Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Altitude settings

 
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 >> Altitude settings Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Altitude settings - 10/2/2002 5:36:48 PM   
SwampYankee68


Posts: 1186
Joined: 5/8/2002
From: Connecticut, U.S.
Status: offline 		I'm hoping that it will no longer be necessary to set the altitude of planes in this big a game. I think it is unnecessary in UV, but in this game it would be too much. Along this line, has there been anything firm from the 2by3 team on what is being changed to accomodate the much bigger scale?

_____________________________

"The only way I got to keep them Tigers busy is to let them shoot holes in me!"
Post #: 1
- 10/30/2002 5:01:07 AM   
showboat1


Posts: 1885
Joined: 7/28/2000
From: Atoka, TN
Status: offline 		So am I. It is frustrating as heck to have to constantly fiddle with that. It should a commander discretion sort of thing.

(in reply to SwampYankee68)
Post #: 2
- 10/30/2002 7:38:45 PM   
SwampYankee68


Posts: 1186
Joined: 5/8/2002
From: Connecticut, U.S.
Status: offline 		Whether or not you can assign certain functions to a staff officer will be the main factor in my purchase decision.

_____________________________

"The only way I got to keep them Tigers busy is to let them shoot holes in me!"

(in reply to SwampYankee68)
Post #: 3
- 10/30/2002 8:15:23 PM   
Raverdave


Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline 		I dissagree.......there are times when I want maximum load on target, and the only way that the LRB and MRB for that matter, can do that is setting them to 6000ft........and then there are times that I just want to using my bombers at 10,000, or even 26,000 feet. I well understand what you guys are saying, but the ability to set the altitude should not be completely removed.

_____________________________




Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to SwampYankee68)
Post #: 4
- 10/30/2002 8:25:13 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Yeah, while it can be annoying at times, I don't think it should be removed. I like having the choice to hit surface ships with LBs at either 1000' or 100'. If the TF has few capitol ships (ie not tonnes of flak), I send them in low for the added accuracy and potential damage of skip bombing.

I think if there was some panel that allowed you to set the default settings for each type of AC, that would be useful. The people who don't want to be bothered can plug in the default settings and never have to worry again; whereas the micro-managers can fiddle to their hearts content.

Not sure how difficult it would be to integrated something like that into the code at this point tho. Seems like it would be a bit of work.

-F-

(in reply to SwampYankee68)
Post #: 5
- 10/30/2002 8:49:26 PM   
U2


Posts: 3332
Joined: 7/17/2001
From: Västerås,Sweden
Status: offline 		Hi

The altitude setting is VERY important. It allows you to do different kinds of missions, try to avoid CAP by having a high altitude, avoid AA and so on.

Its not that often that I change settings and altitudes on my air groups and when I do its so easy with the "set all on this hex" and the other functions. I think if Matrix/2by3 had not implementet such time saving functions I would been less keen on altitude settings but now I'm very happy with how it works

Sure it takes some time sometimes but its worth it. Different ways to win over your opponent is always nice.

Dan

_____________________________


(in reply to SwampYankee68)
Post #: 6
Altitude - 10/31/2002 1:01:11 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Greetings, This is a very important player in put. I would not like or agree with a default setting that could not be changed. (I don't mind a general default setting)

Altitude setting reflects doctrine, and tactics. I fly new un experianced groups much higher then experianced ones. (I don't care about damage they do just that they fly a flew missions and do not get chewed up. I put new groups on high altitude night missions. I go high when facing aircraft like the "Iron dog" (P-39) to give my aircrew an advantage. I don't want "staff" officers deciding this sort of thing.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to SwampYankee68)
Post #: 7
Re: Altitude - 10/31/2002 3:46:00 AM   
angus

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 9/8/2002
From: Brussels
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Greetings, This is a very important player in put. I would not like or agree with a default setting that could not be changed. (I don't mind a general default setting)

Altitude setting reflects doctrine, and tactics. I fly new un experianced groups much higher then experianced ones. (I don't care about damage they do just that they fly a flew missions and do not get chewed up. I put new groups on high altitude night missions. I go high when facing aircraft like the "Iron dog" (P-39) to give my aircrew an advantage. I don't want "staff" officers deciding this sort of thing. [/B][/QUOTE]


Well maybe, but it's icky gamey micromanagement stuff that shouldn't be in a UV-level game let alone in WitP. I'm with the "get rid of it" folks. And while we're at it let's get rid of human controlled submarines as well. And most of the different types of air missions. It's not up to Combined Fleet HQ or CinCPac to decide that sort of stuff (or even CinCSoWesPac ...).


I feel better now.

Angus

(in reply to SwampYankee68)
Post #: 8
- 10/31/2002 7:39:02 AM   
SwampYankee68


Posts: 1186
Joined: 5/8/2002
From: Connecticut, U.S.
Status: offline 		I would not expect anything to be REMOVED, fellas, I'd just like to see the OPTION of a more realistic setting in which you say "Bomb this location" and staff takes care of it. I could very easilly imagine some of you guys sayiing "No, don't take out the ability for the player to assign enemy task forces as specific targets" if the designers had placed that into the game. They didn't as that is innapropriate for the command level simulated. My beef is therefore: how can altitude setting be appropriate? But I would not deny it to you who want it, I would just like the OPTION of assigning certain things to staff. I won't belabor the point, I hope I've coherently related my position.

_____________________________

"The only way I got to keep them Tigers busy is to let them shoot holes in me!"

(in reply to SwampYankee68)
Post #: 9
- 10/31/2002 8:58:06 AM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Swamp_Yankee
[B]Whether or not you can assign certain functions to a staff officer will be the main factor in my purchase decision. [/B][/QUOTE]

It are these little quotes that really get me sometimes. Nothing personal, but, you are basically saying "do this or I won't buy it", as you are trying to say to pressure the company to include something you want.

PacWar didn't have it, and it is still one of the best strategic wargames out there. For me not to buy WitP it would have to have a lot of bugs that it is unplayable, not because it lacks certain features. This is probably why a lot of games (not Matrix, but other games) end up being sub-par (GI Combat for one), as the community keeps on pressuring for more features (stating this to be paramount, and they listen, while taking less notice to bugs).

WitP will have everything and more of the only comparable game, Pacific War. Should WitP have been just a graphic upgrade, and slightly improved version of Pacific War, I would still buy it. Irregardless, in fact, in spite of, all of the extra features, I know that the game as a whole will be so good that the lack of a few features will not destroy it.

(in reply to SwampYankee68)
Post #: 10
- 11/1/2002 1:36:23 AM   
Mike Wood


Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline 		Hello...

Should you prefer not to mess around with altitudes, just leave them at the default settings. These are optimized for best general results.

Have Fun...

Michael Wood

(in reply to SwampYankee68)
Post #: 11
- 11/1/2002 5:53:52 AM   
SwampYankee68


Posts: 1186
Joined: 5/8/2002
From: Connecticut, U.S.
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
[B]

It are these little quotes that really get me sometimes. Nothing personal, but, you are basically saying "do this or I won't buy it", as you are trying to say to pressure the company to include something you want.
[/B][/QUOTE]

And your point is?

For the record, I bought UV and recommended it to a number of wargamer friends. I have limited game time, and like the idea of grand operational level wargaming in the SP, but don't know if I'd have time to play WITP if I didn't have the ablility to assign tasks to staff.

If that is how I happen to feel, does it injure you if I say it? I haven't spammed it, I haven't said I would tell others not to buy it, I'm speaking my mind. I'm sure that 2by3 and Matrix are not daunted by my opinion, nor should they be. Why are your panties all bunched up?

_____________________________

"The only way I got to keep them Tigers busy is to let them shoot holes in me!"

(in reply to SwampYankee68)
Post #: 12
Re: Altitude - 11/7/2002 11:13:26 AM   
shark

 

Posts: 58
Joined: 7/1/2002
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Greetings, This is a very important player in put. I would not like or agree with a default setting that could not be changed. (I don't mind a general default setting)

Altitude setting reflects doctrine, and tactics. I fly new un experianced groups much higher then experianced ones. (I don't care about damage they do just that they fly a flew missions and do not get chewed up. I put new groups on high altitude night missions. I go high when facing aircraft like the "Iron dog" (P-39) to give my aircrew an advantage. I don't want "staff" officers deciding this sort of thing. [/B][/QUOTE]

After playing UV and posting several questions on Altitude settings for ASW and Bombing it became apparent that the info is just not available in enough detail .
I would rather give orders to my group commanders defining the inportance / urgancy of destroying a target category and general tactical guidlines to employ, rather than setting aircraft altitude which is a decision taken at Squad. levil not at CINCPAC. Let the AI make immediate decisions on altitude depending on local weather crew fatigue,morale,and experience. If you enable them to use low levil attacks or skip bombing they will, if the correct conditions exist, and the urgency you specify demands.
It seems to me this is what you are trying to do but the only way UV lets you do it is by fiddling with altitude. I hope WITP will fix this.

(in reply to SwampYankee68)
Post #: 13
Well said, Shark - 11/7/2002 7:08:01 PM   
SwampYankee68


Posts: 1186
Joined: 5/8/2002
From: Connecticut, U.S.
Status: offline 		Well said, Shark. I could not agree with you more.

_____________________________

"The only way I got to keep them Tigers busy is to let them shoot holes in me!"

(in reply to SwampYankee68)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Altitude settings 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

1.250