RE: Database screens (Full Version)

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



Message

fbastos -> RE: Database screens (8/22/2004 2:47:47 AM)

DISRUPT THE UNITS WHEN CHANGING THE LEADER

This should stop the player from moving his best commanders around the map as he is attacked.



fbastos -> RE: Database screens (8/22/2004 7:40:26 AM)

ASK "DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE?" WHEN PLAYER WINS

I want to see the complete destruction of all Japanese ships!

HAVE A "HIGH PRIORITY" TOGGLE ON THE SHIPS FOR REPAIRS

That's what happened with Yorktown on 1942, right? Give her repairs priority?

I WANT THE PT-109 WITH KENNEDY, J F LT(JG) COMMANDING

Give me her with her "very promising and careful commander" and I'll sail her right into Tokyo harbor. Will even put on head-to-head to make sure that Yamato, Musashi, 20 cruisers and 50 destroyers are waiting for her! :)

ADD AN OPTIONAL LIMIT TO THE NUMBER OF ORDERS YOU CAN GIVE PER DAY

PacWar had that, didn't it? I think that's very realistic. Make it "Ironman" mode.

LET THE PLAYERS RENAME THE SHIPS

So that purists can choose whatever name they want for the replacement Essex carriers.

SHOW AIR ATTACKS ON SUBMARINES ON THE COMBAT REPORT

If ship attacks show, why air attacks don't show?

HAVE A SEPARATE "TORPEDO ATTACK" MISSION FOR AIR GROUPS

So that when you select Naval Attack, that means bombs and Torpedo Attack hopefully doesn't mean bombs.

ADD A COUNTER FOR AIRCRAFTS LOST ON AIR GROUPS

You count the kills per air group, but not the losses; sometimes it's hard to find out what's going on. If you could have 4 counters for losses due to Flak, Air Combat, Destroyed on the Ground and Operational, that would be da bomb.

ADD A COUNTER FOR SHIP HITS BY AIR GROUPS

You count the air kills, so it makes sense to count the ship kills too. As one won't know if the really will really sink or not due to damage, just count how many hits this air group has claimed on enemy ships. It should be fogged, with the less experience the group has, the greater the chance of claiming a hit that didn't exist. That's quite historical, I think.

ADD A COUNTER FOR AIRCRAFTS DESTROYED AND ENEMY SHIP HITS BY SHIP

Likewise the air group kills counter, this would be of great importance on assessing the AA and ASW effectivity of ships. Likewise the air groups, it should be fogged.

Regards,
F.



fbastos -> RE: Database screens (8/23/2004 1:08:59 AM)

BEACH THOSE SHIPS!

Does't make sense for a ship to always sink at harbor or at a coastal hex. Instead of sinking, run a check to have the ship beached instead - higher chance in harbor or if the ship has good speed. And make the repairs of beached ships to go slow, as they will incur in much damage when beaching.

DRYDOCKS!

A limited number of ships should be allowed to drydock on ports; that should make them immune from sinking. This could be implemented by having the port to automatically take the first so many ships (the most damaged ones) into drydocks, what makes them immune from sinking.

Regards,
F.



Williamb -> RE: Database screens (8/23/2004 5:38:48 AM)

End of Turn AAR report.

Would like some more details. Maybe ships and squadron Commanders and Killboards for pilots in the end of turn AAR text report. Or even a tonnage for Sub Commander Kill list.

Examples

ASW attack at 134,40

Japanese Ships
SS I-21, hits 1, on fire (Lt Cmd Kowakzi) (5,000 Tonnes sunk)

Allied Ships
DD Lawrence (Lt Cmd Jones)
DD King (Lt Cmd Wilson)
DD Preston (Lt Cmd Brown)
DD Smith (Lt Cmd Marks)
DD Perkins (Lt Cmd Jackson)
DD Cushing (Cmd Hall)


Day Air attack on TF, near Bataan at 42,51

Japanese aircraft (Cmd Fubuki)
B5N Kate x 8
G4M1 Betty x 3

Allied aircraft (Col Fredricks)
P-35A x 3
P-40B Tomahawk x 1
P-40E Warhawk x 4

Japanese aircraft losses
B5N Kate: 1 damaged
G4M1 Betty: 2 destroyed

Capt Rodgers - 2 Kills (4 total)



CobraAus -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/23/2004 10:12:30 AM)

I would like to see pursue TF same as pursue troops.. also bombarding TF's to retire to hex they were sent from.

[image]local://upfiles/13770/Sq470957929.jpg[/image]



Rainerle -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/23/2004 11:41:11 AM)

Let engineers at undeveloped bases assist in ship repair.
I see no reason why 30+ engineer squads should not prohibit the sinking of a ship if ordered to do so (and I would). Probably not neccesary at big harbours though.



bstarr -> U.S. withdrawls? (8/23/2004 10:33:50 PM)

what about having the us withdraw a few ships from time to time. Probably more on a historical basis, rather than a random one like the brit withdrawls. I know the us turned some ships into trainers, retired several older vessels, and even sent a few ships to the atlantic. just off the top of my head, I think most, if not all, of the s class subs were retired before the end of the war, and Sara was turned into a training ship late in the war.

also, devestating losses in the pacfleet would have released more ships from the atlantic. If the yorktown, enterprise, and hornet had gone down at midway, the ranger would have probably been sent east.

I know, I know, someone's asking for the ranger now, so the next thing you know some nut will probably be begging for u-boats in the indian ocean[;)].



Tankerace -> RE: U.S. withdrawls? (8/23/2004 10:46:03 PM)

US Withdraw

Not quite the same thing as bstarr suggested, but something more along the lines of what was done in the original PTO. At various points in the game, certain ship need to be withdrawn to support operations in the Atlantic, such as the Nevada, which transferred to the Atlantic in support of D Day, or the South Dakota, which after the Battle of Savo Island was sent to the Atlantic to operate with the British Home fleet with the USS Alabama.

In PTO, at a certain date, the player would receive a message "Battleship Nevada has been redeployed to the Atlantic to provide bombardment of amphibious landings."

Something along those lines would be good here, for historical reasons.



DrewMatrix -> RE: U.S. withdrawls? (8/24/2004 3:08:25 AM)

Were you to have US withdrawls (I am not saying I am for or against them): You need at least the 1 month the Brits are given to withdraw. You might also consider allowing withdrawl to be from major bases scattered around the map (Karachi, Sydney, Pearl or SF at the least) given that the US ship might be far from any given port when you get the message.



Greco, Thomas A -> RE: Information/Order Screens (8/24/2004 3:09:44 AM)

Intel Screen
Add KIA, WIA, MIA to daily and cumulative totals. Same with sunk ships.



Mike Scholl -> RE: FIXED CD UNITS (8/24/2004 4:11:02 AM)

Pre-war permanent CD installations still seem to be less effective than they should
be. At a time when ship to ship combat at anything but short range produced 2-5%
hits at best, these installations averaged 20-25% hits. I don't know if it's possible
to upgrade the basic accuracy, but the "fixed" CD units (Manilla Bay, Singapore,
Hawaii, the Japanese Home Islands) Ought to AT LEAST start the game 100% pre-
pared to fight and with 90 morals. It's not like they had had anything else to pre-
pare for in the last 10 years, nor were these ferro-concrete and steel entities going
to be moved anywhere. And if the accuracy figures can't be improved, you might
consider at least increasing the number of tubes available to make up for it.

And they still ought to fire FIRST at any TF attempting offensive action against the
coast they are defending. There is something inherantly WRONG about these massive
CD emplacements sitting silent while an attacker puonds away on the coastal airfields
or ports or troops they are supposed to be defending. The "mobile" CD units aren't
as big a deal...but when I see players talking about trying to invade Oahu without
even mentioning the problem of dealing with the CD unit there, I know something is
really wrong with the way the game is handling them.



Mike Scholl -> RE: FIXED CD UNITS (8/24/2004 4:17:04 AM)

One other point. The Japanese have been short-changed in "fixed" CD units. The
US is shorted a pair of 16" at San Francisco (should be 4) but the Japs have been
shorted at least a half-dozen 16.1" twin-turret installations from the cancelled BB'sof the early 20's. there should be 1 turret (2 guns) on the south coast of Korea in the hex
west of Pusan, one on Tsushima Isalnd, and one on the Japanese Coast opposite (in
effect protecting the southern enterance to the Sea of Japan), a pair of turrets at Tokyo
Bay, and at least one near Osaka. There may have been some others I'm not familiar
with.



bstarr -> RE: U.S. withdrawls? (8/24/2004 5:09:26 AM)

I like Tankerace's idea of withdrawls along historical lines; however, they would probably need to be more like "1 BB needed to support DDay landings in the Atlantic". That way if the Nevada is has been turned into a house for fishies off the coast of Guam you still have to withdraw something. Also, it saves you from having to withdraw a ship that may be active in a fleet while another similar vessel may be sitting at Pearl looking for something to do. You would also need the same month time limit to comply, but, given the ability to pick and choose which ships to send, you wouldn't really need but one harbor to release the ship (San Fran, I assume).



Tankerace -> RE: U.S. withdrawls? (8/24/2004 5:16:59 AM)

Exactly. I was using the Specific ship idea to merely show how another game did it. Of course. Of course, in case the BB of choice is somewhere in the middle of nowhere, it might be advisable to have it where you can withdraw any BB, and it can just sail to SF and then to NY on its own, hidden accord. Then, like the British withdraw, it can be placed back in the reinforcement pool for arrival at a later date.



Halsey -> RE: Information/Order Screens (8/24/2004 5:32:31 AM)

In addition to fixing pursuit:

Have LCU's pay movement cost to enter a hex from off of a road or rail hex. As it is now a unit can jump on to a mountain/jungle hex in one turn from a road/rail hex.

Fix defensive land bombardment to happen before the assault phase. As it is set up now the disruption from defensive artillery attacks occur after land assaults. Hence no disruption on the attackers before combat resolution.

How about an interdiction attack for aircraft? Results would subtract movement points from a LCU according to the hex type it is in.

[;)]



django -> RE: Information/Order Screens (8/24/2004 2:10:36 PM)

a german manual would be fine

so best greatings from Germany :-)



Charles2222 -> RE: Information/Order Screens (8/24/2004 4:52:40 PM)

I know at least a coupple of us have mentioned this before in another thread, but it may not help unless it oges here, so here goes. I would like a toggle to click off the spawning which goes on for some of the Allied ships.



Toro -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/24/2004 9:13:40 PM)

Operational Report: append newly arrived units to the bottom of this report. That would be nice... [:)]



SpitfireIX -> RE: Database (8/24/2004 11:22:39 PM)

How about allowing the Allied player to modify old DDs the way he can with large AKs? This would be more historical; in the Scenario 15 OOB, several DDs that saw action early in the war, but were not taken in hand for conversion to APDs or DMs or DMSs until late 1942, don't appear until 1943.



siRkid -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/25/2004 3:16:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Toro

Operational Report: append newly arrived units to the bottom of this report. That would be nice... [:)]



Repeat.......



siRkid -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/25/2004 3:18:56 AM)

quote:

Fix defensive land bombardment to happen before the assault phase. As it is set up now the disruption from defensive artillery attacks occur after land assaults. Hence no disruption on the attackers before combat resolution.


If you select to bombard, that is not a defensive bombardment. Watch the combat animation and you will see text describing defensive bombardment taking place.



dtravel -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/25/2004 5:03:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid

quote:

Fix defensive land bombardment to happen before the assault phase. As it is set up now the disruption from defensive artillery attacks occur after land assaults. Hence no disruption on the attackers before combat resolution.


If you select to bombard, that is not a defensive bombardment. Watch the combat animation and you will see text describing defensive bombardment taking place.


[&:]

What I see in the ground combat animation is all the attacker's units fire a bombardment, then all the attacker's units conduct their deliberate/shock attack. I have never yet seen the defender's units fire before that deliberate/shock attack is conducted and resolved. If the defender's are set to make a Bombardment attack of their own, that happens in a separate animation and resolution (assuming they survived the previous attack), which always takes place second.



Rainerle -> RE: FIXED CD UNITS (8/25/2004 11:40:42 AM)

Hi,

The detection levels of fixed CD units should decrease very slowly (if at all). That way I would not have to recon Singapore to find out that those CD's are still at the same place they have been 7 days ago. And it would really help in avoiding serious blunders [8|] (talking from bad experience)



Halsey -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/25/2004 2:42:07 PM)

What I've seen, when a base is attacked by Japanese shock attack is the allied bombardment happens after the attack takes place. Am I missing something during the execution phase?



siRkid -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/25/2004 2:47:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

What I've seen, when a base is attacked by Japanese shock attack is the allied bombardment happens after the attack takes place. Am I missing something during the execution phase?



I do not want to start a debate in the whis list thread. I'll look into this and se what the sequence is and post in another thread.



RevRick -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/25/2004 6:01:39 PM)

Haven't seen this but...
Could we get the listing and designators for the USN AK to AKA since they had a higher full speed than the Merchant Marine AK. Would be helpful to those of us who have to plan for an invasion with short supplies.



Williamb -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/25/2004 6:37:19 PM)

Change recon reports

I feel that the recon phase of this game is really broken.

Someone tell me what is up with recon (non naval) searches ? These pilots have to be the dumbest in the entire game.

I went through on test game and let the deciede their own targets. They ONLY flew over places my bombers and fighters had ALREADY hit !. They tag along on bombing runs. I finally in restart gave orders to each one to check out OTHER targets. My bombers can tell me what is in the hexes I bomb my recon needs to check out other areas.

And for the life of me why did you enter their reports into real time game ? Since you cant jump in and effect what happens during the turn is NO NEED to hear their reports during the battles. I swear every time I hear those damn Japanese recon pilots clicking their cameras I want to scream "Damn Japanese Tourists !!!"

Added to this is the reverse that IMPORTANT data is left out !. Yeah might hear a "Main body" report and or sighting of ships. But I feel there is a part of the game that is missing.

For example. In my first start I heard a "main body" report during the real time replay of the turn. Then it went on to that camera clicking.

It wasnt till AFTER the report I saw what caused that "Main body" report when I checked out the post turn operations report.

Aparently a PBY spotted the Rujuho CVL TF heading towards the Phillipine isles. That PBY got JUMPED by its CAP and damaged. Another PBY spotted a Japanese TF and got hit by flack from it and damaged. Also have seen ASW warfare carried out by planes and ONLY listed in the operational report screen.

I would have NEVER known this if I hadnt check operational reports. TO me that was a CRITICAL report that didnt get to me. I got all those STUPID "CLICK CLICK CLICK" area recon of sites I ALREADY KNEW were gonna take place. And valuable recon didnt get back to me or was breifly skimmed over.

I woud have ENJOYED seeing a Combat report of my PBY getting jumped by the Claudes of that Japanese CAP. To see that PBY under attack would have had me SEARCHING for that Japanese carrier group.

Recon is just completely backwards in this game. Useless "CLICK CLICK CLICK" of ALREADY targeted sites should have been moved to reports only and useful action like spotting enemy taskforces and air combat between recon planes and fighters shoud have been put IN. Need to fix this part of the game.

Simply remove the recon flights over sites. the can be placed in the operational report screen.

ADD IN ship sighings that result in COMBAT. Like seeing a naval search combat screen when they get attacked by enemy planes or ships.



strawbuk -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/25/2004 7:52:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: William Amos

Change recon reports

Someone tell me what is up with recon (non naval) searches ? These pilots have to be the dumbest in the entire game.

I went through on test game and let the deciede their own targets. They ONLY flew over places my bombers and fighters had ALREADY hit !. They tag along on bombing runs. I finally in restart gave orders to each one to check out OTHER targets. My bombers can tell me what is in the hexes I bomb my recon needs to check out other areas.


Valid concerns maybe - but

a. for non naval searches why are you not telling them what to watch?

b. if you don''t tell them a target, Bomb Damage Assessment missions are entirely legitimate, certainly 'real' but what they do for the game I know not? May be helps determines whether AI controlled aircraft revist a target? Some beta will know...



captskillet -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/25/2004 8:42:44 PM)

The ability to prioritize which ships your ports/repair facilities "fix" first such as a Midway type situation where everything went into getting the Yorktown ready for Midway.



DrewMatrix -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/25/2004 8:46:55 PM)

quote:

"fix" first


a) Can't you undock anything you don't want fixed?
b) I thought (except for the repair yard points) it didn't matter anyhow. That every ship had a chance of repair independent of how many other ships were being repaired in that port.

Basically you can't do a Rush Job like the Yorktown here, even with priorities.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.328125