Matrix Games Forums

I just finished the Coral Sea scenario on "historic" as the Japanese.

Since it was a short scenario (15 turns), I decided to gamble everything on the throw of the dice: I formed several task forces: 2x carrier; 1x bombard; 2x replenishment; 2x troop.

I swung all task forces south east of Shortland and, using my subs as screens, started the long journey to take Brisbane. I figured if I took Brisbane I would win decisively, and hopefully avoid the American carriers.

Well, the American spotter planes must have seen me, because the Americans threw everything they had at me. It was a wild do-or-die carrier battle. At the end of it I sank both American carriers, while leaving me with two damaged, but still useable, carriers.

The end result was a decisive win, since I took out the only two carriers the Americans had. And this left the way open to take Brisbane.

Suggestions for next patch:

1) activate keyboard "arrow" keys to move around the map. This would be very helpful leaving the player to use the mouse to select bases and task forces.

2) possibily implement some way to show what units have already been given orders on the strategic map. With a lot ships showing, I find I wind up checking the same ship icon twice.

3) editor add-on: add more options to the editor to allow for more tweaking of scenarios and/or the ability to build stand-alone scenarios.

4) add an actual short clip of WWII bombardment footage whenever ships bombard an island base. This would be much more dramatic than the still picture currently being used.

That's about it for now. Great game. . .

I'll post it again here.

Maybe a few bits (probably too complicated - I don't know) of code that auto-zip and unzip savegame files in a PBEM game for you automatically (save me some alt-tab ing etc.).

Possibly even mails said zipped game file to your opponent etc.

I think the most important, non-trivial improvement that could be added to UV would be the ability to intercept enemy task forces. This could be implemented with the ability to follow enemy task forces and let the interceptions happen at the end of day and night moves.

Currently one can intercept one’s own task forces with the “follow” command. If you could use the follow command to intercept the enemy it would work out well. Perhaps the task force commander would make a competency check and if he failed, his movement would end in the hex where the enemy was last sighted.

If we can’t have interception of enemy task forces, I would like to see surface task forces react to enemy task forces in another hex. I have never seen this happen so I assume it doesn’t. Carriers will react, but no other type of task force.

Yamamoto

Originally posted by Yamamoto
[B.....................

If we can’t have interception of enemy task forces, I would like to see surface task forces react to enemy task forces in another hex. I have never seen this happen so I assume it doesn’t. Carriers will react, but no other type of task force.

Yamamoto [/B]

My AP TFs sometimes react to enemy surface TFs by not entering the port if the enemy moves there.

Originally posted by Sonny


My AP TFs sometimes react to enemy surface TFs by not entering the port if the enemy moves there.

OK, I meant “offensively” react. I want to see my surface groups try to intercept other task forces. As it stands now, my surface forces really aren’t that important to me. I’ll use them once in awhile for a bombardment but that’s about it. I don’t even use them for that in PBEM games because the enemy ports are so heavily mined.

I know there was some talk at one time of having non-moving task groups treated like mines for the purposes of interception; mines can intercept task forces in mid-move. I think subs may be able to also, but that’s about it unfortunately.

Yamamoto

I have had surface task forces react to enemy transport TF. This has occurred with a PT boat TF from Vila going after barges in Shortland. I have also seen a surface TF going after an invasion force heading for Gili Gili. I will admit that it doesn't always happen, sometimes I have parked the TF near GG and it does not go after the invasion force. I chalked that up to lack of sigting or whatever.

I have seen a suface TF react to and ememy surface group. The reacting force was at Irau with an agressive commander (Callaghan) and Retirement allowed/react to enemy orders. The IJN raided Lunga, the Irau force showed up in time for the second round of combat. I had previously spotted the IJN forming up off Shortlands.

I've also seen PT TFs react to ememy transport groups, again only if the leader is agressive.

Neither happenes often, but the game does model interceptions. Maybe whetver triggers interceptions should orrur more often?

Bill

Hi, Did you actually capture Brisbane? The allies have plenty of LBA to oppose such a move. Also they have the full 7th Aus div there (It can not be moved in the Coral Sea scenario) It would not be a good idea in PBEM game.

I would also like to see the ability to build stand alone scenarios. I also know this has been covered before, but the ability to "build" warship classes would be nice. Kinda like the way you can just create land units.

Yamamoto,

It's happened to me several times that I see a reaction move succeding in intercepting another TF. Both for me and the AI.
I think the key can be found in the manual, chapter 9.6. In case reaction status is set to React to Enemy surface TFs will react to defend a friendly base. I don't think you will see any interceptions in midocean.

Another interesting thing that happened the last time I saw a reaction was this:

As US I sent 5 DDs to Lunga to attack Transport TFs.
The AI responded with a surface TF of 3 CAs (probably from the Shortlands).
3 out of my 5 DDs opened the fight by firing torpedoes and only torpedoes!!
Unfortunately they all missed and in the end I lost 3 DDs and I think that the only real damage I caused was that I shot a torpedo tube to pieces on one CA.

Regards
BPRE

Well, it’s good to know that surface combat forces can actually react and engage another force, if only at a base. Here’s hoping I see it in my games sometime soon.

Yamamoto

A course and speed indication (doesn't even have to be that accurate) on enemy TF's spotted by air. You could even throw in a random klutz factor which shows the thing headed in a random direction entirely. But you usually knew at least in what general direction he was headed when the Cat phoned in.

The Normal and extend range (in game terms, ie., hexes) for AC in the AC information display brought up by the top row button

A MEANS TO FIRE LESS THAN COMPETENT COMMANDERS AT ALL LEVELS. My wife is getting tired of hearing me scream at TF's and Squadrons and Subs - NO, YOU DUMMY!!!! (previous sentence cleaned up for appearances sake, at least!) Really, guys and girls, if a commander is ruining a decent fighter squadron, sack him!

And a big INT WTF with the PT boats. 500 endurance, run five hexes -(150) spend the night, wind up the next morning with 200 endurance left. What were they doing, water skiing or drag racing submarines? Makes them about as useful as another udder on a boar unless the enemy is next door!

Just a quick point - I would HATE HATE HATE HATE
to see production options for warships or ships of any sort in WITP. Maybe production options for planes if they are included with a huge disadvantage (ie. massive production penalties). You're supposed to be a theatre commander, not the president/ warlord/ despot/ dictator.


I don't want to see Matrix give in to mainstream trash-game mass-manufacturer trend in strategy computer games and start to ship out a million generic RTS strategies that are essentially command and conquer, or Dune2 with better graphics. I counted 9 (!) games on the shelf at my local EBGames that were all the same RTS "Build your own fleet, send them to war, research better technologies and create your own super bases blah blah blah".

If you want production options, go and by a trashy RTS game (I have beta tested several, all without a distinguishing feature). Don't ask to have them implemented in my WITP!!!!


Stay right where you are! . . . I just need a second to reload.

Luskan, you are an Ozzie after my own heart.

I'm with ya too, mister. I like the option to randomize arrival times etc to maintain fog of war for both sides somewhat.

Originally posted by Mogami
Hi, Did you actually capture Brisbane? The allies have plenty of LBA to oppose such a move. Also they have the full 7th Aus div there (It can not be moved in the Coral Sea scenario) It would not be a good idea in PBEM game.

Hi

No I didn't take Brisbane. Once I sank both American carriers the scenario ended automatically giving me a decisive win.

I didn't need to take Brisbane after all. Although, I found that avoiding Gili Gili and Buna saved me from facing ALL the American LBA coming out of Port Morseby.

When I shifted all my task forces to the south-east of Shortland, I also transferred all my LBA there as well. This move by several Japanese task forces put pressure on the Americans to move against me. They may not have known that I was moving full steam ahead with ALL my naval and air forces. When the American carriers ran into me, they faced the full brunt of the Imperial Whirlwind - Banzai!

heh. . .

When I played the Americans in this same scenario, I transferred most of the infantry and aircraft I had to Port Morseby and to other nearby ports.

So the AI doesn't transfer them, eh?

In PBEM games do all players leave their LBA and Australian infantry at Brisbane? Most of the ports along the Australian coast are VERY valuable targets. Any one of them could give the Japanese player a decisive win by threatening them. Perhaps at the very least, it would divide the Allied forces trying to guard everything. . . heh. . .

Also, I found by feigning a move towards Gili Gili and Buna with only light naval forces, and then moving ALL other naval forces south-east of Shortland, it drew out the American carriers and left them NO coverage by LBA. It also divided their naval forces since the AI was still expecting me to hit Gili Gili and/or Buna. . .

When playing the Japanese side, what do all you other players do for strategy in the Coral Sea scenario?

Originally posted by Luskan
If you want production options, go and by a trashy RTS game (I have beta tested several, all without a distinguishing feature). Don't ask to have them implemented in my WITP!!!!

Alright, I'm looking across this deep logical chasm and not seeing how you went from "production options for WiTP" to "Matrix will sell RTS clones."

Production would be cool... if done right. For a long game of WiTP, it would greatly increase the potential to play like normal, especially for the US player.

Major fleet units (CVs especially) wouldn't show up in any larger numbers (basically, everyone that COULD make CVs basically was...), but I can see that lighter units could benefit from some flexibility in construction rates.

For example. if many tranports were sunk in 1942, transport construction would have been accelerated. Same with DDs and SSs.

Historical reinforcement schedules get goofy as you diverge from history. Case in point: HMS Victorious in UV. If there had been one more US CV available to pair with Saratoga, Victorious would not had entered the South Pacific!

Production options (if any) and commitment levels for WiTP must be designed to create the most "realistic" war -- in the sense that it's got to past a common sense test. If all the US CVs in the Pacific get sunk in 1942, well, hell, then USS Ranger should be sent to the Pacific. (Historically, USS Ranger stayed in the Atlantic, supported Operation Torch, and eventually served as a training carrier in the Pacific).

Its got to make sense. Production options or a smarter commitment algorithm could help that. Either way, historical reinforcement rates won't be enough.

The original Pacwar concept was clever. A home base in Japan and USA had repair/construction points. If you need more points than historical, than historical reinforcements will be delayed. If you do well and do not have many repairs more work could be done on reinforcements and they will be accelerated.

Hanno

"Just a quick point - I would HATE HATE HATE HATE to see production options for warships or ships of any sort in WITP. Maybe production options for planes if they are included with a huge advantage (ie. massive production penalties). You're supposed to be a theatre commander, not the president/ warlord/ despot/ dictator."

Ignoring the historical fact that theater commanders had a LOT to say about what was built from the design stage on up to actual operational needs of the individual command - from what I have seen of the games you have so fervently decried - none of these games has the level of operational control over the assets produced that WitP promises. And, production was modified during the days of WWII to react to the attrition of individual types of ships, which leads to the idea that the player of this game, without having to rely on the caprice of an AI ought to be able to respond to the results of the game by altering what is coming on line - at least as far as how many and when. If the IJN had started ravaging convoys to the SOPAC/SWPAC area, don't you think Nimitz would have been screaming for more escorts long before the DE's arrived in the PTO. If the old BB's had not been salvaged, there would have been a need for more gun ships for invasions, which would have also altered the rate of production of CV escorts ships.

What we don't need is an OOB which is Soviet styled and centralized and never reacts to the changing fortunes of war - "Here, Comrade. Go fight the Germans at Kursk, but you will have to do so without tanks. The tanks you wanted were not scheduled to be built yet, and the commissar decided we needed these wonderful trucks. If you can wait three months, the T-34's will begin to come off the production line, and by next April, I can assure you, we will have lots of good tanks for you.

I for one wholeheartily agree with Luskan on this one, production options and the like are considered minor tweaks by some, but I really think even though insignificant looking now could and probablty will alter the type of game it will develop into.

I can just see it now, instead of focusing on how to use and manage your assets available , people will come up with formuleas and ideas on whats the best type of ship to produce ,size guns , etc . The game will develop into who knows the best formula's.

Luskans right , there are soooo many of these types of games out there, and while some of them are great in thier own right, they are not UV.

It all boils down to what type of game you want,,, UV is rather unique it its own right and proved to be a huge success to those that know it. Why fix something thats not broke. WITP will hopefully be a larger version of UV. If it is it will be a success, if it strays from its roots too far it goes into unkown territory again. If you were Matrix and 2b3 what would you do? I certainly know what direction the sensible buiseness would take.

Be careful what you wish for !!