Things 2by3 Nees To Fix......

[Mike Scholl]

...TO MAKE THIS A GREAT GAME. We all know that UV was
pretty darned good..., and that the Testing results on WITP
are looking good as well. But I think most of us who have look
long and hard at these games have one or two things in mind
that are 'still broken" (or at least warped). Things we really feel
HAVE to be corrected for this game to live up to it's potential.

I'm going to start with a few of really annoying ones to me.
Feel free to add in any others you have in mind. Joel.., are you
listening?

GROUND ATTACKS BY AIRCRAFT. The results, especially against
manpower, are WAY TOO GOOD. 2by3 tried to fix this in one of
the UV patches, but aircraft still kill far too many troops. Large,
immobile objects like runways, hangers, docks, warehouses, and
even ships at anchor, are one thing. But men and trucks and
guns are small enough to conceal and dig in---and the program
just doesn't reflect the extream difficulty of finding them, let alone
destroying them.

LOW LEVEL AIRCRAFT ATTACKS. Yes, I KNOW that "skip bombing"
and "para-frag" attacks were made in the South Pacific. But they
were done by a FEW specialized B-25 and A-20 squadrons who
were trained for it, and had the specialized equipment for it. Skip
bombing requires delayed-action fusing, or the bomb (which is
traveling at the same forward airspeed as the bomber) goes off
under the plane with a good chance of destroying it as well. For
land targets (where a delayed action fuse would allow the bomb
to plunge into the dirt before exploding) used special parachute-
retarded fragmentation bombs---primarily to chew up enemy
aircraft on the ground. Fighter-bombers attacked at fairly low
levels so they could try to see and hit individual bunkers, and
Torpedo bombers had to go in low and slow to keep the weapons
from breaking up on impact. Basically, all these are "mission-
determined" decisions for a specific target and type of attack
aircraft. The UV/WITP system lets players determine attack
altitude for ALL missions, and leads to ALL sorts of foolishness.
The US didn't fly their 4-engined bombers at low levels for very
good reasons. The expensive bomb sights didn't work that low,
and (especially in the Pacific) they lost a key advantage over the
defending fighters. A B-17 got it's best performance at altitudes
where Japanese fighters were hampered in theirs. A Zero was
a LOT more dangerous to a B-24 below 10,000 feet than it was
at 18-20,000 because it's performance was much better. Not
until the second half of the war do the Japanese produce real "interceptors" with high climb rate and altitude capibility.
The game would be better served if Matrix took the altitude
determination OUT OF PLAYER HANDS, and gave it to those
mythical base commanders who foul up your naval strikes. Let
them do something helpful for a change..., like removing all the
unrealistic aircraft usages from play.

SOME MEANS OF CONTROLING THE BASE COMMANDERS CHOICES.
Give the players the possibility of issuing at least a direction of
attack that doesn't cover 180 degrees, and maybe a limit on the
range, so your longer ranged planes don't by-pass the key target
just to beat up some sampans 300 miles farther out. Give the
players SOME MEANS of at least indicating to these idiots what
the "High Command" considers to be the "Important Target".
Make picking "naval strike" less of a "crapshoot".

You may not agree with the above..., or you may think other
problems are more important. Fine..., tell me where I'm wrong,
or add your choices to the thread. But with work progressing as
it is, we owe it to Matrix/2by3 to tell them what we percieve as
"problems" NOW , when they can do something about it.

[madflava13]

I concur on the ground attacks by aircraft.

I also concur low level air attacks need to be tweaked. I don't think it should be a limited number of units, but perhaps lower the hit frequenciess and only allow them for really high experience units...

I REALLY agree on the air units' targeting. I'd like to assign sectors to patrol - focus the searches more. There's no reason to have to search Nevada with my San Fran/LA based PBYs. 360 searching is wasteful of the limited resources.

A. Overland supply in some situations is too easy. For example, it was not possible to supply Buna from PM and vice versa simply by carrying the stuff over the trail. Overland supply needs to be looked at.

B. Incidental ship damage. I think with the MUCH bigger map, the levels of SYS damage taken by ships needs to be lowered, otherwise you won't be able to move anything around without putting into port for weeks afterwards to repair.

C. Air dropped supply. C-47s could and did drop supplies. This would help if you're fighting to capture a base and can't get a TF in.

D. AGs are not sub killers! Lower their ability to score big hits on subs.

E. I think ground combat in general needs some tweaking. It seems a little too simplified to me compared to the rest of the models, but maybe I'm missing something. I would like the ability to train up land units though, as this was historically done (ie amphib landing practice, etc.)

F. The ability to set target priorities. I don't know how many times I've ambushed a CV TF only to watch my SBDs bomb the escorting DDs and CLs into smithereens. Can't those flyboys tell the difference? And for subs, I'd like to make priorities as well, as was historically done. (although some people might get upset because my super-duper 20/20 hindsight would tell me to set TKs as the #1...)

Thats enough for me for now...

[LargeSlowTarget]

Agree on everything.

G. Moving tanks and arty along jungle paths should be severely limited if not outright impossible - especially on the Kokoda trail and the like.

H. Moving heavy equipment like arty and vehicles by Fast Transport should be impossible.

I. Naval surface combat currently shows few hits even at close range, but huge destructive power of even small caliber hits (have seen DDs sinking from four to six non-critical 5-inch hits). From what I've read on surface actions around 'canal I don't think that's right. More hits but less effect per hit would be proper, IMO.

[TIMJOT]

My major concern would be ground combat. As it stands in UV it seems to be a mere numbers game. Thats just not going to cut it for WitP. There were many cases in the Pacific war were a smaller size ground force defeated larger ones. Particularly many of the Japanese early operations and later US amphib. operations the smaller but more proficent force prevailed.

[Drongo]

Posted by LargeSlowTarget

H. Moving heavy equipment like arty and vehicles by Fast Transport should be impossible.

I don't think it should be made impossible, just restricted to those ships that are capable of FT missions AND have a cargo capacity (ie, not destroyers). On top of that should be a far slower unload rate to that of troops and their own equipment.

The Japanese managed to use fast transport techniques to deliver 105mm and 150mm guns to Guadalcanal. They had to use 2 high speed seaplane tenders to deliver 6-7 guns under those conditions but it was still done in about 6 hours from the time they arrived. If a "slow" unload rate for heavy equipment like artillery is used, it would be historical.

As for vehicles, the Japanese supposedly used fast transports (maybe the seaplane tenders) to get some light tanks and trucks to Guadalcanal. I've seen accounts that mention that they were there but none of those sources clearly state exactly how they were delivered. Maybe it should be allowed but once again at a very reduced unload rate.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by LargeSlowTarget
Agree on everything.

G. Moving tanks and arty along jungle paths should be severely limited if not outright impossible - especially on the Kokoda trail and the like.

H. Moving heavy equipment like arty and vehicles by Fast Transport should be impossible.

I. Naval surface combat currently shows few hits even at close range, but huge destructive power of even small caliber hits (have seen DDs sinking from four to six non-critical 5-inch hits). From what I've read on surface actions around 'canal I don't think that's right. More hits but less effect per hit would be proper, IMO.

G.H. agreed. H, on condition though, as Drongo related, the Japanese were able to devise means to get a few pieces to Guadalcanal via FT (DD) To properly simm this of course, it should be extremely restricted, meaning no more than 1-3 pieces per FT and little else (save some supply) bigger items such as AFV' (Type 95 light etc) only bigger units such as CS and up.

I. Definately agree. I have a cunning plan [there] my Lord. I only hope it will be seen as worthwhile to pursue once we get to that stage of the development. Yes, the <12 hits to cripple/sink, particularily for the smaller units is a long standing concern for me.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Mike Scholl
...TO MAKE THIS A GREAT GAME. We all know that UV was
pretty darned good..., and that the Testing results on WITP
are looking good as well. But I think most of us who have look
long and hard at these games have one or two things in mind
that are 'still broken" (or at least warped). Things we really feel
HAVE to be corrected for this game to live up to it's potential.

I'm going to start with a few of really annoying ones to me.
Feel free to add in any others you have in mind. Joel.., are you
listening?

GROUND ATTACKS BY AIRCRAFT. The results, especially against
manpower, are WAY TOO GOOD. 2by3 tried to fix this in one of
the UV patches, but aircraft still kill far too many troops. Large,
immobile objects like runways, hangers, docks, warehouses, and
even ships at anchor, are one thing. But men and trucks and
guns are small enough to conceal and dig in---and the program
just doesn't reflect the extream difficulty of finding them, let alone
destroying them.

LOW LEVEL AIRCRAFT ATTACKS. Yes, I KNOW that "skip bombing"
and "para-frag" attacks were made in the South Pacific. But they
were done by a FEW specialized B-25 and A-20 squadrons who
were trained for it, and had the specialized equipment for it. Skip
bombing requires delayed-action fusing, or the bomb (which is
traveling at the same forward airspeed as the bomber) goes off
under the plane with a good chance of destroying it as well. For
land targets (where a delayed action fuse would allow the bomb
to plunge into the dirt before exploding) used special parachute-
retarded fragmentation bombs---primarily to chew up enemy
aircraft on the ground. Fighter-bombers attacked at fairly low
levels so they could try to see and hit individual bunkers, and
Torpedo bombers had to go in low and slow to keep the weapons
from breaking up on impact. Basically, all these are "mission-
determined" decisions for a specific target and type of attack
aircraft. The UV/WITP system lets players determine attack
altitude for ALL missions, and leads to ALL sorts of foolishness.
The US didn't fly their 4-engined bombers at low levels for very
good reasons. The expensive bomb sights didn't work that low,
and (especially in the Pacific) they lost a key advantage over the
defending fighters. A B-17 got it's best performance at altitudes
where Japanese fighters were hampered in theirs. A Zero was
a LOT more dangerous to a B-24 below 10,000 feet than it was
at 18-20,000 because it's performance was much better. Not
until the second half of the war do the Japanese produce real "interceptors" with high climb rate and altitude capibility.
The game would be better served if Matrix took the altitude
determination OUT OF PLAYER HANDS, and gave it to those
mythical base commanders who foul up your naval strikes. Let
them do something helpful for a change..., like removing all the
unrealistic aircraft usages from play.

SOME MEANS OF CONTROLING THE BASE COMMANDERS CHOICES.
Give the players the possibility of issuing at least a direction of
attack that doesn't cover 180 degrees, and maybe a limit on the
range, so your longer ranged planes don't by-pass the key target
just to beat up some sampans 300 miles farther out. Give the
players SOME MEANS of at least indicating to these idiots what
the "High Command" considers to be the "Important Target".
Make picking "naval strike" less of a "crapshoot".

You may not agree with the above..., or you may think other
problems are more important. Fine..., tell me where I'm wrong,
or add your choices to the thread. But with work progressing as
it is, we owe it to Matrix/2by3 to tell them what we percieve as
"problems" NOW , when they can do something about it.

I totally agree Mike

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by madflava13
I concur on the ground attacks by aircraft.

I also concur low level air attacks need to be tweaked. I don't think it should be a limited number of units, but perhaps lower the hit frequenciess and only allow them for really high experience units...

I REALLY agree on the air units' targeting. I'd like to assign sectors to patrol - focus the searches more. There's no reason to have to search Nevada with my San Fran/LA based PBYs. 360 searching is wasteful of the limited resources.

A. Overland supply in some situations is too easy. For example, it was not possible to supply Buna from PM and vice versa simply by carrying the stuff over the trail. Overland supply needs to be looked at.

B. Incidental ship damage. I think with the MUCH bigger map, the levels of SYS damage taken by ships needs to be lowered, otherwise you won't be able to move anything around without putting into port for weeks afterwards to repair.

C. Air dropped supply. C-47s could and did drop supplies. This would help if you're fighting to capture a base and can't get a TF in.

D. AGs are not sub killers! Lower their ability to score big hits on subs.

E. I think ground combat in general needs some tweaking. It seems a little too simplified to me compared to the rest of the models, but maybe I'm missing something. I would like the ability to train up land units though, as this was historically done (ie amphib landing practice, etc.)

F. The ability to set target priorities. I don't know how many times I've ambushed a CV TF only to watch my SBDs bomb the escorting DDs and CLs into smithereens. Can't those flyboys tell the difference? And for subs, I'd like to make priorities as well, as was historically done. (although some people might get upset because my super-duper 20/20 hindsight would tell me to set TKs as the #1...)

Thats enough for me for now...

**************************************************
I also concur low level air attacks need to be tweaked. I don't think it should be a limited number of units, but perhaps lower the hit frequenciess and only allow them for really high experience units...
**************************************************

To allow it for high xp units simply means that the players will run BS missions against BS targets simply to get the xp up.

It would be better to simply fix the problem.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Drongo
Posted by LargeSlowTarget


I don't think it should be made impossible, just restricted to those ships that are capable of FT missions AND have a cargo capacity (ie, not destroyers). On top of that should be a far slower unload rate to that of troops and their own equipment.

The Japanese managed to use fast transport techniques to deliver 105mm and 150mm guns to Guadalcanal. They had to use 2 high speed seaplane tenders to deliver 6-7 guns under those conditions but it was still done in about 6 hours from the time they arrived. If a "slow" unload rate for heavy equipment like artillery is used, it would be historical.

As for vehicles, the Japanese supposedly used fast transports (maybe the seaplane tenders) to get some light tanks and trucks to Guadalcanal. I've seen accounts that mention that they were there but none of those sources clearly state exactly how they were delivered. Maybe it should be allowed but once again at a very reduced unload rate.

Is this really critical?
The USN gets to do it too. I know, because I do it.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Chiteng
Is this really critical?
The USN gets to do it too. I know, because I do it.

Yes it is. Because often players utilize FT to a far greater degree than was done historically....sometimes to the point where "conventional" invasions are not needed save for cases where the player is already well established and entrenched.

Havn't you ever started a turn 1 in UV where the Japanese player will take 4-5 bases (unoccupied or containing only a small support unit) all in one fell swoop?

I just concluded a FT war with Soulblazer over posession of Gili Gili... He beat me out by transferring what appears to be the sum and whole of the 144th Regiment, *including it's guns* (about 80 if my recon planes are accurate) All of which were landed in one 24 hour turn. Being FT, it too of course avoided air retaliation from PM (but i got revenge on a resupply mission and crippled a CL )

Somehow i dont think FT was quite meant to be that effective.

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Nikademus
........................
Somehow i dont think FT was quite meant to be that effective.

But neither are the bombers meant to be that effective.

Don't know how you could restrict the use of FT TFs. IF you only allow APDs to do them then you are not going with the historic fact that sometimes DDs were used. That will bring howls of complaint I'm sure. Perhaps make the sys damage mount up even more than it does now for such a run. It may cause you to consider the absolute necessity of doing a a FT run.

Add to that the smaller chances of the LBA totally smashing a regular transport TF and you might get some more realistic supply/troop landings rather than the continual fast transport runs. Link it to a reduced support/basing of medium and heavy bombers and you may just have solved the problem.

[mdiehl]

Perhaps the assumption that ad hoc transports (liek IJN DDs) land their troops in any shape to fight needs to be modified. Sure, make a 20 DD FT TF, but the troops land with readiness 5%.

Unopposed LBA SHOULD totally smash transport TFs. FT TFs should also be smashed to little pieces. That's why even a few enemy strike a/c could pose a really great threat to any TF lacking air cover, and why backwater middle-of-nowhere locations like Guadalcanal and Tulagi came briefly to great importance.

[TIMJOT]

Just to clarify mdeihl, Fast transport in UV takes place at night. Thats why its usually not succeptable to LBA attack. If a FT can not reach a port during the night it will loiter out of range make the run on the following turn. A FT is succeptable to air attack if caught out at sea while sailing to and from its destination.

Oh yes, dont worry the USN gets to do it too.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by mdiehl
Perhaps the assumption that ad hoc transports (liek IJN DDs) land their troops in any shape to fight needs to be modified. Sure, make a 20 DD FT TF, but the troops land with readiness 5%.

Unopposed LBA SHOULD[/I} totally smash transport TFs. FT TFs should also be smashed to little pieces. That's why even a few enemy strike a/c could pose a really great threat to any TF lacking air cover, and why backwater middle-of-nowhere locations like Guadalcanal and Tulagi came briefly to great importance.

And by this statement can we assume he means LBA==B-17?

I would like to know the dates of when an 'untouched' convoy
underway was 'smashed' by a B-17 strike. That would be very enlightening.

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Sonny
But neither are the bombers meant to be that effective.

Don't know how you could restrict the use of FT TFs. IF you only allow APDs to do them then you are not going with the historic fact that sometimes DDs were used. That will bring howls of complaint I'm sure. Perhaps make the sys damage mount up even more than it does now for such a run. It may cause you to consider the absolute necessity of doing a a FT run.

Add to that the smaller chances of the LBA totally smashing a regular transport TF and you might get some more realistic supply/troop landings rather than the continual fast transport runs. Link it to a reduced support/basing of medium and heavy bombers and you may just have solved the problem.

I'm not sure i understand your meaning about the bombers. Are you refferring to the overall issue of LBA? or the fact that my A-24's managed to catch a 2nd FT just as it started it's dash during the PM phase of the resolution?

The best thing to do about FT would be first and formost to re-evaluate the carrying capacity of the DD's and cruisers both in terms of what items are valid and how many. The old "free intrinsic supply" bug sans UV has been squashed and any unit that lands without supply will quickly degenerate. However that does not help us for this thread issue because the turn and turn after landing will see little to no disablement of squads and equipment so they can fight at decent effeicency even without supplies.

To address it would require a very thorough scrubbing of the combat routines, a facet mentioned in other threads. The biggest problem overall of the land routines is that they seem too generalized, where the only real factor that matters, despite the apparant level of detail present (i.e. EXP, Fatigue level, disruption level, and individual tracking of both # and type of weapons and their attack/defensive characteristics), is sheer numbers, followed by overall "Supply" level.

Its too generic and terrain and fort level coupled with disruption and fatigue dont seem make enough of an impact. This is exaserbated by the same turn land/attack feature when unloading INF units in one hex. (exploitable by both defender and attacker.....smart players, if forewarned of invasion, will set their units to shock attack the turn before the landing to create a quasi-sort of "Beach defense" situation that threatens to cause a mass surrender.

The attacker, assuming he survives this potential first turn pitfall, can then attack next turn with decent assault values because the effects of landing by such unconventional means, and without adequate supply will not be felt so quickly from one or two turns out of supply. Hence my experience against the 144th brigade at Gili with nary a transport in sight

While upping fatigue and disruption seems like a good idea...one pitfall of that strategy is that it could allow the same turn "beach defense" strategy to rule the day, making landings impossible.

Instead, what may help is to rethink the current odds calculation requirement for taking bases and for forcing retreats on the attacker. Right now all you need is a 2:1 odds calc, regardless of terrain type to capture a base. This always struck me as odd because it has traditionally not been done this way in GG games of the past. In the past the required odds necessary to wrest control of a hex was not based on an absolute but on multiple factors including terrain type, overall force level, and of course, fortification level. Currently the game engine only factors in fort level......the more you have, the greater the odds you need.

It seems to work well except for one thing.....you can quickly reduce fort levels meerly by attacking. More rapidly if ENG units are present. this might suffice if Fort levels were made a bit more resiliant or even permanent, meaning you build up to Fort level 5.....it stays there and its up to the attcker to bring enough combat power in place to achieve the necessary odds to wrest the base away. One thing i've noticed is that attacks dont seem to eat up alot in terms of supply, even shock attacks.


The simplest solution may be this: If you 'port in a large unit via FT (using DD's and cruisers) there should be two penalties, one very substantial

1) severe restrictions on what can be transported. i.e. 99% "men" and their kit.....which is by and large what FT is capable of. Guns and other heavy equipment should be extremely limited, so no 144th regiment with it's 80 guns and motars and various support arriving "magically" at a base's front door

2) If an FT 'ported unit arrives without supply or below the bare minimum level of supply and attacks....regardless of the state of disabled/enabled squads-equipment, it should receive a huge attack penalty After all, if all you could land by FT was the troops themselves, what are they going to use in the way of ammunition?

3) This is a more generalized suggestion, one not new but utilized in PW. Tone down the "surrender" tendancey for INF units that have no retreat path. This includes attackers as well as defenders. If no retreat path avail, chk for possible surrender (obviously very low if Japanese.....fight to the death and all ya know ) If no morale failure/surrender, dont "destroy" the unit causing outragious point inflations for the hundreds or thousands of suddenly lost troops, but impose additional casualties and supply ponit losses on the unit and keep it in existance. That way evacuations are possible and extended fights are possible (especially in jungle terrain) In PW, only atoll fighting was so potentially bloody because of the small land mass, but even then a proper invasion TF could and should have a chance to reembark some of the troop in a failed bid.

4) Prohibit players from setting INF units to "attack" when not actually faced by enemy forces. This might prevent the same turn "beach defense" which can often lead to inflated casualties

If terrain and supply issues are more properly represented dont see this as being an issue in the case of ATOLLS

The implementation of such rules might cause players to actually see FT used the way it was as well as see a better representation of land combat. Look at it this way.....in UV, would you FT in a unit (assume a strong one, capable of withstanding a "beach defense tactic") at Lunga, or Trass. or the other empty base hex next to Lunga? Most would not choose the empty hex because they know that "then", in transiting to Lunga via land march that their unit will be hit by fatigue and disruption penalties and the unit will only fight at a fraction of it's paper strength. high penalties for direct transit might cause this more realisitic 'non invasion' type reinforcement situation to occur. (diff situation for one hex dot bases.......not necessarily "Atolls" which will be beach defense situations)

Lastly, a missing element in FT ops is the possibility of night attack by aircraft. It was possible and Tokyo express runs were at times greatly hampered by night time SBD attacks if moonlight conditions warrented. There is some chance for daytime interception but not enough to really make players worry.

[LargeSlowTarget]

J. A repeat of an earlier request: I would like to put an end to the auto-fueling at destination bases. For example, if I'm playing Japan and want to use Lunga as forward base for fleet ops farther south, I naturally like to preserve fuel stocks at Lunga. Now each supply convoy from Truk docking at Lunga automatically tops off fuel and depletes precious reserves - which is totally unnecessary since the endurane of all APs is more than enough for a round-trip Truk-Lunga without refueling. It is also a waste of time/ops points, btw.
Or on a smaller scale, auto-refueling makes it difficult to operate barges and PTs at front bases where you can't yet risk sending tankers to, since what little fuel can be brought in by FT or barges is instantly consumed by the bigger TFs. This could be solved by propelling barges and PT with supplies instead of fuel oil, like the aircraft - supplies = beans, bullets, bandages, barrels with avgas and barrels with diesel.

[LargeSlowTarget]

Originally posted by Nikademus

I. Definately agree. I have a cunning plan [there] my Lord. I only hope it will be seen as worthwhile to pursue once we get to that stage of the development. Yes, the <12 hits to cripple/sink, particularily for the smaller units is a long standing concern for me.

I'm not sure I understood - do I sense irony here?

[Tanaka]

Originally posted by Mike Scholl
...TO MAKE THIS A GREAT GAME. We all know that UV was
pretty darned good..., and that the Testing results on WITP
are looking good as well. But I think most of us who have look
long and hard at these games have one or two things in mind
that are 'still broken" (or at least warped). Things we really feel
HAVE to be corrected for this game to live up to it's potential.

I'm going to start with a few of really annoying ones to me.
Feel free to add in any others you have in mind. Joel.., are you
listening?

GROUND ATTACKS BY AIRCRAFT. The results, especially against
manpower, are WAY TOO GOOD. 2by3 tried to fix this in one of
the UV patches, but aircraft still kill far too many troops. Large,
immobile objects like runways, hangers, docks, warehouses, and
even ships at anchor, are one thing. But men and trucks and
guns are small enough to conceal and dig in---and the program
just doesn't reflect the extream difficulty of finding them, let alone
destroying them.

LOW LEVEL AIRCRAFT ATTACKS. Yes, I KNOW that "skip bombing"
and "para-frag" attacks were made in the South Pacific. But they
were done by a FEW specialized B-25 and A-20 squadrons who
were trained for it, and had the specialized equipment for it. Skip
bombing requires delayed-action fusing, or the bomb (which is
traveling at the same forward airspeed as the bomber) goes off
under the plane with a good chance of destroying it as well. For
land targets (where a delayed action fuse would allow the bomb
to plunge into the dirt before exploding) used special parachute-
retarded fragmentation bombs---primarily to chew up enemy
aircraft on the ground. Fighter-bombers attacked at fairly low
levels so they could try to see and hit individual bunkers, and
Torpedo bombers had to go in low and slow to keep the weapons
from breaking up on impact. Basically, all these are "mission-
determined" decisions for a specific target and type of attack
aircraft. The UV/WITP system lets players determine attack
altitude for ALL missions, and leads to ALL sorts of foolishness.
The US didn't fly their 4-engined bombers at low levels for very
good reasons. The expensive bomb sights didn't work that low,
and (especially in the Pacific) they lost a key advantage over the
defending fighters. A B-17 got it's best performance at altitudes
where Japanese fighters were hampered in theirs. A Zero was
a LOT more dangerous to a B-24 below 10,000 feet than it was
at 18-20,000 because it's performance was much better. Not
until the second half of the war do the Japanese produce real "interceptors" with high climb rate and altitude capibility.
The game would be better served if Matrix took the altitude
determination OUT OF PLAYER HANDS, and gave it to those
mythical base commanders who foul up your naval strikes. Let
them do something helpful for a change..., like removing all the
unrealistic aircraft usages from play.

SOME MEANS OF CONTROLING THE BASE COMMANDERS CHOICES.
Give the players the possibility of issuing at least a direction of
attack that doesn't cover 180 degrees, and maybe a limit on the
range, so your longer ranged planes don't by-pass the key target
just to beat up some sampans 300 miles farther out. Give the
players SOME MEANS of at least indicating to these idiots what
the "High Command" considers to be the "Important Target".
Make picking "naval strike" less of a "crapshoot".

You may not agree with the above..., or you may think other
problems are more important. Fine..., tell me where I'm wrong,
or add your choices to the thread. But with work progressing as
it is, we owe it to Matrix/2by3 to tell them what we percieve as
"problems" NOW , when they can do something about it.

Agree

Agree

Agree

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by LargeSlowTarget
I'm not sure I understood - do I sense irony here?

No irony. I was just plagerizing one of our forum member's handles.....it seemed better than to re-hash my thoughts on the surface engine. It 'was' rather extensive and besides, i've already submitted the preposal internally. Further drum beating would probably only be viewed with annoyance

link is here in case you missed it:

showthread.php?s=&threadid=28425

[mdiehl]

The best thing to do about FT would be first and formost to re-evaluate the carrying capacity of the DD's and cruisers both in terms of what items are valid and how many. ... Lastly, a missing element in FT ops is the possibility of night attack by aircraft. It was possible and Tokyo express runs were at times greatly hampered by night time SBD attacks if moonlight conditions warrented. There is some chance for daytime interception but not enough to really make players worry.

A pretty decent suite of ideas you have there. On night aircraft attacks, I wonder if the torpedo-armed PBY black cat variant would be worth inclusion.