Thoughts and ideas

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Speedy
... In any case, if the Hurricane IV makes it in, then the Westland Whirlwind, Avro Lancaster IV, Avro Lincoln, Spitfire F.21, de Havilland Hornet & Vampire, Hawker Tempest VI, Hawker Tempest II should all appear in 1945...

The Westland Whirlwind was flying and fighting in No. 263 Squadron RAF in July 1940 and No. 137 Squadron RAF in November 1941. I don't see why they need to wait for 1945.

[Hard Sarge]

only hassle with a number of these is they need HARD CODE ing changes

so only chance is if the exe is going to be reworked

for the FB's they need a major rewrite, changes to them, to let them fight, changes the bombers

we had them able to fight great, but then the med's couldn't hit a thing (that is why we went with the speed burst, Mrv change)

for the Whirlwing, think that just added to the list of planes to add, it should be in from the beginning of the game and phased out, not added in 45 (like the Apache, P-40)

hassle was plane slots

if we can get more plane slots, and more total planes in the data base, we can do alot of thing

Really want the B groups back, late 44, most of the bomg groups also had A and B groups, besides the FGs


things to add, things to fix, oh boy, can HARDly wait

[von Shagmeister]

Hi Greyshaft,

137 Sqn gave up its Whirlwinds Jun43 leaving 263 Sqn as the sole operator by 17Aug43 but agree the Whirlwind should be in.

Also Spitfire XII for 41 Sqn and 91 Sqn and Spitfire VI (and VII) for 616 Sqn.

Steve,

>"Ability to re-assign Axis imtercept missions to a different raid."

The ability to re-assign Axis intercept missions to different raids already exists, you select the intercepting force to patrol and re-assign as desired.

Regards

von Shagmeister

[Speedysteve]

HI Sarge,

Oh I agree some of these would require code change and we're not sure that is going to happen as yet. I've basically listed the above as the one's I THINK would be good for the game regardless of the level of work requred.

Hi VS,

Sure I understand that but what I mean is it would be nice to be able to cklick on a JG and then automatically assign it to interceot another raid rather than making it patrol and then assign it. Only a minor difference I know [;)]

Regards,

Steven

[RyanCrierie]

Well, the user interface needs a lot of work; as it is playing BTR is a bit too much like work; upgrading to the WITP engine
and streamlining a lot of the user interface to be easier to work would be great.

Also; the German side is a bit hard to control; I'd like to be able to simply place my
JGs, give them their orders "if bombers pass within x miles, attack", and set doctrines,
and watch them perform their duties, instead of having to micromanage the reply to USAAF
raids.

[von Shagmeister]

Hi Steve,

>it would be nice to be able to cklick on a JG and then automatically assign it to interceot another raid rather than making it patrol and then assign it

See what you mean, it would be nice. As it stands at the moment it is a bit involved.

Ryan,

Personally I like to micro manage my units, it might be a good idea if the player could select the level of control he wanted so he could do as little or as much as he wanted.

Regards

von Shagmeister

[Hard Sarge]

Personally I like to micro manage my units, it might be a good idea if the player could select the level of control he wanted so he could do as little or as much as he wanted.

well, then again, you can, to a bit, you can set the different Lufts to AI control

(still, not what I think you wanted, but )

you know, we keep going back to trying to get it closer to WitP

which we got to look at, do we what it to be a so called I go u go, game, both sides plot there turn and then click the start button, or should it stay the Allies plot and the GE reacts

I think we could do it, and make a great game out of it, but the players who like the feel of the game now, will be left out, the players who don't like the feel now, would like it better, so we stuck

so much we could improve and fix in this game, or so much we can make a new game with and be even better (?)

ahhhh, only time will tell

[RyanCrierie]

Personally I like to micro manage my units, it might be a good idea if the player could select the level of control he wanted so he could do as little or as much as he wanted.

Well, in BOB and BTR, I only play the Allies in BTR, and Germans in BOB, because I don't like having to order every single squadron into the air to attack enemy aircraft; I should be able to set broad directives for my squadrons and flak units on what to do, and let my subordinates handle the job of setting up interceptions; instead of having to do each one my self.

[Hard Sarge]

Hi Ryan
to an point, you can do so, you can set the differnt regions to AI control, and also set the doc that each region should follow

(group 10, group 11, Luft 3, Luft Rhich)

and you can also set them to AI control for the other side too

or in any combo you like, say in BTR, you an let FC and 2nd Tac and IXth be under AI control, while you run the 8th and BC

or you don't care about the south or east or France, but you want to make sure Germany is protected, you can put those commands under AI control and keep the Reich defence under your control

of course, the hassle is, when they do something you didn't want them to do

which, I also like to play as the Allies in BTR and GE in BoB, I like to attack, and the game takes a lot longer to play when you have to plot the defence on the run

(but got to say, playing a Email game as the GE in BTR can be pretty intense !!!!)

[von Shagmeister]

ORIGINAL: RyanCrierie

I should be able to set broad directives for my squadrons and flak units on what to do, and let my subordinates handle the job of setting up interceptions; instead of having to do each one my self.

The very reason I micromanage is because I can't trust my sub-ordinates (ie the AI). If the AI was capable of doing a decent job I would let it handle more tasks.

von Shagmeister

[steveh11Matrix]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

Personally I like to micro manage my units, it might be a good idea if the player could select the level of control he wanted so he could do as little or as much as he wanted.

well, then again, you can, to a bit, you can set the different Lufts to AI control

(still, not what I think you wanted, but )

you know, we keep going back to trying to get it closer to WitP

which we got to look at, do we what it to be a so called I go u go, game, both sides plot there turn and then click the start button, or should it stay the Allies plot and the GE reacts

I think we could do it, and make a great game out of it, but the players who like the feel of the game now, will be left out, the players who don't like the feel now, would like it better, so we stuck

so much we could improve and fix in this game, or so much we can make a new game with and be even better (?)

ahhhh, only time will tell

Sarge, I said before that what I really, really wanted was WitP moved to the ETO...but let's be a tad more realistic, it ain't gonna happen. Sad, but there's only so many resources, GG has said that he's not going to use the WitP engine again, so these two are going to remain pretty close to the original versions, I'd say.

FWIW I, too, would like to reduce the player workload, particularly on the defence. I just can't see a way of it happening. It was precisely this that put me off 12 O'Clock High / BTR in the first place, preferring BoB.

Steve (who, as it happens, is playing a turn of WitP on the other PC as I type this!)

[39battalion]

BTR is a very good game.

But it would be vastly better if the map graphics resolution could be improved. When you want to zoom in on the map to distinguish between the clumps of icons representing factories, installations etc.... as I often do , the icons are horribly clunky and the map becomes awfully pixilated.

Fixing this would greatly increase enjoyment of the game ( at least for me!)

[Charles2222]

I don't get you guys personally. When I played USAAF I played both sides, but found Gerry a bit more interesting. OTOH, with BTR, it's not even close for me; as Gerry is the easier and more exciting of the two in my view. Some people don't like launching planes at incoming raids, but with all the severe complications of plotting from the Allied side, coupled with the blasted night campaign it's just too much. And all that blasted recon!!!

Another good thing about Gerry is that you often will have the same FG on the same airfield, and not have to move around too much. A lot of times half your Luftwaffe shouldn't even be in the air, but practically every turn the Allies are always having to plot all those blasted raids, and decide the targets. The main thought on a Gerry's mind is what areas and industries he wants to protect and move things around to try to do that. If they ever fix this game right, I'll probably end up playing the Allies some, but it's a lot more daunting than Gerry, though Gerry isn't exactly a cakewalk.

Just a crude measurement, but the main hassle for the Allies, or the entire hassle is the plotting. For the plotting Gerry does, though the first turns are always a bit more harrowing in doing the administrative duties, it's done mostly during the phased game where at least there's something going on when you're doing it. I guess that's a downer for some people, they don't like the excitement and plotting at the same time such that it's too nerve racking. I don't know, but it just seems to put more purpose into everything I do when playing that side. I really think the Gerries are easier to play, but play level is always pretty constant. The Allies OTOH, once they've got past the laborious plotting can just sit back and take a breather since they can't do anything beyond that point. Makes you wonder what the game would be like if the Allies were allowed to make one adjustment for every raid they sent out (during the phased turn I mean).

[von Shagmeister]

I only play as the Axis, other than to run tests.

I find the thought of plotting all the raids and co-ordinating everything daunting. I'm such a control freak/mirco manager that I would never finish the plotting phase. I take my hat off to Allied players.

von Shagmeister

[goodboyladdie]

Sincerest apologies if this has already been addressed, but a couple of things used to really bug me in the old games. In BTR I was annoyed that almost every RAF pilot was a sergeant pilot until a leader death occurred and he was suddenly promoted to Squadron Leader.

The other thing was when units that had conducted a fighter sweep then drifted off over the North Sea (after an interception - BOB) or over occupied Europe (BTR) until they had exhausted their fuel/been damaged or shot down, instead of returning directly to base. None of the patches that I installed ever really fixed this satisfactorily.

[otisabuser2]

Hi GBL,

The other thing was when units that had conducted a fighter sweep then drifted off over the North Sea (after an interception - BOB) or over occupied Europe (BTR) until they had exhausted their fuel/been damaged or shot down, instead of returning directly to base. None of the patches that I installed ever really fixed this satisfactorily.

This is what was referred to as the Dover/Belfast bug over on the BTR forums. Yes very annoying. [:@] This is something that we are hoping will get nailed in the new version.

The ranks thing is a minor annoyance. Think historical pilots come in with their true ranks and the computer fills out the sqns with computer generated guys who will generally be lowest rank(s).

regards Otisabuser

[HMSWarspite]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

Sincerest apologies if this has already been addressed, but a couple of things used to really bug me in the old games. In BTR I was annoyed that almost every RAF pilot was a sergeant pilot until a leader death occurred and he was suddenly promoted to Squadron Leader.

The other thing was when units that had conducted a fighter sweep then drifted off over the North Sea (after an interception - BOB) or over occupied Europe (BTR) until they had exhausted their fuel/been damaged or shot down, instead of returning directly to base. None of the patches that I installed ever really fixed this satisfactorily.

The other thing that I think should be looked at it 'tour length'. The game goes to all the trouble of tracking allied pilots, and then is completely unrealistic in they they all 'fly til they die'(TM). I would like Allied fliers to go 'tour expired'. Then they could be preserved in the list with their kills. For an added refinement, a percentage could come back for a 2nd tour after say 9-12 months. (Particuarly relevant for fighter pilots - for accurate kills comparison with history. But I also get frustrated that no bomber pilot ever makes it - they all go down in the end!

For Germany, this could be refined into a pilot training sub-game. The Axis player sets tour length (in missions) for pilots by a/c type (NF, JG, possibly ZG), and they get rested, at that point, and new pilot skill is a function of currently rested pilot experience. Repeat tours could be automatic, or player set after x months. Now of course, Ge flew its pilots into the ground, and this could be the historical default, but why should I be forced to make the same mistakes? The Allies could have a similar system, but the Allied pilot traing system was effectively infinite. However, tour length in BC (and 8thAF did vary), and again if I am doing worse than history, I should have the option to mortgage the family silver. In this case, maybe it doesn't effect replacement rate or quality, since the system was set up well in advance,a nd was gearing up by 1943, but maybe it affects 'base' morale - units recover slower if the number of crews on a type (or in a force - 8th, 9th, BC etc) completeling tours falls too much.


Finally, I would love realistic pre-game kills and missions to 'seed' the game. It would be essential if some form of tour length were there, and it is nice to have realistic kills. For anyone who wanted to see kills since the start of the game, maybe the pre-game kills could be added to the pilot's name in (brackets) - so you would have Wg Cdr J E Johnson(12) 6 meaning 12 kills prior to 17 Aug 1943, and 6 in game. For historic pilots these would be hitoric (not too difficult to get), and for non-historic, randomly assigned using a distribution (when pre-game missions are generated, I am sure we could come up with stats on distribution of kills for various numbers of missions. Most will be zero regardless of experience!

Gloss I know, but it has always frustrated me...

[goodboyladdie]

Absolutely brilliant ideas from Warspite. I totally agree. Tours were something I always wished for as I watched poor long serving bomber pilots with high mission totals die. Some Allied fighter pilots were able to do back to back tours, so a (good) percentage returning in 3 to 12 months would be great.

The opportunity to not make the same mistakes the Germans did by never resting pilots would greatly add to the Axis player's ability to improve on history, and previous kills being factored in was something else I always thought would be great.

[Hard Sarge]

Well
it depends on if we can get the pilot system we want into the game or not, if we can, then maybe we can have a rotation setup, if not, we may be stuck with what we have

I got in my files, a save game for both BoB and BTR that gives most of the known pilots the kills they had when the game starts

hassle being, they are save files, so they only work with the OOB that was in place at the time of the save being made

I have been waiting to talk with the guy who did all the work, to see if he had improved it any and if we could use it, then once I had talked with him, wanted to talk to the rest to see if they wanted it in, or not

if we do, I would rather have it in the standard at start files then as a save game

plus I need to talk with JC to see how HARD it would be into put into the game

[von Shagmeister]

Hi All,

I've always advocated including as many real life pilots as possible and JC has included many in his various OB/OA releases in the past.

I've been researching their careers for the last five years. It is a monumental task because not only do you have to know their unit on the date you are interested in but preferably also their career info up to that date to arrive at a realistic experience level. In my opinion real life pilots add a lot of authenticity to the game, but is only worth while including them if their relative experience levels make a difference to their performance.

von Shagmeister