What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific



Message

Tankerace -> What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/18/2008 7:30:29 PM)

Hi gents,

Thought I'd start this thread to get player input as to what you'd like to see in Carrier Force. Keep in mind just because it is posted here doesn't mean it will make it to the final product, but I'd like to take as many good suggestions as I can and implement them where possible.

So fire away!



Wirraway_Ace -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/18/2008 8:05:59 PM)

Tankerace,

I appologize for my ignorance, but is there a brief description of what CF is intended to be?



Tankerace -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/18/2008 8:39:35 PM)

Carrier Force is a tactical game built on the UV engine. It will contain improvements to the UV engine, but the main purpose of the game is to fight in quasi-real time, with each turn (within the tactical mode, of course) taking 15 minutes. Players get to handle all the details of carrier operations, arming planes, spotting them to the flight deck, launch and recover them, coordinate searches and strikes, etc all in 15 minute turns.

If you wish you can play the game like UV where each turn is one day, and this is how the game will pass when not in tactical mode. But the heart and soul of the game is the tactical mode. We are also planning some naval combat stuff to take advantage of the 15 minute turn structure.



tocaff -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/18/2008 10:35:06 PM)

I'd like to see

The accuracy of level bombers against ships reduced
Improved weather modeling that could allow a crafty player the chance of sneaking in or out under a front
Carrier ops for launching and recovering aircraft being modeled on a given ship's capabilities, not an abstract
Smoke from prior damage caused by bombing or bombardments partially obscuring a target
Improved ASW modeling
Preparation points for LCUs for given places (as in WITP & WPO)
Various speed settings for TFs  (as in WITP & WPO)
More TF types (as in WITP & WPO)
More ships allowed in TF types (again as in WITP & WPO)

...and a partridge in a pear tree...



Joe D. -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/19/2008 4:34:51 AM)

Could supply convoys be fixed so that when you load supplies and troops, all of the APs/AKs in the convoy are loaded; that would save the trouble of having to split the convoy apart, reload the ships that didn't accept the load command the first time, and then recombine the convoy.

Also, fast TFs have some quirks in regards to supply and troop transport.

Don't make the PBEM files massive, i.e., zipped files?

Land warfare modeled after WitP, i.e., IJA doesn't surrender but fights to "virtually" the last man.

Any other relevant WitP/AE improvements, esp. re TF missions; but for God's sake, don't turn UV into WitP!



PizzaMan -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/19/2008 6:44:07 AM)

I'd like to see more interaction with air group leaders.  In UV we can assign TF commanders, which a powerful feature in the game, but conversley we are held hostage by air leaders.  I'd like the ability to reassign strong leaders to important forward areas, and give them the best available pilots and planes, while sub par commanders run transport, anti-sub, and recon duties. 



Joe D. -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/19/2008 3:03:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

... We are also planning some naval combat stuff to take advantage of the 15 minute turn structure.


.... Will naval combat be "tweaked" to make the IJN surface fleets more powerful?

There needs to be an adjustment in the hard code so that Allied surface radar doesn't always stop a Long Lance attack; this is preferable to turning the LL into a super weapon.

Pse. see the thread in the UV forum.



HansBolter -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/19/2008 5:27:51 PM)

Henderson Field



tocaff -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/19/2008 6:19:57 PM)

Individual airfield names can't be used because what if there are multiple airbases or the port could have a different name so the area's name is best for map purposes inspite of somebody's sarcastic suggestion.



HansBolter -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/19/2008 6:32:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Individual airfield names can't be used because what if there are multiple airbases or the port could have a different name so the area's name is best for map purposes inspite of somebody's sarcastic suggestion.




Thanks Todd. I'm actually well aware of the reasons why 30 mile wide hexes shouldn't be bearing the name of individual air fields.

It was just a tongue-in-cheek dig at that certain some one who made the sarcastic suggestion. [8D]



HansBolter -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/19/2008 7:09:51 PM)

In all seriousness?

I would like to be able to transfer a ship out of a task force and back to "anchored" at the port without first having to create a new TF to transfer the ship into just so I can disband the TF to get the ship back into "dock".

This is one of the most infuriating aspects of both UV and WitP.

There is always one ship in every TF that took heavy enough system damage to need to be dropped out of the TF next time it reaches port. The current mechanism for removing that ship and getting it back into dock is just about the most convoluted process it could possibly be.



Joe D. -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/19/2008 7:16:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

... It was just a tongue-in-cheek dig at that certain some one who made the sarcastic suggestion. [8D]


Don't get that "certain someone" started, or else this thread may get locked-down [:D]



Joe D. -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/19/2008 7:18:20 PM)

Wouldn't it be easier to just form a new TF of damaged ships and then disband them in port?



Wirraway_Ace -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/19/2008 7:35:04 PM)

I would like to see a min-max altitude setting for CAP. Hate to see my zeros climbing to 31,000 to tangle with P38s and B17s.




HansBolter -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/19/2008 7:54:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

Wouldn't it be easier to just form a new TF of damaged ships and then disband them in port?



No. That is the way it has to be done now. Which is "convoluted", at least from my perspective.

The problem is that once you take the step of creating a new TF, you are no longer looking at the TF that has the damaged ship you want to drop out and then you have to go hunting to find it with every last ship in every TF and also those docked at the port to have to scroll through to find that particular damaged ship you want to drop.

Think how much simpler it would be if while looking at the list of ships in the TF you want to drop the damaged one from, all you had to do was select the ship and hit a "drop from TF" button that would send it back to "docked at the port" status!



HansBolter -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/19/2008 7:57:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

I would like to see a min-max altitude setting for CAP. Hate to see my zeros climbing to 31,000 to tangle with P38s and B17s.





And how about different altitude settings for primary and secondary missions?



tocaff -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/19/2008 8:10:52 PM)

Altitude settings are being addressed and as for damaged ships into new TFs-sort ships by sys damage or by location and it's easier, not perfect.  I know why you posted what you did, I was just trying to defuse the indefuseable (is that a word?).  [;)]



HansBolter -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/19/2008 8:22:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

Altitude settings are being addressed and as for damaged ships into new TFs-sort ships by sys damage or by location and it's easier, not perfect.  I know why you posted what you did, I was just trying to defuse the indefuseable (is that a word?).  [;)]



I know there are easy ways to sort the list and that somewhat mitigates the convolutedness. It would just be a whole lot simpler, from my point of view, if about half the necessary steps were eliminated.

I draw for a living using the most prevalent CAD software on the planet AutoCad. I am a stickler for streamlining the process. Every additional keystroke, every additional mouse click, every time I have to switch from menu to menu, or from interface to interface I assess whether or not it can be streamlined and whether or not the steps are absolutely essential.

The forced process of swicthing form one interface (curent TF) to a second interface (new TF) to yet another interface (list of all ships at the port) could almost certainly be eliminated altogether by the addition of a "remove from TF" button in the first interface.



HansBolter -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/19/2008 8:38:41 PM)

Make newly created TFs currently selected to receive orders upon completion of the creation process as it works in WitP.

Again, UV forces an unnecessary step on the player as upon completion of the TF creation process the player is returned to the base interface and has to select the newly created TF to assign it orders. Since it is a pretty good bet that the player is going to want to issue oreders to the TF they just created making it the currently selected unit upon completion of the creation process just makes good sense.



SuluSea -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/19/2008 8:47:03 PM)

If pilots are shot down in a friendly area of operations I'd be happy if some [a few?]  of them are able to be rescued. If at sea a task force could be designated to look for them, or within Catalina range maybe you could designate them as downed pilot search?

Thanks for your dedication[&o]



radar -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/19/2008 10:20:38 PM)

In playing a tactical carrier battle, it seems that scouting reports would likely include speed and direction. If so, at least the direction of spotted enemy task forces should also be available while playing in the turn mode. Of course with fog of war, that information could be false at times, but it would be nice to have this as part of UV.



Joe D. -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/19/2008 10:58:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

If pilots are shot down in a friendly area of operations I'd be happy if some [a few?]  of them are able to be rescued. If at sea a task force could be designated to look for them, or within Catalina range maybe you could designate them as downed pilot search?


I understand that having a sub in the area increases the likelihood of recovering a downed pilot, but having "pilot rescue" as a Cat mission is clever.



HansBolter -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/19/2008 11:17:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

I understand that having a sub in the area increases the likelihood of recovering a downed pilot,




I'll say! [X(]

[image]local://upfiles/21458/9ED25E1E3C6748EFA10FCDDCC165DB50.jpg[/image]



ILCK -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/20/2008 2:09:02 AM)



1. CAP needs to be more effect vs unescorted bombers. No more 8 B-25's sneaking by 25 Zeros to bomb ships in Rabaul with no losses.

2. Some way to exclude targets. If #1 is implemented I need to be able to tell my aircrews not to go flying into Rabaul and get shot to hades.

3. Automated rest levels for squadrons. Something so I can tell my aircrews when you get 75% of effective strength rest until you get back to 90%.

4. Easier ways to see ship abilities w/o having to drill into the ship menus. When I select ships I'd like to see their AA, ASW, SC abilities.

5. Smarter routine convoys. My stupid convoys always want to "support" empty beaches instead of my major bases.



tocaff -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/20/2008 3:22:14 AM)

Wow!  Great list guys.....



Joe D. -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/20/2008 4:10:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

... Improved weather modeling that could allow a crafty player the chance of sneaking in or out under a front


Definately improved wx: either visible clouds -- as in CaW -- or a "cloud filter," not unlike the filters in BoA/AACW, which would overlay the screen (only) when activated.

Those X-ed out plane icons are fine for wx over airfields that can't move, but you're going to need something more for moving carriers.



HansBolter -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/20/2008 7:05:17 PM)

Better control over upgrades ala WitP.

See my air squadron upgrades thread for an indication of how frustrating upgrades can be in UV.



RGIJN -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/20/2008 11:38:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

We are also planning some naval combat stuff to take advantage of the 15 minute turn structure.



to which extend the player is given some kind of manual control of surface engagements?
Are there any screenshots available already?

re wish list
capability to prearrange formation of TFs (e.g. AA screen, line-up... of course this should got messed up during battles)
capability to shift planes and/or pilots between squads at a certain base/ship
capability to specify direction and depth of air-search (comparable to SSI games like "Great Naval Battles" series - does anyone remember?!)

agree to most of your other great nominations!
will think about more.






RGIJN -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/21/2008 11:05:08 AM)

one other thing comes in mind:

the option to take a vessel in tow, improving odds to get a crippled carrier into a emergency anchorage and at least so you get a very slight chance to save that ship. Mostly this issue is hampered by massive flooding that is even worsen due to the lack of sufficient speed. YouŽll never make port.




tocaff -> RE: What would you like to see in Carrier Force? (2/21/2008 1:47:02 PM)

Maybe the tow factor is abstracted into the game?  I do agree though that if you assign a ship to escort a cripple back to port it should be assume that a tow is undertaken if needed so a minimum speed of ? should be maintained until the flooding becomes catostrophic.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.328125