What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?

[Macclan5]

ORIGINAL: Rogue187

I know sending pilots to TRACOM will speed up and increase the EXP of pilots that are being trained but I am not sure by how much. As far as I know, as the war progresses, pilots come out better trained anyway.

I know sending pilots to TRACOM will speed up = YES

and increase the EXP of pilots = NO

Oft debated topic and even if you think you know it - veterns provide other new insights.

The War room has a great many fantastic threads in this.[:D]

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: GaryChildress

A couple other things for the wish list:

1. The ability to add new nations to the list of combatants, including the ability to include more than one Axis nation.

2. The ability to edit the random name generation of pilots so that newly added countries can have their pilots appropriately named.

Like these ideas.

[LeeChard]

I never watch combat animations but what Rogue187 describes would be fun for me.
It seems like it would be a massively challenging program.

[Yaab]

A dedicated CAS mission which would exclude 2Es and 4Es bombers from ground attack in combat hexes. Fighter, fighter-bombers, Light bombers and dive bombers would be the only elligible types to perform CAS mission in combat hexes.

[RichardAckermann]

Excellent idea. High altitude LCU bombing without friendly fire always seemed a bit strange.

[Barb]

"Ground Interdiction" as a new type of mission for medium/heavy bombers - that should include a new type of Industry/Base/Infrastructure/whatever. Majority of the missions of the Medium bombers were to attack these target types (Rail sidings, stations, railyards, rail repair shops, bridges, river ports, etc.) with objective of limiting supply flow/troop movements without direct effect of front-line troops. Also river barge/coastal traffic should be modeled (that is where all those B-25D1/G/H/J were used most. Bigger ships were rare) somehow.

[RichardAckermann]

Thanks Rogue187! The hyperlink idea for the combat and operations reports was great. I didn't expect it, but I do heavily rely on it ever since built.

[Kull]

It would be kind of cool if the experience/skill type numbers for ships and LCUs (and their commanders) could display the same colors used to identify a change in pilot skills (both last turn and current month).

[Barb]

AND Air to Surface ROCKETS!!! British RP-3 as well as US 3in FFAR and 5in FFAR/HVAR.
Napalm

Vary bomb load and range for planes - more fuel = less bombs, less fuel = more bombs. Chance to pick up several standard loads - Para-frag containers/incendiary mix/etc... (un)jettisonable bomb bay tanks...

Also not to have every squad in hex to fire AA on aircraft attacking just portion of the line/airfield/port would help a lot

As for the other things... Could torpedoes be made devices built in a way Mines are?
Could Subs use also Mk.18 "Electric" or Mk.27 "Cutie" instead of all Mk.14 "Steam" torpedoes? Could be then incorporated in to "located sub/search abandoned" with higher probability for Mk.14, less for Mk.18.
With a chance to fire Mk.27 at the ASW ship attacking sub... omňomňomňom (munch)

[urtel]

The single greatest thing that could be done for this game is changing the orders entry format from IGOUGO to WEGO. Both players could work on their turns simultaneously and then the orders files would be read by the engine to resolve the turn, create the animation movie, combat reports, etc. This could also better leave open options for having more than 2 players.

I can't believe crazy PVP community in this forum skip this gem, I expected 100s of +1 ??!

Guys think about it, this will short all games for at last 30% time plus it will put effect of HQ coordiantion on table ( assuming different player will play different high commands)!

And do you know what is best it can be done in this game version! As relative experienced programmer I think this is double as one man effort in time 2-4 months, with almost no changes to actual game code.

Here is how I will do it (but it can be better ways this is just from head):

- New game will be setup as part of this site/Forum using already give forum credentials for all authorization thing
- In that setup(one page formula r) it will be setup who are players and which high command HQ they command, with maybe some more options like main player per side who can change this HQ assignments while game is in progress

- Then script on server will make new folder with structure which will allow every player upload they save game file, simple upload interface, forum already have that

- After every save game upload script will be run to check are all players ( using setup from step 1) pushed they save games if that is done then script will make new save game(master) pulling from all posted save games only data(commands) which are related to HQs(including sub HQs off curse) that player command – as I am aware all units/air groups/ships belong to some HQ and that data exists in all save game files, if needed we can make new HQ for industry and things like that and locate some player to it. This script can be open source so everyone can check it no have cheat or anything, it doing relative simple job take x amount of data from file a(filtered by some ID) and put in file b. Off course programmer who make script need to know structure of data in save game files. Then all players get info that new save game file is available ( forum notification), they download file play units they command and upload next turn.
Every player can transfer unit from it command to some other and that unit then can''t be used until next turn, which is good your team need to think in advance and you will be penalize if you not done that in advance.

- if master save file need to be encrypted ( so you can''t see raw data) script can make different save file for every user using they forum password (or better to say pass hash) so that is covered too.

I think you guys (PVP community) can do this, as some kick start project or pateron or whatever you will found programmer which can make this scripts relative cheep , so you need 2 more things some way that programmer get structure of data in save file ( but I think something like this already exists because tracker use it) and one small effort of Matrix to allow some forum extensions and some space on they servers where save files will be stored. Even if matrix is not willing to do that you can do it on any other server, only I think ppl will be more happy and trustful with official support by Matrix.

As u can see this almost not request any change for game code, but maybe it will need to be done for industry or things like that which I think do not have command HQ.

[Yaab]

ORIGINAL: RichardAckermann

Excellent idea. High altitude LCU bombing without friendly fire always seemed a bit strange.

Here is my thread about 2E/4Es flying CAS.
tm.asp?m=4343121&mpage=1&key=

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[Anonymous]

[Deleted by Admins]

[RichardAckermann]

Very interesting reading. For now I experiment with penalizing bombing above 1000 feet for hexes that are contested. Larger slower craft like 2E & 4E bombers are more easy to hit, especially by the "contact bullet" AA type. (I use HE-shrapnel / VT fuse and contact-types for AA shells)
The results are quite encouraging, the A2A level on the europe eastern front has dropped, as it was in RL, while smaller fighters and FB/DB gained value in ground support, larger craft lost value in frontline ground support.
LRCAP duels for air superiority are now too at lower altitudes.

[ericv]

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericv
I would like to be able to select a bunch of units at the same time (airgroups, LCU's, bases) and with the help of filters, make a subselection and set all kinds of parameters en masse in this subset. That would do away with much of the unnecessary clicking



I already coded a right click LCU move that does only move/follow units attached to the same HQ. So you can move around "grouped together" LCUs. LCU Target planning is also right click set for all in hex.
For other things...most of the item lists (ships,bases,LCU) are quite long. That will make a multi selection difficult. Do you have examples on what commands you want to issue? Maybe I come across a way to at least work into the right direction.

Certainly I can give some examples:
-LCU's :
setting preparation target,destination etc for a group of units at the same time, when the units are in the same hex, or have the same HQ, filters like that.

examples :
All I Army Corps units prep for such and such target.
All 6th Army infantry units set to rest.
All Southwest Pacific tank units set to pursuit.

I think what also would be helpful is the concept of a Taskforce for LCU's. LCU's should then be able to join this (land)-TF. The parameters of this Taskforce will automatically be inherited by the units that are part of it : Destination, combat mode, target preparation etc. Moving and handling big stacks of units will really be a lot easier that way I imagine.

The sole function of this TF would just be managing the setting of its subordinate units in a more manageable way. The actual game-mechanics would be left unchanged.

-airgroups :
setting the group mission, training mission, patrol levels, height, max range etc. all at the same time for units under a certain HQ or of a certain type.
I was thinking of all 'static-restricted' fighter squadrons for instance, or all units under 'V Bomber command' control. Filter like that.

For example : It would be really helpful if,at the start of the game, I could set all the fighter squadrons that are restricted static to training, escort, 15.000 feet, max range 1. etc just by setting the parameters of one of these fighter units, and then press "set all restricted fighter groups the same" It would save a lot of clicking.

I do love this game, and the micromanagement-aspect of it is truly great, but sometimes it's just a LOT of unnecessary clicking.

I don't know if that made any sense.

[Yaab]

Micromanagement should naturally progress to nanomanagement...

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Micromanagement should naturally progress to nanomanagement...

Ninny Management is already a reality.

[RichardAckermann]

The management would really benefit from some form of grouping together. But that can be tricky. Especially for things like airforce. Sometimes you will want to set orders along with target hex, range, altitude, and mission percentages. Sometimes it will be necessary to exclude 1 or more of these when assigning mission profiles. And all of a sudden, you got a lot of switches to click to get what you want.

[jc4751]

I just got into playing WITP:AE recently, after wanting to get back to a "deeper" experience than what other titles on the market manage. (I played Pacific War to death, and put a considerable amount of time in on the original WITP)

However...

What strikes me most obviously about the game itself is just the sheer volume of information and options to manage. This is great, but it is also a double-edged sword of taking up a lot of time to manage the war in a competent manner. The problem is that we're living in a day and age when AI programming techniques have improved considerably, and can handle a lot of basic operations for the player. Need to defend an area? Give control over a corps to the AI, along with the objective, and let it arrange forces and cover the line. This generally works fairly well in HoI4, for example.

Additionally, the game really needs some streamlining and a good working over from a professional User Experience/User Interface designer. I'm not talking about just a basic interface cleanup, but a keen eye as to what really is useful for a player and what needs to be abstracted out/automated. Usability testing would go a long way here.

That said, any redesign would also need to be careful not to remove what makes the game such a great experience - the size and scope of being able to capture the war at a high level of detail, as well as the ability to "geek out" with the various ships, planes, and units. This is something which is sorely missing from something like HoI4, for example - yeah, you can fight WW2 in 20 hours or less, but there's not the same depth and detail.

Basically, I think I would want the ability to simply be able to play the game more quickly, by helping me focus on the decisions I need to make, as opposed to micromanaging every variable that goes into those decisions.

[rustysi]

Basically, I think I would want the ability to simply be able to play the game more quickly, by helping me focus on the decisions I need to make, as opposed to micromanaging every variable that goes into those decisions.

And that is an entirely different game.