WitP dream (10 ultimate improvements / fixes)...

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

This is digest and expansion of a message I wrote 6+ months ago in which I listed several ideas I come up in 2+ years we have WitP...


First of all I must say that WitP is the _BEST_ wargame that I ever had and that I am enjoying it from Day1 and will be enjoying it in future as well!

Nonetheless there are certain minor/mayor things that I (and I think others) would like to see changed in future (possible WitP v2.x in few months/years time).

I know that it is very late in WitP development and that programmers time (thanks again Mike Wood - you are our hero!!! [&o][&o][&o]) is very very limited but things might change in the future and, hopefully, WitP and it's legion of faithful followers would be revisited!


Below 10 ultimate improvements / fixe are, IMHO, the most important ones that are worth perusing (hopefully) in future (if it would be possible)... with those the WitP, again IMHO, would be almost best possible and our gaming experience would be even greater...


#1 Ammo replenishment should be depending on 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

NOTE:
For simplicity sake the AI should not be bound with this - this should only be valid for human player!

[EDIT]
The rule above would have exception when supplied AE (at least port size 1 + at least 20,000 supply) would be present in port.



#2 Number of ships anchored should be depending on SPS for port size

In current WitP we can anchor as many ships as we want in any port size that is larger than 3 (and that makes all those ships 100% safe from submarines and mines).

There was a specific reason why during WWII in the Pacific USN and IJN could use only certain places as bases for their fleets (due to good geographic properties of those special places) but in our current WitP we are free to, unhistorical, do what we want regarding this...

IMHO this should be altered and something simple could be implemented (numbers are just for example):

SPS port size 3 : MAX number of anchored ships = 10
SPS port size 4 : MAX number of anchored ships = 15
SPS port size 5 : MAX number of anchored ships = 25
SPS port size 6 : MAX number of anchored ships = 50
SPS port size 7 : MAX number of anchored ships = 75
SPS port size 8 : MAX number of anchored ships = 100
SPS port size 9 : MAX number of anchored ships = 150

NOTE:
For simplicity sake the AI should not be bound with this - this should only be valid for human player!



#3 Number of ships loading/unloading should be depending on port size

In current WitP we can load/unload as many ships as we want in any port.

But during WWII in the Pacific USN and IJN had serious problem with port congestions (in Noumea, for example, some ships had to wait for weeks to be loaded/unloaded)....

IMHO this should be altered and something simple could be implemented (numbers are just for example):

port size 1 : MAX number of loading/unloading ships = 1
port size 2 : MAX number of loading/unloading ships = 3
port size 3 : MAX number of loading/unloading ships = 5
port size 4 : MAX number of loading/unloading ships = 10
port size 5 : MAX number of loading/unloading ships = 15
port size 6 : MAX number of loading/unloading ships = 25
port size 7 : MAX number of loading/unloading ships = 35
port size 8 : MAX number of loading/unloading ships = 50
port size 9 : MAX number of loading/unloading ships = 75
port size 10 : MAX number of loading/unloading ships = 100

NOTE:
For simplicity sake the AI should not be bound with this - this should only be valid for human player!



#4 Absolute maximum for aircraft operating from airfields

Right now it is possible to abuse the WitP game engine by overcrowding airbases and still achieve enormous air strikes as early as 1942.

This is real and serious problem!

IMHO there should be more effective (and absolute) limit for aircraft operating from airfields based on airfield size.


The best WitP community proposal so far regarding this is that we start counting aircraft engines instead of airframes for airfield capacity...

So... if airbase is size 4 it can currently host 4 x 50 = 200 MAX aircraft. But if we would count engines it would only mean that 200 single engines can be there or 100 2 engines or just 50 4 engines...



#5 "Diminishing returns" for all kind of troops depending on 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 ("Standard Potential Size") 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 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 (numbers are just for example - SPS can be MAX 9):

combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 0: MAX number of land units available for combat = 1
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 0: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 1
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 1: MAX number of land units available for combat = 2
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 1: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 1
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 2: MAX number of land units available for combat = 3
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 2: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 2
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 3: MAX number of land units available for combat = 4
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 3: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 2
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 4: MAX number of land units available for combat = 5
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 4: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 2
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 5: MAX number of land units available for combat = 6
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 5: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 3
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 6: MAX number of land units available for combat = 7
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 6: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 3
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 7: MAX number of land units available for combat = 8
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 7: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 3
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 8: MAX number of land units available for combat = 9
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 8: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 3
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 9: MAX number of land units available for combat = 10
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 9: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 4
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 10: MAX number of land units available for combat = 11
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 10: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 4
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 11: MAX number of land units available for combat = 12
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 11: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 4
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 12: MAX number of land units available for combat = 13
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 12: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 4
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 13: MAX number of land units available for combat = 14
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 13: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 4
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 14: MAX number of land units available for combat = 15
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 14: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 5
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 15: MAX number of land units available for combat = 16
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 15: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 5
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 16: MAX number of land units available for combat = 17
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 16: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 5
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 17: MAX number of land units available for combat = 18
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 17: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 5
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 18: MAX number of land units available for combat = 18
combined SPS (Port+Airfield) 18: MAX number of ENG units available for building = 5

NOTE:
One other WitP player ("AmiralLaurent" ) suggested that instead of units we count squads - this is even better idea!



#6 Setting Supply / Fuel / Oil / Resource user selected MIN limits for bases

Right now in WitP we are at mercy of AI for internal distribution of Supply / Fuel / Oil / Resource.

What about giving user ability to set Supply / Fuel / Oil / Resource MIN limits he/she wishes the base to posses?

That way we would 100% sure avoid unnecessary automatic transfer of Supply / Fuel / Oil / Resource as AI for internal distribution wishes!



#7 Better Air to Air large combat

The current WitP large Air to Air combat is too bloody (i.e. too many downed aircraft and lopsided results).

Although no simple solution was found by developers this issue is still very very much worth investigating!



#8 Better Air Naval Search and Air ASW

I discovered (see my extensive tests) that currently every single pilot tasked with Air Naval Search and/or Air ASW flies (if passed various checks to see whether he flies or not) through every single HEX inside his range (as set via range dial in GUI) and has possibility to discover every enemy ships / submarine in those HEXes (deepening on various factors).

This is describable as concentric circles or spiral movement.

As I showed in my tests (and many other players confirmed during their games) even one single aircraft on search can discover several enemy ships / submarines and in some PBEMs the lists of discovered ships / submarines lasts for minutes in combat replays (i.e. there are that many discovered ships / submarines).

IMHO this should be checked and, if possible, redesigned because current way of implementing Air Naval Search and Air ASW is 100% unrealistic (there is no way every single search aircraft can check every single HEX in his range)...



#9 Level bomber accuracy and AA

a)
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)


b)
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)


c)
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).


d)
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)...


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


f)
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.



#10 Better Air to Naval targeting (number of attacking aircraft more depending of perceived enemy ship number/type)

In WitP we already have limited info about enemy and under this (i.e. FoW = "Fog of War") we can many times get wrong info about enemy TFs for both number and ship type.

So... why not actually use this sometimes "flawed" info (just as it would be in real confusing war) for actual Air to Naval targeting?

Right now it is possible to "tire", for example, the enemy CV air crews by simply "feeding" them "bait" targets (i.e. if you want to lure/expose full strength of enemy CV air force you simply offer it few insignificant targets - like AKs/APs - and they would attack it in full strength whilst your own CV air force would wait them to "tire" and only then strike them)...

My idea is simple - the number of attacking aircraft (whether from CVs or from land) vs. sighted enemy TF (or TFs) should _ALWAYS_ be _DIRECTLY_ linked with number/type of enemy ships sighted in TF (or TFs)!

Therefore even in with multiple target rich environment the attacking aircraft would always attack with appropriate strength and even if available the "surplus" strength (i.e. number of excess available attacking aircraft) would not be used as deemed by commander.

This means that if there is enemy TF with, let's say, just 2x AK escorted by 1x DD your whole air strength (and you have, let's say, 27x dive bombers + 27x torpedo bombers + 27x fighters on 1x CV) would not be send - only appropriate (as deemed by commander) attacking number of aircraft would be send: 9x dive bomber + 9x torpedo bomber +9x fighter (if there is possible enemy CAP).

Please note that this would still allow for possible "screw ups" (like "Coral Sea Battle") because FoW can distort the sighted enemy TFs and thus trigger wrong response from commander - therefore we don't loose the uncertainty effect!



Leo "Apollo11"


P.S.
[EDIT]
Additions

[timtom]

Excellent proposals there, Apollo.

Hypotheticaly speaking, how much would it cost Matrix to hire a programmer to work on WitP exclusively, and more to the point, how many of us would be willing to donate an amount to a "WitP improvement fund", say $10/month or a lump sum or whatever?

A few other things I'd love to see - presuming we aren't talking a complete reworking of the land combat and -movement code - are a moonson weather zone in Burma, better targeting to keep aircraft from attacking naval targets they can't hurt, and US withdrawal.

[Oliver Heindorf]

#11 800 kg AP shells are only aviable on Kates in the first week of Dec. 41.

[pauk]

greetings...

Oliver, i think that Apollo was quite clear what kind of improvements wants... I'm sure that lots of stuff can be discussed, but his propositions would affect/improve the whole game system and would balance the game. (few changes in the OOB wouldn't change much...)

I must say that Apollo's ideas are excellent...

[dereck]

As long as each change mentioned above is optional and can be selected to be used or ignored. Otherwise, I'll never upgrade my game again ...

[tsimmonds]

These would go a long way to making PBEM more enjoyable. I would add to #1 (ammo replenishment depends on port size) that in any size port the presence of an AE (loaded with supply) should enable replenishment of any ammo.

These would best be optional with a single toggle, all or none.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: timtom

Excellent proposals there, Apollo.

Thanks (and to others as well)!

Hypotheticaly speaking, how much would it cost Matrix to hire a programmer to work on WitP exclusively, and more to the point, how many of us would be willing to donate an amount to a "WitP improvement fund", say $10/month or a lump sum or whatever?

That would be really good venue to explore for Matrix/2By3!


Leo "Apollo11"

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

I would add to #1 (ammo replenishment depends on port size) that in any size port the presence of an AE (loaded with supply) should enable replenishment of any ammo.

Good idea (I forgot about that - I will add it to list as EDIT - thanks!


Leo "Apollo11"

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

I would add to #1 (ammo replenishment depends on port size) that in any size port the presence of an AE (loaded with supply) should enable replenishment of any ammo.

Good idea (I forgot about that - I will add it to list as EDIT - thanks!

Leo "Apollo11"

Wouldn't it be better to make the requirement: Port 1 + AE + 20,000 supply? Otherwise you'd just have to crank out a bunch of AE's and we'd be back where we started.

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: timtom

Wouldn't it be better to make the requirement: Port 1 + AE + 20,000 supply? Otherwise you'd just have to crank out a bunch of AE's and we'd be back where we started.

"irrelevant" wrote "supplied AE" - I think he meant just this (i.e. what you wrote)!


Leo "Apollo11"

[Nomad]

Good work Apollo as always. A couple of suggestions:

#1 - an AE could increase port size by 3( no stacking ) for ammo loading rule.

#5 - maybe base it on AP load size? Then allowable = (port + airbase ) * Whatever factor seems right.
Modify Morale, Fatigue, Combat, Construction rolls for ALL units( includes air ) if over limit. If over twice limit double penalities.

[timtom]

In fairness Irrelevat wrote "an AE (loaded with supply)", which I take to refer to the AE, not the base [:)].

While Nomads suggestion is elegant in its simplicity, I still feel its important to link reloading to the actual presence of a substantial body of supply. If AE = port size + 3, then any port 1 could easily be made to sprout 8" shells, any size 4 port 16" shells. There's a lot of size 4 ports on the map. Linking reloading to 20K supply would make it possible to reload in forward areas but only with proper logistical preparation and the the presence of the air/land/naval assets to protect such a base.

I think #5 is tricky. As I understand it, under your scheme it would still be possible to blonk down 9 divs on most atolls. I guess most atolls could hold a rgt + support troops or so (?). I guess the trick is to limit the no. of troops while not making it impossible to actually capture the place. I think it's been suggested elsewhere to limit the no. of forts buildable on atolls, and severally increasing supply spoilage on atolls, ie make it difficult to maintain a large force on atolls for a long time while making it possible to land a larger force if supported by off-shore supply.

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: timtom

In fairness Irrelevat wrote "an AE (loaded with supply)", which I take to refer to the AE, not the base [:)].

While Nomads suggestion is elegant in its simplicity, I still feel its important to link reloading to the actual presence of a substantial body of supply. If AE = port size + 3, then any port 1 could easily be made to sprout 8" shells, any size 4 port 16" shells. There's a lot of size 4 ports on the map. Linking reloading to 20K supply would make it possible to reload in forward areas but only with proper logistical preparation and the the presence of the air/land/naval assets to protect such a base.

I think #5 is tricky. As I understand it, under your scheme it would still be possible to blonk down 9 divs on most atolls. I guess most atolls could hold a rgt + support troops or so (?). I guess the trick is to limit the no. of troops while not making it impossible to actually capture the place. I think it's been suggested elsewhere to limit the no. of forts buildable on atolls, and severally increasing supply spoilage on atolls, ie make it difficult to maintain a large force on atolls for a long time while making it possible to land a larger force if supported by off-shore supply.

SO may naval bombardment overly effective on massed troops in such small places...its not like dropping shells on atoll are going to miss troop when they are standing shoulder to shoulder on tiny atolls like that.

[Ron Saueracker]

Definitely a great summation of ideas many have been posting for years. I'd expand on it beyond 10 and add some land combat adjustments.

[FeurerKrieg]

ORIGINAL: timtom

Excellent proposals there, Apollo.

Hypotheticaly speaking, how much would it cost Matrix to hire a programmer to work on WitP exclusively, and more to the point, how many of us would be willing to donate an amount to a "WitP improvement fund", say $10/month or a lump sum or whatever?

A few other things I'd love to see - presuming we aren't talking a complete reworking of the land combat and -movement code - are a moonson weather zone in Burma, better targeting to keep aircraft from attacking naval targets they can't hurt, and US withdrawal.

I'd be up for that, provided I wasn't the only one of course!

[dtravel]

I'm with Derek on this. Too many of these proposals go too far. And quite frankly I doubt that people have any idea how radically these would change the game.

Besides, until all the major bugs are fixed we don't even know how the current design is supposed to work. A list like this is like complaining that a car's AC doesn't work and the passenger window won't roll down when the mechanic can't even keep the transmission from falling out.

[ChezDaJez]

While Nomads suggestion is elegant in its simplicity, I still feel its important to link reloading to the actual presence of a substantial body of supply. If AE = port size + 3, then any port 1 could easily be made to sprout 8" shells, any size 4 port 16" shells. There's a lot of size 4 ports on the map. Linking reloading to 20K supply would make it possible to reload in forward areas but only with proper logistical preparation and the the presence of the air/land/naval assets to protect such a base.

I disagree. The shells are loaded on the AE, not the port so port supply should have nothing to do with it. The AE should have the supply onboard to furnish any kind of shell. To tie it to port supply would negate any at-sea loading of ammo for allied forces late in the war and would negate any usefulness for the Japanese player as it can be very hard to maintain stocks of 20000 supply at smaller ports.

To restrict the number of times an AE can reload a combatant, simply have it only able to resupply itself (the AE) at a level 7-9 port. As each combatant resupplys, reduce the available supply on the AE by some factor reflecting the size of the combattant being resupplied.

Chez

[ChezDaJez]

Hypotheticaly speaking, how much would it cost Matrix to hire a programmer to work on WitP exclusively, and more to the point, how many of us would be willing to donate an amount to a "WitP improvement fund", say $10/month or a lump sum or whatever?

Would take a wee bit more than that to pay for a dedicated programmer who is able to absorp the amount of abuse we can heap on them!!!![:D]

Chez

[el cid again]

As long as each change mentioned above is optional and can be selected to be used or ignored.

Wow. What an attitude. Insofar as there are fundamental counterfactual logistic errors, when corrected they should NOT be optional. I have no clue why one would elect the "option" of not using right port loading, for example? Might as well have "superman" counters.

[spence]

Re land combat and retreats....

Eliminate ZOCs for all units except Infantry/Marine/Cavalry/Tank/Mechanized Divisions and Corps. A stack containing 2 brigades (Japanese) or 3 regiments/brigades (Allies) of the aforementioned unit types (only) will be considered to contain a division. Other unit types don't count though they may occupy and control a port/airbase.

If a unit or stack is forced to retreat and may only do so into a hex in which the enemy exerts a ZOC then the unit or stack is eliminated. If a unit or stack is forced to retreat it may enter an enemy occupied hex in which the enemy does not exert a Zone of Control.