How about adding range circles to HQ command radii (similar to what is currently shown for aircraft ranges). Frankly, it would be nice to have ALL the command radii on simultaneously, ie a button that activates them all. But either would be a nice addition.
Gets old counting squares (or hexes in this case)
Bug Reports and Enhancement Requests
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
RE: WitP Wish List
I think a pop-up note that can be set for any date would be a very helpful addition.
-
sabreman1966mcs
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 7:49 am
- Location: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
RE: WitP Wish List
Interceptions/React Range:
At the moment, as I see it and correct me if I'm wrong[;)] SC TF's will only react to an enemy TF entering a friendly base hex. If mid ocean intercepts are not going to be possible [:(] then could this be changed to reacting to an enemy TF entering a friendly or enemy base hex. This will allow at least the chance of intercepting a fast transport or evacuation mission going into a nearby base.
At the moment, as I see it and correct me if I'm wrong[;)] SC TF's will only react to an enemy TF entering a friendly base hex. If mid ocean intercepts are not going to be possible [:(] then could this be changed to reacting to an enemy TF entering a friendly or enemy base hex. This will allow at least the chance of intercepting a fast transport or evacuation mission going into a nearby base.
Soldiers generally win battles; generals get credit for them.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Napoleon Bonaparte
RE: WitP Wish List
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
In current WitP we can replenish ammo of almost any ship in any port size.
IMHO it is impossible to believe that some lowly port size 3 would have, for example, 16" shells for BBs.
This should be altered to reflect historical situation and something simple could be implemented (numbers are just for example):
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
In current WitP we can anchor as many ships as we want in any port size that is larger than 3.
IMHO this should be altered and something simple could be implemented (numbers are just for example):
port size 3 : MAX number of anchored ships = 10
port size 4 : MAX number of anchored ships = 15
port size 5 : MAX number of anchored ships = 25
port size 6 : MAX number of anchored ships = 50
port size 7 : MAX number of anchored ships = 75
port size 8 : MAX number of anchored ships = 100
port size 9 : MAX number of anchored ships = 150
port size 10 : MAX number of anchored ships = 200
Leo "Apollo11"
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
In current WitP we can replenish ammo of almost any ship in any port size.
IMHO it is impossible to believe that some lowly port size 3 would have, for example, 16" shells for BBs.
This should be altered to reflect historical situation and something simple could be implemented (numbers are just for example):
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
In current WitP we can anchor as many ships as we want in any port size that is larger than 3.
IMHO this should be altered and something simple could be implemented (numbers are just for example):
port size 3 : MAX number of anchored ships = 10
port size 4 : MAX number of anchored ships = 15
port size 5 : MAX number of anchored ships = 25
port size 6 : MAX number of anchored ships = 50
port size 7 : MAX number of anchored ships = 75
port size 8 : MAX number of anchored ships = 100
port size 9 : MAX number of anchored ships = 150
port size 10 : MAX number of anchored ships = 200
Leo "Apollo11"
Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!
A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE
RE: WitP Wish List
I still want the LCU transport loading algorithms fixed, so that you are given an accurate number on the transport loading screen when you are trying to load LCUs onto TFs.
Related to this is the ability to load multiple units into one TF at one time, in an accurate manner. If you have a group of units that require a certain amount of AP space to carry, and you have the APs needed in a TF, then please let us load all the units in one shot. Don't force us to have to load each unit onto an individual TF, and then combine 5-10 TFs into one "master" TF for transport to the destination.
Related to this is the ability to load multiple units into one TF at one time, in an accurate manner. If you have a group of units that require a certain amount of AP space to carry, and you have the APs needed in a TF, then please let us load all the units in one shot. Don't force us to have to load each unit onto an individual TF, and then combine 5-10 TFs into one "master" TF for transport to the destination.
-
Ron Saueracker
- Posts: 10967
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
RE: WitP Wish List
ORIGINAL: esteban
I still want the LCU transport loading algorithms fixed, so that you are given an accurate number on the transport loading screen when you are trying to load LCUs onto TFs.
Related to this is the ability to load multiple units into one TF at one time, in an accurate manner. If you have a group of units that require a certain amount of AP space to carry, and you have the APs needed in a TF, then please let us load all the units in one shot. Don't force us to have to load each unit onto an individual TF, and then combine 5-10 TFs into one "master" TF for transport to the destination.
Actually I have no real problem doing this (actually like it). I can live with it if it means other more important features requested are looked into. I'd really like the ability to place individual ships of the same type (DDs for example) in larger administrative groups (divisions for want of a name) so that I don't have to form TFs by individual ship. As OOBs increase in size on a massive scale, this will be a major player tool. Being able to name your TFs would be excellent as well. Right now, if one clicks on the TF icons at a base, all you get is a number and TF type, forcing the player to endlessly scroll through them to find out which are which. If one could name TFs and the new "divisions", the players chore level will reduce dramatically.
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
RE: WitP Wish List
No matter what they do, the AI will never be capable of loading your units onto transports the way you want. So, I'm resigned to the tried-and-true technique of forming a TF of the correct size to hold one unit, setting it to "do not unload," loading the friggin' unit, then combining it with the other TFs (and escorts) into the final product that I'm going to send wherever it is they're going.
I see this as a dead subject.
I see this as a dead subject.
Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.
RE: WitP Wish List
Pasternaski:
I disagree sharply. In UV, I had no problem ACCURATELY loading multiple units into one TF at one time. Despite the WitP changes made in loading costs to reflect the difference between AKs and APs, I don't see why this shouldn't be the same in WitP. If you have 3 units that each require 6000 points of AP space to load (taking into account that the wrong info on the loading screen will probably tell you that you need about 3K AP space per unit) and you have a TF with six 3000 capacity APs in it, you should be able to load all 3 units in one shot.
The current AI loading algorithms don't let you do this.
For me, this would be the SINGLE most important time-saving mechanism that could be put into the game, while keeping the current gameplay intact. (Obviously, if you changed the rules of the game to get rid of some realism, you could streamline the time requirements more. )
I really don't need destroyer divisions. I generally know which types of DDs I need in certain TFs by their fuel capacity and speed. I can most always tell certain DD classes that are good for air combat TF escort, or transport convoy duty, or surface combat by these two stats on the ship list.
But I really do feel that loading each unit individually, then merging the units into a master transport TF lengthens my average PBEM turn time by about 10%-15%. And it is a pointless time use. Having it there doesn't increase historical realism one iota. It doesn't improve your control over your forces one bit. (From a unit control standpoint, loading 3 units in one shot is the same as loading 3 units individually, then combining them into one TF)
What the current TF loading problems do accomplish is to discourage me from playing WitP, and PBEM in particular. I think that WitP is an awesome product, but it does suffer from a lack of playablity due to the vast size of the game. There is no need to ladle more unplayability on top of the existing problems that are due solely to the size of the game.
I disagree sharply. In UV, I had no problem ACCURATELY loading multiple units into one TF at one time. Despite the WitP changes made in loading costs to reflect the difference between AKs and APs, I don't see why this shouldn't be the same in WitP. If you have 3 units that each require 6000 points of AP space to load (taking into account that the wrong info on the loading screen will probably tell you that you need about 3K AP space per unit) and you have a TF with six 3000 capacity APs in it, you should be able to load all 3 units in one shot.
The current AI loading algorithms don't let you do this.
For me, this would be the SINGLE most important time-saving mechanism that could be put into the game, while keeping the current gameplay intact. (Obviously, if you changed the rules of the game to get rid of some realism, you could streamline the time requirements more. )
I really don't need destroyer divisions. I generally know which types of DDs I need in certain TFs by their fuel capacity and speed. I can most always tell certain DD classes that are good for air combat TF escort, or transport convoy duty, or surface combat by these two stats on the ship list.
But I really do feel that loading each unit individually, then merging the units into a master transport TF lengthens my average PBEM turn time by about 10%-15%. And it is a pointless time use. Having it there doesn't increase historical realism one iota. It doesn't improve your control over your forces one bit. (From a unit control standpoint, loading 3 units in one shot is the same as loading 3 units individually, then combining them into one TF)
What the current TF loading problems do accomplish is to discourage me from playing WitP, and PBEM in particular. I think that WitP is an awesome product, but it does suffer from a lack of playablity due to the vast size of the game. There is no need to ladle more unplayability on top of the existing problems that are due solely to the size of the game.
RE: WitP Wish List
Sauercracker:
For better "naming" of your TFs, (for example, if you have 5 air combat TFs in the game, and you want to know what they are by number) do what I do:
Create a bunch of single ship TFs using AKs, PTs, MSWs, or whatever, at your ports until you get to a certain number that you want to indicate a certain type of TF. E.g. air combat TFs. Lets say that this number is "251". Then create your air combat TFs, which will now be numbered 251, 252, 253, 254, etc.
Now you know that all your air combat TFs are numbered 251-259, or something like that.
Send your air combat TFs out on their missions, and when they return to port, move all but one (least damaged) escort from your air combat TF into another TF, and disband them. Have that remaining single ship TF hang out at the port were your carriers are at until it is time for "Task Force 253" to sail again. Then fill out the TF from the ships in port and off you go.
This not only solves the issue of important TFs having a recognizable name, but it keeps you from having to reset the name every time you disband, then reform, a "named" TF again. (the "name" would probably go poof the minute you disbanded it, and would have to be "renamed" when you wanted to reform the TF for the next mission.)
For better "naming" of your TFs, (for example, if you have 5 air combat TFs in the game, and you want to know what they are by number) do what I do:
Create a bunch of single ship TFs using AKs, PTs, MSWs, or whatever, at your ports until you get to a certain number that you want to indicate a certain type of TF. E.g. air combat TFs. Lets say that this number is "251". Then create your air combat TFs, which will now be numbered 251, 252, 253, 254, etc.
Now you know that all your air combat TFs are numbered 251-259, or something like that.
Send your air combat TFs out on their missions, and when they return to port, move all but one (least damaged) escort from your air combat TF into another TF, and disband them. Have that remaining single ship TF hang out at the port were your carriers are at until it is time for "Task Force 253" to sail again. Then fill out the TF from the ships in port and off you go.
This not only solves the issue of important TFs having a recognizable name, but it keeps you from having to reset the name every time you disband, then reform, a "named" TF again. (the "name" would probably go poof the minute you disbanded it, and would have to be "renamed" when you wanted to reform the TF for the next mission.)
RE: WitP Wish List
Oh, one other thing that would be nice, would be to filter available naval commanders by their specialty. (air combat, surface combat, invasion) So now, when we are looking for a new commander for a TF, we don't have to sort through all the guys who have the wrong specialty for the TF that needs a leader
RE: WitP Wish List
One thing I'd like to see is ships sunk IN PORT adding to that port's damage. By in port I mean docked or in a base. Ships sinking in a port greatly add to the time it takes to berth/unberth freight and the added damage would simulate the time it takes to clear the wreckage away. Obviously the larger the port the smaller percenatge damage per ship and the larger the ship the more damage.
"Grown ups are what's left when skool is finished."
"History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
- Nigel Molesworth.
"History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
- Nigel Molesworth.
RE: WitP Wish List
A surrender button! Or the possibility to crush enemy formations.
In head-to-head I had an attack force with 230 to 1 odds, but was blocked for several turns because that darn enemy unit was caught between two of my units and wouldn't retreat. I mean, if I attack with 200.000 troops against 5.000 there is nothing left, I simply walk over them in reality. It would have been helpful if my human counterpart would have a button where he could simply surrender.
In head-to-head I had an attack force with 230 to 1 odds, but was blocked for several turns because that darn enemy unit was caught between two of my units and wouldn't retreat. I mean, if I attack with 200.000 troops against 5.000 there is nothing left, I simply walk over them in reality. It would have been helpful if my human counterpart would have a button where he could simply surrender.
RE: WitP Wish List
ORIGINAL: Distiller
A surrender button! Or the possibility to crush enemy formations.
In head-to-head I had an attack force with 230 to 1 odds, but was blocked for several turns because that darn enemy unit was caught between two of my units and wouldn't retreat. I mean, if I attack with 200.000 troops against 5.000 there is nothing left, I simply walk over them in reality. It would have been helpful if my human counterpart would have a button where he could simply surrender.
good idea [;)]
when do the US may surrender ? [:D]
Harrer
RE: WitP Wish List
ORIGINAL: Rossj
I've gone through several pages and haven't seen this yet...though it was discussed in the Japanese grand strategy thread...
1. IJA garrison requirements for all occupied territories (DEI, PI, India, Russia)
2. improved chinese and soviet oob (soviet units transferred to europe can be frozen in Irkutsk until activated).
3. irkutsk and karachi out of bounds to Japanese player to allow for allied buildup in case japanese player attempts board edge tactics
4. reduce amount of captured supply
5. improved rail movement system (faster for units actually being transported by available rolling stock, slower for the rest).
ok, but then you need to give some more divisions and SNLF to the japanese player ( stg like 15-20 divisions and 50 SNLF regiements ) because the japanese player lack troops .. so why would make the game so impossible for him ( and me in the same way .. )
Harrer
-
AmiralLaurent
- Posts: 3351
- Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 8:53 pm
- Location: Near Paris, France
RE: WitP Wish List
All mods asked to make the land campains more realistic and at least slower and harder.
Reduce the speed of LCU advanding into non-controlled hexes (or controlled by both sides) by 2 and don't use rail in this case (so dividing speed on railway by 4).
Change the Soviet units the same way the Chinese were changed in v1.4 (100% prepared in defence).
Change the hex between Rahaeng and Rangoon to track. Same thing for the hex south of Tavoy (or maybe the hex between Tavoy and Moulmein). This will reduce Japanese Blitzkrieg in Burma in Dec 1941 and supplies will continue to arrive to Burma from Bangkok (60% losses dure to the track hex but the Kwai railway was not available at start and never functionned correctly anyway).
And a dream:
having weather modify LCU movement rates. Thunderstorms, snow and blizzard should reduce heavily land movement. So Soviet winter or Indian mosoon will be in the game.
Reduce the speed of LCU advanding into non-controlled hexes (or controlled by both sides) by 2 and don't use rail in this case (so dividing speed on railway by 4).
Change the Soviet units the same way the Chinese were changed in v1.4 (100% prepared in defence).
Change the hex between Rahaeng and Rangoon to track. Same thing for the hex south of Tavoy (or maybe the hex between Tavoy and Moulmein). This will reduce Japanese Blitzkrieg in Burma in Dec 1941 and supplies will continue to arrive to Burma from Bangkok (60% losses dure to the track hex but the Kwai railway was not available at start and never functionned correctly anyway).
And a dream:
having weather modify LCU movement rates. Thunderstorms, snow and blizzard should reduce heavily land movement. So Soviet winter or Indian mosoon will be in the game.
-
Bradley7735
- Posts: 2073
- Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:51 pm
RE: WitP Wish List
I would like to see the ship class that a ship will upgrade to (right next to the upgrade date on the ship screen). I ask this because some ships upgrade to a different class. I think PG Niagra upgrades to a PT tender. If I don't want a PT tender, I need to know what PG Niagra upgades to. Also, some of the US DD's upgrade to APD's. If I want more APD's or less APD's, it's helpful to know what DD's upgrade to APD's.
The older I get, the better I was.
-
LargeSlowTarget
- Posts: 5034
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
RE: WitP Wish List
ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent
And a dream:
having weather modify LCU movement rates. Thunderstorms, snow and blizzard should reduce heavily land movement. So Soviet winter or Indian mosoon will be in the game.
A wet dream, so to speak [:'(].
-
Ron Saueracker
- Posts: 10967
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
RE: WitP Wish List
ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
I would like to see the ship class that a ship will upgrade to (right next to the upgrade date on the ship screen). I ask this because some ships upgrade to a different class. I think PG Niagra upgrades to a PT tender. If I don't want a PT tender, I need to know what PG Niagra upgades to. Also, some of the US DD's upgrade to APD's. If I want more APD's or less APD's, it's helpful to know what DD's upgrade to APD's.
It's all in the ship call listing in the Ship Database. Fiddle with the filters and stuff. The Niagara can be "upgraded" (using toggle) to a PT Boat Tender (AGP) or can "refit" as a PG to more modern weapons.
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
RE: WitP Wish List
Another dream: add a "Vulnerability to Bombardment" variable to every seaside airfield. Sure, we should be able to put Henderson Field out of action with naval bombardment. But what about airfields not so easy to target from offshore? Those airfields with high vulnerability would be subject to the current bombardment rules; those with medium would have the lethality of bombardment cut by a third; those with low vulnerability would have it cut by two-thirds. Just chop existing results down so that 18 runway hits becomes 6, 3 PBYs lost becomes 1, etc.
C'mon, that wouldn't be that hard to code, would it, Mike Wood? [&o] Er, right, Mike?
C'mon, that wouldn't be that hard to code, would it, Mike Wood? [&o] Er, right, Mike?
RE: WitP Wish List
How about some type of listing that provides production "capability" for each site AND actual production last turn. Would provide us a means of identifying potential logistic issues earlier.