Matrix Games Forums

Ok. I think this has been asked before, but my evil alter-ego, LtJG Knucklehead, wants to ask again:

Is there any plans on making it easier to intercept fleets passing through a hex containing one of your own fleet?

As I understand surface combat as modeled by WiTP, the opposing surface forces must end a movement phase in the same hex for surface combat to occur. This made convoy hunting annoying, as my crystal ball was broke. (I remember chasing an AP a third of the way across the map with a cruiser force, trying each day to guess where that transport will end up. Miss your guess by a hex, and you have to try again the next day.) Also, this made patrolling restricted waterways less effective than it should have been.

Also, as it stands, submarine may attack ships passing through their hex. So I know the routine for checking these conditions already exists in the code. If it is not too presumptuous, might I request that surface combat TF's (and PT TF's) be given the same ability. If the developers/beta testers feel that this would cause too many intercepts than is historically justified, reduce the chances of successfull intercepts to something less than subs get. Maybe. Sigh.

It seems that, now, the only surface fights will be in invasion beachhead hexes. If I got an enemy TF sighted (or HF/DF'd) coming down a restriceted waterway, I would like to be able to intercept it by placing my fleet in it's path.

Tell you what. I just emailed Mike Wood asking about it, so we'll see what he says.

Thanks. That's all I can ask for.

And? This was apparently being looked into for WITP as well. If SC TFs are ordered to patrol a hex, they can intercept TFs passing through the hex like subs do.

Still no word from Mike. I wouldn't pin my hopes on it being changed, if I were you. Still, if he gives my n answer I'll post it here.

Hello...

Never got your email. Most likely not.

Bye...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Still no word from Mike. I wouldn't pin my hopes on it being changed, if I were you. Still, if he gives my n answer I'll post it here.

Wow, that's odd. Oh well, I guess there is the answer in any case. (I hate hotmail sometimes, it shows the email in question as being sent on February 4th).

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Wow, that's odd. Oh well, I guess there is the answer in any case. (I hate hotmail sometimes, it shows the email in question as being sent on February 4th).

Perhaps a little sugar will sway the deal...[;)]

Hi guys,

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

Never got your email. Most likely not.

Bye...

Michael Wood

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Still no word from Mike. I wouldn't pin my hopes on it being changed, if I were you. Still, if he gives my n answer I'll post it here.

Mike et al, I'll begin by saying that I'm as big a fan as Matrix has............. I've bought UV, WITP, Korsun Pocket, Across the Dnepr, Battles in Normandy, Highway to the Reich and intend to buy WPO & Combined Arms when they're released as well. But I HAVE to ask............ why is there so much resistance (my perception only) at the design & programming level to the concept of mid-ocean intercepts?? The idea of a sizeable force blocking a single hex channel having a zero chance of an encounter (unless enemy movement ends there) seems almost completely unrealistic. As many others have pointed out similar code exists already for submarines so why not for surface forces?? Is there some abtruse game breaking (or unbalancing) high level possibility?? Is it all brand new coding with none of the sub routine re-cyclable?? Is it....???
You guys do great work and I know you'll continue to do more but geez..... this has come up repeatedly in the UV & WITP forums before and I think it sure would be nice to finally have some kind of explanation (needn't be lengthy) as to why we very likely won't have it. Thanks in advance!!
[&:][&:]

Rob.