Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: WitP Wish List

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: WitP Wish List Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: WitP Wish List - 3/5/2005 12:38:13 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
I might have mentioned it before: ship class filters in the 'TF Ship Transfer'-screen, like those in the 'Ships in port'-screen. And when creating a certain type of TF, only proper ship types should be shown in the 'TF Ship Transfer'-screen, e.g. if I create a tanker TF, only TKs, AOs and escorts should show up in the selection list (it's a tanker TF, so I do not need dozens of AKs, APs etc. showing up as transfer option). This would save a lot of sorting and scrolling in order to find the ships I actually want to transfer to the TF.

_____________________________


(in reply to scout1)
Post #: 301
RE: WitP Wish List - 3/6/2005 11:08:07 PM   
pauk


Posts: 4162
Joined: 10/21/2001
From: Zagreb,Croatia
Status: offline
probably posted before...

how about "continuous minelaying"?

MLE on "cont. minelaying" mission will lay their mines in the destination hex and after that they will return to homeport for another load of the mines and another minelaying in the destination hex (and so on, so on....)

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 302
cruiser/BB torps reload from AD's - 3/8/2005 10:30:12 PM   
wild_Willie2


Posts: 2934
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
Status: offline
I think it is very stupid that destroyers CAN reload torps from a AD, but cruisers (having the SAME torpedo's) can not.
You can leterally reload EVERYTHING from a supply ship (ammo from AE, sub torps from AS, mines from a MLE, motor torpedo boat torps from (forgot), destroyer torps from a AD)
but you can ONLY reload cruiser/BB torps from a level 9 port ????????.
please fix this

william

_____________________________

In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.

(in reply to ATCSMike)
Post #: 303
RE: cruiser/BB torps reload from AD's - 3/8/2005 10:37:35 PM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
Why? Its historical!

AD = DESTROYER TENDER, not cruiser tender.

IIRC, there had never been any operational instance of Cruisers receiveing torps from a tender. Tenders would have a DesDiv or DesRon assigned to it, and the assigned destroyers would load torpedoes from it. Not only would cruisers reloading torps from ADs be completely ahistorical and inaccurate, its partly, well, stupid. There are no cruiser tenders. Cruisers historically (like BBs) reload torps at a port in the rear. Im all for improvements, but lets not add fantasy things and cheapen the game, please.

< Message edited by Tankerace -- 3/8/2005 2:40:40 PM >


_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to wild_Willie2)
Post #: 304
RE: cruiser/BB torps reload from AD's - 3/9/2005 1:55:02 AM   
bilbow


Posts: 741
Joined: 8/22/2002
From: Concord NH
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

but you can ONLY reload cruiser/BB torps from a level 9 port ????????.
please fix this

william

Actually torps can be obtained at level 8 port. It's mines that require a level 9

_____________________________

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile- hoping it will eat him last
- Winston Churchill

(in reply to wild_Willie2)
Post #: 305
submarine Options - 3/9/2005 7:13:35 AM   
mike charley 7

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 2/26/2005
Status: offline
submarines during the air phase of the war were put on life guard duty. I dont have the exact figure but I'm sure almost every sub pulled lifeguard duty in its career. Now, since we put a value on having a sub pull life guard duty we need to put a value on the aircraft and the crew, right down to the individual crew member. This value can effect pilot morale say for 12 hours the morale value is set to 10 or 30 points deducted from the current unit morale value. If the pilot is rescued then the value can change until the pilot is returned to a base or home station.

Example: The sub gets points for each 12 hour block for being on Life Guard Duty ( LGD ) due to the fact that he is not hunting the enemy. Each crewmember saved is worth so many morale or other value associated withe the type of aircraft lost.. And there a bonus, depending on if you return the pilot back to his unit or you re-asighn him to another base that pilot can be used or he goes into the pilot pool.

What about the option on the seaplanes for air sea rescue duty. You can assighn patrol zones for air sea rescue aircraft. Maybe a transfer command to get the pilot to move from a ship or aircraft to land or another ship / aircraft..

Just food for thought. It has probably been covered somewhere

mark

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 306
RE: WitP Wish List - 3/9/2005 7:53:10 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
... to be able to defuel ships. Nothings worse than, as Japan, to be so low on fuel that you can't fuel your warships but you have 100 AK/APs sitting in port full of fuel that you can't touch.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 307
RE: WitP Wish List - 3/9/2005 4:57:43 PM   
medicff

 

Posts: 710
Joined: 9/11/2004
From: WPB, Florida
Status: offline
Actually the low fuelled TF will refuel from full transports if use refuel at sea button, I have seen them pull from ships in port but you might have to put transports in a TF.

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 308
RE: WitP Wish List - 3/9/2005 5:51:32 PM   
Sonny

 

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: medicff

Actually the low fuelled TF will refuel from full transports if use refuel at sea button, I have seen them pull from ships in port but you might have to put transports in a TF.


That helps but you can only fill up half way IIRC.

_____________________________

Quote from Snigbert -

"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."

"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "

(in reply to medicff)
Post #: 309
RE: WitP Wish List - 3/11/2005 3:52:41 PM   
strawbuk


Posts: 289
Joined: 4/30/2004
From: London via Glos
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

I know that it is very late in WitP developement but I still have hope that the below issues will be looked upon because geography and supply played huge role in how and where TFs were located in the Pacific (i.e. not every bay can be made into major harbour and not every ship one side posseses can be placed in such bay)...


#1 Ammo replenishment should be depending on port size

port size 1-3 : ammo for all guns up to 5"
port size 4-6 : ammo for all guns up to 8"
port size 7-9 : ammo for all guns


#2 Number of ships anchored should be depending on port size


Leo "Apollo11"


Ammo - I'm no programmer but to ease pain of suckers who are, why not make ammo reload limits by class - gets a bit fuzzy with those 5in CLs but easier to identify fro progarmme easier for us to remember as players. eg port 1-3 DDs only, 3-6 CL/CA/CV 7-9- all ships

Where does that leave re-ammo ships by the way?

Anchorages - darn tootin - is this not a similar function to airfield capacity?

_____________________________



Twinkle twinkle PBY
Seeking Kido Bu-tai
Flying o' the sea so high
An ill-omen in the sky
Twinkle twinkle PBY
Pointing out who's next to fry

(in reply to Apollo11)
Post #: 310
RE: WitP Wish List - 3/12/2005 5:08:27 AM   
Williamb

 

Posts: 594
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Dayton Ohio
Status: offline
Dunno if this has been suggested before.

In the combat turn report woudnt mind seeing it shown there what ships are sunk that turn as well as update list of the pilot kill board.

Would beat having to look it up each turn.

_____________________________


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 311
RE: WitP Wish List - 3/12/2005 9:11:12 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: William Amos

Dunno if this has been suggested before.

In the combat turn report woudnt mind seeing it shown there what ships are sunk that turn as well as update list of the pilot kill board.

Would beat having to look it up each turn.


Be better if a field were added to the sunk ships list for date sunk. Be cool if the specific ship or unit responsible was also added to/instead of the weapon type.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Williamb)
Post #: 312
RE: WitP Wish List - 3/12/2005 9:55:19 PM   
Sonny

 

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: William Amos

Dunno if this has been suggested before.

In the combat turn report woudnt mind seeing it shown there what ships are sunk that turn as well as update list of the pilot kill board.

Would beat having to look it up each turn.


Be better if a field were added to the sunk ships list for date sunk. Be cool if the specific ship or unit responsible was also added to/instead of the weapon type.


And the location where it was sunk like was stated above.

I really would like the op reports to show what is shown during the turn as far as stuff like how many planes the recons encounter. There are just too many to remember when you are watching it (unless you slow it way down and write down every detail).

_____________________________

Quote from Snigbert -

"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."

"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 313
RE: WitP Wish List - 3/13/2005 2:42:31 AM   
scout1


Posts: 2899
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: South Bend, In
Status: offline
how about some sort of listing that SIMULTANEOUSLY lists the supplies, oil, resources, and HI for each base, but the list contains ALL bases. Something that would permit a global look at what needs to be where for the japanese production system to hit on all cylinders

(in reply to Sonny)
Post #: 314
RE: WitP Wish List - 3/14/2005 2:20:11 AM   
akdreemer


Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: strawbuk

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

I know that it is very late in WitP developement but I still have hope that the below issues will be looked upon because geography and supply played huge role in how and where TFs were located in the Pacific (i.e. not every bay can be made into major harbour and not every ship one side posseses can be placed in such bay)...


#1 Ammo replenishment should be depending on port size

port size 1-3 : ammo for all guns up to 5"
port size 4-6 : ammo for all guns up to 8"
port size 7-9 : ammo for all guns


#2 Number of ships anchored should be depending on port size


Leo "Apollo11"


Ammo - I'm no programmer but to ease pain of suckers who are, why not make ammo reload limits by class - gets a bit fuzzy with those 5in CLs but easier to identify fro progarmme easier for us to remember as players. eg port 1-3 DDs only, 3-6 CL/CA/CV 7-9- all ships

Where does that leave re-ammo ships by the way?

Anchorages - darn tootin - is this not a similar function to airfield capacity?


Actually the entire resupply (supply?) aspect of the game is abstracted to the point that it fails to resemble the true challenges of logistics in the Pacific War, let alone logistics. Several casees in point. First, in "Beans, Bullets, and Black Oil", the history of Service Squadron 10, there are numerous accounts of ressupply not being a funtion of the "base" but of the actualy floating service squadrons. It is not a function of the base size, but what particular auxiliary vessel (ammo, fresh food, quartermaster stores, fuel (black navy oil, Avaiation gasoline, diesel, etc). Ulithi Atoll had very minimum land based infrastructer (primarily habitation quarters), was primarily chosen because it had the potential to provide a safe anchorage for the fleet. It was the aux ships of Service Squadron 10 that "pulled alongside" stored and dispenced the vital supplies that the fighting ships needed, not the base. Read some of the various ship histories ands you will find that most of the resupply, even in developed ports like Noumea, was handeled by various "afloat" assets (anchored a port X, tanker Y pulled along side and dispensed godzillion gallons of oil which took 6 hours, then supply ship W came alonside and filled up the storerooms). Thus, even a Level 1 "base", if the proper mix of service assets are available, can ressupply "any" warship.

Rearming destroyer torpedoes from AD's or level 8 or higher Bases does make some sense. However, outside the main supply ports such as San Diego, Kure, and the like, the only way large caliber (14,15,16,18 inch) equipped ships can rearm is in the presence of an AE. Most of this is due to the very special handling needed for this ammo. What I would have prefferred to see in a game of this complexity is less abstract handling of the "one supply point fits all" aspect of the current supply system adn a rational breakdown into at least Land Based, Air Based, and Naval Based supply. Some items, like torpedoes and large caliber shells and food, ought to be treated like commodities and require seperate accounting . By 1944 over 50% of the logistical support in the Pacific War was just to provide maintenance for base infrastructures. Indeed, the decision to use the Marianas for B-29 bases really but a huge strain on the logistal system to be able ot supply these aircraft with adequate levels of bomb's, spare parts, and aviation fuel.

An example of how the above would have impacted the war was the lack of more than 1 torpedoe per plane stockpile for the Japanese land based naval air groups based out of Saigon. But in the game the Bettie's and Nell's have "Ulimited" access to torpedoes, AP bombs, etc. which historically they did not have.

So at the least the following would be a improvement:

Seperate out the fuel:
Navy black oil
Aviation Gas
LCU gas (in a pinch a land vehicle could use Aviation, but not vice versa)
Diesel (Subs, DE's, etc.)

On the supply siide:
Heavy Naval gun ammo (>8")
Torpedoes (all)
Food
Maintenance (have to fix things when they break or leak)
Consumables

Now on the actual mechanics of the automated supply junk the current system and substitute the following:
Disignate autosupply based upon user selected parameters that would be composed of the following:

Supply base/customer base
As an example Osaka could be disgnated to supply only cretain bases, ditto for Tokyo etc.
At the sendary level Truk could be disgnated to supply Rabaul, Kavieng, and Kajelain. Rabaul could be disgnated to supply New Guenea and Solomon Bases. On the return trip if there were any resources at the consumer end they would be loaded and trasported back to the supply base. Now all the player has to do is to provide enough shipping assets. The amount of supplies needed would dynamitically adjust based upon the need total demand of the entire "supply network" and disgnate suppliers/consumers.

rm

_____________________________


(in reply to strawbuk)
Post #: 315
RE: WitP Wish List - 3/16/2005 12:08:20 AM   
scout1


Posts: 2899
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: South Bend, In
Status: offline
Can the game be renamed to "A War in the Pacific" so it gets moved higher in the forum listing

(in reply to scout1)
Post #: 316
RE: WitP Wish List - 3/16/2005 2:11:21 AM   
Sonny

 

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

Can the game be renamed to "A War in the Pacific" so it gets moved higher in the forum listing


An excellent idea. My scroll wheel on my mouse is getting worn out (and my scroll finger is getting tired) with all this scrolling to the bottom of the forums.

_____________________________

Quote from Snigbert -

"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."

"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "

(in reply to scout1)
Post #: 317
RE: WitP Wish List - 3/16/2005 1:41:02 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
#1 Ammo replenishment should be depending on port size
#2 Number of ships anchored should be depending on port size


quote:

ORIGINAL: strawbuk
why not make ammo reload limits by class eg port 1-3 DDs only, 3-6 CL/CA/CV 7-9- all ships

Where does that leave re-ammo ships by the way?

Anchorages - darn tootin - is this not a similar function to airfield capacity?


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
Actually the entire resupply (supply?) aspect of the game is abstracted to the point that it fails to resemble the true challenges of logistics in the Pacific War

So at the least the following would be a improvement:

Seperate out the fuel:
Navy black oil
Aviation Gas
LCU gas (in a pinch a land vehicle could use Aviation, but not vice versa)
Diesel (Subs, DE's, etc.)

On the supply siide:
Heavy Naval gun ammo (>8")
Torpedoes (all)
Food
Maintenance (have to fix things when they break or leak)
Consumables


Agree with the above posters on the need for ammo resupply and anchorage restrictions. But I think to separate supply into many categories is too complicated for a game of this size and will slow down order/execution phases even more. The existing categories of fuel/ supply (maybe add avgas as a third category) would be enough if there was a restriction on ammo replenishment depending on ship class and port size, coupled with a realistic ability of AE class ships. I would like to see ammo replenishment for shells larger than 5" restricted to port size 8 or better, unless there is an AE and a certain amount of supplies present - and the AEs should get the ability to replenish all types of ammo, not just AA.
Furthermore, I would tighten the spoilage rule to a point that small ports can hold only a limited amount of fuel, enough to operate barges and PTs, but not enough to refuel big TFs without the presence of loaded TK or AO types.
This would force us to keep a proper fleet train of AR, AO, AE types at those forward bases ( which often lacked proper port facilities, storage areas etc.) if we want to operate major fleet units from there - AlaskanWarrior has made the point with the Ulithi example.

'Thinking' as I write - maybe the 'thousand ships in size-3 port' problem could be restricted by operational points ports must spend on unloading/loading/replenishment operations - smaller ports obviously recieving fewer points per turn so they could only perform a limited number of simultaneous operations per turn.

_____________________________


(in reply to akdreemer)
Post #: 318
RE: WitP Wish List - 3/16/2005 7:18:55 PM   
foliveti


Posts: 371
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Buffalo, NY
Status: offline
I agree with the limitations on port size for ammo replenishment and would like to add an additional factor for the number of ships which could load or unload at a port. Perhaps it could be limited in much the same way as supply storage. That is, have an exponential increase in the number of ships which could load or unload at the same time based on port size. For example a size 1 port may only be able to service 1 ship per turn, whereas, a size 10 port could handle 100 ships per turn. Excess beyond these limits could be treated as unloading at a beach hex instead of at a port.

_____________________________

Frank

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 319
RE: WitP Wish List - 3/16/2005 9:53:21 PM   
bstarr


Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline
Currently you can't view class or nationality under "Ships Sunk;" I think this would be a nice, easy to fix addition. It would also be nice to have the date sunk listed as well.

_____________________________



(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 320
RE: WitP Wish List - 3/16/2005 11:43:34 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
#1 Ammo replenishment should be depending on port size
#2 Number of ships anchored should be depending on port size


quote:

ORIGINAL: strawbuk
why not make ammo reload limits by class eg port 1-3 DDs only, 3-6 CL/CA/CV 7-9- all ships

Where does that leave re-ammo ships by the way?

Anchorages - darn tootin - is this not a similar function to airfield capacity?


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
Actually the entire resupply (supply?) aspect of the game is abstracted to the point that it fails to resemble the true challenges of logistics in the Pacific War

So at the least the following would be a improvement:

Seperate out the fuel:
Navy black oil
Aviation Gas
LCU gas (in a pinch a land vehicle could use Aviation, but not vice versa)
Diesel (Subs, DE's, etc.)

On the supply siide:
Heavy Naval gun ammo (>8")
Torpedoes (all)
Food
Maintenance (have to fix things when they break or leak)
Consumables


Agree with the above posters on the need for ammo resupply and anchorage restrictions. But I think to separate supply into many categories is too complicated for a game of this size and will slow down order/execution phases even more. The existing categories of fuel/ supply (maybe add avgas as a third category) would be enough if there was a restriction on ammo replenishment depending on ship class and port size, coupled with a realistic ability of AE class ships. I would like to see ammo replenishment for shells larger than 5" restricted to port size 8 or better, unless there is an AE and a certain amount of supplies present - and the AEs should get the ability to replenish all types of ammo, not just AA.
Furthermore, I would tighten the spoilage rule to a point that small ports can hold only a limited amount of fuel, enough to operate barges and PTs, but not enough to refuel big TFs without the presence of loaded TK or AO types.
This would force us to keep a proper fleet train of AR, AO, AE types at those forward bases ( which often lacked proper port facilities, storage areas etc.) if we want to operate major fleet units from there - AlaskanWarrior has made the point with the Ulithi example.

'Thinking' as I write - maybe the 'thousand ships in size-3 port' problem could be restricted by operational points ports must spend on unloading/loading/replenishment operations - smaller ports obviously recieving fewer points per turn so they could only perform a limited number of simultaneous operations per turn.


Further to your points, I'd add "presence of naval engineer base forces". One must assume that these base forces would "order" naval ordinance and supply. It would also give some reason to the varirty of base unit types other than mere chrome. This would be better than port size limitations. Because they are relatively few in number, players would choose larger, more secure ports to base them in so port size would become rather a moot issue.


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 321
RE: WitP Wish List - 3/17/2005 6:33:36 AM   
akdreemer


Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker





Agree with the above posters on the need for ammo resupply and anchorage restrictions. But I think to separate supply into many categories is too complicated for a game of this size and will slow down order/execution phases even more. The existing categories of fuel/ supply (maybe add avgas as a third category) would be enough if there was a restriction on ammo replenishment depending on ship class and port size, coupled with a realistic ability of AE class ships. I would like to see ammo replenishment for shells larger than 5" restricted to port size 8 or better, unless there is an AE and a certain amount of supplies present - and the AEs should get the ability to replenish all types of ammo, not just AA.
Furthermore, I would tighten the spoilage rule to a point that small ports can hold only a limited amount of fuel, enough to operate barges and PTs, but not enough to refuel big TFs without the presence of loaded TK or AO types.
This would force us to keep a proper fleet train of AR, AO, AE types at those forward bases ( which often lacked proper port facilities, storage areas etc.) if we want to operate major fleet units from there - AlaskanWarrior has made the point with the Ulithi example.

'Thinking' as I write - maybe the 'thousand ships in size-3 port' problem could be restricted by operational points ports must spend on unloading/loading/replenishment operations - smaller ports obviously recieving fewer points per turn so they could only perform a limited number of simultaneous operations per turn.


Further to your points, I'd add "presence of naval engineer base forces". One must assume that these base forces would "order" naval ordinance and supply. It would also give some reason to the varirty of base unit types other than mere chrome. This would be better than port size limitations. Because they are relatively few in number, players would choose larger, more secure ports to base them in so port size would become rather a moot issue.



Ron

Actually I think you might have hit on a doable solution. For instance, many of the Seebees (Naval Construction BN's - NCB) were actually steveodores, "The 1st through 40th NC Special BN's were formed at the beginning of 1943 to serve as stevedores for loading and unloading ships in overseas areas where civilian contractors or native laobor was unavailable and to serve as shore parties during assault landings", US Marine Corps World War II Order of Battle, Gordon Rottman. Indeed, there are several items that determine howmuch cargo can be unloaded at a port. Physical properties of the port, such as docks, crains, storage, and land trasportation all factor in it. However, probably to most important factor is the quantity and quality of the laborers. So infractruture will put an ultimate limit on how ,uch tonnage a port and trasship a month. Examine the backlog of cargo at San Francisco in early 1944 and you will see that even the largest of ports have a limit.

So I would suggest that ports be given a minimum and maximum amount of CARGO that can be transshipped (either loaded or unloaded) in a day. These limits would be modified depending upon how many engineers or support personnel are in the port. Will have to work on the specifics of this. So instead of how may ships can be loaded, instead it would be now how many supply/fuel points can be moved. Combine this with a limit on how many ships can be physically "docked" in the port (as oppossed to anchored) and most of the logistical problems will be mediated. For specialized supplies (ammo for ships, torpedoes, etc.), then the appropriate aux. ships must be present and appropriate supply levels available. For instance AE must have supplies on board in order to ressuply ammo. The same should be for all of the other auxs. In reading the history of the battleship Washington, raely did the ship actually "refuel" from the physical port facilities. It was always a tanker, wether navy or civilian, fueling her. Ditto for other supplies.

As for the fuel, at least make a seperate av gas fuel. I can live the the rest.

rm

_____________________________


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 322
RE: WitP Wish List - 3/17/2005 10:06:43 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

Actually I think you might have hit on a doable solution. For instance, many of the Seebees (Naval Construction BN's - NCB) were actually steveodores,
[...]
So I would suggest that ports be given a minimum and maximum amount of CARGO that can be transshipped (either loaded or unloaded) in a day. These limits would be modified depending upon how many engineers or support personnel are in the port. Will have to work on the specifics of this. So instead of how may ships can be loaded, instead it would be now how many supply/fuel points can be moved. Combine this with a limit on how many ships can be physically "docked" in the port (as oppossed to anchored) and most of the logistical problems will be mediated. For specialized supplies (ammo for ships, torpedoes, etc.), then the appropriate aux. ships must be present and appropriate supply levels available. For instance AE must have supplies on board in order to ressuply ammo. The same should be for all of the other auxs. In reading the history of the battleship Washington, raely did the ship actually "refuel" from the physical port facilities. It was always a tanker, wether navy or civilian, fueling her. Ditto for other supplies.

As for the fuel, at least make a seperate av gas fuel. I can live the the rest.

rm


Agree, was thinking it over this night and it came to me that the abundance of ENG units I've complained about in another thread might be put to use as dock workers, longshoremen, wharfies or whatever they are called, determining the speed of loading/unloading operations in port. Current loading/unloading rates would have to be adjusted downwards (ssslooowwww if no dock hands are present), but each ENG unit in a port would help to speed up the process. Your idea of limiting the fuel/supply points that can be moved per turn might work better than my 'port ops points' idea, but nevertheless we need a limit on the number of ships that can load/unload simultaneously in small port. Foliveti might have had the right idea -

quote:

ORIGINAL: foliveti
For example a size 1 port may only be able to service 1 ship per turn, whereas, a size 10 port could handle 100 ships per turn. Excess beyond these limits could be treated as unloading at a beach hex instead of at a port.


_____________________________


(in reply to akdreemer)
Post #: 323
RE: WitP Wish List - 3/17/2005 5:35:15 PM   
Behemoth


Posts: 91
Joined: 8/9/2000
From: boston, MA, usa
Status: offline
I just realized this thread was here, so I'll re-post this question where it belongs.

[Re-post]
I'm sorry if this has been covered elsewhere; but with the obvious "End of New Features" coming after the release of 1.5 made me willing to ask. I was wondering if we could ever get MORE control over the pooling of supplies. I know in other threads awhile back this was discussed, ie; Saesabo(i believe) pooling resources it didn't need, supplies getting stored up where they weren't needed, etc. This could be a feature that would allow the player flexibilty when setting up say, forward supply depots or rest and refit bases.
I know in the previous threads it was suggested that a pool supply button could get added for this purpose. I guess my question is: has anyone heard that this might be in the pipeline? Any info will be greatly appreciated, thx.
-Behemoth


_____________________________

“What do you mean you don't do it? Of course you do it. We all do it. We love to do it. I just did it and I'm ready to do it again.” -Mel Brooks as King Louis XVI

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 324
RE: WitP Wish List - 3/18/2005 1:14:35 AM   
Skyros


Posts: 1570
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Columbia SC
Status: offline
I hope this is a simple request and having scanned this thread I do not think its been brought up before. Can we add the ASW and AAA factors of a ship to the listing of ships that we get when we form TFs. I currently have to look at the ships to determine this and it slows down my game play.

Thanks

_____________________________


(in reply to Behemoth)
Post #: 325
RE: WitP Wish List - 3/18/2005 10:11:13 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skyros

I hope this is a simple request and having scanned this thread I do not think its been brought up before. Can we add the ASW and AAA factors of a ship to the listing of ships that we get when we form TFs. I currently have to look at the ships to determine this and it slows down my game play.

Thanks


In the ship transfer screen, right-click on a ship's name and you will see a line showing main armament, AA and ASW value of the ship.


_____________________________


(in reply to Skyros)
Post #: 326
RE: WitP Wish List - 3/22/2005 2:20:52 AM   
WWII

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 12/20/2004
Status: offline
WITP is really the best game I’ve ever played. If there is only one game I can play from hundreds, I will stick with it.

Having said that, I hate one thing about WITP. It is so time-consuming. I think this is the main reason that some of my friends, they don’t like WITP after I demo them the game. So the biggest wish from me is that please consider easier user interface in future patches. For example:

1. Airplane production. Can I have one page that allows me to see/sort all airplane production/need and can convert them as well, instead that I make notes and go to each city to do the math and conversion?
2. One page for engine production and conversion
3. one page for base expansion.
2. Troop loading, I agree troop only and supply, but can we think something easy to judge whether I have enough boat to carry all I want instead of loading supply, or loading troops?
3. One page to give order to TFs or land units?

All in all, simplify the user interface and save the game time. If I can reduce the planning time for the first turn (scenario 15/16) from 5 hours to 2 hours, I think WITP will be more popular and have more fans.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 327
RE: WitP Wish List - 3/22/2005 12:01:30 PM   
Odin


Posts: 1052
Joined: 1/3/2001
From: Germany, Wanne-Eickel
Status: offline
We need a switch all aricraft/same type to night/day operations.

At present we have to change from day to night and reverse for each squadron...a lot of work for 20 squadrons!!

(in reply to WWII)
Post #: 328
RE: WitP Wish List - 3/22/2005 1:00:56 PM   
kaiser73


Posts: 394
Joined: 7/28/2004
Status: offline
Most important feature as Japan: option to replace air losses with unexperienced pilots. so i can save the pool for the squadrons i like.

this would kill some micromanagement that i have to do as Japan.

(in reply to Odin)
Post #: 329
RE: WitP Wish List - 3/22/2005 6:50:16 PM   
Jonny_B


Posts: 299
Joined: 5/20/2004
From: Dunnellon, Florida
Status: offline
Mr Kid:

I would like to have the option of retreating during land and/or naval combat.

Instead of my outnumbered naval task force units (transports mostly) moving towards the enemy naval units, the ability to push a retreat buttom, telling them to get the hell out of there not until it is to late!!!!!!!!!!!!

(in reply to kaiser73)
Post #: 330
Page:   <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: WitP Wish List Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.938