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

Rainerle -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/6/2004 4:53:59 PM)

Hi, this is about the in-game pop-up which appears when I hover the mouse over enemy bases/icons.
a) Identify enemy ground units with name in the pop-up box when identified:
Something like:

INF 23rd Rifle Div
INF 25th Rifle Div
INF unknown
ENG unknown
AA 23rd Heavy AA Rgt
25000 Infantry 400 Guns 200 Vehicles

Identification would be ripping off a badge from some dead soldier who has no further use for it.

b) Please add more intel on what type of planes are at a base:
Bombers what kind ?
Fighters brand new or obsolete ?
auxiliary ? Well what patrol or torpedobombers ?

Respectfully



bstarr -> three ideas (9/6/2004 5:47:02 PM)

I would like to be able to sort by country while I'm an allied player. This is mostly just for curiosity's sake; in fact, the one screen I'd find it most useful would be the "ships sunk" page.


It would also be interesting to have more variety in the aks and aps. I've actually found reference to a class of japanese ap that was armed with 6 inch guns [X(]. this one example would be very important in landings, but there are also references to some remarkably fast jap aps and aks; they would come in very handy throughout the game.


I also have an idea that might work on making China a little harder to knock out - what if there were "area activated" units - like the militia units jap recieves if the allies invade the indochina border hexes. These units would appear only if certain places were captured; if it worked out it would simulate the way the Japanese got more bogged down the further into china they went. (Then again, it might just create a supply drain on the allies.) Anyway, it's something to think about.


ps. and i'd like to add one more lobby for a screen that lists ground loses. [:)]



RAM -> RE: three ideas (9/7/2004 5:25:11 AM)

I'd like to see revised surface combat routines. Disengagement rules seem fine, but the combats seem to suffer from a problem of fixation on a couple of ships while the rest are left untouched...

I wrote this idea in another thread (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=704587&mpage=3)

The superior force should have something of a "pairing up" of targets, such ship targets this, such ship targets the other, etc, from most dangerous to less dangerous. Once the damage is clearly too much for a ship to stand, or the AI thinks so, the ship targetting it shifts fire to the next on the list. Historically many ships were left almost dead on the water to shift fire to more important and evident targets, even while they were not actually sinking at the moment...so this should cover it.

the inferior force should target mostly the most dangerous enemy assets, concentrating fire on them (was quite funny to see to of the japanese CAs firing at my cruisers, and one of them to one of my DDs while there were two full-size Battleships throwing 14 and 15 inch stuff all around the place!) with some random-dice-the-roll throws to see if they happen to fire at anything else instead (should be unlikely but could happen).

If both forces are equal, rules are like that of the superior force.

That way if you have superior ships you cover the whole enemy line with fire (which was the usual thing to do, because I agree that in very confusing combats like Savo Island each ship fired mostly at will, however that was a full feet engagement while in an attack against a convoy there should be no such heavy confusion), and shift targets when the targetted enemy is clearly dying or no longer a threat... which is my tho only major complaints about the surfacte combat routine at this moment, after this couple of combats.

If you are in disadvantage, your ships concentrate on the most dangerous enemy assets...if you have four CAs and you're fighting 2 BBs, all four should be firing at the big ships (unless the random dice says otherwise-but this should be rare)!!




matchwood -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/9/2004 12:39:53 PM)

Hi Guys,

How about we split this thread into separate parts Land, Air, Ship, Base and Production - this way it would be easier to keep on top of what has been suggested already.

1) Pilots - I would like to see us be able to create and disband squadrons at will. This should cost Political Points. The reason for this is that if you give us the ability to decide if Midway happens or not then you should give us control over the decisions that were made historicaly as a result of midway. This would also resolve the pilot training numbers issue giving both sides the ability to manage rear area training squadrons. Play balance would be maintained by PP. We have control over forming task forces - why not squadrons?

2 Squadron disbanding - I would like to see the ability to return pilots to the pool. Perhaps this could be limited to squadrons in the important bases.



Bradley7735 -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/9/2004 10:32:09 PM)

Base information:

When you click the mouse on an enemy base (or dot), I'd like to see more than just the victory points and current build. I'd like to see if the base is an atoll, if it's temperate or malaria. In the case of a "dot" base, you can't see the SPS of it. That's probably the most important info to see. Why invade a dot of (0/0). but a dot of (3/3) is worth invading (especially if it's undefended)

(if there is a way to see this, I haven't figured it out)
bc



rogueusmc -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/10/2004 6:23:18 AM)

I don't know if it has been said, but I would like ships to have a fatigue rating like troops and A/C.



Knaust -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/10/2004 8:59:35 AM)

if not posted before...add to the Sunk Sips Screen the column Date of Sinking



bayern -> RE: Database (9/10/2004 1:09:28 PM)

hallo

mal ein Wunsch auf deutsch
im TaskForce Kampfscreen würde ich gerne selbst bestimmen
auf welche feindlichen Schiffe geschossen wird.
evtl. sollten Prioritäten angegeben werden, erst Zerstörer dann Transportschiffe angreifen oder so ähnlich.

WayPoints für eine TaskForce wären auch nicht schlecht, hat aber schonmal jemand geschrieben

gruss bayern



frank1970 -> RE: Database (9/10/2004 1:33:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bayern

hallo

mal ein Wunsch auf deutsch
im TaskForce Kampfscreen würde ich gerne selbst bestimmen
auf welche feindlichen Schiffe geschossen wird.
evtl. sollten Prioritäten angegeben werden, erst Zerstörer dann Transportschiffe angreifen oder so ähnlich.

WayPoints für eine TaskForce wären auch nicht schlecht, hat aber schonmal jemand geschrieben

gruss bayern


Translation:
Hi
I´d like to choost what ships to attack in hte combat screen. Evtl there should be given priorities what ships to attack.
I´d also like to see waypoints for my TFs



siRkid -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/10/2004 1:54:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

I don't know if it has been said, but I would like ships to have a fatigue rating like troops and A/C.



System damage takes care of this. Troops loaded onboard will become disrupted if they stay at sea too long.



RAM -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/10/2004 3:25:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Base information:

When you click the mouse on an enemy base (or dot), I'd like to see more than just the victory points and current build. I'd like to see if the base is an atoll, if it's temperate or malaria. In the case of a "dot" base, you can't see the SPS of it. That's probably the most important info to see. Why invade a dot of (0/0). but a dot of (3/3) is worth invading (especially if it's undefended)

(if there is a way to see this, I haven't figured it out)
bc



if there is a way to see it, me neither ;).


Those are a good set of nice ideas there, Bradley7735. I agree in all of them with you.



Chris21wen -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/10/2004 5:41:30 PM)

Reinforcements added to the Ops report the turn after they arrive.



Williamb -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/11/2004 12:07:24 AM)

If we can keep making suggestions

Do away with the "Picture taking" ground recon animations during turn playback. they are time consuming and really dont and anything (other than peaking at cap which is useless anyways as you cant change air attacks during a turn)

Rather see animations of our recon untis dive bombing subs or discovering enemy CAP or warships.



freeboy -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/11/2004 2:19:59 AM)

Add the ability to further reduce which animation I see, I dont need to see some of these.. land combat etc... same with coorisponding sound affects



BossGnome -> RE: Database (9/11/2004 2:45:17 AM)

im not sure if this has been mentionned before, but the ability to actually carrier-train pilots and units that are carrier capable by running training missions on carriers. In a realistic perspective, and gameplay one, this makes perfect sense!



Cav Trooper -> RE: Database (9/12/2004 12:54:12 AM)


I would like the following options:

1: When I place an ASW patrol (limted to about 8 ships max for reality issues) out and have the setting of Patrol / Do not retire, I would like the max reaction range to be an area the ship patrols on it's own. IE: max reaction range of 3 the TF would patrol a cirle in a radius of 3 hexes from the DH. I believe that it would be more realistic and offer a better oppurtunity to intercept and suppress submarine patrols better than just staying in it's current DH. And maybe if possible, if a Patrol Plane spots a sub within that assigned circle, then it would head in that direction to simulate an air-sea anti-sub operation. Have the effectiveness of the last option increase over the war years.

2: Be able to designate Patrol Zones for submarines that are under Computer control. IE: Formosa Straits, Sea of Japan Southern sector, Leyte Gulf Northern sector etc etc.. for example. Once sub gets to this area, under computer control, patrols within this geographical area until removed or sunk. Add a report interface which would show SS Gato enroute to Sea of Japan / SS Tambor in Formosa Strait patrol zone / SS Wahoo damaged in Soloman Straights etc... Also, possibly an option like above, if within this patrol zone, other convoys spotted by A/C or other ships, the subs would start to move in the direction to hopefully intercept. Again, effectiveness and implementation variable due to time period of the war..

3: PT boats targetable as a nava task force by aircraft, as all other ships. Allow them to be attacked by all combat aircraft. Likewise, an icon added for barges. So far, I know barges are out there, but have yet to see them spotted or even attacked. I've run hunter killer groups of DD's up and down Japanese coastlines in the SW Pacific and have yet to even have a sighting report of one..

4: An option to target Enemy TF's for Aircraft Attack missions like you can for Land attack missions. IE, select a BB - CA- DD Taskforce for a Carrier or Land base strike as a primary and then commanders decision as a secondary. I've had alot of Carrier strikes that completely by-passed surface warships that were closer and smack a 6 ship AK / TK TF further out. Might be unbalancing or unrealistic, however, the frustration factor might be alleviated a bit..

Just a couple of items I would like to see added.

Otherwise Love the game, it's too addictive...House Hold 6 constantly complains that I'm on the computer all the time, and won't watch Peacenik Propaganda movies with her instead of fighting for the safety of the freeworld...



m10bob -> Flogging an old horse!!!!! (9/14/2004 6:00:46 PM)

I would still like the ability to designate "target-types" when I launch a carrier attack..Since nobody knows the threat a carrier force can be better than another carrier force,I would like to be able to launch directly against carrier type targets instead of seeing my planes fly to sink "gunboats" when I know carriers are in striking range..



WhoCares -> RE: Flogging an old horse!!!!! (9/14/2004 6:16:48 PM)

While loading troops on TFs it would be nice to see the target it is prepared for.
Just right now, I got many Base Forces in Tokyo and I assigned them quickly to various destinations to accumulate PrepPoints. As they were far from TOE I left them in Tokyo for another week or five. And now I have to go through the whole list of units again to put them on the proper convoys [:(]


Added to the list



bstarr -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/15/2004 12:39:43 PM)

an addon for the data base and scenario editor.

We need to be able to alter such things as countries involved in the war (I noticed slots like "N3" are there but there's no way to reach them), a way to alter air statistics for more than one year, etc, etc, etc.



samthesham -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/17/2004 8:04:32 AM)

THANK you for the game

1. Accumulate a combat history on each ships and subs data screen
2. Pick (or at least display) Anti-shipping loads for A/C
3. Have Air attacks vs. PT boats automatically resolve at 200 feet for
fighters.

4. Independent Altitudes for primary and secondary missions
5. Lower effectivness of coastal guns.
6. Allow invasions to break off Ala' Wake.
7. Probably division style invasions for the US should REQUIRE 100 days
planning 1943 and after. US doctrine to minimize casualties is just as relevent
as sub doctine. Might want to tie 5/6/7 above together; ie the more planning the
higher the threshold for "breaking off" and the lower the efectivness of coastal
guns.



SaintEx -> RE: Using Political Points (9/17/2004 5:36:41 PM)

Using Political Points

1) This is probably too much of a rework for a small patch, but I'd like to suggest a more sophisticated use of political points. They could be used to avoid "gamey" behavior by attributing a political point cost to certain decisions, particularly the abandoning of bases. For instance, many players suggest stripping the Philippines or the DEA bases of their units, whereas this would have been extremely difficult to imagine for the real commanders and politicians involved. The stripping of Singapore's defences would have been particularly unimaginable. Just as it has a pp cost to switch a unit from one HQ to another, it could cost something simply to move a unit off of a given base, or a given landmass. This would also have the benefit of obviating the need for "restricted" units - they can be moved, but at a pp cost.

2) Likewise, I suggest that A bombs have a pp cost, although I assume this has been discussed in the past.

3) I don't think new units should automatically be assigned to an HQ, with the possible exception of "home" HQ's (West Coast, Aussi, NZ, the corresponding Japanese HQ's, etc.) They follow their historical assigments, however since the player assumes the role of a grand commander, and may well follow a different strategy, there's no reason to assume that he would make the same underlying allocation of his forces. Currently, we fashion our own round holes, but then have to ram historical squares into them.


4) Lastly, why not include a pp calculation in the victory points? Many, many wargames have included something along these lines (in AH's "The Korean War", for example, allied decision making was always a delicate balance between pp costs and air/ground strength). As it is, the only drawback to using pp's is that there will be less available for some future switching around. In the extreme, and continuing on the above example, reinforcements could all be "purchased" out of a pool of pp's, with the cost being that victory therefore becomes more difficult to achieve: at least for the allies. There's a bit of this with the current a-bomb rules, but there's no reason why a good campaign couldn't make do with less force, therefore theoretically releasing more units for the ETO and hastening victory there, fostering eternal gratitude and tickertape parades and the accolades of gamers across the virtual world.

I think the above, or something like it, would add a bit more of a rounded element to the game.



bombata -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/17/2004 6:49:37 PM)

it would be realy great to get different map icons for automatic convoys and player controlled convoys. it would make it easier to find a specific player controlled convoy faster in the middle of 20-30 automatic convoys.

bye



Toro -> Ship damage display (9/17/2004 10:19:51 PM)

Here's one I'd like to see: currently, damaged ships (sys, etc) show a number indicating their damage level. However, a ship could have zero sys damage, but still have a component (a gun, radar, etc) damaged, and we don't know that until they're in the heat of battle, or we happen to look at the ship detail screen. Can an indicator of some sort be displayed telling us there is a component still unrepaired? Perhaps the name in orange or something?

added to the list



bgibs -> RE: WitP Wish List: aircraft loadouts (9/19/2004 8:56:44 AM)

I think this has been discussed before, but it would be nice to be able to either choose or see the different aircraft loadouts based on the mission chosen.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: WitP Wish List: aircraft loadouts (9/19/2004 11:09:35 AM)

I'd still like to see more permanent damage from torp hits. Too many times I've seen ships get hit but when I look at the ship it might have 8%sys damage, 60% floatand some fire. That flotation damage is pumped out in a few days and one is left with an OK ship. Where's the hole? "I could have sworn the bow was blown off, Sir!" Either vastly increase system damage or make some floatation permanent like system damage until repaired in a naval dockyard.



jcjordan -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/20/2004 2:51:31 AM)

Didn't find post on this through search but an extra I'd like to see is the ability to filter which kind of combat animations to see not just on/off for all.



RoyalOak -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/20/2004 2:52:37 AM)

Here is my list :

1. Give us all the resolution tables (formulas) used in the game. This is the most frustrating point for me : it's a strategic/operational game. How can I plan operations if I don't know the exact effects of what I'm doing ?

2. Give all location max level of fortification. Fortifying Tarawa should be more easy than Peking.

3. Give artillery/aircraft/support a value for Mandchuko garrison. As the system stands now, Jap player can if he pay PP strips completely this area from all HQ, ART, and aircrafts.

4. Do not always kill the pilot when an op loss occurs.

5. In the op report, it will be nice if we can have an overview of the economy. For exemple, a message like this : Tokyo HI not producing by lack of oil/resources.

6. Give at each LCU an assault and AT value, who takes in account exp/morale, fatigue/disruption, as well as actual strength.

7. Some changes in the FOW system. The FOW does not work actually for air combat, as we have each turn the exact losses suffered by each side day by day.
Also, give at each player the exact losses suffered by his side in ground combat.

8. Allow Japan to build if he want some hypothetical ships, that were planned but never realized. This will give him more flexibility to remplace the losses.

9. Reaching a DL level of 10 is too easy in the game. I think the last levels (5+) should be far more harder to reach.

10. Limit the possibility for Japan to launch a major assault in China at the start of the war.



Tankerace -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/20/2004 3:06:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RoyalOak

6. Give at each LCU an assault and AT value, who takes in account exp/morale, fatigue/disruption, as well as actual strength.



Personally, I don't that would be good for this game. IRL, generals didn't have "assault values" on their units. If you do that, it would turn the game into a type of "Panzer General", which although a fun game, something like that would ruin what this game attempts to achieve.



RoyalOak -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/20/2004 3:29:17 AM)

quote:

Personally, I don't that would be good for this game. IRL, generals didn't have "assault values" on their units. If you do that, it would turn the game into a type of "Panzer General", which although a fun game, something like that would ruin what this game attempts to achieve.


I don't understand ? You could actually in the game calculate these values : just multiply the number of squad by the soft/hard attack provided in the game manual, then multiply by morale, exp, and divide by fatigue and disruption. It's just taking a lot of time.

The only way we can model a war is by giving numerous value at units. I think the more you know, the more you can planify.



dtravel -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/20/2004 5:46:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RoyalOak

Here is my list :

1. Give us all the resolution tables (formulas) used in the game. This is the most frustrating point for me : it's a strategic/operational game. How can I plan operations if I don't know the exact effects of what I'm doing ?



Much as I would like to have these as well, its never going to happen. It is Grigsby's philosophy to keep as much from the player as possible.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.84375