Things 2by3 Nees To Fix......

[LargeSlowTarget]

Originally posted by Nikademus
No irony. I was just plagerizing one of our forum member's handles.....it seemed better than to re-hash my thoughts on the surface engine. It 'was' rather extensive and besides, i've already submitted the preposal internally. Further drum beating would probably only be viewed with annoyance

link is here in case you missed it:

showthread.php?s=&threadid=28425

I see, I see. My Gosh, what a monster post of yours. I'll have to take a day off to read that one. I like your proposals on new HLs very much. Thnx for the clarification.

[Mike Scholl]

..., as we now have a thread which hasn't deteriorated into
petty bickering going. Hope we can keep it on that level.

Seems obvious that aside from my first three points (which
seem to have met universal aclaim) there is a consensus to:

LIMIT ABILITIES OF FAST TRANSPORT MISSIONS. Several sugges-
tions out there, but I'll toss in mine as well. I don't have a prob-
lem with these missions making unopposed landings with troops
and light equipment; or with being used to bring reinforcement/
supply to a contested area. But if used to make an "opposed"
landing they should be heavily penalized as they lack the
amphipious capibility to do it right. Another penalty should be
applied to troops carried for any length of time on non-transport
shipping. An overnight run while crammed on the decks of a DD
is one thing---but a multi-day trip on a vessel that provides no
sleeping facilities, and inadequate mess and latrine facilities, nor
any exercise space is going to be hard on the troops and their
combat capibility.

GIVE GROUND COMBAT A MORE REALISTIC AND VARIED NATURE.
Especially in accordance with the defenders terrain and level of fortification. Seems to be a lot of support for improvement in
this area in terms of combat odds and defender preparation.
I know I've never had a Buna defense in a game that was much
like the historical experiance---and while I like to think it's because
I'm so much smarter than MacArthur, the combat system probably
had a good deal to do with it.

And something I'd like to see discussed is:

NIGHT-ONLY MOVEMENT OF BARGES. The Japanese had 1000's
of these critters, and used them to good effect in any area where
they didn't face large "open-sea" crossings. Most of their troop
and supply movement in the "combat areas" of UV was by barge,
and was done by creeping along coasts or from island to island
AT NIGHT. This kept them from being exposed to much in the way
of air attack as they could put into the coast and be camoflaged
during the day. Unless the Allies had small craft of their own
patroling the area (PT's found this their major job during the war)
the barges could get supply and troops around even contested
areas slowly, but wth little loss. I'd like to see a "barge mission"
that didn't move very fast (maybe 40-50 miles a night), but was
almost impossible to spot and attack from the air. This would
allow the Japanese to put up a more credible and realistic defense
in a lot of areas, and force the Allies to do more sea interdiction to stop it.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Mike Scholl
..., as we now have a thread which hasn't deteriorated into
petty bickering going. Hope we can keep it on that level.

Seems obvious that aside from my first three points (which
seem to have met universal aclaim) there is a consensus to:

LIMIT ABILITIES OF FAST TRANSPORT MISSIONS. Several sugges-
tions out there, but I'll toss in mine as well. I don't have a prob-
lem with these missions making unopposed landings with troops
and light equipment; or with being used to bring reinforcement/
supply to a contested area. But if used to make an "opposed"
landing they should be heavily penalized as they lack the
amphipious capibility to do it right. Another penalty should be
applied to troops carried for any length of time on non-transport
shipping. An overnight run while crammed on the decks of a DD
is one thing---but a multi-day trip on a vessel that provides no
sleeping facilities, and inadequate mess and latrine facilities, nor
any exercise space is going to be hard on the troops and their
combat capibility.

GIVE GROUND COMBAT A MORE REALISTIC AND VARIED NATURE.
Especially in accordance with the defenders terrain and level of fortification. Seems to be a lot of support for improvement in
this area in terms of combat odds and defender preparation.
I know I've never had a Buna defense in a game that was much
like the historical experiance---and while I like to think it's because
I'm so much smarter than MacArthur, the combat system probably
had a good deal to do with it.

And something I'd like to see discussed is:

NIGHT-ONLY MOVEMENT OF BARGES. The Japanese had 1000's
of these critters, and used them to good effect in any area where
they didn't face large "open-sea" crossings. Most of their troop
and supply movement in the "combat areas" of UV was by barge,
and was done by creeping along coasts or from island to island
AT NIGHT. This kept them from being exposed to much in the way
of air attack as they could put into the coast and be camoflaged
during the day. Unless the Allies had small craft of their own
patroling the area (PT's found this their major job during the war)
the barges could get supply and troops around even contested
areas slowly, but wth little loss. I'd like to see a "barge mission"
that didn't move very fast (maybe 40-50 miles a night), but was
almost impossible to spot and attack from the air. This would
allow the Japanese to put up a more credible and realistic defense
in a lot of areas, and force the Allies to do more sea interdiction to stop it.

Dont rejoice yet. As for fast transport.....
I like it, but if BOTH sides suffer a nerf, then I guess it wont really matter. At least we wont see SeeBees FTing all over the place.

[Mike Scholl]

Originally posted by Chiteng
Dont rejoice yet. As for fast transport.....
I like it, but if BOTH sides suffer a nerf, then I guess it wont really matter. At least we wont see SeeBees FTing all over the place.

I'm not popping any corks, but I do find it encouraging that
we have two pages up and it's actually keeping to the subject
pretty well.

Didn't think I had the "be-all, end-all" answer on fast transports---just putting in my piece. One thing I would like
to emphasize in this thread is, "If you have any ideas on how
to implement a 'fix' for a problem, bring them forward". We
shouldn't just dump a lot of gripes on Joel and expect 2by3
to come up with all the answers.

Chiteng.., you usually have informed opinions (if not always
aggreeable ones) on things. What are your thoughts on the
"barge proposal" I made?

Sorry to hear you're going to be a lawyer. Once you pass
the bar, I'll have to start hating you.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Mike Scholl
I'm not popping any corks, but I do find it encouraging that
we have two pages up and it's actually keeping to the subject
pretty well.

Didn't think I had the "be-all, end-all" answer on fast transports---just putting in my piece. One thing I would like
to emphasize in this thread is, "If you have any ideas on how
to implement a 'fix' for a problem, bring them forward". We
shouldn't just dump a lot of gripes on Joel and expect 2by3
to come up with all the answers.

Chiteng.., you usually have informed opinions (if not always
aggreeable ones) on things. What are your thoughts on the
"barge proposal" I made?

Sorry to hear you're going to be a lawyer. Once you pass
the bar, I'll have to start hating you.

Not me man...I dont have time for Law. I am in Hospital Administration. But I studied law for fun. I also debated.


Barges sound good. At last something to use the PT boats for.

I am more afraid of the 6 million tons of merchant shipping
that Japan actually had. At the rate ships die in UV
that wont last long. But the reality is, that is all they had.
I dont recall the wartime build tonnage, but I know it was a net loss.

[mogami]

Hi, In WITP all equipment has different load values. All ship have differant speeds they load and unload.

AK's are fast loading and unloading supply
AP's are faster loading and unloading troops.

Big coast defense guns can not be loaded onto ships. (They stay were they begin-load value of 9,999 and there are no 10k AP and you can't split a single item.
This will impact FT' moving tanks and arty. If a single item is larger then space on ship.

However in UV many of the Japanese guns that get moved by FT are 75mm's (and I think they will still fit on most ships that can run FT missions.

There is a chart showing all load values and rates that ship
types load and unload. (for over the beach take the load/unload rate. At Ports multiply rate by size of port)

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Nikademus
I'm not sure i understand your meaning about the bombers. Are you refferring to the overall issue of LBA? or the fact that my A-24's managed to catch a 2nd FT just as it started it's dash during the PM phase of the resolution?

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

What I mean about the bombers (yes, it is connected to the overall complaint about LBA) is, if they were a little less deadly then normal supply runs would be more feasable instead of the TF runs that are now prevalent. Part of the less deadly is - basing fewer LBA in one location meaning that instead of 85 Bettys (or 40 B-17s or 60 B-25/26s) being able to reach the transports there are maybe a dozen Bettys hitting a 10 ship transport group unloading.

I understand that an unprotected transport TF should not escape unharmed, but it seems to me that medium and heavy bombers are too accurate (6 B-17s getting 3 hits on a TF at sea is just too much and when ships are unloading even more deadly). If you reduce the accuracy/deadliness of the LBA and have the wear and tear on a fast TF increased then a normal landing of supplies and/or troops might be more tempting rather than a FT run.

[Drongo]

Posted by Mdiehl

On night aircraft attacks, I wonder if the torpedo-armed PBY black cat variant would be worth inclusion.

All the PBY's can perform night naval strike with torpedoes already in UV. It currently is in WitP as well. The only thing missing is night naval search missions and the use of air based radar for surface search.

[CapAndGown]

Nik,

I did not read all your post (as is usual with your "novels"). But I did note some suggestions for disruption issues on landing and invasion force. Have your seen the new disruption stuff in WitP? Perhaps you should go check out the notes for some of the earlier alpha builds. Gary has coded in a lots of new stuff for invasions.

[Mike Scholl]

Originally posted by Mogami


Big coast defense guns can not be loaded onto ships. (They stay were they begin-load value of 9,999 and there are no 10k AP and you can't split a single item.

MOGAMI This brings up a topic I had a question for you about
once before. How accurately are the major (pre-war built)
coastal fortifications modeled in WitP. You say "big coast defense
guns cannot be loaded"..., but how big? 8" guns from Singapore
did show up in the Gilberts---can this be done in WitP?

And because a few players will just HAVE TO TRY IT, how well
are the defensive charicteristics of coastal guns vs. ships handled? Does an attempt to take Manilla Bay by force get it's
teeth kicked in? And for the right reasons? Anything you could
pass along on this subject would be appreciated.

[Piiska]

As suggested by Mike Scholl:

Less effective ground attacks; I agree strongly

Use of low level aircraft attacks; I agree

Some means of controlling base commander choice; I agree strongly. Inability to set patrol areas is the last truly annoying feature in UV. As said, there is no point to patrol Nevada…I hope the suggestion made by Apollo long time ago gets adopted in one way or the other. However, I don’t want to open this debate again. I just express my support for this particular take on the issue.

I have been away for awhile, so I’m not sure if this has been brought up lately, but I feel that capital ships, such as CV’s, should not be able to re-fuel or even dock in a port that is less than size 6 (possibly 5).

Furthermore, the size of the port should limit the capacity of fuel that can be stocked, so that small forward bases size of 1 can only support PTs and Barges, not Taskforces of 2 Carriers and 10 cruisers and 10 destroyers.

[Hoplosternum]

Piiska,

I really like your idea of different size ports being able to resupply/ refuel different sized ships. It could also be extended to ACs beyond the current size 1, 2-3 and 4+ differences. 4E types might consider all airbases less than size 6 (say) as they do size 2-3s now for example.

I won't try and hijack the thread over the issue of patrol arcs. Just to say that while I am not opposed to them I doubt they would add much except a lot of extra time both for players and designers. Plus giving yet another tool for the wiley human player to exploit the poor AI.

[Mike Scholl]

As far as I can tell from the results in UV, the "air search"
sub-routine gives results from 360 degrees out to the range
of the aircraft being used. This is exceedingly generous, and
makes any suprise difficult to achieve. I don't maintain that it
is impossible to mount such a search..., but the program doesn't
seem to consider the number of aircraft involved. I've had 4
"Mavis" flying boats giving me spots off Brisbane and Guadalcanal
in the same turn. That's an awfully wide arc to be covered by 4
aircraft.

To fly an effective search, the aircraft involved cannot be too
far apart at the "long end" of their search arc, or the enemy could
be missed in the "gaps". I know 2by3 wants to keep the search
routine fairly simple, but it should at least reflect the number of
aircraft involved and the range of search given. The system in
use now seems too generous and too simplified. Without getting
into "plotted arcs" and such---does anyone have any ideas how
to make it more acurate?

[Sonny]

Well, this is not exactly the solution which is simple, but tha arc thing could be made a little simpler by having six buttons on the aircraft panel where you set their missions - o.k., really it makes it simpler - which represent search lines emanating from each side of a hex (thats why there are 6 buttons). These arcs cover a line straight out from the hex in what ever directions are chosen (buttons clicked) and the hex to either side. This way there is no need for all that coding to swivel any arc on the map etc. The arcs could be shown on the map to help the player make decisions - just like TF paths are now shown for whatever TF is selected.

Certainly the number of arcs selected and the number of aircraft participating in the search mission should be used in the calculation of spotting chances (along with TF size and distance from the starting point of the search).

[Joel Billings]

Thanks for the thread Mike. I just managed to read through it. A few comments:

As some mentioned, Gary has added a lot of code regarding invasions. Ships have an amphibious value which helps determine how much of a unit is disabled going over the beaches during an invasion. Also, units can have a target assigned and each day (up to 100) they gain one point toward their ability to attack that target. In the case of an invasion, this helps reduce the disabling effect. Also, low experience units are assumed to be training while they have an objective (defenders can have their hex set as an objective making them better at defending the hex) and they gain experience. Base sizes and their potential sizes tend to be lower in WitP than in UV so it will be harder to get big bases. Maybe the low level LBA isn't entirely fixed, but I thought we had made great strides in making the skip bombing much harder for low experience pilots in the last UV patch, as well as making experience gain slower. As I haven't played UV, I don't know what the final result was. I'd be interested in hearing if there is a consensus that low level bombing is still too effective in UV, and if it is only the very low level (skip bombing) of if it is also planes dropping bombs from 1000-5000 feet.

As for things that we'd consider doing (unfortunately some of these items are much easier to talk about than to actually get the code to respond as desired):

I agree that ground attacks by planes are too good (does anyone notice if this is mostly at units not entrenched or at very low entrenchment levels, or is this true irregardless of the fort level?).
Ability to set a max range that an air unit will attack.
Lower the ship system damage due to movement (ships now must spend time to upgrade weapons).
I'm intrigued by the fuel storage and refueling based on port size (I'll have to see what Gary says about this).
I doubt we'll eliminate altitudes as my guess is we'd be crucified because we would leave something out that players want to do, but you're welcome to poll on this issue. If I had it to do over again I would make Gary get rid of altitudes and individual pilots.
I have no interest in changing the air search routines (some things need to be abstracted, more things IMHO).

That's all for now. I'll try to check in on this thread periodically.

Joel

[Piiska]

Originally posted by Joel Billings
I agree that ground attacks by planes are too good (does anyone notice if this is mostly at units not entrenched or at very low entrenchment levels, or is this true irregardless of the fort level?).

I'm 90% certain that fort size does not affect on losses caused by the air raids, as I have have had very high ground casualties even on bases with size 9 forts. In this particular case the base started with size 4 forts and builded up to size 9 and I didn't notice any causality between the casualty rates and the increasing fort size.

Maybe terrain and fort modifier could be added to air to ground strikes, so that units in open road on desert suffer high casualties, and entrenched units inside jungle are virtually invulnerable.

Could you Joel advice us on any developements? I'm personally very interested to know what Gary says to port size restrictions on fuel storage and refueling of capital vessels.

Cheers

[LargeSlowTarget]

Originally posted by Joel Billings

I'm intrigued by the fuel storage and refueling based on port size (I'll have to see what Gary says about this).
Joel

I know it smells of self-promotion and showmanship, yet in case the Matrix has missed it (they didn't respond to my query on their opinion about this issue then ) and for the possible benefit for WITP I'd like to bring this older thread on fuel issues to your attention.

I advocate
a) that in order to facilitate forward deployment of PTs and barges that these shouldn't run on fuel oil but - like aircraft - on 'supplies'
b) that the auto-refueling function at bases (save Noumea, Brisbane and Truk) should be deactivated in order to avoid the unwanted/needless drain on fuel reserves (and ops points) at forward bases by TFs that still have more than ample fuel left. Instead an 'low-on-fuel' warning message and/or an auto-return function should be implemented.
c) to create limits on the amount of fuel that can be stockpiled at different base sizes because it is unrealistic to refuel ships above PT/barge size at bases - or even worse at beach dots - without proper storage facilities. This would help curb the unrealistical fast pace of operations that is currently possible in UV. I might add that stockpile limits should also apply to supplies.

Furthermore I think we really need two different transport TF types, just like in PacWar. One ordinary cargo TF with full cargo capacity and very slow 'over the beach' (un-)loading rates, and an amphib' attack transport mission simulating combat loading. If you slelect this attack mission, cargo capacities should be automatically cut in half (like with loading fuel on APs), but the effects on (un-)loading rates 'over the beach' and readiness/disruption/fatigue should be more favorable. Maybe it would be even possible to distinguish between AK/AP and AKA/APA type vessels, with higher amphib' attack benefits for the latter.

And lastly, I really like Mike's idea of a 'barge mission'.

[Piiska]

Originally posted by LargeSlowTarget
I know it smells of self-promotion and showmanship, yet in case the Matrix has missed it (they didn't respond to my query on their opinion about this issue then ) and for the possible benefit for WITP I'd like to bring this older thread on fuel issues to your attention.

Whoops:o I didn't think my post that way. I wrote both of my posts while being really busy with uni, so I didn't bother to really think what I posted.

Yes. my last post sounds like self-promotion. To make things even worse the original idea is not even mine. Should I have written something like that about base size and refuelling in Uni, I would have been accused of plagiarism.

I just wanted to get this issue acknowledged, because I remembered how previously these issues (Base size and docking limitation and base size and fuel storage) got buried and forgotten (on several occasions I might add). I have always considered these aspects to be very important, hence I asked what Gary thinks.

Sorry if I offended somebody, especially people who's original ideas I presented :o

Ps. When in my original post I say 'brought up before' it should read 'brought up lately'. I slipped to Finglish. *goes editing the original*

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Originally posted by Joel Billings
Thanks for the thread Mike. I just managed to read through it. A few comments:

As some mentioned, Gary has added a lot of code regarding invasions. Ships have an amphibious value which helps determine how much of a unit is disabled going over the beaches during an invasion. Also, units can have a target assigned and each day (up to 100) they gain one point toward their ability to attack that target. In the case of an invasion, this helps reduce the disabling effect. Also, low experience units are assumed to be training while they have an objective (defenders can have their hex set as an objective making them better at defending the hex) and they gain experience. Base sizes and their potential sizes tend to be lower in WitP than in UV so it will be harder to get big bases. Maybe the low level LBA isn't entirely fixed, but I thought we had made great strides in making the skip bombing much harder for low experience pilots in the last UV patch, as well as making experience gain slower. As I haven't played UV, I don't know what the final result was. I'd be interested in hearing if there is a consensus that low level bombing is still too effective in UV, and if it is only the very low level (skip bombing) of if it is also planes dropping bombs from 1000-5000 feet.

As for things that we'd consider doing (unfortunately some of these items are much easier to talk about than to actually get the code to respond as desired):

I agree that ground attacks by planes are too good (does anyone notice if this is mostly at units not entrenched or at very low entrenchment levels, or is this true irregardless of the fort level?).
Ability to set a max range that an air unit will attack.
Lower the ship system damage due to movement (ships now must spend time to upgrade weapons).
I'm intrigued by the fuel storage and refueling based on port size (I'll have to see what Gary says about this).
I doubt we'll eliminate altitudes as my guess is we'd be crucified because we would leave something out that players want to do, but you're welcome to poll on this issue. If I had it to do over again I would make Gary get rid of altitudes and individual pilots.
I have no interest in changing the air search routines (some things need to be abstracted, more things IMHO).

That's all for now. I'll try to check in on this thread periodically.

Joel

Thanks for info/update Joel - great news !!!

BTW, please do make WitP (and UV) maximum range as user selective (as you
wrote) but do this for all kinds of activity:

"Naval Attack"
"Naval Search"
"ASW"


Why for search and ASW as well?

Because this way we can increase the number of aircraft on given area and
thus, hopefully, increase the chance of search discovery (all this in hope
that UV and WitP already have this in calculation - i.e. that search area and
number of aircraft is used in calculation and if more aircraft are on smaller
area that this increases the chance of search discovery).

Thanks in advance!


Leo "Apollo11"

[LargeSlowTarget]

Originally posted by Piiska
Whoops:o I didn't think my post that way. I wrote both of my posts while being really busy with uni, so I didn't bother to really think what I posted.

Yes. my last post sounds like self-promotion. To make things even worse the original idea is not even mine. Should I have written something like that about base size and refuelling in Uni, I would have been accused of plagiarism.

I just wanted to get this issue acknowledged, because I remembered how previously these issues (Base size and docking limitation and base size and fuel storage) got buried and forgotten (on several occasions I might add). I have always considered these aspects to be very important, hence I asked what Gary thinks.

Sorry if I offended somebody, especially people who's original ideas I presented :o

Ps. When in my original post I say 'brought up before' it should read 'brought up lately'. I slipped to Finglish. *goes editing the original*

Nooooo Piiska, you got that totally wrong!!! EDIT: It was Joel Billings' and not your post that trigggered my 'reaction move' to bring the older thread to his/the Matrix' attention. I didn't intend to blame anybody but myself of shameless self-promotion etc. , since I have dug up one of my own posts and thus am plagiarising myself. I don't claim copyright on those ideas - I might have missed that someone has posted on this topic before me. Actually I'm glad that people like you think along the same lines and don't want this issue gets buried and forgotten. With my post I just wanted to second your opinion. I've included the reference to my earlier post because the positive feedback in that thread might convince the Matrix to look into this issue.
So, no offense taken from my side and I hope nobody feels offended by my posts. Keep up the pressure, Piiska, and perhaps we'll see a realistic model of fuel storage etc. in WITP!