RE: WitP Wish List

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: WitP Wish List

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 >> RE: WitP Wish List

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: WitP Wish List - 2/14/2005 10:36:46 AM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

This morale check is completely off base. We've been calling for its abolishment or replacement with something more workable for some time.

As long is it is not replaced with a morals check - I'd be in big trouble!

All squadron leaders would need to be like Capt. Flasheart!

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 271

RE: WitP Wish List - 2/15/2005 4:03:53 AM

Rossj

Posts: 155
Joined: 8/8/2004
Status: offline

I've gone through several pages and haven't seen this yet...though it was discussed in the Japanese grand strategy thread...
1. IJA garrison requirements for all occupied territories (DEI, PI, India, Russia)
2. improved chinese and soviet oob (soviet units transferred to europe can be frozen in Irkutsk until activated).
3. irkutsk and karachi out of bounds to Japanese player to allow for allied buildup in case japanese player attempts board edge tactics
4. reduce amount of captured supply
5. improved rail movement system (faster for units actually being transported by available rolling stock, slower for the rest).

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 272

RE: WitP Wish List - 2/15/2005 4:44:53 AM

Sonny

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline

Here is another helpful one. How about a littlt pair of binoculars in the way upper right hand corner of the TF screen for any TF which has been spotted (or maybe only spotted by air and not by coast watchers). That way you wouldn't have to comb through the op reports to see if a TF/ship had been spotted. Would save tons of time and eyestrain.

_____________________________

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 Rossj)

Post #: 273

RE: WitP Wish list - aircraft replacements for CVs on s... - 2/16/2005 9:49:23 AM

Ian R

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline

A CVE in a replenishment TF giving up its embarked planes (the planes, not the groups or pilots - well maybe the pilots too) to a refueling air combat TF on station at sea.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Sonny)

Post #: 274

RE: WitP Wish List - 2/16/2005 12:13:13 PM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sonny

Here is another helpful one. How about a littlt pair of binoculars in the way upper right hand corner of the TF screen for any TF which has been spotted (or maybe only spotted by air and not by coast watchers). That way you wouldn't have to comb through the op reports to see if a TF/ship had been spotted. Would save tons of time and eyestrain.

Damn straight! Wanted this forever.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Sonny)

Post #: 275

RE: WitP Wish List - 2/16/2005 2:50:28 PM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

Please bring up a patch that fixes the problems of WITP with newer PC models. PLEASE!!!

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 276

RE: WitP Wish List - 2/17/2005 3:41:20 PM

Distiller

Posts: 96
Joined: 1/17/2005
Status: offline

# an option to display the big strategic map during execution phase instead of having the map jumping around.
# displaying all the messages in a real window instead of the mailslot along the lower corner
## same for all other message or overview windows, let them have their own placeable pop-up window like Dreamweaver and the like

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 277

RE: WitP Wish List - 2/17/2005 9:44:51 PM

BraveHome

Posts: 523
Joined: 11/9/2004
From: Tulsa, OK
Status: offline

I went back about 5 pages and didn't see this:

Add the highly critical Assault Factor changes listed in combat animation message window at end of deliberate/shock assualt to ground combat summary screen (pleeeeeease).

(in reply to Distiller)

Post #: 278

RE: WitP Wish List - 2/18/2005 5:35:13 AM

medicff

Posts: 710
Joined: 9/11/2004
From: WPB, Florida
Status: offline

I would like the air group divide limits increased or addressed. Right know I have come accross both Scenario 15 & 16 a total between both sides of 18 groups being able to divide. Why be able to divide the groups if such limited amount. It makes a big difference in the early going with limited base force sizes and CVE's.

Please allow more slots for airgroup divisions.

Thanks

(in reply to siRkid)

Post #: 279

RE: WitP Wish List - 2/18/2005 9:05:16 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

a message that brings up "ship xy sunk" when the sunk ships appear in the sunk ship list

(in reply to medicff)

Post #: 280

RE: WitP Wish List - 2/21/2005 6:33:40 PM

scout1

Posts: 2899
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: South Bend, In
Status: offline

How about adding range circles to HQ command radii (similar to what is currently shown for aircraft ranges). Frankly, it would be nice to have ALL the command radii on simultaneously, ie a button that activates them all. But either would be a nice addition.
Gets old counting squares (or hexes in this case)

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 281

RE: WitP Wish List - 2/23/2005 2:33:33 AM

Rohna

Posts: 24
Joined: 2/18/2005
Status: offline

I think a pop-up note that can be set for any date would be a very helpful addition.

(in reply to siRkid)

Post #: 282

RE: WitP Wish List - 2/23/2005 11:54:30 AM

sabreman1966mcs

Posts: 180
Joined: 2/12/2004
From: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Status: offline

Interceptions/React Range:

At the moment, as I see it and correct me if I'm wrong

SC TF's will only react to an enemy TF entering a friendly base hex. If mid ocean intercepts are not going to be possible

then could this be changed to reacting to an enemy TF entering a friendly or enemy base hex. This will allow at least the chance of intercepting a fast transport or evacuation mission going into a nearby base.

_____________________________

Soldiers generally win battles; generals get credit for them.
Napoleon Bonaparte

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 283

RE: WitP Wish List - 2/23/2005 4:38:04 PM

Apollo11

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

Hi all,

I know that it is very late in WitP developement but I still have hope that the below issues will be looked upon because geography and supply played huge role in how and where TFs were located in the Pacific (i.e. not every bay can be made into major harbour and not every ship one side posseses can be placed in such bay)...

#1 Ammo replenishment should be depending on port size

In current WitP we can replenish ammo of almost any ship in any port size.

IMHO it is impossible to believe that some lowly port size 3 would have, for example, 16" shells for BBs.

This should be altered to reflect historical situation and something simple could be implemented (numbers are just for example):

port size 1-3 : ammo for all guns up to 5"
port size 4-6 : ammo for all guns up to 8"
port size 7-9 : ammo for all guns

#2 Number of ships anchored should be depending on port size

In current WitP we can anchor as many ships as we want in any port size that is larger than 3.

IMHO this should be altered and something simple could be implemented (numbers are just for example):

port size 3 : MAX number of anchored ships = 10
port size 4 : MAX number of anchored ships = 15
port size 5 : MAX number of anchored ships = 25
port size 6 : MAX number of anchored ships = 50
port size 7 : MAX number of anchored ships = 75
port size 8 : MAX number of anchored ships = 100
port size 9 : MAX number of anchored ships = 150
port size 10 : MAX number of anchored ships = 200

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to sabreman1966mcs)

Post #: 284

RE: WitP Wish List - 2/23/2005 5:15:22 PM

esteban

Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline

I still want the LCU transport loading algorithms fixed, so that you are given an accurate number on the transport loading screen when you are trying to load LCUs onto TFs.

Related to this is the ability to load multiple units into one TF at one time, in an accurate manner. If you have a group of units that require a certain amount of AP space to carry, and you have the APs needed in a TF, then please let us load all the units in one shot. Don't force us to have to load each unit onto an individual TF, and then combine 5-10 TFs into one "master" TF for transport to the destination.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 285

RE: WitP Wish List - 2/23/2005 5:47:06 PM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: esteban

I still want the LCU transport loading algorithms fixed, so that you are given an accurate number on the transport loading screen when you are trying to load LCUs onto TFs.

Related to this is the ability to load multiple units into one TF at one time, in an accurate manner. If you have a group of units that require a certain amount of AP space to carry, and you have the APs needed in a TF, then please let us load all the units in one shot. Don't force us to have to load each unit onto an individual TF, and then combine 5-10 TFs into one "master" TF for transport to the destination.

Actually I have no real problem doing this (actually like it). I can live with it if it means other more important features requested are looked into. I'd really like the ability to place individual ships of the same type (DDs for example) in larger administrative groups (divisions for want of a name) so that I don't have to form TFs by individual ship. As OOBs increase in size on a massive scale, this will be a major player tool. Being able to name your TFs would be excellent as well. Right now, if one clicks on the TF icons at a base, all you get is a number and TF type, forcing the player to endlessly scroll through them to find out which are which. If one could name TFs and the new "divisions", the players chore level will reduce dramatically.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 2/23/2005 10:51:14 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to esteban)

Post #: 286

RE: WitP Wish List - 2/23/2005 9:35:02 PM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

No matter what they do, the AI will never be capable of loading your units onto transports the way you want. So, I'm resigned to the tried-and-true technique of forming a TF of the correct size to hold one unit, setting it to "do not unload," loading the friggin' unit, then combining it with the other TFs (and escorts) into the final product that I'm going to send wherever it is they're going.

I see this as a dead subject.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 287

RE: WitP Wish List - 2/23/2005 9:56:30 PM

esteban

Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline

Pasternaski:

I disagree sharply. In UV, I had no problem ACCURATELY loading multiple units into one TF at one time. Despite the WitP changes made in loading costs to reflect the difference between AKs and APs, I don't see why this shouldn't be the same in WitP. If you have 3 units that each require 6000 points of AP space to load (taking into account that the wrong info on the loading screen will probably tell you that you need about 3K AP space per unit) and you have a TF with six 3000 capacity APs in it, you should be able to load all 3 units in one shot.

The current AI loading algorithms don't let you do this.

For me, this would be the SINGLE most important time-saving mechanism that could be put into the game, while keeping the current gameplay intact. (Obviously, if you changed the rules of the game to get rid of some realism, you could streamline the time requirements more. )

I really don't need destroyer divisions. I generally know which types of DDs I need in certain TFs by their fuel capacity and speed. I can most always tell certain DD classes that are good for air combat TF escort, or transport convoy duty, or surface combat by these two stats on the ship list.

But I really do feel that loading each unit individually, then merging the units into a master transport TF lengthens my average PBEM turn time by about 10%-15%. And it is a pointless time use. Having it there doesn't increase historical realism one iota. It doesn't improve your control over your forces one bit. (From a unit control standpoint, loading 3 units in one shot is the same as loading 3 units individually, then combining them into one TF)

What the current TF loading problems do accomplish is to discourage me from playing WitP, and PBEM in particular. I think that WitP is an awesome product, but it does suffer from a lack of playablity due to the vast size of the game. There is no need to ladle more unplayability on top of the existing problems that are due solely to the size of the game.

(in reply to pasternakski)

Post #: 288

RE: WitP Wish List - 2/23/2005 10:10:25 PM

esteban

Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline

Sauercracker:

For better "naming" of your TFs, (for example, if you have 5 air combat TFs in the game, and you want to know what they are by number) do what I do:

Create a bunch of single ship TFs using AKs, PTs, MSWs, or whatever, at your ports until you get to a certain number that you want to indicate a certain type of TF. E.g. air combat TFs. Lets say that this number is "251". Then create your air combat TFs, which will now be numbered 251, 252, 253, 254, etc.

Now you know that all your air combat TFs are numbered 251-259, or something like that.

Send your air combat TFs out on their missions, and when they return to port, move all but one (least damaged) escort from your air combat TF into another TF, and disband them. Have that remaining single ship TF hang out at the port were your carriers are at until it is time for "Task Force 253" to sail again. Then fill out the TF from the ships in port and off you go.

This not only solves the issue of important TFs having a recognizable name, but it keeps you from having to reset the name every time you disband, then reform, a "named" TF again. (the "name" would probably go poof the minute you disbanded it, and would have to be "renamed" when you wanted to reform the TF for the next mission.)

(in reply to esteban)

Post #: 289

RE: WitP Wish List - 2/23/2005 10:40:35 PM

esteban

Posts: 618
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline

Oh, one other thing that would be nice, would be to filter available naval commanders by their specialty. (air combat, surface combat, invasion) So now, when we are looking for a new commander for a TF, we don't have to sort through all the guys who have the wrong specialty for the TF that needs a leader

(in reply to esteban)

Post #: 290

RE: WitP Wish List - 2/24/2005 1:29:44 AM

sprior

Posts: 8596
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Portsmouth, UK
Status: offline

One thing I'd like to see is ships sunk IN PORT adding to that port's damage. By in port I mean docked or in a base. Ships sinking in a port greatly add to the time it takes to berth/unberth freight and the added damage would simulate the time it takes to clear the wreckage away. Obviously the larger the port the smaller percenatge damage per ship and the larger the ship the more damage.

_____________________________

"Grown ups are what's left when skool is finished."
"History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
- Nigel Molesworth.

(in reply to esteban)

Post #: 291

RE: WitP Wish List - 2/26/2005 11:52:41 AM

Distiller

Posts: 96
Joined: 1/17/2005
Status: offline

A surrender button! Or the possibility to crush enemy formations.
In head-to-head I had an attack force with 230 to 1 odds, but was blocked for several turns because that darn enemy unit was caught between two of my units and wouldn't retreat. I mean, if I attack with 200.000 troops against 5.000 there is nothing left, I simply walk over them in reality. It would have been helpful if my human counterpart would have a button where he could simply surrender.

(in reply to sprior)

Post #: 292

RE: WitP Wish List - 3/1/2005 2:01:12 PM

harrer

Posts: 753
Joined: 12/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Distiller

A surrender button! Or the possibility to crush enemy formations.
In head-to-head I had an attack force with 230 to 1 odds, but was blocked for several turns because that darn enemy unit was caught between two of my units and wouldn't retreat. I mean, if I attack with 200.000 troops against 5.000 there is nothing left, I simply walk over them in reality. It would have been helpful if my human counterpart would have a button where he could simply surrender.

good idea

when do the US may surrender ?

Harrer

(in reply to Distiller)

Post #: 293

RE: WitP Wish List - 3/1/2005 2:03:32 PM

harrer

Posts: 753
Joined: 12/1/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rossj

I've gone through several pages and haven't seen this yet...though it was discussed in the Japanese grand strategy thread...
1. IJA garrison requirements for all occupied territories (DEI, PI, India, Russia)
2. improved chinese and soviet oob (soviet units transferred to europe can be frozen in Irkutsk until activated).
3. irkutsk and karachi out of bounds to Japanese player to allow for allied buildup in case japanese player attempts board edge tactics
4. reduce amount of captured supply
5. improved rail movement system (faster for units actually being transported by available rolling stock, slower for the rest).

ok, but then you need to give some more divisions and SNLF to the japanese player ( stg like 15-20 divisions and 50 SNLF regiements ) because the japanese player lack troops .. so why would make the game so impossible for him ( and me in the same way .. )

Harrer

(in reply to Rossj)

Post #: 294

RE: WitP Wish List - 3/2/2005 7:05:24 PM

AmiralLaurent

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline

All mods asked to make the land campains more realistic and at least slower and harder.

Reduce the speed of LCU advanding into non-controlled hexes (or controlled by both sides) by 2 and don't use rail in this case (so dividing speed on railway by 4).

Change the Soviet units the same way the Chinese were changed in v1.4 (100% prepared in defence).

Change the hex between Rahaeng and Rangoon to track. Same thing for the hex south of Tavoy (or maybe the hex between Tavoy and Moulmein). This will reduce Japanese Blitzkrieg in Burma in Dec 1941 and supplies will continue to arrive to Burma from Bangkok (60% losses dure to the track hex but the Kwai railway was not available at start and never functionned correctly anyway).

And a dream:
having weather modify LCU movement rates. Thunderstorms, snow and blizzard should reduce heavily land movement. So Soviet winter or Indian mosoon will be in the game.

(in reply to harrer)

Post #: 295

RE: WitP Wish List - 3/2/2005 8:19:08 PM

Bradley7735

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

I would like to see the ship class that a ship will upgrade to (right next to the upgrade date on the ship screen). I ask this because some ships upgrade to a different class. I think PG Niagra upgrades to a PT tender. If I don't want a PT tender, I need to know what PG Niagra upgades to. Also, some of the US DD's upgrade to APD's. If I want more APD's or less APD's, it's helpful to know what DD's upgrade to APD's.

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)

Post #: 296

RE: WitP Wish List - 3/3/2005 12:40:25 PM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

And a dream:
having weather modify LCU movement rates. Thunderstorms, snow and blizzard should reduce heavily land movement. So Soviet winter or Indian mosoon will be in the game.

A wet dream, so to speak

.

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)

Post #: 297

RE: WitP Wish List - 3/3/2005 5:02:16 PM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

I would like to see the ship class that a ship will upgrade to (right next to the upgrade date on the ship screen). I ask this because some ships upgrade to a different class. I think PG Niagra upgrades to a PT tender. If I don't want a PT tender, I need to know what PG Niagra upgades to. Also, some of the US DD's upgrade to APD's. If I want more APD's or less APD's, it's helpful to know what DD's upgrade to APD's.

It's all in the ship call listing in the Ship Database. Fiddle with the filters and stuff. The Niagara can be "upgraded" (using toggle) to a PT Boat Tender (AGP) or can "refit" as a PG to more modern weapons.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 3/3/2005 10:03:49 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 298

RE: WitP Wish List - 3/3/2005 5:07:22 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

Another dream: add a "Vulnerability to Bombardment" variable to every seaside airfield. Sure, we should be able to put Henderson Field out of action with naval bombardment. But what about airfields not so easy to target from offshore? Those airfields with high vulnerability would be subject to the current bombardment rules; those with medium would have the lethality of bombardment cut by a third; those with low vulnerability would have it cut by two-thirds. Just chop existing results down so that 18 runway hits becomes 6, 3 PBYs lost becomes 1, etc.

C'mon, that wouldn't be that hard to code, would it, Mike Wood?

Er, right, Mike? :)

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 299

RE: WitP Wish List - 3/5/2005 8:20:30 AM

scout1

Posts: 2899
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: South Bend, In
Status: offline

How about some type of listing that provides production "capability" for each site AND actual production last turn. Would provide us a means of identifying potential logistic issues earlier.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 300