Wishlist
Moderator: Tankerace
-
DoomedMantis
- Posts: 1357
- Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Wishlist
Is it possible to add a date sunk column to the intel reports?
I shall make it a felony to drink small beer.
- Shakespeare
- Shakespeare
I've got one, too.
How about a battle record for the ships? Ships sunk, planes downed, hits delivered, hits taken. Probably too big and too much trouble but it sure would be fun.
Personally, I have a vendetta against SS S-41 in one of my pbem games where I play the Japanese. This sub has sunk at least 5 of my ships that I can remember. My opponent is very proud of it. This sub and its stellar crew have become a point of pride for him and a focus for my ASW efforts. It will be a great day when this submarine is finally sunk.
Anyway, something of a battle record for the ships would be great fun and create even more attachment and 'meaning' for the ships. And thus, heighten our enjoyment of the game.
A thought.
How about a battle record for the ships? Ships sunk, planes downed, hits delivered, hits taken. Probably too big and too much trouble but it sure would be fun.
Personally, I have a vendetta against SS S-41 in one of my pbem games where I play the Japanese. This sub has sunk at least 5 of my ships that I can remember. My opponent is very proud of it. This sub and its stellar crew have become a point of pride for him and a focus for my ASW efforts. It will be a great day when this submarine is finally sunk.
Anyway, something of a battle record for the ships would be great fun and create even more attachment and 'meaning' for the ships. And thus, heighten our enjoyment of the game.
A thought.
-
DoomedMantis
- Posts: 1357
- Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Sydney, Australia
-
HannoMeier
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Another wish . . .
It sure would be nice to transport planes around by regular merchant vessels.
Why? First, to save the damage caused by air transport; and , second, to move planes a distance further than they could accomplish in one hop.
Most often I encounter this when trying to move planes from Truk to the lower Solomons or from Australia to Noumea/Efate/Luganville. Seems to me it should be possible.
Any chance of this going into the new patch? Or, even better, have I overlooked how to presently transfer planes by ship?
It sure would be nice to transport planes around by regular merchant vessels.
Why? First, to save the damage caused by air transport; and , second, to move planes a distance further than they could accomplish in one hop.
Most often I encounter this when trying to move planes from Truk to the lower Solomons or from Australia to Noumea/Efate/Luganville. Seems to me it should be possible.
Any chance of this going into the new patch? Or, even better, have I overlooked how to presently transfer planes by ship?
Thats what I use the CVEs for.Originally posted by Widi
Another wish . . .
It sure would be nice to transport planes around by regular merchant vessels.
Why? First, to save the damage caused by air transport; and , second, to move planes a distance further than they could accomplish in one hop.
Most often I encounter this when trying to move planes from Truk to the lower Solomons or from Australia to Noumea/Efate/Luganville. Seems to me it should be possible.
Any chance of this going into the new patch? Or, even better, have I overlooked how to presently transfer planes by ship?
Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.
-
LowCommand
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 3:30 am
- Location: VA
More Wishlist Items
My first wishlist item is more color coding. It would be nice if I/we didn't have to keep looking all over the map for bases low on supplies, air groups too fatigued, etc.
Next item, manual updates, we keep seeing good info in these posts, it would be nice if it were gathered up and officaly distributed.
Another item would be game location to history book translator. I had to do some looking (not necessarly a bad thing) to translate Gili-Gili to Millie Bay etc.
Last item, a cap only setting. One way to keep fighter air groups from burning out would be to keep about 30 percent of them on CAP with no escort duty. That would cut down on the chase all over the map looking for air groups that need a rest.
Next item, manual updates, we keep seeing good info in these posts, it would be nice if it were gathered up and officaly distributed.
Another item would be game location to history book translator. I had to do some looking (not necessarly a bad thing) to translate Gili-Gili to Millie Bay etc.
Last item, a cap only setting. One way to keep fighter air groups from burning out would be to keep about 30 percent of them on CAP with no escort duty. That would cut down on the chase all over the map looking for air groups that need a rest.
"Mines reported in the fairway,
"Warn all traffic and detain,
"'Sent up Unity, Cralibel, Assyrian, Stormcock, and Golden Gain."
"Warn all traffic and detain,
"'Sent up Unity, Cralibel, Assyrian, Stormcock, and Golden Gain."
New sinkings in list
Is it possible to add a date sunk column to the intel reports?
It would be nice to have the new sinkings appearing in the list marked in some way. After a while it becomes a long list and even if you put in the date sunk (which I miss a lot also) it wouldn't help since it might take upto 90 days before it is shown in the list.
Regards
BPRE
Another wish . . .
I can't use planes out of Rabaul to attack naval targets effectively. Why? Because they go after task forces in Port Moresby and get clobbered.
Why would we want them to attack a TF in port when there's a perfectly good un-CAPped TF only a couple hexes away?
Sure would be nice if we could toggle planes to NOT attack a hex or specific TF.
I can't use planes out of Rabaul to attack naval targets effectively. Why? Because they go after task forces in Port Moresby and get clobbered.
Why would we want them to attack a TF in port when there's a perfectly good un-CAPped TF only a couple hexes away?
Sure would be nice if we could toggle planes to NOT attack a hex or specific TF.
I'll second that one. I've had the same problem.Originally posted by Widi
Another wish . . .
I can't use planes out of Rabaul to attack naval targets effectively. Why? Because they go after task forces in Port Moresby and get clobbered.
Why would we want them to attack a TF in port when there's a perfectly good un-CAPped TF only a couple hexes away?
Sure would be nice if we could toggle planes to NOT attack a hex or specific TF.
My Nells on Lunga can see a bombardment TF 11 hexes away but won't hit them. They won't hit them when they are 11 hexes away on the way back to Nevea. But when they arrive at Nevea my Nells make a concerted, unescorted effort to sink those ships only to get shot down by the CAP over Nevea. Don't know why the escorts won't escort them.
Quote from Snigbert -
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
-
Capt Cliff
- Posts: 1713
- Joined: Wed May 22, 2002 4:48 pm
- Location: Northwest, USA
How about a Logistics Command!
How about a Logistic Command subroutine where you set up the minor supplying of secondary bases. Open a window, select bases to be supplied and from where, assign AK's to the command give each port of call a priority and turn it on and forget! A sort of cruise control for the supply system! Obviously this would work for Guadalcanal until mid or early 43. The hot bases still get hand feed!
Capt. Cliff
Another wish . . .
I wish damaged barges could be scuttled. Presently, they can't be scuttled or sent to Tokyo. So I have a couple of almost sunk barges cluttering up Rabaul harbor and can't do a thing with them.
. . . and another . . .
I wish airgroups wouldn't 'grow' unless allowed. I moved some Petes and Jakes off of a couple AVs. Now those 3 plane airgroups are 15 plane airgroups. Argghh. Japanese air support is limited to start with and I've got critical support tied up in short range float planes.
Presently, I have a base designated as the one which harbors all these unwanted air groups. I just fly them there and let them degenerate. Seems a waste of resources and victory points but there's little else I can do and I certainly didn't foresee the growth in these air groups.
. . . and another . .
Is there any way to get an estimated repair time on ships sent back to Tokyo or Pearl? Even a range of days absent from operations would be useful information. Something like, "The Akagi will be out of the war for 90 to 120 days if you send her back to Tokyo at this time". I hate sitting on damaged ships but I rarely have any clue how long they'll be gone if I send them back home, so they tend to pile up some.
Also . . .
Could we get an address for the designers of the Wirraway? Arguably the worst non-float plane in the theater of operations. Let's send them some hate mail. hehe
I wish damaged barges could be scuttled. Presently, they can't be scuttled or sent to Tokyo. So I have a couple of almost sunk barges cluttering up Rabaul harbor and can't do a thing with them.
. . . and another . . .
I wish airgroups wouldn't 'grow' unless allowed. I moved some Petes and Jakes off of a couple AVs. Now those 3 plane airgroups are 15 plane airgroups. Argghh. Japanese air support is limited to start with and I've got critical support tied up in short range float planes.
Presently, I have a base designated as the one which harbors all these unwanted air groups. I just fly them there and let them degenerate. Seems a waste of resources and victory points but there's little else I can do and I certainly didn't foresee the growth in these air groups.
. . . and another . .
Is there any way to get an estimated repair time on ships sent back to Tokyo or Pearl? Even a range of days absent from operations would be useful information. Something like, "The Akagi will be out of the war for 90 to 120 days if you send her back to Tokyo at this time". I hate sitting on damaged ships but I rarely have any clue how long they'll be gone if I send them back home, so they tend to pile up some.
Also . . .
Could we get an address for the designers of the Wirraway? Arguably the worst non-float plane in the theater of operations. Let's send them some hate mail. hehe
-
John Lansford
- Posts: 2664
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:40 am
I believe the Wirraway was a converted trainer into a (bad) fighter, or was it a commercial transport? Either way, it had no business being in a war.
One thing I would like to see changed is the way damage is apportioned to warships. Shells and bombs either hit the deck or belt armor, and either penetrate or not. That's all well and good, but there is a big section of all ships called the "superstructure" that contained a lot of valuable devices and personnel, and was not armored at all. A bomb or shell hitting a ship should have a chance to hit the superstructure, damaging such things as the electrical system, radar or secondary and AA guns. Fires could be started by superstructure hits, but not system or hull damage. One or two of the USN cruisers at Savo Island, in fact, were scuttled after they took hits in the superstructure that started fires that could not be put out. USS San Francisco had her superstructure destroyed by Hiei but her hull was undamaged for another example.
If this were changed the damage allocation to ships would be much more accurate. Also get rid of the idea that .50 caliber and 20mm shells from PT boats could penetrate even the outer hull of a warship, much less sink it.
One thing I would like to see changed is the way damage is apportioned to warships. Shells and bombs either hit the deck or belt armor, and either penetrate or not. That's all well and good, but there is a big section of all ships called the "superstructure" that contained a lot of valuable devices and personnel, and was not armored at all. A bomb or shell hitting a ship should have a chance to hit the superstructure, damaging such things as the electrical system, radar or secondary and AA guns. Fires could be started by superstructure hits, but not system or hull damage. One or two of the USN cruisers at Savo Island, in fact, were scuttled after they took hits in the superstructure that started fires that could not be put out. USS San Francisco had her superstructure destroyed by Hiei but her hull was undamaged for another example.
If this were changed the damage allocation to ships would be much more accurate. Also get rid of the idea that .50 caliber and 20mm shells from PT boats could penetrate even the outer hull of a warship, much less sink it.
This was fixed in the upcoming patch. At least it was fixed for carrier groups that would 'grow'. I'll test and make sure it works for float planes as well.Originally posted by Widi
I wish airgroups wouldn't 'grow' unless allowed. I moved some Petes and Jakes off of a couple AVs. Now those 3 plane airgroups are 15 plane airgroups. Argghh. Japanese air support is limited to start with and I've got critical support tied up in short range float planes.
Rick
Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.
There are also Tower hits - which I assume are superstructure hits.Originally posted by John Lansford
I believe the Wirraway was a converted trainer into a (bad) fighter, or was it a commercial transport? Either way, it had no business being in a war.
One thing I would like to see changed is the way damage is apportioned to warships. Shells and bombs either hit the deck or belt armor, and either penetrate or not. That's all well and good, but there is a big section of all ships called the "superstructure" that contained a lot of valuable devices and personnel, and was not armored at all. A bomb or shell hitting a ship should have a chance to hit the superstructure, damaging such things as the electrical system, radar or secondary and AA guns. Fires could be started by superstructure hits, but not system or hull damage. One or two of the USN cruisers at Savo Island, in fact, were scuttled after they took hits in the superstructure that started fires that could not be put out. USS San Francisco had her superstructure destroyed by Hiei but her hull was undamaged for another example.
If this were changed the damage allocation to ships would be much more accurate. Also get rid of the idea that .50 caliber and 20mm shells from PT boats could penetrate even the outer hull of a warship, much less sink it.
Quote from Snigbert -
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
"If you mess with the historical accuracy, you're going to have ahistorical outcomes."
"I'll say it again for Sonny's sake: If you mess with historical accuracy, you're going to have
ahistorical outcomes. "
-
John Lansford
- Posts: 2664
- Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:40 am
Yes, the tower (or citadel) is part of the superstructure. It is also the only armored portion of the superstructure, and a small part of it even on a battleship. If you look at a ship like the South Dakota, for example, the citadel is probably about 10% of the overall superstructure, which covers probably 60% of the deck area. While an AP shell or bomb hitting the deck would probably hit the superstructure first, not every shell or bomb is AP. In the fight with Kirishima, South Dakota was hit numerous times, nearly all of them in the superstructure. The AP shells nearly all passed through with exploding, but several smaller 5" and 6" HE shells exploded, doing serious damage. Fires were started, electrical systems damaged, secondary guns disabled, and the radar was put out of commission.
-
SoulBlazer
- Posts: 766
- Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 5:28 am
- Location: Providence RI
Yeah, luckily while the Japanese were all beating up on the South Dakota, the Washington was taking apart the Kirishima. I think a battleship going from untouched to sunk in eight minutes by another warship is a record......no wonder the Japanese bugged out of there! They were scared s***less!
I think a battleship going from untouched to sunk in eight minutes by another warship is a record......no wonder the Japanese bugged out of there! They were scared s***less! The US Navy could probaly win a war without coffee, but would prefer not to try -- Samuel Morison
Great ideas, guys
My wish list:
1) It would be nice to have more information appear in the black square that appears over units when you pause your mouse over them, such as:
* the TF's destination
* whether it is carrying cargo or not
* a red dot to indicate low fuel
* a red bullet to indicate low ammo
These items would save a lot of mouse clicking. . .
2) When TFs need to be assigned air cover, it would be great when I click on LR-CAP for a fighter, that a small arrow would appear indicating the direction of the TF, OR indicate which TFs ALREADY have air cover (indicated by a small plane icon beside it). Again, this small addition would save a great deal of time.
Great game. . . counting the days until WiTP. . .
My wish list:
1) It would be nice to have more information appear in the black square that appears over units when you pause your mouse over them, such as:
* the TF's destination
* whether it is carrying cargo or not
* a red dot to indicate low fuel
* a red bullet to indicate low ammo
These items would save a lot of mouse clicking. . .
2) When TFs need to be assigned air cover, it would be great when I click on LR-CAP for a fighter, that a small arrow would appear indicating the direction of the TF, OR indicate which TFs ALREADY have air cover (indicated by a small plane icon beside it). Again, this small addition would save a great deal of time.
Great game. . . counting the days until WiTP. . .
Some wishes of mine
Here are a few of my wishes.
1) Direction of spotted TFs (with some random variation depending on how well spotted/tracked the TF is).
2) Spotting reports on ships in anchorages, probably with more information coming from photo recon missions than naval search. The current chinese wall between ships inside an anchorage and outside of an anchorage is too artificial at the present time.
3) Disbanded ships in port should be forced into a naval battle of some kind. While currently, they can be bombarded, they do not shoot back. This leads me to conclude that they should formed into an ad hoc task force; the tricky part is deciding how the ad hoc TF should fight: from an anchored protected position possibly still protected by torpedo nets but more vulnerable to falling shot, or underway in some more or less organized fashion as a moving TF. Leadership, detection of the enemy, and support could play a critical role here.
4) Naval HQs having some benefit for naval/naval air operations.
5) The class name of a ship as a sortable column in the transfer ships between TFs window.
6) More limits on moving heavy equipment over jungle trails.
7) The ability to store aircraft as cargo on merchant ships.
8) Observation corps (coastwatchers, etc. for both sides) and overflown ships having some impact on readiness against overflying enemy air missions both for CAP and for AAA.
9) I am still not happy with the minelayer fix. Even when a minelayer has refuelled at Noumea it appears to lose its mines if it refuels from any other port afterwards. This appears to limit minelaying missions solely to refueling range from Noumea; which is tough on those converted four-piper MLs. I don't mind having to go a key port to get mines but I don't see why the mines disappear before they are laid.
10) American torpedoes that work. (Now, now...)
11) An atomic bomb for use against Rabual... (Bad boy! Down!)
By the way, I am growing to love the air to air combat model of this game. Tweaks aside it is probably the most sophisticated model of air operations that I have seen in commercial wargame.
1) Direction of spotted TFs (with some random variation depending on how well spotted/tracked the TF is).
2) Spotting reports on ships in anchorages, probably with more information coming from photo recon missions than naval search. The current chinese wall between ships inside an anchorage and outside of an anchorage is too artificial at the present time.
3) Disbanded ships in port should be forced into a naval battle of some kind. While currently, they can be bombarded, they do not shoot back. This leads me to conclude that they should formed into an ad hoc task force; the tricky part is deciding how the ad hoc TF should fight: from an anchored protected position possibly still protected by torpedo nets but more vulnerable to falling shot, or underway in some more or less organized fashion as a moving TF. Leadership, detection of the enemy, and support could play a critical role here.
4) Naval HQs having some benefit for naval/naval air operations.
5) The class name of a ship as a sortable column in the transfer ships between TFs window.
6) More limits on moving heavy equipment over jungle trails.
7) The ability to store aircraft as cargo on merchant ships.
8) Observation corps (coastwatchers, etc. for both sides) and overflown ships having some impact on readiness against overflying enemy air missions both for CAP and for AAA.
9) I am still not happy with the minelayer fix. Even when a minelayer has refuelled at Noumea it appears to lose its mines if it refuels from any other port afterwards. This appears to limit minelaying missions solely to refueling range from Noumea; which is tough on those converted four-piper MLs. I don't mind having to go a key port to get mines but I don't see why the mines disappear before they are laid.
10) American torpedoes that work. (Now, now...)
11) An atomic bomb for use against Rabual... (Bad boy! Down!)
By the way, I am growing to love the air to air combat model of this game. Tweaks aside it is probably the most sophisticated model of air operations that I have seen in commercial wargame.
Oooo. I like it, I like it. Nice ideas, guys.
A couple more from me . . .
1) It would be nice to have some way of prioritizing sub targets or eliminating certain targets altogether. Subs generally carry only 3 torpedo loads per sortie and it's discouraging to see one of those loads wasted on an AG barge. or small sub chaser.
2) Is there any way we could designate a hex to be avoided by out task forces? Certain hexes get alot of traffic and often harbor waiting subs. I'd love to see an ability to 'ban' those sub trap hexes as we encounter them repeatedly.
-Widi
A couple more from me . . .
1) It would be nice to have some way of prioritizing sub targets or eliminating certain targets altogether. Subs generally carry only 3 torpedo loads per sortie and it's discouraging to see one of those loads wasted on an AG barge. or small sub chaser.
2) Is there any way we could designate a hex to be avoided by out task forces? Certain hexes get alot of traffic and often harbor waiting subs. I'd love to see an ability to 'ban' those sub trap hexes as we encounter them repeatedly.
-Widi