What would you want in War in the Pacific 3?

[RichardAckermann]

So true. You need to balance in the range of suicide/taking risks and getting the job done.

Edward75. Just write the dreams here, too. Won't hurt to have a good input of ideas. That what this place is for.

[LeeChard]

5. Possibility to build railways and roadways (long and expensive, but possible)

I've long wanted to have this capability.
Maybe build the bridge over the river Kwai [:'(]
There are also RR's that lead to nowhere that seem to serve no purpose but have an obvious destination.
I wonder if in the beginning the designers had this function in mind.

[btd64]

[quote]ORIGINAL: LeeChard

5. Possibility to build railways and roadways (long and expensive, but possible)

I've long wanted to have this capability.
[quote]

A BIG PLUS ONE[&o]....GP

[tarkalak]

The ability to make notes and alerts in game. And attach them to units, bases and turns.

[RichardAckermann]

ORIGINAL: LeeChard

5. Possibility to build railways and roadways (long and expensive, but possible)

I've long wanted to have this capability.
Maybe build the bridge over the river Kwai [:'(]
There are also RR's that lead to nowhere that seem to serve no purpose but have an obvious destination.
I wonder if in the beginning the designers had this function in mind.

I guess so. I'v added this construction ability to my game, but then you do need to add overlay graphics for both roads and RR, and they often do not fit right into the map picture, running in water on coastlines, etc. Not pretty, maybe that's why it was left out.

[FlyByKnight]

The option to bombard an enemy-held airfield. This would go hand-in-hand with a more expanded system of hex control, where after each day of combat, different units have to pass some form of 'range check' before their guns can shell the field. Might also need some kind of 'holdout' modifier to represent situations where the harassing units are hiding in the jungle and hard to find.
@RichardAckermann are you thinking of adding something like this to your pet project?

[pnzrgnral]

I think something that should be included, and this could be easily modded to the existing game, is establishing & maintaining lend-lease support for the Soviet Union: the air bridge from Alaska to Siberia. During the war, thousands of single- and twin-engine aircraft were sent to the USSR via this air bridge. Bases to buildup, say to minimum airfield level 3, and some ports minimum 2, include Nome, Fairbanks, Anchorage, Whitehorse & Great Falls. Now why go to the effort? Failure to construct bases to these levels, and committing (engineer) resources to do this, by a given date should result in PP penalty. This would reflect negative Soviet feelings towards the US should the promised lend-lease effort not be attained. On the opposite hand, Japanese military action against any of these bases, resulting in interruption of the lend-lease flow, could result in accelerated Soviet activation against Japan. The existing game crudely models certain actions based upon real-world geo-political considerations of the time, primarily through the use of the PP system, so establishing and maintaining the lend-lease air bridge can easily be done, using existing resources in game, but new air base elements would need to be added to the database (Nome, for instance). Commence debate.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: CharlieVane

The option to bombard an enemy-held airfield. This would go hand-in-hand with a more expanded system of hex control, where after each day of combat, different units have to pass some form of 'range check' before their guns can shell the field. Might also need some kind of 'holdout' modifier to represent situations where the harassing units are hiding in the jungle and hard to find.
@RichardAckermann are you thinking of adding something like this to your pet project?

Ahem ... cough ...

Enemy airfields can already be "bombarded" in AE. From land, air, and if located at an accessible coastal/riverine hex, naval forces.

Alfred

[RichardAckermann]

Just for being clear about that: Bombardment by LCU can damage airfields and aircraft?

@CharlieVane: I am considering such a system, but it is difficult to implement, since I want all those AE mods to be compatible with my game.

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: pnzrgnral

I think something that should be included, and this could be easily modded to the existing game, is establishing & maintaining lend-lease support for the Soviet Union: the air bridge from Alaska to Siberia. During the war, thousands of single- and twin-engine aircraft were sent to the USSR via this air bridge. Bases to buildup, say to minimum airfield level 3, and some ports minimum 2, include Nome, Fairbanks, Anchorage, Whitehorse & Great Falls. Now why go to the effort? Failure to construct bases to these levels, and committing (engineer) resources to do this, by a given date should result in PP penalty. This would reflect negative Soviet feelings towards the US should the promised lend-lease effort not be attained. On the opposite hand, Japanese military action against any of these bases, resulting in interruption of the lend-lease flow, could result in accelerated Soviet activation against Japan. The existing game crudely models certain actions based upon real-world geo-political considerations of the time, primarily through the use of the PP system, so establishing and maintaining the lend-lease air bridge can easily be done, using existing resources in game, but new air base elements would need to be added to the database (Nome, for instance). Commence debate.

I like very much the general idea,

but,

I think that anticipated soviet entry into war is more complicated than what you suggest, anyhow, yours is a possible addition;

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: Alfred




Ahem ... cough ...

Enemy airfields can already be "bombarded" in AE. From land, air, and if located at an accessible coastal/riverine hex, naval forces.

Alfred

Well of course he meant air field bombarded by (land) artillery in range...a feature I miss sincerely and that should be added I think for improved realistic model.

[Yaab]

Well, you could argue that the artillery should be able to hit LI/HI centers as well.

[RichardAckermann]

The difficulty I found with this is guessing the distance of LCU to airfield or industry.
You would need to keep track of progress of frontline for each of the 6 hexsides, and assume the airfield/industry is in center hex.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: RichardAckermann

The difficulty I found with this is guessing the distance of LCU to airfield or industry.
You would need to keep track of progress of frontline for each of the 6 hexsides, and assume the airfield/industry is in center hex.

In effect you would have to sub-divide the hex into much smaller increments and track their progress mile by mile to determine the range question and all the accuracy calculations that would imply. Then you would have to give the player more control in targeting. The whole land combat model would need to be tactical rather than strategic (as it is now) and the game could take 10 years to play with heavy land combat to manage.

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: RichardAckermann

The difficulty I found with this is guessing the distance of LCU to airfield or industry.
You would need to keep track of progress of frontline for each of the 6 hexsides, and assume the airfield/industry is in center hex.

In effect you would have to sub-divide the hex into much smaller increments and track their progress mile by mile to determine the range question and all the accuracy calculations that would imply. Then you would have to give the player more control in targeting. The whole land combat model would need to be tactical rather than strategic (as it is now) and the game could take 10 years to play with heavy land combat to manage.

You remark is good, but there are ways to avoid what you're pointing out;

in the case of artillery bombardments, that's relatively "easy"; does WITP AE track the relative distance between units? No...artillery fire/bombardment is determined, I guess, randomly (+ other factors), based on the gun's range...

[adarbrauner]

It's a suggestion I wanted to write about in greater length, but...

I'd "divide" the hex in three or four zones (probably four is better, thus obtaining a 10 miles wide front for each); the zones are undetermined and ot drawn on the hex; EVERY unit, regardless of its size, take one "zone"; if there are three units, they are automatically allocated to the three different zones, and so on (exception: player can order units to concentrate in one zone only, stacking limits applying, when unit enters the hex); we don't need, and the engine doesn't need to determine if this area is North, East or South-West of the hex, let's keep it abstracted for now; one of the consequences, is that one unit alone cannot deny "free passage" in and through the hex to other enemy units which has not been ordered to engage; than, clearly, only units that the "engine" has determined being in the same zone, can fight one against the other (exception made for artillery with "long" range);

understood by itself that small islands, or narrow isthmuses, or otherwise fractions or portions of a whole land hex will have space for one, two or three zones, accordingly to their size as determined by the map and/or real historical or geographic features;

the urban centre, and aerodrome, may be place, by default, in the 2nd or 3rd zone;

in case of egress in a contested hex, the unit shall be considered entering the zone closest to the side it entered from, and farthest from enemy unit, to avoid immediate engagement between them,; exception in case the opponent has deployed a sufficient number of units to cover all of the zones;

Combat orders and combat phase: I took inspiration from WITE, where Shock Attack has evolved in Hasty attack as opposed to the Deliberate Attack, difference between the two being the time needed to properly deploy the selected units for the attack and for their movement;

the reasoning behind is that with the deliberate attack all the elements of the unit have to make contact and engage the enemy moving from where they are, reaching in an organized and coordinated manner the starting points, exploiting terrain features, cover from the other elements, communications, previous planning and proper briefing, etc;

The engine should track and calculate the time and advance on the terrain made by each unit toward engagement and contact with the "enemy", dependant on terrain, weather, kind of unit, fatigue, planning, commanders, experience etc; in this case, the "slower" or less prone to an assault unit shall delay all the other units selected for the same attack ( in the same zone), so up to the player finally to use some "brain" and choice what to order to the attack and what not;

again, is the "engine" that has previously determined what units for each player are in zone 1 or 2 rather than 3 or 4, it only has to track every unit and remember what zone it has been allocated to;

the player may only receive and read a message like "units x, y, w, 3 miles and 12 hours estimated to battle" ; "units z, u, t, 8 miles and 24 hours to battle (they are the old and cripples and moving by feet only...);

It is clear the time needed to battle in completely plain terrain shall be minuscule, while on mountains, jungle, rivers crossing the tale shall differ;


the terrain type for each zone could be the same for the hex (exception made fort he urban zones, so that I avoid fighting in an hex of 40x 40 miles all city and houses; does anything like this exist? Mexico City maybe?) , or optionally, customized;

There is more to say and write...


In this way I avoid, to start with and among other considerations, that every unit fight, potentially, any other unit in an hex 40 x 40 miles wide, thing that sincerely I have had enough of in game, personally;

[Alpha77]

a) Bigger buttons (one gets used to the small ones, but...)

b) Better AI - the latest one is imporved to older ones, AI does not so many suicide missions anymore. But the air AI needs serious "look into" they send still bombers to the same locations to bomb even if it is clear there is a good cap (often turn after turn). Ex: I have a single group of P39 on Tabiteua and this island is target in at least every 2nd turn by Bettys (sometimes escorted sometimes not) and every attack fails first half the bombers wopuld be shot down, and now only 1-2 are shot down and the IJN just turns back if they sight my fighters LOL

c) More info on WHY missions are not flown, eg. in my (restarted) PBM I planned some missions flown from CVs and I was quite interested whow they would work, but now got the turn and not a single plane flew any mission from the CV without any message why not ? Probably weather (but we have to guess what the cause was - in reality the staff would give reasons to the commander why the missions he planned and used lot of his time for did not even take off [:(]

d) A selector for gun ammo usage, eg. if we anticipate to only encounter light forces eg. AMs, SCs, AKLs, PTs etc. in reality we would not use 36, 40 or 46 cm shells on these targets

[DFN]

Why isnt this thread stickied already???????

ORIGINAL: RichardAckermann

...since I want all those AE mods to be compatible with my game.

Why would you want that?
I mean, isnt your game build up from scratch?
Do you use any of the combat algorithms from WITPAE?
.
.
.
...must refrain from asking a bazillion questions...

[Simon40]

Bigger Maps! Use the same map scale as in Uncommon Valor, even if that means having a map 5 times the size of the original one. So that EVERY island/base that was significant actually is so in the game, rather than having say, Okinawa, which historically took months for the US to capture, being a two-hex two base island in this game, which can probably be overrun in a few turns by any half-decent human player.

[zuluhour]

You are not going to overrun that island in a couple of days.
If you are seeking a more complex ground war on top of the naval and air campaigns
as presented in one day turns, you are asking to play one campaign forever.
I'm sure they could add some complexity on the scale as is and use a different
set of parameters for movement and combat. I would really like to see some
other choices other than defend, deliberate, and shock. Maybe delaying action,
road block, etc.frankly I don't think I would buy a product of this scale with
more minute management and time consuming planning.