|
pasternakski -> (8/19/2002 10:11:01 AM)
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by sekullbe
[B]What I'd like to see is more feedback from the engine about what it's doing. For example I'd like to be told '12th BS checks morale- 75% launch' when LBA launches, or 'SB-5 rejects target Rabaul: AAA too heavy'. There could be a 'log window' with all the detailed reports in it that the player could choose to examine. Optimally it would be like the log system in Europa Universalis, where the player can choose to see a pop-up, a log message, or nothing for various announcements.
I'd also like to be able to have ship class available when building a TF; it's awkward to build a TF without ready access to ship details.
A column for 'class' could be added, or right-clicking the ship (or clicking a button) would bring up the ship info window. It would be particularly nice if the class also had some relative numbers on capability. (Eg: "DD McCall (Benham 2/3/5/2)" - the numbers are rankings of guns/torps/AA/ASW). Rankings don't need to be really precise- just good enough to pick out the best AA ships for a CV TF, ASW for transport escort, etc.
Comments? [/B][/QUOTE]
Right freakin' ON, sekullbe. Great ideas, if practicable, that would help players immensely. The explanations for launch percentages and nonlaunch shouldn't be too hard to add (more detail than an unspecified number of missions being cancelled due to weather).
The ship class info is vital, it seems to me, for the reasons you specify, particularly with regard to escorts, but it gets confusing even with cruisers, as well. I keep trying to remember, for example, which two of the U.S. heavy cruisers it is that had 10 8" guns instead of the far more common 9 (okay, it's the middle-age short-term memory loss that's primarily to blame, but there are so many ships to keep track of). Your quantification system seems to me to provide the basis for a very workable system. In addition, as others elsewhere have suggested, an indication on the ship's individual screen of its class would help, as well.
I suggest that more useful information could be provided for aircraft, as well. For example, it would be good to know the carrying capacity (in game terms) of a C-47 or PBY, so that more precise estimation of transport times and numbers could be made. A quantification of the general combat capability of various aircraft vis-a-vis each other would be good, too, I think. I know that a Kittyhawk is a better aircraft than a P39D, but by how much? To what degree can I rely on P-40Es as defenders of a base as opposed to F4Fs, as a general proposition?
I know that we have all learned the general "lay of the land" in these regards from, as a waggish poster has put it, "Groundhog Day-ing" (replaying over and over until you see how things work and how good - or bad- units and equipment are), but I wish it didn't have to be so much by "trial and error."
I know that a lot of information is included on the individual ship and aircraft squadron pages, but that's buried pretty deep when you're trying to form up an air attack or an invasion support task force. Besides, the quantifications are a little mysterious, sometimes. Note that the range of maneuverability ratings for fighters and fighter-bombers is rather narrow (generally somewhere from the high twenties to the mid-thirties). What does that all mean? I mean, what's it all about, Alfie?
I remember one of Gary Grigsby's earlier (and one of my favorite) designs, "War in the South Pacific." Yer planes had two ratings that mattered (outside of endurance): armament and maneuverability. A Zero was a 20-20. An F-4F was a 17-20. A land-based Zero was a 12-20. Gary even spelled out the formula in the (remarkably short) reference manual of how to calculate the approximate relationship between the two in combat. While I don't advocate a return to that kind of oversimplification (I appreciate the design effort that went into accounting for pilot training, experience, morale, and fatigue), it seems to me that the life of the players could be made a little simpler by providing more forthcoming, intuitive data that work through simple formulae (even if they don't give you absolute accuracy, even a close estimate is enough) to help you manage your campaign in a more informed way.
Am I full of horse hockey here (don't tell me about elsewhere, I'm already aware of the answer. My wife used to remind me incessantly)?
Thanks for the thought-provoking ideas, sekullbe. I hope that I haven't done anything provoking with them.
|
|
|
|
