Too Funny

[dpstafford]

Not really.

When you create a sub patrol TF, it defaults to retirement rather than remain-on-station.

When you create a sub mine laying TF, it defaults to Do Not Lay Mines.

Both completely the opposite of what it should be.

If you guys are really interested in making a dent in the excessive mouse clicks, here is an easy one to start with.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: dpstafford

Not really.

When you create a sub patrol TF, it defaults to retirement rather than remain-on-station.

When you create a sub mine laying TF, it defaults to Do Not Lay Mines.

Both completely the opposite of what it should be.

If you guys are really interested in making a dent in the excessive mouse clicks, here is an easy one to start with.

I disagree.

[Mynok]

I'm with Don. The settings should be consistent for all task forces, and that means Retirement Allowed is the default, as is Do Not Lay Mines...for all TFs. Especially with Mine TFs, I don't want to forget and have them dump their load where I created them before I set their destination.

[dpstafford]

At least now I know how AE got so screwed up.

This particular item, manual sub operations, worked just fine in WITP. Without these buttons.

Rule 1: if something isn't broken, don't "fix" it.

Rule 2: see rule #1

[TalonCG2]

ORIGINAL: dpstafford

At least now I know how AE got so screwed up.
This particular item, manual sub operations, worked just fine in WITP. Without these buttons.
Rule 1: if something isn't broken, don't "fix" it.
Rule 2: see rule #1

Keeping all TFs and default settings consistent is less confusing and necessary. It makes perfect sense to have them set the way they currently are.

I think you're a bit confused. AE is damn near perfect. Only a few minor tweaks and it will be wargaming nirvana. To that I say, AE ain't broke! Don't try to fix it!

The game by it's very nature is a click fest. The game difficulty is listed as gronard, anorak, war historian for a reason! If you're looking for less work, more action, go play PacStorm or something on the Xbox. [8|] [:'(]

[aprezto]

It is certainly a click fest though. I am so daunted by this that I am crawling my way through the grand campaign turn 1.
 
click, click, click, click.
 
Unfortunately I can't really see how you get around this though. We want to control everything but want the game to somehow 'know' what we want. A necessary evil maybe, but it sure makes the first turn hell.

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: dpstafford

At least now I know how AE got so screwed up.

This particular item, manual sub operations, worked just fine in WITP. Without these buttons.

Rule 1: if something isn't broken, don't "fix" it.

Rule 2: see rule #1

It works the same way it worked in Witp. Both buttons were there and performed exactly the same way.

[dpstafford]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

It works the same way it worked in Witp. Both buttons were there and performed exactly the same way.

Well, that would explain a lot. Apparently you never played WITP. Those buttons are NOT on Sub TF's in WITP.

[dpstafford]

ORIGINAL: TalonCG2
The game by it's very nature is a click fest. The game difficulty is listed as gronard, anorak, war historian for a reason! If you're looking for less work, more action, go play PacStorm or something on the Xbox. [8|] [:'(]

I have been playing "gronard" games since you were in diapers. When you have a thousand turns or so under belt in PacWar/UV/WITP/AE then you can talk to me about your Xbox.

[jimh009]

There's no doubt that AE requires lots of clicking. But, this is a huge game in incredible detail. No real way around much of the clicking. Only thing that bothers me...and takes up a lot of my time and "clicks"...is all the stuff going on in the off-map areas and having to constantly check for aircraft withdraws. It would have been helpful if all the reinforcements that arrive "off map" arrived "on-map" instead and if air units that are withdrawn soon after the game begins and are "locked down" never appeared in the game to begin with (locked down air units on the east coast...scheduled to be withdrawn in January '42 and have one aircraft each...what's the point of these units at all?). At times, you can have too much detail and have it accomplish little but bog the game down.

But other than that, no real complaints from me about AE.

[dpstafford]

ORIGINAL: aprezto
Unfortunately I can't really see how you get around this though. We want to control everything but want the game to somehow 'know' what we want. A necessary evil maybe, but it sure makes the first turn hell.

Play WITP and you'll see how the original designers got around it. At least some of it.

I'm not denying that AE fixed and improved a lot of thngs from WITP. But they went over board shoving every beta tester's pet project into the game.

Stafford's theorem: There are players and there are modders. Are rarely the two shall meet in the same head. This monster had too many modders and not enough players working on it. But then, I guess it would be the modders who were most willing to work it. The players were too busy playing. So I guess we players have no one to blame but ourselves.....

[jimh009]

ORIGINAL: dpstafford

Not really.

When you create a sub patrol TF, it defaults to retirement rather than remain-on-station.

When you create a sub mine laying TF, it defaults to Do Not Lay Mines.

Both completely the opposite of what it should be.

If you guys are really interested in making a dent in the excessive mouse clicks, here is an easy one to start with.

In WiTP, mine laying TF's defaulted to "Do Not Lay Mines." Fire up WiTP and check.

Subs in WiTP also defaulted to retirement allowed, although, like you...I found that annoying. But as another poster said, it's probably a good thing that all task forces are "standardized", even if it means a few more clicks here and there. Besides, with subs in AE, you can just set them once and forget about them for months and months on end now...unlike WiTP, where sub management took up tons of time.

And I have 1000's of hours in WiTP and UV, too.

[dpstafford]

I actually don't mind the off map stuff. But the plethora of withdraws on land, sea and air, as you said, are a real drawback to playability. The "war" in the Pacific has been completely lost.

They will claim that the constant withdraws are "realistic". But they are not. They happened when they did because of the historic situation at the time of the withdrawal. But the "history" is changed as soon as the first turn is played. Someone in charge of the OOB just went a little nuts.

[dpstafford]

ORIGINAL: jimh009
In WiTP, mine laying TF's defaulted to "Do Not Lay Mines." Fire up WiTP and check.

Subs in WiTP also defaulted to retirement allowed, although, like you...I found that annoying. But as another poster said, it's probably a good thing that all task forces are "standardized", even if it means a few more clicks here and there. Besides, with subs in AE, you can just set them once and forget about them for months and months on end now...unlike WiTP, where sub management took up tons of time.

Yes, minelaying SURFACE TF's have that default. Sub minelaying TF's don't even have that switch. And they didn't need it.

And sub patrols are NOT defaulted to retirement in WITP. (Or did you mean AE?)

[jimh009]

I agree, at least to a certain extent, about all the withdraws. As you said, the withdraws happened for a reason during the war...reasons unlikely to be duplicated in a persons game. On the other hand, some withdraws (British ships in particular) and perhaps some ships from the US (to support Atlantic operations) do make sense. Certain land unit withdraws also make sense (the Marine Raiders...which were disbanded entirely as the war progressed). But I do think things went a bit overboard in the unit withdraw department...especially the air groups that are withdrawn and then "come back" a few months later with a different name.

[jimh009]

Ah...lol, I never use sub minelaying TF's in WiTP. There were enough mines floating around in WiTP, so never found a use for sub minelayers!

[erstad]

I'm not endorsing all of dpstafford's comments. However, he is right that sub TFs in WiTP did not have the retirement allowed option. See screenie below - sub tfs are set to patrol/do not retire, and it's greyed out meaning you can't change it.

I would personally favor setting sub tfs to remain on station, that is what you want 99.9% of the time. But that's an opinion. It is a fact that it is different than Witp (unless I'm confused on some way?)

[dpstafford]

ORIGINAL: jimh009
At times, you can have too much detail and have it accomplish little but bog the game down.

That's all I am saying. And trying to point out some of those areas. From the perspective of a player. Not a modder.

[dpstafford]

ORIGINAL: erstad
I would personally favor setting sub tfs to remain on station, that is what you want 99.9% of the time. But that's an opinion. It is a fact that it is different than Witp (unless I'm confused on some way?)

Right on all counts. Maybe 99.99%

[dpstafford]

ORIGINAL: jimh009
Ah...lol, I never use sub minelaying TF's in WiTP. There were enough mines floating around in WiTP, so never found a use for sub minelayers!

I only used them for minelaying because the torpedo dud rate is so high in the early war. And because they can lay mines in the enemy rear areas.