RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (Full Version)

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



Message

blueatoll -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (2/19/2016 6:55:24 PM)

Would it be possible to get training airgroups to have their color change on the master air unit page when a certain % of the pilots are trained to a set experience level (like 70 air rating for fighters)? It would be nice to not have to open and check every air group's pilot list every other week to see if any pilots are at least operationally trained.



IJV -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (2/20/2016 8:58:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Suggestion for MichaelM....It would be really nice to have a single button which would allow both functions for "Send ships to", and "setting home port".
So often when a new ship arrives at Balboa and we are assigning it to Pearl or Auckland, etc, it presently requires the 2 steps.[:)]


Similar to this, a 'add all compatible ships at base' or something along those lines when creating a TF would be useful relatively rarely but save a lot of frantic clicking when appropriate...



Alfred -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (2/20/2016 11:24:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: IJV


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Suggestion for MichaelM....It would be really nice to have a single button which would allow both functions for "Send ships to", and "setting home port".
So often when a new ship arrives at Balboa and we are assigning it to Pearl or Auckland, etc, it presently requires the 2 steps.[:)]


Similar to this, a 'add all compatible ships at base' or something along those lines when creating a TF would be useful relatively rarely but save a lot of frantic clicking when appropriate...


Define "add all compatible ships at base".

When creating a TF, only ships which can go into the TF are made available for selection. Also you can click on the ship type filters to reduce the clutter.

Alfred



catwhoorg -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (2/21/2016 2:55:39 PM)

Say you have 60 xAK at San Francisco.

You want to add em all, would be nice not to have to add each one individually



Alfred -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (2/21/2016 3:28:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg

Say you have 60 xAK at San Francisco.

You want to add em all, would be nice not to have to add each one individually


And how do you propose to write the selection criteria. Most ports will have more "compatible" ships than can fit into the task force.

A surface combat TF has a maximum of 25 ships. Do you want one comprised of 10 battleships and 15 heavy cruisers. Where is your ASW protection.

Do you want your ASW TF to have the first 4 destroyers, leaving out other ships with better ASW weapons ro higher day/night experience levels.

Would be a very strange Transport TF with 60 destroyers and 40 destroyer escorts, but no cargo ships. Or a transport/amphibious TF which lacks the ships with the appropriate cargo holds to load properly the LCU you want to move.

Then how do you reconcile normal and combat loading.

Let us not forget port size. Do you want a TF which is too large to dock either at the origin port or the destination port.

So I repeat, define compatible.

Alfred



Trugrit -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (2/21/2016 5:45:07 PM)


There is an auto ship selection feature but it is not very useful because
of what Alfred has said. You usually don't get the ships you want or the
escorts you want.

But for cargo task forces it may save you a little time.I don't use it
because it takes more time to take ships out I don't want


[image]local://upfiles/49386/825A0B8D93244DC28B3710ACFCC0097A.jpg[/image]



Theages -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (2/22/2016 5:24:21 PM)

On most screens de-/selecting a filter adds/removes the corresponding items (eg.: ship selection)
But the load troops screen only changes the color of the items, but does not remove them from view. If there are many units present, you therefore have still to scroll all the way down to find your only eg. ART unit.

[image]local://upfiles/24088/7C3A7617CE894184BC948E02F58A54ED.jpg[/image]

This behaviour seem inconsistent.
Filters should add / remove item. What do You think?



catwhoorg -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (2/23/2016 12:09:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit


There is an auto ship selection feature but it is not very useful because
of what Alfred has said. You usually don't get the ships you want or the
escorts you want.

But for cargo task forces it may save you a little time.I don't use it
because it takes more time to take ships out I don't want


[image]local://upfiles/49386/825A0B8D93244DC28B3710ACFCC0097A.jpg[/image]


Never noticed that.

tried it last night, had decent results, added a couple more, deleted a couple, but overall fewer clicks to make a good sized transport TF.



Yaab -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (2/23/2016 6:21:01 AM)

Interesting. I like to create cargo TFs composed of tens of xAKs of the same class capacity for easier calculations of supply movement (i.e. 10 x 3200 cargo capacity ships = 32,000 supply convoy). If you can move pilots in batches of 5 and 10, then why not ships?



Admiral DadMan -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (2/23/2016 2:15:10 PM)

New Issue: I don't agree that transferring an air group to or from a docked CV should leave its aircraft in a damaged state for more than that turn, provided there is the proper amount of aviation support at the airfield (when transferred off a CV). Presently, it can take 2-3 days for an air group to be "reassembled". Realistically, they were simply craned off, then transported to the airfield, or vice versa.

Furthermore, if you have a CV disbanded in a port (e.g. Pearl Harbor) with aircraft aboard, you can transfer them to a nearby airfield (e.g. Hilo) and they are undamaged, but if you transfer them off to the airfield of the port you're disbanded in (e.g. Pearl Harbor), they're all damaged. How does this make sense?



Barb -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (2/24/2016 6:47:46 AM)

Simply UNDOCK the carrier and have aircraft fly to the airbase.



Trugrit -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (2/24/2016 1:02:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Simply UNDOCK the carrier and have aircraft fly to the airbase.


You don’t have to undock.

Ships that are disbanded in port are at anchor. You can conduct flight ops at anchor.
You can swing a ship at anchor into the wind or any other direction that is safe for flight ops.
The planes can fly intact to the airfield without modification.

You usually don’t conduct flight ops when a carrier is docked for a number of reasons.
Piers can have fuel supply lines running under or over them and a crash may take out the ship, pier
And any other docked ships.

Planes can be craned off but then they have to be transported through streets and so they
May have their wings or other equipment taken off.
Moving through streets takes time as sometimes utility poles and overhead wires have to be moved.
They are also stripped of fuel and gun ammo for safety reasons. It is just a more complicated process.

The Question is; why does the game allow you to transfer to other airfields when a carrier TF is docked?
I don’t believe the game should allow that. You should have to undock first.
Maybe they did that in WW2 but I think it is just one of those game things – all docked ships that move aircraft to the base have them taken apart.

As a side note – once when my ship was docked in Norfolk (1977) we had a carrier docked across the pier from us.
When the carrier loaded nuclear weapons it was quite an operation.There was a long parade of marine security. We had to go inside our ship, dog down and could not look out under penalty of being shot on sight.

I wanted to see what was going on and was looking out a port hole on the signal bridge.
They called over and told me that if I didn’t get away from there they would open fire.

I could tell you what I saw but then the marines might have to kill everyone who reads this forum.
That would ruin a lot of AAR’s.[:D]



Admiral DadMan -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (2/24/2016 2:32:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Simply UNDOCK the carrier and have aircraft fly to the airbase.

I didn't say that I didn't know what to do, I said that it didn't make sense.

During development, it was decided to allow limited flight ops while docked or disbanded in port. My point is that the mechanism is inconsistent.

If you crane aircraft off at Pearl, it's likely while moored at Ford Island - no disassembly needed. It shouldn't take 3+ days to re-assemble them. By the same token, if you can fly them off to Hilo, you should be able to fly them off to Pearl. That would be consistent.



witpqs -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (2/24/2016 3:01:05 PM)

For all the detail we see in the game, it is massive set of abstractions. The more things that are done and built in, the more effort to do it and get it right. Plus to make sure it still can run on machines that are far from the newest.

So what about transferring planes to other bases when a carrier is in a TF that is docked, or disbanded in port? It is true that IRL you could not do that. If that were not allowed in the game, you would have to simply un-dock the TF, or create a one-ship TF with just the carrier, make the transfer, then re-dock the TF or disband the one-ship TF you just created. The game engine allows you to make the transfer to avoid totally unnecessary player work. Those extra steps do not add to the game at all, so why force players to go through them?

OK, but then why make a player dock a carrier to get off planes when the carrier is too damaged to fly them off? Because the act of docking has checks in it: 1) make sure the ship(s) in the TF can fit at the dock, 2) make sure the total tonnage of the TF can fit at the dock, and 3) make sure no ship in the TF has fires burning.

Remember that every bit of smarts built into the software adds to the time, effort, complexity, chance of failure, etc. We make plenty of requests that get fulfilled. Would stopping players from transferring planes to other bases while a carrier's TF is docked or a carrier is disbanded really add anything to the game?



Admiral DadMan -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (2/24/2016 4:37:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Would stopping players from transferring planes to other bases while a carrier's TF is docked or a carrier is disbanded really add anything to the game?

I'm not advocating for either stopping or allowing. The inconsistency bothers me.

Even more so, what bothers me is that I can transfer to another base with no penalty from dock or port, but if I do it to the same port I'm docked of disbanded in, it takes 3+ days to get them "put back together". One day I could see, but 3+?

It's annoying, and it's petty, I know. But then again, so am I to some extent.

Rant over, carry on.



Lokasenna -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (2/24/2016 6:32:39 PM)

I'm OK with how it works. If I want to fly them to the port they're sitting at, I'll just toss the ship into a TF real fast and do it. Then disband the TF.

Of course, if the ship is repairing, then it'll take a few days to transfer to the base and wait for the planes to be ready. FWIW, most of the planes in those cases are ready after 2 days. About half are ready after 1 day. This is assuming that they are at damage/fatigue levels of near 0. If the planes have been running a while and have high fatigue numbers, they will take longer to be ready - transferring them while docked/at anchor pretty much forces them through the maintenance routine, it seems.



HansBolter -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (2/24/2016 9:48:48 PM)

Haven't read everything to see if this has been brought up, but the last few posts have addressed ship selection for TFs and there is one mechanism that is a royal PITA.

When my transport or amphibious TF comes up with insufficient space to accommodate my designated troops, I dare NOT let the AI add a ship because it will invariably make the worst choice possible.

I have to untag every LCU tagged for loading, exit the load TF menu and go back and manually choose additional ships and then run the experiment all over again.

It would be really nice to be able to select the additional ships needed without having to first untag all the LCUs.

Have no idea how difficult this would be to do.



BBfanboy -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (2/24/2016 10:42:34 PM)

+1 Hans B. Quite annoying and quite common when shipping is scarce and you are trying to get the unit onto the minimum number/capacity of ships possible.

There is an option though - accept the load knowing that it doesn't quite fit, then go back into the TF screen and transfer in the ship you think you need to load the remnant. Then select "adjust TF load" and "Use all ships", the load will redistribute using the empty ship you added.



Lokasenna -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (2/24/2016 11:12:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

+1 Hans B. Quite annoying and quite common when shipping is scarce and you are trying to get the unit onto the minimum number/capacity of ships possible.

There is an option though - accept the load knowing that it doesn't quite fit, then go back into the TF screen and transfer in the ship you think you need to load the remnant. Then select "adjust TF load" and "Use all ships", the load will redistribute using the empty ship you added.


If you have a lot of "stuff" at one base, this can cause the game to crash.

In one of my games, I had hundreds of LCUs at Rabaul and many hundreds of ships. When I would do this, and then click "Reallocate load" it would hang forever. I would need to end-task. So I stopped putting myself in this situation so that I didn't have to redo entire turns.



ckk -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (2/24/2016 11:18:17 PM)

Worse for me with Amphib tfs is loading it verifying and then being told that I have a surplus of troop and cargo space then finding out the I have left some piece of the units usually motorized support at home. This occurs regularly at Pearl



Admiral DadMan -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (2/24/2016 11:35:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckk

Worse for me with Amphib tfs is loading it verifying and then being told that I have a surplus of troop and cargo space then finding out the I have left some piece of the units usually motorized support at home. This occurs regularly at Pearl

Always allow an extra 25% space when creating an Amphib and that won't happen.



IJV -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (2/25/2016 8:28:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg

Say you have 60 xAK at San Francisco.

You want to add em all, would be nice not to have to add each one individually


And how do you propose to write the selection criteria. Most ports will have more "compatible" ships than can fit into the task force.

A surface combat TF has a maximum of 25 ships. Do you want one comprised of 10 battleships and 15 heavy cruisers. Where is your ASW protection.

Do you want your ASW TF to have the first 4 destroyers, leaving out other ships with better ASW weapons ro higher day/night experience levels.

Would be a very strange Transport TF with 60 destroyers and 40 destroyer escorts, but no cargo ships. Or a transport/amphibious TF which lacks the ships with the appropriate cargo holds to load properly the LCU you want to move.

Then how do you reconcile normal and combat loading.

Let us not forget port size. Do you want a TF which is too large to dock either at the origin port or the destination port.

So I repeat, define compatible.

Alfred


All those things would be perfectly fine, though - if I want to move [everything that floats in port A] from one place to another I do not give the tiniest little bit of a mouse crap about the details because just by the fact of doing that I'm saying "hey, I want to pass over the details in favour of just getting stuff done as quickly as possible here" - all it needs to be is [add all the ships that can possibly be added to this TF up to the point where something would cause the addition to fail].

I mean, restrict it to escort TFs so you can't do anything much with them, have criteria (no docking, no loaded ships, whatever) if it makes the coding part easier, just somehow allow players to short-circuit the psychotic side of micromanagement - probably the most irritating part of WITP etc at least for me is looking at a situation that demands 1000 or so mouse clicks to solve and thinking "you know, I could do this in 10 if I had a button that did [X thing], or alternatively I could go suck-start a shotgun instead of spending 20 minutes moving a bunch of ships from the same place to the same place"...



ckk -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (2/25/2016 9:21:03 PM)

OK Thanks



BBfanboy -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (2/25/2016 11:14:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckk

Worse for me with Amphib tfs is loading it verifying and then being told that I have a surplus of troop and cargo space then finding out the I have left some piece of the units usually motorized support at home. This occurs regularly at Pearl

Always allow an extra 25% space when creating an Amphib and that won't happen.

I think what throws off the usual calculation is that it does NOT include the unit's intrinsic supply, and the unit will not go anywhere without a minimum amount of supply, even if you click "Load Troops Only". So they take some of the troops and the minimum supply they need and leave a few troops behind. I was loading a USA BF the other day and it only had an equipment requirement of 92( which I allowed for X3 in my calculations), but I had to add a cargo ship to take the supply of 254.



m10bob -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (3/1/2016 2:16:48 PM)

Suggestion: Would it be possible to add an option where a submarine might know to return to base when it reaches a "selected" amount of damage?
I would like to think a good skipper would know not to risk his pressure hull with damage over 30% or so???
Maybe his judgement could be tied in with either his or the crews experience level?



Lokasenna -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (3/1/2016 6:49:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Suggestion: Would it be possible to add an option where a submarine might know to return to base when it reaches a "selected" amount of damage?
I would like to think a good skipper would know not to risk his pressure hull with damage over 30% or so???
Maybe his judgement could be tied in with either his or the crews experience level?


This does already happen, but the damage level is a bit higher than that. It might depend on the CO ratings (as in there's probably a die roll).



m10bob -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (3/2/2016 3:59:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Suggestion: Would it be possible to add an option where a submarine might know to return to base when it reaches a "selected" amount of damage?
I would like to think a good skipper would know not to risk his pressure hull with damage over 30% or so???
Maybe his judgement could be tied in with either his or the crews experience level?


This does already happen, but the damage level is a bit higher than that. It might depend on the CO ratings (as in there's probably a die roll).


Yes, and I am asking if this might be a "player choice" option.



Lokasenna -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (3/2/2016 5:08:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Suggestion: Would it be possible to add an option where a submarine might know to return to base when it reaches a "selected" amount of damage?
I would like to think a good skipper would know not to risk his pressure hull with damage over 30% or so???
Maybe his judgement could be tied in with either his or the crews experience level?


This does already happen, but the damage level is a bit higher than that. It might depend on the CO ratings (as in there's probably a die roll).


Yes, and I am asking if this might be a "player choice" option.


You can always manually return the submarine to base.

Open the ships screen ("S") and filter for SS, then click the "damage" text at the top. It will sort the subs by damage. You can then click on their TF in the Location column and it will take you to that hex, you can click on the TF, and then return the sub to base.



blueatoll -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (3/3/2016 8:48:33 PM)

Can we make a Sub mission called 'Recon'. Many USN subs spent a fair amount of time recon'ing ports, islands, and atolls. It might be able to use the same recon scripts Recon aircraft. I have some long-range behind-the-lines raiding that really could use some intel that a sub would normally provide.



Lokasenna -> RE: Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions (3/3/2016 9:55:37 PM)

I'd love that, but since there is no current TF recon function of a base (air only), that's an entirely new segment of code and therefore unlikely.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.156006