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

OG_Gleep -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/20/2004 12:32:44 PM)

I agree with russkly here. This is something I thought was really missing in UV.

I am the Allied Commander in the Pacific. An Army of secrataries and JO's should be typing reports to keep me and my staff up to the minute. In game terms a screen at the start of each turn with updates of what actually happened, color coded and with the ability to filter it. This would help manage the madness.

I would also really really like being updated on my units progress. Either by having two XP values. Starting XP and current XP, and/or a visual update every time a pilot, ship, or commander gained XP.

Example


Rank Name Exp ............. Fat Mis Kills

FO Carson F. 62(60) +1 17 12 1

Exp - Current - Start - Increase last turn

OR

Rank Name Exp ..... Fat Mis Kills

FO Carson F. 62 +2 17 12 1

Exp - Current - Total gain


Or something like this. I got really attatched to my units, esp air, and I really enjoyed developing them, and trying to keep my top guys alive.



bgibs -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/22/2004 12:10:10 PM)

Has anyone mentioned adding rckets to some allied planes? If not I would like to see it.



steveh11Matrix -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/22/2004 2:23:04 PM)

Actually, I was surprised to see it not in there...or is it? What's type 01 - SS Rocket? Does that mean Surface-to-Surface, or what?

Oohh, just thought: I can model Tallboys and Grand Slams, can't I? [8D]

Steve.



Feinder -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/22/2004 5:30:36 PM)

Can we get a slightly different color tint on FRIENDLY TFs and subs that have been spotted? Not sure if they would -know- they were spotted, and that might be a realism issue (in which case, forget it). But knowing which TFs have been spotted (and thus might need to change course), or subs that we need to relocate.

Evidence the Hornet's TF being spotted and being concerned enough to launch the Doolittle strike early. Or a sub that sees the Jake that is shadowing them, and decides to dive and move to another patrol zone.

Regards,
-F-



Oznoyng -> RE: WitP Wish List (9/22/2004 6:09:56 PM)

Gonna post this here and in sub management thread:

Would be really nice to have the endurance required field display the endurance required by the task force to reach it's destination and return to base. If it had no destination, the column would simply be the endurance required to return to base. The current Endurance required column is mostly unusable because you have to know how far each TF is from base to have an idea of when you might want to RTB.



Halsey -> RE: Combat (9/23/2004 5:28:00 PM)

I would like to see an automatic shock attack initiated when LCU's cross a river hexside and enter a hex containing enemy forces. As in the same principle when invading an atoll. This would make river defense a possibility.

As it stands now, rivers do little to impede the progress of LCU's.

The causeway leading into Singapore would be considered a bridge crossing a large body of water (river for the purpose of combat).

Added to the list



dday -> RE: Combat (9/23/2004 6:39:37 PM)

Hello,

Maybe it would be nice to add some more/different MUSIC, the ones on now, are kinda driving me [X(] NUTS.



strawbuk -> RE: Combat (9/23/2004 7:30:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dday

Hello,

Maybe it would be nice to add some more/different MUSIC, the ones on now, are kinda driving me [X(] NUTS.


Easy three step programme to sanity:

1. Turn off sound on your PC (unless you have good speakers and spare cd drive)

2. Position CD player 2.5m from WITP playing area

3. Put on this http://www.moviemusic.com/CD/longestday.html



Dr. Duh -> RE: Ship vs. TF commanders (9/25/2004 4:18:39 AM)

I found that in order to change the skipper on an SS I want to send out on patrol, I have to:
1) Put the SS in a TF
2) Select the ship name to open the ship/boat detail
3) Select the Captain to open the skipper pick-list
4) Choose a new Captain
5) Back to TF screen
6) Disband the TF (because the previous captain was still TF CDR)
7) Form the TF again (now it has the new skipper as TF CDR)

Can something be done about this? Perhaps on the TF screen, selecting the "TF CDR" should bring up the ship captain pick-list instead (and set both the ship captain as well as the TF CDR) if there is only one ship in the TF?

This would limit your flexibility slightly, since then in order to have a RADM or such off the TF CDR list telling his one captain what to do in a one-ship TF, you would then have to put 2+ ships into a TF, assign the TF CDR, then remove all but the one ship. I can't see this happening often though.



tanker4145 -> TF Movement pathfinding (9/27/2004 7:28:54 PM)

How about making it so you can input where you want a TF to move. Basically set up a path for your TF instead of having the computer decide where it will go. What I mean is instead of the computer just drawing a line to where your unit will go, why not be able to queue up orders. For example, move to hex XX,YY then to XX,YY, then XX,YY finally safely to their home base. Maybe have something where when you choose a destination if you hold down control, then you can click on multiple locations and the TF will move to those in order and then execute it's next destination. This way you could route TF's around sub heavy airs or keep them out of range of enemy air assets without having to give it a new destination every turn.



mikemike -> RE: Base attacks (9/29/2004 5:53:50 PM)

When there is an attack on an airfield or a port, include a possibility (rnd < 0.10 maybe) that the major part of the fuel stored there will go up in flames.

IIRC, on most non-permanent airbases avgas would be stored in barrels in an open dump with some splinter protection by berms. A bomb hitting there would have blown most of the stuff to kingdom come (and AFAIK frequently did).

Harbors: Look at air photos of Pearl Harbor from the time of the attack. There are giant farms of completely unprotected tanks filled right up with fuel. Itīs a little wonder none of them were touched off during the attack. There must have been similar arrangements at most ports that were just as vulnerable to damage.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: TF Movement pathfinding (9/29/2004 11:47:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tanker4145

How about making it so you can input where you want a TF to move. Basically set up a path for your TF instead of having the computer decide where it will go. What I mean is instead of the computer just drawing a line to where your unit will go, why not be able to queue up orders. For example, move to hex XX,YY then to XX,YY, then XX,YY finally safely to their home base. Maybe have something where when you choose a destination if you hold down control, then you can click on multiple locations and the TF will move to those in order and then execute it's next destination. This way you could route TF's around sub heavy airs or keep them out of range of enemy air assets without having to give it a new destination every turn.


Waypoints? Good luck. Apparently this is difficult and lotsof work. I don't see why, really,but I don't know squat about programming.



Mr.Frag -> RE: TF Movement pathfinding (9/30/2004 12:02:47 AM)

quote:

Waypoints? Good luck. Apparently this is difficult and lotsof work. I don't see why, really,but I don't know squat about programming.


Make it simple to understand ... each waypoint is a pin on a map.

You need to keep track of the pins stuck into the map (in our case an x and y coordinate)

You now need to buy some string to tie to the pins so you know which pin belongs to which route like a good old connect the dots game. (in our case a leg number)

Pins and String = Bytes (a byte can hold a number between 0 and 255) [:D]

As you can see, each leg of the ship's path now takes 2 pins and 1 string (5 bytes)

Currently, the structure for things has their start spot (pin #1) and their end spot (pin #2). 4 bytes total. Add waypoints and each item suddenly needs 5 bytes *per* waypoint.

Through fancy coding efforts, you can strip some bits here and there and reuse some bytes and cram it down to 2.5 bytes per leg, but it still takes coding to deal with the changes and extra space in an already large save file.

Now comes the tough part ... the AI has it's own routines for pathfinding (taking into consideration threats and other nasties). How does *it* deal with your waypoints?



Ron Saueracker -> RE: TF Movement pathfinding (9/30/2004 12:30:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Waypoints? Good luck. Apparently this is difficult and lotsof work. I don't see why, really,but I don't know squat about programming.


Make it simple to understand ... each waypoint is a pin on a map.

You need to keep track of the pins stuck into the map (in our case an x and y coordinate)

You now need to buy some string to tie to the pins so you know which pin belongs to which route like a good old connect the dots game. (in our case a leg number)

Pins and String = Bytes (a byte can hold a number between 0 and 255) [:D]

As you can see, each leg of the ship's path now takes 2 pins and 1 string (5 bytes)

Currently, the structure for things has their start spot (pin #1) and their end spot (pin #2). 4 bytes total. Add waypoints and each item suddenly needs 5 bytes *per* waypoint.

Through fancy coding efforts, you can strip some bits here and there and reuse some bytes and cram it down to 2.5 bytes per leg, but it still takes coding to deal with the changes and extra space in an already large save file.

Now comes the tough part ... the AI has it's own routines for pathfinding (taking into consideration threats and other nasties). How does *it* deal with your waypoints?


But the AI does not do a good job of safe pathfinding...in fact it seems to ignore threats. Goes around unseen subs for some reason but plots a course straight through enemy air zocs. At least the initial path shows this and this is what concerns players. It may well alter course as it proceeds but I've had too many TFs get clobbered as a result to allow AI any margin of responsibility. Be nice to be able to set CS missions between distant ports but with present AI pathfinding,this is impossible. Much nurse maiding required for each convoy. I don't mind overly because it does not take me too long, but many players mayfind this neccessity rather foul tasting.



freeboy -> RE: TF Movement pathfinding (9/30/2004 2:45:54 AM)

My wish for a new wish list is: MORE fow!!! the less we see, the more interesting those times when we do see them



tanker4145 -> RE: TF Movement pathfinding (9/30/2004 7:06:53 AM)

I'd love to see waypoints, but if they are too hard to do, then I can live with it. It just adds about 10-20 minutes to most turns for me, but I can live with that. I appreciate the explanation though frag so now at least I know why it's not in there...that's why I love this game and Matrix so much, people like you Mr. Frag--you give us answers to our questions!!! Three cheers for you.[:D][;)][:)]



freeboy -> RE: TF Movement pathfinding (9/30/2004 8:30:48 PM)

ok, my add on again... get the patch out



pad152 -> RE: TF Movement pathfinding (10/1/2004 2:09:56 AM)

Pathfinding Issue

If you create a TF in San Fran and set it's destination as Brisbane, it will sail right into enemy controlled areas (Gillbert Islands in air range of Bettys and Neils).

I never wanted way points, all I every wanted was a stand-off point, where a TF would go to first to a stand-off point before going to it's final destination. Currently when you set a TF to go from A to B, the TF as a bad habit of hugging the coastal areas (too close to enemy units). I like to keep my TF's not just out of attack range, but out of spotting range as well.

The way I handle it now is to set a stand-off point as the destination and then change it's home port as a final destination. This is alot of micro-management, we need either better pathfinding or a stand-off point.



Mike Scholl -> RE: TF Movement pathfinding (10/1/2004 6:01:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Now comes the tough part ... the AI has it's own routines for pathfinding (taking into consideration threats and other nasties). How does *it* deal with your waypoints?


Good arguements, Frag. But you do ignore one point. The AI's "own routine" for
pathfinding is pretty awful in practice and needs improvement anyway. So would
puting at least a "sail through" button on either side of the "go to" choice be such
a big deal during that re-write? You yourself have made the point that for a really
"good" game of WITP you have to play against a real opponant..., and this would
certainly help both players in a PBEM game. Just a thought.



Pier5 -> RE: TF Movement pathfinding (10/1/2004 11:16:11 PM)

I would say "pretty awful" is giving it the benefit of the doubt. Early in the 42A scenario, it was routing SF return convoys within 180 miles of Rabaul and then right through Tarawa. Later, many convoys were routed very close to Guadalcanal, where they were attacked by a hundred Betty's and then (if anything survived) on to kwajalein. I am playing a central Pacific strategy, ignoring the Solomon's (Long Lances, no thanks!). Unfortunately, the A/I does not react at all to the fact that the Solomans is irrelevant. Back on topic, I generally solve the problem by routing all my South Pacific convoys to Canton, where they just park until needed. Unfortunately, when sent to, say Brisbane, I have a tendency to forget to set Noumea as the home port, which is necessary to prevent the convoy from trying to return close to Guadalcanal, which is suicidal. In any event, you can, actually must, establish your own waypoint system by using 'do not retire' and 'do not unload'. Obviously, this negates the automatic convoy system completely, but it was pretty close to useless, anyway.

The other problem is attempting to supply the Mariannas from SF, convoys are routed within Betty range of Osaka. They route directly West from SF until they intersect the direct SW line to the Mariannas. Ouch! Explain to me again how this air balance thingy is supposed to work.

Pier5



Mike Scholl -> RE: TF Movement pathfinding (10/2/2004 7:56:42 AM)

OK, so I was being polite when I said "pretty awful". Actually, your experiances
were very similar to mine, and your response exactly the same. Just don't use
the Auto-Convoy system for anything that might come close to the enemy. The
biggest problem is trying not to over-exploit the fact that the AI uses it's own
system for the other side. With a bit of foresight, you can virtually destroy the
AI's merchant shipping by leading them past your own strongpoints. Fun for a
while, but not conducive to a challenging game in the long run.



Richelieu -> RE: WitP Wish List (10/2/2004 2:59:21 PM)

I think to these improvements :

-Intelligence reports :
. date of the battle in the "ship sunk" screen
. more detailed summaries about ground troops losses (Men and/or squads, guns, vehicles)
. estimated and simplified report on ennemy forces (with fow) - Allied could be more precise than japanese reports, to reflect advance in intelligence warfare

- map : ability to write short observations on units, as already mentionned

- air combat : ability to assign only defensive CAP mission for fighters (without any Escort / Long Range / attack selected mission)



django -> RE: WitP Wish List (10/11/2004 3:08:11 PM)

In history there were same german subs in the pacific. So the Japs could should have them too.



strawbuk -> RE: WitP Wish List (10/12/2004 12:54:18 PM)

Put a 'fake base' or two, with no actual capacity or land, called 'Transit Point South' or something (think WOMP in N.Atlantic) well south of Canton etc then AI and players can use it to route convoys around enemy. Would that work?



bstarr -> RE: WitP Wish List (10/13/2004 11:05:33 PM)

Beezle's refrigerator rule.



DrewMatrix -> RE: WitP Wish List (10/14/2004 12:19:13 AM)

quote:

Beezle's refrigerator rule


Gee, I would have thought my Beer rule would have been more popular. But the refrigerator rule has the advantage that you can make the Japanese player's clothes smell bad if you get way ahead on points by mid war.



Belce -> PBEM Improvement (10/14/2004 7:57:40 AM)

PBEM Improvement


It would greatly improve the playability of a PBEM game if a player recieving the others's turn could do theirs and execute the turn and then do thier next turn, sending the replay and thier saved turn to the other to repeat. It could be even possible for a third party to execute player turns and email the results to the players, when ready the players upload their saved game file to them to execute.

The suggestion, I know is a major change to how the game currently works, but as it is now, I would need to find someone in a different time zone or with a very different work schedule to hope to do one turn per day. I would like to play against someone I know, because we like to play games like this against each other.

The requirement of who starts a turn, who executes a turn is so 80's in computer games, really in a PBEM game each player should be able to plan their turn based on the combat replay of the previous turn and either player should be able to execute it.

I am sure that alot of current and wantabe PBEM players would appericate being able to do 2 turns each time they pass a saved game back to their opponnent.



Grunty -> RE: PBEM Improvement (10/14/2004 3:01:08 PM)

Give us subs aces list (for captains or subs) with tonnage lists.
Don't underestimate subs in the game, please.



strawbuk -> RE: PBEM Improvement (10/14/2004 7:15:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grunty

Give us subs aces list (for captains or subs) with tonnage lists.
Don't underestimate subs in the game, please.


This space reserved for Ron to fire on doctrine.[sm=00000968.gif]



Ron Saueracker -> RE: PBEM Improvement (10/14/2004 10:45:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: strawbuk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grunty

Give us subs aces list (for captains or subs) with tonnage lists.
Don't underestimate subs in the game, please.


This space reserved for Ron to fire on doctrine.[sm=00000968.gif]


[;)][:D]



Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.65625