Great game but.....

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Great game but.....

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 >> Great game but.....

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Great game but..... - 11/18/2004 4:40:30 PM

Admiral Scott

Posts: 625
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Syracuse, NY USA
Status: offline

This is the greatest war game I ever owned, but I wish I could have surface engagements in open ocean(non-base) hexes!
I have a huge enemy TF full of AP's and AK's parked in front of my huge Surface TF.
I cant tell my TF do go chase them down and destroy them , like I could in real life, I have to wait until they move in, go right through my hex with my huge TF, and then follow this large slow transport TF until it lands on one of my bases for my TF to react to it and go backwards and finally and hopefully engage it.

WE NEED SURFACE BATTLES IN NON BASE HEXES LIKE SUBS HAVE!
WE ALSO NEED TO BE ABLE TO SELECT AN ENEMY TF AS A TARGET TO CHASE, MUCH LIKE THE OPTION WE HAVE TO FOLLOW A FRIENDLY TF.

This game is too great not to have this fundamental function.

The leader bugs, slow railway traveling(especially in giant Austraila), map distortion are annoying, but the lack of surface battles in non base hexes frustrates me.

I have been wargaming for 35 years, and this is the game I always wanted, so please get this game right before moving on to the next game.
This game will be played for years to come, but please dont let me wait another 35 years for this feature.

Thanks for the great game you gave us, and we all appreciate the hard work and the attention you give us.

< Message edited by Admiral Scott -- 11/18/2004 9:41:06 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: Great game but..... - 11/18/2004 4:46:51 PM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

I feel your pain, in the mean time the work around is guess where they will be and move groups to interecept, I have used this many times and it does work

(in reply to Admiral Scott)

Post #: 2

RE: Great game but..... - 11/18/2004 4:50:09 PM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

I have open water surface battles all the time. It is annoying that your surface warfare groups will not automatically go after a convoy 1 hex away though.

You just have to guess where the convoy will be when it ends its movement and put your surface force there. If you want a night fight, plan for 2 hexes away from it. For a day fight, plan for 4 hexes.

90% of the transport TF's only move 2 hexes per phase.

(in reply to Admiral Scott)

Post #: 3

RE: Great game but..... - 11/18/2004 4:57:34 PM

Admiral Scott

Posts: 625
Joined: 1/8/2001
From: Syracuse, NY USA
Status: offline

I have only played a week of game turns, and havent had open ocean surface battles even though I had huge numbers of ships in the same hex trying to engage a large enemy TF without a battle.
Why cant we designate an enemy TF as a target, like we target land targets or friendly TF's to follow?

(in reply to 2ndACR)

Post #: 4

RE: Great game but..... - 11/18/2004 5:04:12 PM

Milman

Posts: 269
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Serbia
Status: offline

quote:

Why cant we designate an enemy TF as a target, like we target land targets or friendly TF's to follow?

Becouse than small and slow ships don't have chance to avoid superior TF and can't flee from that TF . For example : TF with 30+- AK/AP from PI at the beginig of the game don't have chance to flee Jap. TF of 6DD . TF with 6 DD will destroy all ships from that convoy .

(in reply to Admiral Scott)

Post #: 5

RE: Great game but..... - 11/18/2004 5:05:17 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

Mid-ocean intercepts are possible in WitP, just fairly difficult.

I do agree that a "follow (enemy) TF" function would be nice for our TFs. However, I'm betting that would be quite a bit a coding. I'm also positive that people would greatly over-estimate it's effectiveness. Consider the hair-raising, nail-biting chase that was the pursuit of the DKM Bismark. It was NOT easy. Royal Navy basically sortied everything it could, found, and lost, the Bismark several times. She went all the way from Norway to (almost) Brest before they finally nabbed her. "But she was a single ship! (after dispatching Prinz Eugen. I'm talking about a plodding convoy!" Also not easy. How many major convoys were intercepted by German surface ships. There were MANY of attempts, but very few successes (if any, none actually come to mind, but I could be wrong). Even PQ-17 was never spotted by the Tirpiz. All the damage was done by Condors and U-boats. So historically, it wasn't easy either.

But let's just say Matrix caves, and agreed to code it. What does it entail (just from our surface view). You'd have to connect the search routines of the shadowing PBYs (separate units at separate bases), consider the detection levels of the target TF, how many hexes out you are, and then connect your TF to the enemy TF for course, and increase your TFs speed (indstead of the default "mission speed"), and/or change cource to intercept.

Right now, all events are (appearently) separate.

Your PBYs spot enemy TF, and it's assigned a DL.
With each new spotting event, the DL is raised.
If your TF is in the same hex, it also gets a chance at spotting either manually, by float planes or radar (thus raising the DL).
If the DL is high enough, and you have an agressive enough leader, and you're the right kind of TF (SC), you get a shot a engaging them.

Again, not a bad idea. I think it -should- be an option. But I think it's effectiveness would be greated over-estimated by players, and it would also probably be a b1tch to code.

Regards,
-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to Admiral Scott)

Post #: 6

RE: Great game but..... - 11/18/2004 6:22:12 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

The react should be able to work if in a hex adjacent to the TF. The broad statement that if a TF does not want battle, odds are it can avoid it are false. Why was such effort put into speed as an attribute? To avoid battle? Hardly, to overtake.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 7

RE: Great game but..... - 11/18/2004 6:43:29 PM

moses

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline

I think mid-ocean intercepts should be as is; very difficult. I can't recall any occuring although I'm sure a few must have occured. The mid ocean annihilation of transport fleets that many seem to want rarely occured because transport fleet commanders were careful to avoid this disasterous possibility. Even tranports unloading at a beach surely would take some precautions against surface attack if it was a possibility.

In the game these things can happen. All that is required is for the surface force to guess correctly.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 8

RE: Great game but..... - 11/18/2004 6:48:09 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

I thought something was going to be done to allow patrols to intercept TFs passing through their hex.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to moses)

Post #: 9

RE: Great game but..... - 11/18/2004 6:59:36 PM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

no the coding issue again, recreating new stuff creates possible unknown bugs etc.. I believe we are stuck as is

RON YOIUR PM is full edit !!!!!!!!!

< Message edited by freeboy -- 11/19/2004 1:01:27 AM >

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 10

RE: Great game but..... - 11/18/2004 7:25:19 PM

UncleBuck

Posts: 633
Joined: 10/31/2003
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: offline

I wonder how much of a Coding Nightmare it woudl be to give SC's the same ability as Sub TF's? If an enemy unit enters a hex with an enemy TF in it, you have to pass a check on the engagement. With Subs it is with each sub in the Hex, same could be with Surface forces.

UB

_____________________________

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 11

RE: Great game but..... - 11/18/2004 8:12:31 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleBuck

I wonder how much of a Coding Nightmare it woudl be to give SC's the same ability as Sub TF's? If an enemy unit enters a hex with an enemy TF in it, you have to pass a check on the engagement. With Subs it is with each sub in the Hex, same could be with Surface forces.

UB

I thot that was how it was. That you essentially had to end up in the same hex as the enemy TF (or sqat on a hex that he moves thru). Not easily accomplished, but possible. Is that not correct? I -believe- that I have scored a few mid-ocean intercepts (actually -near- ports, but not -in- their hex). But I could be mistaken.

Are you saying that you don't believe it works this way? Hm. I'd be surprised if that was true, but then again, I can't explicitly rememver if the intercepts were -not- in a port hex.

-F-

< Message edited by Feinder -- 11/18/2004 1:12:26 PM >

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to UncleBuck)

Post #: 12

RE: Great game but..... - 11/18/2004 8:22:05 PM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

I believe that currently the check for a surface combat only occurs if both sides have ships in the same hex at the end of all movement. Subs may attack enemy ships that enter their hex but don't end movement in it. Surface Combat TFs do not (currently) have that particular feature.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 13

RE: Great game but..... - 11/18/2004 8:28:24 PM

UncleBuck

Posts: 633
Joined: 10/31/2003
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: offline

Dtravel,

That was my understanding as well. I woudl think that this should be changed. The Surface TF's have many drawbacks, that subs do not have. One is the ability to be attacked by air much more easily. They are also worht a great deal more if lost. Subs don't cost very much and they have limited use other than interdiction.

UB

_____________________________

(in reply to dtravel)

Post #: 14

RE: Great game but..... - 11/19/2004 12:01:56 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

I'm not buying this coding issue prohibits any new features or the next patch is last patch forthcoming at all. A game this size needs alot more work to perfect and alot more time being tested by the gaming community. Nobody has played into 1943 or beyond I'm sure, and no tester has played a campaign into and beyond 1943. Who knows what we are going to reveal as good, fair, poor, broken....whatever. Alot of things are going to need work, guaranteed. I'm sure the devs will provide fixes and tweaks as time and usage accumulates.

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to UncleBuck)

Post #: 15

RE: Great game but..... - 11/19/2004 1:17:15 AM

steveh11Matrix

Posts: 944
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline

Is that the sound of "60 mile hex" being rolled out again that I can hear...

Steve.

_____________________________

"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 16

RE: Great game but..... - 11/19/2004 8:15:12 AM

pad152

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

quote:

I'm not buying this coding issue prohibits any new features or the next patch is last patch forthcoming at all. A game this size needs alot more work to perfect and alot more time being tested by the gaming community. Nobody has played into 1943 or beyond I'm sure, and no tester has played a campaign into and beyond 1943. Who knows what we are going to reveal as good, fair, poor, broken....whatever. Alot of things are going to need work, guaranteed. I'm sure the devs will provide fixes and tweaks as time and usage accumulates.

Good luck! It looks like all of the developers have already moved on to other projects, they already said the game engine for Witp & UV are dead, it's rummored that GG and company is working on other Matrix projects (iron cross and/or others).

We'll get the 1.4 patch, but don't expect much else. I don't think we'll see any improvements for the out of wack production system. It really sounds like the developers are sick to dead of Witp!

< Message edited by pad152 -- 11/19/2004 6:18:33 AM >

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 17

RE: Great game but..... - 11/19/2004 4:43:22 PM

siRkid

Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

It was decided to not program Mid Ocean Checks for intercepts during movement execution. You can still have mid ocean battles during combat execution. This issue has been raised many many times in the past and I consider it a dead horse issue.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to UncleBuck)

Post #: 18

RE: Great game but..... - 11/19/2004 4:45:19 PM

siRkid

Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

quote:

I'm not buying this coding issue prohibits any new features or the next patch is last patch forthcoming at all. A game this size needs alot more work to perfect and alot more time being tested by the gaming community. Nobody has played into 1943 or beyond I'm sure, and no tester has played a campaign into and beyond 1943. Who knows what we are going to reveal as good, fair, poor, broken....whatever. Alot of things are going to need work, guaranteed. I'm sure the devs will provide fixes and tweaks as time and usage accumulates.

Good luck! It looks like all of the developers have already moved on to other projects, they already said the game engine for Witp & UV are dead, it's rummored that GG and company is working on other Matrix projects (iron cross and/or others).

We'll get the 1.4 patch, but don't expect much else. I don't think we'll see any improvements for the out of wack production system. It really sounds like the developers are sick to dead of Witp!

You are correct on most points but I intend to make some improvments with the next patch. Most of these will be interface and filters. Remember the poll?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 19

RE: Great game but..... - 11/19/2004 9:05:14 PM

pad152

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

Kid

I think the concern is after the 1.4 patch, is Witp dead!

There are alot more issues than what was in the poll!

1. The New Bombard Rules allow for DD TF's to slip past CD's and attack ships in ports protected by CD's.

2. Aircraft production who is in control (player or computer?), current player change to factories are over ridden by the computer, destorying aircraft production.

3. Has Matrix thought about some sort of paid subscription for continued support?

Maybe we need some new polls?

(in reply to siRkid)

Post #: 20

RE: Great game but..... - 11/19/2004 9:39:19 PM

Titanwarrior89

Posts: 3283
Joined: 8/28/2003
From: arkansas
Status: offline

I agree. I think the game works fine, but I understand what Adm. Scott is saying. I have to guess also (which i like) and use the react button.[:D ] It's been working for me, but remember there is alot that goes into a TF reacting(search, Leadership and other things). So it's not always a absolute.

< Message edited by Titanwarrior89 -- 11/19/2004 2:41:42 PM >

_____________________________

"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".

"Mama, There's Rabbits in the Garden"

(in reply to moses)

Post #: 21

RE: Great game but..... - 11/19/2004 10:09:31 PM

siRkid

Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

We will still work on bugs in 1.4. I do not know if there will be follow-on patches. The return on investment decreases with time, so you can�t blame the developers for slowing down on patch and moving on to new games. However, I see a very long life for WitP and like Steel Panthers I expect it to take on a life of its own.

< Message edited by Kid -- 11/19/2004 8:10:03 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Titanwarrior89)

Post #: 22

RE: Great game but..... - 11/19/2004 10:22:00 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

Pad152,

regarging number 2, I don't understand. Why would you not want the computer to automatically convert Nell factories to Betties? If you do it manually, they become damaged, it costs HI and supply and decreases the maximum. When the computer auto UPGRADES, you get it for free and no damaged parts. (I think I saw an earlier post from you about Nells and Betties)

It's like the allied player saying that they want the Wildcat to stay in production and don't want to upgrade to the Hellcat. Don't Japan players prefer the Betty to the Nell?

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 23

RE: Great game but..... - 11/19/2004 10:34:15 PM

Feinder

Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline

Nell's got a longer range (by 1, maybe 2 hexes). But yes, if it were me, I'd let them upgrade.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 24

RE: Great game but..... - 11/19/2004 11:31:57 PM

pad152

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Pad152,

regarging number 2, I don't understand. Why would you not want the computer to automatically convert Nell factories to Betties? If you do it manually, they become damaged, it costs HI and supply and decreases the maximum. When the computer auto UPGRADES, you get it for free and no damaged parts. (I think I saw an earlier post from you about Nells and Betties)

It's like the allied player saying that they want the Wildcat to stay in production and don't want to upgrade to the Hellcat. Don't Japan players prefer the Betty to the Nell?

bc

Bradley7735

It's not about bettys/nells, it's about who is in control of Japanese aircraft production (player or computer). If the player is in control, I should be able to build what I want. If the computer is in control, I shouldn't be able to change aircraft factories. You can't have both ways!!!

The game as it is now, if the player changes a factory to buid an older type aircraft the computer will change the factory back to the newer type next turn. This also limits aircraft upgrade paths.

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 25