1.3 Wishlist ??

[rdcotton]

Ok guys ... how about a list of what you would like to see in the
next release.

Personally ... I would like to see the SHIPS SUNK list in the
intelligence report separated by nationality/side. I find it
difficult to see what allied ships have been sunk when they
are mixed in with the IJN ... Any other thoughts ?

Ray

[Long Lance]

It seems to me that when forming a TF and changing the sort order, the ship list sometimes somehow flips around a little weird.

I didn't notice this in UV 1.20 (although in 'older' versions) until the first APs arrived at Noumea.

Is there anyone who observed the same effect, or are my eyes getting just-another-turn-tired?

Btw, I think repair-times for B-17s are too long, and levelbombing against not or weak escorted Transport TFs should be more effective. Somehow an average between 1000 ft. UV 1.11 and 6000 ft. UV 1.20.

And I agree, LCU that are already being loaded by TFs should somehow be greyed out or sth. like that.

And I want to know what really is the AA-Penalty for TFs containing more than 10 ships.

And I want to see which class a ship belongs to

And I want a pony, a V-8-car, to be a millionaire....

[Yamamoto]

Speed and direction of enemy task forces would be nice.

The ability to order your surface combat groups to "follow" an enemy task group would also be nice ( i.e. they would try to engage them.) Surface combat is so cool now. It's a shame it occurse so rarely.

Yamamoto

[Drongo]

It seems to me that when forming a TF and changing the sort order, the ship list sometimes somehow flips around a little weird.

I've encountered this in 1.11 and 1.2. Screen stability when you change sort order and then select ships would be a great improvement. At present, it's a bit time consuming, especially when you have to build half a dozen TF's in a row.

[tangent]

I would like to see a long campaign (5/1/42 to 12/31/43) that assumes that the Battle of Midway DID happen and that the forces lost there are not available for this theater. I find it rather strange to be forced to include, the Akagi, Kaga, Yorktown, et al in full length campaign in the South Pacific.

For that matter, I would like to see mandatory withdrawals of units sent out of theater. A campaign with strictly historical forces would also be nice.

[Long Lance]

Originally posted by tangent
I would like to see a long campaign (5/1/42 to 12/31/43) that assumes that the Battle of Midway DID happen and that the forces lost there are not available for this theater. I find it rather strange to be forced to include, the Akagi, Kaga, Yorktown, et al in full length campaign in the South Pacific.

For that matter, I would like to see mandatory withdrawals of units sent out of theater. A campaign with strictly historical forces would also be nice.

It's not that difficult to create such a campaign by using the Scenario Editor. You'll need not more than 10 minutes to do the job.

[Oliver Heindorf]

I wish a realistic AI CV-TF behaviour.

The Jap CV's are hanging around 4 hexes away from Lunga directly where the word "The Slot" is written on the map since 5 days and they pound Tulagi ground forces instead of taking out the Airfield at Lunga

This is sooooo unrealistic !

Why they should bother about Tulagi - the danger is Lunga with the airstrip !

I dont sent my CV-TF's in areas like this - and Nimitz would have fired Halsey if he had done this IMHO

[tanjman]

Dear Santa, eerr um Matrix

This is what I would like to see in the next patch (not the big bug patch your working on).

Game:

1) Load troops only for transports. Needed to be able to rotate troops without striping much needed supplies from forward bases.

2) Ability to have C-47/Topsy pickup troops. Would be nice to be able to rotate inland troops, i.e. Kanga force at Wau without having to move a base force and transports there.

3) Submarine Patrol zones. A group of hexs that a sub will patrol.


Editor:

1) Ability to create Pilot Leaders.

2) Ability to edit aircraft replacement rates.

I know, I know, but like my granny says, if wishes were horses we would be up to our noses in horse sh!t.

[AlvinS]

1) Load troops only for transports. Needed to be able to rotate troops without striping much needed supplies from forward bases.

2) Ability to have C-47/Topsy pickup troops. Would be nice to be able to rotate inland troops, i.e. Kanga force at Wau without having to move a base force and transports there.

3) Submarine Patrol zones. A group of hexs that a sub will patrol.

I second these.

[BillBrown]

How about a 3a, a patrol zone for ASW task forces?

[chrisp]

Or how 'bout this:

Create a new category of aircraft: Heavy Bomber (basically, B-17s and B-24s.) I frequently want to assign my B-25s/A-20s etc. to one mission and my Heavies to something else. Would really be a help if there were a "Assign all Heavies" button.

Also, do some work on routine convoy and barge destinations. Geez Louise, I've got Morobe in the red supply-wise and my barge convoys keep shipping stuff to Port Moresby (barge hub is Gili Gili). PM has more than double the required supply, but it doesn't matter.

I guess PM doesn't want to run out of Lucky Strikes and tropical chocolate.

Chris P.

[Sonny]

Originally posted by chrisp
Or how 'bout this:

Create a new category of aircraft: Heavy Bomber (basically, B-17s and B-24s.) I frequently want to assign my B-25s/A-20s etc. to one mission and my Heavies to something else. Would really be a help if there were a "Assign all Heavies" button.

............

I like this idea also. I'm usually too lazy to go and select each group individually and assign them a mission. I get around it by basing all my heavies at one base and my mediums at another base (I know - I already said I'm lazy).

[NorthStar]

Originally posted by chrisp
Or how 'bout this:

Create a new category of aircraft: Heavy Bomber (basically, B-17s and B-24s.) I frequently want to assign my B-25s/A-20s etc. to one mission and my Heavies to something else. Would really be a help if there were a "Assign all Heavies" button.

... snip

Chris P.

Actually, you can do this already. Pick a medium bomber group and assign its mission to ALL LEVEL BOMBERS AT BAESE. Then, pick a heavy bomber group and assign its mission to ALL B-17's AT BASE. This is the same number of mission settings as having a Medium and Heavy group setting, unless you have BOTH B-17s and B-24s at the same base, which then requires one additional mission setting. Not a big deal in my book (that is, not worth effort which could go to more important enhancements).

[doomonyou]

1) I second the reduction in heavy bomber repair. After a week's repair at a major airfield most of the damaged planes should be flying again...I find after two good raids on Rabaul that 2/3 of my planes are offline with some taking three weeks to heal. Don't go back to pre1.2 where dozen b-17s could be fixed in three hours but there is a happy medium in there.

2) second the splitting heavy, long distance bombers and mediums but its not critical

3) I second Not being able to load tired troops on APs without sucking the forward base dry of supply is annoying.

4) second the "go get troops and bring them here" for planes.

5) I feel Night bombing missions should be far more impractical than they are now. 9 betty's shouldn't be able to score 5-7 hits on PM's runway at night as they often do in my games. The british and germans had trouble over germany hitting cities at night, much less striking specific installations like runways and port repair facitlies. This is especially true of radar equiped bases when the light would be darkened prior to the enemy's arrival.

6) and please I beg of you if not in UV (although it should) than in WITP midoint interception...just make a toggle that the computer moves each TF one hex at a time for the movement phase...I am really tired of sending my subs into harbor because its the only way to do it. Its stupid and it detracts from the game.


All in all however I remain addicted and find the 1.2 to be 90% good, 10% need tweaking. Excellent support of a great product.

[Dunedain]

If I'm not mistaken, the big upcoming patch is the one that will
include the ability to have surface combat TF's intercept each other
while passing through the same hex on their way to other destinations.

No more need for the hex to be a destination hex for one or
more of the TF's.

Matrix said months ago this was going to be worked on for a
major upcoming patch (naturally it takes awhile to incorporate
such a significant improvement), and I think this patch will likely
be the one where this correction debuts, since we've had a couple
intervening patches since then to fix bugs and make other
more easily implemented enhancements.

This is the improvement I most look forward to in the 1.3 patch.

[chrisp]

Originally posted by NorthStar


Actually, you can do this already. Pick a medium bomber group and assign its mission to ALL LEVEL BOMBERS AT BAESE. Then, pick a heavy bomber group and assign its mission to ALL B-17's AT BASE. This is the same number of mission settings as having a Medium and Heavy group setting, unless you have BOTH B-17s and B-24s at the same base, which then requires one additional mission setting. Not a big deal in my book (that is, not worth effort which could go to more important enhancements).

Yeah, this is how I'm currently doing it. Just would save a little time, and I'm sure it would be hardly any effort at all ... but then, people are always telling *me* that when they don't know what they're talking about .

I also strongly second (third?) the suggestion to load only troops. It can be an absolute disaster to send troops back home from bases like Buna or Dobadura and have significant amounts of supply sucked up as well. Same applies to fuel -- transports that have sufficient fuel to return to Noumea shouldn't refuel from Tulagi.

Chris P.

[Nikademus]

Not sure yet about bomber times needing to be tweaked back down a bit. I'm only a couple weeks into a new AAR as the US but so far i've found the repair/down times to be a nice control on not only "how" i utilize my bombers but also "when"

For example, during the start of the campaign, ran my airgroups at PM hard attacking and harrassing the advancing Japanese naval assets and transports. After nearly a week of hard flying and fighting i had ended up with more than 50% of my bombers damaged, not an unrealistic expectation. It also gave good incentive to keep the bombers "up high" for the same reason it was done in real life......to avoid heavy flak concentrations and make them harder to hit.

By raising my attacks to higher altitudes i found my repair rate becoming more favorable (due to less damages giving the mechanics time to catch up) as well as morale going up.

Hav'nt played much with the B-17's as of yet, however in resting them at their Austrailia base i'm finding them repairing 1-3 bombers per day. This seems reasonable given the supply and logistics situation in the SW Pacific at the time

I've seen references to the 8th air force in other threads and while some of it is pertient one should remember that in the early half of the strategic campaign that the Allies would have to rest for weeks at a time after a "big effort" in which they suffered heavy losses and damage. Sustained raids were not practical until many more units, planes and resources were avail so that B-17 and B-24 groups could be rotated in order to keep the pressure. Despite this such events as "Big Week" still required careful planning and preperation.

One must remember too that the bases supporting these operations were much higher up on the priority chain as well as more built up to handle the huge numbers of bombers. In other words the logistic infrastructure was far more extensive

1942 in the Pacific? I could see extended repair times easily given the shoestring budget the Allies had to deal with. The Japanese too felt the pinch given the extent of their supply lines.

So overall i'm liking the new ratings so far. They dont allow players to just run their BG and FG's 24/7, instead they need to be rested and prepped, especially if one suspects a major enemy movement in the near future, that way the maximum asset force levels are available to counter it.

My suggestions for 1.3

1) Bomb pen figures need adjustiing. As an addtion to the future WitP....the damage routine itself may need looking at as well to better simulate the effect of non-penetrative explosions in regards to fires and light SYS damage.

2) Possible tweaking of air to air routines....which appear to be a bit random in terms of advantage and position

3.) in addition to the tweak/fix mentinoed for surface TF's passing through the same hex i feel there should be a limited sort of "reaction" for a TF if an enemy force is within a certain range to it, the Recon level is high enough *and* if the speed differential between the two forces is enough to warrent an interception (such as a fast CA group being near a slow AP group)

4.) 2nd the supply-troop issue. though one easy fix for this is to tailor your TF so that it only has enough "capacity" to move the one unit or units being transported and little else

5)AP/AK durability factors may need looking at. I'm finding them to be suprisingly resilient in the face of multiple bomb and torp attacks. (unloaded TK's the exception)

one other comment on other suggestions

The night bombing routines may seem too accurate at first, however if there's any serious night fighter opposition, their accuracy goes way down to virtually nil......often simple disruption is enough and i've found that most airfield attacks under 10 "hits" are negligable in the extreme. Night bombing remains far less accurate than day attacks but they can be effective enough to 'play the game' with the enemy and make him decide between maximum daylight coverage and spreading it out between day and night

Historically the Allies at PM used night bombing tactics very agressively against bases such as Lae, at least in the early days before the balance of power shifted. Since pilot fatique via disrupted sleep routines are not factored, the sometimes modest returns on night raids can be somewhat justified

[denisonh]

In one of my current PBEM games, I have had 8 B-17s sitting at Rockhampton damaged for 10 days without a single one being repaired (they start there with 8 damaged a/c in 4 sqns).

The sqn is set to training level 0, it is the only unit on the airfield, plenty of aviation support, and plenty of available supplies.

Not 1 a/c repaired in 10 days.

I do agree that it should not swing too far the other way, but this is unreasonable.

Erik Rutins has posted to the heavy a/c repair thread mentioning a relook at the maintenance rate.


I personally believe that at a large well supplied airbase, that the maintenance should be fairly reasonable, but less so in airfields where the supply is low, airfield rating low, and competing with other a/c. I do not think that they should be able to operate 24/7, but waiting 2-3 weeks to repair 8 a/c at a dedicated, well-supplied airfield is too much.

[Gabby]

One thing I would like to have is to be able to selectivly turn on Animations and battle reports. I want to see these for Naval to Naval and Air to Naval, but Air to Air can be a bit of overkill. I know I can skip them by hitting esc, but I think if they could be skipped it would help speed things up.

Another thing that noticed that started happining in 1.10 is when Convoys load LCU, they go for the fast load. This means that even if I have 4 AP's with room for 2 RCT, the AI often loade 1 RCT onto all 4 AP's, and fills the rest with supply. Any one else notice this?

I think it would also be useful for some tools to help reduce micro management of LBA. I would like a quick way to see the Fatigue level of all groups, with out looking at each base.

If there was a way to control Sortie rate, that would be good. What I mean is I would like to be able to set a Heavy Bomb Group to attack an airfield, but I don't want them to attack every day, maybe every two or three days. This would be espically useful when trying to use longer turns, during slow periords. If I set a group of B-17 Squadrons to attack Rubal, and the turn length to 3 days, those squadrons will be in poor shape after the 3 day turn.

I don't see these problems as bugs, or really major problems, just some things that I feel would make the interface easier and quicker to work with.

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Gabby
One thing I would like to have is to be able to selectivly turn on Animations and battle reports. ..........

Or, for me, just have a toggle to deselect all the descriptive part of air-air combat and have it the way it was originally. I liked those air battles. Now I don't watch them unless there are only a very few aircraft involved.