|
marc420 -> Ideas (10/3/2002 7:45:16 PM)
|
Hi,
I've just gotten UV in the last week, so the following is the impressions of someone who is still learning the game. But the following are some things that I'd like to see based on this limited experience. It would be nice to see these in a UV patch, but I also write this in the hope these might be seen in WITP.
1) Currently a message screen appears during the turn. This shows messages about what's occuring, including contact info. It would be nice to have access to this screen during the orders phase. For example, it would be nice to a summary of the contact/search info from the previous turn.
Currently I find myself sitting with a piece of paper trying to take notes on what contact/search/coastwatcher info flashes on the screen during the turn. During the turn, there is this message scroll at the bottom, but it doesn't seem possible to return to this.
That would help. Also, adding the hex info to these reports would help (currently it says something like Mavis spots SS, but not the hex).
On a more general note, an ability to put icons on the map that show contact or search results graphically on the map. Then the player could click on an icon and see the search or battle results for that location. Try to picture what HQ would have as a tracking/status board and give the player something similar.
2) Some sort of summary screen where a summary of search results over several turns would help. Something that ties together the fact that you've spotted a carrier tf in three locations over the last three turns.
I realize that with fog of war, it might be difficult to connect a sighting of a CA on day with the sighting of a CA and a CV the next. So a player interaction where its the player that connects the dots across the sigthings might be a part of this.
The previous request that some indication of course and speed at time of sighting would help.
3) Is there any ability to shadow an enemy TF? Particularly with the PBY's and the Mavis' I thought this was common when a sighting was made. Its a different war in a different region, but CA's did the same with the Bismark during its attempted breakout. Again, this could be added to a screen showing contact information over several days. If a TF is being shadowed, then a player should get good, continuous speed and course info for the time when the TF is being shadowed.
In general, the game currently plays as if at the commanding HQ, the boards showing the enemy location are erased every morning before the commander arrives at HQ, and the messages showing contacts/search results are destroyed immediately and not available for review.
4) On the same sort of search display, could there also be information on which areas were searched and nothing was found? This could be detailed showing swaths of where search planes and ships were located in the last turn, or it could be a more general indication of shading which shows the level of search on the map. Sometimes the information that nothing was found in a location is as important as the information that something was found.
5)Could there be something showing the current estimate of what the DL and the MDL are for a player's forces. This could be a specific number, or a more general listing of recent events that effect this. This of course would be effected by Fog of War. However, there should be some way of looking at a sub for instance and getting information that this sub has been spotted by a Mavis in the last day, as well as it launched an attack in its currently location, therefore it is very likely the enemy knows its location.
6) It was previously mentioned that there needs to be someway to order a TF to follow, close and engage with an enemy TF. This got sidetracked into a discussion of who had seen TF's react to enemy surface forces, but I think the original point was important. Already, in the games I've played, I've had cases where I wanted to give exactly this order. I've had a contact with an enemy TF. I've had some sort of surface units in the area. What I want is for my TF to attempt to close and engage the enemy. But there seems to be no way to order this. This is added to the previous discussion that the reaction of a surface group seems to only occur when a friendly base is threaten.
In my case, I had just fought the battle of Coral Sea in its own fashion. Both the Lex and the Yorktown were sunk. However one IJN CV was severely damaged and the other heavy CV had sustained at least some bomb hits. The threat of naval air was greatly reduced, and I wanted my CA's to try to close and engage the enemey CV TF. There was no way to do this in the game that I could find.
6) The request for some sort of indication of which units have been given orders in this turn, or have orders from a previous turn would be useful. Particularly as the game expands into the full Pacific Theater.
7) On endurance and fuel usage for a ship or TF, some sort of indication of a ships available radius on this endurance level, or the time when the ship must return to base would be very useful. Perhaps a button on the ship display screen where a player could go to a screen that shows both available endurance for the ship as well as the required endurance to get to friendly bases would be helpful. Currently I find it rather difficult to know exactly what cruising distance a ship or TF has left and when they need to either refuel at sea or return to base.
8) Being able to print or save to a txt file the data on various reports and screens would be useful. I always find it amusing when I'm playing a computer game and I find myself writing information by hand on pieces of paper on my desk.
9) Particularly in WITP, some sort of system of Intelligence information would be useful. For instance, the UV game begins with the Allied player knowing the IJN is staging an operation that leads to the Coral Sea battles. But after the beginning of the game, this information is not available. General reports from Intelligence indicating what major forces might be in the area and general enemy intentions might be interesting.
As an addition to this, a "planning phase" in the game might be interesting. In the game, the player decides to launch an operation at the time they order the TF formed and give it sailing orders. In the real world, there is considerable planning that precedes this. Perhaps an operation might get some benefits if a HQ has been ordered to "plan" an operation in advance of an operation. For example, prior to an invasion of Lunga, the appropriate HQ could be given the order to plan an invasion of Lunga. The results of this in the game could be ....
1) more effective coordination of the units (air, CV, surface ships, transports, marines)
2) more efficient use of supply and logistics for the operation.
3) perhaps a staff report to the player as for suggested needs for logistics (staff recommends x number of APs loaded with y amount of supplies)
4) The chance that enemy intelligence would gain word of this operation and warn the opposing commander, usually in some general terms that something is coming.
This would seem to have several advantages in the game.
1) It might serve to help slow the pace of operations down to a more realistic pace.
2) Give the player some advantages in the game for well planned operations
3) Allow a mechanism that intelligence could work in the game.
10) For WITP, I think the player should have some sort of say in the production process. For UV this is not realistic, but a Theater commander should have some input in this. It should NOT be a direct control, because at higher levels beyond the scope of the game there would be allocations of resources between theaters. So there should be some way where Nimitz can request more escort vessels, but then he might not get them because some higher level might decide they are more needed in the Battle of the Atlantic. But at some point, I can easily see someone in Washington telling Nimitz that he can get more escorts, but that Transport production would have to be cut to accomodate this.
So there should be some way for the player to influence production, but not control it. And there should be substantial penalties for both interfering with the natural production and for a player that continuously changes these requests.
|
|
|
|
