Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
#1 Ammo replenishment should be depending on port size
#2 Number of ships anchored should be depending on port size

ORIGINAL: strawbuk
why not make ammo reload limits by class eg port 1-3 DDs only, 3-6 CL/CA/CV 7-9- all ships

Where does that leave re-ammo ships by the way?

Anchorages - darn tootin - is this not a similar function to airfield capacity?

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
Actually the entire resupply (supply?) aspect of the game is abstracted to the point that it fails to resemble the true challenges of logistics in the Pacific War

So at the least the following would be a improvement:

Seperate out the fuel:
Navy black oil
Aviation Gas
LCU gas (in a pinch a land vehicle could use Aviation, but not vice versa)
Diesel (Subs, DE's, etc.)

On the supply siide:
Heavy Naval gun ammo (>8")
Torpedoes (all)
Food
Maintenance (have to fix things when they break or leak)
Consumables

Agree with the above posters on the need for ammo resupply and anchorage restrictions. But I think to separate supply into many categories is too complicated for a game of this size and will slow down order/execution phases even more. The existing categories of fuel/ supply (maybe add avgas as a third category) would be enough if there was a restriction on ammo replenishment depending on ship class and port size, coupled with a realistic ability of AE class ships. I would like to see ammo replenishment for shells larger than 5" restricted to port size 8 or better, unless there is an AE and a certain amount of supplies present - and the AEs should get the ability to replenish all types of ammo, not just AA.
Furthermore, I would tighten the spoilage rule to a point that small ports can hold only a limited amount of fuel, enough to operate barges and PTs, but not enough to refuel big TFs without the presence of loaded TK or AO types.
This would force us to keep a proper fleet train of AR, AO, AE types at those forward bases ( which often lacked proper port facilities, storage areas etc.) if we want to operate major fleet units from there - AlaskanWarrior has made the point with the Ulithi example.

'Thinking' as I write - maybe the 'thousand ships in size-3 port' problem could be restricted by operational points ports must spend on unloading/loading/replenishment operations - smaller ports obviously recieving fewer points per turn so they could only perform a limited number of simultaneous operations per turn.

Further to your points, I'd add "presence of naval engineer base forces". One must assume that these base forces would "order" naval ordinance and supply. It would also give some reason to the varirty of base unit types other than mere chrome. This would be better than port size limitations. Because they are relatively few in number, players would choose larger, more secure ports to base them in so port size would become rather a moot issue.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Agree with the above posters on the need for ammo resupply and anchorage restrictions. But I think to separate supply into many categories is too complicated for a game of this size and will slow down order/execution phases even more. The existing categories of fuel/ supply (maybe add avgas as a third category) would be enough if there was a restriction on ammo replenishment depending on ship class and port size, coupled with a realistic ability of AE class ships. I would like to see ammo replenishment for shells larger than 5" restricted to port size 8 or better, unless there is an AE and a certain amount of supplies present - and the AEs should get the ability to replenish all types of ammo, not just AA.
Furthermore, I would tighten the spoilage rule to a point that small ports can hold only a limited amount of fuel, enough to operate barges and PTs, but not enough to refuel big TFs without the presence of loaded TK or AO types.
This would force us to keep a proper fleet train of AR, AO, AE types at those forward bases ( which often lacked proper port facilities, storage areas etc.) if we want to operate major fleet units from there - AlaskanWarrior has made the point with the Ulithi example.

'Thinking' as I write - maybe the 'thousand ships in size-3 port' problem could be restricted by operational points ports must spend on unloading/loading/replenishment operations - smaller ports obviously recieving fewer points per turn so they could only perform a limited number of simultaneous operations per turn.
[/quote]

Further to your points, I'd add "presence of naval engineer base forces". One must assume that these base forces would "order" naval ordinance and supply. It would also give some reason to the varirty of base unit types other than mere chrome. This would be better than port size limitations. Because they are relatively few in number, players would choose larger, more secure ports to base them in so port size would become rather a moot issue.

[/quote]

Ron

Actually I think you might have hit on a doable solution. For instance, many of the Seebees (Naval Construction BN's - NCB) were actually steveodores, "The 1st through 40th NC Special BN's were formed at the beginning of 1943 to serve as stevedores for loading and unloading ships in overseas areas where civilian contractors or native laobor was unavailable and to serve as shore parties during assault landings", US Marine Corps World War II Order of Battle, Gordon Rottman. Indeed, there are several items that determine howmuch cargo can be unloaded at a port. Physical properties of the port, such as docks, crains, storage, and land trasportation all factor in it. However, probably to most important factor is the quantity and quality of the laborers. So infractruture will put an ultimate limit on how ,uch tonnage a port and trasship a month. Examine the backlog of cargo at San Francisco in early 1944 and you will see that even the largest of ports have a limit.

So I would suggest that ports be given a minimum and maximum amount of CARGO that can be transshipped (either loaded or unloaded) in a day. These limits would be modified depending upon how many engineers or support personnel are in the port. Will have to work on the specifics of this. So instead of how may ships can be loaded, instead it would be now how many supply/fuel points can be moved. Combine this with a limit on how many ships can be physically "docked" in the port (as oppossed to anchored) and most of the logistical problems will be mediated. For specialized supplies (ammo for ships, torpedoes, etc.), then the appropriate aux. ships must be present and appropriate supply levels available. For instance AE must have supplies on board in order to ressuply ammo. The same should be for all of the other auxs. In reading the history of the battleship Washington, raely did the ship actually "refuel" from the physical port facilities. It was always a tanker, wether navy or civilian, fueling her. Ditto for other supplies.

As for the fuel, at least make a seperate av gas fuel. I can live the the rest.

rm

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

Actually I think you might have hit on a doable solution. For instance, many of the Seebees (Naval Construction BN's - NCB) were actually steveodores,
[...]
So I would suggest that ports be given a minimum and maximum amount of CARGO that can be transshipped (either loaded or unloaded) in a day. These limits would be modified depending upon how many engineers or support personnel are in the port. Will have to work on the specifics of this. So instead of how may ships can be loaded, instead it would be now how many supply/fuel points can be moved. Combine this with a limit on how many ships can be physically "docked" in the port (as oppossed to anchored) and most of the logistical problems will be mediated. For specialized supplies (ammo for ships, torpedoes, etc.), then the appropriate aux. ships must be present and appropriate supply levels available. For instance AE must have supplies on board in order to ressuply ammo. The same should be for all of the other auxs. In reading the history of the battleship Washington, raely did the ship actually "refuel" from the physical port facilities. It was always a tanker, wether navy or civilian, fueling her. Ditto for other supplies.

As for the fuel, at least make a seperate av gas fuel. I can live the the rest.

rm

Agree, was thinking it over this night and it came to me that the abundance of ENG units I've complained about in another thread might be put to use as dock workers, longshoremen, wharfies or whatever they are called, determining the speed of loading/unloading operations in port. Current loading/unloading rates would have to be adjusted downwards (ssslooowwww if no dock hands are present), but each ENG unit in a port would help to speed up the process. Your idea of limiting the fuel/supply points that can be moved per turn might work better than my 'port ops points' idea, but nevertheless we need a limit on the number of ships that can load/unload simultaneously in small port. Foliveti might have had the right idea -

ORIGINAL: foliveti
For example a size 1 port may only be able to service 1 ship per turn, whereas, a size 10 port could handle 100 ships per turn. Excess beyond these limits could be treated as unloading at a beach hex instead of at a port.

I just realized this thread was here, so I'll re-post this question where it belongs.

[Re-post]
I'm sorry if this has been covered elsewhere; but with the obvious "End of New Features" coming after the release of 1.5 made me willing to ask. I was wondering if we could ever get MORE control over the pooling of supplies. I know in other threads awhile back this was discussed, ie; Saesabo(i believe) pooling resources it didn't need, supplies getting stored up where they weren't needed, etc. This could be a feature that would allow the player flexibilty when setting up say, forward supply depots or rest and refit bases.
I know in the previous threads it was suggested that a pool supply button could get added for this purpose. I guess my question is: has anyone heard that this might be in the pipeline? Any info will be greatly appreciated, thx.
-Behemoth

I hope this is a simple request and having scanned this thread I do not think its been brought up before. Can we add the ASW and AAA factors of a ship to the listing of ships that we get when we form TFs. I currently have to look at the ships to determine this and it slows down my game play.

Thanks

ORIGINAL: Skyros

I hope this is a simple request and having scanned this thread I do not think its been brought up before. Can we add the ASW and AAA factors of a ship to the listing of ships that we get when we form TFs. I currently have to look at the ships to determine this and it slows down my game play.

Thanks

In the ship transfer screen, right-click on a ship's name and you will see a line showing main armament, AA and ASW value of the ship.

WITP is really the best game I’ve ever played. If there is only one game I can play from hundreds, I will stick with it.

Having said that, I hate one thing about WITP. It is so time-consuming. I think this is the main reason that some of my friends, they don’t like WITP after I demo them the game. So the biggest wish from me is that please consider easier user interface in future patches. For example:

1. Airplane production. Can I have one page that allows me to see/sort all airplane production/need and can convert them as well, instead that I make notes and go to each city to do the math and conversion?
2. One page for engine production and conversion
3. one page for base expansion.
2. Troop loading, I agree troop only and supply, but can we think something easy to judge whether I have enough boat to carry all I want instead of loading supply, or loading troops?
3. One page to give order to TFs or land units?

All in all, simplify the user interface and save the game time. If I can reduce the planning time for the first turn (scenario 15/16) from 5 hours to 2 hours, I think WITP will be more popular and have more fans.

We need a switch all aricraft/same type to night/day operations.

At present we have to change from day to night and reverse for each squadron...a lot of work for 20 squadrons!![:(]

Most important feature as Japan: option to replace air losses with unexperienced pilots. so i can save the pool for the squadrons i like.

this would kill some micromanagement that i have to do as Japan.

Mr Kid:

I would like to have the option of retreating during land and/or naval combat.

Instead of my outnumbered naval task force units (transports mostly) moving towards the enemy naval units, the ability to push a retreat buttom, telling them to get the hell out of there not until it is to late!!!!!!!!!!!!

ORIGINAL: Odin

We need a switch all aricraft/same type to night/day operations.

At present we have to change from day to night and reverse for each squadron...a lot of work for 20 squadrons!![:(]

I think they did that so there would not be as much ahistorical night bombing. Folks would get tired of doing it an just play daylight raids.[:D]

how about using fleats to block straights

Scenario 15. Leader names

IJA division leader, 61st & 63rd are same person.
Correct leader of 61st division is Tanaka T.(Tsutomu Tanaka) and 63rd division is Nozoe M.(Masanori Nozoe).

Leader of 119th division is Shiozawa K.--Kiyonobu Shiozawa

Leader of 125th division is Imari T.--Tatsuo Imari(or Imatoshi sorry I cannot read his correct family name. Kanji letter is always big problem to read person's name).

Leader of 123rd division is Kitazawa, S.--Sadajirou(or Teijirou) Kitazawa.

Leader of 128th division is Mizuhara Y.--Yoshishige Mizuhara.

...and more.
My source is Japanese book, of course written in Japanese.

http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/ASI ... 00-6977804
This book is awesome. Excellent description of ALL IJA divisions.

and

http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/ASI ... 00-6977804
This book is also great. Encyclopedia of all IJA AIR SENTAI and IJN AIR KOKUTAI.

I know it is late in the day to consider this one. But, with all the different graphic,art, map and OOB mods out there, or in development it would be good to have something like Modswapper present to keep track of what mods are loaded or not. That way in PBEMs both players will know they are both running the same set up's.

That's my thought for the day, back to lurking [;)]

Tomo,

How many books are written in Japan about the war? I know we have access to a large amount for research over here. I am just curious if the Japanese authors have released huge numbers of books from the Japanese perspective on the war and if there is a large amount, just imagine the resources that we are not able to access for the creation and verification of OOBs and such due to a language barrier.

Perhaps someone one day will make a Pacific War game and have a Japanese speaking person on their staff who could access the Japanese literature on the subject.

v1.6, but .......

How about a summary of the available HI, vs the adequately supplied HI. This would at least provide a primer that something, somewhere is amiss. Even better, if the listing is a pulldown which lists all the sites with resource status relative to demand.

The next one would be that it would be really, really nice to be able to cut-n-paste out of several of these data windows so we can transfer the info to Excel.

I'd like to have the tonnage (for warships) or BRT for merchant ships included in ship data.
1. suggestion
Similar to the kill statistics for fighter pilots, I'd then like the tonnage sinkings or ship sinkings recorded in the individual ships or commanders.
Maybe even for the bomber pilots.
2. suggestion
Furthermore, adding the date of sinking to the sunk ship report as additional cullumn would give the game more fun.
(Like in other games, I tend to keep a close watch on my fighter pilots, but tend to undervalue the bomber pilots and sub crews).

These small changes add a lot to longterm play fun. A couple of my friends agree to this.

This is probably buried in these 12 pages of posts somewhere, so if it is, I appologize... Just trying to search for "ALT-TAB" as part of your key words makes it tough to find... at any rate...

My question/suggestion is this...

Is ALT/TAB fixable? Where we can minimize the game and bring it back without it exploding? Reason I ask this, is its a pain in the neck to have to exit WiTP totally to load up email and send... Why not have them both going at the same time and alt-tab and send the turn and go back to the game. I know its a little thing, but its an asthetic that would be nice to have as its too late to "build in" Outlook/outlook express interfaces into the game where you'd launch the email proggie you have from within WiTP.

Sometimes even the little things matter. [8D]

If anyone is still checking ideas for future patches and has a question about what I'm posting here, just PM me and I'll ellaborate.

Thanks

I'm not having a problem with the Alt/Tab.

Way points for TF , now the wander off trough enemy controlled zones taking a shortcut and
getting decimated.

Targetting enemy taskforces with airgroups so you can concentrate on attacking the TF you think is the biggest threat prefenting that a small airgroup attacks a CV TF with no escorts and a big airgroup
with escorts attacks a small TF of DD and MSW .