RE: Interface items (Full Version)

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



Message

Terminus -> RE: Interface items (4/2/2007 12:23:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

2) The ability to rotate CV air units



Gee, wonder where that comes from...?[;)][:D]



wdolson -> RE: Wish List (4/2/2007 12:38:31 AM)

There are a number of things about how ships behave.  Some should be easiest to implement.

1) Crippled ships movement - This should be the easiest fix.  Ships with 0 movement points still make 2 hexes a day.  That's around 5 knots.  I know this is done to simplify having tows and ocean going tugs, but could this be halved to one hex a day? 

2) Ships out of fuel combat - Carriers out of fuel don't fly offensive missions, but they do fly CAP, they shouldn't be able to do this either.  Additionally, surface ships that are out of fuel fight normally.  They should have a heavy penalty if forced to fight in this state.

3) Crippled ships intercepted - Several times I have seen a task force with a crippled ship intercepted by a surface force and the next turn it is one hex away and combat shows a few shots fired by the intercepting surface force before the crippled task force runs away.  If there is a large speed difference, like 30 knots, or even 25,  vs. 0-5, the intercepting force should be able to dictate the terms of the combat.  The crippled ship should not get away.  This is exactly the major reason crippled ships were scuttled rather than attempts made to limp them back to port.  If enemy surface forces were in the area, all the escorts were at risk as well as the crippled ship. 

I know #2 and #3 should be tougher to change than #1.  And #2 is a case that shouldn't happen very often, so it would be a low priority.  However #1 should be an easy fix, and if #1 and #3 were implemented, it would reduce the gamey tactic of saving severely damaged ships that would have been scuttled in the real world.

Bill



Charbroiled -> RE: Wish List (4/2/2007 6:03:36 PM)

The ability to sort HQs (ie, show all Army HQs.....show all Air HQs.....etc.)



Dixie -> RE: Wish List (4/2/2007 9:23:16 PM)

The ability for carrier capable units to become carrier trained through time.
British units to be able to upgrade before May 1942
A manual that is actually fully correct [:'(]



Terminus -> RE: Wish List (4/2/2007 9:24:06 PM)

A correct manual? Are you quite mad, Master Shipbuilder?



Halsey -> RE: WitP Wish List (4/7/2007 6:20:28 AM)

I'd like to see the shock attack option removed from the ground combat options.

Except for atoll invasions, para drops and river crossings.
These are the only combats for shock attacks, and they should be mandatory.
Bonzai attacks should be mandatory also, though I've never seen one.[;)]

The scale of the regular land combat shouldn't support this option.



erstad -> RE: WitP Wish List (4/7/2007 6:30:08 AM)

There's probably something like this earlier, but without a search capability...

Have the number of victory points for an aircraft loss be equal to the number of engines. Although not perfect, it would represent the fact that a 4E bomber is more expensive than a 2E bomber is more expensive than a 1E fighter.



jimbatcs -> RE: WitP Wish List (4/14/2007 1:34:30 AM)

I've been playing the game now for a few years off and on and thoroughly enjoy it. This is my first post so excuse me if the subject has already been brought up. I was wondering if there has ever been any thought to allowing players to skeletonize units or combining the assets to bring some units up to strength. Thanks.



erstad -> RE: WitP Wish List (4/17/2007 5:47:54 AM)

Here's one that would be easy for a patch.

Stop displaying the air balance. Either take it out, or if it's less work, make it always display as 0.



fleetwood -> Combat Screen, Task Force Creation (4/17/2007 9:41:05 PM)

Make Combat Results window large engnough to see results without scrolling.

Add "Form Task Force" button is some additional windows (such as ground forces window).  I always seem to have to back out of a window to form a task force.



SireChaos -> RE: Combat Screen, Task Force Creation (4/18/2007 12:18:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fleetwood

Make Combat Results window large engnough to see results without scrolling.

Add "Form Task Force" button is some additional windows (such as ground forces window).  I always seem to have to back out of a window to form a task force.


In particular, add it to the "ships in port" window.



Oldguard1970 -> RE: Combat Screen, Task Force Creation (4/18/2007 9:01:14 PM)

1.  When Loading a transport TF, I would like to see the LCU listing include the objective being prepped. 

2.  On the "display LCU screen", I would like to see the objective listed as well.  (Hmmm... which units are preparing for ...?)




JoePirulo -> RE: Combat Screen, Task Force Creation (4/18/2007 10:37:14 PM)

I would like that USN/Australian CL donīt respawn as stated in the manual. Or correct the manual (but I think this is very difficult to do ...) [:)]



Dixie -> RE: Combat Screen, Task Force Creation (4/19/2007 1:08:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JoePirulo

I would like that USN/Australian CL donīt respawn as stated in the manual. Or correct the manual (but I think this is very difficult to do ...) [:)]


I've been wondering about this recently. I can understand the logic for the US cruiser respawn, but why do the RAN respawn. The Aussies lost 3 cruisers(Canberra, Hobart & Sydney) during the war, and only received Shropshire as a replacement for Canberra, and she's already in the reinforcement list.



MineSweeper -> RE: Combat Screen, Task Force Creation (4/19/2007 3:35:17 AM)

I do not understand the logic of USN CV, CA and CL respawns....IMO, the US should only get the respawns that were built and no more....pet peave of mine is this issue and I like RHS for this reason.[:)]

The US only lost 4 CVs in the war and these should be the only ones that should respawn (limit of 4)....no more......the US was under a maxium ship building program and they could not build anymore CVs than what was produce - that is why they built CVLs (not enough large shipways to build the CVs......CAs and CLs respawns should be more limited as well......[;)]



Feinder -> RE: Combat Screen, Task Force Creation (4/26/2007 12:39:46 AM)

Actually, the US -did- build a "Canberra II", a Baltimore class. It was CA-70.

And are you sure HMAS Hobart went down? According to Wiki, she was present at the surrender in Tokyo Bay...?

That being said, I -hate- respawn. I'd rather there be no respawn, and just get the ships as reinforcements (and I think there are a few mods for this, you just have to keep any "respawns" tied up at San Francisco".

-F-



Charbroiled -> RE: Combat Screen, Task Force Creation (4/30/2007 6:07:20 PM)

I'm not sure if this can be implemented in the game is it is currently programed, so figured it would be better on the "Wish List"

When creating TF, I would like to have the "ship type" sorting buttons that are available when viewing the port screen.

Also, would like to see stats for individual ships that are pertinent to the type of TF being created. Example: If creating an ASW TF, show the Anti-sub value for the ships.....when creating a SF TF, show the gun value, AA value, and ASW vaue of the ships available. I know you can "right click" on a specific ship to get most of this info, but it would be nice to see all of the ships at once in order to compare.



erstad -> RE: Combat Screen, Task Force Creation (5/1/2007 6:24:20 AM)

On the subject of task force creation, how about a "ships available for upgrade" filter? Very annoying to look at Truk, see a dozen ships that need upgrade, try to remember the names, form a TF to head home, recheck Truk, oops, missed some, etc.



TAIL GUNNER -> Transport aircraft in China (5/2/2007 9:03:35 AM)

Maybe this has been brought up before...but I'm not about to read this entire thread to find out.[:o]

As Japs, I transferred some transport aircraft to China Command.  However, they're unable to transfer troops from one Japanese occupied base in China to another......only supplies.



Jo van der Pluym -> RE: device slots (5/2/2007 9:11:09 AM)

That the devices slots above 555 can have production and working pools



mikemike -> RE: WitP Wish List (5/6/2007 11:00:39 PM)

Air Missions

What about a new mission for float planes: spotting?
- Available only for float plane air units based on ships
- Air unit always stays in the same hex as the originating task force.
- Effect: higher spotting probability and higher gunfire hit probability for the originating ship (or maybe task force).
- Operates day and night with diminished effect and higher op losses at night.

This would make the F1M2 actually useful for something and model actual Japanese operations, as at Savo Island.



spence -> RE: WitP Wish List (5/7/2007 12:47:16 AM)

quote:

The US only lost 4 CVs in the war and these should be the only ones that should respawn (limit of 4)....no more......the US was under a maxium ship building program and they could not build anymore CVs than what was produce - that is why they built CVLs (not enough large shipways to build the CVs......CAs and CLs respawns should be more limited as well.


You're basically just plain wrong.  The United States achieved something over 80% mobilization for WWII and then began to DEMOBILIZE IN LATE 1944.  If they needed carriers they would have built them.  If they needed more shipyards to build more carriers they would have built them too.

The only thing in which Japan could even hope to match US production was haiku poetry. 



Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: WitP Wish List (5/7/2007 11:51:14 AM)

Spence, yup, US would built 2 new shipyards in a week time and start to build those hulls... Do you really believe in such science-fiction?



HerzKaraya -> RE: WitP Wish List (5/13/2007 7:22:16 PM)

Some "wishes" for crazy modders like me,
1) any chance of setting up nations N17 and N19 as Germany and Italy, as well as creating the correspondent aleatory replacement leader and pilot list? 
2) the possibility to see if there is off-map production of axis devices on the information display (now it only shows zero, even if items are build)
3) any chance of setting an end time for off-map production/replacements?
4) Chinese ground units are rebuild after being destroyed in 1 month time, any chance of seeing the same feature with Russian units, or being able to define this characteristic on a one-by-one basis?
5) any chance of setting a start date, or date of appearance, for on-map factories?
6) last but not least, how about changing the ground combat system from in-hex to hex-to-hex? (only problem would be atoll invasions)



pauk -> RE: WitP Wish List (5/13/2007 7:41:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad

Here's one that would be easy for a patch.

Stop displaying the air balance. Either take it out, or if it's less work, make it always display as 0.



YES!!!



HerzKaraya -> RE: WitP Wish List (5/16/2007 6:27:17 PM)

One more thing in regard of ground units, currently only devices listed in slots 1 to 15 are shown on the unit info display, but devices in slots 16 to 20 are taken into account in regards of assault value, men, support, replacements, etc...

Is there a way to show all 20 devices to exactly reflect TOE?



spence -> RE: WitP Wish List (5/17/2007 1:00:07 AM)

Naval search missions at night using radar (or not). Naval attack possible at night without submarine (or surface ship present).




Procrustes -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/1/2007 11:55:04 PM)

Hi,

I wish the intel screen that lists ships that were sunk gave the date that the ships were sunk.  If that messes w/ FOW then perhaps just the date the ships were reported/confirmed sunk.

Best,




AvG -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/2/2007 5:18:13 PM)

I have now several hundreds of hours experience with WitP.
That should be enough to read all the screens in a glance (per screen of course).
But I still have problems with production screens.
Take a damaged oilpointscreen. Repair shows the Yes. What should I do? I know by experience that in this case the Yes must be visible so what you see is what you have.
Take any production screen. If you see Halt production is on. What you see is NOT what you have. It is what you get.
IMHO these problems would not exist if you stick to a system with Actions + one button (toggling ON<>Off).
In the production-screen you would have three actions: Expand, Production and Repair. Same as is.
For every production-type you still will have three buttons(On/Off).
The endresult is very much the same, with only one BIG difference. "ON" is easy to detect and means allways the same.
You don't have to think every time "what does it mean?". What you see is what you have.

I also think, if you agree that I am right, that implementation of this proposal is quite simple.
AvG







Procrustes -> RE: Combat Screen, Task Force Creation (6/4/2007 11:15:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fleetwood

Make Combat Results window large engnough to see results without scrolling.



Yes, and please pin it on the right hand side of the screen instead of putting it smack dab in the middle of the map. It would be a lot better if the combat results screen was like the land combat screen - over on one side with the hex with the action centered on the map to the left.

Thanks,



Page: <<   < prev  23 24 [25] 26 27   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
7.375