Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

Will tonnage sunk be tracked for individual subs and will this contribute to more skill for the crew as it does for pilots?

No, the current system continues. Subs do gain experience, you know...

As a "subfanboy" I've always thought WITP was far too air-centric (GG's roots all the way back to USAAF?), and under-modeled the vast contribution USN subs made to the war effort. Patrol areas will be a huge improvement and finally allow sub skippers to hunt rather than squat in single-hex duck blinds. A great improvement.

While I woold also like tonnage to be tracked I understand it's a low-payback proposition to gameplay.

But one suggestion I'd make (probably for a patch list at this point) is add a sub crew fatigue variable to each vessel. As it is now a sub can turn-around after a three-month patrol in a single day. No R&R, no refit unless there's system damage. Of all vessel types subs absolutely need some crew time ashore for basic health and efficiency. Lack of this, coupled with forward basing, makes for VAST numbers of on-station USN boats in 1944 and 1945, far more than historic.

An easy way to incorporate fatigue, if room can be found for the variable in the DB, is just to make it a negative against crew experience. If the player wants to turn a low-damage boat around with no R&R he can, but the fatigue gets subtracted from the experience level in the attack algorithm. Similar to pilots.

On the sub AI front, if there could be limits on how subs get stacked north of the PI and south of Osaka/Tokyo it would improve things a great deal. Now, by 1943, Japanese merchants have to run gauntlets of 20-30 subs in 480 miles. Not realistic. Subs spent a lot more time in island chains and on the China coast than they do in AI WITP. The Japanese merchant marine evaporates once the torpedoes begin to work in 1943. Just a suggestion.

Will you be able to organize your combat vessels in subunits such as "1st Cruiser Sqn" or "3rd Destroyer Flotilla"?

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Dixie

7) How about the British withdrawal? Is it still in? Any chance the PP penalty could be toned down a bit for destroyers if it's still in there?

No, that whole routine is gone. Instead, all Allied ships can have a withdrawal date set (and a date to return to the map).

Is this withdrawl date harcoded? Or is there still the option to pay PP to keep my valuable ships? By 1943 the only thing I used my PP for was to keep a decent RN presence in the Indian Ocean [:D]

ORIGINAL: Dili

Sorry that is the answer to both questions? It is unclear.

Sorry, I didn't see the other question. That's an Air Team issue, so please ask over there.

ORIGINAL: Dixie

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Dixie

7) How about the British withdrawal? Is it still in? Any chance the PP penalty could be toned down a bit for destroyers if it's still in there?

No, that whole routine is gone. Instead, all Allied ships can have a withdrawal date set (and a date to return to the map).

Is this withdrawl date harcoded? Or is there still the option to pay PP to keep my valuable ships? By 1943 the only thing I used my PP for was to keep a decent RN presence in the Indian Ocean [:D]

The withdrawal date is part of the individual ship's editor data. I honestly don't remember what we did regarding PP's; I'll get back to you on that.

ORIGINAL: DerJimbo

Will you be able to organize your combat vessels in subunits such as "1st Cruiser Sqn" or "3rd Destroyer Flotilla"?

Yes, and No.

You can set lower level commands, although more likely something like Naval Districts within regional fleets, etc. This is just a display convenience however, there is no function for attach a complete DD squadron to a TF or any such thing. It is handy for "where's my ships"?

P.S. I looked into doing it already, don't bother to ask for it...

ORIGINAL: MineSweeper

Will the RMS Queen Mary and RMS Queen Elizabeth be in the game.....they were used as troopships in the war.....

Probably, though the OOB is still being put together. It's a definite possibility.

Very Cool...thanks [:)]

Maybe if one was lost due to enemy action the Brits would have to pay PPs for the loss...they were a strategic asset..

For earlier questions regarding submarines firing all their torpedoes every time, I've consulted my esteemed coder, and we're working on making that more realistic, i.e. less ammo-intensive.

Now you know i'm gonna like that with my pedigree[:)]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: MineSweeper

Will the RMS Queen Mary and RMS Queen Elizabeth be in the game.....they were used as troopships in the war.....

Probably, though the OOB is still being put together. It's a definite possibility.

The use of the Queens in the Pacific was very limited and pretty much had ended by sometime in 1942. If they do end up in the OOB, expect an early withdrawal date.

Aquitania for sure.

I thought the Queens for most of WWII ferried stuff between England and the U.S. because they were so fast.

I could be wrong.

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

I thought the Queens for most of WWII ferried stuff between England and the U.S. because they were so fast.

I could be wrong.

True for most of the war. They were involved in transporting the AIF from Australia to North Africa circa 1940. One (or maybe both) of them was refitted in Sydney between start-of-war-in-Europe and start-of-war-in-Pacific. But by or soon after the US got into the war, they were moved to the cross Atlantic routes.

Always the possibility that they could be used in the Pacific again after the war ended in Europe.

I'm sure someone on the forum has a complete day by day tract of them, along with Aquitania and Nieuw Amsterdam.

Well...

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Are the proliferation of minefields modelled more correctly ?

We're cutting back on what Joe W. has called MitP (Mines in the Pacific). It should be more realistic.

Please explain?

Mining is sometimes of only base/port defense Japan has!

I would like to see the AI do more mining! Using some of it's subs to mine enemy ports and use minelayers to build up forward base defenses.

ORIGINAL: pad152

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Are the proliferation of minefields modelled more correctly ?

We're cutting back on what Joe W. has called MitP (Mines in the Pacific). It should be more realistic.

Please explain?

Mining is sometimes of only base/port defense Japan has!

I would like to see the AI do more mining! Using some of it's subs to mine enemy ports and use minelayers to build up forward base defenses.

There are far too many mines in WitP at the moment. I'm quoting Don's response from a few pages back; he says it well...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Woop's typo...MLE



There have been a lot of changes in mining. Two everyone will notice is:

1. Mines are a buildable device. This means they have a pool. Everytime a minelaying vessel loads mines, the pool for that type of mine goes down. When the pool is empty, you just can't load any more mines.

2. The fictitious ship type of MLE no longer exists. There are new types of port restrictions for rearming based on weapon size, which affects where mines can be loaded by type of mine. There is no mine rearming at sea.

That's all that can be said on mining at this time. Please don't bother with detailed questions.

Historically, due to reduced resources and the deteriorating Strategic Situation, Japan chose to build less capable and armoured CVs. Additionally, few new surface ships above CL class were constructed. Will the Japanese player be able to build more Taiho class CVs inplace of lesser types or construct more or any new CL, CAs or BBs, if they have a better strategic situation? Thanks. Appreciate the great news and effort that is going into this product and the support it is geeting on the forum. Regards!

We discussed that a lot, and the short and the long of it is, don't expect any big "never-weres", like lots of Taiho's and what-not. We're going to stay within realistic Japanese (and Allied) planning. With that said, we've got a huge new OOB, and some new tricks planned, courtesy of the very cool Convert-To routines.

I would like to see an Operation Olympic Campaign. Any chance that small suicide craft will be included?

The scenario list hasn't been finalized yet, but lots of stuff is possible.

ORIGINAL: Jutland13
Historically, due to reduced resources and the deteriorating Strategic Situation, Japan chose to build less capable and armoured CVs. Additionally, few new surface ships above CL class were constructed. Will the Japanese player be able to build more Taiho class CVs inplace of lesser types or construct more or any new CL, CAs or BBs, if they have a better strategic situation? Thanks. Appreciate the great news and effort that is going into this product and the support it is geeting on the forum. Regards!

Terminus pretty much hit it on the head. The game remains War in the Pacific, and has an historical basis across the years. We looked at shipyard/slipway availabiltiy, resource diversion, and fleet constitution, as a function of what folks “knew at the time”, and concluded that it was much too speculative to invent a Japanese fleet that may have had this or that.

The convert-to routines attempt to make up for the originally hard coded evolution of the various naval assets. What you get are hulls that Japan built: what you also get is the ability to determine how those hulls are configured. AKs can be swiftly converted to carry troops, certain minecraft can be converted to an ASW escort role (and back again), certain merchant craft can be converted to auxiliary minecraft, or ASW patrol boats, or AVs, or even TKs.

The idea is to give the Japanese player flexibility in defining fleet composition mission/roles, with the limited assets they have. You don’t get Taihos (because you never could), but you can shift emphasis onto ASW escorts, or whatever auxiliary ‘types’ you need at the moment.

We think this is quite compatible with contemporary Japanese practice and will allow a thoughtful Japanese player a range of options that would have been, notionally, available to an IJGHQ planner.