WITP II Wishlist

[Black Mamba 1942]

Repair ports/airfields, on/off toggle.

Manual accept/do not accept supplies for bases AND LCUs.

Make submarines submersible during the search phases.[:D]

Others have already listed the majority on my list.[;)]

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: scout1

I wish there was no need for a wish list...

I wish you were right [:D]

I wish, we could get all these wishes into a database instead of in a thread which just creates fun work for someone to have to rekey these wishes into a database ! [:D]

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I wish, we could get all these wishes into a database instead of in a thread which just creates fun work for someone to have to rekey these wishes into a database ! [:D]

As per your wish I re-posted my (latest) wishes to "wish thread"... [:D]


Leo "Apollo11"

[33Vyper]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

ORIGINAL: Knavey

Tracking of individual bullets from factory to impact!

[:D]

And we want to know which factory worker made each and every bullet. [:D]

that is so we can have morale/weekday checks to see if the bullet functions or not. [8D]

bwhahahahahahhaahahaha

We also need to have factory leaders.....not to mention bullets should move from large centers to smaller centers based on a random number generator and only if the smaller center has no troops

[moses]

An idea for ground combat. Almost certain this would be out of the question for WITP I but maybe for II.

Base combat on percentage of hex ownership. Each side owns a percentage of the hex based on the number of forces it has and how long it has been there. Here are some ideas.

When a unit moves into a hex for the first time it begins to take ownership of the hex based on the size of unit and hex type. Example: A brigade which lands on an unoccupied atoll would gain ownership fairly quickly. Maybe 20 to 30 % per turn. A brigade moving into a mainland hex would gain control much more slowly, perhaps only 2 or 3 percent per turn. Movement through a hex would require some minimum % of control say 10-15 %. A much higher % (maybe 75%) would be needed to move into an enemy contolled hex.

Maximum unit control would be based on unit size and terrain type. It should operate on a logrithmic scale of some type. So for example: Two divisions occupy a mainland Chinese wooded hex. They might gain 5% control on the first turn, 3 % more on the second, 2% on the third up to a maximum control of maybe 40% after a few weeks of occupation. If a greater level of control is wanted then more forces would be required. So essentially it would be difficult to maintain high levels of control in large mainland areas. Allowing the weaker side some scope for activity which would tie down significant forces of the attacker.

Combat would have the effect of increasing the attackers hex control at the expence of the defenders. When a defender reaches 0% he is ejected from the hex, but this should be somewhat difficult to achieve. In the example above I mention 75% control as allowing movment into other hexes and so at this point the defenders supply line could effectively be cut and so in many cases he might feel compelled to retire at this point.

These are just some ideas and would need to be fleshed out and thought through. But this type of thing seems a reasonable way to simulate ground combat in 60 mile hexes.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: trojan

3. Limit aircract to specific mission. ie 4E bombers cant do naval strikes.

The above would not be historically accurate.

My wish list would include naval strikes for 4E bombers.

[treespider]

These are just some ideas and would need to be fleshed out and thought through. But this type of thing seems a reasonable way to simulate ground combat in 60 mile hexes.

For II I suggested smaller hexes...

[Bombur]

1. Separated subdirectories for graphics mod, like in Civ III, thus avoiding the need for double installations
2.Map editor, with the ability to create scenarios with 60 miles or 30 miles hexes
3.Bigger database, covering all equipment from 1922 to 1950, including what is if weapons.
4.The ability to set to what side each nation will start and also to make some nations neutral in the start and having them triggered by specific events, which take us to:
5.An event editor, similar to that of TOAW, which could allow more flexibility in scenario design. Such an event editor could be used to:
5.1-Stop out of map replacements for planes when they become obsolete, this is particularly useful for small map scenarios, but also will prevent allied players from getting Buffalos until 1946 in the GC scenarios
5.2-Simulate accidents like the loss of Mutsu and the damage to the Hiyo engine in Guadalcanal capaign. These accidents could happen by chance. It could also e used to simulate out of map events with ships that are listed as reinforcements (again useful for small map scenarios)
5.3-Trigger entry of nations in the war (useful for what is if scenarios)
5.4-Trigger/withdraw specific reinforcements, for instance, if you some events point to a bad outcome of war in Europe, then allied reinforcements wouldn´t arrive in the scenario. This would be more useful for earlier Soviet activation, but could also be used in a conventional GC.
5.5-Increase/decrease out of map supply. For instance, we could have a scenario where a friendly USSR would provide Japan with some extra resources by sea trade. These resources could be increased or decreased depending on political events. In a eventual SoPac scenario the amount of supply reaching Truk also could be affected by out of map events.
5.6-Change the avaliability date of some weapons, including the atomic bomb
5.7-Increase/decrease out of map aircraft and equipment replacements (for instance, allowing the USA to increase production as it happened historically)
5.8-Change statistics for equipment (the Zero bonus!!)
5.9-The event editor would also include theater option choices just like in TOAW
6-Each aircraft would be rated for mechanical reliability, that would correlate with operational losses (that would be much higher in this new game)
7-Planes would need fuel, not only supplies
8-Each plane would have a specific heavy industry points cost (not only the number of engines). If you want to stop Ki-43 production to have only Ki-44 and Ki-61, it´s ok., but it will have a higher cost.
9-Higher costs for changing the aircraft/engine of each factory. No auto upgrade to factories. You could go on with Ki-27´s production until 1944 if you want.
10-Allied production control (subjected to events and to the same constraints mentioned before)
11-Training aircraft to build the pilots pool (no more free pilots, you must allocate planes and train them, when they have enough experience you discharge them in the pilot pool). This should allow players to customize pilot training programs according to necessity.
12-Restrictions to aircraft overstacking in each base (just like in the old PacWar)
13-Options to convert/not convert ships while being built (like the ability to end Shinano as a BB)

[moses]

For II I suggested smaller hexes...

To do divisional/Corps ground combat with daily turns you probably need at least 10 to 15 mile hexes. That is if you want to do a traditional ground combat wargame. I really don't see how that could be possible.

Could they really even reduce to 30 mile hexes??? Think of the size of the map!!!!

I think my suggestion of a less traditional ground combat system is radical enough and probably destined for the trash heap. But a doubled size map!! I really don't see how many would play such a thing. I'm pretty hard core but I think I would have to pass.[:D]

[Dino]

A lot of toggles... This is not a whish, it's a conclusion.

[Iridium]

ORIGINAL: Bombur
6-Each aircraft would be rated for mechanical reliability, that would correlate with operational losses (that would be much higher in this new game)
13-Options to convert/not convert ships while being built (like the ability to end Shinano as a BB)

Good post, however with #6 I can see arguements develop over campaign situations. Here's an example, Japan is doing relatively well but still is getting poor mechanical reliability even tho home islands aren't being bombed. One would imagine that quality would go up without constant bombardment. Problem is that we don't really know how much better the latter model planes could be, so it's really a crap shoot to start with.

With #13, I'd go a step further and give industry points to the user and give them free reign to do with them as they please. Want 6 Yamato's and nothing else?...Sure! Just don't expect to win the game.[:D] This would require a fully interactive production system that updated daily. I'd love to have the option of ordering vessels as opposed to getting exactly what was produced in the war. While I understand this might not be wanted by others I don't see it being an option too out of the question.

[Hipper]

Modifyable terrain so you can change a trail to a road or railway (slowly with a great deal of effort)

better weather model

delay orders for LCU's

[Reiryc]

A system that reflects how the war is progressing in the game. If a player is suffering extreme pilot losses, then this should be reflected in the quality of pilots being produced, regardless of the year of the game or nationality.

[scout1]

A system that reflects how the war is progressing in the game. If a player is suffering extreme pilot losses, then this should be reflected in the quality of pilots being produced, regardless of the year of the game or nationality.

Well if you're going to go there, why not a system that allows the player to choose the level of training. Want'em quick, low experience. Want'em good. Plan on not seeing them for awhile.

Would produce an interesting departure point between different playing styles .....

[Alikchi2]

Another toggle - to turn on/off control of Japanese production. We should be able to just leave it on automatic and get historical types and numbers of aircraft if we want.

In conjunction with this, there should be a simple display somewhere that shows how much oil and resources your factories are consuming per MONTH. In this way the Japanese player would know exactly how much he needs to bring home monthly.

You'll have a lot more Japanese players if you can toggle off the production system for us lazies.

I also agree entirely with Apollo's suggestions. [:)]

[Akos Gergely]

Also, one of the most important! Pls allow for other than 1024X768 screen resolutions (for example most modern TFT displays are working on 1280X1024 which is currently unsupported ...)

[scout1]

I wish, we could get all these wishes into a database instead of in a thread which just creates fun work for someone to have to rekey these wishes into a database !

Isn't there some way to input, via the web, straight into a database ?

[medicff]

ORIGINAL: moses

An idea for ground combat. Almost certain this would be out of the question for WITP I but maybe for II.

Base combat on percentage of hex ownership. Each side owns a percentage of the hex based on the number of forces it has and how long it has been there. Here are some ideas.

When a unit moves into a hex for the first time it begins to take ownership of the hex based on the size of unit and hex type. Example: A brigade which lands on an unoccupied atoll would gain ownership fairly quickly. Maybe 20 to 30 % per turn. A brigade moving into a mainland hex would gain control much more slowly, perhaps only 2 or 3 percent per turn. Movement through a hex would require some minimum % of control say 10-15 %. A much higher % (maybe 75%) would be needed to move into an enemy contolled hex.

Maximum unit control would be based on unit size and terrain type. It should operate on a logrithmic scale of some type. So for example: Two divisions occupy a mainland Chinese wooded hex. They might gain 5% control on the first turn, 3 % more on the second, 2% on the third up to a maximum control of maybe 40% after a few weeks of occupation. If a greater level of control is wanted then more forces would be required. So essentially it would be difficult to maintain high levels of control in large mainland areas. Allowing the weaker side some scope for activity which would tie down significant forces of the attacker.

Combat would have the effect of increasing the attackers hex control at the expence of the defenders. When a defender reaches 0% he is ejected from the hex, but this should be somewhat difficult to achieve. In the example above I mention 75% control as allowing movment into other hexes and so at this point the defenders supply line could effectively be cut and so in many cases he might feel compelled to retire at this point.

These are just some ideas and would need to be fleshed out and thought through. But this type of thing seems a reasonable way to simulate ground combat in 60 mile hexes.

Sounds reasonable. Also include base as a part of hex not the whole hex. Meaning you could be forced from the base but your units still occupy hex and would be fighting although less effective as no "base" bonus. Supplies would still travel to units from other bases or units would take some supplies with them. This would similate a much slower land campaign and add realism especially for large land masses with lots of troops.

Now it would take weeks to gain ground with a slight edge and we could similate organized withdrawals. Of course if odds are huge then quicker conquests are in order. (Stacking limits would help here)

I personally don't want a land game that much however current model makes it happen since it is unrealistic. Slow it down and it will be a side effort.

Also ZOC realligned to create fronts and units able to move between friendly fronts (and retreat) without allowing enemy to bypass front and cut off. [:D]

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: scout1

I wish, we could get all these wishes into a database instead of in a thread which just creates fun work for someone to have to rekey these wishes into a database !

Isn't there some way to input, via the web, straight into a database ?

Of course - and that is actually probably happening ( most forums are implemented on a database ). But I need the data in the text split out into more fields ( as in my spreadsheet ) .. having an extract from the forum data base for the wishlist thread would thus speed up my process a little bit .. but there would still be a significant manual effort ( it changes the problem from mostly typing to multiple cuts and pastes per thread entry ). Having some type of wishlist application ... allowing categorization of the item in several dimensions ( Naval, Air, Ground, Logistics, User Interface, Map, Weather, Production, bug, enhancement, etc. ) would be ultimately desired. But I can live with the current system, I've pulled 400 entires out of the exxisting wish list by hand and it only took about 2 days of huffin' and puffin' ....

[scout1]

I've pulled 400 entires out of the exxisting wish list by hand and it only took about 2 days of huffin' and puffin' ....

This would be an interesting list to post/maintain. Doesn't mean you guys can do them all (definitely not), but would give some visibility as to what is on "a" list. Also, let's us avoid repeating the same old suggestion. Should be a separate, non-postable thread.