Matrix Games Forums

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

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.