When you click the mouse on an enemy base (or dot), I'd like to see more than just the victory points and current build. I'd like to see if the base is an atoll, if it's temperate or malaria. In the case of a "dot" base, you can't see the SPS of it. That's probably the most important info to see. Why invade a dot of (0/0). but a dot of (3/3) is worth invading (especially if it's undefended)
(if there is a way to see this, I haven't figured it out)
bc
if there is a way to see it, me neither .
Those are a good set of nice ideas there, Bradley7735. I agree in all of them with you.
Do away with the "Picture taking" ground recon animations during turn playback. they are time consuming and really dont and anything (other than peaking at cap which is useless anyways as you cant change air attacks during a turn)
Rather see animations of our recon untis dive bombing subs or discovering enemy CAP or warships.
im not sure if this has been mentionned before, but the ability to actually carrier-train pilots and units that are carrier capable by running training missions on carriers. In a realistic perspective, and gameplay one, this makes perfect sense!
"Hard pressed on my right; my left is in retreat. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I am attacking."
-Gen. Joffre, before the battle of the Marne
[font="Times New Roman"][/font]
I would like the following options:
1: When I place an ASW patrol (limted to about 8 ships max for reality issues) out and have the setting of Patrol / Do not retire, I would like the max reaction range to be an area the ship patrols on it's own. IE: max reaction range of 3 the TF would patrol a cirle in a radius of 3 hexes from the DH. I believe that it would be more realistic and offer a better oppurtunity to intercept and suppress submarine patrols better than just staying in it's current DH. And maybe if possible, if a Patrol Plane spots a sub within that assigned circle, then it would head in that direction to simulate an air-sea anti-sub operation. Have the effectiveness of the last option increase over the war years.
2: Be able to designate Patrol Zones for submarines that are under Computer control. IE: Formosa Straits, Sea of Japan Southern sector, Leyte Gulf Northern sector etc etc.. for example. Once sub gets to this area, under computer control, patrols within this geographical area until removed or sunk. Add a report interface which would show SS Gato enroute to Sea of Japan / SS Tambor in Formosa Strait patrol zone / SS Wahoo damaged in Soloman Straights etc... Also, possibly an option like above, if within this patrol zone, other convoys spotted by A/C or other ships, the subs would start to move in the direction to hopefully intercept. Again, effectiveness and implementation variable due to time period of the war..
3: PT boats targetable as a nava task force by aircraft, as all other ships. Allow them to be attacked by all combat aircraft. Likewise, an icon added for barges. So far, I know barges are out there, but have yet to see them spotted or even attacked. I've run hunter killer groups of DD's up and down Japanese coastlines in the SW Pacific and have yet to even have a sighting report of one..
4: An option to target Enemy TF's for Aircraft Attack missions like you can for Land attack missions. IE, select a BB - CA- DD Taskforce for a Carrier or Land base strike as a primary and then commanders decision as a secondary. I've had alot of Carrier strikes that completely by-passed surface warships that were closer and smack a 6 ship AK / TK TF further out. Might be unbalancing or unrealistic, however, the frustration factor might be alleviated a bit..
Just a couple of items I would like to see added.
Otherwise Love the game, it's too addictive...House Hold 6 constantly complains that I'm on the computer all the time, and won't watch Peacenik Propaganda movies with her instead of fighting for the safety of the freeworld...
3rd ACR Tanker
3/4 US Cav Trooper
Brave Rifles
"Professional soldiers are predictable; the world is full of dangerous amateurs."
I would still like the ability to designate "target-types" when I launch a carrier attack..Since nobody knows the threat a carrier force can be better than another carrier force,I would like to be able to launch directly against carrier type targets instead of seeing my planes fly to sink "gunboats" when I know carriers are in striking range..
While loading troops on TFs it would be nice to see the target it is prepared for.
Just right now, I got many Base Forces in Tokyo and I assigned them quickly to various destinations to accumulate PrepPoints. As they were far from TOE I left them in Tokyo for another week or five. And now I have to go through the whole list of units again to put them on the proper convoys [:(]
We need to be able to alter such things as countries involved in the war (I noticed slots like "N3" are there but there's no way to reach them), a way to alter air statistics for more than one year, etc, etc, etc.
1. Accumulate a combat history on each ships and subs data screen
2. Pick (or at least display) Anti-shipping loads for A/C
3. Have Air attacks vs. PT boats automatically resolve at 200 feet for
fighters.
4. Independent Altitudes for primary and secondary missions
5. Lower effectivness of coastal guns.
6. Allow invasions to break off Ala' Wake.
7. Probably division style invasions for the US should REQUIRE 100 days
planning 1943 and after. US doctrine to minimize casualties is just as relevent
as sub doctine. Might want to tie 5/6/7 above together; ie the more planning the
higher the threshold for "breaking off" and the lower the efectivness of coastal
guns.
1) This is probably too much of a rework for a small patch, but I'd like to suggest a more sophisticated use of political points. They could be used to avoid "gamey" behavior by attributing a political point cost to certain decisions, particularly the abandoning of bases. For instance, many players suggest stripping the Philippines or the DEA bases of their units, whereas this would have been extremely difficult to imagine for the real commanders and politicians involved. The stripping of Singapore's defences would have been particularly unimaginable. Just as it has a pp cost to switch a unit from one HQ to another, it could cost something simply to move a unit off of a given base, or a given landmass. This would also have the benefit of obviating the need for "restricted" units - they can be moved, but at a pp cost.
2) Likewise, I suggest that A bombs have a pp cost, although I assume this has been discussed in the past.
3) I don't think new units should automatically be assigned to an HQ, with the possible exception of "home" HQ's (West Coast, Aussi, NZ, the corresponding Japanese HQ's, etc.) They follow their historical assigments, however since the player assumes the role of a grand commander, and may well follow a different strategy, there's no reason to assume that he would make the same underlying allocation of his forces. Currently, we fashion our own round holes, but then have to ram historical squares into them.
4) Lastly, why not include a pp calculation in the victory points? Many, many wargames have included something along these lines (in AH's "The Korean War", for example, allied decision making was always a delicate balance between pp costs and air/ground strength). As it is, the only drawback to using pp's is that there will be less available for some future switching around. In the extreme, and continuing on the above example, reinforcements could all be "purchased" out of a pool of pp's, with the cost being that victory therefore becomes more difficult to achieve: at least for the allies. There's a bit of this with the current a-bomb rules, but there's no reason why a good campaign couldn't make do with less force, therefore theoretically releasing more units for the ETO and hastening victory there, fostering eternal gratitude and tickertape parades and the accolades of gamers across the virtual world.
I think the above, or something like it, would add a bit more of a rounded element to the game.
it would be realy great to get different map icons for automatic convoys and player controlled convoys. it would make it easier to find a specific player controlled convoy faster in the middle of 20-30 automatic convoys.
Here's one I'd like to see: currently, damaged ships (sys, etc) show a number indicating their damage level. However, a ship could have zero sys damage, but still have a component (a gun, radar, etc) damaged, and we don't know that until they're in the heat of battle, or we happen to look at the ship detail screen. Can an indicator of some sort be displayed telling us there is a component still unrepaired? Perhaps the name in orange or something?
I think this has been discussed before, but it would be nice to be able to either choose or see the different aircraft loadouts based on the mission chosen.
I'd still like to see more permanent damage from torp hits. Too many times I've seen ships get hit but when I look at the ship it might have 8%sys damage, 60% floatand some fire. That flotation damage is pumped out in a few days and one is left with an OK ship. Where's the hole? "I could have sworn the bow was blown off, Sir!" Either vastly increase system damage or make some floatation permanent like system damage until repaired in a naval dockyard.
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
Didn't find post on this through search but an extra I'd like to see is the ability to filter which kind of combat animations to see not just on/off for all.
1. Give us all the resolution tables (formulas) used in the game. This is the most frustrating point for me : it's a strategic/operational game. How can I plan operations if I don't know the exact effects of what I'm doing ?
2. Give all location max level of fortification. Fortifying Tarawa should be more easy than Peking.
3. Give artillery/aircraft/support a value for Mandchuko garrison. As the system stands now, Jap player can if he pay PP strips completely this area from all HQ, ART, and aircrafts.
4. Do not always kill the pilot when an op loss occurs.
5. In the op report, it will be nice if we can have an overview of the economy. For exemple, a message like this : Tokyo HI not producing by lack of oil/resources.
6. Give at each LCU an assault and AT value, who takes in account exp/morale, fatigue/disruption, as well as actual strength.
7. Some changes in the FOW system. The FOW does not work actually for air combat, as we have each turn the exact losses suffered by each side day by day.
Also, give at each player the exact losses suffered by his side in ground combat.
8. Allow Japan to build if he want some hypothetical ships, that were planned but never realized. This will give him more flexibility to remplace the losses.
9. Reaching a DL level of 10 is too easy in the game. I think the last levels (5+) should be far more harder to reach.
10. Limit the possibility for Japan to launch a major assault in China at the start of the war.
6. Give at each LCU an assault and AT value, who takes in account exp/morale, fatigue/disruption, as well as actual strength.
Personally, I don't that would be good for this game. IRL, generals didn't have "assault values" on their units. If you do that, it would turn the game into a type of "Panzer General", which although a fun game, something like that would ruin what this game attempts to achieve.
Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med
Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.
Personally, I don't that would be good for this game. IRL, generals didn't have "assault values" on their units. If you do that, it would turn the game into a type of "Panzer General", which although a fun game, something like that would ruin what this game attempts to achieve.
I don't understand ? You could actually in the game calculate these values : just multiply the number of squad by the soft/hard attack provided in the game manual, then multiply by morale, exp, and divide by fatigue and disruption. It's just taking a lot of time.
The only way we can model a war is by giving numerous value at units. I think the more you know, the more you can planify.
1. Give us all the resolution tables (formulas) used in the game. This is the most frustrating point for me : it's a strategic/operational game. How can I plan operations if I don't know the exact effects of what I'm doing ?
Much as I would like to have these as well, its never going to happen. It is Grigsby's philosophy to keep as much from the player as possible.
This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.
.
