Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

FYI these will be tested in our next build.

 
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 >> FYI these will be tested in our next build. Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
FYI these will be tested in our next build. - 8/6/2003 7:06:36 AM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline 		[COLOR=darkblue]I am putting these out because they were requested by the players who post on this board. I thought you might like to know we are working on some of your sujestions.[/COLOR]

1. There is now an added demolition routine that looks at the number of engineers at a base when it is captured and gives them a chance to damage factories, airfields and ports before the capture.

2. On the TF orders screen there are now values for the TF AA (derived value), Guns (derived value), Torpedoes (number of tubes), and ASW (derived value), and with each of the 4 a percentage representing the percentage of ammo of that type remaining On the list all TF screen we have added ammunition remaining for AA, Guns, Torpedoes, ASW.

3. Add Max range for air groups which allows players to set a range which the air unit will not exceed when flying strike missions.

:D :D :D

_____________________________

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

Post #: 1
- 8/6/2003 8:01:18 AM   
Flying fortress

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 11/1/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]3. Add Max range for air groups which allows players to set a range which the air unit will not exceed when flying strike missions. [/QUOTE]


Thank God!!!:D

Any chance to set a option that says:

Do not fly without fighter escort
Fly without fighter escort

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 2
- 8/6/2003 8:22:15 AM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Flying fortress
[B]Thank God!!!:D

Any chance to set a option that says:

Do not fly without fighter escort
Fly without fighter escort [/B][/QUOTE]

I knew you guys would like this one. We can always ask.

_____________________________

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


(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 3
- 8/6/2003 11:28:34 AM   
Luskan

 

Posts: 1897
Joined: 7/11/2002
From: Down Under
Status: offline 		I like all of them.

_____________________________

With dancing Bananas and Storm Troopers who needs BBs?

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 4
Escort - 8/6/2003 11:59:16 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Flying fortress
[B]Thank God!!!:D

Any chance to set a option that says:

Do not fly without fighter escort
Fly without fighter escort [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi, Just set max range to max range of fighters. Poof bombers will not fly without escorts. (unless you forget to set fighters to escort) If you want them unescorted don't set fighters to escort or set range beyond fighter range.

_____________________________






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

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 5
- 8/6/2003 3:11:08 PM   
von Murrin


Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline 		Beautiful!

Like everyone else, I'm quite pleased with #3 in particular.

Oh, and if a way to get CV CAP to only fly when needed (i.e. attacked) could be added somewhere down the road, I wouldn't need to die to go to heaven. :p

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 6
- 8/6/2003 3:18:20 PM   
caine

 

Posts: 94
Joined: 6/13/2002
From: Barcelona (Spain)
Status: offline 		I think these are very good choices.Anyway, what about having the option to maintain a Task Force a number of hexes away (if possible) from enemy airfields during movement? In that way, we could avoid massive air attacks against those Task Forces.

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 7
Re: FYI these will be tested in our next build. - 8/6/2003 8:07:30 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kid
[B][COLOR=darkblue]I am putting these out because they were requested by the players who post on this board. I thought you might like to know we are working on some of your sujestions.[/COLOR]

1. There is now an added demolition routine that looks at the number of engineers at a base when it is captured and gives them a chance to damage factories, airfields and ports before the capture.

:D :D :D [/B][/QUOTE]

This is a step in the right direction, but puts a premimum on
the engineers present when the base falls. The Dutch had very
few engineers in the East Indies, yet did a better job of demo-
lition than the rest of the Allies simply because they "read the
handwriting on the wall" and prepared to destroy their
facilities ahead of time. Any chance of a "prepare for demolition"
order that would increase the amount of damage when a facility
fell based on the length of preparation?

Point 3 will be greatly appreciated by every player I know...

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 8
- 8/6/2003 11:38:43 PM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline 		Mike,
I'm not very familiar with the Dutch actions in the opening days of WW2, but it seems to me that prepping things for demolition still requires engineers. Is it possible that engineers had at some point been at the Dutch bases (setting up demo charges, etc.) and then left the grunts to light the fuse?

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 9
Re: FYI these will be tested in our next build. - 8/7/2003 12:31:20 AM   
worr

 

Posts: 901
Joined: 2/7/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kid
[B]3. Add Max range for air groups which allows players to set a range which the air unit will not exceed when flying strike missions. [/B][/QUOTE]

Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition.

Can we get this UV too? :)

Worr, out

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 10
Re: Re: FYI these will be tested in our next build. - 8/7/2003 1:43:41 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Scholl
[B]This is a step in the right direction, but puts a premimum on
the engineers present when the base falls. The Dutch had very
few engineers in the East Indies, yet did a better job of demo-
lition than the rest of the Allies simply because they "read the
handwriting on the wall" and prepared to destroy their
facilities ahead of time. Any chance of a "prepare for demolition"
order that would increase the amount of damage when a facility
fell based on the length of preparation?
[/B][/QUOTE]

Mike,

I think it would be a mistake to have a prepare for demolition order. If it were available, wouldnt most players imediately prepare all bases for demolition on turn one, making successful demolition a foregone conclusion?

Successful demolition had more to do with the will and the means than advance prep. For instance the Brits in Malaya had longstanding denial protocals yet when pushed came to shove the troops responsible panicked and bolted leaving most of the northern air bases instact. The Dutch on the otherhand may not have had many military engineers but they did have an abundance of qualified civilian oil and mine workers adept at handleing explosives along with Dutch resolve to carry it through.

IMO engineers presence coupled with some sort of morale check is the way to go, because if you do not have the means (aka engineers Knowhow & explosives ) or the will then no amount of prep time is going to get the job done. In the special case of the Dutch I would simply add engineer squads to the Dutch garrison units to model their intrinsic civil engineer capabilities.

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 11
- 8/7/2003 1:56:35 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		I would agree that having a voluntary demolition order would be very vulnerable to "abuse" via the "hindsight" factor. Kind of similar to why the "scuttle" feature cannot be selected unless a certain level of damage is present.

Testing should give us a better idea of how it works within the greater framework of the game.

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 12
- 8/8/2003 12:22:25 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Just to let you guys know,

the new WITP Alpha was released today and I've just finished a quick play with some of the new features/changes (there are far more new ones than those listed at the start of the thread).

To put it mildly - :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

It is really starting to shape as the dream game for many (I wont say all :p ) of those players who had pet hates about some of UVs routines (or lack of).

I'm sure the other testers will elaborate (if allowed) while I'm away on holidays.

Cheers

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 13
Three More Features - 8/8/2003 5:54:42 PM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline 		It's hard to tell what is ok to release and whats not but I think it won't hurt to let these three out of the bag. :D


1) Set Speed (allows the TF to be told to always move at full speed, always move at cruise speed, or follow commander’s discretion which is the current method of speed selection used in UV).

2) Reaction range. This can be set between 0 and 6 and determines the maximum number of hexes the TF will move if it reacts to the enemy – this can be impacted by the Set Speed order because if it is set to always move at cruise speed the TF will never react more than cruise speed distance – also, if 0 is selected, air combat TFs will not make the automatic one hex move to close with enemy carriers. This reaction range takes the place of the old React/Do not React order. If you don’t want an Air Combat or Surface Combat TF to react, set this value to 0.

3) Unload/Don’t Unload which allows you to tell a TF not to unload cargo when it reaches its destination hex but instead to remain loaded.

_____________________________

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


(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 14
- 8/8/2003 5:57:09 PM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drongo
[B]Just to let you guys know,

the new WITP Alpha was released today and I've just finished a quick play with some of the new features/changes (there are far more new ones than those listed at the start of the thread).

To put it mildly - :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

It is really starting to shape as the dream game for many (I wont say all :p ) of those players who had pet hates about some of UVs routines (or lack of).

I'm sure the other testers will elaborate (if allowed) while I'm away on holidays.

Cheers [/B][/QUOTE]

Hey who authorized any holidays?

_____________________________

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


(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 15
WOW !!! - 8/8/2003 6:57:26 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kid
[B]It's hard to tell what is ok to release and whats not but I think it won't hurt to let these three out of the bag. :D


1) Set Speed (allows the TF to be told to always move at full speed, always move at cruise speed, or follow commander’s discretion which is the current method of speed selection used in UV).

2) Reaction range. This can be set between 0 and 6 and determines the maximum number of hexes the TF will move if it reacts to the enemy – this can be impacted by the Set Speed order because if it is set to always move at cruise speed the TF will never react more than cruise speed distance – also, if 0 is selected, air combat TFs will not make the automatic one hex move to close with enemy carriers. This reaction range takes the place of the old React/Do not React order. If you don’t want an Air Combat or Surface Combat TF to react, set this value to 0.

3) Unload/Don’t Unload which allows you to tell a TF not to unload cargo when it reaches its destination hex but instead to remain loaded. [/B][/QUOTE]

Oh my... oh my... I am speachless...

WOW !!!


Leo "Apollo11"

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 16
- 8/8/2003 8:48:54 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		Fanstastic! improvements, especially #3, no more sailing convoys in circles in mid ocean just to keep them from unloading.:)

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 17
- 8/8/2003 9:30:49 PM   
Sonny

 

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by TIMJOT
[B]Fanstastic! improvements, especially #3, no more sailing convoys in circles in mid ocean just to keep them from unloading.:) [/B][/QUOTE]

Got that right!!

These features are great! And you can keep your commanders in line or let them do their thing.:)

_____________________________

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 siRkid)
Post #: 18
- 8/8/2003 9:41:06 PM   
dwesolick


Posts: 593
Joined: 6/24/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		All of the changes sound great!!!!!!!!!! WitP sounds like it is shaping up as the best wargame...EVER! (Until Matrix does a WitP-style Russian Campaign :) )

A simple way to handle base demolition might be something like this: A player would click the "base demolition" button and (starting by the next turn) the fuel and supply in the base would immediately degrade...perhaps by 5%, 10%, or 20% per turn, depending on number of engineers in hex. If no, or few, engineers, then 5%, if lots, then 20%. This seems like it would provide a DIS-incentive to players setting demolition too early, they would, after all, be blowing up their own supplies, and, in case the base was held, or the enemy went elsewhere, the player would have to laboriously rebuild.

I guess it could work the same for demolition of airfields/ports/oil fields. Say, 1 point reduction every two or three turns with few engineers, 1 point per turn with lots of engineers.

Just thinking out loud. Either way, the game is going to be great. Can I just buy my copy now????:D

_____________________________

"The Navy has a moth-eaten tradition that the captain who loses his ship is disgraced. What do they have all those ships for, if not to hurl them at the enemy?" --Douglas MacArthur

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 19
Re: Three More Features - 8/10/2003 1:12:32 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kid
[B]It's hard to tell what is ok to release and whats not but I think it won't hurt to let these three out of the bag. :D


1) Set Speed (allows the TF to be told to always move at full speed, always move at cruise speed, or follow commander’s discretion which is the current method of speed selection used in UV).

2) Reaction range. This can be set between 0 and 6 and determines the maximum number of hexes the TF will move if it reacts to the enemy – this can be impacted by the Set Speed order because if it is set to always move at cruise speed the TF will never react more than cruise speed distance – also, if 0 is selected, air combat TFs will not make the automatic one hex move to close with enemy carriers. This reaction range takes the place of the old React/Do not React order. If you don’t want an Air Combat or Surface Combat TF to react, set this value to 0.

3) Unload/Don’t Unload which allows you to tell a TF not to unload cargo when it reaches its destination hex but instead to remain loaded. [/B][/QUOTE]

#2- Does this mean surface task forces will still only react to enemy task forces at a friendly base or has this been changed as well?

_____________________________


(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 20
- 8/10/2003 6:38:08 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Posted by Kid
[QUOTE]Hey who authorized any holidays?[/QUOTE]

You must have missed seeing my statement of leave in amongst all my task reports. Maybe you need a holiday too.

Posted by Tanaka
[QUOTE]#2- Does this mean surface task forces will still only react to enemy task forces at a friendly base or has this been changed as well?[/QUOTE]

IIRC, the intention is to look at introducing this change at a later point in the game's alpha development.

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 21
- 8/17/2003 6:57:51 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drongo
[B]
It is really starting to shape as the dream game [/B][/QUOTE]


You take a perverse pleasure in torturing the poor ol' ordinary customers who have to wait for the release with comments like this, don't you? ;) I'm already pacing up and down in front of my computer, drooling...

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 22
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> FYI these will be tested in our next build. 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

1.203