Have I showed you guys this one?

siRkid · Post by **siRkid** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 2:37 am

see attached

Fred98 · Post by **Fred98** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 2:54 am

From this I have worked out my approach to the game.

1. I will use the scenario editor and continue to enjoy UV for another year or so.

2. As for this game I will play a few smaller scenarios PBEM

3. As for the long campaign, I will choose a side and then set it to "Computer" vs "Computer and set to "Continous play".

From time to time I will step in and issue some orders. If I can put in 2 hours play per day it will still take me 230 days to play.

Do I get annual leave?

siRkid · Post by **siRkid** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 3:36 am

Put all the zones under the computers control but one. You control that one Area of Operations. Also, put every thing on auto supply and take what comes your way.

TIMJOT · Post by **TIMJOT** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 6:02 am

What a GREAT function. I am sure most players are going to end up useing it one way or another. Its inevitable that certain sectors are going to be relatively quiet during long periods. So quiet, that even the AI can be trusted not to screw things up too much.

Kid, is the player given status reports on whats happening in the Computer controlled sectors or do you have to manually check each one?

Thanks for any insite.

Flying fortress · Post by **Flying fortress** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 6:14 am

Being a detail freak, I'm going to LOVE this game. I am just going to be salivating until this game comes out.

Just a couple of detail questions

1. do we get to upgrade armaments as we please? (As long as space allows for it? or as long as increased weight and such is taken into consideration?)--by that I mean radar, AA, etc.

2. weapon ship, aircraft developments--do we get a hand in that?--more supplies/surplus of supplies and points leading to getting weapons, planes, shipsfaster? --I know you can't design a super carrier and build a whole alot of them in the alloted time period. That should'nt be allowed--by ships I mean maybe some destroyers, subs, cruisers, etc--something that could make it within timeperiod.

For me, I would cancel all of those useless JPN destroyers under construction or planned and build matsu and Akitsuki classes almost exclusively because of the AA and the strong ASW capabilities compared to other destroyers

3. For Japan, we have to have Engines and airframes to create a aircraft, right? Any chance to combine powerful engines with airframes?--increasing speed, climb rate, maybe mvr with perhaps less range and a development time of the new aircraft. Just like the KI 100 which used a ki61 frame with a newer more reliable radial engine.

4. Do we get to assign naval target priorities?--I think this has already been brought up. I don't want 90% of my carrier planes hitting a single transport or a PT boat or something while my carriers get pounded to bits.

5. You know how when you launch CV airstrikes against CVBGs or bases your CVBGs are always found. Well, there is always a chance that CVBGs can't be found because of the weather or other circumstances. How is this going to be modeled?

6. Weather reports: Is it going to be a vague one like in UV? Any chance it will be something like the reports in PTO II so we can plot strategy?

madflava13 · Post by **madflava13** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 6:40 am

Kid,
If you choose to run only one theater, do you depend on the AI to release units to you like in UV? Conversely, if you have the AI handling a certain theater, can you assign certain units to it to use and limit it from taking others?

Thanks for the shots.

siRkid · Post by **siRkid** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 3:07 pm

Originally posted by TIMJOT
What a GREAT function. I am sure most players are going to end up useing it one way or another. Its inevitable that certain sectors are going to be relatively quiet during long periods. So quiet, that even the AI can be trusted not to screw things up too much.

Kid, is the player given status reports on whats happening in the Computer controlled sectors or do you have to manually check each one?

Thanks for any insite.

You will see the combat reports and can check the normal intel screens like ships sunk but thats about it. If you have any ideas, I would be glad to pass them on.

siRkid · Post by **siRkid** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 3:16 pm

Originally posted by Flying fortress
Being a detail freak, I'm going to LOVE this game. I am just going to be salivating until this game comes out.

Just a couple of detail questions

1. do we get to upgrade armaments as we please? (As long as space allows for it? or as long as increased weight and such is taken into consideration?)--by that I mean radar, AA, etc.
No, this feature is not in the game and frankly I think it would add too much micro management.

2. weapon ship, aircraft developments--do we get a hand in that?--more supplies/surplus of supplies and points leading to getting weapons, planes, shipsfaster? --I know you can't design a super carrier and build a whole alot of them in the alloted time period. That should'nt be allowed--by ships I mean maybe some destroyers, subs, cruisers, etc--something that could make it within timeperiod.
There are some production things you get to control and some limited ability to affect built time but thats about it.

For me, I would cancel all of those useless JPN destroyers under construction or planned and build matsu and Akitsuki classes almost exclusively because of the AA and the strong ASW capabilities compared to other destroyers

3. For Japan, we have to have Engines and airframes to create a aircraft, right? Any chance to combine powerful engines with airframes?--increasing speed, climb rate, maybe mvr with perhaps less range and a development time of the new aircraft. Just like the KI 100 which used a ki61 frame with a newer more reliable radial engine.
No, sorry.

4. Do we get to assign naval target priorities?--I think this has already been brought up. I don't want 90% of my carrier planes hitting a single transport or a PT boat or something while my carriers get pounded to bits.
We are about to work on things of this nature. I will keep this in mind when we do.

5. You know how when you launch CV airstrikes against CVBGs or bases your CVBGs are always found. Well, there is always a chance that CVBGs can't be found because of the weather or other circumstances. How is this going to be modeled?
I have no idea.

6. Weather reports: Is it going to be a vague one like in UV? Any chance it will be something like the reports in PTO II so we can plot strategy?
It has been improved somewhat but probly not to the level your talking about.

siRkid · Post by **siRkid** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 3:21 pm

Originally posted by madflava13
Kid,
If you choose to run only one theater, do you depend on the AI to release units to you like in UV? Conversely, if you have the AI handling a certain theater, can you assign certain units to it to use and limit it from taking others?

Thanks for the shots.

You would control that by transferring units to or from your command using political points.

Damien Thorn · Post by **Damien Thorn** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 6:08 pm

I’ve heard that when making scenarios we will be able to restrict the scenario to only part of the map. Do you know yet if we can choose exactly what part of the map or will it use these pre-defined theatre areas? I hope we can choose any specific subsection of the map to make our scenarios in. If this hasn’t been decided yet, please forward my suggestion and hopes to the correct people.

siRkid · Post by **siRkid** » Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:19 pm

Originally posted by Damien Thorn
I’ve heard that when making scenarios we will be able to restrict the scenario to only part of the map. Do you know yet if we can choose exactly what part of the map or will it use these pre-defined theatre areas? I hope we can choose any specific subsection of the map to make our scenarios in. If this hasn’t been decided yet, please forward my suggestion and hopes to the correct people.

As far as I know its any part of the map.

Joel Billings · Post by **Joel Billings** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 12:00 am

Originally posted by Damien Thorn
I’ve heard that when making scenarios we will be able to restrict the scenario to only part of the map. Do you know yet if we can choose exactly what part of the map or will it use these pre-defined theatre areas? I hope we can choose any specific subsection of the map to make our scenarios in. If this hasn’t been decided yet, please forward my suggestion and hopes to the correct people.

You can define any desired rectangle (you specificy upper left and lower right hexes). You can then eliminate any bases (and add others) so that areas you don't want in play can be made useless.

jcjordan · Post by **jcjordan** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 1:29 am

Can I send units from the east coast to the west through the Northwest passage?? :p
I really like the look of it as well as the computer control aspect, looking forward to it finally coming out.

Flying fortress · Post by **Flying fortress** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 6:45 am

Thanks for the reply, kid.

Good to know that the naval target priorities thing is going to be considered.

Damien Thorn · Post by **Damien Thorn** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 9:05 am

Originally posted by Joel Billings
You can define any desired rectangle (you specificy upper left and lower right hexes). You can then eliminate any bases (and add others) so that areas you don't want in play can be made useless.

Super!

CommC · Post by **CommC** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 11:55 pm

This looks like it is going to be one great game with the sector control feature.

On those same lines, I don't know if this is planned or not, but I would like to see some global settings for, say, an entire sector for plane altitudes for the various mission types, do not continue bombing if opposed by substantial CAP, etc.

Keep up the great work.

BTW, I would be happy to help out with the testing. I would do this for free and would also be willing to sign a confidentiality agreement.

siRkid · Post by **siRkid** » Sun Jul 27, 2003 12:34 am

Originally posted by CommC
BTW, I would be happy to help out with the testing. I would do this for free and would also be willing to sign a confidentiality agreement.

LOL thats how it works.

sbond · Post by **sbond** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 3:00 am

Originally posted by Kid
Put all the zones under the computers control but one. You control that one Area of Operations. Also, put every thing on auto supply and take what comes your way.

That is pretty much the way I play War in the Pacific now, I chose a command and let the others fend for themselves. Of couse the AI lacks and I have to give nudges and do operations from time to time I enjoy playing one area operations.

AmiralLaurent · Post by **AmiralLaurent** » Tue Jul 29, 2003 6:23 pm

The funny thing of these aera controls will be in PBEM. The question is more 'Where will my opponent strike ?' but 'Wich command did he control ?'

I would say that players will say they design themselves operations ending in victories and that the AI designed defeats...

I love this system of controls. A possible addentum would be to have a High Command control option for all units in the game. If you switch it, your unit (ground, aerial or naval) may be anywhere on the map, it remains under human control, ignoring the local command.
So if you plan to send your CV TF in a raid in a given aera, you can let the computer perform all normal activities in the same time.

A page displaying all units under High Command would be useful to trace them.

So players can trace easily their main forces and operations.

Have I showed you guys this one?

Have I showed you guys this one?

Or you could do this

Re: Or you could do this