Bug Reports and Enhancement Requests

[scout1]

Joe,

Sent you an email. Got a bug to report (I think is new). Have saves, just need to know where you would like them sent.

Scott

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: scout1

Joe,

Sent you an email. Got a bug to report (I think is new). Have saves, just need to know where you would like them sent.

Scott

Joe gave it to me to look at. It isnt a bug par se. Look at the experience of your pilots (not the "average experience" of the group). The average experience isnt re-calculated until the next day. You used 12 pilots replacements with 5 in the pool at start. In the after turn, 7 of your pilots are between 29 and 33 experience. You didnt get 12 "free" 73 experience pilots. Now should the group average re-calculate after adding each pilot? Some people would say yes, some would say no. I would say it is "probably" working as intended and therefore not a bug. The air resolutions are based on the individual pilots experience, NOT the average experience for the group. So that "average experience" is only to let the player know what the average experience is. It has no bearing on the play of the game in the least.

[herwin]

The problem with the game is that 60 mile hexes and one day turns are incompatible. You have to have combat within hexes and abstract away a lot of the operational detail. Here are the recommendations of someone who has been an analyst:

1. Have within-hex combat.
2. Have percentage hex control. Thus the result of combat is to shift the percentage a bit and attrition each side a bit.
3. Scale the percentage by the land area in the hex. 1% of a 60-mile hex is about 30 square miles. For a land hex, that wouldn't be much (advancing about a kilometer on the average over the front); for an atoll, that's decisive.
4. Allow the players to define the general formation of their LCUs: mobile reserve, hasty defence, positional defence, holding lines to the rear, delay, retreat, mobile defence, assault, hasty attack, movement to contact, administrative movement, etc. These affect protection against fire and effective firepower to the front and to the flanks.
5. Operations then involve both movement and combat.
6. Bases are at the centre of the hex. Supplies are to the rear of the front line.
7. Breakthroughs become important. Rear areas have to be garrisoned, or the defender will be dancing to the attacker's tune. Look at the Gamer's OCS rules for what can happen if you don't garrison everything you hold dear. The other aspect of breakthroughs is that they force the defender to hedgehog--reducing the front that can be covered adequately.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Harder to make: Divide each hex into 7 small hexes - one in centre and six around it - only for land units. Only one side can occupy small hex.

Bases normally in the centre small hex, but in coastal/island hexes bases could be placed on coast small hex instead of centre (those in centre would be considered to be too far from coast to bombard from sea).

Naval and air units would still only use big hexes - for example CAP would be protecting all 7 small hexes in one big hex.

Since there would be more places to defend - new routines for dividing units would be needed.

[jwilkerson]

Interesting - several of us had a detailed discussion about exactly (well reeeeeally close) this idea in Aug-Sep 2005. Subsequently we decided it was too big a change for the current model. But if there is ever a WITP_II this idea is still in the files!

[pad152]

But if there is ever a WITP_II this idea is still in the files!

Tease [;)]

If you don't get started soon, many of us will likly kick the bucket before it's finished!!

[jwilkerson]

Us too! [:D]

[Yamato hugger]

One thing I would like to toss out there (maybe it already HAS been, I didnt read the first 25 pages of this thread) but it would be nice if the leader display (when changing leaders) displayed their stats as well so you dont have to click on a leader, look at his stats, then click the next, ect. Thats annoying.

[Snowman999]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Interesting - several of us had a detailed discussion about exactly (well reeeeeally close) this idea in Aug-Sep 2005. Subsequently we decided it was too big a change for the current model. But if there is ever a WITP_II this idea is still in the files!

Realizing you guys are working the Civil War and Eastern Front games I'd still like to propose a blip in the business model for WITP:

Stop doing patches now. We've gotten full value for our purchase price. Instead, start development on an add-on pack (maybe $30ish) to add a tactical combat module on the side of the game, not in the mainline code. What I'm envisioning:

1. Something very like Steel Panthers. Take each 60-mile hex and drill down to a standardized hex field that's a compromize in scale between large-urban and atoll. Scroll screen or single-screen at your option. For islands, provide at least three hexes of border to stage invasion waves.
2. Provide a terrain tile set that accomodates needed terrain, plus movement rules.
3. Design 25-50 (whatever works for cost/retail price ratio) "detail" hex maps of popular combat hexes--Saipan, Singapore, Adak, whatever. Provide a simple user-design kit for us out here to finish the library. I know that in the forum's denizens there's someone who is the world's greatest expert on Canton Island as well as all other bases in the game. Google Earth could probably help as well. Let the fans finish the library after you lock in top-line parameters. You lock in a naming system, a call-library, and the entry variable/exit variable structure.
4. Use existing game variables--unit names, sizes, morale, disruption, supply--as input into the module. Take exit variables as well as retreat hex x,y locations back to the master map after the hex ownership is resolved.
5. When combat begins in a hex where a detail map is in the library offer the player the option to use the module or resolve under the current model.
6. For fortification, use an earned fortification-point account in combo with fort structures (pillboxes, trenches, tunnels, etc.) to let the player buy fortifications. Drag&drop tiles to show fort. structures. Scale levels non-linearly (Fort. level 1 to 2 gives more points in the drawing account than 8 to 9 does.) Let the player defend supply dumps, beaches, etc. as he sees fit with the fort. points he's earned under the curent model rules.
7. To do this you'd need a master library of maps, and then copy a new one into active use and let it be deformed during play. Fort. levels, rubble, fire in cities, etc. if you want to get fancy. But let me inherit the result of combat and choose what to do with it.
8. Unless split, confine an LCU in one hex only. Make me choose choke points. Allow flanking, feints, etc.
9. This sytem lets attackers mass for a breakthrough at the risk of CAS and arty tearing up the beachhead or penetrating force. But it also makes the fortification system less of a back-breaker for attackers. Play with the cost of fort. points however you like, but make it possible to break through if the player is smart tactically.
10. Devise new surrender/retreat rules to fit detailed terrain. Let me leave my amphibs beached for retreat at risk of having them attacked by defender.

The pros of this model are:

1. Revenue for additional work and capability. The add-on would be optional for current fans but I think most would buy it.
2. Let the fans do some of the work. For many this would be a key appeal of the add-on. I can see competitions for most-accurate maps, largest independent library, etc. Fixed hex-plot size and tile set would make integrating fan-produced maps easy as well as allow players to mix&match amongst designers.
3. It doesn't make you integrate new capability into spagetti code. Hand existing LCU variable quantaties into the module, and take combat results for same variables back out and update the DB with them.
4. Allows use of a licensed existing tactical engine (with modifications) rather than development of an all-new one.
5. Overcomes the unrealistic effect of fortifications. Right now a level 5 fort applies to every square inch of Saipan (for example.) Well, I've been to Saipan and that just isn't possible. Let my engineers earn fortification points, and I'll put them where they'll do the most good. Conversely, on offense, make me schedule my landing waves properly and make me defend a beachhead from concentrated, terrain-specific counter-attack.

I'm sure there are lots of holes in this idea (recon for starters) as well as points I haven't considered. Any comments?

Steve

P.S. I'd pay $250-$300 for a WITP2 that offered an open, player-scriptable AI as well as some other, mostly graphic and reduced-clicking, features. Just in case you're doing market research.

[marky]

wen u go to the intel list, the ship sunk screen tells u how many of each type uve sunk, IE APs, AKs, TKs

and u should be able to tell subs and pilots wat to concentrate on wen they attack

carriers, battleships, APs etc

[Historiker]

Allow Patrol Planes to run bombing missions and fighters to fly recoon missions, as both were used for that, too...

[spence]

Put the surface search radar that existed on many aircraft on those aircraft, allow an air search by those aircraft at night and allow those aircraft to make attacks on ships without benefit of a submarine sighting (which was something that wasn't necessary and furthermore almost never preceded a nighttime air attack on shipping).

[Nemo121]

There's a problem with floatplanes not being able to fly troops in or out of a base with extensive airfield damage ( 100 or so ). In my game vs Jagdfluger I am trying to fly cadres out of Palembang but because the airfield is 100% damaged I cannot do so. We're solving it with a house rule but this is obviously a bug. Saves available.

[marky]

i think u should be able to decide where search planes actually search

like a north south east west northeast kinda thing

and have them more concentrated wen u do and more effective and such

[Sayar]

add "get rooky pilot" button into squardon screen and "only rooky pilot replacemets" into both aquardon and aquardon list screen - in order japanese player not have to use valuable experienced carrier trained fighter pilots as replacement for patrol and FP sqaurdons.

[Historiker]

ORIGINAL: Sayar

add "get rooky pilot" button into squardon screen and "only rooky pilot replacemets" into both aquardon and aquardon list screen - in order japanese player not have to use valuable experienced carrier trained fighter pilots as replacement for patrol and FP sqaurdons.

Yeah! I want that, too!

[Halsey]

Hardcoded enhancement for 4E bombers.

As the manual states, 4E basing requirements for attack missions.
I'd like to see it work the way they have it stated in the manual.[;)]

B-17 level 5+ airfield
B-24 level 6+ airfield
B-29 level 7+ airfield

[Nomad]

Even though I agree with your thoughts Halsey, the manual really says:

Airfield size has many effects. It is easier to damage and destroy aircraft on the ground at smaller
airfields (less dispersion). It is also more likely that planes will suffer operational losses when
landing at smaller airfields.

Level bombers require an airfield equal to size 4 + ( bomb load / 6500 ) rounded down. So a B29
requires a size 7 airfield to avoid the penalties.

So the manual really says that they will have increased ops losses ( I don't think thereis enough of
an increase in losses ), not that they can't fly. I think that a B-17 flying from a level 2 airfield should
have about a 70-80% chance of being an ops loss, with about a 60-70% chance of aircrew death. Maybe
that would slow things down a bit.

[Halsey]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Even though I agree with your thoughts Halsey, the manual really says:

Airfield size has many effects. It is easier to damage and destroy aircraft on the ground at smaller
airfields (less dispersion). It is also more likely that planes will suffer operational losses when
landing at smaller airfields.

Level bombers require an airfield equal to size 4 + ( bomb load / 6500 ) rounded down. So a B29
requires a size 7 airfield to avoid the penalties.

So the manual really says that they will have increased ops losses ( I don't think thereis enough of
an increase in losses ), not that they can't fly. I think that a B-17 flying from a level 2 airfield should
have about a 70-80% chance of being an ops loss, with about a 60-70% chance of aircrew death. Maybe
that would slow things down a bit.

I know.
The whole point of this though is this.

If you can base 4E bombers from -4 airfields, then why bother using 2E bombers.[;)]

While I mostly play the Allies, my response is this.
Being able to fly attack missions from -4 airfields really messes up the play balance of the game.

Again, who's going to use 2E bombers, when they have 4E bombers.

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]