Bug Reports and Enhancement Requests

[LargeSlowTarget]

I might have mentioned it before: ship class filters in the 'TF Ship Transfer'-screen, like those in the 'Ships in port'-screen. And when creating a certain type of TF, only proper ship types should be shown in the 'TF Ship Transfer'-screen, e.g. if I create a tanker TF, only TKs, AOs and escorts should show up in the selection list (it's a tanker TF, so I do not need dozens of AKs, APs etc. showing up as transfer option). This would save a lot of sorting and scrolling in order to find the ships I actually want to transfer to the TF.

[pauk]

probably posted before...

how about "continuous minelaying"?

MLE on "cont. minelaying" mission will lay their mines in the destination hex and after that they will return to homeport for another load of the mines and another minelaying in the destination hex (and so on, so on....)

[wild_Willie2]

I think it is very stupid that destroyers CAN reload torps from a AD, but cruisers (having the SAME torpedo's) can not.
You can leterally reload EVERYTHING from a supply ship (ammo from AE, sub torps from AS, mines from a MLE, motor torpedo boat torps from (forgot), destroyer torps from a AD)
but you can ONLY reload cruiser/BB torps from a level 9 port ????????.
please fix this

william

[Tankerace]

Why? Its historical!

AD = DESTROYER TENDER, not cruiser tender.

IIRC, there had never been any operational instance of Cruisers receiveing torps from a tender. Tenders would have a DesDiv or DesRon assigned to it, and the assigned destroyers would load torpedoes from it. Not only would cruisers reloading torps from ADs be completely ahistorical and inaccurate, its partly, well, stupid. There are no cruiser tenders. Cruisers historically (like BBs) reload torps at a port in the rear. Im all for improvements, but lets not add fantasy things and cheapen the game, please.

[bilbow]

ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2

but you can ONLY reload cruiser/BB torps from a level 9 port ????????.
please fix this

william

Actually torps can be obtained at level 8 port. It's mines that require a level 9

[mike charley 7]

submarines during the air phase of the war were put on life guard duty. I dont have the exact figure but I'm sure almost every sub pulled lifeguard duty in its career. Now, since we put a value on having a sub pull life guard duty we need to put a value on the aircraft and the crew, right down to the individual crew member. This value can effect pilot morale say for 12 hours the morale value is set to 10 or 30 points deducted from the current unit morale value. If the pilot is rescued then the value can change until the pilot is returned to a base or home station.

Example: The sub gets points for each 12 hour block for being on Life Guard Duty ( LGD ) due to the fact that he is not hunting the enemy. Each crewmember saved is worth so many morale or other value associated withe the type of aircraft lost.. And there a bonus, depending on if you return the pilot back to his unit or you re-asighn him to another base that pilot can be used or he goes into the pilot pool.

What about the option on the seaplanes for air sea rescue duty. You can assighn patrol zones for air sea rescue aircraft. Maybe a transfer command to get the pilot to move from a ship or aircraft to land or another ship / aircraft..

Just food for thought. It has probably been covered somewhere

mark

[ChezDaJez]

... to be able to defuel ships. Nothings worse than, as Japan, to be so low on fuel that you can't fuel your warships but you have 100 AK/APs sitting in port full of fuel that you can't touch.

Chez

[medicff]

Actually the low fuelled TF will refuel from full transports if use refuel at sea button, I have seen them pull from ships in port but you might have to put transports in a TF.

[Sonny]

ORIGINAL: medicff

Actually the low fuelled TF will refuel from full transports if use refuel at sea button, I have seen them pull from ships in port but you might have to put transports in a TF.

That helps but you can only fill up half way IIRC.

[strawbuk]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

I know that it is very late in WitP developement but I still have hope that the below issues will be looked upon because geography and supply played huge role in how and where TFs were located in the Pacific (i.e. not every bay can be made into major harbour and not every ship one side posseses can be placed in such bay)...


#1 Ammo replenishment should be depending on port size

port size 1-3 : ammo for all guns up to 5"
port size 4-6 : ammo for all guns up to 8"
port size 7-9 : ammo for all guns


#2 Number of ships anchored should be depending on port size


Leo "Apollo11"

Ammo - I'm no programmer but to ease pain of suckers who are, why not make ammo reload limits by class - gets a bit fuzzy with those 5in CLs but easier to identify fro progarmme easier for us to remember as players. eg port 1-3 DDs only, 3-6 CL/CA/CV 7-9- all ships

Where does that leave re-ammo ships by the way?

Anchorages - darn tootin - is this not a similar function to airfield capacity?

[Williamb]

Dunno if this has been suggested before.

In the combat turn report woudnt mind seeing it shown there what ships are sunk that turn as well as update list of the pilot kill board.

Would beat having to look it up each turn.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: William Amos

Dunno if this has been suggested before.

In the combat turn report woudnt mind seeing it shown there what ships are sunk that turn as well as update list of the pilot kill board.

Would beat having to look it up each turn.

Be better if a field were added to the sunk ships list for date sunk. Be cool if the specific ship or unit responsible was also added to/instead of the weapon type.

[Sonny]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: William Amos

Dunno if this has been suggested before.

In the combat turn report woudnt mind seeing it shown there what ships are sunk that turn as well as update list of the pilot kill board.

Would beat having to look it up each turn.

Be better if a field were added to the sunk ships list for date sunk. Be cool if the specific ship or unit responsible was also added to/instead of the weapon type.

And the location where it was sunk like was stated above.

I really would like the op reports to show what is shown during the turn as far as stuff like how many planes the recons encounter. There are just too many to remember when you are watching it (unless you slow it way down and write down every detail).

[scout1]

how about some sort of listing that SIMULTANEOUSLY lists the supplies, oil, resources, and HI for each base, but the list contains ALL bases. Something that would permit a global look at what needs to be where for the japanese production system to hit on all cylinders

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: strawbuk

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

I know that it is very late in WitP developement but I still have hope that the below issues will be looked upon because geography and supply played huge role in how and where TFs were located in the Pacific (i.e. not every bay can be made into major harbour and not every ship one side posseses can be placed in such bay)...


#1 Ammo replenishment should be depending on port size

port size 1-3 : ammo for all guns up to 5"
port size 4-6 : ammo for all guns up to 8"
port size 7-9 : ammo for all guns


#2 Number of ships anchored should be depending on port size


Leo "Apollo11"

Ammo - I'm no programmer but to ease pain of suckers who are, why not make ammo reload limits by class - gets a bit fuzzy with those 5in CLs but easier to identify fro progarmme easier for us to remember as players. eg port 1-3 DDs only, 3-6 CL/CA/CV 7-9- all ships

Where does that leave re-ammo ships by the way?

Anchorages - darn tootin - is this not a similar function to airfield capacity?

Actually the entire resupply (supply?) aspect of the game is abstracted to the point that it fails to resemble the true challenges of logistics in the Pacific War, let alone logistics. Several casees in point. First, in "Beans, Bullets, and Black Oil", the history of Service Squadron 10, there are numerous accounts of ressupply not being a funtion of the "base" but of the actualy floating service squadrons. It is not a function of the base size, but what particular auxiliary vessel (ammo, fresh food, quartermaster stores, fuel (black navy oil, Avaiation gasoline, diesel, etc). Ulithi Atoll had very minimum land based infrastructer (primarily habitation quarters), was primarily chosen because it had the potential to provide a safe anchorage for the fleet. It was the aux ships of Service Squadron 10 that "pulled alongside" stored and dispenced the vital supplies that the fighting ships needed, not the base. Read some of the various ship histories ands you will find that most of the resupply, even in developed ports like Noumea, was handeled by various "afloat" assets (anchored a port X, tanker Y pulled along side and dispensed godzillion gallons of oil which took 6 hours, then supply ship W came alonside and filled up the storerooms). Thus, even a Level 1 "base", if the proper mix of service assets are available, can ressupply "any" warship.

Rearming destroyer torpedoes from AD's or level 8 or higher Bases does make some sense. However, outside the main supply ports such as San Diego, Kure, and the like, the only way large caliber (14,15,16,18 inch) equipped ships can rearm is in the presence of an AE. Most of this is due to the very special handling needed for this ammo. What I would have prefferred to see in a game of this complexity is less abstract handling of the "one supply point fits all" aspect of the current supply system adn a rational breakdown into at least Land Based, Air Based, and Naval Based supply. Some items, like torpedoes and large caliber shells and food, ought to be treated like commodities and require seperate accounting . By 1944 over 50% of the logistical support in the Pacific War was just to provide maintenance for base infrastructures. Indeed, the decision to use the Marianas for B-29 bases really but a huge strain on the logistal system to be able ot supply these aircraft with adequate levels of bomb's, spare parts, and aviation fuel.

An example of how the above would have impacted the war was the lack of more than 1 torpedoe per plane stockpile for the Japanese land based naval air groups based out of Saigon. But in the game the Bettie's and Nell's have "Ulimited" access to torpedoes, AP bombs, etc. which historically they did not have.

So at the least the following would be a improvement:

Seperate out the fuel:
Navy black oil
Aviation Gas
LCU gas (in a pinch a land vehicle could use Aviation, but not vice versa)
Diesel (Subs, DE's, etc.)

On the supply siide:
Heavy Naval gun ammo (>8")
Torpedoes (all)
Food
Maintenance (have to fix things when they break or leak)
Consumables

Now on the actual mechanics of the automated supply junk the current system and substitute the following:
Disignate autosupply based upon user selected parameters that would be composed of the following:

Supply base/customer base
As an example Osaka could be disgnated to supply only cretain bases, ditto for Tokyo etc.
At the sendary level Truk could be disgnated to supply Rabaul, Kavieng, and Kajelain. Rabaul could be disgnated to supply New Guenea and Solomon Bases. On the return trip if there were any resources at the consumer end they would be loaded and trasported back to the supply base. Now all the player has to do is to provide enough shipping assets. The amount of supplies needed would dynamitically adjust based upon the need total demand of the entire "supply network" and disgnate suppliers/consumers.

rm

[scout1]

Can the game be renamed to "A War in the Pacific" so it gets moved higher in the forum listing [:D]

[Sonny]

ORIGINAL: scout1

Can the game be renamed to "A War in the Pacific" so it gets moved higher in the forum listing [:D]

An excellent idea. My scroll wheel on my mouse is getting worn out (and my scroll finger is getting tired) with all this scrolling to the bottom of the forums.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
#1 Ammo replenishment should be depending on port size
#2 Number of ships anchored should be depending on port size

ORIGINAL: strawbuk
why not make ammo reload limits by class eg port 1-3 DDs only, 3-6 CL/CA/CV 7-9- all ships

Where does that leave re-ammo ships by the way?

Anchorages - darn tootin - is this not a similar function to airfield capacity?

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
Actually the entire resupply (supply?) aspect of the game is abstracted to the point that it fails to resemble the true challenges of logistics in the Pacific War

So at the least the following would be a improvement:

Seperate out the fuel:
Navy black oil
Aviation Gas
LCU gas (in a pinch a land vehicle could use Aviation, but not vice versa)
Diesel (Subs, DE's, etc.)

On the supply siide:
Heavy Naval gun ammo (>8")
Torpedoes (all)
Food
Maintenance (have to fix things when they break or leak)
Consumables

Agree with the above posters on the need for ammo resupply and anchorage restrictions. But I think to separate supply into many categories is too complicated for a game of this size and will slow down order/execution phases even more. The existing categories of fuel/ supply (maybe add avgas as a third category) would be enough if there was a restriction on ammo replenishment depending on ship class and port size, coupled with a realistic ability of AE class ships. I would like to see ammo replenishment for shells larger than 5" restricted to port size 8 or better, unless there is an AE and a certain amount of supplies present - and the AEs should get the ability to replenish all types of ammo, not just AA.
Furthermore, I would tighten the spoilage rule to a point that small ports can hold only a limited amount of fuel, enough to operate barges and PTs, but not enough to refuel big TFs without the presence of loaded TK or AO types.
This would force us to keep a proper fleet train of AR, AO, AE types at those forward bases ( which often lacked proper port facilities, storage areas etc.) if we want to operate major fleet units from there - AlaskanWarrior has made the point with the Ulithi example.

'Thinking' as I write - maybe the 'thousand ships in size-3 port' problem could be restricted by operational points ports must spend on unloading/loading/replenishment operations - smaller ports obviously recieving fewer points per turn so they could only perform a limited number of simultaneous operations per turn.

[foliveti]

I agree with the limitations on port size for ammo replenishment and would like to add an additional factor for the number of ships which could load or unload at a port. Perhaps it could be limited in much the same way as supply storage. That is, have an exponential increase in the number of ships which could load or unload at the same time based on port size. For example a size 1 port may only be able to service 1 ship per turn, whereas, a size 10 port could handle 100 ships per turn. Excess beyond these limits could be treated as unloading at a beach hex instead of at a port.

[bstarr]

Currently you can't view class or nationality under "Ships Sunk;" I think this would be a nice, easy to fix addition. It would also be nice to have the date sunk listed as well.