Admiral's Edition General Thread

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

Maybe Ive missed it but is the Intelligence process/screen being improved? Radio transmissions etc... Being able to see both sides intelligence...

Yes - SigInt - is being improved!

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

Maybe Ive missed it but is the Intelligence process/screen being improved? Radio transmissions etc... Being able to see both sides intelligence...

Yes - SigInt - is being improved!

Does that mean that I might actually see something besides "Radio Transmissions detected at Johnston Island" as a Japanese player? The stock SigInt you get as Japan is next to useless. I realize that Japan didn't do that great at allied codebreaking, but I should get something usefull once or twice through the course of the game.

[jwilkerson]

Actually the Japanese SigInt is probably over-represented in stock. But you do have to click on the indicated hexes to gain the addtional available data from the provided information.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Actually the Japanese SigInt is probably over-represented in stock.

And Allied code-breaking woefully under-represented....

[JamesM]

Again that is were Bohdi's utility was great addition.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

Maybe Ive missed it but is the Intelligence process/screen being improved? Radio transmissions etc... Being able to see both sides intelligence...

Yes - SigInt - is being improved!

Are warships (names) now going to be included in the intercepts and Magic? I've never noticed a ship name ever unless an LCU was loaded on a transport and headed to some base.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Are warships (names) now going to be included in the intercepts and Magic? I've never noticed a ship name ever unless an LCU was loaded on a transport and headed to some base.

Truth! Allied Intel followed Shokaku and Zuikaku all the way back to Japan after one of the carrier battles in 1942..., and tried to vector subs in to get a shot at them along the way. Never seen that kind of "intel" from the game...

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Are warships (names) now going to be included in the intercepts and Magic? I've never noticed a ship name ever unless an LCU was loaded on a transport and headed to some base.

Warships are, and always were, included in SigInt reports. There was an issue with the way the program checked for SigInt reports - beginning with bases, then land unit, then task forces. Usually the "calculated maximum" number of intercept reports per turn were expended before it got to TFs, so ship-at-sea reporting was very rare.

Changed in AE - and it's also Foggier of War-ier.

[Terminus]

Sounds good-ier...[;)]

[Ursa MAior]

Will the combat anims also changed? If one played historcally it gave away too much info.

THX.

Even more FOW-ier.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Are warships (names) now going to be included in the intercepts and Magic? I've never noticed a ship name ever unless an LCU was loaded on a transport and headed to some base.

Warships are, and always were, included in SigInt reports. There was an issue with the way the program checked for SigInt reports - beginning with bases, then land unit, then task forces. Usually the "calculated maximum" number of intercept reports per turn were expended before it got to TFs, so ship-at-sea reporting was very rare.

Changed in AE - and it's also Foggier of War-ier.

Ahhhh, that's what was happening...always thought it weird that a sigint feature did not include such obvious assets such as warships. Cool, thanks Don.[&o]

[The Gnome]

Are we going to get more feedback from the game? What I mean by that is, when the computer makes a decision to break off an attack, or an air unit gets split up, or a TF turns back, or any of the other decisions it would be great to get some sort of feedback in a combat report or on screen.

"Halsey decides to withdraw TF148"
"Commander X grounds IX Squadron"

I wouldn't want it to violate the fog of war, but the WitP engine seems very rich and it would be nice to be more involved in what's going on. I often end up with a lot of head scratching at the results of a turn wonder "Wow, why did that happen?".

[mlees]

I'm sorry if this has been asked:
 
At the moment, what is the estimated retail price for this expansion? (I'll probably get it even if it is as expensive as the original release.)

[marioa]

Please can whe expect a printed manual with the release of the Admiral's Edition add-on?
Thanks.
Regards.
mari0a

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: marioa

Please can whe expect a printed manual with the release of the Admiral's Edition add-on?
Thanks.
Regards.
mari0a

It was mentioned earlier that if you buy the disk, you get a printed manual too.

[topeverest]

Greetings...

Below are some design thoughts from my buddies and me. We have been gaming since our adolescence and each have 20-30 years experience playing, designing, and for a few of us, publishing wargames. We probably have a thousand games of all types under our collective belts.

We've been playing WITP about 8 months and feel we know the game well enough to provide a few thoughts. Of the 8-10 guys I game with and the 2 that I game with frequently, let me say that WITP is a very good simulation with, as is usually the case, some drawbacks. 10 of us tried it, and three of us continue to play it avidly. (Can you guess one of them is me?) Let me convey some improvement thoughts as you are cracking the code on a newer version, because I, for one, think this could be the defining simulation of the type with some additions. Rather than bombard mulitple questions, listed below are 40 thoughts for you. WIth our jobs, it is not feasible to keep all the way up to date on the forum, so if some of these are not covered or excluded, or already included - that is the reason.
1. The land combat system needs an overhaul. 5 of my buddies quit the game as soon as they found out there is a ZOC in a game that has 3600 square mile hexes. To put that in perspective, that is half the size of Massachusetts. Even the multidimensional combat formations of today could not interdict anywhere near that much terrain that they don't currently occupy. At a minimum, we recommend having an option to remove ZOC, though we would still suggest not allowing a defeated foe to retreat into an enemy occupied hex. Even with the proposed 40 mile hexes of the next generation, that would be 1600 square miles of interdiction. None of us can find a justification to lock units in combat or in their hexes because of adjacent enemy units. Units retreating across a 'ZOC' might suffer a fire attack of some type or a % reduction in force size.
2. Enemy land movement is not detectable until it enters a new hex. There definitely should be a mechanism to determine that enemy units are moving in a particular direction, perhaps through recon or just being adjacent.
3. Land movement in general is too slow, probably as a result of the movement reduction penalties applied to units. In general, we feel that land units should move about double what they actual effective movement rate is over rough / broken ground. Mechanized units should be able to pulse 100 hundred miles on roads / rails per day at some cost in disruption
4. The game does not take into account the continuous nature of engineer and supply units to improve infrastructure along key supply routes where it was needed. We suggest explicitly (or implicitly) allowing for the improvement, perhaps allowing for category of trails and roads. The building of roads and rails was a common occurrence and greatly increased the effectiveness and speed of troops. It was a major silent element of the war. For example, the trail that leads to Cooktown, Australia. It is hard to fathom that even if this is a valid evaluation of the road network in 41, that a unit moving to and from would really move at such a glacial pace. Multiple grades of roads would implicitly allow for land transport capacity improvements. It also opens a whole new dimension into each of the major land campaigns, where major very famous and effective infrastructure improvements occurred – e.g., Alaska Highway. This could be done abstractly with an infrastructure rating by hex or explicitly with building of roads / trails. The Japanese have road construction engineer units – they should be allowed to do their job.
5. Rail movement seems oddly done. In general, rail capacity and movement rates are implicitly conducted in the game. We would envisage a system where a unit can get on the rail after a 1-3 day loading process (depending on the load capacity of the embark hex) and then move up to 500 miles per day, followed by a 1-2 day unloading process including some disruption (depending on off-load capacity).
6. When units are on naval transports, it is not easy to identify where they are. Similarly, there should be a total listing of bases for FOW scenarios so that a player can quickly go to an enemy base from an intel report or combat summary, etc. see later comment on intel.
7. Emergency retreat and forced march movement – Units should be able retreat from combat if they choose to do so when attacked by a unit with similar or less mobility. Also, units should be able to move faster at some cost to disruption and fatigue up to some logical limit.
8. Retreat direction – land units should be able to select their retreat hex in the command options. This game is not of the scale where the attacker or computer should be choosing. The game should default to computer choice if the player does not select
9. You should be able to easily sort both idle and active commanders by 'best suited to command' function to better manage how you are re-assigning commanders. We like the fixed assignment in the historical games but suggest that in random games commanders are randomly assigned.
10. Naval waypoints – when setting a convoy to steam, it is frequently desirable to use a path that cannot be generated by the computer. If you were easily allowed to set waypoints, intermediate destinations, the game would play better.
11. Air rebases – a quirk of the rules allows a damaged or reserve planes to be successfully transferred off a base when there is another land-linked base. A player can disregard the base selection screen and transfer the planes to any base in the range of the aircraft. Planes on single base islands cannot do this. Additionally, damaged / reserve plane transfers should be subject to the limitations of rail / road movement rules that exist.
12. Offensive air missions. The rule that disincents air missions where adequate escorts are not available prevents more offensive air missions that it should. While we agree with the concept, many instances occur in the game where planes do not launch at all despite naval task forces / invasions targeting nearby bases or even the planes home base. This is not too realistic. Every available aircraft would launch if an enemy force came in close striking distance to the limitations of supply and weather. This should be possible.
13. Base numbers / sizes. Before we delve into this, we are sure some of what has been done is for playability reasons; nonetheless, in any 3600 square mile hex that is linked to a road, rail, or sea should be able to have a base of some size. To put this in perspective, virtually every island in the Bismarck archipelago and Solomon Islands has at least one base, but the northeast side of Australia has but three. The players are forced to fight a decidedly historical campaign, and the both the Allies and Japanese are decidedly disadvantaged in select locations. First, we agree that island bases should have lower max build sizes than full hex / mainland bases, but all bases should be able to build up to a certain size. For example, 9 should be the maximum for full hex / mainland / non mountain hexes; etc. Second, building bases is what both sides did throughout the conflict. At a minimum, there should be a provision for both sides to build some bases where there are no beach / dot bases. This could be controlled like PT/Barges or some other mechanism to keep it from getting out of hand, but limiting bases to the printed bases greatly limits the ability of the players to be the commander in chief.
14. Ship Upgrades / Conversions – We would like to see a system that abandons the set upgrade dates and types in favor of a production / reinforcement system approach. For example, As a CXAM radar unit becomes available, the allies should be able to choose the American ship that it will be installed on. No more should the player be guessing what the upgrade is and should it be done. This would allow for ships to upgraded at the players discretion based on the upgrades that are available. Conversions should be more widely available to ships of parallel classes (once the conversion type is allowed). If a player chooses to eat up his or her repair yards and limit the punch of his fleet, that is his or her decision.
15. Transporting troops – when attempting to load troops onto the various types of transports, the game should give you a screen that allows you to decide how to load the troops and how much supply to bring along if desired. The current system allowed for pretty unrealistic half and third full ships and then still leaving behind part of a unit. We realize this is a hands-on game, but this screen should be added.
16. Date of sinking should be added to ships sunk screen.
17. Eliminated ground units should be a screen.
18. Multi-base missions – The game should explicitly allow for an offensive air mission types where an air unit launches from one base and lands in another.
19. Multi-day air missions – when an air unit is being transferred to a location that cannot be reached in one turn, the player should be able to select the base transfer route. Also, air unit fragments should follow behind the main unit if damaged / have to be repaired. Put another way, air units transferring to a base beyond their range should be able to select waypoint bases as well as the final destination. The player need not be involved with the transaction thereafter
20. FOW combat reports – both sides suffer erroneous combat reports. There should be some element in the game to correct previously grossly erroneous repots, perhaps just the fake ones. To clarify - the biggest problem is fake reports for battles that did not occur, or non-reporting of battles that did. Both are highly unlikely to occur at the frequency it happens in the game, and if they did, they would be corrected quickly. Inaccurate casualty counts, especially for the enemy, are by contrast not unrealistic.
21. Victory calculation – we are not certain if the victory screen is valid at any time during the game in FOW scenarios. If they are only estimates, we suggest displaying that in the sub category titles. Also, there needs to be a periodic validation, perhaps monthly where VP's are calculated accurately and players who need to can adjust their strategy. After all, it is the measure of victory.
22. Intelligence screens – While we agree this is a hands on / keep your own notes simulation, we suggest augmenting the intel organ. First, there needs to be some strategic information screen of enemy units known to be active, where they are, rating of the force (excellent / good / bad). In FOW scenarios, there would not be a complete listing and commanders / formations because many may not be known. It should be a parallel to the players own listing. Especially in FOW scenarios, this serves a tool for the player to know every formation that has been identified, what it is, where it is, and when the last update was. Also, there should be some estimate of total enemy naval forces by type and estimated production delivery as well as what enemy plane types are actually in service. In FOW games, easy access to the consolidated intel of a location could be added by clicking on an enemy base showing current and previous intel estimates for this hex along some high level categories. Lastly, there could be a new sub mission – intelligence gathering / raiding, where a sub goes to a target enemy base and explicitly tries to get intel.
23. Coordinate arrival – All land units should have an option to coordinate arrival in a hex to prevent the piecemeal thrashing of an attacking force. Note this is different than follow unit option – or an improvement on the performance.
24. Shock attack bug – for some reason, land units that arrive in a hex with an enemy units may immediately shock attack, even if other friendly units are in the hex. Also, some units that enter an enemy hex don't attack the first turn. This seems odd.
25. Sub attacks don't happen at near the frequency that they occurred historically, and they very often don't press the attack where limited or no escorts are present. Also, the percentage of sub attacks that result in sunk cargo/transport ships is way too low, especially for unescorted convoys. So many times the sub fires one torpedo and that's it. Either that torpedo should do more damage or more should be fired for an attack. History is rife with examples of cargo ships being sunk quickly during sub attacks. We can understand abbreviated or incomplete attacks in convoys where ASW ships are present, but the game does not seem to make any distinction.
26. There should be a better airplane unit summary screen for air combat TFs, if not all convoys with planes, that show squadrons, characteristics, mission, etc. (similar to the existing one for bases) plus the ship each squadron is assigned to. It's a pain to go back and forth between ships to check what types of missions are being flown and the percentage allocations to CAP, etc..
27. Airplane Upgrade Trees – there appears to be a bug where in solitaire games, the player is allowed to choose among a wide swath of potential up, side and downgrades to planes. This gives the player better playability, and allows maximum use of available replacement planes. In two player games, the common scenario allows only one upgrade choice and has models for which there are no upgrades. For the allies, this creates quite unrealistic situations where one or no units of that plane type are on the map and 50 or more monthly replacements are being produced. In general, we suggest letting the players build and do what they will. If the Japs decide to discontinue float fighters, they should be able to. Lastly, on the air unit base summary screen screens, you should have an option to see if upgrade is turned on and if so what plane type AND date of availability.
28. Creating new air units from available replacements – this should be possible to some degree at some cost. As per previous comments on base creation, perhaps there is a limit to the number that can be created (a minimum number of excess aircraft must be available), but this should be available. For example, it is not uncommon for there to be oodles of allied transport replacement plane availably that cannot be harnessed.
29. Pilot production – This particularly hurts the Japanese. There should be a production mechanism to allow for more and better pilot production, probably a choice for the precious factories. It definitely should be a meaningful tradeoff, because pilot skill is one of the big strategic advantages a player can have in the game.
30. Air and ground unit disbanding – these units cannot permanently disband, placing their component parts back into the respective force pools. This should be an option, especially for air units in dead-end planes that the player does not want to continue to service. This could be accomplished by using the disband function and ask the player what type of plane to bring back…setting 120-180 day delay. Also there could be an option not to bring it back at all.
31. There should be a special filter in the air and land unit listing screens that highlights fragmented units as well as by nationality for allies. It is very hard to keep track of fragments in the current design.
32.In all ground summary screens – bases, and total, there should be a column option to see if it is moving, where to, and how far it has to go. There is no mechanism to do this other than trample through every unit in every hex.
33. Replacement priority option – in addition to turning replacements on or off, there should be a prioritization / ranking button that allows the unit to receive replacements before or after others. That way, units that need specific types of upgrades or replacement types can get them and other units that need other types of replacements can still get the leftovers without turning them off.
34. Targeted Naval Repair – when a ship is in port, the player should be able to decide if any particular ship receives extra attention to accelerate the return (by getting more repair points up to some maximum extra).
35. The Active Task Force screen 'location' tab does not tell where the task force is. An actual hex location should be available along with home port and destination.
36. The auto convoy system is valiant but inadequate. The player should be able to target the amount of supply and fuel to be bunkered at each base. Also for production items, there should be a set stockpile threshold where the computer sends transport from a select number (perhaps 1) of production bases. In English, let the computer know where to get the transports, when to get them, and where to send the resources et al.
37. Building Airfields and Ports and fortifications – there should be an ETA date for the next level along with the screen so the player can decide if to change tactics
38. Ship repair date – ships in port with damage should have an estimated repair date. This will help the player decide if to move it / accelerate it, etc.
39. Air unit Base screen should allow the player to click on a mission for an air unit and change it from that screen. It increases play speed tremendously.
40. Political point allocation – the player should be able to select the next unit to spend political points for a command change so he/she does not have to remember. The next unit, the amount needed / shortfall should be on the main victory screen / accessible there.

Cheers
Andy Maxwell

[Andy Mac]

Hell of a list I will try to take the ones I know about or are land based.

ORIGINAL: topeverest
1. The land combat system needs an overhaul. 5 of my buddies quit the game as soon as they found out there is a ZOC in a game that has 3600 square mile hexes. To put that in perspective, that is half the size of Massachusetts. Even the multidimensional combat formations of today could not interdict anywhere near that much terrain that they don't currently occupy. At a minimum, we recommend having an option to remove ZOC, though we would still suggest not allowing a defeated foe to retreat into an enemy occupied hex. Even with the proposed 40 mile hexes of the next generation, that would be 1600 square miles of interdiction. None of us can find a justification to lock units in combat or in their hexes because of adjacent enemy units. Units retreating across a 'ZOC' might suffer a fire attack of some type or a % reduction in force size.

We are rewriting the ZOC to make it hexside rather than hex based - it is also non permanent - its not a total rewrite it will help its still not perfect but rewriting the land system was out of scope.

2. Enemy land movement is not detectable until it enters a new hex. There definitely should be a mechanism to determine that enemy units are moving in a particular direction, perhaps through recon or just being adjacent.

No this falls into the to hard to do in the current code so this wont be in


3. Land movement in general is too slow, probably as a result of the movement reduction penalties applied to units. In general, we feel that land units should move about double what they actual effective movement rate is over rough / broken ground. Mechanized units should be able to pulse 100 hundred miles on roads / rails per day at some cost in disruption

In asia on the roads in question with WW2 equipment perhaps now or maybe 3rd Army in France but 100 miles per day on asian 3rd rate tracks or dirt roads in China no unit in WW2 Pacific achieved movement of that kind except possibly the 45 soviets and setting movement rates based on August Storm would distort the rest of the map.

Railway movement is now seperated from normal movementand requires a loading unloading phase but once loaded units move very quickly - and are very vulnerable.

Movement will appear quicker because of smaller hexes but if anything is slower because of the removal of railways from tactical movement


4. The game does not take into account the continuous nature of engineer and supply units to improve infrastructure along key supply routes where it was needed. We suggest explicitly (or implicitly) allowing for the improvement, perhaps allowing for category of trails and roads. The building of roads and rails was a common occurrence and greatly increased the effectiveness and speed of troops. It was a major silent element of the war. For example, the trail that leads to Cooktown, Australia. It is hard to fathom that even if this is a valid evaluation of the road network in 41, that a unit moving to and from would really move at such a glacial pace. Multiple grades of roads would implicitly allow for land transport capacity improvements. It also opens a whole new dimension into each of the major land campaigns, where major very famous and effective infrastructure improvements occurred – e.g., Alaska Highway. This could be done abstractly with an infrastructure rating by hex or explicitly with building of roads / trails. The Japanese have road construction engineer units – they should be allowed to do their job.

This one was debated a LOT by the team for sooo many reasons but its just not possible what we have done is movement is now based on the AVERAGE of the two hexes being moved over so a move from a primary road to a secondary will use the average movement rate so no more moving at 45 miles per day off of a railway onto a trail and taking 5 weeks to get back.


5. Rail movement seems oddly done. In general, rail capacity and movement rates are implicitly conducted in the game. We would envisage a system where a unit can get on the rail after a 1-3 day loading process (depending on the load capacity of the embark hex) and then move up to 500 miles per day, followed by a 1-2 day unloading process including some disruption (depending on off-load capacity).

See above total re write quite similar to what you are suggesting

6. When units are on naval transports, it is not easy to identify where they are. Similarly, there should be a total listing of bases for FOW scenarios so that a player can quickly go to an enemy base from an intel report or combat summary, etc. see later comment on intel.

Some improvements here via the list all sub units screen better and best we can do but not

7. Emergency retreat and forced march movement – Units should be able retreat from combat if they choose to do so when attacked by a unit with similar or less mobility. Also, units should be able to move faster at some cost to disruption and fatigue up to some logical limit.

Out of scope for AE again it was debated but we had to triage and this didnt make the cut

8. Retreat direction – land units should be able to select their retreat hex in the command options. This game is not of the scale where the attacker or computer should be choosing. The game should default to computer choice if the player does not select

Out of scope for AE again it was debated but we had to triage and this didnt make the cut although we improved the computers basis for selection

9. You should be able to easily sort both idle and active commanders by 'best suited to command' function to better manage how you are re-assigning commanders. We like the fixed assignment in the historical games but suggest that in random games commanders are randomly assigned.

Sorting commanders is now easier but no rtandom leader assignment

13. Base numbers / sizes. Before we delve into this, we are sure some of what has been done is for playability reasons; nonetheless, in any 3600 square mile hex that is linked to a road, rail, or sea should be able to have a base of some size. To put this in perspective, virtually every island in the Bismarck archipelago and Solomon Islands has at least one base, but the northeast side of Australia has but three. The players are forced to fight a decidedly historical campaign, and the both the Allies and Japanese are decidedly disadvantaged in select locations. First, we agree that island bases should have lower max build sizes than full hex / mainland bases, but all bases should be able to build up to a certain size. For example, 9 should be the maximum for full hex / mainland / non mountain hexes; etc. Second, building bases is what both sides did throughout the conflict. At a minimum, there should be a provision for both sides to build some bases where there are no beach / dot bases. This could be controlled like PT/Barges or some other mechanism to keep it from getting out of hand, but limiting bases to the printed bases greatly limits the ability of the players to be the commander in chief.

A lot of changes here a lot more bases and no longer forcing combat in certain areas - however the AI forces some decisision in this area and having a base in every hex is to many for the game - the playablity aspect still runs deep it hasd to be playable and the AI has to cope with it

17. Eliminated ground units should be a screen.

Out of scope for AE again it was debated but we had to triage and this didnt make the cut

23. Coordinate arrival – All land units should have an option to coordinate arrival in a hex to prevent the piecemeal thrashing of an attacking force. Note this is different than follow unit option – or an improvement on the performance.

Some improvement in this area I cannot recall details if one of the others comes on he can update

24. Shock attack bug – for some reason, land units that arrive in a hex with an enemy units may immediately shock attack, even if other friendly units are in the hex. Also, some units that enter an enemy hex don't attack the first turn. This seems odd.

This is remaining I assume you are referring to the river or strait crossing auto shock attack ?

30. Air and ground unit disbanding – these units cannot permanently disband, placing their component parts back into the respective force pools. This should be an option, especially for air units in dead-end planes that the player does not want to continue to service. This could be accomplished by using the disband function and ask the player what type of plane to bring back…setting 120-180 day delay. Also there could be an option not to bring it back at all.

This is in mutilple disband and withdraw options for LCU's some optional some not

32.In all ground summary screens – bases, and total, there should be a column option to see if it is moving, where to, and how far it has to go. There is no mechanism to do this other than trample through every unit in every hex.

Out of scope for AE

33. Replacement priority option – in addition to turning replacements on or off, there should be a prioritization / ranking button that allows the unit to receive replacements before or after others. That way, units that need specific types of upgrades or replacement types can get them and other units that need other types of replacements can still get the leftovers without turning them off.

Out of scope for AE again it was debated but we had to triage and this didnt make the cut

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

ORIGINAL: topeverest

7. Emergency retreat and forced march movement – Units should be able retreat from combat if they choose to do so when attacked by a unit with similar or less mobility. Also, units should be able to move faster at some cost to disruption and fatigue up to some logical limit.

Out of scope for AE again it was debated but we had to triage and this didnt make the cut

What is in - the unit can assume one of several modes - Combat or Movement being two of them. The mode will dictate the speed with which the unit moves. However the unit's vulnerability to attack increases when not in Combat mode in essence your trading protection for speed.

[JeffroK]

Thoughtful comments from topeverest, I hope any potential WITP CLIV developer takes them into account.
 
I like the "co-ordinate arrival" thought, you might send 4 Divs to a hex and they arrive willy nilly and are thrashed in detail. Surely based on Commanders rating they should have a good chance of arriving together. Equally at sea you send off a number of TF and HOPE they travel and arrive together, can make a mess of an Invasion unless you prop offshore and wait for every one to arrive.
 
Other comments are affected by the size of the hex, we have companies & batallions having too much effect on a 60 mile hex (more like 4500sq miles, someone can do the math), I understanfd AE will solve some of these, and probably create more. However I am unsure of letting the loser choose their retreat, again maybe dependent on leader ratings.
 
Land combat, I think works in the long run, many battles took weeks or months so you get the ups & downs, have a rest, do some bombarding etc, dont look at the first days combat result as being the battle.
 
11. Air rebases – a quirk of the rules allows a damaged or reserve planes to be successfully transferred off a base when there is another land-linked base. A player can disregard the base selection screen and transfer the planes to any base in the range of the aircraft. Planes on single base islands cannot do this. Additionally, damaged / reserve plane transfers should be subject to the limitations of rail / road movement rules that exist.
I see these as being trucked or railed out, of course islands dont have this infrastructure.
12. Offensive air missions. The rule that disincents air missions where adequate escorts are not available prevents more offensive air missions that it should. While we agree with the concept, many instances occur in the game where planes do not launch at all despite naval task forces / invasions targeting nearby bases or even the planes home base. This is not too realistic. Every available aircraft would launch if an enemy force came in close striking distance to the limitations of supply and weather. This should be possible
It is possible, just not guaranteed. maybe the effect is too much but morale does have an effect. Q. Is the morale check done by unit or pilot, therefore allowing Biggles to take off, alone if neccesary?
15. Transporting troops – when attempting to load troops onto the various types of transports, the game should give you a screen that allows you to decide how to load the troops and how much supply to bring along if desired. The current system allowed for pretty unrealistic half and third full ships and then still leaving behind part of a unit. We realize this is a hands-on game, but this screen should be added
16. Date of sinking should be added to ships sunk screen.
I think these have been looked at for AE
27. Airplane Upgrade Trees – there appears to be a bug where in solitaire games, the player is allowed to choose among a wide swath of potential up, side and downgrades to planes. This gives the player better playability, and allows maximum use of available replacement planes. In two player games, the common scenario allows only one upgrade choice and has models for which there are no upgrades. For the allies, this creates quite unrealistic situations where one or no units of that plane type are on the map and 50 or more monthly replacements are being produced. In general, we suggest letting the players build and do what they will. If the Japs decide to discontinue float fighters, they should be able to. Lastly, on the air unit base summary screen screens, you should have an option to see if upgrade is turned on and if so what plane type AND date of availability.
This should depend on the PDU switch for both players, thats why it always works in Solitaire, As Allied production doest exist (except in RHS) only the Japanese has the ability to do exactly what you ask. Is production turned on?
29. Pilot production – This particularly hurts the Japanese. There should be a production mechanism to allow for more and better pilot production, probably a choice for the precious factories. It definitely should be a meaningful tradeoff, because pilot skill is one of the big strategic advantages a player can have in the game.
Pretty sure this is in AE
30. Air and ground unit disbanding – these units cannot permanently disband, placing their component parts back into the respective force pools. This should be an option, especially for air units in dead-end planes that the player does not want to continue to service. This could be accomplished by using the disband function and ask the player what type of plane to bring back…setting 120-180 day delay. Also there could be an option not to bring it back at all.
Doesnt this already exist, I alway kill my RAAF flights and build up the Sqn, they ask whether to return in 90 days or not.
36. The auto convoy system is valiant but inadequate. The player should be able to target the amount of supply and fuel to be bunkered at each base. Also for production items, there should be a set stockpile threshold where the computer sends transport from a select number (perhaps 1) of production bases. In English, let the computer know where to get the transports, when to get them, and where to send the resources et al.
The auto convoy system sucks. Most end up micromanaging this area, ive seen 100,000 fuel at a puny atoll which has never seen a ship.
 
Keep playing Andy, maybe AE will solve a large number of these frustrations
 
 
 

[Oldguard1970]

Information about embarked units -
 
Right now, when we call up the list of LCUs, we get no information about embarked units.  I have to look at each TF with troops to see which LCU is on board.  I hope AE will present the embarked LCUs as part of the "list all LCU" screen.