WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

TheElf -> WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 12:17:28 AM)

Just what it says. Matrix has always been responsive to their customers. What Say we start brainstorming in case this becomes a reality?

Let's keep it to constructive comments/criticism. I am starting this thread but hope the Mods will patrol it and keep things positive.

Ideas for the new model and limitations of/gripes about the old one are welcome. limit your post to posting ideas/gripes not engaging each other in pointless arguements. Feel free to agree and expand on each others concepts!



Big B -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 12:24:27 AM)

Well for starters, it seems too bloody - usually.

Perhaps if air combat included limits on ammunition (and/or possibly even more importantly) accounted for forces dispersing over a wide area of the sky after a round of combat - and therefore having no one to engage - that would definitely help.

My initial thoughts.

B



Ron Saueracker -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 2:07:22 AM)

That was the point of the Good,Bad,Ugly thread.[:D]



timtom -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 2:27:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

That was the point of the Good,Bad,Ugly thread.[:D]



Gee, I thought you were just stirring up trouble again, Ron... [;)]



TheElf -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 2:35:10 AM)

This is a specific thread on the A2A model. I think it would help to have segregated threads so they were easy to gather data on individual subjects. Seeing how A2A is one of the most popular gripe subjects and something near and dear to my heart I wanted to get the ball rolling.

I am looking for very specific player requested features and improvements related to a potential WitP II A2A model.



Black Mamba 1942 -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 2:38:29 AM)

Get rid of all ship commanders and pilots.
Stick with unit experience levels and officer assignment at the command level.

So only the air unit would have a leader, and only TF's would have commanders.
Same for LCU's, only HQ's would have a commanding officer.
The rest would rely on unit experience levels for everything else.

A little bit of simplicity for the game would make it more manageable, and faster to play.

No more WO's and Staff? in charge.[:D]
This would free up a lot of slots for real operational commanders.



TheElf -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 3:05:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

Get rid of all ship commanders and pilots.
Stick with unit experience levels and officer assignment at the command level.

So only the air unit would have a leader, and only TF's would have commanders.
Same for LCU's, only HQ's would have a commanding officer.
The rest would rely on unit experience levels for everything else.

A little bit of simplicity for the game would make it more manageable, and faster to play.

No more WO's and Staff? in charge.[:D]
This would free up a lot of slots for real operational commanders.


Air to Air Only please. We can start other threads for the other areas of play.



Black Mamba 1942 -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 3:07:11 AM)

It's all related.[;)]



rogueusmc -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 3:33:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

It's all related.[;)]
So is my Aunt Bernice, but I don't wanna talk about her either...[:D]



Nomad -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 3:58:01 AM)

You got a picture of Aunt Bernice? [:D]



Big B -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 4:14:15 AM)

Well T.Elf,

It looks like it's you and me,...does that mean we get the keys to the candy store?[:D]

B

[image]local://upfiles/16855/849D7F51005D4705966CBB77AF90500B.jpg[/image]



treespider -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 4:32:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

Get rid of all ship commanders and pilots.
Stick with unit experience levels and officer assignment at the command level.

So only the air unit would have a leader, and only TF's would have commanders.
Same for LCU's, only HQ's would have a commanding officer.
The rest would rely on unit experience levels for everything else.

A little bit of simplicity for the game would make it more manageable, and faster to play.

No more WO's and Staff? in charge.[:D]
This would free up a lot of slots for real operational commanders.



So your unit experience would replace individual pilot experience... I like the idea.

As I am of the opinion that the game has been drilled down to such a level in some areas that some players are of the opinion that it should be a tactical game with a strategic flavor as opposed to a strategic/operational game with a tactical flavor.

Why not get rid of altitude increment settings as well or at least group them - Very High, High, Medium, Low, Very Low instead of by feet as is the current case.

Possibly figure a way to break up strikes into smaller engagements...perhaps tie it to a coordination roll and ammo see below with the discussion of Pacific fighters.

Simulate loiter time and such through op points for air units - Air Units are given op points based on endurance. the unit expends op points to conduct different actions - fight an A2A rd expend op points ---- move a hex , Op points ---- bomb, op points----land and reload, op points --- Units flying Cap over own base will be able to cycle aircraft Units flying longer range missions will not have as much loiter time and will be limited in how many A2A rds they can engage in before hitting an endurance limit....

Tie unit experience to the ability to stay in the fight.

Get rid of the combat animation...This is not a tactical simualtion and unless we want to get involved with pushing aircraft around a tactical map I see no use in it. Just give us a report ...On such and such a day x number of aircraft attacked such and asuch place and suffered Y number of casualties. I don't need to see that plane 231 was climbing ratta tat tat plane 231 climbing rata tat tat...

By the way the wine flowed freely tonight accompanied by Rack of Wild Boar finished with a French Silk Cake and a cafe' latte'. The meal was ok but way over p[riced the company was outstanding however.

Oh what else... Picked up Pacific fighters by Ubi... not enough 20 mm rounds for a Zero...my take WitP needs ammo limits for planes....The F4f turns like a pig. Granted I'm not a pilot but I keep putting it into a nasty spin that takes several thousand feet to recover from but it can take a beating... The zero on the other hand...turns nicely slightly faster not by much ....very fragile.

Apply Malaria to the aircraft---op losses.

Enough rambling for now...[sm=00000613.gif]




GaryChildress -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 4:57:16 AM)

I like the idea of individual pilots and ratings, so long as it can be made to work. So far I haven't had any pilot problems, though. I think if someone wants they can simply tune out or ignore the minutiae of pilots, etc. It gives an extra level of detail for those who want to be able to pull up a pilot list when they have nothing better to do and see who's kicking tail and who isn't. [:D]

I also like the idea of counting engines in VP scoring. That way 4Es will be a little more expensive to loose.




TheElf -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 5:16:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Why not get rid of altitude increment settings as well or at least group them - Very High, High, Medium, Low, Very Low instead of by feet as is the current case.


This is an idea I have been thinking about. Actual performance figures for Aircraft at different altitudes. Would take a lot of research but the info is out there. Would certainly make altitude selection mean something. Rather than calling them low, med, hi 0-10k, 10-20K, 20-30K would make it easier to convert real world stats into the game system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Possibly figure a way to break up strikes into smaller engagements...perhaps tie it to a coordination roll and ammo see below with the discussion of Pacific fighters.


Another mutual idea. I'm thinking that each leader has an Tactics Attribute that could be a modifier to a combination of factors such as Aggression, Leadership, Inspiration, and Prestige. Strike Coordination could be a skill that good leaders develop over time based on their overal EXP at the start of the gameand then improved as they fly more and more combat missions.

There should also be a distiction as to where an intercept occurs. Pre-target, over the target, Off-target. All of course dependent on the cumulative activity over the target that day, Weather modifiers, CAP availability, Radar coverage, Field conditions, Skill of the Opposing Intercept Leader, Etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Simulate loiter time and such through op points for air units - Air Units are given op points based on endurance. the unit expends op points to conduct different actions - fight an A2A rd expend op points ---- move a hex , Op points ---- bomb, op points----land and reload, op points --- Units flying Cap over own base will be able to cycle aircraft Units flying longer range missions will not have as much loiter time and will be limited in how many A2A rds they can engage in before hitting an endurance limit....


Yep. Agree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Tie unit experience to the ability to stay in the fight.


Yep Agree. Lots of modifiers could help determine this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Get rid of the combat animation...This is not a tactical simualtion and unless we want to get involved with pushing aircraft around a tactical map I see no use in it. Just give us a report ...On such and such a day x number of aircraft attacked such and asuch place and suffered Y number of casualties. I don't need to see that plane 231 was climbing ratta tat tat plane 231 climbing rata tat tat...


Are you trying to put me put of work or what? I actually think the Combat Replay could be made to provide more information. More messages with explanations to the player as to why things are happening.

Why did the Strike Abort? --> "Weather in the Target area..."

or

"Unable Rendezvous with Escort fighters" and the Formation Leader's Aggression attribute is not high enough to continue without Escort etc.

But I think it SHOULD all be available in an after action report should player A not want to watch the animation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
Apply Malaria to the aircraft---op losses.


Yep. And malaria could be a dynamic modifier, as in different levels of negatiove modifiers based on level of Airbase development, supplies, Time of year, Location etc.


Great Stuff. Keep it coming...



TheElf -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 5:19:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I like the idea of individual pilots and ratings, so long as it can be made to work. So far I haven't had any pilot problems, though. I think if someone wants they can simply tune out or ignore the minutiae of pilots, etc. It gives an extra level of detail for those who want to be able to pull up a pilot list when they have nothing better to do and see who's kicking tail and who isn't. [:D]

I also like the idea of counting engines in VP scoring. That way 4Es will be a little more expensive to loose.




Agree on individual pilots. Air to Air combat is dynamic and random. Having lots of pilots with variable skill levels and performance would only ADD to the Dynamic of any future Air model.



witpqs -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 5:41:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

There should also be a distiction as to where an intercept occurs. Pre-target, over the target, Off-target. All of course dependent on the cumulative activity over the target that day, Weather modifiers, CAP availability, Radar coverage, Field conditions, Skill of the Opposing Intercept Leader, Etc.



Why? What would the difference be?



witpqs -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 5:43:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Get rid of the combat animation...This is not a tactical simualtion and unless we want to get involved with pushing aircraft around a tactical map I see no use in it. Just give us a report ...On such and such a day x number of aircraft attacked such and asuch place and suffered Y number of casualties. I don't need to see that plane 231 was climbing ratta tat tat plane 231 climbing rata tat tat...



Seconded - but I know a lot of people like to see it. Most definately have all info recorded in one or more combat reports files (maybe there's one summary and one detailed). My PC is slow enough on WITP, watching a combat animation makes playing the game torture.



witpqs -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 5:45:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I also like the idea of counting engines in VP scoring. That way 4Es will be a little more expensive to loose.


How about all fighters are 1 VP (regardless of twin engine or not), and all bombers are VP = # of engines?

What do you think about transports, recon, patrol, etc. types?



TheElf -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 6:33:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

There should also be a distiction as to where an intercept occurs. Pre-target, over the target, Off-target. All of course dependent on the cumulative activity over the target that day, Weather modifiers, CAP availability, Radar coverage, Field conditions, Skill of the Opposing Intercept Leader, Etc.



Why? What would the difference be?


Because that is the way it happened in the real world. The Job of the Interceptors is to Hit the Bombers (Ideally) before they ingress the target. The job of the Escort and Sweeps is to prevent the CAP from disrupting the Bombers. If the Escort and Sweeps are successful, The Bombers are more likely to arrive over the target with less disruption and in higher numbers. The end result is the raid can be more successful.

If factors work in favor the interceptors (ie. the player has given priority to defense by ordering higher % CAP, Radar provides good early warning, CAP units are healthy and well supplied, Field in is good working order, Weather is favorable, Leadership is effective, unit is skilled)then the CAP has more potential to provide a higher level of protection, and perhaps reduce the raid or even turn it away before reaching the target.

If Interceptors are "modified" by Weather, lack of radar, yet possess good doctrine and Excellent leadership and are unable to make a successful pre-target intercept but can effect an off target intercept then the Bombers can have a successful strike but still suffer horrible losses.

It all adds to the variability and randomness of Air to Air Combat. Makes smart play important yet also adds an element of "We did everything right, but the circumstances weren;t in our favor"...



GaryChildress -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 6:54:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Get rid of the combat animation...This is not a tactical simualtion and unless we want to get involved with pushing aircraft around a tactical map I see no use in it. Just give us a report ...On such and such a day x number of aircraft attacked such and asuch place and suffered Y number of casualties. I don't need to see that plane 231 was climbing ratta tat tat plane 231 climbing rata tat tat...



Seconded - but I know a lot of people like to see it. Most definately have all info recorded in one or more combat reports files (maybe there's one summary and one detailed). My PC is slow enough on WITP, watching a combat animation makes playing the game torture.


But isn't there an option already in which combat animations can be turned off? I need to go back and check, I could have sworn there was. In any case, wouldn't that be a better option? That way it would please both sides of the issue. I'll admit I'm one of those who occasionally enjoys watching the anims. The ones I don't care about I simply hit the escape key.



skrewball -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 7:09:43 AM)

I think it would be best if the Aircraft formations were placed on a behind the scenes "checkerboard".

That way, squadrons could only engage squadrons that are close to them. Instead of just rolling the die for each and every plane vs every plane on the opposing side.



JeffroK -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 7:10:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

There should also be a distiction as to where an intercept occurs. Pre-target, over the target, Off-target. All of course dependent on the cumulative activity over the target that day, Weather modifiers, CAP availability, Radar coverage, Field conditions, Skill of the Opposing Intercept Leader, Etc.



Why? What would the difference be?


Problem faced by RAAF Spitfires over Darwin was getting up to the heights the Jap Bombers flew at. Therefore many combats occured after the bombs had been dropped.

If you have the various times of intercept, you could destroy/abort/disrupt the bombing raid. But need enough advance warning to be in position. Attacking over the target would need the AAA to either not fire or open yourself to friendly fire. Hitting them after they leave for home will see the Target hit, but any losses they suffer will lessen future raids.

It could be that your Mustangs scramble in time to hit the incoming raid, Spitfires hit them over the target and Airacobras pick at the stragglers as they leave for home.



JeffroK -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 7:13:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Get rid of the combat animation...This is not a tactical simualtion and unless we want to get involved with pushing aircraft around a tactical map I see no use in it. Just give us a report ...On such and such a day x number of aircraft attacked such and asuch place and suffered Y number of casualties. I don't need to see that plane 231 was climbing ratta tat tat plane 231 climbing rata tat tat...



Seconded - but I know a lot of people like to see it. Most definately have all info recorded in one or more combat reports files (maybe there's one summary and one detailed). My PC is slow enough on WITP, watching a combat animation makes playing the game torture.


But isn't there an option already in which combat animations can be turned off? I need to go back and check, I could have sworn there was. In any case, wouldn't that be a better option? That way it would please both sides of the issue. I'll admit I'm one of those who occasionally enjoys watching the anims. The ones I don't care about I simply hit the escape key.


Yes, you can turn off the animations, I only watch them in WPO.

But the space taken up could be used to add extra slots or provide space for better Ground, A-A & Naval combat engines.



GaryChildress -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 7:34:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I also like the idea of counting engines in VP scoring. That way 4Es will be a little more expensive to loose.


How about all fighters are 1 VP (regardless of twin engine or not), and all bombers are VP = # of engines?

What do you think about transports, recon, patrol, etc. types?


Auxiliary aircraft may present a problem. Should an Emily score as high as a B-17 when shot down?



JeffroK -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 7:39:49 AM)

Yes, the effort to build the Emily would see their loss as a major concern.

It would see the Jap use their Search planes with more care as well.



1EyedJacks -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 11:23:49 AM)

I would like some way to insure that fighters escort my DBs and TBs.

I think that there should be some random option for a surprise attack - something that lets you know you or your opponent were caught with your pants down[:D]

I would like to see the ability to have pilots that complete their tour of duty be used as trainers to increase the replacement pilots.

I would like to see pilots jump when their ride is dead.[:D]



treespider -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 1:49:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

I would like some way to insure that fighters escort my DBs and TBs.


To rigid. See Midway. Players shouldn't have that much control. Its a question of who or what the player represents in the game. Is the player Marshall or is the player Nimitz or is the player Fletcher or is the player Spruance or is the player McCluskey. I would venture that the players represent Spruance/Fletcher and above.




treespider -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 1:57:42 PM)

quote:

There should also be a distiction as to where an intercept occurs. Pre-target, over the target, Off-target. All of course dependent on the cumulative activity over the target that day, Weather modifiers, CAP availability, Radar coverage, Field conditions, Skill of the Opposing Intercept Leader, Etc.


Agreed. Perhaps break down the turn into internal phases that the player doesn't see but receives reports about. Time of interception is crucial to the succes of a strike.

My idea here could make things very complicated, Phasing could be tied to all sorts of activity outside of A2A - Naval Intercepts and Spotting come to mind.



treespider -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 2:00:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Get rid of the combat animation...This is not a tactical simualtion and unless we want to get involved with pushing aircraft around a tactical map I see no use in it. Just give us a report ...On such and such a day x number of aircraft attacked such and asuch place and suffered Y number of casualties. I don't need to see that plane 231 was climbing ratta tat tat plane 231 climbing rata tat tat...



Seconded - but I know a lot of people like to see it. Most definately have all info recorded in one or more combat reports files (maybe there's one summary and one detailed). My PC is slow enough on WITP, watching a combat animation makes playing the game torture.


But isn't there an option already in which combat animations can be turned off? I need to go back and check, I could have sworn there was. In any case, wouldn't that be a better option? That way it would please both sides of the issue. I'll admit I'm one of those who occasionally enjoys watching the anims. The ones I don't care about I simply hit the escape key.


Yes there is an option to turn them off and I have chosen to do so...no offense TElf. The designers have indicated and stated on several different occassions that the combat animation for A2A and Naval combat are not accurate representations of what is occurring in the model.



treespider -> RE: WitP II Air To Air model Discussion (3/19/2006 2:05:14 PM)

quote:

Are you trying to put me put of work or what? I actually think the Combat Replay could be made to provide more information. More messages with explanations to the player as to why things are happening.

Why did the Strike Abort? --> "Weather in the Target area..."

or

"Unable Rendezvous with Escort fighters" and the Formation Leader's Aggression attribute is not high enough to continue without Escort etc.

But I think it SHOULD all be available in an after action report should player A not want to watch the animation.



I could agrre to the above. As i stated earlier I have the impression that the current animation is not an accurate representation of what is taking place within the model. If the A2A model were revised and the animation accurately reflected what was taking place I could see including it.



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.3125