1.2 Suggestions

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

1.2 Suggestions

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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> 1.2 Suggestions

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

1.2 Suggestions - 6/24/2002 7:11:45 AM

worr

Posts: 901
Joined: 2/7/2001
Status: offline

1) A way to keep bombers from chasing ships into enemy ports and their subsequent combat air patrol.

2) An overview of the OOBs...just to make sure everything is up to snuff. Compare the OOB for example for the US side for Operation Cartwheel...scenario # 4 I believe, with the last scenario. Seems the longer campaign doesn't release the same amount of ships and material toward the end of the game.

3) Finish up the fatal crash to desk top errors. I haven't had a click error since 1.1...but there are still some memory leaks.

4) Give us a report when US planes do skip bomb...or parafrag bomb.

5) Allow ships to pull troops out of forward bases, without pulling out despirately needed supplies. In the longer campaigns, it is wise to rotate out old divisions...so they can rebuild at the home port.

6) Likewise, allow ships to load troops and fuel for reinforcement action.

Others?

Worr, out

Post #: 1

- 6/24/2002 7:46:19 AM

KevinRohrer

Posts: 15
Joined: 5/30/2002
From: Brunswick, Ohio USA
Status: offline

Lots of suggestions:

1. It would be real nice to actually see the weather rather than just get forecasts.

2. I need either the number of turns left in the scenario or the ending date visible after the current turn date. I can never remember when a scenario ends.

3. The long-range CAP that intercepts enemy AC no longer tells me when it shoots down an AC. I used to get an enemy AC by AC report on intercepts. Now I get nothing.

4. Do AC set for Naval Attacks at 100feet really attempting to skip bomb? I have been doing it for awhile, but the only messages I get state that enemy ships get "Shell Hits".

5. I need to be able to assign at least one Waypoint. Since I must micromanage supply and fuel allocation, why not be allowed as the COMPACFLT to tell my TFs to move from Point A to Point C via Point B so I can attempt to delude the enemy as to my true destination.

6. When intelligence reports are given by waving the mouse pointer over a TF, the report should state the direction of travel. This is a piece of info normally available in real life.

7. The game save routine leaves something to desire. I should be able to name turns anything I want so I don't get confused as to what I am playing. I am currently playing three PBEM games and one w/ the AI. It is impossible to tell which save game file goes to which game.

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 2

- 6/24/2002 9:06:10 AM

Diealtekoenig

Posts: 56
Joined: 5/18/2002
From: Port Moresby, New Guinea
Status: offline

Re skip bombing at 100 ft: I have lots of A/C that have what I think are high experience (80+) and I get lots of hits at 1000 ft but I too never seem to get bomb hits at 100 ft. Admittedly I don't fly missions at 100 ft often (because I only get shell hits). Is there perhaps a date trigger as well as an experience trigger?

Re waypoints: I would really like waypoints so I could say "Go there but go _this_ way around the island, not _that_ way around the island. I have for example times when I have encountered lots of submarines on that side of the island and want my TFs to come in the other way.

As an addition to the wish list (one which is probably hard to put in the game at this point) I would like "don't go farther than this point/line" as an order. I often want my ships to chase any enemies on this side of New Guinea for example, but I don't want them running over to the other side of New Guinea. (Seems reasonable Stay in our aircover and don't go into their aircover).

Perhaps one way to do that would be: React to enemy moves _but_ don't react more than 3 hexes or something similar. Then they wouldn't wind up chasing some IJN TF half way to Rabaul.

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 3

here's two more - 6/24/2002 9:26:56 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

A.) Allow transport a/c to load troops at a distant airbase for transport back to the originating airbase (i.e., let C-47s from Townsville fly to Brisbane to pick up an HQ unit and bring it back to Townsville).

B.) list amount of Air Support available for each base on the transfer air unit screen. Now we see how many air units are at each base (half the information needed) but have to remember just how much air support that base has.

I especially like the idea of having a "Naval Attack, but only TFs at sea" option. If there happens to be LRCAP over the TF, oh well, that's my mistake...

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 4

A few comments... - 6/24/2002 9:28:31 AM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

By all means, keep the ideas flowing. However, one point about 1.2 to consider for practicality and setting the proper expectations is that we're focusing it on bugs. For the few people who are still having crashes, we want the game to be stable. For those seeing unusual things like squadrons disappearing or ships being taken over by the other side, we want to fix that as well, etc. etc.

Just so we're all on the same wavelength, you can anticipate 1.2 to be mainly a bug-fixing patch rather than a feature-tweaking or adding patch.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 5

- 6/24/2002 9:49:29 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

No problem, Eric. I completely agree with that philosophy.

We just want the perfect game, so i guess that you guys will be working on it until the grave.... ;)

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 6

- 6/24/2002 10:08:49 AM

strollen

Posts: 159
Joined: 5/18/2002
Status: offline

I for one wouldn't like want waypoints. First you can already sort of doing this by plot turn by turn. But more importantly, I think it would confuse the AI. Right now I notice that the subs tend to be on the paths between my bases, but when spotted the TFs go around the subs. It would be to easy to always fake out the subs AI by ploting waypoints around the points.

I would like to have some of the UI improvements that I and other have suggested though.

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 7

Re: A few comments... - 6/24/2002 12:33:38 PM

worr

Posts: 901
Joined: 2/7/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins
[B]By all means, keep the ideas flowing. However, one point about 1.2 to consider for practicality and setting the proper expectations is that we're focusing it on bugs. For the few people who are still having crashes, we want the game to be stable. For those seeing unusual things like squadrons disappearing or ships being taken over by the other side, we want to fix that as well, etc. etc.

Just so we're all on the same wavelength, you can anticipate 1.2 to be mainly a bug-fixing patch rather than a feature-tweaking or adding patch.

Regards,

- Erik [/B][/QUOTE]

Same page here....hence I was thinking of 1.2. :)

I would imagine bug fixes would be 1.12.

Worr, out

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 8

stop the super bombers!! - 6/24/2002 7:19:12 PM

tiger claw

Posts: 24
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: australia
Status: offline

Air attack on Zuikaku with 4 B-25 & 3 B-17,
i had 41 zeros on cap at 6,000 ft got through that with no loss {me 1 Zero }and then attacked my CV at 1,000 ft scored 8 hits on zuikaku , this TF had 15 ships.
The flak should have murded them with out even talking about the cap. a B17 at a 1,000 ft is a very big target! please this needs to be fixed it just wrecked my day and maybe my campain.
from what i know B17s did not sink any thing biger than a DD in the 2ww,if they were lucky to hit them at all.
{I do think this is making the game unplayerable}
Keep up the good work best war game ever made!

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 9

More ideas - 6/24/2002 7:52:44 PM

Gabby

Posts: 67
Joined: 4/26/2002
Status: offline

I would put my votes in favour of Waypoints, and displaying of Air Support usued and available during Plane Transfer.

But of course I have a couple more Ideas.

1. If Transport TF's have enough fuel to make it back to thier home base, they shouldn't refuel after they drop off. It makes it twice as hard to build supply at a foward base, when the resupply TF's use a a good portion of what they drop off.

2. I would like to be able to set a minimun level for fatigue and moral before squadrons fly missions.

3. Report screens for Air groups that tell you the stats of the groups, then you can click on them to take you to thier screen, or at least center over thier base.

4. Maybe an option to allow you to choose which anminations get displayed. I always want to see Naval to Naval, or Air to Naval, but Air, to Air, and Air to Ground get old after a while. I know that I can click Done at anytime to stop them, but I would be nice to never have to see them. This might be done by allowing us to change the delay on these animations to 0.0.

Not that these things have kept me from playing. I didn't keep track but I probably played for close to 20 hours this weekend.

One way I judge if a game was a good buy, is how much I play it. if I spend $50 for a game and play it for two hours, that wasn't a very good buy at $25 an hour. But if I play the game for 100 hours the cost per hour is $.50. A much better buy. I can't say for sure but I'm sure I'm probably down around $.30 an hour.

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 10

- 6/24/2002 8:38:13 PM

Yamamoto

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline

Perhaps instead of just �react to�� we could have a maximum reaction range specified as well. I remember in PacWar we could set the reaction range up to 9 hexes. I would also like �No reaction� to really mean NO reaction. I hate it when my carriers still react 1 hex no matter what. It reduces the advantage the Japanese have in longer ranged planes if they are always reacting toward the enemy.

Yamamoto

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 11

Re: More ideas - 6/24/2002 9:37:25 PM

worr

Posts: 901
Joined: 2/7/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gabby
[B]1. If Transport TF's have enough fuel to make it back to thier home base, they shouldn't refuel after they drop off. It makes it twice as hard to build supply at a foward base, when the resupply TF's use a a good portion of what they drop off.

2. I would like to be able to set a minimun level for fatigue and moral before squadrons fly missions. [/B][/QUOTE]

Good ones, Gabby! Hard to keep fuel in the forward bases.

Worr, out

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 12

Worr? - 6/24/2002 11:07:21 PM

JohnK

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline

Worr,

You the same Worr from old Warbirds? (When PYRO and HT were there?) I'm Torgo, since switched to Aces High but in one of my regular months long hiatuses, will go back with the next version; I was the XO of the Allies in the Guadacanal scenario, you were with the Flying Pigs killer P-39 squadron, right?

It seems one of the worst persistent bugs for 1.2, if it's a bug fix patch, is the business of pilots not being attached to squadrons properly. I hope it doesn't need a total code rewrite of that system; hate to have to wait for WITP for it to be fixed.

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 13

Base Construction Status - 6/24/2002 11:31:46 PM

NorthStar

Posts: 219
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: New York, US
Status: offline

I'd like to see the base screen show a percent completion (or better yet, a estimated completion date) for the next upgrade in Port Size, Airfield Size, and Fortification Level.

Without that, it's difficult to determine the best distribution of Engineering assets if you are trying to build multiple bases.

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 14

Torgo! - 6/24/2002 11:43:48 PM

CJ Martin

Posts: 119
Joined: 5/20/2002
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

Hey Torgo,

That's the same old Worr that lead the 67th FS during that event. Who can forget the the charge of the Iron Dogs to the defense of our bombers? LOL...much to our relief the the Zeros broke off as we got into dot range. Flew most of that event, and spent most of the early frames running away from enemy fighters. We got our revenge when we got F4U's in the later frames...hehe...

I'm flying AH myself these days, but hardware issues (Cougar and Lynksys router firmware) have grounded me for the time being. Just as well, I've been playing UV almost nonstop.

-CJ

a.k.a. Smut

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 15

- 6/25/2002 12:10:54 AM

worr

Posts: 901
Joined: 2/7/2001
Status: offline

CJ! :) Oink! Oink! to War!

Ah...that brings back memories. 1999?

The P-39 is an iron dog. But it sure packs a punch!

Torgo, that was an amazing flogging we gave the IJN that day. Two passes and the whole squadron of Kates and Vals were decimated, and scattered. We snuck in-between the top fighter cover, and hit the lower running bombers before they could even descend on us. They were just East of Fighter One too...on Guadalcanal....probably three minutes out!

There was so much weeping and wailing after that....by the Nipponese. :)

BTW....I was the tactical officer for that scenario too....as well as CO of the P-39 squadron based out of the island. Later we upgraded to the F4U. I designed those offensive plans....remember the pincher movement from north and south of the slot? I forget who was the CO, on our side. I should remember the CO for the IJN side....he wasn't too happy.

Still flying WB online. [url]www.warbirdsiii.com[/url]

I'm the head trainer over there with administrative duties now...so flying a desk for the training corp. I'm also chairing the convention this year in Pensacola, FL...by the naval museum. Bob Goebels...11 confirmed kills...who flew the P51 in the MTO...is our guest. [url]www.warbirdsplayercon.com[/url]

I'm flying now with [url]www.31stfightergroup.com.[/url] I'm hoping for some more realistic clouds very soon in WB. The last upgrade put in a lot of eye candy....shell casing falling out of the guns, etc....but the FMs are getting touched up a bit and not all the changes are done there.

BTW....[url]www.flyingpigs.com[/url] is still up. I sure miss you guys. :(

Glad you both are enjoying UV. This thing is amazing. I want to start playing some e-mail games....but I still have some crash bugs that keep me from finishing most games....though the AI is usually finished by then.

Worr, out

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 16

1.2 Suggestions - 6/25/2002 1:29:51 AM

wzh55

Posts: 188
Joined: 3/17/2001
From: Sacramento, CA USA
Status: offline

One point that I would like to see addressed is an easier way to determine how many AP's it takes to load any certain division. Forgive me and help me if I seem stupid, but I cannot determine the load capacity (in terms of men) that these AP's can handle. Also, can you load sqadrons of AC on transports, if so, which ones, and just how. Another point, how can I have my LBA attack Japanese shipping en masse like he (the AI) seems to be able to do. My AC support is adequate, even my support is good, I have many planes available, and they are set on naval attack. Any answers for my stupidity? Finally, how do you determine how many squadrons of LBA can be based at any certain base? I have well over 10 different groups at Port Morseby and I know the AC base level is under that number. Help me now or help me later, please. And oh, by the way, excellent game.

_____________________________

Bill Hawthorne

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 17

- 6/25/2002 1:47:30 AM

CJ Martin

Posts: 119
Joined: 5/20/2002
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

Worr,

...I misss those days too, and I miss flying with you.

Whz55,

Not at home now and don't have a manual handy, so this is from memory:

1. The Load cost for group troops is displayed on the "load troops" screen I believe, as well as on the base ground troops screen.

2. I am pretty sure the only "transport" you can load aircraft on is the CVE Long Island. Crated aircraft transport seems to be beyond the scope of the game, and given the distances involved, it's not that big of a deal (at least for me so far).

3. Allied LBA will beat the heck out of enemy TF's, but they need to find them and have decent weather at their home base to launch. Also you need to have a certain level of supplies (I think 2x the monthly requirements) for level bombers to fly missions. Beware, large numbers of level bombers will really burn through a lot of supplies! Also level bomber effectiveness is seriously reduced at size 3 bases or smaller. Aircraft at size 1 airbases won't launch offensive missions.

4. You can base 50 aircraft at each base for each point of base size. For example, a size 4 airfield can handle 200 (50x4) aircraft without penalty. One thing I'm not clear on is how AV's modify this (if at all)...anyone know? Do PB's count towards the maximum aircraft a base can handle?

Hope that helps.

-CJ

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 18

- 6/25/2002 2:38:56 AM

JohnK

Posts: 285
Joined: 2/8/2001
Status: offline

Worr,

Last thing I did in AH was a big hypothetical scenario with the British CV attacks (and also Lancs) to sink the Tirpitz; used Avengers to represent the Albacores, but the British CVs actually did have Corsairs and Hellcats; in reality Germans never put up much fighter opposition, scenario assumed FWs and 109s defending Tirpitz, and Ju-88s with torps trying to attack our CVs. We finally did sink it. I did all the frame plans and was the XO. Lost one CV in the process. The torp attacks got massacred, though; our CO had a NINE kill sortie in a Hog vs. the Ju-88s.

Guadalcanal was pretty awesome; I had a 6 kill sortie in a Wildcat over Henderson on my birthday; and I was never much of a pilot.

Wildcats pretty much always had Zeros for lunch in WB; they're finally adding the early war Naval stuff to AH next patch, will see if that continues.

1 on 1, give me a Zero; 24 on 24, give me Wildcats. This is heretical but I've always thought the Zero was a tad overrated; when they cleaned up in the early war it was against Buffalos and really badly trained RAF pilots in SE Asia. Once up against USN Wildcats, they never had a favorable kill ratio.

I genuinely think in large numbers, at equal altitude, and equal pilots, I actually would rather have Wildcats and Zeros due to dive ability, firepower, and durability.

I don't think there's a problem with Zeros in UV at all, but I haven't taken a close look at the plane ratings. I suspect the B-24 should have a bit more of a range advantage on the B-17 than it actually does, though.

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 19

- 6/25/2002 9:21:40 AM

worr

Posts: 901
Joined: 2/7/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JohnK
[B]1 on 1, give me a Zero; 24 on 24, give me Wildcats. This is heretical but I've always thought the Zero was a tad overrated; [/B][/QUOTE]

Well said! Though....offensively the greatest asset was the range of the zero. Hence the lightness wasn't just for maneuverability.

Given that the F4F3 and 4 were fighting a defensive battle...the tactical edge may have been in their favor. But the fantastic range of the zero had an enormous strategic impact upon the early war....especially given the geographic span of the SWPAC.

So it�s a mixed bag. Given the small picture....tactical...I too would choose the F4F in numbers. But given islands to capture and hold...I'd take the Zero in numbers any day!

Worr, out

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 20

Undo 1 thing from 1.1 - 6/26/2002 1:13:46 AM

Burch

Posts: 35
Joined: 5/29/2002
From: Mississippi
Status: offline

I like the changes in the current patches with the exception of sub minelaying. I have been away for a while so I don't know if this has been mentioned before.:rolleyes: But.. while I agree with the limiting of bases capable of loading mines on subs I think limiting it to Truk and Noumea only is too restrictive, I would like to see Rabaul and Brisbane added to the list. Particularly Brisbane as it was a rather busy sub base in 42 after the fall of Philipines, Tiltijap etc..
Burch

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 21

- 6/26/2002 7:25:46 AM

Huskalator

Posts: 212
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

I think the game is close to perfect right now except for a few things:

1)Sub Chasers and Destroyers are still Japanese torpedo catchers even with their practice training maxed out.

2)I would like it if the AI were more mindful of enemy carriers. I had a scenerio where the Jap AI was sending Bombardment runs from Rabual to Port Moresby. I put a large carrier group a few hexes off Gili Gili to dissuade any more bombardments. Well the Japs didn't take a hint and kept sending them despite the carriers. I sunk 3 Jap Battleships this way.

_____________________________

SW Episode 2:Good movie, bad love story

Happiness is the only good. The time to be happy is now. The place to be happy is here. The way to be happy is to make others so.

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 22

- 6/26/2002 7:31:57 AM

Spooky

Posts: 816
Joined: 4/1/2002
From: Froggy Land
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Deep Breakfast
[B]I think the game is close to perfect right now except for a few things:

1)Sub Chasers and Destroyers are still Japanese torpedo catchers even with their practice training maxed out.
[/B][/QUOTE]

In another post, Erik agrees with you :

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins
[B]I agree, in that as a player the one remaining area of ASW that I feel could use some tweaking is the aggressiveness and success of subs against sub-hunters of various kinds. While these subs were well-armed, relatively large ships, they did not tend to engage ASW craft to the degree that they seem to do in UV, nor with as much success.

I think that the sub vs. non-ASW and Air vs. sub combat seems about right, but even Japanese subs shouldn't go after ASW craft quite as much as they do. If they do, they should have more trouble getting good results. In any case, this is another thing for the designers/developers to decide if they want to revisit. However, from my perspective the sub vs. ASW ship concern is a valid one and should go on the eventual "tweak" list.

[/B][/QUOTE]

So maybe some tweaks are on their way for patch 1.3 (patch 1.2 is for bugs only) :)

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 23

TF creation tweaks & ship lists - 6/28/2002 4:55:42 PM

Rex Bellator

Posts: 66
Joined: 4/26/2002
From: Kent UK
Status: offline

An easy fix which would help save our mouse fingers during TF creation would be have the default TF commander be the standard junior commander rather than the highest available senior commander. As the Japanese I'm now totally fed up of having RADM Tanaka automatically selected as TF commander for every single TF I create, even tiny supply convoys, and then having to go in and change him.

The way the ships are listed could be refined as well. When I click on a ship to add into a TF the list will suddenly jump to the top or bottom and then needs scrolling back to the next ship I was going to add.

Also it would be very handy for the default display of ships on lists including TF creation to be by 'ship type' IMO. I seem to view almost all lists in this format, and suppose other players do as well.

Finally (for now :D ) the Ships Sunk screen definitely needs splitting between Japanese & Allied vessels, again defaulting to ship type if possible.

All of the above would help the interface enormously.

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 24

- 6/28/2002 6:33:59 PM

ROSLEY

Posts: 47
Joined: 5/2/2002
From: KENT UK
Status: offline

Rex,
Where do you live in Kent. I live in Wadhurst . Are you going any other gaming . I am just getting into UV . I have mainly been playing HPS Panzer campaigns .

CC

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 25

- 6/28/2002 6:44:12 PM

AlvinS

Posts: 665
Joined: 12/2/2000
From: O'Fallon, Missouri
Status: offline

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." ---Mark Twain

Naval Warfare Simulations

AlvinS

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 26

Re: Base Construction Status - 6/28/2002 9:54:52 PM

Mark W Carver

Posts: 83
Joined: 4/26/2002
From: South-central PA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]I'd like to see the base screen show a percent completion (or better yet, a estimated completion date) for the next upgrade in Port Size, Airfield Size, and Fortification Level.

Without that, it's difficult to determine the best distribution of Engineering assets if you are trying to build multiple bases.[/QUOTE]

Maybe an estimated percentage of what has been completed, but the estimated time for completion can be really hard to nail down to due differing factors.

Engineers (squads/vehicles) first and foremost at a base will be used to repair any damage done to their bases (runways, airfield services, and ports). Than and only than will any remaining engineer that has not been used for repair, will be used to increase an airfield, port or fortification.

If your the Americans, and the Japs are pounding Port Morseby with daily bombing raids, all your engineers could be used just to repair any damage that is being done by bomb damage, thus there could be none used to increase your bases for that day, thus throwing off the completion schedule.

Also, I'm not sure, but I think it should, weather should play a factor in engineer construction (repairs and increases to bases). It would be really hard for engineers to do any construction if it's base is under a thundershower or raining.

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 27

Cavalry Corps - 6/28/2002 11:15:02 PM

Rex Bellator

Posts: 66
Joined: 4/26/2002
From: Kent UK
Status: offline

I'm in Tonbridge - I'll mail you with details as soon as I have my emails working again (I'm currently changing to ADSL and it's been a mare!). Hopefully we'll be able to arrange a few beers and UV chat session soon.

I've been playing computer war games for a long time, and have done Tobruk & Normandy of the HPS series, I even played the grand campaign of Normandy by email until my buddy and I retired due to Overlord Overload :D

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 28

- 6/28/2002 11:49:47 PM

Capt Cliff

Posts: 1791
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline

1) SHOW THE WEATHER! Everyones playing daily turns right? Then display the weather fronts and their intensity! It allows carrier TF's to hide in a storm front or advance behind them!

2) Tone down aircraft vs. land units! The game behaves as if the infantry units go outside and look up and wave during an air raid!

3) The AI must micronmanage the way we do! It must set LRCAP over TF's, add escorts to transport TF's, resupply it's bases, set way points,...

4) Add a logistics command structure and list out what bases should be supplyed and assign a priority to each base, and supply the command with assets, ships and escorts. Turn it on and forget it. Everone has cruise control on their cars right?

5) Allow engineers to improve the jungle trails in New Guinea.

6) Allow replenishment TF's to act automatically, like the follow button. Assign the replenishee and the replenisher targets, each other and forget them. When their through you get a message that they are done refueling!

7) Be able to assign enemy TF;s as targets for LB air and Air Combat TF's.

_____________________________

Capt. Cliff

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 29

- 7/6/2002 10:35:19 PM

worr

Posts: 901
Joined: 2/7/2001
Status: offline

Wouldn't it be nice also to have the current weather? And not just the forecasted weather? And not just the region's current weather...but the current weather at each airport.

Worr, out

(in reply to worr)

Post #: 30