Bug Reports and Enhancement Requests

[steveh11Matrix]

ORIGINAL: mutterfudder

Editor: Ingame.


I know this can be done.

Sure would help those buggy games more playable.

Well, an in-game editor probably isn't necessary, but as I've said before I'd really, really like to see a save-game editor, or an output from the game into scenario database files.

Steve.

[scout1]

Well, an in-game editor probably isn't necessary, but as I've said before I'd really, really like to see a save-game editor, or an output from the game into scenario database files.

Go Steve Go !!!! [:D][:D][:D]

Thought I was the only voice in the wind on this one.

[steveh11Matrix]

ORIGINAL: scout1

Well, an in-game editor probably isn't necessary, but as I've said before I'd really, really like to see a save-game editor, or an output from the game into scenario database files.

Go Steve Go !!!! [:D][:D][:D]

Thought I was the only voice in the wind on this one.

I suspect we'll be "P***ing in the wind" with this one, as too many players will say that it will interfere with PBEM...I don't really understand that (just don't play with cheats) and in any case it doesn't affect me (I don't PBEM at all). We can but try, however! [;)]

Steve.

[scout1]

Steve,

Actually I think there is a best of both worlds case here. The current database files contain data for both sides. It wouldn't be that hard to dump just Allied or Japanese data.
Then only look at your side as you could tie the password to it for us pbem'ers. I think a majority of people have grown accustomed to sticky notes and sheets of paper lying around so don't think its a big deal. However, it would greatly ease the management of the game as the BIG picture will be easier to see. Not to say I'm looking for bugs, but this would root out a shitload (if they exist) as there are probably things being missed due to the shear magnitude of data being presented (and usually only scanned by us humans). If they'd had this the leader bug would have been ID'ed quickly and had all kind of data to work with. As it stands now, I my have Roosevelt at the wheel of the Kaga and wouldn't know it. Usually don't look (but I could have the computer look for me). Just need the csv files extracted from the database.[8D]

[Mr.Frag]

I suspect we'll be "P***ing in the wind" with this one, as too many players will say that it will interfere with PBEM...I don't really understand that (just don't play with cheats) and in any case it doesn't affect me (I don't PBEM at all).

An in game editor would be even more complex then the scenario & database editor currently as it has to deal with all the information, not just the setup information. Just too many potential paths to destruction coupled with the one obvious problem, it would be akin to me taking all the PBEM passwords from all the saves sent in a posting them here for all to read. I'm sure that would not make me too popular. [X(]

[Gen.Hoepner]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I suspect we'll be "P***ing in the wind" with this one, as too many players will say that it will interfere with PBEM...I don't really understand that (just don't play with cheats) and in any case it doesn't affect me (I don't PBEM at all).

An in game editor would be even more complex then the scenario & database editor currently as it has to deal with all the information, not just the setup information. Just too many potential paths to destruction coupled with the one obvious problem, it would be akin to me taking all the PBEM passwords from all the saves sent in a posting them here for all to read. I'm sure that would not make me too popular. [X(]

And what about the night bombing? do you agree Mr.Frag that there's still something wrong with it?

[Mr.Frag]

And what about the night bombing? do you agree Mr.Frag that there's still something wrong with it?

Thats one of those tweek and see, tweek and see, tweek and see type issues. There is no right answer to most of those types of issues, one just really has to go with a gut feel on what seems reasonable and what doesn't. It got cut back in 1.4, it will probably get some more trimming in 1.5. Problem with this type of stuff is you have to do it gradually and see what the impacts are ... still have to keep the balance between the sides ... you'd be rather annoyed if suddenly the Nell bombed better then a B-29 due to making LBA less effective yet at the same time you're not going to happy is the Nell can't hit *anything* anymore.

[Gen.Hoepner]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

And what about the night bombing? do you agree Mr.Frag that there's still something wrong with it?

Thats one of those tweek and see, tweek and see, tweek and see type issues. There is no right answer to most of those types of issues, one just really has to go with a gut feel on what seems reasonable and what doesn't. It got cut back in 1.4, it will probably get some more trimming in 1.5. Problem with this type of stuff is you have to do it gradually and see what the impacts are ... still have to keep the balance between the sides ... you'd be rather annoyed if suddenly the Nell bombed better then a B-29 due to making LBA less effective yet at the same time you're not going to happy is the Nell can't hit *anything* anymore.

That's very clear and i cannot but agree with your statement. For what can help, i think that many of us can give to you a lot of examples ( saves,AAR etc) of how the night bombing is still overated. The point is not damage sustained by the bombed AF( this is quite good at the moment ). the real point is the combo nightCAP useless-No op. losses even when flying lower than 6,000 fts.

[scout1]

An in game editor would be even more complex then the scenario & database editor currently as it has to deal with all the information, not just the setup information.

From this statement, you are suggesting that there is more information (data-wise) from
Turn 3 (for example) than that contained in the setup database. True ?

[Mr.Frag]

From this statement, you are suggesting that there is more information (data-wise) from
Turn 3 (for example) than that contained in the setup database. True ?

Yes, far more information. It is this same reason that you can't start a scenario with units split. You load the game, 1 unit is loaded. After a couple of turns, that 1 unit could be split onto 20 transports (now 20 separate units).

[scout1]

Does this mean that there are not enough fields in the database to support the splits and this is handled in the code ? If not, should just be a larger database file. Not complaining (much), but just want to understand why everyone is so content with scratch paper when there is a far more efficient way to do this and free us for grand operational strategy.[;)]

[Mr.Frag]

Does this mean that there are not enough fields in the database to support the splits and this is handled in the code ?

it's around 60,000 records in the database file, no idea once it's running as I have not run into a hard limit on splitting units (there is one, just haven't seen it yet)

[Distiller]

ORIGINAL: Distiller

# How about having avgas for airplane as the third logistics need besides bunker oil for ships and supplies for everybody?
# There should be a possibility to let pioneers build new railways, railyards and roads.
# There should be a possibility to let pioneers build auxilary airfields.
# The Jap industry should have a central screen with a possibilty to manipulate the industry on a single screen.
# Japs did ops in the Indian Ocean as far as the African coast. Chance to include that?
# The Fleet needs real waypoints. (I know I can do that with the "do not retire" option, but waypoints would be nice.
# Why not let the player decide shich ships to build?
# The whole industry system could be broadend and designed more flexible.
# The wholo complex of hospitals and sick bays is missing. An amphib assault without a hospital ships is four to five times costlier in lives.
# The aircraft database needs some serious workover (ranges, maneuverability of especially U.S. planes are often unrealisticly high)

Later edit:
# What about POW?
# If a unit is undersupplied its strength dwindles away, because troops (or POW) die of starvation.

Still later edit:
# By looking into the editor - is there a built-in hero factor for U.S. planes? Armor, firepower, accuracy, ... Hmmm.
# WHat's the point in not being able to evacuate USAFFE? Second class Americans?

Couple more Ideas:
# Landbased logistics: steam engines, waggons, trucks (like there are AKs, TKs, APs, only moving on land on pre-defined routs aka railway & roads)
# Engineers should be capable of blowing up on supplies and fuel
# The P-38 arrives a little late?
# CAS (close air support) missions for fighterbombers, instead of the fuzzy "ground attack"

[steveh11Matrix]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I suspect we'll be "P***ing in the wind" with this one, as too many players will say that it will interfere with PBEM...I don't really understand that (just don't play with cheats) and in any case it doesn't affect me (I don't PBEM at all).

An in game editor would be even more complex then the scenario & database editor currently as it has to deal with all the information, not just the setup information. Just too many potential paths to destruction coupled with the one obvious problem, it would be akin to me taking all the PBEM passwords from all the saves sent in a posting them here for all to read. I'm sure that would not make me too popular. [X(]

Frag, just to be clear: I'm not personally advocating an in-game editor, just a save-game one. Difference is subtle, but it's there.
Steve.

[sprior]

I don't know if this is in here but I'd like to see a "Date Sunk" or "date Reported Sunk" field in the ship losses box

[2ndACR]

ORIGINAL: sprior

I don't know if this is in here but I'd like to see a "Date Sunk" or "date Reported Sunk" field in the ship losses box

Been on the list since day 1 release.

[Distiller]

ORIGINAL: Distiller

ORIGINAL: Distiller

# How about having avgas for airplane as the third logistics need besides bunker oil for ships and supplies for everybody?
# There should be a possibility to let pioneers build new railways, railyards and roads.
# There should be a possibility to let pioneers build auxilary airfields.
# The Jap industry should have a central screen with a possibilty to manipulate the industry on a single screen.
# Japs did ops in the Indian Ocean as far as the African coast. Chance to include that?
# The Fleet needs real waypoints. (I know I can do that with the "do not retire" option, but waypoints would be nice.
# Why not let the player decide shich ships to build?
# The whole industry system could be broadend and designed more flexible.
# The wholo complex of hospitals and sick bays is missing. An amphib assault without a hospital ships is four to five times costlier in lives.
# The aircraft database needs some serious workover (ranges, maneuverability of especially U.S. planes are often unrealisticly high)

Later edit:
# What about POW?
# If a unit is undersupplied its strength dwindles away, because troops (or POW) die of starvation.

Still later edit:
# By looking into the editor - is there a built-in hero factor for U.S. planes? Armor, firepower, accuracy, ... Hmmm.
# WHat's the point in not being able to evacuate USAFFE? Second class Americans?

Couple more Ideas:
# Landbased logistics: steam engines, waggons, trucks (like there are AKs, TKs, APs, only moving on land on pre-defined routs aka railway & roads)
# Engineers should be capable of blowing up on supplies and fuel
# The P-38 arrives a little late?
# CAS (close air support) missions for fighterbombers, instead of the fuzzy "ground attack"

Another idea:
# A list with an overview of "march to" units with an estimated time to arrival.

Something different:
Just been scanning thru the WITP directories and seen, that all the graphics are bitmaps! Wow! No wonder it needs a lot of memory. That is just a waste. Why not use JPG?

[Arkady]

BMPs eat place only on your HDD, not in memory. In memory all pictures eat same amount depending on picture size and jpgs eat your processor time just to 'decode' them on the fly

In current days HDD space is not a problem and it is easy for developers use Windows native formats of BMPs and WAVs than add into program some obscure parsing routines for graphics and sounds [;)]

just my opinion though

[scout1]

Frag, just to be clear: I'm not personally advocating an in-game editor, just a save-game one. Difference is subtle, but it's there.

ABSOLUTELY[:D][:D][:D][:D]

[mikemike]

Fuel/supply explosions on attack

I think there should be a chance of having a major explosion of fuel/ammunition (=supply) when a port or airfield is attacked, simulating a direct hit on a fuel/ammo dump, with damage to port/airfield and losses among LBU´s.

In the same vein, there are AE´s in the game. These were prone to explode with catastrophic results when hit (or sometimes also spontaneously). There was an explosion in Yokohama in 1944 (I think) which sank several ships, including the German auxiliary cruiser "Michel". There was also a German air attack on the port of Brindisi, Italy, sometime after 1943 that hit a ship loaded with ammunition; the explosion sank upwards of twenty ships and devastated the port.

Japanese tankers carrying Sumatra crude also seem to have had a tendency to blow up when hit (to say nothing of AVGAS tankers - Neosho was considered a floating bomb during the Pearl Harbor attack).

Maybe simulating the collateral damage involves too much coding effort, but it would be nice (and realistic) to have ships blow themselves off the face of the earth from a single 3in hit.