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


dtravel -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/12/2006 2:28:10 AM)

I thought the problem with the armed landing craft was that the code did not recognize their weapons or something like that.  I.E., the problem is the weapons, not the TF.

My next wishlist item is for better sharing of supplies between LCUs in hexes without a friendly base.  Air dropping supplies should not result in one unit having five times its requirements while all the other units in the hex starve.




dtravel -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/12/2006 11:13:07 AM)

The new air spotting of subs messages are nice and I'm glad they were added.  But can false reports also be added?  As it is now the player knows that no matter how iffy the spotting report, there really is a sub there.  Throw some false reports in, it fits in with Mr. Grisby's befuddle the player philosophy.  [:'(]




Terminus -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/12/2006 12:44:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

I thought the problem with the armed landing craft was that the code did not recognize their weapons or something like that.  I.E., the problem is the weapons, not the TF.



Hmm... Maybe it'll recognize them in a Bombardment TF?




dtravel -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/12/2006 1:18:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

I thought the problem with the armed landing craft was that the code did not recognize their weapons or something like that.  I.E., the problem is the weapons, not the TF.



Hmm... Maybe it'll recognize them in a Bombardment TF?


Someone did tests and the only way he could get them to work was to change them to naval guns in the editor. It appears there simply is no code to handle firing rockets, period.




Terminus -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/12/2006 1:26:36 PM)

Grmbl... That's annoying, is what that is...

Okay, WitP wish:

FIX THE ROCKETS!




Speedysteve -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/12/2006 2:54:19 PM)

Roger. Fix offensive LCs!




dtravel -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/12/2006 10:44:12 PM)

Air units performing CAP, Recon and Search/Patrol should be rotating the pilots instead of the same pilot(s) flying every time/day.




samthesham -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/13/2006 8:24:38 AM)

I would like to have Sigint radio transmission loactions shown
as a special Icon directly on the map.




dtravel -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/13/2006 10:31:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: samthesham

I would like to have Sigint radio transmission loactions shown
as a special Icon directly on the map.


You want Bodhi's WiTP Utility. http://witputil.ireiwa.com/files/WitPUtility.zip




Akos Gergely -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/14/2006 12:27:01 PM)

Could the devs please give us an update what is going to be implemented in the next patch?

When would surface combat occurance chance be improved? As it stands currently surface combat only occurs at night in coastal hexes, only very, very rarely in open ocean hexes in daylight.

An other thing brought up earlier is the rate at which ships gain sys damage, never mind loosing speed so fast...

Finally bomb and torp damage should be looked at as well, since it is too randomply generated. It should be more like sub combat under 1.8. So the system would display in much more details what happened, what has been hit (e.g. rudder hit, manuverability decrased) and so on. It is unbelivable that sometimes a single 250 kg AP bomb can criple a USN CV, which is unsound. Also even the largest BBs can not take more than 3-4 torp hits.

So either the effect of the weapons should be lowered or a special torpedo defense factor applied but currently air attack against ships are way too effective.   




Terminus -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/17/2006 3:22:46 PM)

Can we have a functionality in the editor that allows setting a blanket Arrival Date for ALL ships to 9999? Would be a godsend to the partial-map scenario designer like me...




tacticon -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/21/2006 12:38:14 AM)

CS-Cargo loads Oil/Resources
CS-Transport loads Fuel/Supply




timtom -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/22/2006 12:44:35 PM)

When creating a TF, the game offers the option of the AI picking the TF commander. It usually does a good job at picking the right guy for the job and saves you a) trawling through the leader menu b) paying PPs. However the default for this toggle is OFF, requiring you to set it manually every time.

Any chance of changing the default to ON?




dtravel -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/22/2006 10:04:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

When creating a TF, the game offers the option of the AI picking the TF commander. It usually does a good job at picking the right guy for the job and saves you a) trawling through the leader menu b) paying PPs. However the default for this toggle is OFF, requiring you to set it manually every time.

Any chance of changing the default to ON?


GODS, PLEASE! NO!!!!




timtom -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/22/2006 10:41:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel


quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

When creating a TF, the game offers the option of the AI picking the TF commander. It usually does a good job at picking the right guy for the job and saves you a) trawling through the leader menu b) paying PPs. However the default for this toggle is OFF, requiring you to set it manually every time.

Any chance of changing the default to ON?


GODS, PLEASE! NO!!!!


Ehrm, why not?




dtravel -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/22/2006 10:55:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel


quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

When creating a TF, the game offers the option of the AI picking the TF commander. It usually does a good job at picking the right guy for the job and saves you a) trawling through the leader menu b) paying PPs. However the default for this toggle is OFF, requiring you to set it manually every time.

Any chance of changing the default to ON?


GODS, PLEASE! NO!!!!


Ehrm, why not?


'Cause I don't trust the program to run the stuff that I can't control. Why would I trust it to select better commanders? The criteria for best commanding Admiral is NOT always the same, but the program assumes they are.

Also, there are a LOT of TFs that I simply don't want Admirals in command of. The huge majority of them as a matter of fact. I don't want Admirals in command of every sub patrol, troop transport, supply and fuel cargo, resource movement, air transport or ASW TF I have. And those make up around 95% or more of my TFs in any given game turn.




jwilkerson -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/23/2006 4:04:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Can we have a functionality in the editor that allows setting a blanket Arrival Date for ALL ships to 9999? Would be a godsend to the partial-map scenario designer like me...


We got that already !


witpload ... unload files
MSExcel ... key 9999 into ship file and drag ...
witpload ... reload files

done !





Ursa MAior -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/23/2006 11:17:10 AM)

Arty regt shock atack. Please no!

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1170330




MarcA -> RE: Database (6/23/2006 11:50:01 AM)

When you click on the airfield symobol and open the airgroup display it would be good if the airgroup display also displayed the weather in that hex.




pauk -> RE: Database (6/24/2006 4:44:53 PM)

is there any chance to indroduce changes in kamikaze routine?

Since we all know that kamikazes are useless due to Uber CAP i wonder if would be good idea to implement, let's say 20 % of chance that kamikazes get through cap? (of course not all of them=




Ron Saueracker -> RE: Database (6/24/2006 6:03:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk

is there any chance to indroduce changes in kamikaze routine?

Since we all know that kamikazes are useless due to Uber CAP i wonder if would be good idea to implement, let's say 20 % of chance that kamikazes get through cap? (of course not all of them=


A better idea is to go to the root of the problem and get rid of the uber CAP.

Some approaches as to how to do it...

1) Switch the target selection and resultant strike split phase so that it comes AFTER the CAP intercept phase. As it is now the CAP gets multiple passes at any incoming strikes planes if the strike is targetting multiple targets in a hex, specifically TFs or LCUs. There is no reason for this aside from the current phase progression.

2) Reintroduce AMMO for aircraft. Apparently the code existed in UV so it most likely easily reintroduced.

3) Devise a percentage penalty for CAP. Right now it is a hex based BLOB that maintains it's 100% maximum of aircraft assigned to CAP. This is NOT based on the realities of the period. CAP orbitted and was at varying altitudes so as a result only a percentage of the CAP was capable of intercepting incoming strikes. Shooting from the hip I would say the Japanese should see perhaps 50% of the total aircraft on CAP being capable of participating in an interception (lack of radios, radar and directed CAP). The Allies maybe 75% given the presence of radios, radar and CAP direction. Stick a random modifier into the mix for FOW issues.

To help counter these rather powerful modifications to the CAP model, strike resolution would need to be alterred somewhat as well. We all played carrier based wargames in the past and the ones worth any salt had hourly operations limits for CVs (total aircraft capable of being launched, landed per hour). Despite this being an "operational" level game (loosely speaking as it turns out), the concept of hourly ops maximums is more than relevant given the fact that there are seperate morning and afternoon air phases and strikes are launched or resolved in a space of maybe an hour. (Launch of a strike may take and hour, the strike dealing with CAP, flak and ordinace delivery may take an hour). The total number of aircraft in the strike should be based on the ops maximums of the CVs involved.

The range to the target should determine the size of the strike as well considering that loitering while another deckload is readied burns fuel and therefore reduces range. (There should be no bogus strike coordination for Japan as we have now...it depended primarily on endurance...which the Japanese had, but again, if the target is at extreme range for Japanese aircraft, why should they get to coordinate the strike? In lieu of any CV OPs maximums, range to target should be the primary strike size determining factor.




erstad -> Default TF type (6/24/2006 9:58:04 PM)

Might already be somewhere in the thread, but I'm too lazy to ready 600 posts.

How about changing the default TF type to transport? I probably create 10 times the transport TFs than I do surfact combat TFs




CobraAus -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/25/2006 3:50:47 AM)

I started learing who to edit the PWHEX last night and already have something for the wishlist
blocked hex sides - I would like to see an ownership switch with 3 conditions
allied ownership japanese ownership and no ownership

1 No ownership as it is now all ships blocked
2 Allied ownership ... Allied TF's ships allowed to pass through blocked hex side
3 Japanese ownership ... Japanese TF's ships allowed to pass through blocked hex side

The thought behind this is sub nets and mined defences
sensitive areas such as major ports or mods such as Aden and Panama could have entrances to ports blocked so opposing force ships cant enter through a blocked hex side but the owner of the hex side can

may be possible for WITP 1 but some thing for WITP II

Cobra Aus




qgaliana -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/27/2006 8:02:02 PM)

Haven't played much but some bits leap to mind. Sorry if they've been mentioned (very likely).

1) Rail movement. Too slow on friendly rail, too fast on enemy rail. Either implement rolling stock (preferred - what's one more thing to micromanage) or base something on ZOC. It doesn't need to be complex, just enough to allow you limited capacity to move some units at actual railway speeds.
2) Air transfers - seem like they are missing operation points like ships. Odd to transfer and typically fight same turn. Maybe just looking at the fatigue model would help - e.g. make it build up much more quickly based on flight time and recover more quickly.
3) Improve the combat reports so we don't necessarily need to watch the animations (very little benefit to those after the initial oo aah period). Or remove the information we probably shouldn't have like complete enemy unit listings in ground combat.
4) Finer control of ground movement. Accumulated distances shouldn't necessarily dissapear at a mouse click (actually I'm not sure I can cancel a move order once I start it - I seem to always lose any accumulated marching, even going in the same direction). On this scale where moving a hex may take a couple dozen turns, the computer should be keeping a finer track within the hex.




Curty -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/28/2006 5:26:22 AM)

quote:

'Cause I don't trust the program to run the stuff that I can't control. Why would I trust it to select better commanders? The criteria for best commanding Admiral is NOT always the same, but the program assumes they are.

Also, there are a LOT of TFs that I simply don't want Admirals in command of. The huge majority of them as a matter of fact. I don't want Admirals in command of every sub patrol, troop transport, supply and fuel cargo, resource movement, air transport or ASW TF I have. And those make up around 95% or more of my TFs in any given game turn.


Your right about its choice of commanders..I was looking for Jessy Oldedorf to command a good old Battleship task force to destroy the remaining 4 jap BBs hanging at Iwo Jima/Bonin area... could I hell find him.

A few game weeks later I saw a jap asw attack on a sub of mine off Indochina, the japs beat the hell out of it and it sank....no prizes for guessing who the commander was[&:][&:][8|]




big tim -> RE: Database (7/1/2006 7:36:14 PM)

I have a few things I would like to see done. I am probably one of the few gamers that actually has the original boardgame with its 6 foot by 7 foot map. I bought it back in the late 70's or early 80's. I remember it was pretty expensive back then, $50 to $70. I can't remember anymore.
1. I have been penalized for 2 monthes for not being able to withdraw British destroyers when there are none left and I did not lose any to sinking. How can withdraw what was not deployed? I leave the whole British fleet in the Indian Ocean because it is pretty worthless as a fighting force when you have to keep withdrawing and don't know what or when it will call for withdrawal.
2. 690 bomb hits from B17 and B24s to sink the Yamato, no matter how good the armor is, no ship could withstand that kind of pounding. As ships take so much damage, the deck armor had to have been compromised, and a ship can only have so many turrets and there is a big hole that has to compromise the internal workings and vulnerability if the ship.
3. Dutch Phillipine, and other Allied units not loading on ships, even when they are their own ships. I knew a vet who was in the Bataan death march and believe me, if an Allied ship had showed up, he would have gotten on it. Who would not want to get on a ship versus surrendering? The Dutch units movement is horrible, 1 to 2 miles a day along a road and very small fatigue, and somehow snapping back to their base and starting over marching again.
4. The political point system is flawed in that it does not really allow for changing conditions in the war. All units come predesignated with a certain area and that area may already be secured or lost and troops needed elsewhere. Maybe have the players designate the areas or do away with the political point system.
I personally would like to see an added option for a freeform game, no policical points, hinderences, war areas. This would be an option and will probably make some historical gamers upset but, things don't always go in a simulation game in the exact order that history did. Thats why its a game. 
5. Submarine warfare in the latest patches, evading depthcharges was pretty hard to do when you are running silent, no motors, nothing just drifting, if someone dropped something and it made a noise they could find you. The othe thing is rattling a sub, thats what depthcharges did, they shook you apart. Doesn't really matter how good the skipper was. The skipper of the Wahoo was pretty darn good and they sunk him. It got hard now with the atest changes to even watch the subwarfare system.
6.Is it possible to have a damage routine between morning and afternoon air attacks, planes are spotting ships that are sunk in the morning attacks. Planes are going out, unable to find target and landing without dropping a bomb or torpedo. Also planes unable to find target and coming back without attacking other ships still in the enemy taskforce, and unable to find target when it is burning. You should be able to see that from quite a distance.
7. Units getting replacements when there is no supplies.
8. Japanese Resource pools should lose some of their numbers as they lose cities where these are manufactured or built. Japanese reinforcements still are being manufactured even though they no longer have the factories to produce them. Japanese Resources appearing from an Allied controled Base.
9. When down to 1 Japanese unit on an Allied Base, have to click on the base to access the Japanese unit.
10. Controlling a hex and coastal guns fire at you when you land troops on a non base hex in Japan.
11.  Land combat, when you start attacking at 25 to 1 and 36 to 1 and you lose more troops than the defenders, who wouldn't want those kind of odds and which side would I think my chances are pretty good? I have even recored a 121 to 1 and the attacker lost 2 less troops than the defender, and 940 to 1 and 24 defender casualties.
12. Armored movement moving 1 to 2 miles a day along a road because of fatigue, they have vehicles and should not be subject to the same fatigue as other units. Units moving at 1 to 2 miles a day along a trail. Units gaining fatigue quickly moving along a paved road and trails. I've had some units move half way across a continent and other units haven't moved 1 hex. I've had units move 18 miles in 3 weeks.
13 An added order for Task Forces to go to a base and perform certain functions like load supplies or pick up troops without having to wait for it to get there and then access the TF and performing the action then. I noticed the computer controlled TF's have this funtion.
14. Coastal Defense and Engineers big guns,(including 5 and 8 inch guns) being repaired after being pounded by planes for monthes with no replacements on islands cut off from supply. They probably didn't have the capablitiy to repair and rebuild after taking monthes of pounding to get them operational again.

I guess thats all I have except that I've read some other responses and people stating this unit was here instead of there, it is a simulation and subject to changing situations. Once a scenario or campaign starts, all bets are off thats why I really think the freeform option would be more appropriate to get the full feel of uncertainty and freedom to respond to changing situations. If Tojo or Nimitz said to get on the boat or you are going to this base, who would be arguing with them, not even MacArthur(he went to the White House).
I do like the new plane udate system, its great to have the choices.








big tim -> RE: Database (7/1/2006 9:28:03 PM)

Forgot one, Japanese destroyed HQs appearing back at Tokyo, do other units take a penalty for rebuilding the HQs, there has to be some penalty because of the limited manpower supply.
Also noticed that the Japanese are still getting plane r&d from captured Japanese bases.
The factories would be closed down and if recaptured would probably been down for monthes due to Allied actions to disable them. I have captured all Japanese factories and they still receive units.




Andy Mac -> RE: Database (7/6/2006 7:20:08 PM)

Any chance of getting th emap extended to allow for some of the more interesting map options to be added with more room i.e. Madagascer




KDonovan -> RE: TF speed settings and movement distance (7/6/2006 9:02:13 PM)

i would like to see more speed settings other than "cruise, mission, full" particularly when it comes to carrier and surface TF's. There seems to be a huge difference in speed b/t mission and full. For instance, regarding a typical allied CT TF...

mission speed = 4 hexes
full speed = 8 hexes

would like something in b/t (6 hexes) , maybe called attack speed




Andy Mac -> RE: TF speed settings and movement distance (7/9/2006 11:43:59 PM)

Hellcat production to match history i.e. 11,000 over 2 years less those provided to the RN. 144 is not reflective of reality.

This kills allied games in 44 so please sort it




Page: <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.34375