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


ADavidB -> RE: WitP Wish List (4/26/2006 2:53:26 AM)

What I'd like to see:

1 - The "Advanced Weather" fixed so that it doesn't get stuck at continuous thunderstorms for game-months on end in areas such as Southern California and Southeastern Australia.

2 - The damage limit for ship upgrading raised to something above "10", so that a player doesn't have to wait the 4 to 6 weeks that it takes for big ships to go down from system damage 9 to system damage 3, which is the current limit, in order to get upgrades.

3 - LCUs that have more than "zero" supply be able to retreat into an adjacent hex that is not occupied by an enemy LCU. (The "zone of control" rule that we all know so well from board games of years gone by make no sense on the scale of a 60 mile hex.) This should apply even if an enemy unit is in the current hex. (Get rid of the "fly paper" effect.)

4 - LCUs will take orders to go directly into a specific hex instead of trying to travel along the "fastest" route, particularly if the "fastest" route is occupied by an enemy unit.

5 - A "time delay" for advancing enemy units to be able to take advantage of a "railway" movement bonus. Perhaps requiring engineers to do repairs, to parallel the time it takes to fix and get a damaged airbase or port going again. (Particularly when the engines and rolling stock have been driven away and there is nothing left to ride.)

6 - Get rid of the presence of the indicators for LCUs, ships and aircraft from bases unless the base has been deliberately scouted.

7 - Allow for subs to scout an enemy base by sailing there.

8 - Allow replacements that are due to arrive in a captured base to arrive at some other base at a later date. To simulate re-routing of arrivals.

9 - Allow for replacements to be postponed from arriving at the player's discretion. This way units won't "teleport" into deathtraps at encircled bases.

Thanks -

Dave Baranyi




michaelm75au -> RE: WitP Wish List (4/26/2006 3:04:26 AM)

Make the air group on the CV always say 'independent' so as not confuse players.

Only drawback would be when transporting a group on a CV/E/L.
The player will need to pay PPs to change back the Hq when it is based on land again.[:D]

Michael




Tanaka -> RE: WitP Wish List (4/26/2006 4:11:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka


quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

That when playing as the Allies, I stop getting these constant Signal Intelligence messages about "radio transmissions detected in Vancouver". [sm=00000612.gif]


Ive always thought this was a bug with intelligence where you were getting the reports from both sides on one report....


It is a bug, but not that way. Somewhere in the game Vancouver is not properly "flagged" as an Allied base, so the Signal Intelligence generation routines see it as a valid source for "radio transmission detected" for the Allied SigInt report.


Playing as Japan I see allied reports on my bases all the time...In this example why am I getting allied reports of radio coming from Truk? I can show lots of other examples...I really think you get some or all of both sides reports in one....

[image]local://upfiles/8937/ED80411852D344EB8BD4FE2E1F79F48B.jpg[/image]




scout1 -> RE: WitP Wish List (4/27/2006 6:38:07 AM)

17) You shouldn't have to pay PP's when moving airgroups on/off CV's (assuming they revert back automatically to the original command HQ).

18) Repairs for port and airfield damage appear to go to zero rather quickly and appears to be independent of the base size. A size 3 a/f compared to a size 6 should take different amounts of time to go from 100 damage to 0 damage (everything else being equal).

19) Would like visibility (easily) as to what units are loaded into what tf's, what their fatigue/disruption is, what their combinied assault value is, aviation support numbers and what they have prep points for, etc ....

20)




saj42 -> RE: WitP Wish List (4/27/2006 2:23:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADavidB

What I'd like to see:



5 - A "time delay" for advancing enemy units to be able to take advantage of a "railway" movement bonus. Perhaps requiring engineers to do repairs, to parallel the time it takes to fix and get a damaged airbase or port going again. (Particularly when the engines and rolling stock have been driven away and there is nothing left to ride.)

Thanks -

Dave Baranyi


taking this point even futher, i'd like to see the rail movement bonus only apply if you own both the bases between which you are travelling - to simulate the loading of the rolling stock at depots/marshalling yards. No more should a Division be able to jump on train in the middle of the countryside. The bonus could still be available if the line has been 'cut' by an enemy unit mid way along the line. When no bonus is applicable then a 'road' travel bonus should apply.




Hanzberger -> RE: WitP Wish List (4/27/2006 2:43:46 PM)

How about a small directional arrow inside the hex so you know which way your ships are heading without clicking on them. ??[:'(]




myros -> RE: WitP Wish List (4/28/2006 9:57:06 PM)

1. Take all useless text feedback off the main timer setting;

ie Assigning this, setting that, doing stuff to barges, reticulating splines ;p etc etc etc
None of this is info needed by the player yet it slows the game down - or we press a key to zip through them and end up missing something actualy needed.
Only display (on the map area mid screen) info that is actualy needed by the player, everything else can be displayed down in the left hand text area with a zero wait state timer so it doesnt interfere with the game.

2. Toggle for recon feedback - when playing the AI this is just useless repetitive info that again slows things down a lot, the ability to either have this on a seperate timers, toggle to show/not show or something along those liens would be great. Its useful info when playing against a human so removing it wouldnt be good. Although just removing the reduntant info would be a start - ie do we need to see 5 messages for recon on the same base?

3. Waypoints, course setting etc I know we are unlikely to ever see this but come on ... multiple waypoints, course settings, patrol routes ... these have all been part of naval lore since boats and maps were invented ;)

I love WitP, but I can never play a game without ending up agrevated by the 3 things above.

Myros





scout1 -> RE: WitP Wish List (4/29/2006 12:40:47 AM)

"(You have to change the transport TF to an Escort TF, then merge in the heavies)"

20) You should be able to add heavies directly to a transport tf, rather than this work around




dtravel -> RE: WitP Wish List (4/29/2006 4:23:06 AM)

Isn't this what that Bombardment/Surface Combat TF you set to follow the transports is for? [;)]




Mike Scholl -> RE: WitP Wish List (4/30/2006 3:21:18 PM)

I don't know if this is in here or not, but with 500+ entries I don't mind it being repeated. PLEASE FIX US SUBMARINE TORPEDOES! Yes, the Mk XIV was a major headache and deserves to be modeled in the game. But the "S-Boats" didn't use that torpedo..., it wouldn't fit their tubes. Instead they used an older and much more reliable model (I think it was the Mk X). S-Boats should NOT be lumped in with "US Submarines" for this purpose, but rather with the Brits and the Dutch. Fixing this would hardly require "rocket science". PLEASE do so....




scout1 -> RE: WitP Wish List (5/2/2006 7:01:32 AM)

21) Code the Allied Air production to vary with time, rather than averaging out the aircraft per month. This produces too many aircraft earlier than available, at the expense of later in the war. However, they really don't need to worry much about later in the war either way.

22) Allow the Allied player some form of production. It should just be the Japanese players that have to address this complicated system [;)]




Don Bowen -> RE: WitP Wish List (5/2/2006 7:22:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

I don't know if this is in here or not, but with 500+ entries I don't mind it being repeated. PLEASE FIX US SUBMARINE TORPEDOES! Yes, the Mk XIV was a major headache and deserves to be modeled in the game. But the "S-Boats" didn't use that torpedo..., it wouldn't fit their tubes. Instead they used an older and much more reliable model (I think it was the Mk X). S-Boats should NOT be lumped in with "US Submarines" for this purpose, but rather with the Brits and the Dutch. Fixing this would hardly require "rocket science". PLEASE do so....


I think that submarine dud rate is coded into the device in the editor. Just took a quick look at submarine torpedo fire routine and it uses this dud rate.






michaelm75au -> RE: WitP Wish List (5/2/2006 1:12:48 PM)

According to the editor (for scenario #15), the S-boats (class#1352) carried the "21in Mk 10 Torpedo" (dev#103). Its dud rate is set to 15.
On the other hand, the "21in Mk 14 Torpedo" (dev#96) has a dud rate of 80.

Michael




RevRick -> RE: WitP Wish List (5/2/2006 2:27:46 PM)

How about some means by which we can assign the units loading onto a transport task force to the ships we would like them to inhabit. The current system is roughly like the Chinese fire drill of old, and is a total FUBAR. Troops and supplies mixed up over every ship in the TF with absolutely no regard to which ship, let alone how many units could be carried and the total capacity of the TF. And I know the work around routine, but why does this need to be a work around. There isn't enough to do that the Fleet Admiral has to go down to the docks and tell the loadmasters how to do their job as well. Anyone who has been in the NAV for...oh, 15 minutes or so knows what would happen. The Admiral would tell his next in command to fire the illegitimate, mentally inept, misbegotten spawn of a female canine and put someone in there who knows how to do the job right!

Far to often as well, a TF assigned to both deliver troops to a location as replacements, and also which we may wish to pick up the units being relieved have to be jimmied along in the same fashion as loading the Transport TF to begin with. Change the Homeport, tell it to Load Only Troops and hope it will stay around long enough to pick up the unit in question, and not just take off like a stripe tookused ape. You'd think the TF was being run by FJ Fletcher.

Finally, my real pet peeve. Whoever designed this game does not know ships. They are nowhere near as fragile in real life as the game has it. The first point of system damage should no way in all that is holy knock a knot off of the ship's speed. Ships that have been out of the yard for weeks, even months, with only shipboard maintenance to take keep the beast afloat and at sea will still steam at their rated speed. It is only when a ship has major engineering casualties that the speed drops. On most of the tin cans, for example, they could reach 27-28 kts on 3/4 of the engineering plant operating (one boiler down). The old boat I was on (a finicky 1200 psi plant could do that) and most of the squadron at that time (frammed Gearings) could do the same on their 600 psi plants. If they could do that at 25 years old, why does one point drop their speed that radically. Or is system damage automatically assumed to be power plant damage - which would be an equally nonsensical mistake.





scout1 -> RE: WitP Wish List (5/2/2006 2:27:52 PM)

23) A graphical/on-map graphical filter for ...... just about anything
a) Ships within 1 month or late for upgrade
b) All Zero based units
c) All bases short on supply or less than some pre-determined value


Or how about just doing #1 from post 506, extractable data in csv format similar to what Michlem's tool does, except limited to information for only one player. This way you guys don't have to guess what all we could think up in terms of want's. Then it's up to us ....




Aawulf -> RE: WitP Wish List (5/3/2006 12:38:31 AM)

There is nothing more frustrating to me than issuing orders over a period of time, then discovering a flaw or opportunity for improvement in the scenerio. If we had the ability to convert a saved game to a scenerio for editing, then I wouldn't have to repeat the many hours, days and even weeks to get back to where I had been before making an adjustment to the scenerio. I understand the fears about the potential for abuse in 2 player games, but I am certain that there is a solution that doesn't make the two mutually exclusive.




michaelm75au -> RE: WitP Wish List (5/3/2006 7:15:45 AM)

Converting a save to a scenario sounds fine.
But you do realise that you are going to lose a lot of information.
Stuff that does not exist in the scenario files.
Eg ships sunk, victory points, top pilots/kills, etc

Michael
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aawulf

There is nothing more frustrating to me than issuing orders over a period of time, then discovering a flaw or opportunity for improvement in the scenerio. If we had the ability to convert a saved game to a scenerio for editing, then I wouldn't have to repeat the many hours, days and even weeks to get back to where I had been before making an adjustment to the scenerio. I understand the fears about the potential for abuse in 2 player games, but I am certain that there is a solution that doesn't make the two mutually exclusive.





Aawulf -> RE: WitP Wish List (5/3/2006 8:53:40 AM)

quote:

Converting a save to a scenario sounds fine.
But you do realise that you are going to lose a lot of information.
Stuff that does not exist in the scenario files.
Eg ships sunk, victory points, top pilots/kills, etc

I would prefer that information be clean anyway.

I also suspect that some things would be problematic, such as converting a saved game with LCU loaded transport task forces in transit. Even with the constraints, the ability to convert a saved file to a scenerio would open new doors for scenario design and dramatically reduce the painful time sink of starting over after testing or unexpectedly discovering things that require a change to the scenario.




pad152 -> RE: WitP Wish List (5/6/2006 1:43:01 AM)

Moving Troops for Transport(restricted command)

1. First pick a destination for the TF, and show the command of that location.

2. If the destination is within the restricted command HQ, then show the list of LCUs that are allowed to be moved to that destination. Allow movement of LCU's withing a restricted if the source and destination are under the same command HQ.

I'm sick and tired of having to change commands HQ;s just to move LCU's within the same command.






dtravel -> RE: WitP Wish List (5/6/2006 6:10:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Moving Troops for Transport(restricted command)

1. First pick a destination for the TF, and show the command of that location.

2. If the destination is within the restricted command HQ, then show the list of LCUs that are allowed to be moved to that destination. Allow movement of LCU's withing a restricted if the source and destination are under the same command HQ.

I'm sick and tired of having to change commands HQ;s just to move LCU's within the same command.


You would have to put code in to prevent the player from changing the destination while at sea. Which could cause all kinds of problems. The AI routing routines and destinations for TFs of crippled ships are two obvious places.




Apollo11 -> Multiple ship class graphics (depending on date)... (5/8/2006 3:27:15 PM)

Hi all,

I many recent weeks/months we saw ever increasing great work of WitP artists who made fantastic new ship pictures!

Many of those even contain several versions for same ships (i.e. as war progressed the color schemes and armaments changed)!


What if the Joe and Don would change the code to allow several pictures for same ship class?


In other words something very simple can be used:

#1
If there is just one picture used for ship class - that picture would be used all the time (i.e. as it is now):

AnSidexxxx.bmp
AnShilxxxx.bmp
JnSidexxxx.bmp
JnShilxxxx.nmp

NOTE: xxxx is number corresponding to the ship class in question.

#2
If there are more than one picture used for ship class - then pictures would be used according to date added to file name:

AnSidexxxxDDMMYY.bmp
AnShilxxxxDDMMYY.bmp
JnSidexxxxDDMMYY.bmp
JnShilxxxxDDMMYY.nmp

NOTE: xxxx is number corresponding to the ship class in question.

If date is reached then the appropriate picture is used (DD = day, MM = month , YY = year)!

Simple and effective!!!


What do you think gentleman?


Leo "Apollo11"




Mike Solli -> RE: Multiple ship class graphics (depending on date)... (5/8/2006 6:36:30 PM)

I have a request for a ship that doesn't appear in stock but historically was in the Pacific: LST-66. The reason I'd like to see her is because my Uncle spent the war on her and survived (barely) the kamikaze hit on her.

History:

USS LST-66
LST Flotilla 11, Group 31, Division 61

The Coast Guard-manned USS LST-66 was laid down at Jeffersonville, Indiana, by the Jeffersonville Boat and Machine Company and commissioned on 12 April 1943 with a complement of 8 officers and 66 enlisted men of the U. S. Coast Guard and Coast Guard Reserve. She was sponsored by Mrs. A. D. Landwehr. Her first commanding officer was LT Howard A. White, USCG. In April 1943 she proceeded down the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers and dry-docked on 15 May 1943, at New Orleans for final inspection, painting and repairs.

On May 21, 1943, she sailed from New Orleans for Brisbane, Australia via the Panama Canal, arriving there August 1, 1943 and being assigned to LST Flotilla 7, Seventh Fleet on October 10, 1943. Her first mission was the support landing at Finschafen, New Guinea, on October 25, 1943. She was in the landing at Lee, New Guinea, on December 7, 1943, and at Cape Gloucester, New Britain on December 26, 1943. In this engagement two men were killed and seven wounded from near miss bombs during an enemy air raid. The LST-66 was officially credited with shooting down three Japanese planes.

On January 19, 1944, the LST-66 was engaged in landing first support forces at Saidor, New Guinea. On completion of this mission she was ordered to join Group 21, Division 41, LST Flotilla 7 as of 1 February 1944. From then until August 1944 she was engaged in the following operations:

9 March 1944: first assault landing, Seeadler Harbor, Admiralty Islands
23 April 1944: first support landing, Tanah Merah Bay, New Guinea
16 May 1944: first support landing, Aitape, New Guinea
19 May 1944: first support landing, Wakde Island, Dutch New Guinea
8 June 1944: first reinforcement landing, Biak Island, Schouten Islands
16 July 1944: first reinforcement landing, Noemfoor Island
30 July 1944: first assault landing; Cape Sansapor, Dutch New Guinea
After the Sansapor landing and, returning with reinforcements, the LST-66 was dry-docked at Alexishafen, New Guinea, from 20 - 23 August 1944, and on the completion of repairs participated in the first reinforcement landing on the south coast of Morotai, in the Moluccas. On 20 October 1944, she participated in the assault landing on Leyte, Philippine Islands. On 12 November 1944, following the landing a Japanese suicide plane crashed on the boat deck, starboard side aft, killing eight men and wounding 14 of the gun crews.

On 11 January 1945, the LST landed a part of the first reinforcements at Lingayen Gulf, Luzon, Philippine Islands, one of the Army troops being wounded during the landing by artillery fire. On 5 March 1945, an Army enlisted man fell overboard from an LCM being towed by the LST-66 and was lost at sea. On March 10, 1945, she participated in the first assault landing at Zamboanga, Mindanao, and on completion of the mission, returned to Leyte, being dry-docked for repairs on 19 - 20 March 1945. From March to June 1945 she was employed in transporting troops equipment and supplies from rear bases being evacuated in the Solomons and New Guinea to the forward areas in the Philippines. In July 1945 she participated in the first support landing at Balikpapan, Borneo, Netherland East Indies, the last engagement of the war.

During August and September, 1945, she was again employed in transporting troops, equipment and supplies from rear areas in the New Guinea area to forward areas in the Philippines, being dry-docked from 15 - 18 September 1945, for hull repairs and returning to transport troops and equipment from Morotai to Leyte. She then sailed to Zamboanga, arriving on 9 October 1945.

On 11 October 1945 she departed Zamboanga for Morotai, arriving there on 14 October. For the next few weeks she continued to sail between Zamboanga, Morotai, Leyte and other ports in the Philippines until she received orders to return state-side. She departed Manila on 7 November 1945 for San Francisco, via Guam, Eniwetok, and Pearl Harbor, arriving at San Francisco on 19 December 1945, reporting to Commandant, 12th Naval District, for disposal. She was decommissioned and her Coast Guard crew removed at Mare Island, California on 26 March 1946.

The USS LST-66 earned nine battle stars and the Navy Unit Commendation for her service during World War II.




scout1 -> RE: WitP Wish List (5/9/2006 7:15:54 AM)

24) How about some means of assigning experienced pilots in the pool directly rather than let the AI pass them out. Nothing worse than seeing your small pool of experienced flyboys being sent to flush out a transport squadron instead of the front line fighter squadron ....




dtravel -> RE: WitP Wish List (5/9/2006 7:27:02 AM)

Fix this!

Allied Ships
DD Cushing, Torpedo hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
AP American Legion
DD Meade
Aircraft Attacking:
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 14000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 13000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 13000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 14000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 13000 feet
9 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 13000 feet




Sonny -> RE: WitP Wish List (5/9/2006 1:00:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

24) How about some means of assigning experienced pilots in the pool directly rather than let the AI pass them out. Nothing worse than seeing your small pool of experienced flyboys being sent to flush out a transport squadron instead of the front line fighter squadron ....


Or have separate pools for different pilot types.




Don Bowen -> RE: WitP Wish List (5/9/2006 9:01:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Fix this!

Allied Ships
DD Cushing, Torpedo hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
AP American Legion
DD Meade
Aircraft Attacking:
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 14000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 13000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 13000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 14000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 13000 feet
9 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 13000 feet


A fix for this has been coded and tested and will be included in the next release.

We worked on this after someone else asked us politely.






dtravel -> RE: WitP Wish List (5/9/2006 9:03:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Fix this!

Allied Ships
DD Cushing, Torpedo hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
AP American Legion
DD Meade
Aircraft Attacking:
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 14000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 13000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 13000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 14000 feet
3 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 13000 feet
9 x G4M1 Betty bombing at 13000 feet


A fix for this has been coded and tested and will be included in the next release.

We worked on this after someone else asked us politely.


Sorry if I'm sounding frustrated, but I was politely reporting this more than 18 months ago.




timtom -> RE: WitP Wish List (5/10/2006 12:43:56 PM)

WitP Wishlist lose its sticky? [&:]




scout1 -> RE: WitP Wish List (5/11/2006 6:25:14 AM)

25) This one is specific to ship repair, but should carryover to a bunch of other things. Would like some alternate/additional means of tracking ships in port for repair. Right now a player needs to check EACH port to see how the ship repairs are doing. A semi-offline tool would be nice to scan through the various ships/ports and then I need only visit those of interest.




scout1 -> RE: WitP Wish List (5/11/2006 6:31:49 AM)

26) Since IJN ship construction has different phases
- cost to accelerate varies
- is free or not free (time dependent)
- can be halted/not halted
- etc ....

How about color coding them for easy scanning reference.




Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.96875