Admirals Edtion - how would you change it?

[HMSDevonshire]

if starting from fresh how would you change it?
I would start with better graphics for Naval/Air combat (without going down the road of making it just a game for kids)
etc.
allow players to choose weather to allow the game/or not ,,to run Jap expansion/rescourses/building etc??
same with the Yanks?

[BBfanboy]

There have been a lot of suggestions on this. The main thing to keep in mind is to make it playable on an average computer system, and allow the player to choose what things he will control closely and which he will let the game run for him - things like the continuous supply convoys and maybe giving orders that air groups stand down when their base is hit by extreme weather.
For LCUs, we need a waypoint system similar to the one for TFs so we can route an LCU around an obstacle and then leave it to march for many turns before having to look at it again.

Re: Weather - I played a naval wargame set in the Pacific where weather was shown as rotating concentric arrows indicating a low pressure storm. The weather system varied in size with the intensity increasing from outer edge to center. It was easy to route carriers around the worst of a weather systems for less damage, fewer lost planes and greater certainty your strikes could take off.
We also need LCUs to report weather in their non-base or enemy hex so we know whether we can send aircraft to support them or pick them up.
The player should be able to choose a naval formation for his fighting TFs to optimize which ships will engage the enemy most. Showing all of the ship captain stats when at sea would help with placement of individual ships.

Controlling the actual progress of a battle should NOT be part of the game - it's an operational level game and your chosen leaders must be allowed to fight the tactical level battle.

Aircraft repairs aboard carriers must be made more realistic. Currently, even when a carrier is anchored or docked in port very little repairing happens. But if you land the air squadron ashore it repairs within a couple of turns. Carriers have all kinds of parts, machine shops and metal fabricating equipment (to get the right shape of aluminum) so comprehensive repairs should be fairly quick.

Pilot training should not be based purely on the Experience factor. If the skill being trained is NavB, the game should train the pilots lowest in that skill. Sometimes the least experienced pilot is better at a skill than the more experienced ones!

That's a few things off the top of my head. The rest is empty anyway so I may not have any other ideas ...

[Bo Rearguard]

I think the crew of ships should be rated for morale or fatigue. Right now ships are more like autonomous machines. They can spends weeks at sea return to port, refuel and go out the next day fresh as a daisy aside from maybe from some system damage. Constantly being at sea should have some degrading effects on crew efficiency. I also think ships should randomly lose experience due to crew turnover. The need to expand the navies of all powers meant constantly having to pick and promote sailors to form a cadre of officers and experienced hands for new construction.

[btd64]

I think the crew of ships should be rated for morale or fatigue. Right now ships are more like autonomous machines. They can spends weeks at sea return to port, refuel and go out the next day fresh as a daisy aside from maybe from some system damage. Constantly being at sea should have some degrading effects on crew efficiency. I also think ships should randomly lose experience due to crew turnover. The need to expand the navies of all powers meant constantly having to pick and promote sailors to form a cadre of officers and experienced hands for new construction.

This has been addressed in War in Spain 1936-39....GP

[dr.hal]

if starting from fresh how would you change it?
I would start with better graphics for Naval/Air combat (without going down the road of making it just a game for kids)
etc.
allow players to choose weather to allow the game/or not ,,to run Jap expansion/rescourses/building etc??
same with the Yanks?

You raise two foundational issues here, one directly and the other by association and follow-on posts.  The first is how much control should a player have and second; how much realism should the game emulate?  These points have been explored over the years and one thing is clear to me; players are all over the spectrum.  So you should get some wide ranging responses!!!  I think the issue raised of playability. is important, which is coupled to the intended audience of the game!  What will Matrix want to do and for whom?  So many questions, so little time!

[LargeSlowTarget]

+1 for ship crew morale / fatigue ratings - esp. for subs.

Ships should need to replenish stores and food (i.e. supplies) as well and not just ammo and fuel.

Civilian shipping (xA... types) should not be able to refuel at sea.

A bit more granularity for the current "universal" supplies and resources would be fine. Not too much though, I don't want to deal with dozens of different things either (playability).
Separating avgas from supplies at minimum.
Maybe a division into food, ammo, (other) supplies, oil, fuel oil, avgas, coal, basic resources and rare metals (like bauxite and nickel) - the latter may shape strategies in the game like currently only oil does.

Either limited Allied Player production control, or Allied airplane production should react "under the hood" to Japanese human players "optimising" Japanese airplane production with increased Allied production.

No ship or plane (airbase) symbols at enemy bases unless actually spotted by recon assets or sigint.

Computer-aided pilot training, like automatic pulling of trained pilots into the pools and automatic replacement with trainees.
Separate pilot pools for each skill, esp. bomber skills ground / naval bomb / torp / low etc. should be separated to facilitate pilot management.

Ability to abandon repairs of airfields and ports in order to concentrate on building fortifications.

[dpt182]

if starting from fresh how would you change it?
I would start with better graphics for Naval/Air combat (without going down the road of making it just a game for kids)
etc.
allow players to choose weather to allow the game/or not ,,to run Jap expansion/rescourses/building etc??
same with the Yanks?

My main niggles are a) the inability of infantry to dig in (to at least fort level 1 or 2) with steel helmets & bayonets even if they don't have shovels as there is documentary evidence that they did.
b) my merchant ships keep on picking up 1 point of engine damage that needs a dockyard to repair meaning a long trip to Cape T , LA or San F (i use PH for warship repair & i don't use Sydney after having a damaged US CV sunk outside the port, fortunately i'd landed the air groups at Brisbane to get an extra few days training).
c) Japanese planes with engines included as i have no idea what engine goes with which plane & no idea what planes i need or how to get to them, the engines are a straw too many....
David

[Bo Rearguard]

Some flexibility in the ship withdrawal rules would be nice too. If the USS Nevada was still too dinged up for prompt withdrawal on June 15th, 1943 it would be nice to have the option to substitute any Nevada, Pennsylvania, New Mexico or Tennessee class-battleship of your choice in her place. I don't think the naval planners for Overlord would have been overly fixated over which set of 14-inch naval rifles they could get for shore bombardment purposes. That goes the same for cruiser withdrawals. USS Boise not available? Send the St. Louis.

[Bo Rearguard]

b) my merchant ships keep on picking up 1 point of engine damage that needs a dockyard to repair meaning a long trip to Cape T , LA or San F (i use PH for warship repair & i don't use Sydney after having a damaged US CV sunk outside the port, fortunately i'd landed the air groups at Brisbane to get an extra few days training).

There are a lot of other smaller repair yards on the map that could easily knock off that one point of engine damage. Perth, Melbourne, Brisbane, Auckland, Calcutta, Colombo and many others.

repair-yards.jpg (22.49 KiB) Viewed 180 times

[Diliwitm]

Unit PP trade for exchange of units between commands. Option to play without within in command PPs

Stop ridiculous high PP values for light ship and LCU commands.

Restricted units can move by air and sea between within command airbases and ports

Recon aircraft can be intercepted by fighters

Japanese bombers and other non fighter Japanese aircraft can down Allied aircraft

8 bombs from a B17 should not have better results than 8 bombs from 2 Ki-21, all the rest equal

Allied ships that are sunk but in IRL departed from Pacific need to have another ship replace them. So if a British carrier that went to Europe is sunk in game need an US carrier go to Europe to compensate.

Thai units should only depart on an Allied victory level threshold not automatically at historic date. If you are gaming you are changing reality.

[Sardaukar]

Pipe dream, but "AI" ability to switch between scripts and sub-scripts during game would make it more responsive to threats.

[btd64]

Pipe dream, but "AI" ability to switch between scripts and sub-scripts during game would make it more responsive to threats.

You never know....GP

[Diliwitm]

That is a bit low ambitious for current times. I would make game compatible with AI, to let AI study the game and play the sides.