Bug Reports and Enhancement Requests

[PetrOs]

Actually (in 1.801), I am missing the feature of converting tankers to AOs. Usually it was widely possible, as the main change in the ship itself was to install the fuel pipes and extra pumps for feeding the ships. It would be helpful to allow the conversion of TKs into AOs in Osaka bzw San Francisco same way as AK->AE/AR/AD/etc...  As especially as a japanese player is very limited on AOs, and if most are lost or damaged, there are barely replacements.
 
Also, sometimes even usual tankers were used for ship refuel. They usually had a simple pump+pipe for autonomous cargo discharge in ports, so giving the pipe to the refuelled ship would solve the problem. However, the refuel rate was usually much lower... Maybe it would be useful to allow tankers in refuel formations? Just with some refuel rate penalty?
 

[PetrOs]

And yeah, yet another thing that disturbs me
Where is the soviet pacific fleet and soviet merchant navy?
2 Heavy cruisers, a few dozens of destroyers, DEs, PTs, subs, MSWs and other ships.. Im (being a russian historian) really missing it. When soviets are not active, they can just sit in a base without option to make a TF. However when soviets are activated, it would allow a realistic soviet landing operation series at Curiles and Sachalin.
 
 

[buzzz123]

how about including an end date in AC availability - especially for Allies it is iritating having useless obsolete AC still being produced long after they are being used (eg. Buffalo, etc). Once an AC has upgraded we should no longer recieve the old model in the pool - the same production line cannot be used for both at once! eg. When B24J bcomes available the B24D should no longer be arriving, etc.

[Oldsweat]

1) Impose operational and movement penalties on land units stacked past threshold densities dependant on terrain. Some of the land deathstar juggernauts that are currently possible exceed even first world war troop densities. After a certain point they just start getting in each other's way and crater the transportation network.
 
2) Permit units to destroy non-mobile equipment. It's a bit absurd to get stuck somewhere because the sound detectors can't be moved by air or submarine.
 
3) Permit air interdiction of supply lines and transportation networks.
 
4) At the expense of adding yet another dimension, permit units to enjoy a rail movement advantage only if they are loaded aboard a train unit. I envision this as working like a land version of an AP and, like an AP, capable of being destroyed by hostile action.
 
Otherwise, pretty much what everyone else has been saying.

[Big B]

1) I would plead for an on/off toggle to repair air fields, and ports (seperately) so we may spend our supply as we need to.

2) a Facilities Demolition toggle of some sort would be great such as;
Destroy/Disable Port
Destroy/Disable hvy industry
etc.

3) Give us some control of supply between land hexes, the ability to send more or less supply where we think we want it.

4) and a patch to the system damage routine so that the first 10 points of sys damage does not change a ships' speed potential

[&o][&o][&o][&o]

B

[Jo van der Pluym]

Here some wishes for a next update

1. The possibility to withdraw and/or disband of LCU's.
2. The possibility to and/or disband ships.
3. More equipment, location, leader, airplane etc slots.
4. More LCU icons. Example a icon for Marines LCUs

[Bahnsteig]

I don't like the possibility to rebuild whole units from a fragment of the former unit with help of sub evacuations.
 
And that opp-loss kills the pilot together with the plane which happens very often playing the japanese.
I loose more exp. pilots that way than due combat in the first 6 mon.
 
It would be nice to have a possibility to set the ammount of supply for a base which should be stored there.
So it wouldn't happen that jap player cannot upgrade planes in japan because there is no base with 20000 supplypoints and cities like Gumma cannot inc. production while 10000 supplypoints are missing.
 
And a list on the first page to see which changes can be done I was too lazy to read all 22 sites
 

[Ursa MAior]

More FOW!

No detailed infos on pilots units etc participating in air to air, air to sea attacks.

x +1 th to no air balance and to selectable repairs.

Fix land combat please.

Thanks.

[ctangus]

In the ship reinforcement screen, I'd like to be able to see the class of the ship, as well as its in-game AA & ASW rating. (I can always look the class up in the database, but that's a pain.)

In the ground reinforcement screen, I'd like to see the unit's load cost, just like I would if I clicked on a unit that was already in the game. Again, I can find a similiar unit & estimate it, but would prefer not to have to go to that trouble.

[samthesham]

I would like an "intelligence penalty" for putting more than 2 CV's in one TF, or maybe one hex. I would say if more tha 4+CV's are in one hex, then that side would run a 50% risk, per turn, of having their TF exposed. the penalty might be greater for the Japs because of superior intelligence.

I would like to be able to use the arrow keys to scroll down leader lists! PLEASE!

I would like to be able to define a replenishment TF as a home port.

 

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: samthesham

I would like an "intelligence penalty" for putting more than 2 CV's in one TF, or maybe one hex. I would say if more tha 4+CV's are in one hex, then that side would run a 50% risk, per turn, of having their TF exposed. the penalty might be greater for the Japs because of superior intelligence.

Not quite sure I understand this.

The larger the task force, the more likely you are to be spotted by search aircraft and subs. In the real world, US task groups in the last 2 years of the war usually consisted of 4 carriers. Often times these task groups would all be in a space that would fit inside a hex.

I would like to be able to use the arrow keys to scroll down leader lists! PLEASE!

I would like to be able to define a replenishment TF as a home port.

These would be nice.

Bill

[samthesham]

The US pretty much knew where KB was due to the radio traffic, etc associated with each carrier. In the game, you often have no clue. Historically, carriers often (not always of course) ran around in smaller groups. In the game, the tendency appears to put CV's in larger groups on average than was historically the case. This may encourage more historical deployment. Maybe 4 is not the right number. Maybe 5 or 6.

I would also like to have the "radio transmissions detected" hexes marked in the map when you load your turn that would help a hell of a lot.

[Halsey]

Rename the Variable Weather option to "Constant Thunderstorms".

Or you could fix the model.[;)][:D]

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Rename the Variable Weather option to "Constant Thunderstorms".

Or you could fix the model.[;)][:D]

I've seen people complain about this, but I haven't seen it. Does it rain at inconvenient times sometimes? Definitely. I've seen the weather go into patterns where it will rain a lot in an area for a week or two then clear off. I've also seen the weather be perfectly clear in the same area for weeks at a time.

In my experience, the game modeled real world weather patterns quite well. I don't know if something is different in PBEM. I've only played against the AI.

Bill

[Halsey]

I've seen it go for months.
With only 2-3 days per month at partly cloudy and never clear.

AI?
What's that?[;)]
I haven't played against the AI in almost two years.[:D]

[SgtSwanson]

How about fixing the Chain of Command model and linking it to the Objectives.
And fix the airbases so that 2E & 4E bomers aren't allowed to use LvL 1 airfields at all.  Or have it where they start using an airfield that is one LvL lower than what they need.  Example: If a B-17 needs a LvL 5 field to keep losses down, then the smallest field they can even use would be a LvL 4.

[scout1]

The info screen has a (variable) delay in showing ships sunk so that the other player doesn't have instant Intel. Same should be true for aircraft losses. Shouldn't be able to instantly show actuals, but perhaps only estimates that are eventually updated after some (variable) delay.

[scout1]

One other item, could you PLEASE change the default for ALL air units to do NOT accept replacements. This way, the IJN is not depleted of experienced pilots in the first 4 days of operation (in case GHQ forgets to change the setting and finds the best of the best flying transport aircraft full of ...... instead of going to combat units) ....

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: scout1

One other item, could you PLEASE change the default for ALL air units to do NOT accept replacements. This way, the IJN is not depleted of experienced pilots in the first 4 days of operation (in case GHQ forgets to change the setting and finds the best of the best flying transport aircraft full of ...... instead of going to combat units) ....

I have a checklist that that I use before I start every game. Items like this are covered (replacements OFF) . So no forgetting is possible.

Flipper

[Javakamp]

I would like option to suppress all messages, graphics, and map scrolls during the turn processing. This could help speed up the turns.
 
This could be supplemented by a multi-level combat repot. The 1st page would just list all of the action, (i.e. Air attack on Rabal, or Surface combat near Manila). Then the player could click on the action to be taken to the detailed report. There could be filters on the 1st screen to show only Air vs. Air, Air vs. Ship, Ship vs. Ship ect.
 
Filters on the choose leaders screen would also be great.