Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The biggest flaw in the game IMO is the same flaw that marred it's predesessor; Pacific War.

The Amphibious landing routine. Its too simplified and too easy to do. It's better than it was in Pacwar thanks to the introduction of preperation points. Landing an unprepared division can result in as much as 1/3 of it's assault power being disabled, but I always wanted to see more. But underneath that...its still basically the same as in PacWar...you want to invade? tether together a bunch of AK's or better, some AP's and will travel.

As i read about the big campaigns more and more in WWII, Burma....Sicily, Italy....France a central bottleneck kept coming up. The biggest factor that forced the Allies to fight the war the way they did. Italy (followed by Burma) represented the greatest example...a mountanous country just begging for flanking seaward attacks given the slogging match that a forward attack presented. Yet it was'nt done to the degree one might expect why?

landing craft....landing craft....and more landing craft. There were never enough available....and another theater seemed to always have a priority on them...first D-day...then the continuing Pacific War. The British sceamed for years on conducting amphibious landings to outflank the jungles of Northern Burma or even bypass Burma in favor of a landing in Malaya....never materialized till 45. why.....in Witp, just load up a few AK's or AP's! the long vulnerable coastline just begs for it. In real life....nope, not enough landing craft. They couldnt' lay hands on em.

I understand why its the way it is in WitP. I'm not bashing this game. Hell, i love this game and it is a quality product and i'm proud to have been associated with it. But as the thread asks (even if jokingly) if i had to pick an area of weakness that most sticks out, one i'd like to see improved in a future game or successor product...it would be that.

how to fix? not totally sure. its a thorny issue. Such a game has to allow the amphibious landing type of operation which can range anywhere from a transport dropping anchor and the troops wadding ashore in rafts or infaltables to a slightly more dedicated (but still crude) Watchtower type landing that did involve some dedicated landing craft (but inefficiently loaded transports...fortunately there was no resistance or fortifications on the shore that day)

Such a game would have to take into account that fact that the larger the landing force, the greater the need for organization (prep) and specialized craft or else risk increasingly disrupted and disabled units that come ashore in no condition to fight. Most of all the presence of landing craft of which no true Amphibious Assault can be done must be represented in the specific.

How to simulate in WitP within the current framework? Only ideas i came up with back in Alpha were to make lack of prep points 2 to 3 times as severe as they are now. Try to land an unprepped division on any base Atoll or not....and it should be so disrupted and disabled as to be combat ineffective.....the impact should be preportional to the size of the unit, that way small raider type actions could be simulated. so for example, a small battalion sized unit would not suffer as much unprepared as say a Division which is far more complex an operation.

Another idea was to divorce invader unloading rates from the port size which should only apply to a friendly force. AK's and AP's without landing craft should have a super-small unloading rate allowing the defender a chance to push em back into the sea. Such a penalty would especially apply to arty and AFV type equipment....you cant just use the port facilities to unload such beasts. Such as restriction would make Atoll combat without landing craft impossible and suicidal.

Any future Pacific game should un-abstract landing craft. I'd rather see that than un-abstracting supply which while an intriguing idea on the surface also strikes me as a "be careful what you wish for" item. This game already requires a serious amount of micro-management. I love detail, and i'm willing to tackle the challenge of dealing with landing craft and a more detailed amphibious model, but i'm not sure i want to track what islands are getting their bullets, which their allotment of torpedoes, which their allotment of bombs and food etc etc......yikes. This game is long enough to play as it is.
[:D]

ORIGINAL: Moquia


This is also my main concern about the current game. Maybe something like this would work: Like warships have airplanes squadrons attached, APAs (and maybe AKAs) should have landing crafts (LCs) ‘squadrons’ attached and the LCs can be destroyed or disabled like airplanes when used.

ORIGINAL: pad152

Great Game but it's still unfinished!

Hear hear!!![&o]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Moquia


This is also my main concern about the current game. Maybe something like this would work: Like warships have airplanes squadrons attached, APAs (and maybe AKAs) should have landing crafts (LCs) ‘squadrons’ attached and the LCs can be destroyed or disabled like airplanes when used.

Yes, i recall someone mentioning something like that. its an innovative idea, but the only issues i see with it is regulating how these attached squadrons TO&E fill out to represent shortages and timed allocations.

TulliusDetritus -

ORIGINAL: bigjoe96912

The Major Issue for me is the AI. In an AI game it would be nice if it was more reactionary to your offensive thrusts. I have no problem with the preprogrammed assaults and as historically it is great but when I invade Tarawa early the AI came in with big KB and gave me a pretty good pounding and left. However it allowed the landings to continue, left my entire carrier fleet with 20% damage but intact and salvagable. Then its next appearance was over by Kendi pound an airfield that was abandoned, then it came over around Rabaul and Bombed Buna for 3 days, and has dissapeared again. ( I have no clue where it is.) I captured Wake Island in 11/42 and now the AI is sending piece meal assults with no back up support to try to retake it. So for me it is the AI.

ORIGINAL: WhoCares

Considering design flaws, I'd also say the interface. Not just the menu designs, button placement, navigation, etc... More with respect to information management. When the players has to continously do information transfers between game screens and external applications and vice versa - it would help the player with this:

GG: I can't keep it in my head anymore. That's it. I hit the wall. I am never ever, ever, ever doing a game like that again.

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

For sure two remaining bugs....the lost LCUs bug and the 59miles one.

But above all, above and beyond the bugs, i really think that it should be revised the general pace of the game. Too fast!
In mid 1942 the allies can already master a devastating aerial campaign, closing all the jap AFs in the range of their 4E bombers......too many base forces in my opinion or, if you prefer, too much aviation support around too early!
Same for Japan under anothr point of view.
I really do not understand why the designers have modified the repairing rate of the damaged 4E bombers...was one of the most correct feature in the game imho.

ORIGINAL: FDRLincoln

My main beefs are

1) crash to desktop

• LC should be points in a limited pool, similar to how barge creation works.
• These points would be loaded onto AP (from size ? or better ports only) along with land units. LC would take up load points, i.e. the capacity for troops would be reduced if the intention was to land them using LC.
• During landing, these points could be destroyed by the invasion, causing disruption/loss of the equipment/men it was carrying.
• AP's returning to port could unload their LC points back into pool, or keep them on board and/or replenish them from the pool. Loading/unloading would follow normal WITP limitations.
• AP's could only unload troops in size 1 or greater ports unless it had LC points aboard.