Patch 07 - Unofficial Public Beta & UI Suggestions

[blueatoll]

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

I see what you mean now. I also notice that your minimap doesn't display.

I realized after the fact that you were in windowed mode.

My laptop is a 1920x1080 display and to get it to fit in Windowed mode, I had to use -w -px1680 -py1050. What is the max your monitor can do?

What map mod is this? It's beautiful.

[m10bob]

Suggestion.(Glad I found this thread)..

Port Moresby is being invaded right now and I managed to cobble together a good allied cruiser and destroyer force with a superior rated skipper to intervene, but 60 miles from their mission, they ran into a single Japanese landing barge, sunk it, and turned for home as if their mission was accomplished.

From experience I have learned to obviate this problem by delegating port sized 2 Moresby as their "home base", but I feel that is too gamey.

Is their a way to prevent "after single combat retreats"?

An ideal fix might be to have a dial allowing the retreat only after meeting a certain sized opponent, or even a number of individual contacts?

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Suggestion.(Glad I found this thread)..

Port Moresby is being invaded right now and I managed to cobble together a good allied cruiser and destroyer force with a superior rated skipper to intervene, but 60 miles from their mission, they ran into a single Japanese landing barge, sunk it, and turned for home as if their mission was accomplished.

From experience I have learned to obviate this problem by delegating port sized 2 Moresby as their "home base", but I feel that is too gamey.

Is their a way to prevent "after single combat retreats"?

An ideal fix might be to have a dial allowing the retreat only after meeting a certain sized opponent, or even a number of individual contacts?

Why would that be gamey?

You can also avoid this behavior by changing Retirement Allowed to Remain On Station.

[Admiral DadMan]

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 29, 42

Night Time Surface Combat, near Sendai at 118,61, Range 2,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
xAKL Atuta Maru
xAKL Jouban Maru, Shell hits 10, heavy fires, heavy damage

Allied Ships
CL Phoenix

Low visibility due to Thunderstorms with 57% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Thunderstorms and 57% moonlight: 2,000 yards
Range closes to 21,000 yards...
Range closes to 16,000 yards...
Range closes to 11,000 yards...
Range closes to 8,000 yards...
Range closes to 6,000 yards...
Range closes to 4,000 yards...
Range closes to 2,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 2,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 2,000 yards
CL Phoenix engages xAKL Jouban Maru at 2,000 yards
Range increases to 4,000 yards
CL Phoenix engages xAKL Jouban Maru at 4,000 yards
CL Phoenix engages xAKL Jouban Maru at 4,000 yards
Range increases to 5,000 yards
xAKL Jouban Maru sunk by CL Phoenix at 5,000 yards
Japanese Task Force Manages to Escape
Task forces break off...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Naval bombardment of Sendai at 117,58

Allied Ships
CL Phoenix

Japanese ground losses:
15 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

CL Phoenix firing at 64th Infantry Group

Maybe your threat level was not "Absolute"?

[m10bob]

Many of my missions are set "Do not retire", yet they will.
I'm an old-timer too, Admiral..LOL

The reason I think it gamey to set those CA's as Moresby as their home base is because if the port is a size 1 or 2, it could not support the ships anyway.
It only prevents them from straying too far...
That is gamey.

In your nice example, can you tell me how the Phoenix was unable to keep track of that other tub?
IMHO nothing should have remained on the water but oil and debris, aside from the one warship itself.
That's not FOW, that's silly.

[Admiral DadMan]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Many of my missions are set "Do not retire", yet they will.
I'm an old-timer too, Admiral..LOL


In your nice example, can you tell me how the Phoenix was unable to keep track of that other tub?
IMHO nothing should have remained on the water but oil and debris, aside from the one warship itself.
That's not FOW, that's silly.

I do not have an explanation for it.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Many of my missions are set "Do not retire", yet they will.
I'm an old-timer too, Admiral..LOL


In your nice example, can you tell me how the Phoenix was unable to keep track of that other tub?
IMHO nothing should have remained on the water but oil and debris, aside from the one warship itself.
That's not FOW, that's silly.

I do not have an explanation for it.

Night action - visibility. Thunderstorms, low moonlight. No radar. Easy to explain.

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Many of my missions are set "Do not retire", yet they will.
I'm an old-timer too, Admiral..LOL

The reason I think it gamey to set those CA's as Moresby as their home base is because if the port is a size 1 or 2, it could not support the ships anyway.
It only prevents them from straying too far...
That is gamey.

If you don't also set threat tolerance to absolute, there is still a chance that they will retire - overriding their Remain On Station orders. I believe this is covered in the manual. Maybe not, but I thought so.

OK - you're interpreting home port incorrectly. Home port is intended to be the port that your TF returns to. Just because a port can't fully rearm/replenish a given ship doesn't mean that you can't base them there. You're intentionally handicapping yourself when you do this for no real reason IMO. If that's how you want to play, that's fine, but you should also be aware that it will affect your TFs in precisely this manner - if they run into something and are based elsewhere, they're going to retire away from the port you actually want to defend.

What if you had AKEs/AEs or enough naval support squads there to "support" these ships? Whether or not you can rearm somewhere does not just depend on port size. I don't even have a realistic historical basis for your self-limiting avoidance of "gamey" here - Ulithi Atoll can only go up to size 6 in the game, yet handled hundreds (thousands?) of ships based there. What about Kavieng? The IJN based CAs there in real life (half of the Battle of Savo Island task force came from there), yet it can only get to size 4 when fully built up - which is not enough to support CAs. Or what about the Germans "basing" battlecruisers and battleships in Norwegian fjords with no port facilities? Again, if you want to play this way, that's fine. I just think it's headscratchingly silly.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Suggestion.(Glad I found this thread)..

Port Moresby is being invaded right now and I managed to cobble together a good allied cruiser and destroyer force with a superior rated skipper to intervene, but 60 miles from their mission, they ran into a single Japanese landing barge, sunk it, and turned for home as if their mission was accomplished.

From experience I have learned to obviate this problem by delegating port sized 2 Moresby as their "home base", but I feel that is too gamey.

Is their a way to prevent "after single combat retreats"?

An ideal fix might be to have a dial allowing the retreat only after meeting a certain sized opponent, or even a number of individual contacts?

This is not necessarily a bug at all. Nor is it even behaviour that should be altered by changing the game code.

There are many very legitimate reasons, why your cruiser TF decided to return to its home port. The most obvious one, but by no means the only possible reason, is that enemy sea and air forces are far too strong. The next most obvious reason is your TF leader is not as suitable for the task as you believe him to be.

Alfred

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Many of my missions are set "Do not retire", yet they will.
I'm an old-timer too, Admiral..LOL


In your nice example, can you tell me how the Phoenix was unable to keep track of that other tub?
IMHO nothing should have remained on the water but oil and debris, aside from the one warship itself.
That's not FOW, that's silly.

I do not have an explanation for it.

Night action - visibility. Thunderstorms, low moonlight. No radar. Easy to explain.

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Many of my missions are set "Do not retire", yet they will.
I'm an old-timer too, Admiral..LOL

The reason I think it gamey to set those CA's as Moresby as their home base is because if the port is a size 1 or 2, it could not support the ships anyway.
It only prevents them from straying too far...
That is gamey.

If you don't also set threat tolerance to absolute, there is still a chance that they will retire - overriding their Remain On Station orders. I believe this is covered in the manual. Maybe not, but I thought so.

OK - you're interpreting home port incorrectly. Home port is intended to be the port that your TF returns to. Just because a port can't fully rearm/replenish a given ship doesn't mean that you can't base them there. You're intentionally handicapping yourself when you do this for no real reason IMO. If that's how you want to play, that's fine, but you should also be aware that it will affect your TFs in precisely this manner - if they run into something and are based elsewhere, they're going to retire away from the port you actually want to defend.

What if you had AKEs/AEs or enough naval support squads there to "support" these ships? Whether or not you can rearm somewhere does not just depend on port size. I don't even have a realistic historical basis for your self-limiting avoidance of "gamey" here - Ulithi Atoll can only go up to size 6 in the game, yet handled hundreds (thousands?) of ships based there. What about Kavieng? The IJN based CAs there in real life (half of the Battle of Savo Island task force came from there), yet it can only get to size 4 when fully built up - which is not enough to support CAs. Or what about the Germans "basing" battlecruisers and battleships in Norwegian fjords with no port facilities? Again, if you want to play this way, that's fine. I just think it's headscratchingly silly.

This argument makes sense completely..I concur.
This forum has the best people.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Suggestion.(Glad I found this thread)..

Port Moresby is being invaded right now and I managed to cobble together a good allied cruiser and destroyer force with a superior rated skipper to intervene, but 60 miles from their mission, they ran into a single Japanese landing barge, sunk it, and turned for home as if their mission was accomplished.

From experience I have learned to obviate this problem by delegating port sized 2 Moresby as their "home base", but I feel that is too gamey.

Is their a way to prevent "after single combat retreats"?

An ideal fix might be to have a dial allowing the retreat only after meeting a certain sized opponent, or even a number of individual contacts?

This is not necessarily a bug at all. Nor is it even behaviour that should be altered by changing the game code.

There are many very legitimate reasons, why your cruiser TF decided to return to its home port. The most obvious one, but by no means the only possible reason, is that enemy sea and air forces are far too strong. The next most obvious reason is your TF leader is not as suitable for the task as you believe him to be.

Alfred

NOBODY called my initial query "buggy"..
I think "bugs" were worked out in Uncommon Valor. Since then, it has been a matter of "tweaking", LOL

[blueatoll]

Would it be possible to get training airgroups to have their color change on the master air unit page when a certain % of the pilots are trained to a set experience level (like 70 air rating for fighters)? It would be nice to not have to open and check every air group's pilot list every other week to see if any pilots are at least operationally trained.

[IJV]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Suggestion for MichaelM....It would be really nice to have a single button which would allow both functions for "Send ships to", and "setting home port".
So often when a new ship arrives at Balboa and we are assigning it to Pearl or Auckland, etc, it presently requires the 2 steps.[:)]

Similar to this, a 'add all compatible ships at base' or something along those lines when creating a TF would be useful relatively rarely but save a lot of frantic clicking when appropriate...

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: IJV

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Suggestion for MichaelM....It would be really nice to have a single button which would allow both functions for "Send ships to", and "setting home port".
So often when a new ship arrives at Balboa and we are assigning it to Pearl or Auckland, etc, it presently requires the 2 steps.[:)]

Similar to this, a 'add all compatible ships at base' or something along those lines when creating a TF would be useful relatively rarely but save a lot of frantic clicking when appropriate...

Define "add all compatible ships at base".

When creating a TF, only ships which can go into the TF are made available for selection. Also you can click on the ship type filters to reduce the clutter.

Alfred

[catwhoorg]

Say you have 60 xAK at San Francisco.

You want to add em all, would be nice not to have to add each one individually

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: catwhoorg

Say you have 60 xAK at San Francisco.

You want to add em all, would be nice not to have to add each one individually

And how do you propose to write the selection criteria. Most ports will have more "compatible" ships than can fit into the task force.

A surface combat TF has a maximum of 25 ships. Do you want one comprised of 10 battleships and 15 heavy cruisers. Where is your ASW protection.

Do you want your ASW TF to have the first 4 destroyers, leaving out other ships with better ASW weapons ro higher day/night experience levels.

Would be a very strange Transport TF with 60 destroyers and 40 destroyer escorts, but no cargo ships. Or a transport/amphibious TF which lacks the ships with the appropriate cargo holds to load properly the LCU you want to move.

Then how do you reconcile normal and combat loading.

Let us not forget port size. Do you want a TF which is too large to dock either at the origin port or the destination port.

So I repeat, define compatible.

Alfred

[Trugrit]

There is an auto ship selection feature but it is not very useful because
of what Alfred has said. You usually don't get the ships you want or the
escorts you want.

But for cargo task forces it may save you a little time.I don't use it
because it takes more time to take ships out I don't want

[Theages]

On most screens de-/selecting a filter adds/removes the corresponding items (eg.: ship selection)
But the load troops screen only changes the color of the items, but does not remove them from view. If there are many units present, you therefore have still to scroll all the way down to find your only eg. ART unit.



This behaviour seem inconsistent.
Filters should add / remove item. What do You think?

[catwhoorg]

ORIGINAL: Trugrit


There is an auto ship selection feature but it is not very useful because
of what Alfred has said. You usually don't get the ships you want or the
escorts you want.

But for cargo task forces it may save you a little time.I don't use it
because it takes more time to take ships out I don't want

Never noticed that.

tried it last night, had decent results, added a couple more, deleted a couple, but overall fewer clicks to make a good sized transport TF.

[Yaab]

Interesting. I like to create cargo TFs composed of tens of xAKs of the same class capacity for easier calculations of supply movement (i.e. 10 x 3200 cargo capacity ships = 32,000 supply convoy). If you can move pilots in batches of 5 and 10, then why not ships?

[Admiral DadMan]

New Issue: I don't agree that transferring an air group to or from a docked CV should leave its aircraft in a damaged state for more than that turn, provided there is the proper amount of aviation support at the airfield (when transferred off a CV). Presently, it can take 2-3 days for an air group to be "reassembled". Realistically, they were simply craned off, then transported to the airfield, or vice versa.

Furthermore, if you have a CV disbanded in a port (e.g. Pearl Harbor) with aircraft aboard, you can transfer them to a nearby airfield (e.g. Hilo) and they are undamaged, but if you transfer them off to the airfield of the port you're disbanded in (e.g. Pearl Harbor), they're all damaged. How does this make sense?