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"
