WITP II Wishlist

[Alikchi2]

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 ?

We could have a WitP II Wiki.

[Bombur]

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.

-Excellent point, that´s why we need the Event editor. It would be possible to link the quality deterioration to a certain number of strategic points (see 5.8), for instance, or maybe to a certain critical level of HI, or if you want to relate it to submarine warfare, to a decrease in overall resource reserves.

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.

-Hmmm....this would need a major overhaul in the game engine, we should notice that most orders for ships were made before the war start, that´s why I would be opposed to more production control over the production, as you suggest, however, I still see a riole for the event editor and theater option here, some limited extra control could be given by using these tools.

[Bombur]

More items:

14-Editable command areas (not only those hardcoded). The attributes of those areas would be editable too. ABDA, for instance, could or not be a restricted command.
15-More flexibility of factory expansions. Curently you just can double them. Why it isn´t possible to expand a factory by only 10% or 20%?

[Black Mamba 1942]

Inclusion of command points.

These would be based on monthly allotment. increasing or decreasing over time.
They would be banked, and spent on TF formations, air unit and LCU HQ transfer.

This would help to simulate the ebb and flow effect of combat campaigns.
Instead of the current model of IJN steamroller, then USN steamroller.[;)]

[spence]

How about an ability to disband into the pool for any LCU/air squadron that is in a base having a supply line to an appropriate nationality HQ + 20000 supply (could get rid of tiny useless fragments of the units which might free up some slots for cool new units [:)])

[AmiralLaurent]

Having doctrines modelled in the game, and innovation points to change them, with the ability to decide how much points each side will have (in a historical situation, Allied will have far more than Japan, but what-if may be used).

For example:
_ there will be a "Jungle Training" doctrine that will be available to Japan at start but not to the Allied.
_ there will be an "ASW doctrine" that will be available to the Allied at start but not to Japan.
_ for CV TF there will be an "AA ring doctrine" available at start to teh Allied ,b ut not to Japan, and an "advanced CAP doctrine" that neither side will have, and a "strike coordination doctrine" available to Japan and not to US.
_ there will also be doctrines used to simulate the Japanese advantages at start of the war. That is until the Allid paid points for them, the Japanese initial advantages will held. Like "bounce and not dogfight" doctrine, and so on.

Each doctrine will give one side bonuses, and each player may decide what he can advance more or less historically. Any technological advance in the game (the ability to lay mines, the ability to rearm at sea with AEs) or tactical change (skip bombing, using Corsairs aboard CVs, using B-17 under 20k feet, using Kamikazes, using Kaitens) will cost points, that will simulate:
1) the time spend to develop new procedures and technics, and to train pilots to do it
2) the natural resistance to any human organization to any change

For the point 2), I will modifiy it by saying that the side that is losing should receive bonus "innovation points". So for example a winning Japan will never be able to use Kamikazes.

[TexasTigercat]

All of the pinup girl screens as standard [:D]

[Black Mamba 1942]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent


Having doctrines modelled in the game, and innovation points to change them, with the ability to decide how much points each side will have (in a historical situation, Allied will have far more than Japan, but what-if may be used).

For example:
_ there will be a "Jungle Training" doctrine that will be available to Japan at start but not to the Allied.
_ there will be an "ASW doctrine" that will be available to the Allied at start but not to Japan.
_ for CV TF there will be an "AA ring doctrine" available at start to teh Allied ,b ut not to Japan, and an "advanced CAP doctrine" that neither side will have, and a "strike coordination doctrine" available to Japan and not to US.
_ there will also be doctrines used to simulate the Japanese advantages at start of the war. That is until the Allid paid points for them, the Japanese initial advantages will held. Like "bounce and not dogfight" doctrine, and so on.

Each doctrine will give one side bonuses, and each player may decide what he can advance more or less historically. Any technological advance in the game (the ability to lay mines, the ability to rearm at sea with AEs) or tactical change (skip bombing, using Corsairs aboard CVs, using B-17 under 20k feet, using Kamikazes, using Kaitens) will cost points, that will simulate:
1) the time spend to develop new procedures and technics, and to train pilots to do it
2) the natural resistance to any human organization to any change

For the point 2), I will modifiy it by saying that the side that is losing should receive bonus "innovation points". So for example a winning Japan will never be able to use Kamikazes.

All these could use the Command point expenditure option.[;)]

[Reiryc]

ORIGINAL: 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 .....

Don't really care in this case, either would be fine...

It should be noted however, just because a person is comfortable with one level of abstraction or focus, doesn't mean he is with every level possible.

[Alikchi2]

I like the progress WitP made over UV in being able to toggle on and off certain settings and even give control to the AI by theatre.

A guiding principle for ANY game should be to give the player a choice. In what he controls, what he sees, the decisions he's expected to make.

We're mostly control freaks here, so we should be able to choose to "control" as much or as little as we want. But we need to have the freedom to make that choice. [:)]

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: 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.

I'd like to have a way to record votes on a maintainable ( non-postable ) thread - but usually forums have limits on number of items per poll ... so even 100 items would require maybe 5 threads ( 20 per ). And we would like to record estimated development time for each as well so voters can think about "cost/benefit". But this mechanism ( vote-able list ) is at least several weeks out - as we have to finish 1.8 ( finish 1.8 ... finish 1.8 ... ) !!!

[Charles2222]

Did anyone mention toggles for being able to shut on/off the supply going automatically from place to place?

[Ursa MAior]

One more thing. I dont know how but a system which would seriously penalize when important bases are left undefended or completely avoiding combat (to avoid completely ahistorical strategies). Maybe instead of VPs we should have national morale?

[Black Mamba 1942]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

Did anyone mention toggles for being able to shut on/off the supply going automatically from place to place?

More than once.[:D][:D][:D]

[Charles2222]

Good to see people are on the ball

[Black Mamba 1942]

An Air Interdiction mission.[;)]
Hits on LCU's would reduce a % movement gains that day.
They would also reduce a % of supplies in the hex.

[Dino]

1. Ability to cancel a ground assault if airsupport missions didn't fly.

2. Recreating ground units... If a unit is destroyed it goes to available units list and can be recreated at 0 strength. This would eliminate the neccessity for saving cadres.

3. Combining LCUs in a way similar to air groups (disbanding a unit with same equipment and nationality into another).

[Bombur]

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

An Air Interdiction mission.[;)]
Hits on LCU's would reduce a % movement gains that day.
They would also reduce a % of supplies in the hex.

-Good idea

[ctangus]

The ability to sort LCUs by where they're prepping for: now where's that base force I wanted to send to Suva?

[BB57]

ASW and air search circles on the strategic map for friendly forces.

The ability to prioritize repairs at ports either by ship or ship type.

Cargo, tanker and air transport TFs not sailing thru enemy ZOC and commiting suicide.

Better sorting for leaders for example fighter, bomber, patrol etc.

Some way to know when ships are due for a upgrade other than stepping thru every ship.

Minumum rank for leaders for example a Lt shouldn't be able to command a carrier task force.

If a unit needs attention change the color of the unit in the base, HQ or the button at the top screens. for example if an air group needs pilots or aviation support is to low or a LCU's disruption or fatige is to high.

Some way to see what replacements arrived yesterday or maybe in the last week.

A spell checker for the forum.