RE: Wishlist thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Carriers At War



Message

CactusAF -> RE: Wishlist thread (6/27/2007 2:31:25 AM)

number 1 is fix broken features.

number 2 is everythng else.




MarkShot -> RE: Wishlist thread (6/30/2007 5:28:47 AM)

I would like to see more hot keys for time/break/speed management. I've been playing CCAW and I find that once you have input your orders the game moves along quite a bit quicker than CAW without have to unnecessarily grab the mouse all the time. Thanks.



RyanCrierie -> RE: Wishlist thread (7/10/2007 1:08:38 PM)

Modify the "torpedo" flag in aircraft types; so that you can have fighters carrying torpedoes; the Boeing F8B long range fighter would have carried either one torpedo in an internal bomb bay, or two torpedoes slung under the wings



alexs -> RE: Wishlist thread (7/10/2007 3:54:28 PM)

Just to comment on MarkShot's request - Mark if you go to the options screen, then select the "Hotkey options" - you can assign hotkeys for in game functions, which include time management ones.



MarkShot -> RE: Wishlist thread (7/10/2007 5:50:39 PM)

Thanks



justaguy93 -> RE: Wishlist thread (8/16/2007 4:33:27 PM)

For me the biggie is needed improvement in the arming of aircraft.  I have just started playing the game but when I fuel/rearm planes it doesn't seem like I choose how they will be configured.  I think it's a huge part of carrier warfare and it was a decision that the admiral was involved in.  I don't mind a lot of the abstraction in the game as too many details can bog a game down, but the whole aircraft management part of it really seems too important to automate.  Back in my board game playing days in Flat Top I know it took painfully long to ready your aircraft and if you made a mistake in that aspect of the game it could cost you huge. 

In my opinion two changes that should be possible without impractical coding changes would be:
1.  Two buttons for arming instead of one - one to arm for anti-ship and one to arm for anti-land base operations.
2.  As others have mentioned, realistic cycle times. 

Bottom line is if you don't have your carrier flight groups standing by and in the right configuration when you see action, it should represent a huge problem, and this is a decision you should have to make.  After all Nagumo's decision to rearm planes for a second strike against Midway airfield may have had more impact on the Pacific war than many many strategic level decisions made before and after.  Yet from what I can tell so far, we don't even have to be bothered to make such a decision.




justaguy93 -> RE: Wishlist thread (8/16/2007 4:49:28 PM)

Oh and one other request, this one I'm guessing not possible with a simple patch, is some form of campaign or linked scenario mode where losses and victory levels from earlier battles can have a significant impact on the forces and difficultly of the objectives for each side in future battles.  Hmmm, do I pull out now so my damaged carrier can be ready for action one or two battles from now, or do I risk staying engaged so that my next operation has easier objectives or the enemy has less resources available to use against me.  Like say a successful operation in Coral Sea for Japan results in US forces being divided at Midway, maybe they only get two carriers for that battle instead of 3.  But maybe it costs the Japanese another CV out of action to get that victory?  It'd put a lot more importance on decisions made during a given battle and in my opinion make CAW twice the game.  But, I'm guessing this type of change is rather large from a design/coding/testing perspective.  Maybe something possible for a future add on module though?




Hellcat_Canada -> RE: Wishlist thread (8/21/2007 2:56:42 AM)

1) I'd like to see damage to ships cause a larger reduction in speed, right now as it is damage seems to do very little.

2) More randomization of starting conditions.




alexs -> RE: Wishlist thread (8/21/2007 2:19:06 PM)

Hellcat,
   1) We've remodelled how damage effects a ship's speed. In the patch, each time a ship receives damage, there is a chance it will have it's speed reduced depending on a few different factors (type of ship etc). Once a ship has had it's top speed reduced, it attempts to fix the damage. The chance to fix depends on the damage control of the ship, as well as it's type. Each time the fix succeeds, the ship increases in speed 1 knot (up to the previous maximum). Each time the fix succeeds, there is also a chance that further repairs are impossible at sea - ie the ship will not be able to make any further repairs until it enters a friendly port (whereupon it continues to attempt to fix it's speed as before).

   2) We've included a random warroom selection mechanism, where you wont know the exact forces until the end of the game. We've also included a large number of variants for Coral Sea so you'll never quite know what forces the enemy has.



Hellcat_Canada -> RE: Wishlist thread (8/23/2007 12:21:25 AM)

Excellent, thanks for the rapid reply, one last thing that I remembered...

I found it quite annoying that the background music cuts out duing the attack animations can this function be removed or toggled?



OldBoney -> RE: Wishlist thread (8/23/2007 12:59:50 AM)

I believe the present scoring system for ships awards points in proportion to the damage inflicted. In this scheme two cruisers at 50% damage are equal to one CA sunk. Shouldn't the sunk ship be worth more?

From a strategic point of view the sunk ship is gone while the damaged ships can be repaired for another day. I know that since you can't target individual ships this is beyond the player's control. Still it looks funny to me to see a bunch of nickle and dime hits on several ships out score a sinking.



alexs -> RE: Wishlist thread (8/23/2007 1:54:32 AM)

Hellcat - Yes, we added an option to the options screen to toggle that functionality.

OldBoney - The points given for damaging a ship is based on the % of damage to the ship multiplied by 1/2 the total victory points for the ship. It's only when you sink the ship that you get full 100% of the vps. So if you dont sink the ship, the best you can get for it is a little less than 50% of the ships worth. The actual vp worth of a ship is based on it's ship class, and it's displacement. So in theory, the situation you describe may be possible, but is unlikely to occur often.





RyanCrierie -> RE: Wishlist thread (8/26/2007 12:11:17 AM)

An addenum to the

"Modify the "torpedo" flag in aircraft types; so that you can have fighters carrying torpedoes; the Boeing F8B long range fighter would have carried either one torpedo in an internal bomb bay, or two torpedoes slung under the wings"

Request.

Apparently there were some aircraft which could carry MULTIPLE torpedoes. The TB2D SKYPIRATE could apparently carry four torpedoes in maximum overload condition; two in the internal bomb bay; and two slung under the wings [X(]




RyanCrierie -> RE: Wishlist thread (8/26/2007 12:17:42 AM)

The new "shift" paint blobs of terrain on the map making screen is highly useful; but I miss the "bug/feature" of v1.00 where you could literally paint the terrain over the map texture; which made making an accurate map very easy.

[img]http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/4958/paintvq9.jpg[/img]

Reconstructed picture of how the "bug/feature" was in v1.00



MarkShot -> RE: Wishlist thread (8/26/2007 3:05:21 AM)

I like that the SPACE key breaks. I would love to see a single key like the SPACE key function as a run/break toggle.

As mentioned before, once you enter your orders in CAW, you really shouldn't need the mouse all that much. However, you do due to lack of hot keys.

In this area CCAW is more ergomic having hotkeys for pretty much everything.

When I previously raised this, I was told that CAW allows the user to map keys. True; except that many functions are simply not mappable to begin with.

Thanks.



alexs -> RE: Wishlist thread (8/26/2007 12:36:28 PM)

Hi Mark,

I've designed the hotkey system to be expandable (depending on the key function). If you give me a few examples of hotkeys you'd like to see i'll give you an idea of how feasible they are to implement.




MarkShot -> RE: Wishlist thread (8/26/2007 6:54:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: alexs

Hi Mark,

I've designed the hotkey system to be expandable (depending on the key function). If you give me a few examples of hotkeys you'd like to see i'll give you an idea of how feasible they are to implement.




Alex,

The key definitions I would like to see:

(1) A key for each of the run commands like: Run5, Run1H, RunNxtH, ...

(2) A break/run toggle key. When in break mode and pressed, it would resume whatever was the last run mode in effect.

Granted I will still be using my mouse, but I would need it far less. Also, many of us have programmable mice. I would probably put such a toggle key right on to a mouse button.

Thanks.



alexs -> RE: Wishlist thread (8/27/2007 2:05:22 PM)

Mark,
1) Each of the run command already exist in the hotkey binding combobox. They are labelled "Run", "Run 5 minutes" etc.
2) Not sure about this as it may lead to non-intuitive behaviours. Say for instance, if you ran 1 hour, used this 'toggle break' button after 30 mins, and then hit it again, would a whole hour run or only the last half an hour? We'd also need to show the user with some sort of graphic.

2) is probably not a huge problem if you set the run / break hotkeys to be close to eachother.





MarkShot -> RE: Wishlist thread (8/27/2007 5:15:27 PM)

Alex,

I will check those bindings again. Perhaps, I missed them.



geofactor -> RE: @Admin - Wishlist (9/23/2007 7:41:10 PM)

just curious.......did panther games make the game 1830 for the PC?......be nice to see a multiplayer version



MarkShot -> RE: @Admin - Wishlist (9/23/2007 8:23:16 PM)

I think this is the CAW-2007 wishlist thread.

In any case, no Panther Games has no connection to the game 1830. The PC game was coded/ported by Simtek. This was about five years after Avalon Hill released the board game.



MarkShot -> RE: @Admin - Wishlist (9/23/2007 10:34:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofactor

just curious.......did panther games make the game 1830 for the PC?......be nice to see a multiplayer version


A solution your question (see):

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1574214

---

Sorry for the detour; back on topic now.



geofactor -> RE: Wishlist thread (9/25/2007 3:12:51 AM)

recenty bought game and am mildly pleased.....however.....the ship combat is pretty lame! i think the makers of this game would do well to look at SSI's Great Naval Battles series......i dont need to scale down to operate the guns or anything like that.....but it would sure be nice to be able to manuvre my ships in combat as well as put them in a few formations such as line ahead or AA defence....also when planes were readying for CAP...you couldnt load and arm bombers cause the flight deck was in use!.......and also where is the possibility of losing search planes to CAP.....there should be a chance a search plane is shot down before sighting an enemy fleet!....then as commander of a CV fleet you would have to make a decision to attack an area where you lost a search plane and hope the enemy CV's are there....and one more thing....the ability to load and land troops........and what about reinforcements.......im sure the US navy was sending planes to various bases on a daily bases......im sure ill think of more things later.......but you guys are close to having a really good game here.....plz consider what i have mentioned for you next update.....thx Geno



Ophion -> RE: Wishlist thread (9/25/2007 10:11:41 AM)

The original game used to have planes shot down while searching. I haven't noticed if this one does yet - will check the squadron logs next time I play.

One thing I noticed playing midway as the japs last night:
I lost BOTH Hiei and the other BC (forget its name) to US submarine attacks (from two different subs, about 6 hours apart). No issues with that, the problem was when the game was over I noticed the US log had another 8 attacks that the US had carried out and missed, which I never knew anything about.

Should you be given notice that these attacks are occuring so you can vacate the area?



Ron Belcher -> RE: Wishlist thread (9/25/2007 11:54:37 AM)

This may or may not have been asked. So here goes...

Co-op ? I'd like to see 2 fleet commanders .. Both in charge of their perspective TF's.
And yet, on the same side! Just a thought.



BvB -> RE: Wishlist thread (4/8/2008 4:19:33 AM)

a turn based version to do pbem would be nice but probably too hard to implement



GenChaos33 -> RE: Wishlist thread (4/28/2008 8:20:49 AM)

My Wish List (to help with MP campaign games)

1) Ability for Human Controlled TGs to retreat off map (side of map set per game editor) And no resign til all forces off map.


2a) Add a third player to MP games (as referee: to view all forces during play, and scenario distribution/download to both Allied and Axis player at start)

or

2b) Password Protected Player-Created Scenarios. Some thing like a 2 part password. One part given to Allied player, second part to axis. Code will only show forces for that specific side.

NOTE: 2a and 2b are for hiding true composition of forces and locations in scenarios. So player cannot load scenario before MP match and snoop opposing side forces and locations.




GenChaos33 -> RE: Wishlist thread (4/30/2008 6:59:14 AM)

add on to - My Wish List (to help with MP campaign games)

3) Battle Results - text report created at the end of scenario/battle. Listing final VPs, all ship status damaged/sunk, all planes damaged/destroyed, airfield damage by airstrike, island bombardment, invasion troops landed, etc., etc..



GenChaos33 -> RE: Wishlist thread (8/26/2008 8:36:17 AM)

Update to my wishlist.......

1) already exists - strike from wishlist

2) would like, but understand that it would require alot of work

3) needed badly, and could be easily done?



Admiral DadMan -> RE: Wishlist thread (10/30/2008 4:38:50 PM)

Make the "On Station, Waiting for Strike Recovery" feature after launching a strike from a Carrier TF optional.

Although this feature is designed to prevent gaming the system by players who wish to use single pulse "dump and run" attacks, it creates 2 other issues that can also be gamed out as well.

First, it prevents sustained attacks by locking the Carrier TF in one location, and hampers pursuit for follow up attacks.
Second, it exposes a CV TF to attacks by Surface Action TF's by locking the Carrier TF in place, negating a chance to evade laterally.

Some time ago, I argued (unsuccessfully) that this "feature" could be alternately coded by imposing penalties for aircraft losses due to "failed to return" from air strikes.

I don't wish to rain on everyone's parade as I'm sure that I am a tiny minority of 1, but I'm disapointed that this feature is still employed.

Are we too far down the road to explore this?



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.65625