RE: few wishes for AE (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

jwilkerson -> RE: few wishes for AE (4/24/2008 4:31:15 AM)

Well, for the patches, we have an ever increasing list - but we have not prioritized it yet - and will not until the initial release goes GOLD. Can't get distracted by post release events - until we get release done!
[:)]



Czert -> RE: few wishes for AE (4/24/2008 11:18:16 PM)

ability to scrap aircraft in pool to get engine and few HI poins (recycling of used material).

option to create (new)  independet CAGs (of only one type of planes and more, if you want) - instead of current system when you fill previously empty CVE/CVL with planes attached to kwantung HQ - it will be indepoendet - like on e.q. CV Shokaku. And once is independet, you can change his name to another, allowing replacing of  "leased" aircrafts/pilots from pool to mother unit (will simply act as rebuild/merge unit button). But for balance reasons creating of independet units will cost lots of political points.

option to give units nicknames - if unit preform very good/bad in my eyes , I can  give to it nickname - e.q killers, turkeys.



apbarog -> RE: few wishes for AE (4/25/2008 12:13:13 AM)

I would like to see the option to NOT be able to see (or calculate) combat assault value for an attack. I prefer more of the fog of war, and not be able to ensure that an attack will succeed, even by the smallest of margins.



Czert -> RE: few wishes for AE (4/25/2008 5:08:03 PM)

and another - option to improve existing land conections (for better supplies moving and for faster moving of armies) - e.q upgrade road to railroad, or bad road to good road. Finaly road construction battalions will be used for work which names implied in, not for base improving.



herwin -> RE: few wishes for AE (4/25/2008 6:31:01 PM)

Please handle bridgeheads realistically. Once a unit establishes a bridgehead, sending reinforcements in should not trigger a shock attack. That happened to me in a recent turn. What you should model is the vulnerability of a bridgehead or beachhead to counterattack--no depth to the defence. I might add that this lack of depth also made atolls hard to defend.

Once upon a time, I was chief systems engineer for a corps/division-level system that provided planning and command and control for these types of operations. There were three stages--the break-in (assault), the dog-fight, and the break-out. The break-in was a shock attack to make a penetration (or take a bridge/beachhead). The dogfight revolved around whether the penetration was deep enough to survive a concentric counterattack. The break-out involved concentration on a point of the defensive position. As long as the defence had not wiped out the penetration, it remained vulnerable to a break-out, so counterattacks were the order of the day. The ideal counterattack was launched from the MLR against the crossing point or beach itself, since the waterline then protected one flank. The ideal assault location had defensible flanks that could be taken to protect against those counterattacks. Reinforcements entered the beach or bridgehead--they did not shock attack other points on the line--they were needed to help defend the head and participate in the breakout. Soviet operations reached incredible troop densities in bridgeheads--for example a reinforced army in a 20-km bridgehead.



jeffs -> RE: few wishes for AE (4/26/2008 3:12:18 PM)

Better pilot training. As it stands, bombers and transports can train up to 79 (and that is fine with me, you should not be able to train higher) by running supply runs to the base you are in.

However, DBs, Fighters and TBs have no effective training options (putting them on training at 100 does virtually nothing....

There should be some kind of effective training (not saying it should be easy to go up).

That and everything should be on the same training level. No bogus supply runs for training purposes



Apollo11 -> RE: few wishes for AE (4/26/2008 5:36:30 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: jeffs

Better pilot training. As it stands, bombers and transports can train up to 79 (and that is fine with me, you should not be able to train higher) by running supply runs to the base you are in.

However, DBs, Fighters and TBs have no effective training options (putting them on training at 100 does virtually nothing....

There should be some kind of effective training (not saying it should be easy to go up).

That and everything should be on the same training level. No bogus supply runs for training purposes


They told us that this will be significantly and extensively changed (in fact this was one of the first things they mentioned)!

Now crew can get proficiency only in the type of flying that they actually do (i.e. if they haul supplies they will be great at that and will still be bad in evry other aspect: air to air, naval attack, land attack, search, ASW...)

[:)]


Leo "Apollo11"



Czert -> RE: few wishes for AE (4/27/2008 3:45:00 PM)

I asume, then training now will be most effective way in training of pilots - of course, you can say - running supply run give you big amount of exps (fly hours) - but thats all - you simply fly in formation, from poin A to B to C..etc - and thats all.
IN normal training you get less fly hours, but you will not only train flaying in formations/ flying alone, but can train critical situations (stall...etc).
Of course - doing fighting give you most exps (if you encouter enemy).
And for training - I thing we need ability to chose specializition in trainig - e.q a-a, a-g, a-s, asw..etc.



Apollo11 -> RE: few wishes for AE (4/27/2008 4:43:16 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Czert

I asume, then training now will be most effective way in training of pilots - of course, you can say - running supply run give you big amount of exps (fly hours) - but thats all - you simply fly in formation, from poin A to B to C..etc - and thats all.
IN normal training you get less fly hours, but you will not only train flaying in formations/ flying alone, but can train critical situations (stall...etc).
Of course - doing fighting give you most exps (if you encouter enemy).
And for training - I thing we need ability to chose specializition in trainig - e.q a-a, a-g, a-s, asw..etc.


Like I wrote above in my initial post - the EXP in WitP-AE will be TOTALLY different from what we have now in WitP!

Instead of single EXP we will now have several (5+ IIRC) EXPs each denoting one special skill (i.e. "Air to Air EXP", "Land Bombing EXP", "Naval Bombing EXP", "ASW EXP, "Naval Search EXP", "Land Search EXP")!!!


Leo "Apollo11"




Czert -> RE: few wishes for AE (4/27/2008 8:08:26 PM)

I understand yours first post, Apollo. I only expresing my thoughts of effect of training vs missions.



bradfordkay -> RE: few wishes for AE (4/27/2008 9:12:17 PM)

I guess the question is will "training" be broken down into the seperate types, or will it will be generic in that it increases all abilities. If yes to the latter, then that might resurrect the training button's usefulness.



Mediocrity -> an idea... (4/28/2008 12:53:53 AM)

A suggestion for graphics: right now the displays for ground units, naval units, and air units all have pictures, but what about bases? I think it'd be pretty cool to have, when you click on, say, Iwo Jima, or Palembang, or Port Moresby, to have an actual photo, probably aerial, of the place.
EDIT: Didn't mean for that to be a reply, but oh well...



Czert -> RE: an idea... (4/30/2008 12:45:45 AM)

hmm, you bring intereing idea, and this give me another idea - shor movies displaying turning point in pacific war - like PH attack, fall of phililipen, fall of china (not historical, but possible), irs big allied counteroffensive...etc.

and another of mine - option to priotirize units - pritorized unit first get upgrades/reinforcment - and for pool, give us option to send trained pilots ONLY to prioritized units, this will allow player to automaticaly get best pilots to front lines, leaving unimportant front reinforcment from bad pilots.

And for AI - gicve units sense for fronlines - sometimes they leaving units many miles behind enemi lines and bases - mayby implementing something like max. distance from nearest friendly base can help solve this problem.



Terminus -> RE: an idea... (4/30/2008 12:56:02 AM)

Never mind...



Czert -> RE: an idea... (4/30/2008 1:07:47 AM)

ech ?
and another - in you speed up research of "starters" - frances - by e.q. 4 monhts earlier, then speed up ETA for created units too (by 3 mohnts). Without this speed-up of newly created units, make no sense to speed up research.



castor troy -> RE: an idea... (4/30/2008 9:40:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Czert

ech ?
and another - in you speed up research of "starters" - frances - by e.q. 4 monhts earlier, then speed up ETA for created units too (by 3 mohnts). Without this speed-up of newly created units, make no sense to speed up research.




of course it makes sense, you can upgrade the units that are already ON MAP...



Czert -> RE: an idea... (5/9/2008 10:47:24 PM)

Ability to reinforce units up 100% of toe strenght - newly created units at 17% are practicaly useless (base force - in my game they have only 7 aircraft support, despite I have 90!!! in pool) - posibility to up them to originaly inteded 30 as will be very helpfull.
Not sure how to implement this to unist with different weapons from start different from toe, but still missing few subunits (mainly support).



Czert -> RE: an idea... (5/10/2008 1:33:29 AM)

And another - please add date of sunk when viewing sunk ship page - if is many ships lost at one place (for one or booth sides) after certain time I forget if this happend in one magnifiet battle or in many small battles.



Czert -> RE: an idea... (5/10/2008 1:44:14 AM)

and another - filters in replacing of leaders screen - if I want to assign carrier leader, then listing all leaders (from which are cca 95% surface combat) make litle time wasting to fing desired leader. Buil-in filters will greatly improve replacing of leaders. Same for pilot/ground leders.



Czert -> RE: an idea... (5/10/2008 6:34:37 PM)

option to issue fast unload order to normal (transport) missions - for simple reason - I supplying my base and my search planes spoot enemy force which can realy criple my transport fleet - then I have basicaly only two options - steay and pray, or abor unloading and go back later. Third option will be very hepfull.

and another - option to display most probaly destination hex for next turn of enemy fleets - this make interecpting/avoiding to enemy TF much easier.



treespider -> RE: an idea... (5/10/2008 7:04:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Czert

option to issue fast unload order to normal (transport) missions - for simple reason - I supplying my base and my search planes spoot enemy force which can realy criple my transport fleet - then I have basicaly only two options - steay and pray, or abor unloading and go back later. Third option will be very hepfull.


and another - option to display most probaly destination hex for next turn of enemy fleets - this make interecpting/avoiding to enemy TF much easier.



I wish for easter egg cheat codes for nuclear powered carrier and F-14s. Will make for sinking KB easier.[:)]



wworld7 -> RE: an idea... (5/10/2008 8:33:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

I wish for easter egg cheat codes for nuclear powered carrier and F-14s. Will make for sinking KB easier.[:)]


Why not just ask for CVs to equiped with some Photon torpedoes?



Rainer -> RE: an idea... (5/10/2008 9:57:43 PM)

Czert, I suggest you re-arrange your wish list and submit it as a wish list for WITP2.
I believe the wish list for AE is closed. The devs are now working on the code and at this time probably cannot change the specification anymore.


EDIT: Just saw that some developers talk about a "patch list" for AE. So that's probably another way to label your list.



Czert -> RE: an idea... (5/11/2008 3:38:49 AM)

Rainer,no problem with my wishes, if devs decide to implement only 10% in game (and doesnt matter if in future patch for AE or in Witp2) it will be good.
I know, certain wishes are very unlikely to be in game due to amount of coding or bad idea [:(].

and here comes another batch (all fro naval):
- option to automate ASW TF (you will simply select ships and desired area and AI will auto crete/disband TF and send ships for R&R)
- option to send ships (TFs) to naval training (naval manuevers) - for faster gaining of exps for ships
and showing of ships exps in similiar way as in screen when wiewing all land/naval air units.



tigercub -> RE: few wishes for AE (5/11/2008 7:23:50 AM)

i have a wish for AE that you do not have to set height in feet for AC just low, med, high level attack would be fine! or even the mission itself would define the height!
there is to much clicking to do any way! anything to reduce clicking.[&o]



Dili -> RE: few wishes for AE (5/11/2008 11:40:44 AM)

quote:

i have a wish for AE that you do not have to set height in feet for AC just low, med, high level attack would be fine! or even the mission itself would define the height!


Never!!!  [:-][:-][:-]



Fishbed -> RE: an idea... (5/11/2008 5:48:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

I wish for easter egg cheat codes for nuclear powered carrier and F-14s. Will make for sinking KB easier.[:)]


USS Boise and F4U Corsair are already included in the Vanilla mister, what more do you want from them?!

[:D]



castor troy -> RE: few wishes for AE (5/11/2008 6:22:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

i have a wish for AE that you do not have to set height in feet for AC just low, med, high level attack would be fine! or even the mission itself would define the height!


Never!!!  [:-][:-][:-]



I donīt want a reduce of micromanagement either...



jwilkerson -> RE: few wishes for AE (5/12/2008 2:05:57 AM)

For better or worse, I don't think any one will be able to accuse AE of bringing us reduced micromanagement!
[:D]



Terminus -> RE: few wishes for AE (5/12/2008 2:11:50 AM)

Definitely not.[:D]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8125