RE: Thinking of the next patch (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Storm over the Pacific



Message

Tomokatu -> RE: Thinking of the next patch (7/5/2010 5:59:37 AM)

quote:

The Dutch had a few B-139 Glenn Martins, Buffalo's, and really old tac bombers.


That was the thinking at the time. "Anything that can fly..."

Only the bombers and the flying boats had the range to reach Darwin or Broome and the RAAF had already discovered (in Malaya) that Buffalos just weren't worth the fuel, but the Dutch trained pilots and the civilian officials were all needed.



Razz1 -> RE: Thinking of the next patch (7/5/2010 6:23:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 17russia

Idea #14

The ability to purchase CVL class units like the ones we can pay the cost for to "commission" during the game. Rated at 5/5 or approximately 1/2 the toughness of a fleet carrier. Usefull in escorting internal fleets and supporting the main fleet carriers if need be. A stop gap measure in constructing a full carrier. If I remember correctly the Independance class was bassed on a Baltimore class cruser hull & machinery and could support 45 aircraft.





I have modeled this in the Rising Sun concerning historical arrival of ships.
Sea Tenders 2/2 (excellant for scouting, can make suprise attack inbetween turn moves), CVE's 3/3 4/4 and I think CVL's are 5/5.
Unfortunately we can not add anymore unit types.

If we could, my vote would be a light carrier that could transfer one plane per turn to another carrier until it reaches one.
The light carriers would be 3/3 where one could use it for offensive until it received one point of damaged. At 2/2 all you can do is scout.

The airstrikes on sea zones would have to be toned down as they are in the Rising Sun.

My other choice for a new unit would be an Engineer. You could build a fort or a road. That would take a loooooooong time.
This would help alot in the 1937 campaign for a road. For a fort, well.. you can always use those.

The Engineer unit would cost 130 PP, be half as strong on offense and double defense of a standard infantry division.
When it comes to attacking forts they would have 4x the strength (2x of standard infantry)
Would they be upgradable to Corps? I don't think so.....but maybe.

Between the carrier and engineer, I prefer the carrier.




bbmike -> RE: Thinking of the next patch (7/5/2010 9:23:37 PM)

Not sure if this was mentioned before but in Windowed mode the bottom of the screen is chopped off. Also, is there a way to change the map zoom speed? I use the mouse wheel and it's slow.



Bleck -> RE: Thinking of the next patch (7/5/2010 9:55:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bbmike
Not sure if this was mentioned before but in Windowed mode the bottom of the screen is chopped off

In windowed mode you should use resolution lower than your current desktop resolution.



tombo -> RE: Thinking of the next patch (7/5/2010 11:17:29 PM)

heres a few suggestions..

1. quick max zoom in/max zoom out feature via minimap (or hot keys) buttons
2. after combat resolution...Unit Advance to evacuated space (from retreating enemy) option.
3. enhance mini map usefulness...show friendly/enemy land unit locations (via color dots)
4. expand land warfare by giving players more control over the units defensive/offensive reactions...such as Hold (max defense), give ground, Capture hex (max attack), etc. The latter of course would be have more or less losses.

enjoying game...

Thanks many.[:)]



jomni -> RE: Thinking of the next patch (7/6/2010 2:22:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 17russia

Stupid Idea #12

12) You know hou you can attach a leader to a unit, right? What if units in the game of corps size had 4 or 5 empty boxes like the leadership box. Smaller produced sub-units produced and kept in a pool like leaders could be attached & detached. Sub-units like Art, Tank Battalions (Or companies), AA, Engineers, Signals (to improve leadership rating by 1 point, or influence coordinated attacks or reduce the negative given corridinated attacks involving less than 3 units), Supply trucks, AT, Reserve Battalion (Maybe to lessen losses when attached), Heavy Weaponds Sections, Extra Battalion (Attack). or to really offend people here comfors stations for the Japanese units.


Sounds like HOI.
Might need a new tech tree.



Warspite3 -> RE: Thinking of the next patch (7/6/2010 3:36:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 17russia

Idea #14

The ability to purchase CVL class units like the ones we can pay the cost for to "commission" during the game. Rated at 5/5 or approximately 1/2 the toughness of a fleet carrier. Usefull in escorting internal fleets and supporting the main fleet carriers if need be. A stop gap measure in constructing a full carrier. If I remember correctly the Independance class was bassed on a Baltimore class cruser hull & machinery and could support 45 aircraft.





Yes I agree that a CVL Group would be a good addition. Roughly 65% the effectiveness of a CV and about 65% of the cost and build time could be a little less then a CV. Go even further and add CVE Groups too which could be at 40-50% levels and price.



jomni -> RE: Thinking of the next patch (7/6/2010 3:46:08 AM)

Good idea.  If the code permits, CVE should only be able to intercept and recon and not launch air strikes.



17russia -> RE: Thinking of the next patch (7/7/2010 6:31:00 AM)

Idea #15

15) In the classic map mode do you thing the color shading could be more pronounced so that shades of Mountains, Hills, Plains, Jungle, etc could be more easly seen?



Rasputitsa -> RE: Thinking of the next patch (7/8/2010 10:52:20 AM)

Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but should there be yes/no confirmation box, after selecting 'Finish Turn'. [:)]



Bleck -> RE: Thinking of the next patch (7/8/2010 11:05:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rasputitsa
Not sure if this has already been mentioned, but should there be yes/no confirmation box, after selecting 'Finish Turn'. [:)]

Preferences >> Interface >> Show end turn confirm dialog [;)]



Rasputitsa -> RE: Thinking of the next patch (7/8/2010 11:56:24 AM)

OOOpps !!!!, thanks. [8|]



MajFrankBurns -> RE: Thinking of the next patch (7/8/2010 2:56:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anraz

While the last patch was released two day ago it is high time to think of another patch. Since game is very stable we would like to address minor glitches (if you spot any) also to tune the game balance (however here is a hook since some players like AI aggressiveness and other say that it is too active for their taste). Next points on the list are: adding/improving of AI scripts (partly on player’s request), new events (especially on player`s request) and OOB corrections (I glad that so for there are mot many comments regarding OOB, but still we are open for your suggestions) . For sure there will be a list of sunk ships as it is one of the most requested features. Also we will try to tune some windows. Finally I seek for yo ur council considering the patch.

BTW before to patch will be out as a beta, we are going to publish an improved version of the editor. Stay tuned :)



Always to patch and make AI more aggressive and challenging. Do not listen to the inexperienced for creating an AI as that will just ruin the game in the long run for them and veterans as the inexperienced will gain experience and then find the ai no longer challenging and the veterans will never find it challenging. If possible create more modes of challenge, but, I'd much rather see a more aggressive ai than a passive one. I also don't like just giving them handicaps and resources or gimping the human player as a difficulty or challenge level. Bring on the aggressive and challenging ai like Sid Meier does it please.



Matto -> RE: Thinking of the next patch (7/8/2010 3:06:17 PM)

Inexperienced player can select low level of difficulty ... so please keep AI as aggressive as it is



doomtrader -> RE: Thinking of the next patch (7/8/2010 3:41:47 PM)

quote:

Bring on the aggressive and challenging ai like Sid Meier does it please.

You are not talking about CIV IV, right?



MajFrankBurns -> RE: Thinking of the next patch (7/8/2010 5:22:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: doomtrader

quote:

Bring on the aggressive and challenging ai like Sid Meier does it please.

You are not talking about CIV IV, right?


CIV II.



Rasputitsa -> RE: Thinking of the next patch (7/8/2010 7:30:54 PM)

I haven't played enough to make sensible comments, so here goes a possibily stupid comment. Bearing in mind the problem of the one hex islands, is there any use in mixed air units (part fighter, part bomber). The unit would use its fighter combat power for interceptions, etc., its bombing power for longer range airstrikes and full unit power for escorted missions, within fighter range. [:)]



bbmike -> RE: Thinking of the next patch (7/9/2010 1:10:02 PM)

On the Fleets/Groups screen would it be possible to add a column to see which ships can launch Recon, Air Strike or Bombard? Right now it's tedious to click on each group to see who can do what.

On a side note, how come some groups can't do anything? I've only played Iwo Jima so far so it may be part of the scenario but some groups never get to Recon, Air Strike or Bombard.



gwgardner -> RE: Thinking of the next patch (7/9/2010 6:23:11 PM)

When clicking on a convoy in the convoy report, OR on the convoy management window, it would be nice if the map would jump to the destination port.



Razz1 -> RE: Thinking of the next patch (7/9/2010 6:44:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bbmike

On the Fleets/Groups screen would it be possible to add a column to see which ships can launch Recon, Air Strike or Bombard? Right now it's tedious to click on each group to see who can do what.

On a side note, how come some groups can't do anything? I've only played Iwo Jima so far so it may be part of the scenario but some groups never get to Recon, Air Strike or Bombard.



This is easy. Only Carriers can Recon or Airstike. You don't have alot of carriers so its not complicated.

Re-name your fleet so you know that it contains a carrier. That way you don't have to use memory.

After a few turns you will know which fleets have carriers and which don't. If you can't keep this in your head you may be demoted to Captain. You wouldn't want that Admiral bbmike.

Another thing to do is Create a fleet with a carrier. Name is what you want TF-1 or Carrier Division 1, then add all ships to it.

That way the Carrier stays on top of the list.



gwgardner -> RE: Thinking of the next patch (7/9/2010 7:56:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Razz


quote:

ORIGINAL: bbmike

On the Fleets/Groups screen would it be possible to add a column to see which ships can launch Recon, Air Strike or Bombard? Right now it's tedious to click on each group to see who can do what.

On a side note, how come some groups can't do anything? I've only played Iwo Jima so far so it may be part of the scenario but some groups never get to Recon, Air Strike or Bombard.



This is easy. Only Carriers can Recon or Airstike. You don't have alot of carriers so its not complicated.

Re-name your fleet so you know that it contains a carrier. That way you don't have to use memory.

After a few turns you will know which fleets have carriers and which don't. If you can't keep this in your head you may be demoted to Captain. You wouldn't want that Admiral bbmike.

Another thing to do is Create a fleet with a carrier. Name is what you want TF-1 or Carrier Division 1, then add all ships to it.

That way the Carrier stays on top of the list.

Hello! bbmike is not asking for a work-around. The devs can make it easier and better.



17russia -> RE: Thinking of the next patch (7/10/2010 10:28:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

quote:

ORIGINAL: 17russia

Stupid Idea #12

12) You know hou you can attach a leader to a unit, right? What if units in the game of corps size had 4 or 5 empty boxes like the leadership box. Smaller produced sub-units produced and kept in a pool like leaders could be attached & detached. Sub-units like Art, Tank Battalions (Or companies), AA, Engineers, Signals (to improve leadership rating by 1 point, or influence coordinated attacks or reduce the negative given corridinated attacks involving less than 3 units), Supply trucks, AT, Reserve Battalion (Maybe to lessen losses when attached), Heavy Weaponds Sections, Extra Battalion (Attack). or to really offend people here comfors stations for the Japanese units.


Sounds like HOI.
Might need a new tech tree.



The problem of HOI was that you could only attach 1 battalion to any one unit at a time. Would love to have the flexability to attach several of the same & different types, kind of like the old Burger King song before they got the strangO dude in the commercials today.



17russia -> RE: Thinking of the next patch (7/10/2010 10:34:19 AM)

Idea #16

16) Tack Air sure punishes the hell out of naval units. Shouldn't the air units them selves be punished as well? Could a Tack Air attack open up a new window with the ships available to attack in the sea zone (maybe randomly selected by some search equation) so they could be individually targeted and the number of attacks on individual groups be limites to the air units AP? Or is this as complicated as the Arron sisters in Liberity TX, were?



Razz1 -> RE: Thinking of the next patch (7/10/2010 5:55:21 PM)

^ That's because the percentage to hit is too high and needs to be turned down.

Each air unit acts slike a Crazy MAD MAN



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.40625