Bug Reports and Enhancement Requests

[marky]

1. optional inclusion of CVEs and DVLs and perhaps CVs? in ASW task forces

it was done in the battle of the atlantic so why not?[:'(]

[marky]

1. ship loss counter


this would count the number of ships of a type that have been sunk

for example-

Fletcher class DD- 12 sunk
Yorktown class carrier- 1 sunk

or

UsnCVs sunk = 2
RN carriers sunk-1
IJN carriers sunk= 8
ijn subs sunk - 34

[AmiralLaurent]

Adding mud to the game. Hexes were rain poured for days will get more and more muddy and units and supplies will be slowed down while earth airfields will be closed, even if the sun is shining. Should be especially the case in Burma and the mooson zone.

Same thing for snow in cold zone. Sometimes you just cannot advance when 1m of fresh snow falls.

I would like also window to pop up if you do something really weird. Like sending your CVs to some hexes of an enemy base and leave all fighters at training 0%. So a message will appear (with a picture of a young lieutenant "Admiral, shouldn't we add some CAP?"). We know that the AI is calculating an air balance number for each hex. If the air balance is too bad in the CV (or BB) destination the message will appear. And then the player will have the choice to add some CAP, cancel the move or continue.

I would also like to see the target selection for fighters being reset to nothing if the set target is more than aircraft range + 2 * max speed of the CV. So they will continue to escort bombers 4000 miles away rather than waiting to return to PH to fly again.
Another suggestion is that when the AI is calculating the raid, it will check fighter units and all fighter units that have a target that is outside their range (either maximum or set by the player) will have the target cancelled so they fly to another place.

A minor change: when an air unit updates, the max range should be set to the max range of the new plane. I'm tired to see Zeroes with max range 4 because they used Claudes before....

[51st Highland Div]

Pity u cant add an auto convoy base like Sydney to Karachi and San Francisco..handier sending auto convoys out from there to the South Pacific.All u would need to do is send uber convoys with supplies to Sydney under manual control...oh well just an idea [:D]

[marky]

1.Extra back up folder for backing up files


im sure im not the only 1 thats ever acidentally saved over a game file that we wanted to keep

so i think ther should be a backup folder in the save folder wher the save files will be saved as a backup in case sumthing happens or the main file is accidentally saved over

[51st Highland Div]

If i need a backup copy of a file i usually have a copy of a PBEM in my Outlook Express sent files if i need to go back..[:D]

[niceguy2005]

I don't know if this is the right forum, but I have an idea that would really improve the game and add incredible depth to the game - as if it didn't already have a lot. I want to say kudos to the game designers and staff for creating something really unique.

However, what this game needs is a possible political solution for the Japanese. The Japanese strategy from the outset was to force the allies into a conditional surender, possibly by forcing Enland or Australia out of the war, or by threatening the USA strongly enough that they would negotiate. Of course, it is unlikely that the US would have negotiated or that Australia would have given up, but what is they had. What would the war have been like if Japan had forced Australia into neutrality? Would it have been possible for them to win? What would it take for Australia to surrender? Total isolation and facing the possibility of invasion? What about England? Would they have negotiated a truce if a large Japanese force were occupying part of India? Would they have given up Burma to save India?

Of course, the victory conditions for the game take into account the political situation indirectly. If the Allies lost enough resources early on in the war, they may have given in, so the use of points to reflect loses is useful to a point. But it treats the the various Allied governments as having one political mind. Since England was fighting for it's survival half a world away, it is far more likely that they would negotiate than the Americans. Just a thought, but imagine the possibilities for different historical outcomes.

[michaelm75au]

LCU device upgrades seem to be too easy/simplistic to me.

What I would like to see would be some limits like those on ship/plane upgrades.
(1) must be within supply range of a base with +20,000 (not 20K which is really 20480: as a programmer this bugs me[:D]) supplies
(2) a HQ must be present (some ground HQ not necessarily a Command HQ, which would probably be TOO much of a restriction)
(3) no enemy unit can be in the same hex (I think this is an important one, myself, and should apply to all upgrades).

It just seems funny to have a LCU in combat with an enemy unit and suddenly swap out their old gear for better new gear.
I suppose being IN a base might negate (3), but I would let it still stand. If under siege, it is unlikely their would be new gear just sitting in a warehouse waiting for a LCU to be engaged with the enemy BEFORE getting new gear.[:D]

Michael

[marky]

1.

sorter for commanders

as we all know wen u want to select a new commander for a task force u have to pick thru em ALL

i think ther should be sumthing that seperates surface, carrier, and invasion commanders just like this -



i think that would be very useful to have a sorter like that, that would sort carrier and invasion force commanders, like tanaka, scott, halsey, yamaguchi ETC[:'(]

[Lord_Calidor]

ORIGINAL: marky
1.

sorter for commanders

as we all know wen u want to select a new commander for a task force u have to pick thru em ALL

i think ther should be sumthing that seperates surface, carrier, and invasion commanders just like this -

i think that would be very useful to have a sorter like that, that would sort carrier and invasion force commanders, like tanaka, scott, halsey, yamaguchi ETC[:'(]

Yes, that's a great idea, I totaly support it.
(of course, this is when Apollo11's xls Leader chart comes in handy [;)] )

[Stwa]

These are my suggestions, I hope they have not been mentioned already. My aplogies if they have.

1. Combat Screens - re-title these Combat Sighting report. When combat occurs, simply display the units present (a graphical OOB) for a setable amount of time and thats it. Eliminate the animations, sounds, and text displays that go with combat in the current game, because combat would now simply be a Combat Sighting report. In the preference screens you would enable or disable Combat Sighting Reports, and set its delay.

2. Fix the IN-GAME preference, database, and save screens, to display and operate completely within a 512 x 768 popup that pops-up on the left (justified) side of the map. (i.e. the opposite side of the combat screens which are the same size).

3. Failing #2, at lease fix the database screen so the exit screen button is at the top left hand corner of the full screen, like all the other full screens. For some reason, this really annoys me. I can't explain it.

[51st Highland Div]

Chindit Brigades....maybe a case for making these airborne units as they were employed in that manner in the Burma campaign.

[Mike Solli]

I'd like to see the ship number with the name. Meaningless really. It's just the anal type of stuff I like to see.

[Andy Mac]

I would like a few small things corrected/enhanced but it may be to late

3rd Commando Bde added pls
Chindits made into paras but without the immediate shock attack to reflect airmobile not paratroopers
More UK Air Gp commanders


Apart from these very minor points I am happy with the game as is

[Andy Mac]

ps If making Chindits airmobile as I suggest I would probably swithc the compromise made on the Chindits and have the heavy 3rnd Indian Div arrive when the current Chindit bdes do and have the Chindit Bdes arrive when the current 3rd Indian does to prevent Indian/UK paras/airmobile troops being available too early.

[Aawulf]

(1) must be within supply range of a base with +20,000 (not 20K which is really 20480: as a programmer this bugs me ) supplies

Think "K" for kilo rather than kilobyte. The use of "K" for thousand predates most living programmers and "kilobytes" in our vernacular.

Not trying to bust on you, but I was recently "corrected" on this topic by one of my intellectually elite friends who didn't realize this world rotated on it's axis just fine before computers and programmers.

Regards,

Michael Fleshman

[akdreemer]

Is there anyone who is actually keeping track of all of this? Instead of wading through 13+ pages of comments to find out if a suggestion has aready been discussed.

[Sonny]

Doesn't really make any difference - they are not going to go any further with this game.

[Jonny_B]

[:)][:)]

I personally would like too see a new class of heavy bombers, so the allied player is unable to upgrade medium level bombers to liberators (heavy bomber class).

[:'(][:'(]

[Honda]

I second that!