If you had three WitP wishes...

[GaryChildress]

If I were granted 3 WitP wishes, I would wish for:

1. A few more stacking limits (on docked ships vs. port size and LCUs vs. Island/base size)

2. Either, a small area in the TF screen whereby one could manually type some notes regarding the particular TF, such as "send to hex 55, 59, then to Davao, unload troop tansports in Davao, detach AKs on to Balikpapan." or the ability to create multiple way points whereby one could plot out a specific course for a TF ahead of time and not have to worry about micromanaging it in order to circumnavigate enemy air bases and sub concentration points. I often have so many TFs running around as it is that I forget why I sent a particular TF to hex 55,59. Was it going to Davao, Menado or somewhere else?

3. Last but not least I would wish for the ability for the Japanese to have more plasticity in their initial setup on a non-historical first turn. For instance, instead of having TFs already loaded and preparation points for specific targets already set, it would be nice IMO to be able to rewrite history a little more and be able to invade Midway or something on the first turn with 100 preparation points (representing the likelyhood that the Japanese planned ahead for the invasion of Midway on December 7th). And perhaps even the ability to play around a little more with assigning units to HQs. Even for the Allies this would be a nice feature to a limited extent to represent the fact that if Midway were invaded, more Allied units would probably be assigned to the Central Pacific instead of South Pacific. (of course I don't know if the latter would count as a 4th wish or not. Perhaps as a third wish I would simply wish for a gazillion more wishes. On second thought, what would I do with that many? WitP is nearly perfect to begin with!)


[:)]

Gary

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

If I were granted 3 WitP wishes, I would wish for:

1. A few more stacking limits (on docked ships vs. port size and LCUs vs. Island/base size)

2. Either, a small area in the TF screen whereby one could manually type some notes regarding the particular TF, such as "send to hex 55, 59, then to Davao, unload troop tansports in Davao, detach AKs on to Balikpapan." or the ability to create multiple way points whereby one could plot out a specific course for a TF ahead of time and not have to worry about micromanaging it in order to circumnavigate enemy air bases and sub concentration points. I often have so many TFs running around as it is that I forget why I sent a particular TF to hex 55,59. Was it going to Davao, Menado or somewhere else?

3. Last but not least I would wish for the ability for the Japanese to have more plasticity in their initial setup on a non-historical first turn. For instance, instead of having TFs already loaded and preparation points for specific targets already set, it would be nice IMO to be able to rewrite history a little more and be able to invade Midway or something on the first turn with 100 preparation points (representing the likelyhood that the Japanese planned ahead for the invasion of Midway on December 7th). And perhaps even the ability to play around a little more with assigning units to HQs. Even for the Allies this would be a nice feature to a limited extent to represent the fact that if Midway were invaded, more Allied units would probably be assigned to the Central Pacific instead of South Pacific. (of course I don't know if the latter would count as a 4th wish or not. Perhaps as a third wish I would simply wish for a gazillion more wishes. On second thought, what would I do with that many? WitP is nearly perfect to begin with!)
[:)]

Gary

Heh... now you opened the "can of worms"... [:D]

For me personally the WitP would be _FULLY_ 100% great if the following would be done (now it is 99% [:)])!


Fix AA and level bomber accuracy

#1
Although this is, possibly, already implemented I strongly think it is worth revisiting...

AA should be affected by time of day (day/night) and weather (we already have info on how is the weather over target so why don't we use it some more).

In day and good weather (i.e. best case scenario) the AA should be best and cause more damage than at night and bad weather (i.e. worst case scenario).

- day + clear
- day + partly cloudy
- day + overcast
- day + rain(snow in cold zones in winter)
- day + thunderstorms (blizzard in cold zones in winter)
- night + clear
- night + partly cloudy
- night + overcast
- night + rain(snow in cold zones in winter)
- night + thunderstorms (blizzard in cold zones in winter)


#2
Although this is, probably, already implemented I think it is worth revisiting...

Level bombers should be affected by time of day (day/night) and weather (we already have info on how is the weather over target so why don't we use it some more)!

In day and good weather (i.e. best case scenario) the bombers should be best and cause more damage than at night and bad weather (i.e. worst case scenario).

- day + clear
- day + partly cloudy
- day + overcast
- day + rain(snow in cold zones in winter)
- day + thunderstorms (blizzard in cold zones in winter)
- night + clear
- night + partly cloudy
- night + overcast
- night + rain(snow in cold zones in winter)
- night + thunderstorms (blizzard in cold zones in winter)


#3
Heavy AA concentrations should throw of aim for level bombers (i.e. disrupt them).

More experienced bomber crews should suffer less but they should still suffer (i.e. in WWII anyways much of AA was indented to create strong barrage effect to drive incoming bombers off aim).


#4
The AA effect against level bombers should be increased overall and they should suffer devastating damage when flying low in area that was protected by significant AA (if all other conditions are met like time of day and weather).

Right now even several regiments of AA (100+ 75mm and 105mm AA guns) are almost useless against, for example, B-17 attacking from 10000 ft in broad daylight and clear weather which should not be the case at all (slow flying and big B-17 should present ideal targets for AA)...


#5
The so-called "altitude gap" that now exists should be a bit narrower.

Guns with max of 26K feet have a min of 7K in current WitPGuns with max of 28K feet have a min of 7K in current WitPGuns with max of 30K feet have a min of 8K in current WitPGuns with max of 34K feet have a min of 9K in current WitP


#6
IMHO we still have way too precise attacks in WitP. Navigation was very hard in WWII PTO and much more 4E and 2E level bombers should fail to find proper targets. More experienced bomber crews should suffer less but they should still suffer.


#7
Combined massed attacks by hundreds of aircraft was hard to achieve and coordinate.

If we already have, for example, penalty for number of attacking aircraft from CVs depending on a year of war why don't we introduce the similar penalty for 4E and 2E level bombers as well?

The penalty should progressively drop from 1942 to 1945 (i.e. much much more problems in 1942 than in 1945) and should make those attack more piecemeal instead of group.

That way we would get 2 good things:

a) smaller groups of 4E and 2E level bombers doing less damage

b) smaller groups of attacking 4E and 2E level bombers more prone to enemy actions


#8
Overall effectiveness of 4E and 2E level bombers on target should decrease from current level for both day and night missions (i.e. right now every single bomb counts and for bombers with large bomb capacity this is _VERY_ dramatic).



Fix Air "Naval Search" and "ASW Search"

#1
Both Air "Naval Search" and "ASW Search" seems way way too effective in spotting submarines and ships.

This level of detection should be lowered significantly (many WitP players suggested by margin of x10 times)!


#2
According to my tests the lowering of user selected range for air "Naval Search" and "ASW Search" does not increase the "density" of search aircraft over area (i.e. less area covered with same number of aircraft should mean that search should be better). The best results were always when range is set to MAX. This should be fixed IMHO!


#3
Deadly sight->identify->attack routine is unstoppable.

Even dedicated LRCAP over single ship in area where experienced enemy "Naval Search" aircraft operate is not capable of stopping it (but if "ordinary" attack using "Naval Attack" occurs in 100% same circumstances the LRCAP rightfully kills the lone attacker).



Fix LCU stacking / ship stacking (plus ship ammo resupply and load / unload)

#1 "Diminishing returns" for all kind of troops depending of base size

Right now we can place as many troops as we want anywhere in WitP world.

If we want we can place 10 divisions even on smallest atoll which is very very wrong...

Since WitP is all about bases and we already have SPS values for all bases why not introduce "diminishing returns" for all troop actions in specific base HEX?

That way combat would be more accurate because surplus troops would not be able to participate in combat and base building would also be more accurate because surplus ENG troops would no be able to participate.

This would effectively (and simply I might add) fix several problems we might encounter in WitP troop stacking.


#2 Ammo replenishment regarding port size

In current WitP we can replenish ammo of almost any ship in any port size.

IMHO it is impossible to believe that some lowly port size 3 would have, for example, 16" shells for BBs.

This should be altered to reflect historical situation and something simple could be implemented (numbers are just for example):

port size 1-3 : ammo for all guns up to 5"
port size 4-6 : ammo for all guns up to 8"
port size 7-9 : ammo for all guns


#3 Port size, number of ships and cargo ship loading/unloading

In current WitP we can load/unload cargo ships regardless on port size and number of ships.

Historically, for example, US had severe problem with this because many ships had to wait for weeks (and months) to be loaded/unloaded (Noumea was prime example BTW).

This should be altered to reflect historical situation and something simple could be implemented...



Leo "Apollo11"

[GaryChildress]

Heh... now you opened the "can of worms"...

It's about time. I was worried the little fellows would languish in there. Dune or Tremors? [8|]

[doktorblood]

Heh....I guess 3 wishes aren't enough for some people.

Mine would be.

1. My very own Brooklyn class cruiser which would be.....

2. Crewed by Hooter Girls and be....

3. Stuffed with money.

[Brausepaul]

Sub vs. sub capability

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

It's about time. I was worried the little fellows would languish in there. Dune or Tremors? [8|]

Definitely Dune. Nothing like a mile-long Sandworm.

[Sneer]

1. ai that could stand up to poorest human plazer
2. right surface combat routine
3 right working CAP-aerial strike routine

[invernomuto]

2. Either, a small area in the TF screen whereby one could manually type some notes regarding the particular TF, such as "send to hex 55, 59, then to Davao, unload troop tansports in Davao, detach AKs on to Balikpapan." or the ability to create multiple way points whereby one could plot out a specific course for a TF ahead of time and not have to worry about micromanaging it in order to circumnavigate enemy air bases and sub concentration points. I often have so many TFs running around as it is that I forget why I sent a particular TF to hex 55,59. Was it going to Davao, Menado or somewhere else?

Great idea, I second that.

[invernomuto]

My three wishes:

1) More restrictive stacking penalities for LCU/Ship/LBA based on Base/Port/Airfield size. Now it's possibile to have absurd concentrations of forces in small atolls / A/F or huge TF loading in little port. If you want to stack 300 aircraft in a base, you should spend time and resources axpanding it.
2) More research options for japanese, now it's quite useless, it doesn't affect gameplay too much IMHO.
3) More historical results for pearl harbour strike.

[barnacle bob]

1) way points

2) way points

3) way points

[Rob Brennan UK]

Apollo , have a look at nik's mod, it seems to really beef up AA to a level where you really need to respect concentrations. Not sure how this affects B17's but as japan the 2E and dive bombers have to be a LOT more careful.

Also i have found the ASW detection and attack routines seem to be a lot less harsh than before when most finds triggered a usually succesful attack.

Mods can only go so far but i would definately recoomend Niks to anyone with issues for these 2 events, also allows a lot more leakers in a2a combat too. so no walls of Zeros can kill 100% of attacking planes anymore, again no idea how this works later on with allied armadas but it would be nice if a few more kamis made it through.

[Halsey]

1. Stacking limitations for all units.
2. Command and control structuring.
3. Control of supply distribution/management.

[;)]

4. Do away with every combat bonus/limitation for both sides.
Let the players make their own mistatkes instead of having the codes do it for ya.[;)]

[Nomad]

1. Fix all the bugs [:@]

2. fix the whole ground movement and/or combat

3. fix the ASW

[Tom Hunter]

Overhaul the naval and ground combat models so that they produce results that follow the same patterns of actual world war II combat.

Small scale naval combat is not bloody enough, there is not one historical case of a lone AK escaping a warship on commerce raiding missions, but it happens all the time in this game.

Large scale air combat is much too bloody with absurd loss rates.

[Mike Scholl]

1) RATIONAL geographic limits on units and construction. Being able to bulid a larger base on Midway than on New Caledonia is idiotic, as are the absurd numbers of troops that can be based on an Atoll. Or if the game MUST allow "shoulder-to-shoulder" deployment of troops, then a realistic modifier for bombardment results (you can't help but hit a ton of troops with every shell or bomb).

2) RATIONAL limits for airbase capacity based on the size of aircraft and the amount of servicing needed. To do this the upper limit on base size would have to be raised, or more than one base allowed where the hex landmass allowed (Tinian might need to be a level 50 in 1945 to base that many B-29's---but at least you would have to bring in the construction troops and materials to build it)

3) A RATIONAL dichotomy for Naval Bombardment Missions..., reducing the effects of night-time "shoot and scoot" missions as the game currently allows, and adding in an improved "turn-long, no-movement deliberate shoot". And level of fortification should effect the result as well.

[jwilkerson]

1. Multiplayer PBEM support
2. Fix Air Combat Model
3. Need 3 more wishes ( assume that these are recursive wishes ! )


I. Fix Air "stacking" ( probably same Mike's "basing" )
II. Fix ASW model both air and surface
III. Need 3 more wishes

i) Protect some supply from Uber Bombing and Uber bambardments - too easy to take large supply dumps quickly down to zero ( protect like 500 points per level ).
ii) Fix "everybody has too much supply transport capability" problem
iii) Need 3 more wishes

A. Fix land movement stacking problem. Land stacking may not be the biggest issue because in theory you can probably stack 60 divisions in a 60 mile hex. But shouldn't be able to move a 60 division stack down the rail or road !!!
B. Fix "retreat path" calculation that produces unrealistic and unpredictable endings to land campaigns.
C. Need 3 more wishes

x) Improve HQ restriction capability to prevent "cross border" walking ( many people have house rules for example against walking Manchuko garrison army out of Manchuko without paying PP ).
y) Produce one historically correct at start OB for all forces, with historically correct items in the pipeline for all nations, then give US at least a production system, like Japanese production system to allow both sides to react to game events as the Japanese now can ( Brits, Chinese, Russians, etc. would still just rely on "reinforcement track" ).
z) Reserve final wish for unforeseen major "to be discovered" glitch !

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

Heh....I guess 3 wishes aren't enough for some people.

Mine would be.

1. My very own Brooklyn class cruiser which would be.....

2. Crewed by Hooter Girls and be....

3. Stuffed with money.

Ok doktorblood,

Wish #1 granted, the crew and money is up to you[:D]

B

[LargeSlowTarget]

1. fix bugs like leader bug and follow unit command
2. stacking limits for ships, LCU, planes
3. more time to play the game

[Don Bowen]

1. Better Resource/Oil to Supply/Fuel processing
2. Better limits for LCU stacking, ships in ports, loading/unloading
3. For LargeSlowTarget to remove the "LargeSlowTarget" that overlays his avatar.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

3. more time to play the game

Woops, I forgot that one. I should have wished for another 3 wishes on my last wish. [:@] [:)]