RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (Full Version)

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



Message

Montbrun -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/3/2009 8:42:09 PM)

Either a "Do Not Dock" toggle, like the "Do Not Unload" toggle, - OR- the TF does not dock if the "Do Not Unload" toggle is on.



fbs -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/4/2009 1:38:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

Either a "Do Not Dock" toggle, like the "Do Not Unload" toggle, - OR- the TF does not dock if the "Do Not Unload" toggle is on.



Hmm... in order to dock, you need to click on the "Dock TF" button... what will the "Do not Dock" option do?

Cheers!
fbs



Montbrun -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/4/2009 2:59:09 AM)

I'm seeing some TFs dock automatically. If I'm managing TFs, and don't want one to dock when it gets to its destination...



fbs -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/4/2009 3:24:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

I'm seeing some TFs dock automatically. If I'm managing TFs, and don't want one to dock when it gets to its destination...



I think that this is what you're seeing:

"Refueling in port causes the TF to “attempt” to dock, up to the Port Docking Maximum." (pag 106)

Very good; adding that to Naval.

Thanks, [:D]
fbs

ps: By the way, you realize that by requesting that change, the automatic refuelling will take longer, and you may end up losing a turn to refuel the TFs, right?



pmelheck1 -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/4/2009 8:59:02 AM)

I don't know if know anybody has asked for this but on the ship selection screen have a switch to show ships only in port. Would be great when I'm trying to make several AK type convoys. If I sort by space the ships already in port won't show up.





rominet -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/4/2009 9:27:04 AM)

Good initiative fbs!!

I would like to see a "halt/start" button on Allied HI factories as it is the case for the japanese factories.

To be able to stop where i want the use of fuel by allied HI centers as fuel is also used by ships.



Chickenboy -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/5/2009 3:28:53 PM)

Wow, what's this thread doing all the way down here? Time to resurrect.

I would like to see malaria effects implemented.

There should be some rationale for wanting to occupy malaria-free zones and avoid the verminous fen that is malarial jungle bases. It seems as though a number of players have not seen any malaria effect even with months in small bases in the jungle. This is simply not a reflection of reality. Combat forces on both sides lost quite a bit of strength due to malaria, dengue, yellow fever, scrub typhus and the like. The 'malaria zone' reflects the predominating effect of these disabling diseases.

I request that malaria be reinstated, with the goal of implementation similar to the expected effect of malaria in WiTP. Namely, larger AF/Port sizes and /or HQ presence reduces the effect. This change never really did get implemented into the WiTP model, even though it was a nice idea.

Up with Plasmodium spp.!



dorjun driver -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/5/2009 4:26:39 PM)

Would it be possible to synchronize the unit detail displays to the filter/sort settings of the higher level diplays? This works somewhat for individual ships, i.e., if the CV/CVL filter is set, the details screen cycles through only CV/CVL (unsorted). Not so much for the ACU and LCU contingent. In fact, on the AC unit detail screen, there are no NEXT/PREVIOUS buttons at all. Unless they are in stealth mode.

Thanks for all the goodly works,
Doug




Montbrun -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/5/2009 5:12:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

I'm seeing some TFs dock automatically. If I'm managing TFs, and don't want one to dock when it gets to its destination...



I think that this is what you're seeing:

"Refueling in port causes the TF to “attempt” to dock, up to the Port Docking Maximum." (pag 106)

Very good; adding that to Naval.

Thanks, [:D]

This mostly affects the "round-trippers," so refueling isn't really an issue.
fbs

ps: By the way, you realize that by requesting that change, the automatic refuelling will take longer, and you may end up losing a turn to refuel the TFs, right?




Hokum -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/5/2009 5:14:52 PM)

Better SiGint for everyone. Give wrong results if you must, but make it at least partially useful.

"Tsushima Fortress is located at Tsushima, Heavy Radio transmissions at Pearl Harbor"... okaaay. Thanks, I guess.

Oh, and more staff reports while we are at it. If my bombers weren't escorted by fighters, I want to know why.



Pascal_slith -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/5/2009 7:14:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hokum

Better SiGint for everyone. Give wrong results if you must, but make it at least partially useful.

"Tsushima Fortress is located at Tsushima, Heavy Radio transmissions at Pearl Harbor"... okaaay. Thanks, I guess.

Oh, and more staff reports while we are at it. If my bombers weren't escorted by fighters, I want to know why.


To add to this: perhaps being able to pay PolPoints for better SigInt or Counter SigInt. And as for better SigInt, how about once in a while the orders for a unit (ship, TF, LCU, sub, air unit, LCU) appearing? Yes, this means expanding the code for SigInt/FOW/CounterSigInt in general....



fbs -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/5/2009 7:37:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mullk

I don't know if know anybody has asked for this but on the ship selection screen have a switch to show ships only in port. Would be great when I'm trying to make several AK type convoys. If I sort by space the ships already in port won't show up.



Aye-aye, NAV-17, Sir! :)

Cheers [:D]
fbs



fbs -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/5/2009 7:39:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rominet

Good initiative fbs!!

I would like to see a "halt/start" button on Allied HI factories as it is the case for the japanese factories.

To be able to stop where i want the use of fuel by allied HI centers as fuel is also used by ships.



Hahaha.. good one. Australia HI is driving me crazy too - dirty little bastards will not keep their hands off my precious fuel. Makes me want to bomb the HI industry myself [:D]

PROD-10, General! [:D]

fbs



fbs -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/5/2009 7:40:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Wow, what's this thread doing all the way down here? Time to resurrect.

I would like to see malaria effects implemented.

There should be some rationale for wanting to occupy malaria-free zones and avoid the verminous fen that is malarial jungle bases. It seems as though a number of players have not seen any malaria effect even with months in small bases in the jungle. This is simply not a reflection of reality. Combat forces on both sides lost quite a bit of strength due to malaria, dengue, yellow fever, scrub typhus and the like. The 'malaria zone' reflects the predominating effect of these disabling diseases.

I request that malaria be reinstated, with the goal of implementation similar to the expected effect of malaria in WiTP. Namely, larger AF/Port sizes and /or HQ presence reduces the effect. This change never really did get implemented into the WiTP model, even though it was a nice idea.

Up with Plasmodium spp.!



Aye, aye, your files are being organized, Sir. LAND-1 for you (first request for land - congratulations!)

Cheers [:D]
fbs



fbs -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/5/2009 7:55:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dorjun driver

Would it be possible to synchronize the unit detail displays to the filter/sort settings of the higher level diplays? This works somewhat for individual ships, i.e., if the CV/CVL filter is set, the details screen cycles through only CV/CVL (unsorted). Not so much for the ACU and LCU contingent. In fact, on the AC unit detail screen, there are no NEXT/PREVIOUS buttons at all. Unless they are in stealth mode.

Thanks for all the goodly works,
Doug



Help me there, dorjun... synchronize which screen with which screen? Unit detail screen you mean the Task Force screen? To keep the ships in the task force screen sorted/filtered the same way as the Ship List screen?

Thanks!
fbs



fbs -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/5/2009 8:01:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hokum

Better SiGint for everyone. Give wrong results if you must, but make it at least partially useful.

"Tsushima Fortress is located at Tsushima, Heavy Radio transmissions at Pearl Harbor"... okaaay. Thanks, I guess.

Oh, and more staff reports while we are at it. If my bombers weren't escorted by fighters, I want to know why.


To add to this: perhaps being able to pay PolPoints for better SigInt or Counter SigInt. And as for better SigInt, how about once in a while the orders for a unit (ship, TF, LCU, sub, air unit, LCU) appearing? Yes, this means expanding the code for SigInt/FOW/CounterSigInt in general....




Aye-aye! GEN-7 [:D]
fbs



dorjun driver -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/6/2009 1:47:09 AM)

I'll be blunt 'cause I got to go.

Sorry for a Word screen shot, but I don't know.

But I got to go, I got to go, I got to goo-owoo.

fbs, I'll articulate the details when I get back,



[image]local://upfiles/20478/DC95A911E0E74C18B937815395CD73F2.jpg[/image]



fbs -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/6/2009 2:33:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dorjun driver

I'll be blunt 'cause I got to go.

Sorry for a Word screen shot, but I don't know.

But I got to go, I got to go, I got to goo-owoo.

fbs, I'll articulate the details when I get back,



Haha.. very good, got it. Please review GEN-8, and advise if I understood it right [:D]

Cheers [:D]
fbs



dorjun driver -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/6/2009 4:40:15 AM)

So that's where it was?  Yup, GEN-8 hits it.

If I had had the wherewithal and time, well, I still wouldn't have found it.

DACE



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/8/2009 3:03:19 PM)

If set to "Do not refuel", the "Replenish TF from port" is greyed out.  Each time the refueling option has to be changed to allow 'manual' refuel at the home port, then changed back to prevent automatic refuel at destination port. Request that the "Replenish TF from port" button remains active even if "do not refuel" option is selected.     


EDIT: AAARGGH, I lost my sig pic!



drw61 -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/8/2009 3:29:18 PM)

Had this posted in the naval thread but think it belongs here

Request for a change to ship withdraw

I keep selecting ships for TFs that need to withdraw. Could you please add a color coding to the ship if it is going to be withdrawn.
When selecting ships for a TF the ships are yellow, if a ship is to be withdrawn have it orange if withdrawing in the next 60 days and red if withdrawing in the next 30 days.

Thanks, Daryl



Historiker -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/8/2009 3:59:13 PM)

Let upgrades and conversions cost naval/merchant shipyard points



goran007 -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/8/2009 4:26:50 PM)

Although without radar it was hard to scramble enough fighters before bombing run, consider overwhelming effect in aerial combat.

I am sure that even B17's wouldn't survive if 5 or 10 times more zeroes with adequate experience would attack unescorted fat bombers, and plz dont make me laugh by stating that bombers were so big that Jap fighters did have trouble assuming distance to the target.
'Overwhelmed by Allied numbers, the Luftwaffe lost air superiority. Suffering from chronic fuel problems and a lack of trained pilots it ceased to be an effective fighting force by 1945.' (WIKI)


On other hand more missions should be abandoned if there is no adequate fighter escort or contact was lost during flight, also escort to bombers shouldn't be lost as often as it is.

Huge square formations of B17 flying unescorted without losses against good fighter cover never happened. If we consider loss rate of bombers during day time bombing of '43 in Europe i dont see reason why Japan wouldnt be able to acchieve same thing as Germans did,to make strategic bombing without adequate escort impossible: 'In October 1943 the USAAF had sustained such losses that a temporary suspension of deep penetration raids over occupied Europe became necessary'(WIKI)


edit: 'Formations of unescorted bombers were no match for German fighters, which inflicted a deadly toll. In despair, the Eighth halted air operations over Germany until a long-range fighter could be found; it proved to be the P-51 Mustang, which had the range to fly to Berlin and back' (WIKI)


Overwhelming effect in raids especially on airfields is the key. Question is: Is there enough bombers to push the screen of fighters aside and bomb the target, and Is there enough scrambled fighters to make attacker crying for there life.

Bomber i dont care weather is 2 or 4 engine is a fat slow duck, there is no way u can match it in any way with a small agile fighter that has a focused firepower of 4 or 6 cannons choosing side to attack.

1 on 1 bomber looses 9/10 against any decent www2 fighter that has a decent pilot.

About 20k bombers were lost on allied side (US and GB) in ww2...





newland -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/8/2009 8:27:31 PM)

re GUI-1:
I understand this is very difficult to realize. A small and "dirty" way to help could be some kind of paste and copy with the coordinates in the OP-Report and Sigint like this:
You implement a hotkey with a box on screen where you put in coordinates of the map and the screen centers on that location OR if you mark the coordinates in a report the hotkey command copys the coordinates and jumps to that location.

I hope it is clear what I mean.

Thanks

P.S I really think in future patches one priority should be the management of information, (what you need when and where) to shave of some time in the orders phase. It's quite a lot of lifetime to play a game like that.



DaveP -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/9/2009 1:38:06 AM)

Given how important it is to have TFs that can fit within a port's docking capacity, would it be possible to add a column for ship's tonnage to the TF creation screen?



Swayin -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/9/2009 4:45:43 AM)

A different color font for restricted U.S. air and land units (red?) when viewing the units at a base?



Smeulders -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/9/2009 9:08:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaveP

Given how important it is to have TFs that can fit within a port's docking capacity, would it be possible to add a column for ship's tonnage to the TF creation screen?


If you have the beta patch, then you can see the ship's tonnage in the mouseover.



Czert -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/9/2009 5:30:40 PM)

option to expand size of air unit/land unit (at cost of supply and PP) - e.q. allow increse of 27 plane unit up to 36, engeniring regiment up to enginering battalion....etc.



DaveP -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/9/2009 9:29:24 PM)

Smeulders,

That will help some. I was waiting till the patch is finished and have not messed with the beta.

Thanks,
Dave



quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaveP

Given how important it is to have TFs that can fit within a port's docking capacity, would it be possible to add a column for ship's tonnage to the TF creation screen?


If you have the beta patch, then you can see the ship's tonnage in the mouseover.




jb123 -> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes (9/16/2009 8:57:40 PM)

I'm not sure if people are still using this but I would like to see a pick up troops option seperate from troop transport. For example, I am trying to pick up an unrestricted Brit base force in Jesselton with dutch transports flying from Balikpapan. When I click destination after selecting troop transport it tells me I canot move restricted command units because the computer thinks I am trying to move restricted dutch units from Balik to jessle....

Minor annoying thing



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.953125