Bug Reports and Enhancement Requests

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Interface items

Post by Terminus »

ORIGINAL: Dixie

2) The ability to rotate CV air units

Gee, wonder where that comes from...?[;)][:D]
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
wdolson
Posts: 7672
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Wish List

Post by wdolson »

There are a number of things about how ships behave.  Some should be easiest to implement.

1) Crippled ships movement - This should be the easiest fix.  Ships with 0 movement points still make 2 hexes a day.  That's around 5 knots.  I know this is done to simplify having tows and ocean going tugs, but could this be halved to one hex a day? 

2) Ships out of fuel combat - Carriers out of fuel don't fly offensive missions, but they do fly CAP, they shouldn't be able to do this either.  Additionally, surface ships that are out of fuel fight normally.  They should have a heavy penalty if forced to fight in this state.

3) Crippled ships intercepted - Several times I have seen a task force with a crippled ship intercepted by a surface force and the next turn it is one hex away and combat shows a few shots fired by the intercepting surface force before the crippled task force runs away.  If there is a large speed difference, like 30 knots, or even 25,  vs. 0-5, the intercepting force should be able to dictate the terms of the combat.  The crippled ship should not get away.  This is exactly the major reason crippled ships were scuttled rather than attempts made to limp them back to port.  If enemy surface forces were in the area, all the escorts were at risk as well as the crippled ship. 

I know #2 and #3 should be tougher to change than #1.  And #2 is a case that shouldn't happen very often, so it would be a low priority.  However #1 should be an easy fix, and if #1 and #3 were implemented, it would reduce the gamey tactic of saving severely damaged ships that would have been scuttled in the real world.

Bill
SCW Development Team
User avatar
Charbroiled
Posts: 1181
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:50 pm
Location: Oregon

RE: Wish List

Post by Charbroiled »

The ability to sort HQs (ie, show all Army HQs.....show all Air HQs.....etc.)
"When I said I would run, I meant 'away' ". - Orange
User avatar
Dixie
Posts: 10303
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:14 pm
Location: UK

RE: Wish List

Post by Dixie »

The ability for carrier capable units to become carrier trained through time.
British units to be able to upgrade before May 1942
A manual that is actually fully correct [:'(]
[center]Image

Bigger boys stole my sig
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Wish List

Post by Terminus »

A correct manual? Are you quite mad, Master Shipbuilder?
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
Halsey
Posts: 4688
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 10:44 pm

RE: WitP Wish List

Post by Halsey »

I'd like to see the shock attack option removed from the ground combat options.

Except for atoll invasions, para drops and river crossings.
These are the only combats for shock attacks, and they should be mandatory.
Bonzai attacks should be mandatory also, though I've never seen one.[;)]

The scale of the regular land combat shouldn't support this option.
erstad
Posts: 1944
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 11:40 pm
Location: Midwest USA

RE: WitP Wish List

Post by erstad »

There's probably something like this earlier, but without a search capability...

Have the number of victory points for an aircraft loss be equal to the number of engines. Although not perfect, it would represent the fact that a 4E bomber is more expensive than a 2E bomber is more expensive than a 1E fighter.
jimbatcs
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 5:18 pm

RE: WitP Wish List

Post by jimbatcs »

I've been playing the game now for a few years off and on and thoroughly enjoy it. This is my first post so excuse me if the subject has already been brought up. I was wondering if there has ever been any thought to allowing players to skeletonize units or combining the assets to bring some units up to strength. Thanks.
erstad
Posts: 1944
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 11:40 pm
Location: Midwest USA

RE: WitP Wish List

Post by erstad »

Here's one that would be easy for a patch.

Stop displaying the air balance. Either take it out, or if it's less work, make it always display as 0.
fleetwood
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:39 pm

Combat Screen, Task Force Creation

Post by fleetwood »

Make Combat Results window large engnough to see results without scrolling.
 
Add "Form Task Force" button is some additional windows (such as ground forces window).  I always seem to have to back out of a window to form a task force.
SireChaos
Posts: 710
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:11 pm
Location: Frankfurt, Germany

RE: Combat Screen, Task Force Creation

Post by SireChaos »

ORIGINAL: fleetwood

Make Combat Results window large engnough to see results without scrolling.

Add "Form Task Force" button is some additional windows (such as ground forces window).  I always seem to have to back out of a window to form a task force.

In particular, add it to the "ships in port" window.
Oldguard1970
Posts: 578
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:49 pm
Location: Hiawassee, GA

RE: Combat Screen, Task Force Creation

Post by Oldguard1970 »

1.  When Loading a transport TF, I would like to see the LCU listing include the objective being prepped. 
 
2.  On the "display LCU screen", I would like to see the objective listed as well.  (Hmmm... which units are preparing for ...?)
 
 
"Rangers Lead the Way!"
JoePirulo
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 7:44 pm

RE: Combat Screen, Task Force Creation

Post by JoePirulo »

I would like that USN/Australian CL don´t respawn as stated in the manual. Or correct the manual (but I think this is very difficult to do ...) [:)]
Max
User avatar
Dixie
Posts: 10303
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:14 pm
Location: UK

RE: Combat Screen, Task Force Creation

Post by Dixie »

ORIGINAL: JoePirulo

I would like that USN/Australian CL don´t respawn as stated in the manual. Or correct the manual (but I think this is very difficult to do ...) [:)]

I've been wondering about this recently. I can understand the logic for the US cruiser respawn, but why do the RAN respawn. The Aussies lost 3 cruisers(Canberra, Hobart & Sydney) during the war, and only received Shropshire as a replacement for Canberra, and she's already in the reinforcement list.
[center]Image

Bigger boys stole my sig
User avatar
MineSweeper
Posts: 653
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:03 pm
Location: Nags Head, NC

RE: Combat Screen, Task Force Creation

Post by MineSweeper »

I do not understand the logic of USN CV, CA and CL respawns....IMO, the US should only get the respawns that were built and no more....pet peave of mine is this issue and I like RHS for this reason.[:)]

The US only lost 4 CVs in the war and these should be the only ones that should respawn (limit of 4)....no more......the US was under a maxium ship building program and they could not build anymore CVs than what was produce - that is why they built CVLs (not enough large shipways to build the CVs......CAs and CLs respawns should be more limited as well......[;)]
Image


User avatar
Feinder
Posts: 7177
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:33 pm
Location: Land o' Lakes, FL

RE: Combat Screen, Task Force Creation

Post by Feinder »

Actually, the US -did- build a "Canberra II", a Baltimore class. It was CA-70.

And are you sure HMAS Hobart went down? According to Wiki, she was present at the surrender in Tokyo Bay...?

That being said, I -hate- respawn. I'd rather there be no respawn, and just get the ships as reinforcements (and I think there are a few mods for this, you just have to keep any "respawns" tied up at San Francisco".

-F-
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

Image
User avatar
Charbroiled
Posts: 1181
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:50 pm
Location: Oregon

RE: Combat Screen, Task Force Creation

Post by Charbroiled »

I'm not sure if this can be implemented in the game is it is currently programed, so figured it would be better on the "Wish List"

When creating TF, I would like to have the "ship type" sorting buttons that are available when viewing the port screen.

Also, would like to see stats for individual ships that are pertinent to the type of TF being created. Example: If creating an ASW TF, show the Anti-sub value for the ships.....when creating a SF TF, show the gun value, AA value, and ASW vaue of the ships available. I know you can "right click" on a specific ship to get most of this info, but it would be nice to see all of the ships at once in order to compare.
"When I said I would run, I meant 'away' ". - Orange
erstad
Posts: 1944
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 11:40 pm
Location: Midwest USA

RE: Combat Screen, Task Force Creation

Post by erstad »

On the subject of task force creation, how about a "ships available for upgrade" filter? Very annoying to look at Truk, see a dozen ships that need upgrade, try to remember the names, form a TF to head home, recheck Truk, oops, missed some, etc.
TAIL GUNNER
Posts: 1156
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:10 am
Location: Los Osos, CA

Transport aircraft in China

Post by TAIL GUNNER »

Maybe this has been brought up before...but I'm not about to read this entire thread to find out.[:o]
 
As Japs, I transferred some transport aircraft to China Command.  However, they're unable to transfer troops from one Japanese occupied base in China to another......only supplies.
"If you want peace, prepare for war."
User avatar
Jo van der Pluym
Posts: 985
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands

RE: device slots

Post by Jo van der Pluym »

That the devices slots above 555 can have production and working pools
Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

It's better to be a Fool on this Crazy World
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”