Planning and automation

[Philwd]

Since I personally could not play WiTP with daily turns multiple day turns are a must.

I agree we need waypoints. If just to make it harder for subs to hang out in known shipping lanes.

Damaged ships head to nearest lvl 3 port not home base.

I like Pad152's suggestions on rotations. One other possible enhancement would be to steal a page from Harpoon and let the player set the size of a rotating CAP. This may help manage carrier ops over several days.

let subs attack mid move not just end points.

finally ground combat needs revising to better simulate the long drawn out battles that happened historically rather than the 7 days(max) and out battles in UV. Not making units attack repeatedly over a several day period when they've suffered a major defeat. Not losing 15000 troops in a single day when attacked by 30000.

Phil

[Grotius]

Cap & Gown stated most of my wish-list.

I'd add one thing: more keyboard shortcuts for assigning air squadron (and TF) missions. E.g., number keys 0-9 for 0-90% CAP/Nav Search; arrow keys to scroll through lists; maybe next-TF hotkeys; even keyboard keys to move the map (a la Pacific War's JIKM system); anything to cut down on all the painful clicking. Repetitive stress is an issue for me, and I suspect others; keyboard shortcuts help. Without shortcuts, I suspect WiTP will involve even more clicking than UV.

[loader6]

My request involves the little blue quick jump boxes at the bottom of the screen for each base that shows air groups and TFs and Land units. I'd like to be able to organize the air group buttons that are at the bottom of the screen and have them stay that way. For example, at Port Moresby, there can be a P-39, then to it's right is the box of a B-24, then a PBY, then another P-39, etc. I'd like it so all my fighters are together and all my bomber are together and all P-39s are next to each other, and all B-24s are next to each other, etc. Because the next air group button works in the order shown at the bottom of the screen in the blue boxes. Sometimes I want to just look at all my F-4F's and not have to rotate through all my squadrons to be sure I got them all.

I'm not sure if this makes sense, but it does in my head if that's any help.

[loader6]

Oh yes, WAYPOINTS, they are a must in my book. I'm tired of having the choice of either a) checking my TFs every turn and rerouting them just right so they don't go in a hex with known subs or b) being stuck with morons for TF commanders who ignore my orders to divert around sub infested hexes (this is especially true for transport TFs who go through the same area over and over like idiots, even though they don't have a need to rush to their objective and I'd rather they take a long route to stay away from subs). whew, I feel better now.

[mogami]

Originally posted by loader6
Oh yes, WAYPOINTS, they are a must in my book. I'm tired of having the choice of either a) checking my TFs every turn and rerouting them just right so they don't go in a hex with known subs or b) being stuck with morons for TF commanders who ignore my orders to divert around sub infested hexes (this is especially true for transport TFs who go through the same area over and over like idiots, even though they don't have a need to rush to their objective and I'd rather they take a long route to stay away from subs). whew, I feel better now.

Hi, Well in WITP (and maybe backfit into UV) Waypoints for the purpose of avoiding subs will not be an issue. Submarines will be able to intercept TF's as they pass through the hex. So there will not be any need for subs to gather on hexes TF's end movement on. Sub will therefore tend to sit in choke points. (where you must pass through with out being able to avoid the hex)

Submarines in open ocean will deploy in a line to try to catch TF's
Instead of having to place the subs right on enemy ports you will deploy them in a ring around the base.

[Bax]

Originally posted by loader6
My request involves the little blue quick jump boxes at the bottom of the screen for each base that shows air groups and TFs and Land units. I'd like to be able to organize the air group buttons that are at the bottom of the screen and have them stay that way. For example, at Port Moresby, there can be a P-39, then to it's right is the box of a B-24, then a PBY, then another P-39, etc. I'd like it so all my fighters are together and all my bomber are together and all P-39s are next to each other, and all B-24s are next to each other, etc. Because the next air group button works in the order shown at the bottom of the screen in the blue boxes. Sometimes I want to just look at all my F-4F's and not have to rotate through all my squadrons to be sure I got them all.

I'm not sure if this makes sense, but it does in my head if that's any help.

Yes! I'm glad I'm not the only one who wants this!

[bradfordkay]

Mog, I think that waypoints will still be handy because we may want to route the convoys the long way around to avoid that choke point. I know that I use human control on a lot of my convoys in and out of Noumea because of the frequency of Japanese subs in "Torpedo Juntion" (the triangle of Noumea, Luganville, and Lunga). I often send them NE and then north of Luganville just to avoid those subs. Having waypoints wouls allow me to set up the route from the beginning and then let it run as a CS type convoy (occaisionally adjusting the waypoints as the enemy adjust his sub patrol areas).

[mogami]

Hi, Because subs can intercept as TF's move through hexes. It will become hard to avoid them if they are employed correctly.
Rather then place subs on bases (where ASW can find and destroy them) You will be able to cordon bases (place a ring of subs around it, out far enough where detection is harder (water deeper and not restricted by coasts)
So areas (like Japanese Tk moving to Balikapapan will be hard to avoid. There is no "long" way around. Convoys will have to move through straits. But by the same token you should then build bases expressly for conducting ASW ops to watch these choke points.
I'm not saying waypoints will not be a usefull tool if added to program, only they will not solve the transport versus sub problem.
They will be very handy for things like having TF's from differant bases meet in open sea before proceeding with mission. (something that currently you must assign hex and then once both TF's are there issue new orders.
They would be more usefull for avoiding LBA then subs.

[bradfordkay]

I already use my subs in that manner. I'm sure that it isn't as effective as sending them into the actual port (I played with that once), but I didn't like the the way it made the game feel. I keep my ships out in the deep water approaches to enemy bases, as well as in or near chokepoints. My rationale is that my submariners would be safer in deep water (realizing that the game may not model this, it is my house rule for additional realism). I have had pretty good luck catching transports with this system (especially damaged ones limping back for repair), occaisionally having to adjust the sub's position to where I think the TF will be next turn.

The AI does not send his subs into ports, either, but it does seem to imitate real life in sending its subs towards an enemy base, thereupon cruising towards another base. In doing so, it practically guarantees that the sub will cross a shipping lane. Since I usually play allies, I have noticed that the AI replicates "Torpedo Junction" quite well, and so I route my ships around that area as much as possible. Since this is the ocean, there is always a long way around (well, unless you're in a deep fjiord); sometimes it sends you closer into enemy LBA coverage so you can't use it, but it is there.

And yes, waypoints will be even better for avoiding LBA, but don't overlook their usefulness for your anti-sub camapign. Once the new sub system kicks in and players agree to keep subs out of enemy ports you will find out just how much it can help - knowing that the waypoints will have to change once your enemy figures out your new patterns.

Of course having waypoints won't solve the sub/transport problem, but it is an important tool to use in your ASW campaign.

[mogami]

"Since this is the ocean, there is always a long way around"

Hi, In WITP a player can still place his subs right on a port. But it will mean the quick end for the sub. (There are lots of ASW ships and aircraft in WITP) I think players will learn to sit outside the range of all but the longer range aircraft. (and away from the hordes of DD,PC,PG,MSW ships that will feast on ships located in a port hex) Even with poor ASW shear numbers will get the sub.

The Southern Resource Area has many choke points. The Japanese will not be able to avoid them (look at the map) Going the long way to avoid one will just mean he has to use another.
(oil ports in Borneo are really going to draw Allied subs operating from most likely Darwin Australia.) Likewise the Yellow Sea and East China Seas will see a lot of subs (from Midway I'll guess)
On the plus side this area is mostly shallow water making ASW work easier. (and ripe for mine barriers) But the entrance here will be a good place for subs hunting transports bringing resources back to Japan. (place subs right at entrance to Sea of Japan next to Korean Strait where water gets deep)

The West end of the Formosa strait is also deeper.

The Allies can go the long way, but the Japanese need only blockade the ports. (My guess is PH will always have 15-20 subs lurking to the east. )
Place 6 subs east of Brisbane, 6 off of Sidney. Place a dozen or so in the Indian Ocean. (Say 40-50 subs all told on station at any one time. The Japanese have over 100 (many are not suited for long patrols but he can find bases for them close to patrol zones)

Coupled with long range search aircraft to locate what routes the enemy is using. It might in the end prove more successfull to just take the short route (and get into protected waters sooner)

[Feinder]

I'm one of the few people that play multi-day turns (2-day turns to be precise). Frankly, I don't know how you COULD play WitP on 1-day turns and every have any hope of finishing it (but then again, I only play one PBEM turn a night anyways).

Regardless, whatever the engine does, it DOES need tweaking so that one can play 7 day turns or whatever. It is currently impossible to play anything more than 3-day turns without killing half your pilots from fatigue (because they fly the same mission for 7 days straight). Frankly, I would rather NOT have an additional control to set, I'd rather just have it not fly themselves into exaustion after the 3rd day. But SOMETHING needs to be done so that the came -can- be played on 7-day turns. Otherwise what's the point of it to begin with?

-F-

[Blackhorse]

I'm in Feinder's camp. I want a game I have a chance of finishing. Those of us with jobs and families could never hope to complete a WITP campaign playing one-day turns.

Command & control and the combat routines in UV make multi-day turns something between unrealistic and unplayable. Being able to form "groups" for "operations" would be nice in a hemisphere-scaled game, but not (to me) essential.

What *is* essential are the tweaks necessary to allow troops, planes and ships to function as they should when given a week's worth of orders. If WITP does not work on that scale, then it holds no attractions for me.

[mogami]

Hi, Whats the hurry? What is differant about playing a game for 2 years and finishing 4 games at 7 days per turn compared to finishing 1 game at 1 day per turn? (You spent the same amout of time sitting at the computer)

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, Whats the hurry? What is differant about playing a game for 2 years and finishing 4 games at 7 days per turn compared to finishing 1 game at 1 day per turn? (You spent the same amout of time sitting at the computer)

Maybe they don't want to play 4 games. Or maybe they have to start over 5 or 6 times due to patches and want to try to finish a game between patches.

If the game is gonna allow 7 day turns then it should be able to handle those 7 days is a reasonable manner. If it can't then only allow 3 day (or whatever the game can reasonably handle) turns.

[Sonny]

I jst scanned through the posts here so this may have already been mentioned - I would like the # of torps for subs displayed on the first screen. All the pertinent info for subs is on the first screen except torps. And I am lazy - I don't wanna click to the next screen just to see them then click BACK so I can give a movement order.

While I am at it, if there could be a right click on a TF just to give movement orders (without filling up the screen with the TF window) that would save a lot of time and clicking. Right now you click the TF, click the movement button, click the destination, then the screen fills up with the TF info and you can't see the path of your TF unless you exit (or try to move the screen to look around the edges) then you click exit. If you have right-click, click for DH it would be a lot easier. A lot of the time I already know what is in the TF (although my opponents would refute this statement) and just want to move it.

[pmath8]

I would like to be able to exert greater control over fleets, particularly bombardment fleets. I find it nearly impossible to get them to remain at the bombardment hex after bombardment no matter what options I use. My fleet also switches missions aginst my wishes.

[Blackhorse]

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, Whats the hurry? What is differant about playing a game for 2 years and finishing 4 games at 7 days per turn compared to finishing 1 game at 1 day per turn? (You spent the same amout of time sitting at the computer)

What's the difference between inheriting a million dollars in one year; or a dollar a year for a million years?

You get the same amount of money either way -- but I'd still have a preference.

[mogami]

Originally posted by Blackhorse
What's the difference between inheriting a million dollars in one year; or a dollar a year for a million years?

You get the same amount of money either way -- but I'd still have a preference.

Huh? I do not follow the logic. It's more like writing 7 chess moves down and then when your opponent makes a move you had not considered watching the AI ignore what is happening and continue with the 7 (now silly) moves.
The main question is, which is more important? Being able to finish a game where every 7 days you try to sort out the mess. Or
playing just one game where every turn reflects your idea of what your forces should be doing. The one requires more effort to be sure. But it also allows more satisfaction and immersion.
I don't think WITP is meant for the faint/half hearted approach
(I often spend 4 or more hours just looking at the map without giving any orders just to make myself aware of where everything is at and what possible choices there are. ) Once the game gets moving I like to keep my finger on the pulse and correct anything I might have overlooked. (Simple errors of no real impact in 1 day turns can result in spectacular mishaps if allowed to run unchecked for 7 days.
I'm certain there will be the option for multi days turns. Your welcome to them. I will be happy with the few players I know who will try to finish the game no matter how long is required and would only want to use the single day option.

[pasternakski]

As the song says:

You're gonna come 'round talkin' to me about
All of your simplicity, well I've
Heard that story once before, I'm not
Gonna take it anymore,
I have locked and barred the gates of
All of our future debates,
'Cause I been livin' it, baby, day by day.

If people are able to persuade Matrix/2by3 to compromise the integrity of the game as played in daily turns, I'm not gonna be a happy camper.

PW works within its own milieu with weekly turns because the system was designed to play out in weekly turns. The UV system, on the other hand, has so many characteristics obviously designed for daily turn play (I even sense, with the search, naval movement, and two-times-a-day airstrike mechanics, that two-a-day turns were contemplated) that playing at any other interval compromises the game's design integrity. It's like trying to drive a Ford Pinto (not that I'm comparing the UV game system to such a crappy car) at 150 miles per hour. It just doesn't happen. If you can be happy with the results you get when playing in multi-day turns, fine, but let the design work its way out to be what it is intended to be in WITP.

Discussions about how you want to live your life are nothing to the point. Neither are mentions of "Hey, have you ever played Pacific Donkey Dork Wars? It does things this way and that way, and it'd really be NEAT, GROOVY, and FAR OUT if that could be grafted onto WITP."

Okay. Fire away. This is my story, officer, and I'm sticking to it.

[Nikademus]

"Daily turns Rock eh huh-huh huh-huh"
--Butthead

"yeah! they rule heh-heh they RULE! heh-heh"
--Beavus