|
scout1 -> RE: WITP II Wishlist (3/4/2006 4:01:49 PM)
|
Apollo's listing is just too good not to re-post (below), but have added a few of my own ...
quote:
Hi all,
This is digest and expansion of a message I wrote 6+ months ago in which I listed several ideas I come up in 2+ years we have WitP...
First of all I must say that WitP is the _BEST_ wargame that I ever had and that I am enjoying it from Day1 and will be enjoying it in future as well!
Nonetheless there are certain minor/mayor things that I (and I think others) would like to see changed in future (possible WitP v2.x in few months/years time).
I know that it is very late in WitP development and that programmers time (thanks again Mike Wood - you are our hero!!! ) is very very limited but things might change in the future and, hopefully, WitP and it's legion of faithful followers would be revisited!
Below 10 ultimate improvements / fixe are, IMHO, the most important ones that are worth perusing (hopefully) in future (if it would be possible)... with those the WitP, again IMHO, would be almost best possible and our gaming experience would be even greater...
#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
NOTE:
For simplicity sake the AI should not be bound with this - this should only be valid for human player!
[EDIT]
The rule above would have exception when supplied AE (at least port size 1 + at least 20,000 supply) would be present in port.
#2 Number of ships anchored should be depending on SPS for port size
In current WitP we can anchor as many ships as we want in any port size that is larger than 3 (and that makes all those ships 100% safe from submarines and mines).
There was a specific reason why during WWII in the Pacific USN and IJN could use only certain places as bases for their fleets (due to good geographic properties of those special places) but in our current WitP we are free to, unhistorical, do what we want regarding this...
IMHO this should be altered and something simple could be implemented (numbers are just for example):
SPS port size 3 : MAX number of anchored ships = 10
SPS port size 4 : MAX number of anchored ships = 15
SPS port size 5 : MAX number of anchored ships = 25
SPS port size 6 : MAX number of anchored ships = 50
SPS port size 7 : MAX number of anchored ships = 75
SPS port size 8 : MAX number of anchored ships = 100
SPS port size 9 : MAX number of anchored ships = 150
NOTE:
For simplicity sake the AI should not be bound with this - this should only be valid for human player!
#3 Number of ships loading/unloading should be depending on port size
In current WitP we can load/unload as many ships as we want in any port.
But during WWII in the Pacific USN and IJN had serious problem with port congestions (in Noumea, for example, some ships had to wait for weeks to be loaded/unloaded)....
IMHO this should be altered and something simple could be implemented (numbers are just for example):
port size 1 : MAX number of loading/unloading ships = 1
port size 2 : MAX number of loading/unloading ships = 3
port size 3 : MAX number of loading/unloading ships = 5
port size 4 : MAX number of loading/unloading ships = 10
port size 5 : MAX number of loading/unloading ships = 15
port size 6 : MAX number of loading/unloading ships = 25
port size 7 : MAX number of loading/unloading ships = 35
port size 8 : MAX number of loading/unloading ships = 50
port size 9 : MAX number of loading/unloading ships = 75
port size 10 : MAX number of loading/unloading ships = 100
NOTE:
For simplicity sake the AI should not be bound with this - this should only be valid for human player!
#4 Absolute maximum for aircraft operating from airfields
Right now it is possible to abuse the WitP game engine by overcrowding airbases and still achieve enormous air strikes as early as 1942.
This is real and serious problem!
IMHO there should be more effective (and absolute) limit for aircraft operating from airfields based on airfield size.
The best WitP community proposal so far regarding this is that we start counting aircraft engines instead of airframes for airfield capacity...
So... if airbase is size 4 it can currently host 4 x 50 = 200 MAX aircraft. But if we would count engines it would only mean that 200 single engines can be there or 100 2 engines or just 50 4 engines...
#5 "Diminishing returns" for all kind of troops depending on base size]
Right now we can place as many troops as we want anywhere in WitP world.
If we want we can place 10 divisions even on smallest atoll which is very very wrong...
Since WitP is all about bases and we already have SPS ("Standard Potential Size") values for all bases why not introduce "diminishing returns" for all troop actions in specific base HEX?
That way combat would be more accurate because surplus troops would not be able to participate and base building would also be more accurate because surplus ENG troops would no be able to participate.
This would effectively (and simply I might add) fix several problems we might encounter in WitP troop stacking (numbers are just for example - SPS can be MAX 9):
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 0: MAX number of land units available for combat = 1
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 0: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 1
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 1: MAX number of land units available for combat = 2
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 1: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 1
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 2: MAX number of land units available for combat = 3
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 2: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 2
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 3: MAX number of land units available for combat = 4
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 3: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 2
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 4: MAX number of land units available for combat = 5
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 4: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 2
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 5: MAX number of land units available for combat = 6
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 5: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 3
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 6: MAX number of land units available for combat = 7
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 6: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 3
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 7: MAX number of land units available for combat = 8
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 7: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 3
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 8: MAX number of land units available for combat = 9
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 8: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 3
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 9: MAX number of land units available for combat = 10
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 9: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 4
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 10: MAX number of land units available for combat = 11
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 10: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 4
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 11: MAX number of land units available for combat = 12
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 11: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 4
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 12: MAX number of land units available for combat = 13
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 12: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 4
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 13: MAX number of land units available for combat = 14
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 13: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 4
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 14: MAX number of land units available for combat = 15
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 14: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 5
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 15: MAX number of land units available for combat = 16
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 15: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 5
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 16: MAX number of land units available for combat = 17
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 16: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 5
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 17: MAX number of land units available for combat = 18
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 17: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 5
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 18: MAX number of land units available for combat = 18
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 18: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 5
NOTE:
One other WitP player ("AmiralLaurent" ) suggested that instead of units we count squads - this is even better idea!
#6 Setting Supply / Fuel / Oil / Resource user selected MIN limits for bases
Right now in WitP we are at mercy of AI for internal distribution of Supply / Fuel / Oil / Resource.
What about giving user ability to set Supply / Fuel / Oil / Resource MIN limits he/she wishes the base to posses?
That way we would 100% sure avoid unnecessary automatic transfer of Supply / Fuel / Oil / Resource as AI for internal distribution wishes!
#7 Better Air to Air large combat
The current WitP large Air to Air combat is too bloody (i.e. too many downed aircraft and lopsided results).
Although no simple solution was found by developers this issue is still very very much worth investigating!
#8 Better Air Naval Search and Air ASW
I discovered (see my extensive tests) that currently every single pilot tasked with Air Naval Search and/or Air ASW flies (if passed various checks to see whether he flies or not) through every single HEX inside his range (as set via range dial in GUI) and has possibility to discover every enemy ships / submarine in those HEXes (deepening on various factors).
This is describable as concentric circles or spiral movement.
As I showed in my tests (and many other players confirmed during their games) even one single aircraft on search can discover several enemy ships / submarines and in some PBEMs the lists of discovered ships / submarines lasts for minutes in combat replays (i.e. there are that many discovered ships / submarines).
IMHO this should be checked and, if possible, redesigned because current way of implementing Air Naval Search and Air ASW is 100% unrealistic (there is no way every single search aircraft can check every single HEX in his range)...
#9 Level bomber accuracy and AA
a)
AA should be affected by time of day (day/night) and weather (we already have info on how is the weather over target so why don't we use it some more).
In day and good weather (i.e. best case scenario) the AA should be best and cause more damage than at night and bad weather (i.e. worst case scenario).
- day + clear
- day + partly cloudy
- day + overcast
- day + rain(snow in cold zones in winter)
- day + thunderstorms (blizzard in cold zones in winter)
- night + clear
- night + partly cloudy
- night + overcast
- night + rain(snow in cold zones in winter)
- night + thunderstorms (blizzard in cold zones in winter)
b)
Level bombers should be affected by time of day (day/night) and weather (we already have info on how is the weather over target so why don't we use it some more)!
In day and good weather (i.e. best case scenario) the bombers should be best and cause more damage than at night and bad weather (i.e. worst case scenario).
- day + clear
- day + partly cloudy
- day + overcast
- day + rain(snow in cold zones in winter)
- day + thunderstorms (blizzard in cold zones in winter)
- night + clear
- night + partly cloudy
- night + overcast
- night + rain(snow in cold zones in winter)
- night + thunderstorms (blizzard in cold zones in winter)
c)
Heavy AA concentrations should throw of aim for level bombers (i.e. disrupt them).
More experienced bomber crews should suffer less but they should still suffer (i.e. in WWII anyways much of AA was indented to create strong barrage effect to drive incoming bombers off aim).
d)
The AA effect against level bombers should be increased overall and they should suffer devastating damage when flying low in area that was protected by significant AA (if all other conditions are met like time of day and weather).
Right now even several regiments of AA (100+ 75mm and 105mm AA guns) are almost useless against, for example, B-17 attacking from 10000 ft in broad daylight and clear weather which should not be the case at all (slow flying and big B-17 should present ideal targets for AA)...
e)
The so-called "altitude gap" that now exists should be a bit narrower.
Guns with max of 26K feet have a min of 7K in current WitP
Guns with max of 28K feet have a min of 7K in current WitP
Guns with max of 30K feet have a min of 8K in current WitP
Guns with max of 34K feet have a min of 9K in current WitP
f)
IMHO we still have way too precise attacks in WitP. Navigation was very hard in WWII PTO and much more 4E and 2E level bombers should fail to find proper targets. More experienced bomber crews should suffer less but they should still suffer.
#10 Better Air to Naval targeting (number of attacking aircraft more depending of perceived enemy ship number/type)
In WitP we already have limited info about enemy and under this (i.e. FoW = "Fog of War") we can many times get wrong info about enemy TFs for both number and ship type.
So... why not actually use this sometimes "flawed" info (just as it would be in real confusing war) for actual Air to Naval targeting?
Right now it is possible to "tire", for example, the enemy CV air crews by simply "feeding" them "bait" targets (i.e. if you want to lure/expose full strength of enemy CV air force you simply offer it few insignificant targets - like AKs/APs - and they would attack it in full strength whilst your own CV air force would wait them to "tire" and only then strike them)...
My idea is simple - the number of attacking aircraft (whether from CVs or from land) vs. sighted enemy TF (or TFs) should _ALWAYS_ be _DIRECTLY_ linked with number/type of enemy ships sighted in TF (or TFs)!
Therefore even in with multiple target rich environment the attacking aircraft would always attack with appropriate strength and even if available the "surplus" strength (i.e. number of excess available attacking aircraft) would not be used as deemed by commander.
This means that if there is enemy TF with, let's say, just 2x AK escorted by 1x DD your whole air strength (and you have, let's say, 27x dive bombers + 27x torpedo bombers + 27x fighters on 1x CV) would not be send - only appropriate (as deemed by commander) attacking number of aircraft would be send: 9x dive bomber + 9x torpedo bomber +9x fighter (if there is possible enemy CAP).
Please note that this would still allow for possible "screw ups" (like "Coral Sea Battle") because FoW can distort the sighted enemy TFs and thus trigger wrong response from commander - therefore we don't loose the uncertainty effect!
Leo "Apollo11"
P.S.
[EDIT]
Additions quote:
Scout1's addition's (most of which I believe have been listed elsewhere)
11) Permit the creatation of an extractable file (either csv) or compatible with Michelm's database tool that creates a csv file that can be imported into Excel. This is a huge game that is data rich. Let us use a computer to track things (NOT notebooks and stickies). This would permit a pulling back of the layers to allow the player (if he chooses to use/manipulate the csv file) to actually manage (or at least clearly track) things. The current database/Michelm's tool permits us a detailed look at the status/dispositions/planning/assets, etc ..... on Turn 0. Just provide the ability to pull this same info outside of the game (per side) and manipulate however.
Now some of the information is available inside the game, such as viewing base listing to review supplies, fuel, resources, oil, etc .. by location/base. But there are hundred's of locations and they have no sort capability by region. There is a BIG difference between trying to read a "newpaper" online, vs spreading it out on the kitchen table. I just seem to be able to absorb more when I can spread it out. Thus, bring/permit the info to be brought outside of the game. Player created app's will follow.
12) Bring in Bodhi's tool into the game (really nice)
13) How about a production summary as to what's being built (total's, not just by site - this makes me do the addition/math), what was built and where. Also provide some indication when resouces/oil/manpower/etc ... is running low vs production needs (probably by production region). WitP does this for a LCU's supply, support, etc ... in terms of green, orange and red. Just would like a little help from the computer trying to manage japanese production. Ability to use this info outside of the game/print it out.
14) Gaming style should not affect the information available to a player. I run without animations on. But it comes with the disadvantage of not being able to see how the combat values are being modified for LCU's. Shouldn't matter whether a player does things one way or another, ANY information available to one style should be available to all styles.
15) Listing of reinforcements/new builds available at the start of each turn. I can't remember how many times I've forgotten that a brand new Betty group was just sitting in Japan, fresh from the factory.
16) Ability to load transport tf's in a much more human friendly manner. Creating smaller tf's and loading an individual unit repetitively to optimize the load out (game timewise) and then transferring these series of smaller tf's into larger ones is VERY time consuming. There must be a better way (game mechanics wise) to do this that is time friendly.
17) Automatic distruption of air support assets upon a base change. Afterall, you really can't drop a large support asset into a new location and have it working at peak efficiency right from the get go. It takes time to unpack your suitcases.
18) Ability to display on the map all units/bases of a given command. I always seem to get units going everywhere and so are scattered to the 4 winds.
19) The ability to effectively turn off (or making them ALL equal) ALL leader effects. Just in case, this database problem is never really fixed, would like to continue on with a game that I can "even" things out by no longer caring whether Nagumo gets replaced or not. Just hedging our bets here.
|
|
|
|
