RE: WitP Wish List (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Stwa -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/23/2005 11:06:51 AM)

These are my suggestions, I hope they have not been mentioned already. My aplogies if they have.

1. Combat Screens - re-title these Combat Sighting report. When combat occurs, simply display the units present (a graphical OOB) for a setable amount of time and thats it. Eliminate the animations, sounds, and text displays that go with combat in the current game, because combat would now simply be a Combat Sighting report. In the preference screens you would enable or disable Combat Sighting Reports, and set its delay.

2. Fix the IN-GAME preference, database, and save screens, to display and operate completely within a 512 x 768 popup that pops-up on the left (justified) side of the map. (i.e. the opposite side of the combat screens which are the same size).

3. Failing #2, at lease fix the database screen so the exit screen button is at the top left hand corner of the full screen, like all the other full screens. For some reason, this really annoys me. I can't explain it.



51st Highland Div -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/23/2005 10:19:51 PM)

Chindit Brigades....maybe a case for making these airborne units as they were employed in that manner in the Burma campaign.



Mike Solli -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/24/2005 11:32:23 PM)

I'd like to see the ship number with the name. Meaningless really. It's just the anal type of stuff I like to see.



Andy Mac -> RE: PBEM Improvement (8/25/2005 1:57:02 AM)

I would like a few small things corrected/enhanced but it may be to late

3rd Commando Bde added pls
Chindits made into paras but without the immediate shock attack to reflect airmobile not paratroopers
More UK Air Gp commanders


Apart from these very minor points I am happy with the game as is



Andy Mac -> RE: PBEM Improvement (8/25/2005 2:00:15 AM)

ps If making Chindits airmobile as I suggest I would probably swithc the compromise made on the Chindits and have the heavy 3rnd Indian Div arrive when the current Chindit bdes do and have the Chindit Bdes arrive when the current 3rd Indian does to prevent Indian/UK paras/airmobile troops being available too early.



Aawulf -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/25/2005 5:18:48 AM)

quote:

(1) must be within supply range of a base with +20,000 (not 20K which is really 20480: as a programmer this bugs me ) supplies

Think "K" for kilo rather than kilobyte. The use of "K" for thousand predates most living programmers and "kilobytes" in our vernacular.

Not trying to bust on you, but I was recently "corrected" on this topic by one of my intellectually elite friends who didn't realize this world rotated on it's axis just fine before computers and programmers.

Regards,

Michael Fleshman



akdreemer -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/3/2005 11:07:53 PM)

Is there anyone who is actually keeping track of all of this? Instead of wading through 13+ pages of comments to find out if a suggestion has aready been discussed.



Sonny -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/4/2005 12:08:28 AM)

Doesn't really make any difference - they are not going to go any further with this game.



Jonny_B -> RE: WitP Wish List (10/6/2005 6:05:34 AM)

[:)][:)]

I personally would like too see a new class of heavy bombers, so the allied player is unable to upgrade medium level bombers to liberators (heavy bomber class).

[:'(][:'(]



Honda -> RE: WitP Wish List (10/6/2005 12:04:48 PM)

I second that!



Big B -> RE: WitP Wish List (10/7/2005 8:54:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

I believe the P-39(and P-400?) has a modification hard coded that incrementally reduces the aircrafts performance over 10,000 feet.

This is wonderful... Can we have a similar code modification for P-40/Kittyhawk types to take effect about 15,000 feet (which I believe was their big performance break) in the next patch?

B



Halsey -> RE: WitP Wish List (10/16/2005 5:56:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonny_B

[:)][:)]

I personally would like too see a new class of heavy bombers, so the allied player is unable to upgrade medium level bombers to liberators (heavy bomber class).

[:'(][:'(]


Don't use the player upgrade fantasy, and you won't have that problem.[;)]



Halsey -> RE: WitP Wish List (10/16/2005 5:57:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

I believe the P-39(and P-400?) has a modification hard coded that incrementally reduces the aircrafts performance over 10,000 feet.

This is wonderful... Can we have a similar code modification for P-40/Kittyhawk types to take effect about 15,000 feet (which I believe was their big performance break) in the next patch?

B


This would be a nice feature for all aircraft on BOTH sides.[;)]



Jonny_B -> RE: WitP Wish List (10/25/2005 4:52:02 PM)

[8D][8D]

Dear Kid:



I would like too see the leading commander names on the after action combat reports, for both sides.

And of course it would be nice to be able to withdrawal from naval combat and/or army combat situations (instead of the AI making this slow decisions) when it is very obvious that you will get your but kicked and then handed too you sideways.

An once again I wish that there would be a separate class for heavy bombers, not combine with medium level bombers, allowing players to upgrade level bombers to strategic bombers. (I just do not get it, I guess.)

[&o][&o]



Enforcer -> RE: WitP Wish List (10/26/2005 10:05:40 PM)

sortable commanders by type such as surface, carrier,..ect



showboat1 -> RE: WitP Wish List (10/29/2005 5:29:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Enforcer

sortable commanders by type such as surface, carrier,..ect



AMEN!!!!! I drives me nuts sorting through that damned list![:@] Once you get past the known commanders, it can take forever.



Pascal_slith -> RE: WitP Wish List (10/29/2005 9:36:44 PM)

Base size should limit the amount of fuel, at least, that can be offloaded there. Say 5000 tons per level or even better, an expanding capacity based on level (level 1=500, level 2=2000, level 3=5000, level 4=12000, etc.). Pearl Harbor in Dec. 1941 had a capacity of approx. 620'000 tons.

Many bases in the Pacific had little or no capacity in Dec. 1941 for any fuel.



GaryChildress -> RE: WitP Wish List (10/29/2005 11:04:45 PM)

I apologize if this has already been suggested but I think it makes a great deal of sense. I think the--albeit infamous--Slaughtermeyer actually has a good point in one thread where he says that he thinks Japanese prep points on a non-historical first turn ought to be automatically set to 100 whenever they are changed, to represent the reasonable expectation that the Japanese planned months in advance for these "non-historical" attacks.

Is it possible to tweak the game so that this could be put into effect in an upcoming patch? Or is the game too hard coded to make such an adjustment?

[8|]

Gary



GaryChildress -> RE: WitP Wish List (10/29/2005 11:22:57 PM)

One more "wish list" item:

it would be nice to be able to plot TF routes, instead of have the computer automatically set your TF from San Francisco to Sydney to go straight through enemy territory. For instance, it would be nice to be able to plot multiple way points on the map whereby a TF will go to the first way point, then proceed to the next so that I could circumvent an area. That would aleviate some of the micromanaging of convoys that I find myself doing just to evade enemy airbases and such.

Thankyou. [:)]

Gary



kkoovvoo -> RE: WitP Wish List (10/30/2005 8:52:27 AM)

1/ Two different CRs for Allies and Japan. You should see exactly how many of your planes/soldiers were lost in a combat, how much damage was taken by your ships but the damage you inflicted to the enemy should be inaccurate (for example your pilots claiming 10 kills of which only 3 occur in reality). Fighters should be credited for "phantom kills". In "planes lost/ships lost" table there should be no real numbers of your opponents losses displayed, only the claimed one.


2/ Increase a chance that fighter will be shot down by bombers defensive fire. For example there could be a 15 percent chance that fighter with 0 armor will be shot down when hit and 7 percent chance if the armor is 1. Now you only get plenty of damaged fighters, except when flying Allied heavy bombers.

For example when CV Lexington on February 20th 1942 attempted to perform raid against Rabaul and was attacked by unescorted Bettys, also two Wildcats (and one pilot) were lost in melee. Every bomer should have some chance to shot down fighter.

3/ Increase defensive efficiency of dive&torpedo bombers. These are still too easy fodder.



Pascal_slith -> RE: WitP Wish List (11/5/2005 9:59:27 PM)

Just to add a little more to the supply problem (sorry, I'm an inveterate believer that logistics dictated almost everything here and playability is not as important as having to run the logisitics first):

In addition to the fact that bases should be limited in what they can 'hold' in terms of supply points and fuel points based on their size,

There should be four types of supply points: construction, ground, air and naval. Only the appropriate supply type points can be consumed by the appropriate type of unit. Supply ships would be able to carry any mix of these as determined by the player (indicate the percentage of each, total equalling 100% of the ship's capacity). This would really underline the 'combat loading' problem....

There should be two kinds of fuel: air and naval (ground fuel would be included in the ground type supply points). The USS Neosho at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th, 1941, for example, was filled with aviation fuel, not ship fuel. Tankers and AO's should be able to carry a mix of both kinds.Tankers in 1942, filled with these different fuels, had to be based in the South Pacific in 1942 due to the lack of base storage facilities.

Base facility construction should be a little more complicated. Constructing an airfield is not the same as fortifications, a port, depots for different types of supply points, etc. It took MONTHS to construct decent fuel storage facilities in the South Pacific in 1942-43, for example. In any case the type of supplies needed for this was not generic...

This would all force careful planning on the part of everyone and certainly not make some easy base-building schemes possible as the case is now.



akdreemer -> RE: WitP Wish List (11/5/2005 10:40:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

Just to add a little more to the supply problem (sorry, I'm an inveterate believer that logistics dictated almost everything here and playability is not as important as having to run the logisitics first):

In addition to the fact that bases should be limited in what they can 'hold' in terms of supply points and fuel points based on their size,

There should be four types of supply points: construction, ground, air and naval. Only the appropriate supply type points can be consumed by the appropriate type of unit. Supply ships would be able to carry any mix of these as determined by the player (indicate the percentage of each, total equalling 100% of the ship's capacity). This would really underline the 'combat loading' problem....

There should be two kinds of fuel: air and naval (ground fuel would be included in the ground type supply points). The USS Neosho at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th, 1941, for example, was filled with aviation fuel, not ship fuel. Tankers and AO's should be able to carry a mix of both kinds.Tankers in 1942, filled with these different fuels, had to be based in the South Pacific in 1942 due to the lack of base storage facilities.

Base facility construction should be a little more complicated. Constructing an airfield is not the same as fortifications, a port, depots for different types of supply points, etc. It took MONTHS to construct decent fuel storage facilities in the South Pacific in 1942-43, for example. In any case the type of supplies needed for this was not generic...

This would all force careful planning on the part of everyone and certainly not make some easy base-building schemes possible as the case is now.


I like, however I doubt it will ever happen or get implemented. I especially like the seperating out of the construction aspect. On the topic of aviation fuel, there were actually tankers that carried nothing but aviation fuel. Another aspect of this was the ability of tankers to carry deck loads of cargo, indeed many were modified to carry replacement aircraft.



BlackSunshine -> RE: WitP Wish List (11/26/2005 8:06:55 AM)

Sorry, I'm not about to read through 14 pages of suggestions. Maybe someone should put them in a list on page 1.

Anyhow...

I would like to be able to track the amount of kills a unit has. Somewhere on its unit page, you should be able to click a link and see what sort of combat action the unit has seen.

Example:

58th BS

Kills:

1234 Infantry
10 Guns
SS I-XX
SS I-XX
DD ***

Etc.

Any chance of seeing this?



Sneer -> RE: WitP Wish List (11/26/2005 1:10:27 PM)

1e a/c 1/4vp
2e a/c 1/2 vp
4e a/c 1 vp
this would balance air war
4e bombers better at strategic bombing and worse in ground attack and anything else



langley -> RE: WitP Wish List (12/11/2005 1:37:07 PM)

Battle Honour Screen for all ships and subs giving location of battle and results of combat.



Przemcio231 -> RE: WitP Wish List (12/11/2005 3:06:04 PM)

Improve the Game preformance and do something about the game requirements... i have 1.2 Ghz Athlon with 256 SDRam and 128 DDR Radeon Graphic card and im only able to play Witp with no sound and even then the game crashes... last week i played Call of Duty 2 on my computer and it worked just fine with neary no hangs... and i say that CoD 2 has more requirements in it then WitP[:D] same with Fifa 2006[:D]



Widell -> RE: WitP Wish List (12/11/2005 8:37:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

Is there anyone who is actually keeping track of all of this? Instead of wading through 13+ pages of comments to find out if a suggestion has aready been discussed.


I started a Wiki some months ago, and I guess thisīd fit there. Unfortunately, activity has been poor lately, so unless it improves I may have to put priority on other stuff to conserve server space [8|]

If anyone feels like adding stuff to the Wiki, use this link. Activity means itīll stay, no activity means itīs going down just as inevitably as the Jap CV's....Honestly, Iīm a nostalgic geek, so itīll probably stay around until I reach the limit on the server and must justify paying more, after which the girlfriend will treat me as even more insane than she already does

/Widell



scout1 -> RE: WitP Wish List (12/20/2005 8:48:27 PM)

Lord knows I've added many to this list, but at this point, I'd like to see (in order)

a) Elimination of unit teleportation
b) Elimination of unit disappearance during tranport
c) Elimination of Leader disappearance/re-assignment
d) lacking c (above), how about just setting ALL leaders to the SAME values (or at least the option)


Lots of other things, but they are really enhancements rather elimination of frustration items.

Kill the Bugs [8D]



Pascal_slith -> RE: WitP Wish List (1/11/2006 2:28:58 AM)

Hand the code over to the public domain. There is so much here and elsewhere that the 'grognards' want to dive in and do a real re-work job....



Pascal_slith -> RE: WitP Wish List (1/11/2006 2:36:11 AM)

The British must withdraw ships at times. Why shouldn't there be an external effect (whether the War in Europe is going well or poorly) for the US? For example, having to withdraw AK's, AP's and TK's. Having to withdraw other naval units? Slowing (or accelerating if things go well) the availability of ships, LCU's, air groups, etc.?

What about the withdrawl of Soviet units if the War in Europe is not going well for them? Or if it is going well, receiving more units, just as with the US, UK et al.?



Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.641602