordinate forts, with installation year.

During WWI large numbers of 8inch gun and 12inch mortars were removed, mounted on railroad carriages with the intent of using in France in 1919. I've tried to track down all the guns removed by checking the maps of every fort for 1920-21 on the Coast Defense Study Group web site. I've also tried to track down all of the 3inch AA added in 19217-20 to the permanent installations. Harbor Defenses of the Columbia River might just be the largest gap, it doesn't appear any AA were added.

Next post will show changes from 1922 to 1925

1922 � Pacific United States Harbor Defenses
Continental United States
The Harbor Defenses of San Diego
FORT ROSECRANS
*4 x 12" Mortars � 1916
4 x 10" Guns � 1900
4 x 3" Guns � 1917
2 x 3� AA � 1921
The Harbor Defenses of Los Angeles
FORT MacARTHUR (Upper & Lower)
4 x 14" Guns � 1917
*8 x 12" Mortars � 1917
4 x 3" Guns � 1919
4 x 3� AA � 1920
The Harbor Defenses of San Francisco
FORT FUNSTON
4 x 12" Mortar � 1919
FORT MILEY
16 x 12" Mortar � 1900
2 x 12" Guns � 1898
1 x 12" Gun � 1898
2 x 3� AA � 1920
FORT WINFIELD SCOTT
5 x 12" Guns � 1895
12 x 12" Mortars � 1900
2 x 10" Guns � 1898
2 x 6" Guns � 1902
2 x 6" Guns � 1920
2 x 3� AA � 1920-1925
FORT BAKER
3 x 12" Guns � 1893
2 x 12" Guns � 1900
6 x 3" Guns � 1904
FORT BARRY
*4 x 12" Mortar � 1901
2 x 12" Guns � 1901
2 x 12" Guns � 1919
8 x 6" Guns � 1905
4 x 3" Guns � 1905
4 x 3� AA � 1920
The Harbor Defenses of the Columbia (CD charts of 1921 show no installed AA guns)
FORT STEVENS
*4 x 12" Mortars � 1899
2 x 10" Guns � 1897
2 x 10" Guns � 1904
2 x 6" Guns � 1902
FORT COLUMBIA
2 x 6" Guns � 1900
FORT CANBY
*4 x 12" Mortars � 1921
2 x 6" Guns � 1906
The Harbor Defenses of Grays Harbor (WWI temporary) (CD chart of 1921 shows these guns still installed ) (No AA added)
Shoalwater Indian Reservation (Willapa Bay)
2 x 6" Guns � 1919
8 x 12" Mortars � 1919
The Harbor Defenses of Puget Sound
FORT WARD
2 x 5" Guns � 1903-1925
FORT WHITMAN
4 x 6" Guns � 1911
FORT FLAGLER
*4 x 12" Mortar � 1902
2 x 12" Guns � 1898
2 x 10" Guns � 1899
4 x 3" Guns � 1906
2 x 3� AA � 1920
FORT CASEY
*12 x 12" Mortar � 1899
2 x 10" Guns � 1902
3 x 10" Guns � 1904
2 x 10" Guns � 1898
4 x 3" Guns � 1905
4 x 3� AA � 1920
FORT WORDEN
*8 x 12" Mortar � 1901
2 x 12" Guns � 1900
2 x 12" Guns � 1910
2 x 10" Guns � 1907
3 x 10" Guns � 1900
2 x 6" Guns - 1905
4 x 3" Guns � 1907
2 x 3� AA � 1920
Hawaii
The Harbor Defenses of Honolulu, Hawaii
FORT RUGER
*8 x 12" Mortar � 1910
*4 x 12" Mortar � 1916
2 x 5" Guns � 1916-1925
4 x 4.7" Guns � 1915
6 x 3� AA � 1920
12 x 6pdrs � Before 1922
FORT DeRUSSY
2 x 14" Guns � 1913
2 x 6" Guns � 1913
4 x 3� AA � 1920
FORT ARMSTRONG
2 x 3" Guns � 1911
The Harbor Defenses of Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
FORT KAMEHAMEHA
8 x 12" Mortar � 1914
4 x 12" Guns � 1913
2 x 6" Guns � 1913
2 x 4.7" Guns � 1915-1924
4 x 3" Guns � 1914
4 x 3� AA � 1920
Other locations
4 x 6" Guns � Ford Island, 1917-1925
4 x 3� AA � 1920
Manial & Subic Bays,The Phillipines
The Harbor Defenses of Manila and Subic Bays, the Philippines
FORT MILLS � Corregidor Island
12 x 12" Mortar � 1910
6 x 12" Guns � 1901
2 x 12" Guns � 1921
2 x 10" Guns � 1911
5 x 6" Guns � 1910
10 x 3" Guns � 1910
10 x 3� AA � 1920
FORT FRANK � Carabao Island
2 x 14" Guns � 1913
8 x 12" Mortar � 1913
2 x 3" Guns � 1913
4 x 3� AA � 1920
FORT DRUM � El Fraile Island (Concrete Battleship)
4 x 14" Guns � 1918
4 x 6" Guns � 1918
FORT HUGHES � Caballo Island
2 x 14" Guns � 1914
4 x 12" Mortar � 1919
2 x 6" Guns � 1914
2 x 3" Guns � 1914
4 x 3� AA � 1920
FORT WINT � Grande Island, Subic Bay
2 x 10" Guns � 1910
4 x 6" Guns � 1910
8 x 3" Guns � 1910
2 x 3� AA � 1920

*confirmed number of 12inch Mortars

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 47

RE: WPO Wishlist - 1/13/2006 6:53:55 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

Already changed, I found that same site and already broke down all the forts... I beleive I made a screenshot post in here somewhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: orabera

Coastal Artillery Recommendations for 1922

I've searched up and down the excellent Coast Defense Study Group web site and have tried to put together a complete listing of US coastal defenses as they stood in 1922.

I've tried to list every Harbor Defense command, broken down to subordinate forts, with installation year.

During WWI large numbers of 8inch gun and 12inch mortars were removed, mounted on railroad carriages with the intent of using in France in 1919. I've tried to track down all the guns removed by checking the maps of every fort for 1920-21 on the Coast Defense Study Group web site. I've also tried to track down all of the 3inch AA added in 19217-20 to the permanent installations. Harbor Defenses of the Columbia River might just be the largest gap, it doesn't appear any AA were added.

Next post will show changes from 1922 to 1925

1922 � Pacific United States Harbor Defenses
Continental United States
The Harbor Defenses of San Diego
FORT ROSECRANS
*4 x 12" Mortars � 1916
4 x 10" Guns � 1900
4 x 3" Guns � 1917
2 x 3� AA � 1921
The Harbor Defenses of Los Angeles
FORT MacARTHUR (Upper & Lower)
4 x 14" Guns � 1917
*8 x 12" Mortars � 1917
4 x 3" Guns � 1919
4 x 3� AA � 1920
The Harbor Defenses of San Francisco
FORT FUNSTON
4 x 12" Mortar � 1919
FORT MILEY
16 x 12" Mortar � 1900
2 x 12" Guns � 1898
1 x 12" Gun � 1898
2 x 3� AA � 1920
FORT WINFIELD SCOTT
5 x 12" Guns � 1895
12 x 12" Mortars � 1900
2 x 10" Guns � 1898
2 x 6" Guns � 1902
2 x 6" Guns � 1920
2 x 3� AA � 1920-1925
FORT BAKER
3 x 12" Guns � 1893
2 x 12" Guns � 1900
6 x 3" Guns � 1904
FORT BARRY
*4 x 12" Mortar � 1901
2 x 12" Guns � 1901
2 x 12" Guns � 1919
8 x 6" Guns � 1905
4 x 3" Guns � 1905
4 x 3� AA � 1920
The Harbor Defenses of the Columbia (CD charts of 1921 show no installed AA guns)
FORT STEVENS
*4 x 12" Mortars � 1899
2 x 10" Guns � 1897
2 x 10" Guns � 1904
2 x 6" Guns � 1902
FORT COLUMBIA
2 x 6" Guns � 1900
FORT CANBY
*4 x 12" Mortars � 1921
2 x 6" Guns � 1906
The Harbor Defenses of Grays Harbor (WWI temporary) (CD chart of 1921 shows these guns still installed ) (No AA added)
Shoalwater Indian Reservation (Willapa Bay)
2 x 6" Guns � 1919
8 x 12" Mortars � 1919
The Harbor Defenses of Puget Sound
FORT WARD
2 x 5" Guns � 1903-1925
FORT WHITMAN
4 x 6" Guns � 1911
FORT FLAGLER
*4 x 12" Mortar � 1902
2 x 12" Guns � 1898
2 x 10" Guns � 1899
4 x 3" Guns � 1906
2 x 3� AA � 1920
FORT CASEY
*12 x 12" Mortar � 1899
2 x 10" Guns � 1902
3 x 10" Guns � 1904
2 x 10" Guns � 1898
4 x 3" Guns � 1905
4 x 3� AA � 1920
FORT WORDEN
*8 x 12" Mortar � 1901
2 x 12" Guns � 1900
2 x 12" Guns � 1910
2 x 10" Guns � 1907
3 x 10" Guns � 1900
2 x 6" Guns - 1905
4 x 3" Guns � 1907
2 x 3� AA � 1920
Hawaii
The Harbor Defenses of Honolulu, Hawaii
FORT RUGER
*8 x 12" Mortar � 1910
*4 x 12" Mortar � 1916
2 x 5" Guns � 1916-1925
4 x 4.7" Guns � 1915
6 x 3� AA � 1920
12 x 6pdrs � Before 1922
FORT DeRUSSY
2 x 14" Guns � 1913
2 x 6" Guns � 1913
4 x 3� AA � 1920
FORT ARMSTRONG
2 x 3" Guns � 1911
The Harbor Defenses of Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
FORT KAMEHAMEHA
8 x 12" Mortar � 1914
4 x 12" Guns � 1913
2 x 6" Guns � 1913
2 x 4.7" Guns � 1915-1924
4 x 3" Guns � 1914
4 x 3� AA � 1920
Other locations
4 x 6" Guns � Ford Island, 1917-1925
4 x 3� AA � 1920
Manial & Subic Bays,The Phillipines
The Harbor Defenses of Manila and Subic Bays, the Philippines
FORT MILLS � Corregidor Island
12 x 12" Mortar � 1910
6 x 12" Guns � 1901
2 x 12" Guns � 1921
2 x 10" Guns � 1911
5 x 6" Guns � 1910
10 x 3" Guns � 1910
10 x 3� AA � 1920
FORT FRANK � Carabao Island
2 x 14" Guns � 1913
8 x 12" Mortar � 1913
2 x 3" Guns � 1913
4 x 3� AA � 1920
FORT DRUM � El Fraile Island (Concrete Battleship)
4 x 14" Guns � 1918
4 x 6" Guns � 1918
FORT HUGHES � Caballo Island
2 x 14" Guns � 1914
4 x 12" Mortar � 1919
2 x 6" Guns � 1914
2 x 3" Guns � 1914
4 x 3� AA � 1920
FORT WINT � Grande Island, Subic Bay
2 x 10" Guns � 1910
4 x 6" Guns � 1910
8 x 3" Guns � 1910
2 x 3� AA � 1920

*confirmed number of 12inch Mortars

_____________________________

(in reply to orabera)

Post #: 48

RE: WPO Wishlist - 1/13/2006 7:01:37 AM

orabera

Posts: 74
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: Monument, CO
Status: offline

Coastal Defenses Recommended Changes 1926

Here are the recorded changes in deployment of CD guns from 1922 to 1926.

I've also tossed in a couple of hypothetical 16inch gun batteries. The batteries were part of the pre-WWII planned improvements and some conceivably could have been built during rising war scares with Japan from 1922-26.

Listed here are also two 14inch railroad guns based in Los Angeles. Railroad guns were the responsibility of Coastal Artillery, these guns were listed on the inventory of Fort MacArthur, Harbor Defenses of Los Angeles, so I have listed them here. These guns were probably assigned to the 605th Coastal Artillery Battalion, part of the Organized Reserves. The 605th was the only 14inch Railroad gun unit.

1926 � Changes and Possible Additions to Pacific United States Harbor Defenses
Continental United States
The Harbor Defenses of San Diego
FORT EMORY
2 x 16" Guns � Hypothetical (Construction started during WWII)
FORT ROSECRANS
2 x 16" Guns � Hypothetical (Built during WWII)
The Harbor Defenses of Los Angeles
Bolsa Chica Military Reservation
2 x 16" Guns � Hypothetical (Construction started during WWII)
FORT MacARTHUR (Upper & Lower )
2 x 14" Railway Guns � From 1925
One gun delivered in 1925, the other in 1930
Guns possibly belonged to the 605th CA Battalion (Ry), Organized Reserves
White Point Military Reservation
2 x 16" Guns � Hypothetical (Built during WWII)
The Harbor Defenses of San Francisco
Milagra Ridge Military Reservation
2 x 16" Guns � Hypothetical (Planned WWII)
FORT FUNSTON
2 x 16" Guns � Hypothetical, actually built 1935-40
2 x 3� AA � 1925 (From Fort Scott)
FORT SCOTT
2 x 3� AA � 1920-25 (Moved in 1925 to Fort Funston)
FORT BARRY
2 x 16" Guns � Hypothetical (Built WWII)
FORT CRONKHITE
2 x 16" Guns � Hypothetical (Built WWII)
The Harbor Defenses of the Columbia � No changes
The Harbor Defenses of Grays Harbor � No changes
The Harbor Defenses of Puget Sound
FORT WARD
2 x 5" Guns � Removed 1925
CAMP HAYDEN
6 x 16" Guns � Hypothetical (WWII plan, never built)
Hawaii
The Harbor Defenses of Honolulu, Hawaii
FORT RUGER
2 x 5" Guns � Removed 1925
Other locations
The Harbor Defenses of Pearl Harbor, Hawaii
FORT BARRETTE
2 x 16" Guns � Hypothetical, actually built 1934
FORT WEAVER
2 x 16" Guns � Completed 1924
FORT KAMEHAMEHA
2 x 12" Guns � 1924
2 x 4.7" Guns � Removed 1924
Other locations
4 x 6" Guns � Ford Island, removed 1925
Manial & Subic Bays,The Phillipines - No Changes after 1920 due to treaties between the US and Japan.

(in reply to orabera)

Post #: 49

RE: WPO Wishlist - 5/4/2006 5:10:55 PM

Comander Rodney RAN

Posts: 6
Joined: 5/4/2006
Status: offline

Hi any chance Tankrace that you sim never where CAs or ACs as theres no WT in this time line .Hears two i have simed out useing springer as i do not have the game as of yet they be for the RN/RAN and maby the RCN as well both ships use the 9.20inc as there manis take a look and tell what you think off them Tankracer .

Kent Ballarat class, uk Aust Cruiser laid down 1922

Displacement:
14,832 t light; 15,897 t standard; 17,144 t normal; 18,142 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
688.92 ft / 688.92 ft x 75.00 ft x 29.55 ft (normal load)
209.98 m / 209.98 m x 22.86 m x 9.01 m

Armament:
12 - 9.20" / 234 mm guns (3x4 guns), 389.34lbs / 176.60kg shells, 1922 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
8 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns (4x2 guns), 45.56lbs / 20.67kg shells, 1922 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, all amidships
20 - 1.58" / 40.1 mm guns in single mounts, 1.97lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1922 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
25 - 0.80" / 20.3 mm guns in single mounts, 0.26lbs / 0.12kg shells, 1922 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 5,082 lbs / 2,305 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 250
8 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5.00" / 127 mm 447.80 ft / 136.49 m 10.18 ft / 3.10 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 6.00" / 152 mm 4.00" / 102 mm 4.00" / 102 mm
2nd: 4.00" / 102 mm 4.00" / 102 mm 4.00" / 102 mm

- Armour deck: 2.66" / 68 mm, Conning tower: 5.00" / 127 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 107,259 shp / 80,015 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,245 tons

Complement:
748 - 973

Cost:
�4.260 million / $17.042 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 635 tons, 3.7 %
Armour: 3,342 tons, 19.5 %
- Belts: 949 tons, 5.5 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 763 tons, 4.4 %
- Armour Deck: 1,559 tons, 9.1 %
- Conning Tower: 72 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 3,638 tons, 21.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 7,216 tons, 42.1 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,312 tons, 13.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
17,025 lbs / 7,723 Kg = 43.7 x 9.2 " / 234 mm shells or 2.0 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.01
Metacentric height 3.3 ft / 1.0 m
Roll period: 17.2 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 82 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.73
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.20

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.393
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.19 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.25 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 68
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 28.87 ft / 8.80 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 18.37 ft / 5.60 m
- Mid (50 %): 18.37 ft / 5.60 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 18.37 ft / 5.60 m
- Stern: 18.37 ft / 5.60 m
- Average freeboard: 19.21 ft / 5.86 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 99.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 132.4 %
Waterplane Area: 31,686 Square feet or 2,944 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 109 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 143 lbs/sq ft or 698 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.95
- Longitudinal: 1.51
- Overall: 1.00
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
Good seaboat, rides out heavy weather easily

Kent Ballarat class, uk Aust Cruiser laid down 1922

Displacement:
15,054 t light; 15,957 t standard; 17,208 t normal; 18,208 t full load

Dimensions: Length overall / water x beam x draught
688.92 ft / 688.92 ft x 75.00 ft x 29.66 ft (normal load)
209.98 m / 209.98 m x 22.86 m x 9.04 m

Armament:
9 - 9.20" / 234 mm guns (3x3 guns), 389.34lbs / 176.60kg shells, 1922 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on centreline ends, majority forward, 1 raised mount - superfiring
8 - 4.50" / 114 mm guns (4x2 guns), 45.56lbs / 20.67kg shells, 1922 Model
Breech loading guns in turrets (on barbettes)
on side, all amidships
20 - 1.58" / 40.1 mm guns in single mounts, 1.97lbs / 0.89kg shells, 1922 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
25 - 0.80" / 20.3 mm guns in single mounts, 0.26lbs / 0.12kg shells, 1922 Model
Breech loading guns in deck mounts
on side, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 3,914 lbs / 1,776 kg
Shells per gun, main battery: 250
8 - 21.0" / 533.4 mm above water torpedoes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5.50" / 140 mm 447.80 ft / 136.49 m 10.18 ft / 3.10 m
Ends: Unarmoured
Main Belt covers 100 % of normal length

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 8.00" / 203 mm 8.00" / 203 mm 8.00" / 203 mm
2nd: 4.00" / 102 mm 4.00" / 102 mm 4.00" / 102 mm

- Armour deck: 2.66" / 68 mm, Conning tower: 5.00" / 127 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 4 shafts, 107,518 shp / 80,208 Kw = 32.00 kts
Range 10,000nm at 12.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 2,251 tons

Complement:
750 - 976

Cost:
�3.950 million / $15.802 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 489 tons, 2.8 %
Armour: 3,857 tons, 22.4 %
- Belts: 1,044 tons, 6.1 %
- Torpedo bulkhead: 0 tons, 0.0 %
- Armament: 1,182 tons, 6.9 %
- Armour Deck: 1,559 tons, 9.1 %
- Conning Tower: 72 tons, 0.4 %
Machinery: 3,647 tons, 21.2 %
Hull, fittings & equipment: 7,060 tons, 41.0 %
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 2,154 tons, 12.5 %
Miscellaneous weights: 0 tons, 0.0 %

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
18,677 lbs / 8,472 Kg = 48.0 x 9.2 " / 234 mm shells or 2.2 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.04
Metacentric height 3.5 ft / 1.1 m
Roll period: 16.7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 70 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.50
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 1.19

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has a flush deck
Block coefficient: 0.393
Length to Beam Ratio: 9.19 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 26.25 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 49 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 59
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 0.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = measuring location as a percentage of overall length):
- Stem: 28.87 ft / 8.80 m
- Forecastle (20 %): 18.37 ft / 5.60 m
- Mid (50 %): 18.37 ft / 5.60 m
- Quarterdeck (15 %): 18.37 ft / 5.60 m
- Stern: 18.37 ft / 5.60 m
- Average freeboard: 19.21 ft / 5.86 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 92.6 %
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 132.1 %
Waterplane Area: 31,686 Square feet or 2,944 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 114 %
Structure weight / hull surface area: 140 lbs/sq ft or 682 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.97
- Longitudinal: 1.45
- Overall: 1.01
Hull space for machinery, storage, compartmentation is adequate
Room for accommodation and workspaces is excellent
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform

< Message edited by Comander Rodney RAN -- 5/4/2006 5:16:30 PM >

(in reply to orabera)

Post #: 50

RE: WPO Wishlist - 5/11/2006 5:35:04 AM

Williamb

Posts: 594
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Dayton Ohio
Status: offline

Umm Just out of curiousity. Any way to add German or Italy's navy to the mix as early axis allies ?

Sort of toying with the idea that Japan resells the Marianas to the Germans and the Germans base a fleet out of there as allies of the Japanese.

Or of Course could include a replay of the Russo Japanese war with a soviet fleet appearing in the mix.

Just a thought.

_____________________________

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 51

RE: WPO Wishlist - 6/5/2006 11:05:58 PM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: William Amos

Umm Just out of curiousity. Any way to add German or Italy's navy to the mix as early axis allies ?

Sort of toying with the idea that Japan resells the Marianas to the Germans and the Germans base a fleet out of there as allies of the Japanese.

Or of Course could include a replay of the Russo Japanese war with a soviet fleet appearing in the mix.

Just a thought.

The ships could be added in (if you'll notice, there is a full German naval weapon OOB already in), but as yet the nation would have to be set to Japan, or maybe that N3 thing. I've asked Mike to add them (back in beta), and all I was told was that it would be "very hard."

That said, we could certainly add the ships in, and in the commanders file add in German and Italian names. The nationality would be wrong, but everything else would appear as it should. That said, thanks to the limit of naval devices, as it stands now there can be a French, British, American, Japanese, and Russian navy in at the same time. The Germans can be added in, but to make room for some French devices, I have had (in the working 1.2x patch on my hard drive) to combine some German devices, such as the 10.5cm SK, 10.5cm Ubts, and 10.5cm Tbts guns into a single 10.5cm Kanone. But it is still possible (and on the list. War Plan Black could be very fun! Especially with what if ships such as the Mackensens).

_____________________________

(in reply to Williamb)

Post #: 52

RE: WPO Wishlist - 6/7/2006 5:23:50 AM

Kadorak

Posts: 17
Joined: 2/6/2006
Status: offline

Improved editor functions. Simple changes to the editor to allow variables to be changed on multiple ships at the same time and other small conveniance additions would massively improve replayability by allowing for many more user scenarios to be created much easier. While I haven't really been an active member of the community, by playing and nosing around it seems that most of the mods for WPO/WITP actually change what, with a better editor interface, should be the 'harder' mod parts - graphics and such. OOB changes are usually minor modifications to the main game. Questions of hypothetical vs. historical, game balance vs. historical fidelity, and what types of scenarios to make would be much less pressing for you if it was easier for the users themselves to create their own variants.

While I'm no coder, I don't think simple editor improvements like, for instance, mass changes or removals of ships (to create limited scenarios), multiple location/date/nationality changes at a time, etc. would be difficult to do. Wouldn't it just be changing multiple variables in the files at once?

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 53

RE: WPO Wishlist - Airships - 9/13/2006 9:15:15 PM

engineer

Posts: 590
Joined: 9/8/2006
Status: offline

I was playing around in the editor and created workable 1st pass rigid airships (Shenandoah, Los Angeles, etc.). They fit into the patrol bomber doctrine well. The biggest problem is the range/top speed mismatch that lets them rebase to the middle of the Pacific in 24 hours when they would physically require a few days to fly out from the West Coast.) I would recommend creating 1 unit in the pool for the device, a build rate of zero and an 1:1 correspondance between the air units and the zeppelin devices. If the airship is shot down, then the unit needs to be retired.

Zeppelin base forces would also be a logical addition to the OOB. I'm thinking about a unit with several hundred men (support and aviation support with perhaps a security platoon of Marines and some AA MG) who be all those guys who help wrestle the airship to ground with all the lines. They would also handle service and logistics.

For the USN, I would add a small tanker converted to an AV, the USS Patoka. She was in service throughout the 1920s as a mobile airship base. In one case one of the big Akron's actually landed on the flight deck of the Saratoga but making them carrier capable would be too likely for some sort of exploits.

The USN was originally going to acquire four airships prior to the Akrons. ZR1 was the Shenandoah, a domestic copy of the LZ-41 which was captured during WW1. The ZR2 was the British R38. She crashed during trials just before being picked up the USN. The Germans were also tapped to provide two late model Zeppelins from their navy as war reparations, but the crews scuttled the airships instead of turning them over. At that point, the Navy got a replacement built, ZR3 the Los Angeles from Zeppelin. Again with a naval arms race postulated in the scenario background, a second Los Angeles class airship is a plausible OOB addition for the late scenarios. One ship at Sunnyvale (Mare Island) and the second at Lakehurst, NJ (reinforcement in the first 30 days).

Although the Akron class didn't fly until the early 1930s, the design work was actually started in 1924. Historically, it was just under three years from the signature on the contract to the christening of the Akron. Given open congressional appropriations for the Navy in the 1920s which is at the heart of the scenario assumptions, I don't think it's implausible to suggest that the Akron's might have been authorized in 1925 or 1926 instead of 1928 and that would have put them in the reinforcement queue for the late scenarios. That would still allow time for the skeleton redesign that followed the historical loss of the Shenandoah in a thunderstorm. I have no idea how to simulate the extra search capability that the aircraft on the Akron's would provide. In terms of self-defense, a possible solution is to boost the machine guns on the Akron's in all aspects to simulate the planes being in the air to defend the mothership against attackers.

USN Airship Deliveries - Historical (H) and Ahistorical (A)

ZR1, Shenandoah - 1923 (H)
ZR2, Lost in 1922
ZR3, Los Angeles - 1924 (H)
ZR2B, Willamette - 1926 (A) (replacement for ZR2)
ZRS4, Akron - 1928 (A)
ZRS5, Macon - 1928 (A)
ZRS6, Dayton - 1929 (A)
ZRS7, Morganton - 1929 (A)
AV Patoka - 1924
ZR Base Force 1 - 1923
ZR Base Force 2 - 1924
ZR Base Force 3 - 1928
ZR Base Force 4 - 1929

The UK had the R100 and R101 that flew in 1930. The R101 crashed in France on her maiden flight to India. The R100 successfully flew to Canada and back, but was decommissioned following the crash of the R101. Given their use of hydrogen, these are totally unsuitable to combat use in WPO. In the late scenarios the UK and USA would have been allies for years so it's plausible they could have been redesigned to accept helium and join the British forces for ASW and picket duty.

(in reply to Kadorak)

Post #: 54

RE: WPO Wishlist - Airships - 9/14/2006 7:35:47 PM

engineer

Posts: 590
Joined: 9/8/2006
Status: offline

One amendment on the Patoka.� I found her as an AO starting the late scenario in San Diego.� I would recommend changing her to an AV and relocating her to Mare Island.�

Given a roughly two year construction duration for big airships (a big part of the 3 year construction time for the Akron was for Goodyear-Zeppelin to build the construction shed that would protect the airship from the elements during construction, a primitive Vehicular Assembly Building if you will), it's also plausible that the Navy could place orders with Zeppelin Luftschiff Gebau in Germany (it still being Weimar and all that), and get further late scenario airship reinforcements.� They had the capacity to turn out 1st rate airships if the money was available. In the early scenario they could get further improved Los Angeles class ships (some extra frames to increase volume�for more lift, some additional engines for slightly more speed, replace the 0.30 cal MG with 0.50 cal MG) and in the late scenario they would get modified Akrons (some extra frames for more lift, some additional engines for slightly higher speed, replace the 0.30 cal MG with 0.50 cal MG).� Then it's just some time looking through the Dictionary of American Fighting Ships (online at the Naval Historical Society) to find small�cities to name the airships after�to verify that it wasn't already taken by an existing USN vessel.�

< Message edited by engineer -- 9/14/2006 7:41:41 PM >

(in reply to engineer)

Post #: 55

RE: WPO Wishlist - "Historical" Scenario - 9/15/2006 1:04:49 AM

engineer

Posts: 590
Joined: 9/8/2006
Status: offline

Maybe I missed it somewhere, but how about a genuine "historical" scenario in the sense that the OOB is based on the actual hulls in the water at the start of the game. The assumption here is that Washington went was it historically did so you lose the Lexington BC, Tosa BB, in favor of the historical CV's and lose a lot of battleships since they were broken up after the Disarmament Treaty.

(in reply to engineer)

Post #: 56

RE: WPO Wishlist - 9/15/2006 12:29:33 PM

SireChaos

Posts: 710
Joined: 8/14/2006
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: William Amos

Umm Just out of curiousity. Any way to add German or Italy's navy to the mix as early axis allies ?

Sort of toying with the idea that Japan resells the Marianas to the Germans and the Germans base a fleet out of there as allies of the Japanese.

Or of Course could include a replay of the Russo Japanese war with a soviet fleet appearing in the mix.

Just a thought.

Was there actually a German navy at that time? As I recall, Germany had to turn over its fleet to the Allies after WWI, and it was not allowed to build new ships.

(in reply to Williamb)

Post #: 57

RE: WPO Wishlist - 9/15/2006 12:42:19 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

There wasn't, of course, so that would be a what-if scenario...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to SireChaos)

Post #: 58

RE: WPO Wishlist - 9/15/2006 4:38:20 PM

btaft

Posts: 58
Joined: 7/26/2006
Status: offline

I am new to this game but one thing that would help me out a little bit would be to have an icon in the hexes where signal intelligence/activity is discovered. This would certainly be a big time saver since the information would be right on the map instead of having to go to the intel screen and then locate an obscure non-city hex in the middle of the ocean. It could be similar to the cloud icons that are shown now.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 59

RE: WPO Wishlist - 9/15/2006 5:05:47 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Not possible, unfortunately. We don't disagree, but it's a severe programming matter...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to btaft)

Post #: 60