What we need

[Speedysteve]

Not much time you know that.

Harris probably keeps ringing to say what sort of nut would launch 100 Jugs over 80 x HAA for no reason. He probably wants to be in charge

[Nikademus]

hey! it works in WitP dammit!!!!!

Those Jug pilots were insufficiently trained

[Speedysteve]

Or prepared for your madness

[Rainerle]

Hi,
in BTR there were times where you had different planes in the same group (well, same plane but different armament variants) but this was not shown cause only one type of plane was given. Now it would be nice to break down the different types of armament variants (and Rüstsätze) that are present in one group. To go even further maybe mixing of different a/c in the same group (for late war german inorganization). Even further chrome in the form of captured equipment maybe? Did I mention that its a good idea to put in enough slots of everything from the beginning? Maybe extending the map to Norway ? The neutral swiss airforce which intercepts overfliers 5% of the time ? did I mention that you should put in enough slots for all the different types of planes, variants, Rüstsätze and desperate experimental ideas ?

[Denniss]

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Hi,
in BTR there were times where you had different planes in the same group (well, same plane but different armament variants) but this was not shown cause only one type of plane was given. Now it would be nice to break down the different types of armament variants (and Rüstsätze) that are present in one group. To go even further maybe mixing of different a/c in the same group (for late war german inorganization). Even further chrome in the form of captured equipment maybe? Did I mention that its a good idea to put in enough slots of everything from the beginning? Maybe extending the map to Norway ? The neutral swiss airforce which intercepts overfliers 5% of the time ? did I mention that you should put in enough slots for all the different types of planes, variants, Rüstsätze and desperate experimental ideas ?

Nice ideas but too much work needed to include this.

[otisabuser2]

Hi Rainerle,

I like some of your ideas.

I agree that if there are all sorts of sub-variants of planes in the game, it would be nice to see them displayed, where appropriate.

More planes slots is something we would all like to have.

Map extension to Norway. Nice idea. Apart from shipping strikes etc, did the RAF or USAAF bomb Norway to any extent ? Bombing Sweden to stop iron ore be interesting, but change the game completly.

Keep the ideas coming !

regards Otisabuser

[seydlitz_slith]

Here are a couple of design items that I would like to see looked at:

1. The mouse routine--Ever notice after you have been playing a while how the mouse becomes imprecise, like something is affecting the driver. At times you have to fight the mouse pointer a bit to get exactly on the spot you want. I used to think that this was computer related, but I have had the game on three computers and four different mice, and the problem is still there.

2. Map scroll bars on the main map window when in the planning screen. How many times have you been trying to plan escorts but the screen decides it wants to scroll. With the mission planning tab open, sometimes it takes work to keep the mission plot in the center of the map.

3. Work on the weather/cloud routines.

[Hard Sarge]

Hi Rain
well, to an extent, we do have this, the hassle is the unit page only shows what the default plane stats are

but this is more a, as planes are being upgraded, IE Allied FGs can have planes with 75 gallon drop tanks and 110 gallon drop tanks, the unit page will only show the 75, and once all have the 110, it will still show as only having the 75

the 110's are the same

yes, more plane slots and more pilot slots are a major need

I got some ideas for the unit pages, plane loadouts, have to see if we can do it, but over all I think we can do what I am thinking

[Rainerle]

Hmm,
important question: Is this supposed to be one (1940-1945) game or again two games ??

[Speedysteve]

Hi,

It's unlikely to be 1 big game. Likely to be 2 separate one's. Interesting idea though [8D]

Steven

[Hard Sarge]

if I follow the question right

the idea is to rerelease, BoB and BTR, updated and improved (what that all includes)

as a combined package

(there been ideas of trying to combine both games, but I think there is too much of a gap between BoB and the Start of BTR to make that a really doable idea, it would be nice ! but...)

[Hard Sarge]

and, with the idea of improving, and fixing the games, we got a lot of info and ideas built up over the years, JC was able to do wonders with the OOB, but now we can work with the Exe also, and that was always the drawback before

[Hard Sarge]

Which if you have been the BTR forums, that JC runs, you may see, we have many ideas

[Rainerle]

I agree the idea of one game while tempting is tricky since both players would need a planing action (using forces for offensive action) and real time action (using forces for defensive action). But well what a game that would be !

[seydlitz_slith]

I have two more things to add to the list of items to look at:

1. In PBEM games the replay buffer size is not large enough. As a result, the allied player often loses all aircraft icons midway through the replay, and is left with only a map and messages that flash on the map.

2. OOB issue. British Mosquito units assigned to Light Night Strike Command should be listed with the bombers under bomber command, and not as intruders under the night fighter list. I can back up with documentation if needed.

[Hard Sarge]

the first is on my list already (in a little different form, but same idea)

the 2nd, we will have to ask JC what his reasons were

[TheElf]

How about automating the Recon function with Doctrinal settings available to the player. How annoying is it to plan every pre-raid, post raid, and general fact finding/special interest Recon flight when it should be ASSUMED that you want a pre-raid and Post-raid recon flight?

Special interest recon flights could be manually planned of course, but also set by target type priority.

So, in short have a doctrine setting for recon.

1. Set the altitude, perhaps a direct or indirect routing option and perhaps the ability to set certain types of recon A/C to certain profiles, i.e low altitude recon or high altitude recon etc.

2. Ability to select certain groups/units to Auto recon, and then let the computer assign aircraft to recon as YOU create your raids.

3. Also left over recon units would still be available to the planner for use in special interest targets. There, done.

[Hard Sarge]

sounds good
I think we can at least get the set alt part in on the staff planning

for the rest, we have to see what they can do

Recon seems to be a big issue with a lot of players

[Richrd]

Ok, here's mine. I'm going to harp on this until somebody notices. Fighters on sweeps use fuel at the cruise rate always. Fighters on intercept use fuel at the max speed rate when they close to within 50-100 miles of their target and therafter. This is a huge unfair advantage to the Allied player, giving his planes much greater endurance relative to his opponents.
Also night fighters Gruppes breaking up into 2 plane elements, each one of which must be redirected onto a target every TWO FREAKIN MINUTES. Thats enough for me.

[DBS]

Following up on VS' and Sailor/Warspite's comments above, I have always argued that there was a BTR fault in that once a raid had been detected, the Germans continued to plot it infallibly, even if it was low-level and over the sea.

For example: plot a Mossie or Marauder raid at, say, 200 feet vs one of the targets on the coast of Jutland, coming in from a start-point on the north-east coast of England. So low-level all the way across the North Sea. Quite rightly, the Germans do not detect the inbound raid as it is below radar until it hits its target. The aircraft bomb, and scoot for home as every little FW and Me for miles around scrambles. Now, even though you have carefully put in a dogleg change of course on the return flight, say twenty miles off the coast, the German fighters still home in on the bombers (only the bombers' speed can save them, maybe outrunning the fighters before the latter hit bingo and have to turn homewards). How? The bombers are still below radar, and are now out over the North Sea. Must be a lot of German observers in the Danish fishing fleet...

In short, there does not seem to be a "break contact / lose plot" mechanism. Would be delighted to be proved wrong, but have seemed the above happen just about every time I have tried the tactic, which makes me very suspicious.

As regards the wider point about tracking singletons, heartily endorse the idea of reduced effectiveness. It is not just a question of radar performance, but also the philosophy of the German reporting chain - basically it was built to deal with big formations, whether day or night. Not really interested in tracking singletons, even if they could. It could be argued that the Himmelbet radar box system proves otherwise, but I would argue that that actually proves the point: when a night-bomber is in the small box, a German NJ tries to hunt it down with GCI, but if the bomber gets safely to the other side of the box, it can't be tracked effectively once again, and unless the NJ is eyes-on by that stage, it instead turns to hunting the next bomber to wander through the kill-box.

David