Bug Reports and Enhancement Requests

[Halsey]

Thanks. I'm not trying to get anything started. I was just wondering if I was missing something during the LCU combat resolution phase, or wondered if it needed fixed.[;)]

[Mike Scholl]

DO AWAY WITH PURSUIT MOVEMENT It's an interesting idea that doesn't
belong in a game with 60-mile hexes, and it creates all kinds of perversions in reality.
Make every unit pay the march cost for the hex it is entering rather than the one it
is leaving, and pay attention to the fact that trails, roads, and RR's are NOT omnidirec-
tional. Land movement is in general FAR to generous, especially to the attacker. In
reality he might have spent several days even finding the opposition in the 3000 sq.
miles of a hex. Probably can't fix that...., but you could at least make sure all units
have to actually march the distance and not get periodic "teleportation".

[Tankerace]

Add in an option to disable autovictory. The whole point of playing scenario 15 was to play the Pacific War from beggining to end, not to be cut short in the middle of our grandest operation.

[mutterfudder]

Forgive if allready mentioned........

How bout making some of those information screens transparent?

Hope you understand what I mean[:o]

[Splinterhead]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Add in an option to disable autovictory. The whole point of playing scenario 15 was to play the Pacific War from beggining to end, not to be cut short in the middle of our grandest operation.

Actually, I would like this to be a three way switch: 1) Disable autovictory
2) Disable allied autovictory
3) Autovictory on

Autovictory simulates the breaking of national will, and while we can be pretty sure the Japanese wouldn't break since they didn't, we can only speculate as to what would have happened if the Japanese had won Coral Sea, Midway, etc.

[BigDuke66]

1. Filter for aircraft and ships database so you can switch to only see fighter or bomber or what ever. Just like it is on the big map where you can turn them on and off. Would really improve comparing ships and planes. A bad mistake when I have to use a microsoft program to play your game[:-]
Or make it at least sortable by TYPE.

added to list

2. A arrived screen to see what air units, ground units and ships arrived this turn.

3. A CS option(like the one for transports) for combat TF so that I don't have to run those ASW or Minesweeper TF out and out again.

[Williamb]

ORIGINAL: BigDuke66

1. Filter for aircraft and ships database so you can switch to only see fighter or bomber or what ever. Just like it is on the big map where you can turn them on and off. Would really improve comparing ships and planes. A bad mistake when I have to use a microsoft program to play your game[:-]
Or make it at least sortable by TYPE.

think you can already do this.

At teh various screens it will say

ALL AIRCRAFT. FTRS. DBS.LBS. ECT...

Just click right on the type (after deselecting ALL) and it will only show that type. Same thing for ships.

[Knaust]

to help the panning operations, I think it would be helpful to add to the global Ground Units screen columns

Type
Name
Attached to
Load Cost
Assault
Location

the new column

Future Objective

already on the list

[BigDuke66]

@William Amos
On the database screen???
BIG NO. Searched the whole screen an couldn't find anything.
Maybe you can make a screenshot where you have found the buttons.

[SpitfireIX]

How about a system allowing for variable reinforcements during a scenario? In particular, I'd like to have Allied reinforcements that can vary based on how the war in Europe is going. This could also be tied in to the suggested Allied withdrawals. And how about having the possibility that the Soviet Union is knocked out of the war?

[Williamb]

Ah sorry I missed the key word DATABASE. I thought you meant the unit selection screen.

Sorry.

[lucascuccia]

Different Screens in Combat Animation for bombing targets. Whether you bomb an airfield, a port, or an infantry division, the picture is the same, the small jungle type harbor. How Boring!. See if you can spruce up what's in the ole bomb site.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: lucascuccia

Different Screens in Combat Animation for bombing targets. Whether you bomb an airfield, a port, or an infantry division, the picture is the same, the small jungle type harbor. How Boring!. See if you can spruce up what's in the ole bomb site.

ABOVE is exactly why "combat animations" are a total waste of design and development
time in a massive game like this. Just how often on one of 1600+ turns can anyone
stand to watch the same little cartoon shot? If it's not possible to include something
that more accurately reflects what is actually being depicted (and it would almost have
to be a sub-game itself to do so), then it's just a waste of effort better spent in getting
the real game "right". The same is basically true of sound..., how many hundreds of
hours can you listen to the same noise repeat itself? And then we had most of the 1st
patch used to "fix" what didn't need to be there at all. Too many players have been
spoiled by "shooters" into thinking this "extraneous chrome" is necessary in a strategic
game. Give us a game where the "ground movement system" works right..., I can
make noise already, and have plenty of music to play if I need the destraction.

[DrewMatrix]

Could we have a way for the Allies to transfer between Karachi and San Francisco by going around the world the other way (SF to Panama to Capetown to Karachi)?

The old SPI game had that as I recall.

It would work like the Refit AK code, pretty much in that a ship in either harbor would have a button "Transfer via South Atlantic". Click on that and the ship appears in the other harbor in a few months (I get a distance of 14379 statute miles. At 12 kts that is about 6 weeks sailing time plus a layover/fueling, some repairs. Make it 60 days.

A small thing but would save me having to route ships several times to Pearl, Brisbane then souther Indian Ocean to get shipping back and forth.

[Mr.Frag]

Could we have a way for the Allies to transfer between Karachi and San Francisco by going around the world the other way (SF to Panama to Capetown to Karachi)?

Nifty idea ... just need to throw in some code to have geman uboats get some shots in [:D]

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Could we have a way for the Allies to transfer between Karachi and San Francisco by going around the world the other way (SF to Panama to Capetown to Karachi)?

Nifty idea ... just need to throw in some code to have geman uboats get some shots in [:D]

...and Ernie King to torpedo the whole idea.

[DrewMatrix]

and Ernie King to torpedo the whole idea

German torpedos and Washington torpedoes aside I would use it, mostly to shift AKs (I find as the game prgresses I have inbalance of AKs and need for AKs in SF and Karachi.

The coding should be simple (he says laughingly). You already have "disappear for a few months to refit". Just leave out the "refit"

[2ndACR]

Make PT boat TF's a viable naval strike target. They would be just like a regular TF for determining wether or not a strike is launched, but have all attacking a/c drop down to the 100' alt needed to attack them.

Attacking a/c can suffer a to hit penalty to account for the PT boats manueverability.

Since we have no control over target selection, it would avoid the risk of setting his a/c to 100' altitude, then having those a/c attack a different TF and getting slaughtered by flak.

Torpedo planes already fly to their targets at say 5000' then drop to 200' to attack. Also allow up 25% or all escort fighters to participate in the strafing of PT boats if no CAP is encountered.

[tsimmonds]

The game rewards players for putting unrealistic numbers of ships into ASW TFs. To eliminate some of the gaminess that seems to be arising here, place a limit on the number of ships in a single ASW TF that may actually attack a submarine in a single action. More than a few (three or four?) ships prosecuting the same submarine contact would only get in each other's way....

ASW model was worked on in the 1.3 patch

[kayjay]

6.1.2 Task Force Information screen
1. Screen need to be wider - when looking at a TF with embarked troops most of the description of the troops is cut off making it difficult to tell what the unit ID is if it has a lenghtly name or its number 3rd is common to a lot of varying unit types.
2. (nice to have) if (once screen was wider) if it showed what the LCU was 'prepped' for to the right of its name eg 5th USMC Div - Iwo Jima - for air units the number type of plane being transported eg Vp100 12 PBY
Kevin