RE: WitP Wish List

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

Halsey -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/25/2004 9:31:06 PM)
Thanks. I'm not trying to get anything started. I was just wondering if I was missing something during the LCU combat resolution phase, or wondered if it needed fixed.[;)]

Mike Scholl -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/26/2004 5:06:13 AM)
DO AWAY WITH PURSUIT MOVEMENT It's an interesting idea that doesn't belong in a game with 60-mile hexes, and it creates all kinds of perversions in reality. Make every unit pay the march cost for the hex it is entering rather than the one it is leaving, and pay attention to the fact that trails, roads, and RR's are NOT omnidirec- tional. Land movement is in general FAR to generous, especially to the attacker. In reality he might have spent several days even finding the opposition in the 3000 sq. miles of a hex. Probably can't fix that...., but you could at least make sure all units have to actually march the distance and not get periodic "teleportation".

Tankerace -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/26/2004 5:39:01 AM)
Add in an option to disable autovictory. The whole point of playing scenario 15 was to play the Pacific War from beggining to end, not to be cut short in the middle of our grandest operation.

mutterfudder -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/26/2004 9:49:39 AM)
Forgive if allready mentioned........ How bout making some of those information screens transparent? Hope you understand what I mean[:o]

Splinterhead -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/26/2004 2:50:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace Add in an option to disable autovictory. The whole point of playing scenario 15 was to play the Pacific War from beggining to end, not to be cut short in the middle of our grandest operation. Actually, I would like this to be a three way switch: 1) Disable autovictory 2) Disable allied autovictory 3) Autovictory on Autovictory simulates the breaking of national will, and while we can be pretty sure the Japanese wouldn't break since they didn't, we can only speculate as to what would have happened if the Japanese had won Coral Sea, Midway, etc.

BigDuke66 -> RE: Database (8/27/2004 1:21:10 AM)
1. Filter for aircraft and ships database so you can switch to only see fighter or bomber or what ever. Just like it is on the big map where you can turn them on and off. Would really improve comparing ships and planes. A bad mistake when I have to use a microsoft program to play your game[:-] Or make it at least sortable by TYPE. added to list 2. A arrived screen to see what air units, ground units and ships arrived this turn. 3. A CS option(like the one for transports) for combat TF so that I don't have to run those ASW or Minesweeper TF out and out again.

Williamb -> RE: Database (8/27/2004 2:17:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BigDuke66 1. Filter for aircraft and ships database so you can switch to only see fighter or bomber or what ever. Just like it is on the big map where you can turn them on and off. Would really improve comparing ships and planes. A bad mistake when I have to use a microsoft program to play your game[:-] Or make it at least sortable by TYPE. think you can already do this. At teh various screens it will say ALL AIRCRAFT. FTRS. DBS.LBS. ECT... Just click right on the type (after deselecting ALL) and it will only show that type. Same thing for ships.

Knaust -> RE: Information/Order Screens (8/27/2004 9:50:06 AM)
to help the panning operations, I think it would be helpful to add to the global Ground Units screen columns Type Name Attached to Load Cost Assault Location the new column Future Objective already on the list

BigDuke66 -> RE: Database (8/27/2004 1:47:49 PM)
@William Amos On the database screen??? BIG NO. Searched the whole screen an couldn't find anything. Maybe you can make a screenshot where you have found the buttons.

SpitfireIX -> RE: Database (8/27/2004 9:34:33 PM)
How about a system allowing for variable reinforcements during a scenario? In particular, I'd like to have Allied reinforcements that can vary based on how the war in Europe is going. This could also be tied in to the suggested Allied withdrawals. And how about having the possibility that the Soviet Union is knocked out of the war?

Williamb -> RE: Database (8/28/2004 1:48:27 AM)
Ah sorry I missed the key word DATABASE. I thought you meant the unit selection screen. Sorry.

lucascuccia -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/30/2004 1:52:51 PM)
Different Screens in Combat Animation for bombing targets. Whether you bomb an airfield, a port, or an infantry division, the picture is the same, the small jungle type harbor. How Boring!. See if you can spruce up what's in the ole bomb site.

Mike Scholl -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/30/2004 9:24:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lucascuccia Different Screens in Combat Animation for bombing targets. Whether you bomb an airfield, a port, or an infantry division, the picture is the same, the small jungle type harbor. How Boring!. See if you can spruce up what's in the ole bomb site. ABOVE is exactly why "combat animations" are a total waste of design and development time in a massive game like this. Just how often on one of 1600+ turns can anyone stand to watch the same little cartoon shot? If it's not possible to include something that more accurately reflects what is actually being depicted (and it would almost have to be a sub-game itself to do so), then it's just a waste of effort better spent in getting the real game "right". The same is basically true of sound..., how many hundreds of hours can you listen to the same noise repeat itself? And then we had most of the 1st patch used to "fix" what didn't need to be there at all. Too many players have been spoiled by "shooters" into thinking this "extraneous chrome" is necessary in a strategic game. Give us a game where the "ground movement system" works right..., I can make noise already, and have plenty of music to play if I need the destraction.

DrewMatrix -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/30/2004 9:28:15 PM)
Could we have a way for the Allies to transfer between Karachi and San Francisco by going around the world the other way (SF to Panama to Capetown to Karachi)? The old SPI game had that as I recall. It would work like the Refit AK code, pretty much in that a ship in either harbor would have a button "Transfer via South Atlantic". Click on that and the ship appears in the other harbor in a few months (I get a distance of 14379 statute miles. At 12 kts that is about 6 weeks sailing time plus a layover/fueling, some repairs. Make it 60 days. A small thing but would save me having to route ships several times to Pearl, Brisbane then souther Indian Ocean to get shipping back and forth.

Mr.Frag -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/30/2004 9:43:17 PM)
quote: Could we have a way for the Allies to transfer between Karachi and San Francisco by going around the world the other way (SF to Panama to Capetown to Karachi)? Nifty idea ... just need to throw in some code to have geman uboats get some shots in [:D]

tsimmonds -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/30/2004 9:52:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag quote: Could we have a way for the Allies to transfer between Karachi and San Francisco by going around the world the other way (SF to Panama to Capetown to Karachi)? Nifty idea ... just need to throw in some code to have geman uboats get some shots in [:D] ...and Ernie King to torpedo the whole idea.

DrewMatrix -> RE: WitP Wish List (8/30/2004 10:02:18 PM)
quote: and Ernie King to torpedo the whole idea German torpedos and Washington torpedoes aside I would use it, mostly to shift AKs (I find as the game prgresses I have inbalance of AKs and need for AKs in SF and Karachi. The coding should be simple (he says laughingly). You already have "disappear for a few months to refit". Just leave out the "refit"

2ndACR -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/1/2004 6:12:56 AM)
Make PT boat TF's a viable naval strike target. They would be just like a regular TF for determining wether or not a strike is launched, but have all attacking a/c drop down to the 100' alt needed to attack them. Attacking a/c can suffer a to hit penalty to account for the PT boats manueverability. Since we have no control over target selection, it would avoid the risk of setting his a/c to 100' altitude, then having those a/c attack a different TF and getting slaughtered by flak. Torpedo planes already fly to their targets at say 5000' then drop to 200' to attack. Also allow up 25% or all escort fighters to participate in the strafing of PT boats if no CAP is encountered.

tsimmonds -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/1/2004 1:45:18 PM)
The game rewards players for putting unrealistic numbers of ships into ASW TFs. To eliminate some of the gaminess that seems to be arising here, place a limit on the number of ships in a single ASW TF that may actually attack a submarine in a single action. More than a few (three or four?) ships prosecuting the same submarine contact would only get in each other's way.... ASW model was worked on in the 1.3 patch

kayjay -> RE: Information/order screens (Display) (9/1/2004 3:23:17 PM)
6.1.2 Task Force Information screen 1. Screen need to be wider - when looking at a TF with embarked troops most of the description of the troops is cut off making it difficult to tell what the unit ID is if it has a lenghtly name or its number 3rd is common to a lot of varying unit types. 2. (nice to have) if (once screen was wider) if it showed what the LCU was 'prepped' for to the right of its name eg 5th USMC Div - Iwo Jima - for air units the number type of plane being transported eg Vp100 12 PBY Kevin

kayjay -> RE: Information/Order Screens (9/1/2004 3:28:18 PM)
Land based units 5.2.3 Units embarked on transports in a TF do not show up on this screen. If the unit is partailly embarked then the part still ashore shows up.

Popoi -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/2/2004 7:44:23 AM)
- I want to know the current weather DURING the turn (after the orders phase, when all the AI goes down) - I want to be able to transfer individual pilots to other squadrons ( in order to mix aces and greenhorns, or to create an elite squadron ). - I want to see air post-sortie reports, it would help to know whether a squadron was grounded due to weather, or because they failed the morale check, or because the airfield was too damaged. - I want to see tonnage sunk by individual submarines, hey fighterboys gets their tally. mariners should get too (any mariners for that matter) :) - If you select a ship from the 'ship' screen you should be able to see where it's located.. maybe i'm retarded but i can't see this anywhere. This applies to Task forces too e.g. I go to the TF list, to check on my many-many-many ASW TFs, and see that a couple are low on ASW ammo, so i want to see where they are so i can replace them with a second-line ASW TF. If i click the TF i can't see where it is, no highlights or anything - besides the report screen covers the hex board -- it should be movable -- So i can click "return to port" but now i have to spend 5 minutes going through my TFs on the map trying to figure out which TF i just sent home (i had 20 active ASW TFs at the time). - You should be able to view ALL planned paths at once.. It's really annoying to try to schedule a rendez-vouz in the middle of an ocean having to memorize the Coordinates. A TF should have a red, thin, line from it's origin showing its intended path on the map even when NOT selected. - The game should warn you if you overstock a carrier. AT LEAST if that carrier is in an Air Combat TF. - This game SERIOUSLY needs a better reporting/information management system. OK blah blah realism FoW, but i'm a gamer with a life, i can't go from base to base to TF to TF figuring out what is running low on what etc.. I want a non-combat report sheet showing stuff like this: 7/12/44 : Palau requires more supplies 7/12/44 : Wake reports shortage of fuel 7/12/44 : TF1001 Is running low on fuel 7/12/44 : TF1011 Arrives at Pearl Harbor 7/12/44 : TF1102 Is almost out of AAA ammo 7/12/44 : Midway Airfield is understaffed. 7/12/44 : 113th USMC Bn reports planning complete for Tokyo 7/12/44 : SS Gato arrives at Wake, unloading supplies. Then you should be able to click the name of the place or TF or whatever and it would jump there. - An Air group should have a link to the carrier/AF it is stationed on. Currently it is in white, and you have to memorize and exit screen, then find the AF or TF etc. - Same goes for ships and whatever. - As a matter of fact, there should be a lot more "relationship links" on the info screens in this game. - When i create a TF, i want to be able to FILTER between ships (you can only filter in the report screens). - I want to be able to see a status listing similar to the TF listing one for individual ships. Where it shows Fuel, Ammo, Cargo, Skills, Damage etc etc. now i have to go find to the individual ship to figure this out. - I want to be able to see more info on the TF info screen, similar to the TF listing. (as mentioned above). For instance: I want to form a TF with the best AAA boats, and the best ASW boats at a base. - I go to the base, click "form new TF", select my mission, and done. - Next screen i see the boats available, And i WANT to see their AAA, ASW, Main Gun, Ammo, etc. If i currently want to see this, i have to CANCEL my TF creation, go to the ship screen and memorize what ships are good and then start over. - PERCENTAGE signs by numbers that represent a percentage, and other similarities - Ability to see how much aviation support a ground unit contributes with. - Ability to see how much aviation support a Plane Squadron requires I think in the end, it all boils down to the report system and "relationship links".

russkly -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/2/2004 5:37:00 PM)
I find it really hard to keep track of everything that's happening, even in the tutorial, and I think this can be enhanced. People on the forums have talked about keeping paper notes, etc., but there was a useful feature that I remember from the Talonsoft Napoleonic series, which helped ensure that all the main action was responded to: This was a proactive feature whereby a main event summary list would be presented before each orders phase. This list would detail important events such as units arriving at their destination, HQ units moving out of range of their subordinate units, units coming under attack, etc. There was then the ability to click on any indivdual item to be taken to that unit's order/status screen. Whilst WitP does have control mechanisms built in, such as lists of naval, air, or ground units, they require the player to seek and activate them, or click on each unit's icon in each hex to find out about command status, supply status, morale status, etc. Even in the little tutorial I've missed a TF for a couple of turns that required attention, and it just becomes a bit of a drag - I can't imagine what the full campaign is like in terms of keeping on top of things! The important event screen would automatically alert the player to TFs running out of endurance, or land units running out of supplies, etc. Perhaps I'm missing the point of the game in terms of the attention to detail and proactivity required, or perhaps I've missed something in the manual, but I do feel it's a bit onerous in a game to have to assess each unit's health/progress myself. Commanding officers would normally be fed this information (whether it be enemy contact, low supplies, or whatever) by their subordinate units. Just a thought - I believe it would increase the palayability of the game, especially for people like me, who have poor memories and for whom the idea of keeping paper notes for a computer game is an anathema! R 8/23/2004 4:19:09 PM

m10bob -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/2/2004 6:47:51 PM)
In my opinion aircraft ASW missions are entirely too weak.(Historically the aircraft was the greatest threat to subs,and in WITP the planes only seem to attack maybe 1 out of every 20 sightings,and only hit maybe 1/10th of the attacks..(They don't even report subs as the "sighting!"..) I would like to see these planes given more "beef" over subs,or just delegate a percentage of squadrons to do ASW missions rather than tie up whole squadrons on a near useless mission..[&:]

Lemurs! -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/3/2004 1:41:15 AM)
I completely agree with Mike Scholl's last post on chrome. Do not worry about chrome! Worry about fixing bugs that have been in the data storage system since PacWar. Mike

Mike Scholl -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/3/2004 5:17:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: irrelevant The game rewards players for putting unrealistic numbers of ships into ASW TFs. To eliminate some of the gaminess that seems to be arising here, place a limit on the number of ships in a single ASW TF that may actually attack a submarine in a single action. More than a few (three or four?) ships prosecuting the same submarine contact would only get in each other's way.... Not a bad idea at all. And by increasing the number that can participate as the War moves along you could reflect gradually increasing abilities as well. Count all the ASW assets "defensively" (as in if a successful submarine attack is made), but limit the # that can count offensively (as in sinking the sub). Could be a simple solution to both sides mounting unrealistic "Hunter-Killer" groups in the early war.

Oliver Heindorf -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/5/2004 3:50:56 PM)
I dont know if this has been posted but here is my idea : Due to bad weather periods, plane missions are often canceld due to bad weather. Thats realistic and full OK. But why I am able to re-base those planes to another base if they cant even fly a combat mission ? the game should not allow relocating bases for an airgroup if the airfield has been cloes due to bad weather. ( making it more realistic ) bad weather is bad weahter, no matter what ind of mission you flew.

benpark -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/6/2004 10:54:40 AM)
Poopi wrote: " This game SERIOUSLY needs a better reporting/information management system... Then you should be able to click the name of the place or TF or whatever and it would jump there." Absolutely right! BIG second from me on this.

scout1 -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/6/2004 2:17:24 PM)
quote: " This game SERIOUSLY needs a better reporting/information management system... Then you should be able to click the name of the place or TF or whatever and it would jump there." Absolutely right! BIG second from me on this. I have UV and enjoy it, but apparently WitP didn't apparently improve the reporting/information mangement system even though the scale of the game dramatically increased. I wholeheartedly agree with this sediment. Another information feature that would be beneficial would be to allow the player to set a threshold for various categories (supply, damage level, etc .....) and then have a report at the beginning of the turn identify units/bases that are below/above this threshold. Would make for an easier method of identifying situations that need to be addresses, rather than going through even single unit individually. If you added another layer of complexity, these units/bases could actually be highlighted on the map. With the above suggestion, one click away.

timtom -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/6/2004 4:32:57 PM)
American withdrawal: I'd love to see withdrawal of US naval units along the lines of what is already in place with the Brits. In fact, for all my ignorance of game design and programming, I don't understand why this hasn't been implimented from the start; it doesn't seem materially different, and why shouldn't the USN give up units for Europe when the RN has to. I suspect GG et al already have the necessary data in their OOB files. Even better would be tagging ground units for withdrawal, fx the USMC raider battalions got absorbed into the 6th marine division, the USMC defence battalions became artillery battalions ect.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.453125