RE: What we need (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich



Message

HMSWarspite -> RE: What we need (12/29/2005 1:38:40 PM)

There's things I would fix first. For the GE offensive option to be anything other than a sideshow, the game would have to lose its assymetric turns. I would favour giving the Allies some additional constraints/things to worry about other than continual all out offence, but not a separate Ge offensive sub-game. The V weapon idea is good. I would remove the complusory V weapon target days, and replace it with the suggested Ge V weapons damage. I am not sure that damaging Allied 'installations' is right though. Maybe Terror damage is removed instead? (Civilian morale is better if they know they are hitting back?). An extension to the damage idea - make Allied aircraft replacements a function of Uboat strength, and get rid of political U boat targetting? However, I don't mind political targets so much if you had some warning, or better, a 'hit uboats twice in the next month' type political edict (I choose when). Bomb damage vs U pens needs looking at though (need really big bombs to do much - I don't know that this is right yet)



Hard Sarge -> RE: What we need (12/29/2005 2:44:08 PM)

okay, not sure I am following

we do not need a sub phase or a GE off turn to put V weapons in

so many V's are "made" and if Sites are good, V's are fired, doing so and so damage, would not really need Squadrons on partol, the fact that the V's are firing, is what is importent to the "people" not how many get shot down

(of course, the hassle really is, it would be so easy to shut it down, not sure if it would be worth the effort to make it work)

is the last statement, that the U-Boat Pens are too HARD to take out ?

mar 45, the US was trying out the Disney bomb which could punch a hole into 20ft of concrete (in fact, oddity, they bombed a U-pen, that they had captured), planned raid on a E-boat pen, was stopped by the ground troops taking it before the mission could be flown

the Pens were HARD to damage

need Tall boys, Grandslams or Disneys to really do the job right (little birdy is saying we are hopeing to get these added to the weapon load outs)




Prussia -> RE: What we need (12/29/2005 5:03:05 PM)

Suffice to say, that loadouts to make every LeMay whanabe fantasy come true will definitely be there.

Best to all,

Jean-Claude



Nikademus -> RE: What we need (12/29/2005 5:09:37 PM)

What do people think about morale as a variable?



Hard Sarge -> RE: What we need (12/29/2005 5:49:25 PM)

go deeper mate, some of us are not as smart as the rest of us

explain your statement ?



AmiralLaurent -> RE: What we need (12/29/2005 6:00:57 PM)

What would be great, and will as a side effect reduce the number of AC on the frontline, will be to add a "WITP-like" training mode, so crew may win experience outside missions.

Also what could be done would be to have 3 modes for Axis air units: "defensive" (player control as usual), "offensive" (suppose to bomb/strafe Allied troops..) and "training".

On the other hand, Allied units may be "offensive" (player control as usual), "defensive" (flying CAP) and "training".

Offensive Axis missions and defensive Allied ones will be controled by computer only.



HMSWarspite -> RE: What we need (12/29/2005 8:25:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

okay, not sure I am following

we do not need a sub phase or a GE off turn to put V weapons in


Sorry - mixing my drinks here. I discussed 2 things at once. I meant that too much emphesis on Ge offensive would be difficult without a Ge offensive phase (the allied player might feel that he could do nothing to inhibit the losses caused by the Ge having 'offensive planes'). Then, changing the subject, I agreed with the idea of a V weapons 'score' that did damage to Allies, but questioned whether facilities was the correct thing to affect - better to change the terror score directly.

quote:

so many V's are "made" and if Sites are good, V's are fired, doing so and so damage, would not really need Squadrons on partol, the fact that the V's are firing, is what is importent to the "people" not how many get shot down

(of course, the hassle really is, it would be so easy to shut it down, not sure if it would be worth the effort to make it work)

Yes - agree completely. The point of adding v weapons this way is to move the player from CinC 8th/BC etc to more like the Chiefs of staff, and remove the political missions at no notice. The hassle of implemetation may point you towards just staying as is (with political targets) but with choice or notice ('bomb V weapons at least once in the next 10 days (or get a compulsory day)', or 'V weapons day for 8th AF in 4 days')

quote:

is the last statement, that the U-Boat Pens are too HARD to take out ?

No, the exact opposite - I have seen U pens taken out (90%) with 1000lbers and cookies, which should not be possible. Throughout the war (even with tallboys and Grandslam,) the pens were almost impossible to knock out completely (the few pens taken out by big bombs do not represent an entire base). The only way to affect them was to level the soft buildings around them (accommodation, power, stores, rail etc), and I don't see that as 90% damage!

quote:

mar 45, the US was trying out the Disney bomb which could punch a hole into 20ft of concrete (in fact, oddity, they bombed a U-pen, that they had captured), planned raid on a E-boat pen, was stopped by the ground troops taking it before the mission could be flown

the Pens were HARD to damage

need Tall boys, Grandslams or Disneys to really do the job right (little birdy is saying we are hopeing to get these added to the weapon load outs)




My very point!. I don't want to see any pens taken out with Mossies, or mediums! 10-20% damage maybe, but not taken out. Also, big bombs only take out one or 2 bays in a complete pen at max, most of them did not penetrate completely (Grandslam was not designed as a contrete penetrator, and was lucky not to break up while partially penetrating)


Sorry for the confusion...
[edit to sort out the quoting!]



Nikademus -> RE: What we need (12/29/2005 9:06:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

go deeper mate, some of us are not as smart as the rest of us

explain your statement ?


deeper? careful.....might go into novel mode and make people's eyes blur. [:'(]

In discussing our AAR recently (BTR - Speedy is Luft, me Allies) I mentioned that the morale of most of my airgroups had tanked pretty bad due to a few hard missions and/or extended mission times (Bomber Command) and i was having problems getting it to go up. On hearing that I had airgroups with morale as low as the 20's - 40's, Speedy expressed shock that i was flying them at all and said that he never flies BG's or FG's with morale below 50.

While this made sense from a real world perspective, I'd noted that 'in the game' it had not stopped me from continuing my raids as i'd been going. I'd read in the rule book that units with low morale can suffer more break offs vs a high morale group but overall, it just didn't seem like I had to really worry much about morale. Morale 20 or 80, the airgroups were flying and bombing.

Hence the question.....do people think that this variable is properly represented? Does it really impact anything?



anarchyintheuk -> RE: What we need (12/29/2005 9:12:38 PM)

Not much experience in BtR. But in BoB it seemed that low morale bomber groups would break off quickly w/o fighter escort (which is actually a good thing). Once the 109s disappeared, the low morale groups would bugger off at the first intercept. I haven't done any testing or anything, just anecdotal observations.



Hard Sarge -> RE: What we need (12/29/2005 10:26:22 PM)

Hi Nick
as the next post said, low morale, will break off the fight earlier, which should leave the details to JC to explain

but over all, you don't really want to push the low morale units into action, unless it has to be done (I believe it is more then just the early break offs)




Hard Sarge -> RE: What we need (12/29/2005 10:28:46 PM)

for the U=Pens, okay at least we on the same page now :)

man, I never seen Med's or Mossies take out a Pen before(but then, I am the type who don't expect them to, so don't send them)



The Dude -> RE: What we need (12/30/2005 7:34:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

that is a HARD one, based on the game system (in BoB we could also have the BC and CC raids that were going on during BoB also)

ahhh where my notes

this time frame and earlier

say 1942

Rhubarbs 25-27 Squadrons of Spits would fly with no more then 30 bombers

April 30th, 38 squadrons of Spits flew with 24 Bostons on a Rhubarb

so, FC was being used in a Off role

which depending on how the OOB works out, not every Allied Squadron that was there, is there at the start, some are on other duties and not with the Off force

Would be interesting, if we could get the V1/V2 into the game some how (other then just a target)



quote:

that is a HARD one, based on the game system (in BoB we could also have the BC and CC raids that were going on during BoB also)

ahhh where my notes

this time frame and earlier

say 1942

Rhubarbs 25-27 Squadrons of Spits would fly with no more then 30 bombers

April 30th, 38 squadrons of Spits flew with 24 Bostons on a Rhubarb

so, FC was being used in a Off role

which depending on how the OOB works out, not every Allied Squadron that was there, is there at the start, some are on other duties and not with the Off force

Would be interesting, if we could get the V1/V2 into the game some how (other then just a target)



i realize that FC was used in an offensive role (my bad) but FC was still used as a defensive org while the TAFs were the offensive orgs.

Would it be possible to take the rules governing the limits of german intruders. Letting them hit the BC units as they land would be good, and give FC a task other than offensive ops.



Hard Sarge -> RE: What we need (12/30/2005 2:13:16 PM)

hmmm
well we have talked about this in the past, one major hassle, is it was against the rules for the LW

the couple of times it happened, it caused good damage and major confusion, and then Hitler had a fit when he heard about it, he wanted planes shot down over Land, where they could be seen to crash, there were rules that the LW was not suppost to attack bombers over water

(Galland was flying by himself as a General, and spotted a Spitfire flying over the channel, he gave chase and soon shot it down, upon landing, he filed his claim report, but stated he was not filing a claim, as it was against the rules and no witnesses, but the plane was shot down, so should be reported)

ahhhhhh

FC was not a Defence group, and in fact, about this time, it was not even FC anymore

we still are going to have tp play with in the system, so do not think we are going to have much we can really do with a GE phase for attack



Nikademus -> RE: What we need (12/30/2005 6:08:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Hi Nick
as the next post said, low morale, will break off the fight earlier, which should leave the details to JC to explain

but over all, you don't really want to push the low morale units into action, unless it has to be done (I believe it is more then just the early break offs)



Hmmm.....don know....not seeing much incentive to rest em 'in game'......call me Bomber Stalin.... [:D]






Spook043 -> RE: What we need (1/7/2006 7:59:51 PM)

I've only taken notice just last week that Matrix is taking this up with the earlier Talonsoft titles. I don't visit very often nowadays, it seems. [:(]

Well, this is very heartening news, especially as that John-Claude's years of prior work updating this series (at least BtR) can now potentially realize a greater wargamer audience. Also good to see some of JC's BtR forum vets like Hard Sarge & harley weighing in here also.

Now amongst all the other requests, I will add this, although in doing so I would not be too terribly surprised if JCL would rather not have heard it.

The map.

On the remote possibility that other Matrix staff MIGHT be able to support, specifically those more graphic-art inclined, could an updated map be considered?

IMO, the map in BtR is one of the ugliest renditions I've seen of the European theater, in color choices & contrasts; and several of the major European rivers in the BtR are only notional in their actual flowroutes.

I will allow that the game mechanics do not cue to specific map features than what's defined instead by the underlaying grid coordinates. Thereflow, a map update request would understandably be 2nd or 3rd-order in priority vs., say, fundamental improvements to the game mechanics, UI, etc.

Regardless, the request stands. Thanks for providing the request thread.



Hard Sarge -> RE: What we need (1/7/2006 8:11:02 PM)

Hi Spook
we are looking updateing the maps too, trying to add some of the areas that were left out and improve what we do have

now that being said, not sure how much better we can do

I know JC was always upset with the old map to start with (LOL a lot of the Cities are not in the right place either)

(ahhh, that is Jean, not John :)

we going to do as much as we can, if other areas need work, just jump on in



Spook043 -> RE: What we need (1/8/2006 5:05:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge


(ahhh, that is Jean, not John :)



OOOPS!!! I deserve a wet-fish slap for that slip.

[sm=00000030.gif]

LOL, maybe I got JCL mixed up with Van Damme or something. [;)]



HMSWarspite -> RE: What we need (1/8/2006 6:55:50 PM)

In terms of possible improvements, it would make it easier to tune vs history if airframes had their life tracked. Someone mentioned extending the game, and someone else getting the non-combat attrition right. I also have mentioned giving the player control over pilot tours, and feeding tour completed pilots into some sort of training algorthm.
How's about airframe tours? Probabilty of airframe retirement/relegation to a OCU/HCU as a function of number of missions? Or if pilot tours are in, and don't want to track airframe missions as well as pilot in the code, give a probabilty of airframe retirement when crew goes tour expired?

Also, SAS raids for the Allies has been mentioned or (less annoyingly), training accidents for non-operational units (if not flying today, and weather <x%cloud over base, the training flight occurs - not explicity shown on map or to player - crew gain y experience, and have z% chance of a/c loss). X maybe 40-50% cloud, y and z both small but finite)

I raise these things, partly because of the site given in another thread giving producion numbers and strengths stats for USAAF. To use these with the game as now, you need to make all sorts of corrections.

Probably OTT I know, but I am keen on as good a simulation as possible, to the extent that (if it were possible), feeding in historical weather and losses would give close as possble to histoical unit strength returns)



Hard Sarge -> RE: What we need (1/8/2006 7:59:26 PM)

Ahhhh
I don't know, there so many things that work against this

we still got to work with in the game system, and to be honest, while I love the game, the system is not that great *I didn't say that* as is

I can see Pilot tours, combat tours, if combat worked the way it really did, we can have a pilot with 240 missions exp 99 and he will have 2 kills

and as for making it real ?, not sure if anybody really wants a "real" sim of the bombing war

(was looking at the number of losses from 2nd Tac, IXth AF, 8th AF and BC/CC during the 3 month D-Day period, the loses are unreal, and that is pretty much with the LW parked on there AF's)

the early verison of the game, the GE had no chance, guess what, nobody wanted to play it, all the complaints were about giving the GE side a chance, the "real" air war was over pretty much my the end of May 44, with token LW responces after ward, hence a number of missions flown the main idea, of drawing the LW up so it could be shot down

(the LW still did what they could and did there best and a lot of Allied planes never returned, but for all intent, the Air War was over for seeing who controlled the skies, there were many raids that the LW didn't even try to contest any more, hopeing on clouds and Flak to save the day)

in fact by this time, most of the Allied Aces are either home or in POW camps (due to base attacks, because the LW wouldn't come up to fight)

we could make the game as real as we can, but then, nobody is going to want to play it, out side of the truely HARD CORE players

oh well, not sure if I am getting my point across

one thing about airframes, if we do it for the Allies, we got to do it for the LW, and for my style of play, I can not see the LW having any better chance with a 10%-20% wastage rule, affecting there already over weak Airforce



The Dude -> RE: What we need (1/10/2006 10:07:47 AM)

I think a big thing that needs to be fixed (at least i dont think it has been fixed yet) Is the terror points system. As it stands right now it you get pts for hitting an urban area. This should be changed to just those cities in Germany Austria Italy and the other axis powers.

As fun as it might be to scorch Paris off the face of the earth it just wouldnt do for the Allies to benefit killing thier own.

RR yards yes. Urban centers no.



Hard Sarge -> RE: What we need (1/10/2006 3:41:11 PM)

Come on mate
France does not give Terror points

now Einhoven and Arharm do (spelling) but the rest of the Dutch area does not

the arguement in the past has been if the Balkin areas should, but on the other hand, not many Large cities here to bomb

which if nothing else, I am sure JC will look at the code and see what and why some cities do count and others do not

(I believe some of the Balkins were left to be Terror Targets, is so 205 Group could have targets, as the real/main mission that 205 flew, can not be done with in the game system (mining)




The Dude -> RE: What we need (1/10/2006 6:24:43 PM)

quote:

Come on mate
France does not give Terror points

now Einhoven and Arharm do (spelling) but the rest of the Dutch area does not

the arguement in the past has been if the Balkin areas should, but on the other hand, not many Large cities here to bomb

which if nothing else, I am sure JC will look at the code and see what and why some cities do count and others do not

(I believe some of the Balkins were left to be Terror Targets, is so 205 Group could have targets, as the real/main mission that 205 flew, can not be done with in the game system (mining)


Okay my bad. I noticed i was getting points for some cities outside of germany.



Hard Sarge -> RE: What we need (1/10/2006 7:04:44 PM)

Roger that
seems like a strange line was drawn on the map, anything to the side of that line, gets Terror, on the other side does not

so it may be a code issue, but as I think I said, we can look into it to see how it is done

and also maybe set up a post to debate the good or bad of which ones can be Terror Targets or not

like I was saying, Athens is a Terror Target and I don't really think it should be, but with out it, what does 205 attack early in the war



The Dude -> RE: What we need (1/11/2006 9:32:58 AM)

Well I figure any cities in Germany, Austria, Italy, and any Balkan nations that are axis; Romania, Hungary Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Croatia should qualify for terror points.

As far as 205 group is concerned I always upgrade with 4e bombers so as to attack Italy and the Balkans even at the expense of Bomber Command



The Dude -> RE: What we need (1/11/2006 11:06:17 AM)

Another thing i would like to see changed is that when a mission flys out below 1500 ( or whatever is considered dangerous ), when they return to their form up field they automatically fly up to a safe height for the rest of their way back to their home base.

It just doesnt make any sense for the planes to stay at low level



kkoovvoo -> RE: What we need (1/11/2006 12:55:01 PM)

Hi guys,

easy question, I dont want to open new thread for it.

These games looks cool. Is there already any ETA for them?

Thanks



Hard Sarge -> RE: What we need (1/11/2006 4:04:56 PM)

ahhhhh
as of right now, I think the only thing we can really say, is when it is ready ????

so over all, we still in the dark about how long this could take

I am the type with a big mouth, if and when we get stuff to talk about, with in what the NDA allows, we will try and keep the forum informed as to how we are doing



PappyDano -> RE: What we need (1/12/2006 1:00:47 AM)

Would it be possible to add a column to the screen that you select your groups for missions? This column would list the number of days since that group's last mission. It would be similiar to the Target Screen's column that lists the number of days since the last photo recon.



Hard Sarge -> RE: What we need (1/12/2006 2:08:11 AM)

we will have to ask JC that

not sure of what we can really add and can't

but can't hurt to ask




JamesM -> RE: What we need (1/13/2006 8:44:34 AM)

Sarge

Is their going to be some work done on the number of groups and squadrons a airfield can hold BTR before there is a noticable drop in turn around times?




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8300781