Bug Reports and Enhancement Requests

[jwilkerson]

You've never seen the "slingshot" effect where a unit gets flung 15-30 miles down a trail in one fling!?
[:D]

I was sure you'd posted 1-2 of those examples .. but it is quite possible - just run a guy from Mandalay to Ledo and he will probably "blast off" when he reaches Mytchina and get a big jump. But from a standing (on the trail) start, yeah you're right it is a slow process. Sometimes I rest em(if going multiple hexes) and sometimes I fly them some supplies. Not sure if I get there fast - but makes me feel like I'm doing sumptin.

[dtravel]

Yes, I've seen that.&nbsp; We've all seen that.&nbsp; That's not what I'm muttering about.&nbsp; I'm muttering darkly about the "movement rates" listed in the manual on p.148 under "8.3 Ground Unit Overland Movement".&nbsp; There is no way that anything actually moves 10 miles a day across clear terrain with no roads or rail.&nbsp; &nbsp; <-- muttering old geezer mode

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Yes, I've seen that.  We've all seen that.  That's not what I'm muttering about.  I'm muttering darkly about the "movement rates" listed in the manual on p.148 under "8.3 Ground Unit Overland Movement".  There is no way that anything actually moves 10 miles a day across clear terrain with no roads or rail.    <-- muttering old geezer mode

Of course not, instead the unit moves 180 miles to the rear then to the left then forward again through the jungle trails to AVOID moving 60 miles through the clear terrain. We've all seen that one too!! [:D]

But we were talking about pursuit here, so I'm waiting on Moses&Halsey to come back on that!

[moses]

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Yes, I've seen that.  We've all seen that.  That's not what I'm muttering about.  I'm muttering darkly about the "movement rates" listed in the manual on p.148 under "8.3 Ground Unit Overland Movement".  There is no way that anything actually moves 10 miles a day across clear terrain with no roads or rail.    <-- muttering old geezer mode

Their was a change to movement in one of the patches. As per manual the printed rates are modified by fatigue, etc. But a patch at some point added that moving into enemy ZOC also slows you down. It seems to cut movement in half.

So if your moving on a trail into an enemy ZOC, (and very shortly you'll be tired) you're really screwed. 2 miles per day is about all you'll manage on a good day.

[moses]

"But we were talking about pursuit here, so I'm waiting on Moses&Halsey to come back on that! "

Well really I don't see pursuit as being that big of a deal. The only time it really matters is for the armor units which on a few rare occasions get to go on a blitz. Perhaps that should be toned down so maybe they only get a max 45 mile credit as opposed to jumping directly into the next hex.

As for infantry units don't they just get credited with like 15 miles? So its a small help but nothing catostrophic either way. It just seems odd to me that we have a rule (movement into ZOC's is slowed) and another rule (pursuit) which go in opposite directions. I mean do we want to slow em down or speed em up??

I would argue for slowing things up a tinsey bit. So my choice would be to eliminate the pursuit thing entirely EXCEPT for armor units which should be credited with a max of 45 miles. Failing that I would want the infantry pursuit to be unchanged and max the armor out at 45.

I think you want to keep some pursuit for armor because, you know, it's armor. If any unit has a real life rational for being allowed to pursue its armor and I guess cav. Infantry doesn't pursue that well. After we take the hill we're tired.[>:]

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: moses

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Yes, I've seen that.  We've all seen that.  That's not what I'm muttering about.  I'm muttering darkly about the "movement rates" listed in the manual on p.148 under "8.3 Ground Unit Overland Movement".  There is no way that anything actually moves 10 miles a day across clear terrain with no roads or rail.    <-- muttering old geezer mode

Their was a change to movement in one of the patches. As per manual the printed rates are modified by fatigue, etc. But a patch at some point added that moving into enemy ZOC also slows you down. It seems to cut movement in half.

So if your moving on a trail into an enemy ZOC, (and very shortly you'll be tired) you're really screwed. 2 miles per day is about all you'll manage on a good day.

I know about the half-movement going in to enemy ZOC. It doesn't always get applied and that's not what I'm talking about. 2 miles a day to start on a trail from friendly ZOC to friendly ZOC. It drops from there as fatigue accumulates.

[Feinder]

For $242,000, War in the Pacific can have its own will.
&nbsp;
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1485471&mpage=3
&nbsp;
-F-

[qgaliana]

Instead of removing pursuit, why not force the defending unit back&nbsp;a reasonable run-for-your-life distance for the terrain? The 60 mile 'teleport' is a pet peeve of mine. It just works poorly at this scale. If they avoided clearing the accumulated movement for all sorts of reasons you could keep the units fighting in the same hex as they flee/pursue.

[Halsey]

Can you get an air unit that transfers to use up it's AM air operations phase?

Making them available only for the PM segment?[;)]

[goodboyladdie]

UberFaber attempt - please ignore!

[witpqs]

Add new option to CS Convoy orders

A big "Click Count Reducer" would be a modification of the CS Convoy orders. A 'CS' convoys is where you form a transport TF, set a destination, then click on the 'Human Controlled' toggle, and it switches to 'CS Convoy' (or 'CS Controlled' or something). The TF will then robotically:

1 load supplies on AK's and fuel on TK's
2 take them to the destination
3 unload them
4 return to the home port
5 start over at #1

These types of convoys are great helpers in reducing the repetitive work load on the player (hence 'click count reducer'). The problem is that they cannot move oil or resources. And players must move a lot of oil and resources.

Please add an option so that a CS convoy can be told to either load "Supplies/Fuel" or "Oil/Resources".

For clarification please note that I am not referring to the auto convoy system.

[witpqs]

Combine Fighters and Fighter-Bombers into One Category for PDU

We have PDU to allow greater player choice in a/c upgrades. But, fighters and fighter-bombers are in separated categories. Given how similar they are, and moreover the fact that with PDU tactical and 4-engine bombers are actually in the same category, I suggest the following change.

Fighters and fighter-bombers should be considered one category for upgrade purposes. I propose no change for operational/combat matters. Furthermore, this change would have no effect on games where PDU is off.

This is a definite hole in the PDU routines at present. Hopefully it would be easy to plug. Please consider.

[Historiker]

I REALLY wish the option "ahistoric game".
With the option to upgrade manually, it is already possible to play an ahistorc game - so why not more possibilitys?

If I ought achieve a rate of 2000 naval yardpoints, it would just allow me to speed up the production of the ships in the list - nothing more. Why not give players the possibility to use high rates of production to deploy extra units? Why not give the Player the possibility to start the building of ships that were not built really?
Of course, this possibility must be extra activated, but I would really love to have the possibility to decide by myself whether I want more BBs or more CVs, whether I want to convert BBs and CAs to CVs which were not converted really, etc...
The same of course with planes...

[Halsey]

ORIGINAL: Historiker

I REALLY wish the option "ahistoric game".
With the option to upgrade manually, it is already possible to play an ahistorc game - so why not more possibilitys?

If I ought achieve a rate of 2000 naval yardpoints, it would just allow me to speed up the production of the ships in the list - nothing more. Why not give players the possibility to use high rates of production to deploy extra units? Why not give the Player the possibility to start the building of ships that were not built really?
Of course, this possibility must be extra activated, but I would really love to have the possibility to decide by myself whether I want more BBs or more CVs, whether I want to convert BBs and CAs to CVs which were not converted really, etc...
The same of course with planes...

Try the RHS mod.[;)]

[Historiker]

Does this mod allow the building of totally new ships and air units?
Where can I get some informations?

[Halsey]

Look on the Scenario Design forum of WITP.
It's everywhere.

The mod designer has taken over that forum.[8|]

[afspret]

Any way to add a feature similar to the British ship withdrawl requirement that would require the allied player to withdraw certain air units (namely RAF & US) from the game, or lose PPs? It makes no sense to have some of the West Coast command bomber & fighter groups stay in the game that in real life moved to the east coast and then to the MTO or ETO by late '42 and early '43.

In addition, it would free up the number of air unit slots meaning one could divide more US groups later in the game (or add more air units if one were making a mod game).

[Feinder]

In addition, it would free up the number of air unit slots meaning one could divide more US groups later in the game (or add more air units if one were making a mod game).

&nbsp;
Just FYI, no it wouldn't.&nbsp; Each squadron or group takes up a slot in the DB, whether it is active on the map or not.&nbsp; Units that -will- arrive as reinforcements are taking up slots, just as units that are withdrawn continue to take up a slot.&nbsp; Withdrawing ships or aircraft does not "erase" them.&nbsp; And if it -did- "erase" them, it wouldn't really have an impact, since again, all squadrons/groups start the game already slotted, so you even if you "erased" something, it would not be re-used.
&nbsp;
-F-

[scout1]

How about allowing the player to disband a tf at a base and NOT kick them out of the tf/base window. If I have 13 tf's that I wish to disband, I have always get sent back out of the window/base after the diband. Then repeat for each occurrence.

[erstad]

Many of us like multi-day turns because we want to finish a game before we get old and gray (apologies to those who are already old and gray).

The big problem with multi-day turns is that sometimes a travesty occurs. Something happens the first (or second) day that clearly calls for a human intervention, but the second (or third) day runs and bad things happen. The most extreme case is TFs that sit around after being on the losing side of a CV exchange so they can get pounded again, instead of running. But there are other examples.

So... I would propose something like the following
- Increase the maximum number of days per turn, maybe to 10 (so that things can really fly when not much is happening)
- Add a user defined control for each player that allows them to select the number of days they want a turn to run (IJN setting hidden from the Allied setting). Run the turn for the minimum of the two values. that allows a player to set it to single day when they know something is launching.
- Add some user defined controls that define events which cause the game to pause at the end of the current day. For example, "CV hit", or "Transport TF spotted within xxx hexes of friendly base", or "more than xxx planes destroyed", etc. For those who have played Europa Universalis, think about the autopause controls there (not that I'm suggesting anything that elaborate)

Also, probably allow the IJN player to change his user defined control before running a turn. This would allow two players to agree that a turn should be re-run as a single day if something "bad" happened on the second day. Since the random number is not reseeded, that first day should be the same as it was before. There are several cases where I would have let my opponents request that a second day not happen because the results were unfair (from a game mechanics standpoint), and once I would have requested that of my opponent. This idea does create potential for abuse, the IJN player could plan something explosive for day 2 and if he doesn't like it, re-run for just 1 day. This could be avoided by having something alert the Allied player that the IJN player had dropped the number of turns for execution below what it was when he ended the turn.