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

jwilkerson -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/21/2007 4:58:08 AM)

You've never seen the "slingshot" effect where a unit gets flung 15-30 miles down a trail in one fling!?
[:D]

I was sure you'd posted 1-2 of those examples .. but it is quite possible - just run a guy from Mandalay to Ledo and he will probably "blast off" when he reaches Mytchina and get a big jump. But from a standing (on the trail) start, yeah you're right it is a slow process. Sometimes I rest em(if going multiple hexes) and sometimes I fly them some supplies. Not sure if I get there fast - but makes me feel like I'm doing sumptin.




dtravel -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/21/2007 5:53:54 AM)

Yes, I've seen that.  We've all seen that.  That's not what I'm muttering about.  I'm muttering darkly about the "movement rates" listed in the manual on p.148 under "8.3 Ground Unit Overland Movement".  There is no way that anything actually moves 10 miles a day across clear terrain with no roads or rail.  [image]http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9668/mad0177py9.gif[/image] [image]http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/5610/oldiwn8.gif[/image]  <-- muttering old geezer mode



jwilkerson -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/21/2007 6:35:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Yes, I've seen that.  We've all seen that.  That's not what I'm muttering about.  I'm muttering darkly about the "movement rates" listed in the manual on p.148 under "8.3 Ground Unit Overland Movement".  There is no way that anything actually moves 10 miles a day across clear terrain with no roads or rail.  [image]http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9668/mad0177py9.gif[/image] [image]http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/5610/oldiwn8.gif[/image]  <-- muttering old geezer mode


Of course not, instead the unit moves 180 miles to the rear then to the left then forward again through the jungle trails to AVOID moving 60 miles through the clear terrain. We've all seen that one too!! [:D]

But we were talking about pursuit here, so I'm waiting on Moses&Halsey to come back on that!




moses -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/21/2007 7:47:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Yes, I've seen that.  We've all seen that.  That's not what I'm muttering about.  I'm muttering darkly about the "movement rates" listed in the manual on p.148 under "8.3 Ground Unit Overland Movement".  There is no way that anything actually moves 10 miles a day across clear terrain with no roads or rail.  [image]http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9668/mad0177py9.gif[/image] [image]http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/5610/oldiwn8.gif[/image]  <-- muttering old geezer mode


Their was a change to movement in one of the patches. As per manual the printed rates are modified by fatigue, etc. But a patch at some point added that moving into enemy ZOC also slows you down. It seems to cut movement in half.

So if your moving on a trail into an enemy ZOC, (and very shortly you'll be tired) you're really screwed. 2 miles per day is about all you'll manage on a good day.



moses -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/21/2007 8:03:39 PM)

"But we were talking about pursuit here, so I'm waiting on Moses&Halsey to come back on that! "

Well really I don't see pursuit as being that big of a deal. The only time it really matters is for the armor units which on a few rare occasions get to go on a blitz. Perhaps that should be toned down so maybe they only get a max 45 mile credit as opposed to jumping directly into the next hex.

As for infantry units don't they just get credited with like 15 miles? So its a small help but nothing catostrophic either way. It just seems odd to me that we have a rule (movement into ZOC's is slowed) and another rule (pursuit) which go in opposite directions. I mean do we want to slow em down or speed em up??

I would argue for slowing things up a tinsey bit. So my choice would be to eliminate the pursuit thing entirely EXCEPT for armor units which should be credited with a max of 45 miles. Failing that I would want the infantry pursuit to be unchanged and max the armor out at 45.

I think you want to keep some pursuit for armor because, you know, it's armor. If any unit has a real life rational for being allowed to pursue its armor and I guess cav. Infantry doesn't pursue that well. After we take the hill we're tired.[>:]



dtravel -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/21/2007 8:08:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: moses


quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Yes, I've seen that.  We've all seen that.  That's not what I'm muttering about.  I'm muttering darkly about the "movement rates" listed in the manual on p.148 under "8.3 Ground Unit Overland Movement".  There is no way that anything actually moves 10 miles a day across clear terrain with no roads or rail.  [image]http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9668/mad0177py9.gif[/image] [image]http://img179.imageshack.us/img179/5610/oldiwn8.gif[/image]  <-- muttering old geezer mode


Their was a change to movement in one of the patches. As per manual the printed rates are modified by fatigue, etc. But a patch at some point added that moving into enemy ZOC also slows you down. It seems to cut movement in half.

So if your moving on a trail into an enemy ZOC, (and very shortly you'll be tired) you're really screwed. 2 miles per day is about all you'll manage on a good day.

I know about the half-movement going in to enemy ZOC. It doesn't always get applied and that's not what I'm talking about. 2 miles a day to start on a trail from friendly ZOC to friendly ZOC. It drops from there as fatigue accumulates.



Feinder -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/21/2007 8:39:58 PM)

For $242,000, War in the Pacific can have its own will.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1485471&mpage=3

-F-



qgaliana -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/21/2007 9:08:56 PM)

Instead of removing pursuit, why not force the defending unit back a reasonable run-for-your-life distance for the terrain? The 60 mile 'teleport' is a pet peeve of mine. It just works poorly at this scale. If they avoided clearing the accumulated movement for all sorts of reasons you could keep the units fighting in the same hex as they flee/pursue.



Halsey -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/25/2007 10:32:32 PM)

Can you get an air unit that transfers to use up it's AM air operations phase?

Making them available only for the PM segment?[;)]



goodboyladdie -> RE: WitP Wish List (7/4/2007 11:06:18 PM)

UberFaber attempt - please ignore!



witpqs -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/3/2007 9:22:21 PM)

Add new option to CS Convoy orders

A big "Click Count Reducer" would be a modification of the CS Convoy orders. A 'CS' convoys is where you form a transport TF, set a destination, then click on the 'Human Controlled' toggle, and it switches to 'CS Convoy' (or 'CS Controlled' or something). The TF will then robotically:

1 load supplies on AK's and fuel on TK's
2 take them to the destination
3 unload them
4 return to the home port
5 start over at #1

These types of convoys are great helpers in reducing the repetitive work load on the player (hence 'click count reducer'). The problem is that they cannot move oil or resources. And players must move a lot of oil and resources.

Please add an option so that a CS convoy can be told to either load "Supplies/Fuel" or "Oil/Resources".

For clarification please note that I am not referring to the auto convoy system.



witpqs -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/9/2007 2:27:34 AM)

Combine Fighters and Fighter-Bombers into One Category for PDU

We have PDU to allow greater player choice in a/c upgrades. But, fighters and fighter-bombers are in separated categories. Given how similar they are, and moreover the fact that with PDU tactical and 4-engine bombers are actually in the same category, I suggest the following change.

Fighters and fighter-bombers should be considered one category for upgrade purposes. I propose no change for operational/combat matters. Furthermore, this change would have no effect on games where PDU is off.

This is a definite hole in the PDU routines at present. Hopefully it would be easy to plug. Please consider.



Historiker -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/11/2007 12:45:35 AM)

I REALLY wish the option "ahistoric game".
With the option to upgrade manually, it is already possible to play an ahistorc game - so why not more possibilitys?

If I ought achieve a rate of 2000 naval yardpoints, it would just allow me to speed up the production of the ships in the list - nothing more. Why not give players the possibility to use high rates of production to deploy extra units? Why not give the Player the possibility to start the building of ships that were not built really?
Of course, this possibility must be extra activated, but I would really love to have the possibility to decide by myself whether I want more BBs or more CVs, whether I want to convert BBs and CAs to CVs which were not converted really, etc...
The same of course with planes...



Halsey -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/11/2007 1:38:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

I REALLY wish the option "ahistoric game".
With the option to upgrade manually, it is already possible to play an ahistorc game - so why not more possibilitys?

If I ought achieve a rate of 2000 naval yardpoints, it would just allow me to speed up the production of the ships in the list - nothing more. Why not give players the possibility to use high rates of production to deploy extra units? Why not give the Player the possibility to start the building of ships that were not built really?
Of course, this possibility must be extra activated, but I would really love to have the possibility to decide by myself whether I want more BBs or more CVs, whether I want to convert BBs and CAs to CVs which were not converted really, etc...
The same of course with planes...


Try the RHS mod.[;)]



Historiker -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/11/2007 12:57:03 PM)

Does this mod allow the building of totally new ships and air units?
Where can I get some informations?



Halsey -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/11/2007 9:34:31 PM)

Look on the Scenario Design forum of WITP.
It's everywhere.

The mod designer has taken over that forum.[8|]



afspret -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/20/2007 8:44:23 AM)

Any way to add a feature similar to the British ship withdrawl requirement that would require the allied player to withdraw certain air units (namely RAF & US) from the game, or lose PPs? It makes no sense to have some of the West Coast command bomber & fighter groups stay in the game that in real life moved to the east coast and then to the MTO or ETO by late '42 and early '43.

In addition, it would free up the number of air unit slots meaning one could divide more US groups later in the game (or add more air units if one were making a mod game).



Feinder -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/20/2007 3:53:17 PM)

quote:

In addition, it would free up the number of air unit slots meaning one could divide more US groups later in the game (or add more air units if one were making a mod game).


Just FYI, no it wouldn't.  Each squadron or group takes up a slot in the DB, whether it is active on the map or not.  Units that -will- arrive as reinforcements are taking up slots, just as units that are withdrawn continue to take up a slot.  Withdrawing ships or aircraft does not "erase" them.  And if it -did- "erase" them, it wouldn't really have an impact, since again, all squadrons/groups start the game already slotted, so you even if you "erased" something, it would not be re-used.

-F-



scout1 -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/22/2007 3:13:11 AM)

How about allowing the player to disband a tf at a base and NOT kick them out of the tf/base window. If I have 13 tf's that I wish to disband, I have always get sent back out of the window/base after the diband. Then repeat for each occurrence.



erstad -> Better multi-day support (8/23/2007 4:11:47 AM)

Many of us like multi-day turns because we want to finish a game before we get old and gray (apologies to those who are already old and gray).

The big problem with multi-day turns is that sometimes a travesty occurs. Something happens the first (or second) day that clearly calls for a human intervention, but the second (or third) day runs and bad things happen. The most extreme case is TFs that sit around after being on the losing side of a CV exchange so they can get pounded again, instead of running. But there are other examples.

So... I would propose something like the following
- Increase the maximum number of days per turn, maybe to 10 (so that things can really fly when not much is happening)
- Add a user defined control for each player that allows them to select the number of days they want a turn to run (IJN setting hidden from the Allied setting). Run the turn for the minimum of the two values. that allows a player to set it to single day when they know something is launching.
- Add some user defined controls that define events which cause the game to pause at the end of the current day. For example, "CV hit", or "Transport TF spotted within xxx hexes of friendly base", or "more than xxx planes destroyed", etc. For those who have played Europa Universalis, think about the autopause controls there (not that I'm suggesting anything that elaborate)

Also, probably allow the IJN player to change his user defined control before running a turn. This would allow two players to agree that a turn should be re-run as a single day if something "bad" happened on the second day. Since the random number is not reseeded, that first day should be the same as it was before. There are several cases where I would have let my opponents request that a second day not happen because the results were unfair (from a game mechanics standpoint), and once I would have requested that of my opponent. This idea does create potential for abuse, the IJN player could plan something explosive for day 2 and if he doesn't like it, re-run for just 1 day. This could be avoided by having something alert the Allied player that the IJN player had dropped the number of turns for execution below what it was when he ended the turn.



scout1 -> RE: Better multi-day support (8/31/2007 5:31:48 AM)

Joe,

Sent you an email. Got a bug to report (I think is new). Have saves, just need to know where you would like them sent.

Scott



Yamato hugger -> RE: Better multi-day support (9/1/2007 6:28:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

Joe,

Sent you an email. Got a bug to report (I think is new). Have saves, just need to know where you would like them sent.

Scott


Joe gave it to me to look at. It isnt a bug par se. Look at the experience of your pilots (not the "average experience" of the group). The average experience isnt re-calculated until the next day. You used 12 pilots replacements with 5 in the pool at start. In the after turn, 7 of your pilots are between 29 and 33 experience. You didnt get 12 "free" 73 experience pilots. Now should the group average re-calculate after adding each pilot? Some people would say yes, some would say no. I would say it is "probably" working as intended and therefore not a bug. The air resolutions are based on the individual pilots experience, NOT the average experience for the group. So that "average experience" is only to let the player know what the average experience is. It has no bearing on the play of the game in the least.



herwin -> Enhancement: Land Combat (9/18/2007 8:52:31 PM)

The problem with the game is that 60 mile hexes and one day turns are incompatible. You have to have combat within hexes and abstract away a lot of the operational detail. Here are the recommendations of someone who has been an analyst:

1. Have within-hex combat.
2. Have percentage hex control. Thus the result of combat is to shift the percentage a bit and attrition each side a bit.
3. Scale the percentage by the land area in the hex. 1% of a 60-mile hex is about 30 square miles. For a land hex, that wouldn't be much (advancing about a kilometer on the average over the front); for an atoll, that's decisive.
4. Allow the players to define the general formation of their LCUs: mobile reserve, hasty defence, positional defence, holding lines to the rear, delay, retreat, mobile defence, assault, hasty attack, movement to contact, administrative movement, etc. These affect protection against fire and effective firepower to the front and to the flanks.
5. Operations then involve both movement and combat.
6. Bases are at the centre of the hex. Supplies are to the rear of the front line.
7. Breakthroughs become important. Rear areas have to be garrisoned, or the defender will be dancing to the attacker's tune. Look at the Gamer's OCS rules for what can happen if you don't garrison everything you hold dear. The other aspect of breakthroughs is that they force the defender to hedgehog--reducing the front that can be covered adequately.



Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: Enhancement: Land Combat (9/19/2007 2:34:03 AM)

Harder to make: Divide each hex into 7 small hexes - one in centre and six around it - only for land units. Only one side can occupy small hex.

Bases normally in the centre small hex, but in coastal/island hexes bases could be placed on coast small hex instead of centre (those in centre would be considered to be too far from coast to bombard from sea).

Naval and air units would still only use big hexes - for example CAP would be protecting all 7 small hexes in one big hex.

Since there would be more places to defend - new routines for dividing units would be needed.



jwilkerson -> RE: Enhancement: Land Combat (9/19/2007 4:56:20 AM)

Interesting - several of us had a detailed discussion about exactly (well reeeeeally close) this idea in Aug-Sep 2005. Subsequently we decided it was too big a change for the current model. But if there is ever a WITP_II this idea is still in the files!




pad152 -> RE: Enhancement: Land Combat (9/19/2007 6:21:31 AM)

quote:

But if there is ever a WITP_II this idea is still in the files!
Tease [;)]

If you don't get started soon, many of us will likly kick the bucket before it's finished!!



jwilkerson -> RE: Enhancement: Land Combat (9/19/2007 10:24:26 AM)

Us too! [:D]



Yamato hugger -> RE: Enhancement: Land Combat (9/21/2007 12:31:13 AM)

One thing I would like to toss out there (maybe it already HAS been, I didnt read the first 25 pages of this thread) but it would be nice if the leader display (when changing leaders) displayed their stats as well so you dont have to click on a leader, look at his stats, then click the next, ect. Thats annoying.



Snowman999 -> RE: Enhancement: Land Combat (9/21/2007 2:51:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Interesting - several of us had a detailed discussion about exactly (well reeeeeally close) this idea in Aug-Sep 2005. Subsequently we decided it was too big a change for the current model. But if there is ever a WITP_II this idea is still in the files!




Realizing you guys are working the Civil War and Eastern Front games I'd still like to propose a blip in the business model for WITP:

Stop doing patches now. We've gotten full value for our purchase price. Instead, start development on an add-on pack (maybe $30ish) to add a tactical combat module on the side of the game, not in the mainline code. What I'm envisioning:

1. Something very like Steel Panthers. Take each 60-mile hex and drill down to a standardized hex field that's a compromize in scale between large-urban and atoll. Scroll screen or single-screen at your option. For islands, provide at least three hexes of border to stage invasion waves.
2. Provide a terrain tile set that accomodates needed terrain, plus movement rules.
3. Design 25-50 (whatever works for cost/retail price ratio) "detail" hex maps of popular combat hexes--Saipan, Singapore, Adak, whatever. Provide a simple user-design kit for us out here to finish the library. I know that in the forum's denizens there's someone who is the world's greatest expert on Canton Island as well as all other bases in the game. Google Earth could probably help as well. Let the fans finish the library after you lock in top-line parameters. You lock in a naming system, a call-library, and the entry variable/exit variable structure.
4. Use existing game variables--unit names, sizes, morale, disruption, supply--as input into the module. Take exit variables as well as retreat hex x,y locations back to the master map after the hex ownership is resolved.
5. When combat begins in a hex where a detail map is in the library offer the player the option to use the module or resolve under the current model.
6. For fortification, use an earned fortification-point account in combo with fort structures (pillboxes, trenches, tunnels, etc.) to let the player buy fortifications. Drag&drop tiles to show fort. structures. Scale levels non-linearly (Fort. level 1 to 2 gives more points in the drawing account than 8 to 9 does.) Let the player defend supply dumps, beaches, etc. as he sees fit with the fort. points he's earned under the curent model rules.
7. To do this you'd need a master library of maps, and then copy a new one into active use and let it be deformed during play. Fort. levels, rubble, fire in cities, etc. if you want to get fancy. But let me inherit the result of combat and choose what to do with it.
8. Unless split, confine an LCU in one hex only. Make me choose choke points. Allow flanking, feints, etc.
9. This sytem lets attackers mass for a breakthrough at the risk of CAS and arty tearing up the beachhead or penetrating force. But it also makes the fortification system less of a back-breaker for attackers. Play with the cost of fort. points however you like, but make it possible to break through if the player is smart tactically.
10. Devise new surrender/retreat rules to fit detailed terrain. Let me leave my amphibs beached for retreat at risk of having them attacked by defender.

The pros of this model are:

1. Revenue for additional work and capability. The add-on would be optional for current fans but I think most would buy it.
2. Let the fans do some of the work. For many this would be a key appeal of the add-on. I can see competitions for most-accurate maps, largest independent library, etc. Fixed hex-plot size and tile set would make integrating fan-produced maps easy as well as allow players to mix&match amongst designers.
3. It doesn't make you integrate new capability into spagetti code. Hand existing LCU variable quantaties into the module, and take combat results for same variables back out and update the DB with them.
4. Allows use of a licensed existing tactical engine (with modifications) rather than development of an all-new one.
5. Overcomes the unrealistic effect of fortifications. Right now a level 5 fort applies to every square inch of Saipan (for example.) Well, I've been to Saipan and that just isn't possible. Let my engineers earn fortification points, and I'll put them where they'll do the most good. Conversely, on offense, make me schedule my landing waves properly and make me defend a beachhead from concentrated, terrain-specific counter-attack.

I'm sure there are lots of holes in this idea (recon for starters) as well as points I haven't considered. Any comments?

Steve

P.S. I'd pay $250-$300 for a WITP2 that offered an open, player-scriptable AI as well as some other, mostly graphic and reduced-clicking, features. Just in case you're doing market research.



marky -> RE: Enhancement: Land Combat (9/23/2007 12:07:21 AM)

wen u go to the intel list, the ship sunk screen tells u how many of each type uve sunk, IE APs, AKs, TKs

and u should be able to tell subs and pilots wat to concentrate on wen they attack

carriers, battleships, APs etc



Page: <<   < prev  25 26 [27] 28 29   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.921875