Wishlist thread

[MarkShot]

I think this is the CAW-2007 wishlist thread.

In any case, no Panther Games has no connection to the game 1830. The PC game was coded/ported by Simtek. This was about five years after Avalon Hill released the board game.

[MarkShot]

ORIGINAL: geofactor

just curious.......did panther games make the game 1830 for the PC?......be nice to see a multiplayer version

A solution your question (see):

tm.asp?m=1574214

---

Sorry for the detour; back on topic now.

[geofactor]

recenty bought game and am mildly pleased.....however.....the ship combat is pretty lame! i think the makers of this game would do well to look at SSI's Great Naval Battles series......i dont need to scale down to operate the guns or anything like that.....but it would sure be nice to be able to manuvre my ships in combat as well as put them in a few formations such as line ahead or AA defence....also when planes were readying for CAP...you couldnt load and arm bombers cause the flight deck was in use!.......and also where is the possibility of losing search planes to CAP.....there should be a chance a search plane is shot down before sighting an enemy fleet!....then as commander of a CV fleet you would have to make a decision to attack an area where you lost a search plane and hope the enemy CV's are there....and one more thing....the ability to load and land troops........and what about reinforcements.......im sure the US navy was sending planes to various bases on a daily bases......im sure ill think of more things later.......but you guys are close to having a really good game here.....plz consider what i have mentioned for you next update.....thx Geno

[Ophion]

The original game used to have planes shot down while searching. I haven't noticed if this one does yet - will check the squadron logs next time I play.
 
One thing I noticed playing midway as the japs last night:
I lost BOTH Hiei and the other BC (forget its name) to US submarine attacks (from two different subs, about 6 hours apart). No issues with that, the problem was when the game was over I noticed the US log had another 8 attacks that the US had carried out and missed, which I never knew anything about.
 
Should you be given notice that these attacks are occuring so you can vacate the area?

[Ron Belcher]

This may or may not have been asked. So here goes...

Co-op ? I'd like to see 2 fleet commanders .. Both in charge of their perspective TF's.
And yet, on the same side! Just a thought.

[BvB]

a turn based version to do pbem would be nice but probably too hard to implement

[GenChaos33]

My Wish List (to help with MP campaign games)
 
1) Ability for Human Controlled TGs to retreat off map (side of map set per game editor) And no resign til all forces off map.
 
 
2a) Add a third player to MP games (as referee: to view all forces during play, and scenario distribution/download to both Allied and Axis player at start)
 
or
 
2b) Password Protected Player-Created Scenarios. Some thing like a 2 part password. One part given to Allied player, second part to axis. Code will only show forces for that specific side.
 
NOTE: 2a and 2b are for hiding true composition of forces and locations in scenarios. So player cannot load scenario before MP match and snoop opposing side forces and locations.
 
 

[GenChaos33]

add on to - My Wish List (to help with MP campaign games)
 
3) Battle Results - text report created at the end of scenario/battle. Listing final VPs, all ship status damaged/sunk, all planes damaged/destroyed, airfield damage by airstrike, island bombardment, invasion troops landed, etc., etc..

[GenChaos33]

Update to my wishlist.......
 
1) already exists - strike from wishlist
 
2) would like, but understand that it would require alot of work
 
3) needed badly, and could be easily done?

[Admiral DadMan]

Make the "On Station, Waiting for Strike Recovery" feature after launching a strike from a Carrier TF optional.

Although this feature is designed to prevent gaming the system by players who wish to use single pulse "dump and run" attacks, it creates 2 other issues that can also be gamed out as well.

First, it prevents sustained attacks by locking the Carrier TF in one location, and hampers pursuit for follow up attacks.
Second, it exposes a CV TF to attacks by Surface Action TF's by locking the Carrier TF in place, negating a chance to evade laterally.

Some time ago, I argued (unsuccessfully) that this "feature" could be alternately coded by imposing penalties for aircraft losses due to "failed to return" from air strikes.

I don't wish to rain on everyone's parade as I'm sure that I am a tiny minority of 1, but I'm disapointed that this feature is still employed.

Are we too far down the road to explore this?

[funkatron3000]

I heartily endorse GeneralChaos's third wish list item.  It would be great to have all of the information presented at the end of a battle in some kind of text file.  The amount of information on SSG 's CAW stats pages suggests that some of the data is easily accessible.  Any thoughts SSG?

[ChrisH]

Greetings!

I'm new here, so I wanted to say that I love the game.  Because my background is a bit more historical that gaming, I tend to see things from that persepctive. So, some things that are seen as routine I see in a different light.

So, I wanted to add my $.02 regarding a couple of items in the Wish List.

Similarly, Carriers turned into the wind all the time, to launch and recover CAP, searchplanes and ASW patrols. We see this as a routine ocuurrence which didn't affect the big picture of carrier battles. The big picture is all about how you place your forces relative to those of the enemy, and how you handle them when those relationships are established.

I don't entirely agree- I think wind not only could affect the big picture, but it did, and it did so in the most famous carrier battle of all. 

At Midway TF-16 suffered terribly on the morning of 4 June from a light wind that cause them to steam AWAY from KIDO BUTAI for one full hour between 0656 and about 0750 while launching their morning attack.  Not only did they have to steam away from the Japanese, but they also need to bend on more speed because the wind was light.  This had a number of effects:

1.  It meant the planes had to planes had to not only spend as long as 40 minutes forming up, it meant they were actually moving AWAY from their target while doing so.  This is a big deal when a strike is launched at maximum range. 

2.  The carriers (TF-16) weren't where the pilots expected them to be when they got back.  Not only was this because of the initial launch, but because TF-16 had to turn away from Point Option each time she conducted flight ops, including the rotation of CAP.  When you are short on fuel, this is a big deal.

3.  Lots of high-speed steaming is bad for destroyers with regard to range.

It's important to remember that as successful as the 1020 attack was, HIRYU escaped, and by doing so crippled YORKTOWN that afternoon.  What if HORNET's SBDs ability to searh for KIDO BUTAI when they didn't find them initially wasn't hampered by fuel shortages that resulted, in part, from a light wind from the wrong direction?  While we'll never know what happened for sure, I think it's reasonable to suppose had HORNET been able to hit a carrier, perhaps YORKTOWN might never have have never been attacked.

All 10 of the F4F-4s HORNET launched ditched for lack of fuel in part because HORNET had to steam away from the Japanese (and in part because they were stupidly launched first).  What if the Japanese emerged from the 1020 attack with, say, AKAGI undamaged.  The loss of 10 fighters could have been disasterous later in the battle.

Many an ENTERPRISE SBD ended up in the water in large part because ENTERPRISE wasn't where she was supposed to be when they got back.  As few as 10 miles meant the difference between a safe landing and a swim.  Did this affect the results of the morning attack?  No!  But it did effect future operations, including those against HIRYU later that afternoon.

All of those things "affect the big picture".  Having 17 fighters instead of 27 is a big deal- if it wasn't, VF squadrons would have stuck with the fixed wing F4F-3s and retained 18-aircraft squadrons instead of expanding them to 27 and 36.

Having three extra SBD's is a big deal- just ask AKAGI.

I do understand the need to keep things simple, and when designing software you have to make compromises, both to keep the game playable and to keep down overhead in the software.  But wind and weather (see Coral Sea) were not "routine" and they both played a huge factor in how things turned out in more than one battle.

Make the "On Station, Waiting for Strike Recovery" feature after launching a strike from a Carrier TF optional.

Although this feature is designed to prevent gaming the system by players who wish to use single pulse "dump and run" attacks, it creates 2 other issues that can also be gamed out as well.

First, it prevents sustained attacks by locking the Carrier TF in one location, and hampers pursuit for follow up attacks.
Second, it exposes a CV TF to attacks by Surface Action TF's by locking the Carrier TF in place, negating a chance to evade laterally.

Some time ago, I argued (unsuccessfully) that this "feature" could be alternately coded by imposing penalties for aircraft losses due to "failed to return" from air strikes.

I like those suggestions.  It would be nice if you could set your Point Option.  Once it's set, you can either steam towards it (and if you reach it, remain on station) or not, depending upon the tactical situation.

Again, I don't mean to sound like I am complaining or I think the game is terrible- I'm not.  I love the game, and if these things never make it into the game, I can deal with it.  But for the historian in me, those little details mean a lot, and it would take a great game and make it more historically accurate and, well, greater.

Thanks for listening.

Chris

[Prince of Eckmühl]

I'd genuinely like to see the game adapted to air combat in the 1930's:

[Flaurez]

I'd genuinely like to see the game adapted to something that wasn't abandonware. Why does it still cost anything? It's not supported in any way and noone cares anymore!

[Prince of Eckmühl]

I don't know, but these are some sweet looking birds:

[Prince of Eckmühl]

And look at the beautiful fighters:

[Flaurez]

Those are indeed some beautiul birds! I just wish there was a CAW scenario we could use them in...

[Prince of Eckmühl]

The SBU was the first USN scout to bust 200 mph:

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Of course, black and white photography doesn't do it justice:

[Prince of Eckmühl]

Then there was the Vindicator: