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: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when playing vs AI

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when playing vs AI Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/10/2009 11:49:34 PM   
toonces

 

Posts: 71
Joined: 1/20/2006
Status: offline 		Agree fully with the OP.  FOW for enemy is great.  FOW for friendly is just annoying.  It's not really FOW...I can go in and click on the unit and get its true state.  So really it's just a time-waster.

(in reply to Tazo)
Post #: 31
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/10/2009 11:51:30 PM   
Admiral Scott


Posts: 625
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Syracuse, NY USA
Status: offline 		agree..a time waster!

(in reply to toonces)
Post #: 32
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/10/2009 11:53:42 PM   
Captain57


Posts: 24
Joined: 6/28/2005
Status: offline 		I have to agree with fbs. This is a game after all. We all love the super detail, but this issue can detract from the enjoyment. If it is taking 3 hours to prep for each turn, that will become dull after a while. I recommend addressing this. Just my 2 cents worth.

_____________________________


(in reply to Tazo)
Post #: 33
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/11/2009 12:15:16 AM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

There is a reason, it's called fog of war!

Gemany - During the Battle of Britian, pilots reported kills totaling 3 X the number of aircraft the Brits had!

Viet Nam - The daily enemy kills reported when added up exceded the total population of North Viet Nam X 5.




Concerning the BoB, AFAIR official British reports tripled German losses and reported own losses correctly, while German reports contained roughly correct numbers for British losses while admitting to a third of own losses.

As concerns fog-of-war in AE, I haven't yet played many turns, but I think getting correct numbers of enemy operational losses day-by-day should be impossible, for that you'd need an agent with a radio right beside each airfield. You might get occasional loss numbers by ULTRA.

There should also be more misidentification of ships in combat reports, especially night surface combat; usually there should be only partial information about the enemy participants, maybe just the class or the type, instead we get something like this:

Night Time Surface Combat, near Tacloban at 81,85, Range 1,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
CA Haguro
DD Oyashio
DD Amatsukaze

Allied Ships
xAKL Kanlaon II, Shell hits 13, and is sunk
xAKL Latouche, Shell hits 2, and is sunk



Low visibility due to Rain with 85% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Rain and 85% moonlight: 6,000 yards
Range closes to 3,000 yards...
Range closes to 1,000 yards...
CA Haguro engages xAKL Kanlaon II at 1,000 yards
xAKL Kanlaon II sunk by CA Haguro at 1,000 yards
Range increases to 2,000 yards
Range increases to 4,000 yards
xAKL Latouche sunk by CA Haguro at 4,000 yards
Combat ends with last Allied ship sunk...


This is a report for the Allied side. Bad visibility, and all Allied ships sunk, where does the information come from?
I'd have expected, at best, something like

CA Haguro class
DD Kagero class
DD Fubuki class

or, seeing as this were merchant ships,
1 BB, 2 cruisers

Enemy subs are always (correctly?) identified, even if they evaded detection.

It wouldn't come amiss, either, if sometimes completely fictitious ships were reported, like the famous carrier "Ryukaku".

Similarly, as aircraft recognition on both sides was somewhat hit-and-miss, air combat reports should misidentify aircraft types part of the time, maybe drop in the occasional Messerschmitt or Junkers.

And lie about own victory points!

< Message edited by mikemike -- 8/11/2009 12:16:48 AM >

_____________________________

DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 34
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/11/2009 8:40:18 AM   
CV Zuikaku

 

Posts: 442
Joined: 12/18/2008
From: Legrad, Croatia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankist

I have to agree with fbs. This is a game after all. We all love the super detail, but this issue can detract from the enjoyment. If it is taking 3 hours to prep for each turn, that will become dull after a while. I recommend addressing this. Just my 2 cents worth.


Exactly. And the FOW is in extremes. either there is none at all, or there is super FOW on even our own units... but only in reports as we can see the real situation by clicking on each unit. The problem is that I do not want to click on every TF on the map each turn just to check the real situation. It is extremely time consuming and can be avoided by simple "xAK XYZ have been reported hit". All after all, ships being attacked and hit usually send distress signal. Allied ships and axis ones sended distress signals- especially when damaged. What is the logic of ships captain ,when his ship is attacked, hit by bombs and left burning, who do not send report about that? Sir, sould we radio the Pearl for help? No, forget it, FOW is good, it will be fun if they don't know about this mess

(in reply to Captain57)
Post #: 35
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/11/2009 6:07:52 PM   
88l71


Posts: 218
Joined: 9/17/2007
Status: offline 		Well you'd think it'd be accurate at least when a ship is in a TF, as long as at least one ship survives. If just one ship I could see the radio getting damaged or perhaps the ship exploding/sinking very quickly.

(in reply to CV Zuikaku)
Post #: 36
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/11/2009 6:32:35 PM   
carnifex


Posts: 1295
Joined: 7/1/2002
From: Latitude 40° 48' 43N Longtitude 74° 7' 29W
Status: offline 		If the game forced the player to be a Theater commander only, then friendly FOW on combat reports might apply. But in this game you wear many hats; composing individual TFs, setting single squadrons to CAP or sweep. You need accurate information to be able to play those roles.

(in reply to Tazo)
Post #: 37
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/11/2009 6:55:06 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		When Carlson made his raid on Makin in early 1942 with the 2nd Marine Raider Battalion, he had no idea how many of his men were lost until both subs returned to Pearl Harbor.  The units were all mixed up and those missing were assumed to have gotten on board the other sub.

When Juneau was sunk, no one reported the sinking until several days afterwards. 

It's happening more often in AE than it did IRL, but FOW was a problem with the Allied units as well as damage assessment of the enemy.

(in reply to Tazo)
Post #: 38
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/11/2009 7:09:21 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

There is a reason, it's called fog of war!

Gemany - During the Battle of Britian, pilots reported kills totaling 3 X the number of aircraft the Brits had!

Viet Nam - The daily enemy kills reported when added up exceded the total population of North Viet Nam X 5.



Yes, of course, but we are talking about friendly loss reports collated after the heat of the battle.

What we are really talking about is a playability aid for the management of air groups and ships with losses for that day of battle. Already WITP staff does this for some items (like search quadrants for eg.). I am pretty sure Adm King did not have a real time map of the world with a search arc for every Allied squadron in the Pacific and Indian Ocean in his office.




Talk about fog of war!

Go read Chuck Yeager's book, in Viet Nam he and his air group were rated on planes available (flyable), even if they were shot down, or crashed or just plan broken, so when under inspection he would have some of the inspected planes take off and land at another base and have the numbers on the planes changed to the lost/damaged aircraft and then flown back, just to keep the pencil pushers in the puzzle palace happy. This was the only way he could pass inspection, it seems the inspection process didn't take into account plane lost in war (true story)!


(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 39
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/11/2009 7:39:03 PM   
Feltan


Posts: 1160
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		I don't think there should be a change here -- I like it the way it is.

As a veteran, I can tell you with scientific certaintly that your typical headquarters is trying to sort out what friendly units are doing and where they are far more than doing the same for enemy units.

I am sure every veteran on these boards could relate stories about missing, over due or misplaced friendly units whether they be ground, naval or air. As an army veteran, I have personally witnessed a Corps commander bitching out his division commanders who had co-located and left a huge gap in friendly lines.

And let us not forget that the events in the game took place 60+ years ago; before the age and expectation of instantaneous communication. Mesages were written before sending and upon receipt; transcription errors happen -- no digital machine communications, no computers, no GPS.

If the designers wanted to model reality they could have increased this. It would not be out-of-bounds to give orders for a ship to sail to, say, Brisbane only to find it in Sydney several days later. Not often, but it could happen -- and in WWII I am confident it actually happened more often than one might believe.

Regards,
Feltan

_____________________________


(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 40
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/11/2009 7:41:23 PM   
CV Zuikaku

 

Posts: 442
Joined: 12/18/2008
From: Legrad, Croatia
Status: offline 		So, some of you really want to play every turn for 5 hours?! Good luck!

(in reply to Feltan)
Post #: 41
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/11/2009 8:21:06 PM   
tacfire


Posts: 138
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline 		I am more or less ok with the current fog of war system, and the way it works now.  There is only one thing I do not like:

When my air patrols spot enemy subs, they often report them as Surface Task Forces - sometimes large ones.  I do not see how this is realistic, I can understand a pilot misreporting the id of some ships and reporting them as a bigger threat than reality.  But a sub is a sub, how can they confuse those with surface ships.  Those sub contacts should be reported as submarines I think.

(in reply to CV Zuikaku)
Post #: 42
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/11/2009 8:34:46 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline 		At the moment FOW makes no sense. Player do get message when enemy petrol plane spot the ship, but not when the same plane drops a bomb... Also player is not just high commander, player is TF commander too desiding when to fuel at sea, how many patrol planes are flying etc.

TF commander should know if ship is damaged.

(in reply to CV Zuikaku)
Post #: 43
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/11/2009 9:37:06 PM   
Tazo


Posts: 85
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Toulouse, France
Status: offline 		 
I fully agree with Feltan that in armies as in any human organizations the total amount of misunderstandings, false interpretations, dreamed considerations, mistakes,
stupid decisions, unreliable behaviors, counter productive competition and rivalties, and so on, is simply amazing. Thinking deeply about it you become crazy.
The human real mystery is that despite this, most things are going on anyway.

So yes, even giving orders to naval units far away can lead to misunderstanding the destination if one has set the "friendly FOW" button ON (say, a dice
roll for each "order change" the player click and validate, so the initial order in ports is automatically correct since usually "written", but later on, by using 
distant transmission and coding/decoding to give "counter orders" may lead minor units to secretly go to the wrong place... not major TF because they are in
permanent or frequent contact with the amirauty and clearly the player is a little bit in the shoes of the big TF commanders as well). No problem with me, a
good idea, when ready to opperate accurately I may want to set this ON with all the other realistic nuisances of the friendly FOW we are pointing out. However
realism depends on who you are as the player... this is what we are discussing indeed.

Actually - at least not yet - I don't play the role of a single man, the great admiral or whoever, in a role playing realistic game "top chief of staff". I feel myself
as a wargamer playing a large scale complex addictive game for the rest of my too short life (in a former post I said something like "With AE eternity is no more
a curse"). The BEST wargame ever. So, being not immortal, if some "player friendly" changes can be added I take them to spend more time wargaming AE. For
instance I would like to be abble to select for which TF or air/ground units I want to see the combat animations concerning them (and only these ones, instead
of clicking on most of the animation windows while waiting for the ones interesting me most). Likewise I would like to read the kind of indexed by hexes/base/TF/units
"damage summary report" in the OPS I described above in this thread just to have my... wargamer accurate information in a more fast and friendly way. 

Notice that in a future challenge against another wargamer, the "GC in pbem", I will certainly put the "friendly FOW" buton ON for an even more exiting and
realistic experience. But right now, in the long early stage where most of us need to understand the complex game procedures, how to toggle the right
settings and how to organize long term plans while developping our own style and doctrines, like a huge training/testing, we all need the best possible playing
aids and an improved "player friendly" interface giving quick access to hot informations when thinking in front of this beautiful map. If the gaming practice
leads most of us to very similar minor suggestions, then the developping dream team will certainly hear the requests. And the friendly FOW is a very good point
to look at. I insist again that any "player friendly" interface could be friendly enough to make the new features optional, by setting an ON / OFF button.
No need here to impose "constructive requests of few/many/most people" to everybody. So the question becomes : which game changes when "Friendly FOW" 
is ON, which game changes when it is OFF.

A last remark concerns newbies. The game has to help them in their learning curve, so FOWed datas on their own army may not really help them/us
understanding the effects of their orders/settings.

TZ

_____________________________

There is only two kinds of operational plans, good ones and bad ones.
The good ones almost always fail under unexpected circumstances that often make the bad ones succeed.
-- Napoléon.

With AE immortality is no more a curse.
-- A lucky man.

(in reply to CV Zuikaku)
Post #: 44
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/11/2009 10:24:12 PM   
Captain57


Posts: 24
Joined: 6/28/2005
Status: offline 		I don't think anyone would argue about the fog of war in the real world. But this issue goes to the playability thing. Its a game where you play all command levels. It sort of like not reporting accurately to...yourself.

How about it gets turned on only if the Taskforce is computer controlled?

< Message edited by Tankist -- 8/11/2009 11:01:02 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Tazo)
Post #: 45
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/11/2009 11:02:26 PM   
Xenocide

 

Posts: 163
Joined: 4/28/2007
Status: offline 		If a transport in a task force is hit by bombs the result could very easily not get to Nimitz. However, the player also represents the task force commander and would definitely take some kind of action without Nimitz intervening.

We need info on every level we represent when playing. If I am the task force commander it's very unlikely that a ship bombed in my convoy is not going to report getting hit so I am oblivious to it's status until a radio officer finally reports that it went under. It would be an immediate priority.

Not getting this info to the player representing that TF commander is not effective FOW, it's a mistake. Requiring the player to click on everything on the map is an annoyance, not something to make the game more interesting.

The kind of FOW you should get is reports on enemy ships damaged, enemy planes damaged/downed, and sighting reports

(in reply to Captain57)
Post #: 46
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/12/2009 12:46:38 AM   
Peter Fisla


Posts: 2503
Joined: 10/5/2001
From: Canada
Status: offline 		I would like to be able to turn OFF the FOW for friendly side when playing against AI. WitP AE is already a lot more work as is without doing more manual work of finding what actually happened during air/naval/land battles.

Thanks!

(in reply to Xenocide)
Post #: 47
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/12/2009 1:18:50 AM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline 		All these are really good points, including the policy of "let's fool my commander and tell him a lie about my true readiness because he doesn't want to hear reality" -- that's very valid, just look at Hitler.

Problem is that the commander (you) can check at any moment the true readiness of the troops, including un-measurable things like experience and administrative skill, so the friendly FOW system is not really hiding information, just making it miserable to find it around.

If we're talking about implementing a realistic FOW system for friendly forces, including loss of communications and assessing units qualitatively rather than quantitatively, then I'm all for it -- that's an interesting approach. But the game doesn't implement that: the only thing that is fogged for friendly forces is the combat reports.

The combat report misses informing that one of your ships was hit, but at the same time you can pinpoint exactly where is the ship, how many fires it has on board and what's the % hull integrity, so the combat reports look oddly inconsistent. Whenever a feature looks oddly inconsistent, I end up really in doubt if the "feature" is really a design decision or a bug. I mean, can you truthfully say that the combat reports are not missing combats because of a bug? There's no way to say that!

I said all that with all the love in the world: I'm still in awe of the level of detail and grandness of the design.

Cheers
fbs

< Message edited by fbs -- 8/12/2009 1:20:18 AM >

(in reply to Peter Fisla)
Post #: 48
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/12/2009 2:12:43 AM   
Feltan


Posts: 1160
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs
... If we're talking about implementing a realistic FOW system for friendly forces, including loss of communications and assessing units qualitatively rather than quantitatively, then I'm all for it -- that's an interesting approach. But the game doesn't implement that: the only thing that is fogged for friendly forces is the combat reports...


fbs,

A very valid point.

Regards,
Feltan

_____________________________


(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 49
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/12/2009 2:52:30 AM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline 		No doubt to late, but tie the unit report screen to unit morale/disruption/damage levels.  Maybe below certain levels it's greyed out, or the stats could be off +/- accordingly, and highlighted.  i.e. a unit that just got the crap kicked out of it, retreating in disorder, etc., it's reports (when you click on them) could be wildly inaccurate.  Or just a little.  Or totally accurate.  Just as in RL, you just wouldn't know.

As far as ship damage goes, even the Captain or TF CDR might not know just exactly how badly damaged his ship(s) are/is in the immediate aftermath of a battle/taking serious damage, why should you?  You just need to know whether it's badly hurt, and if you need to get it to port.  Let only ships in ports display totally accurate status reports.

(in reply to Feltan)
Post #: 50
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/12/2009 3:20:41 AM   
Vincenzo_Beretta


Posts: 440
Joined: 3/13/2001
From: Milan, Italy
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tazo

 
I fully agree with Feltan that in armies as in any human organizations the total amount of misunderstandings, false interpretations, dreamed considerations, mistakes,
stupid decisions, unreliable behaviors, counter productive competition and rivalties, and so on, is simply amazing.


This, in the game, is already simulated via the complexity of the interface.

_____________________________


(in reply to Tazo)
Post #: 51
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/12/2009 4:06:18 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
I just don't find that FOW increases my turn time at all. The combat reports are there to tell me where combat occurred. Other things tell me what really happened. But that's just me.



_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Vincenzo_Beretta)
Post #: 52
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/12/2009 5:00:50 AM   
Klahn

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 5/8/2007
Status: offline 		But if the combat report doesn't tell you that combat occured, and you don't happen to look at that ship/TF during the turn, you have no way of knowing.

Imagine the Neosho is struck by a bomb. Although Nimitz might not have known about it that day, the captain of the ship would certainly have been aware that the ship is burning. As the player, you might never check the status of the ship and have it continue to sail on as if nothing happened instead of going to the nearest friendly port for repairs. That simply is not realistic. FOW or not.

I really don't see a valid reason for having friendly fog of war in the combat reports, but not in the individual displays. And for gameplay purposes, I don't see the point of having friendly FOW at all.

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 53
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/12/2009 8:36:02 AM   
TalonCG2


Posts: 95
Joined: 3/19/2008
From: Florida, USA
Status: offline 		FOW for enemy = 1
FOW for friendly = 0   




_____________________________

Clear skies and tailwinds,
Chuck

(in reply to toonces)
Post #: 54
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/12/2009 3:35:56 PM   
Templer_12


Posts: 1700
Joined: 1/5/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline 		I am completely new to the game. Maybe I should remain silent until I really know what I am talking about.

Nevertheless.

FOW in a strategy game is a great thing.
FOW in a war game is a must.

My thoughts:

Air Force:
the Air Force is more of a small pile. As everyone knows each squadron, each face, even the rookies (we talk about a small carrier or a small airfield).
The commanders write their reports after the machines landed.
Now, if a face is missing on the table, at dinnertime, the empty plates can not be overlooked.
I think there is no room for error, that is, reports should be correct.

Ground troops:
combat stress, misinterpretation of commands to soldiers lost to be scattered, anxiety, confusion, injury, hunger, or, or, or.
That the commanders here lose is understandable. So wrong reports, why not.

Navy:
it is not credible that the rapporteurs, someone fail to see the sinking drama of a ship with more souls than some small town residents.

For the smaller battle ships (PT, maybe also DD), which belong to the mass merchandise, I could imagine that when one or other of the daily report mistakes are made for some reason i. e. sloppiness.

For uncovered commercial/cargo/civilian ships, I could understand that after a attack some the undisciplined vessels no longer be found.
Nor can you have a captain of a civilian fleet hardly make an allegation, if this is the lose and by lack of exercise and training false reports.

Submarines:
Here it will become difficult. Submarines are quiet, mysterious, unknown and invisible (also hazardous and common).
The fact that a sinking overlooked or mistakenly reported in the past often been reported (often by a massage [Radio Tokyo?] by the enemy).
Anyway, I find the topic of the submarines in the game by far is not yet exhausted. So many more room for enhancements and development (Sorry the half of german inside speaking).

My opinion / answer / vote on the subject of this tread:
Commercial/cargo/civilian ships: FOW for friendly - yes

Small naval vessels: FOW for friendly - possible

Fighting/Battle ships / heavy steel: FOW for friendly - no way!

Subs: FOW for friendly - possible (this would be plenty of room)

Air Force: FOW for friendly - perhaps bur not insignificant in the context.

Ground troops: FOW for friendly - yes

If FOW for friendly isn´t possible to realise in the way I would like see it, I vote for the complete elimination of FOW for friendly.

For discussion incidentally:
DATABASE in the game: why I already know in 1941 what ships/planes/weapons, etc. will be 1945 available.
Yes, exactly - by my magical crystal ball!
To be consistent, those future prophecies the data bases should not be visible.

< Message edited by Templer -- 8/13/2009 1:03:28 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to TalonCG2)
Post #: 55
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/12/2009 4:15:48 PM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline
These are good points from Templer. I think that realistic FOW for friendly submarines is a fascinating subject, given unique characteristics of their operations. Right now you control a sub exactly the same way as you control a battleship, so there is a large terrain open for improvements. I suspect that this is something too big to take as a patch to WITP AE, but is an excellent area for WITP III - The Most Loved and Supreme Grand Commander Edition (WITP MacArthur for short)

Cheers
fbs

(in reply to Templer_12)
Post #: 56
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/12/2009 4:52:49 PM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline 		There is no fog of war if you can click every unit and find out its exact status, which is something all of us can do if we want (although there might be fog on how the damage occurred). This is about forcing every player to check every unit vs. giving him a heads up on actual aircraft losses and ships damaged so he can save time. I'd rather have a quicker turn myself. If players still insist, then make it a toggle option.

Cheers,
CC


_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 57
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/12/2009 9:13:51 PM   
Templer_12


Posts: 1700
Joined: 1/5/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs


These are good points from Templer. I think that realistic FOW for friendly submarines is a fascinating subject, given unique characteristics of their operations. Right now you control a sub exactly the same way as you control a battleship, so there is a large terrain open for improvements. I suspect that this is something too big to take as a patch to WITP AE, but is an excellent area for WITP III - The Most Loved and Supreme Grand Commander Edition (WITP MacArthur for short)



Thanks for the honey fbs.

But hold back with WitP III. I´m still sweating blood and tears to get in WitP:AE

< Message edited by Templer -- 8/13/2009 1:06:16 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 58
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/13/2009 11:50:48 PM   
medicff

 

Posts: 710
Joined: 9/11/2004
From: WPB, Florida
Status: offline 		Ok hate to bring this up again but ....

Looking for supply ship to rangoon, should have arrived today. Can't find it and watched the entire replay and nothing about any action or combat with it.

Search for ship, gone. Hmmm. look at ops report 4 times it sees a plane but does not report being bombed and does not show up as "we admitted the loss of xxx today". Lookee here found it under the info sunks ship screen apparently sunk by 250kg bomb.

I think that info should be reported somewhere as someone (even in government) would have noticed that the chow didn't arrive.

Please some more info in reports especially large losses like ships/subs/bases etc. I am sure that IJN would have seen a report xxx was hit.

Thanks
Pat

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 59
RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when p... - 8/15/2009 8:08:34 PM   
Templer_12


Posts: 1700
Joined: 1/5/2009
From: Germany
Status: offline 		One more issue.

If I atack a sub, it´s usally dipped. So why can I see wich sub (name) do I atack? We are with FOW aren´t we?

< Message edited by Templer -- 8/15/2009 11:38:20 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to medicff)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Petition: Stop Fog-of-War for friendly units when playing vs AI Page: <<   < prev  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

3.485