Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

New Feature Request

 
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 >> New Feature Request Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
New Feature Request - 12/4/2006 4:31:43 PM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline 		I would like to put fourth an argument for a new feature in WitP. I would like to see a “No Attack” flag for enemy bases. This would allow you to control your four engine bomber a lot better and do away with an unrealistic game exploit. I don’t have the game map in front of me so I’ll use generic names for my example.

The Japanese have a large, well supplied, airfield at base X and have stations 100+ fighters on cap. This base has a lot of ship traffic coming and going. The Allie player has several air bases within 6 hexes that can support four engine bombers. If the Allie player places his four engine bombers on Naval Attack at max range in order to intercept the traffic coming in and out of base X, he will get his bombers slaughtered when they inevitably attack the ships docked at base X. So, in order to avoid this, the Allie player must restrict the range of his bomber to 5 hexes. The exploit is that the Japanese player can artificially protect a large area simply by concentrating his CAP at on base.

If a player cold flag a base as “No Attack”, then the player could use his bomber to their full potential. I also think this is a very realistic option. In RL a general would order his flyers to avoid heavily defended bases until he was ready to take them on. Also, in RL a riad of 6 B-17s would never say, “oh lets go into base X and see if we can score a few hits, and to heck with the 100+ CAP”.


_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

Post #: 1
RE: New Feature Request - 12/4/2006 5:14:53 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline 		i like the idea... good luck getting it implemented, though...

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 2
RE: New Feature Request - 12/4/2006 6:49:40 PM   
Sonny

 

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline 		It would also be great if a group of your B-17s didn't fly max range just to bomb 3 PGs.

Somehow you need to be able to set some sort of threat level below which your bombers will not attack - without getting into too much micromanagement. Or base commanders need to be smarter.

_____________________________

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 rtrapasso)
Post #: 3
RE: New Feature Request - 12/4/2006 6:54:09 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid

I would like to put fourth an argument for a new feature in WitP. I would like to see a “No Attack” flag for enemy bases. This would allow you to control your four engine bomber a lot better and do away with an unrealistic game exploit. I don’t have the game map in front of me so I’ll use generic names for my example.

The Japanese have a large, well supplied, airfield at base X and have stations 100+ fighters on cap. This base has a lot of ship traffic coming and going. The Allie player has several air bases within 6 hexes that can support four engine bombers. If the Allie player places his four engine bombers on Naval Attack at max range in order to intercept the traffic coming in and out of base X, he will get his bombers slaughtered when they inevitably attack the ships docked at base X. So, in order to avoid this, the Allie player must restrict the range of his bomber to 5 hexes. The exploit is that the Japanese player can artificially protect a large area simply by concentrating his CAP at on base.

If a player cold flag a base as “No Attack”, then the player could use his bomber to their full potential. I also think this is a very realistic option. In RL a general would order his flyers to avoid heavily defended bases until he was ready to take them on. Also, in RL a riad of 6 B-17s would never say, “oh lets go into base X and see if we can score a few hits, and to heck with the 100+ CAP”.




In danger of being again called a JFB I just want to ask if this feature is an Allied feature only? I suppose not, only in your example as the Allied are probably having a better CAP than the Japanese with more durable 4E bombers than the fragile Japanese 2Es. So this feature would be even more useful for the Japanes (but then YOU will be called a JFB).

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 4
RE: New Feature Request - 12/4/2006 7:39:03 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Castor, you are right in that this would be a feature useful for either side. The problem it solves probably shows up more often for the allied player, since 4E bombers are more likely to ignore CAP than are 2E bombers, but in theory it would work for the Japanese as well.


Now if only we could get past the AFB vs JFB thing, and recognize the value of suggestions for what they are...

< Message edited by bradfordkay -- 12/4/2006 7:47:54 PM >

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 5
RE: New Feature Request - 12/4/2006 8:18:40 PM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline 		totally agree with Castor.. and yes I'm objective JFB...

IMO the problem here is not selecting the bases/targets - the problem is A2A combat model...

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 6
RE: New Feature Request - 12/4/2006 8:46:57 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Actually for both sides I would like this feature and I would also like to be able to give my planes a cowardly index !!!

i.e. a rating that I can change in order to tell them 'IF' you detect a nice fat 42 Jap CV TF or 44 Allied CV TF do NOT attack it unless you have 2 - 10x fighters on escort

e.g

Feature 1 avoid base X

Feature 2 if you pass a detection test do not attack an enemy TF unless you have 2x, 5x or 10x the number of fighters to bombers going on the raid unless no CV is detected - obviously these preferences could be over ridden by the commander on the scene if they fail some rolls based on aggression etc to represent that this is not a tactical but an operational wargame but at least give us a chance to stop our precious bombers attacking suicidally however small. I dont want total control I just want a chance to stop my bombers impaling themselves in unwinnable fights if my commanders go in anyway all gung ho so be it but just give me a pretence of control !!!

(in reply to pauk)
Post #: 7
RE: New Feature Request - 12/5/2006 5:46:04 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

Actually for both sides I would like this feature


I would like it too... then my Bettys could attack your shipping approaching and leaving Port Moresby without me attacking PM itself where my poor, brave but foolhardy aircrews would get slaughtered.

Wonder if it would be possible to use the air balance index to make it work?

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 8
RE: New Feature Request - 12/5/2006 10:13:27 AM   
TheElf


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

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

i like the idea... good luck getting it implemented, though...


"Such, negativity Moriarity. What did I tell you about those negative waves...?"

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 9
RE: New Feature Request - 12/5/2006 4:23:47 PM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline 		If the feature is keep simple without a lot of rules we might be able to get it implimented. We alread have things like "Do not refuel" and "Auto-disband" so whay not this?

It would benifit both sides but most likely the Allies would benifit the most.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.


(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 10
RE: New Feature Request - 12/5/2006 4:31:05 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		What is the air balance index ?

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 11
RE: New Feature Request - 12/5/2006 4:37:05 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

What is the air balance index ?


The little number that displays when you "hover" the cursor over a base - plus means that player has more "airpower" that can be projected there than the other player. I.e. - if the number is positive over an Allied Base, the Allies enjoy air "superiority" there. If the number is positive over a Japanese base, the Japanese have it. The bigger the number, the bigger the advantage (or disadvantage if the number is negative.)


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 12
RE: New Feature Request - 12/5/2006 4:50:04 PM   
BlackVoid


Posts: 639
Joined: 10/17/2003
Status: offline 		It would be much easier to implement if Naval attack would not attack ships at bases at all. If you want to attack ships at base, you could use Port attack and if you want to attack ships at sea use Naval attack.
Of course this way Port attack would target docked and not-docked ships as well.

_____________________________


For Liberty! website

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 13
RE: New Feature Request - 12/5/2006 5:10:14 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Errr wow thats a lot of info to give away is it accurate i.e. I assume it is only calculated at the end of both players turn and is not affected by Japanese players moves IN TURN else its a lot of info for the allies to get?


(in reply to BlackVoid)
Post #: 14
RE: New Feature Request - 12/5/2006 5:16:38 PM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline 		Andy, you do get a lot of info from that!

I was under impression you know that - because every time i moved fighters close to targeted base (to set an ambush in Burma) i saw a lot of fighers on sweep or escort next turn.

Anyway, posted this issue quite a few times...

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 15
RE: New Feature Request - 12/5/2006 5:16:48 PM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

Errr wow thats a lot of info to give away is it accurate i.e. I assume it is only calculated at the end of both players turn and is not affected by Japanese players moves IN TURN else its a lot of info for the allies to get?



Its accurate enough to say "Don't go near that place" when the number is high. It combines both offensive and defensive airpower so can be misleading but it is an indication of the strength of forces there.

It is update at the end of each player's turn. So when the Jap player sends you his turn, you will see the change immediately. The Jap player will not see the change until after the combat has been run so the Allied player has a decided advantage here. Its just like the little icon that tells you if there are aircraft present... the allied player sees any Jap aircraft movement and can respond before the Japanese player knows what hit him.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 16
RE: New Feature Request - 12/5/2006 5:26:45 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Yeah I knew about the AF colour thing but I thought that number was an AI thing ---- you learn something new every day in this game.

Thats a tad unfair it should really remain the same until after the combat is run else it goves the allies to much info

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 17
RE: New Feature Request - 12/5/2006 5:27:31 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		na Pauk you are just predictable

(Most of the time I missed the last one !!!)

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 18
RE: New Feature Request - 12/5/2006 5:43:06 PM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline 		do you mean a last time in the Marshalls? Or the PNG? Or Burma?

There was quite a lot last time

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 19
RE: New Feature Request - 12/5/2006 6:34:12 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

It combines both offensive and defensive airpower so can be misleading but it is an indication of the strength of forces there.


Not sure about the "defensive" part... i've tried putting fighters into bases with low air-balance, and the numbers haven't changed at all (the air balance number affects if your transports will fly into a base). If you put BOMBERS in there, however, the number improves dramatically.



< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 12/5/2006 6:51:07 PM >

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 20
RE: New Feature Request - 12/5/2006 7:25:09 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Since the air balance was designed to help the AI route shipping away from enemy air concentrations, it would make sense that it would be mainly affected by bomber aircraft instead of fighters. Why it doesn't work as designed is another question...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 21
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> New Feature Request Page: [1]
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

3.202