Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/3/2009 8:42:09 PM   
Brad Hunter


Posts: 1444
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline
Either a "Do Not Dock" toggle, like the "Do Not Unload" toggle, - OR- the TF does not dock if the "Do Not Unload" toggle is on.

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 91
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/4/2009 1:38:13 AM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

Either a "Do Not Dock" toggle, like the "Do Not Unload" toggle, - OR- the TF does not dock if the "Do Not Unload" toggle is on.



Hmm... in order to dock, you need to click on the "Dock TF" button... what will the "Do not Dock" option do?

Cheers!
fbs

(in reply to Brad Hunter)
Post #: 92
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/4/2009 2:59:09 AM   
Brad Hunter


Posts: 1444
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline
I'm seeing some TFs dock automatically. If I'm managing TFs, and don't want one to dock when it gets to its destination...

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 93
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/4/2009 3:24:47 AM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

I'm seeing some TFs dock automatically. If I'm managing TFs, and don't want one to dock when it gets to its destination...



I think that this is what you're seeing:

"Refueling in port causes the TF to “attempt” to dock, up to the Port Docking Maximum." (pag 106)

Very good; adding that to Naval.

Thanks,
fbs

ps: By the way, you realize that by requesting that change, the automatic refuelling will take longer, and you may end up losing a turn to refuel the TFs, right?

< Message edited by fbs -- 9/4/2009 3:28:12 AM >

(in reply to Brad Hunter)
Post #: 94
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/4/2009 8:59:02 AM   
mullk

 

Posts: 594
Joined: 4/3/2003
From: Ohio
Status: offline
I don't know if know anybody has asked for this but on the ship selection screen have a switch to show ships only in port. Would be great when I'm trying to make several AK type convoys. If I sort by space the ships already in port won't show up.




< Message edited by mullk -- 9/4/2009 9:27:03 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 95
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/4/2009 9:27:04 AM   
rominet


Posts: 523
Joined: 10/23/2007
From: Paris
Status: offline
Good initiative fbs!!

I would like to see a "halt/start" button on Allied HI factories as it is the case for the japanese factories.

To be able to stop where i want the use of fuel by allied HI centers as fuel is also used by ships.

_____________________________


(in reply to Brad Hunter)
Post #: 96
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/5/2009 3:28:53 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 22632
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
Wow, what's this thread doing all the way down here? Time to resurrect.

I would like to see malaria effects implemented.

There should be some rationale for wanting to occupy malaria-free zones and avoid the verminous fen that is malarial jungle bases. It seems as though a number of players have not seen any malaria effect even with months in small bases in the jungle. This is simply not a reflection of reality. Combat forces on both sides lost quite a bit of strength due to malaria, dengue, yellow fever, scrub typhus and the like. The 'malaria zone' reflects the predominating effect of these disabling diseases.

I request that malaria be reinstated, with the goal of implementation similar to the expected effect of malaria in WiTP. Namely, larger AF/Port sizes and /or HQ presence reduces the effect. This change never really did get implemented into the WiTP model, even though it was a nice idea.

Up with Plasmodium spp.!

(in reply to rominet)
Post #: 97
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/5/2009 4:26:39 PM   
dorjun driver


Posts: 641
Joined: 4/20/2006
From: Port Townsend: hex 210,51
Status: offline
Would it be possible to synchronize the unit detail displays to the filter/sort settings of the higher level diplays? This works somewhat for individual ships, i.e., if the CV/CVL filter is set, the details screen cycles through only CV/CVL (unsorted). Not so much for the ACU and LCU contingent. In fact, on the AC unit detail screen, there are no NEXT/PREVIOUS buttons at all. Unless they are in stealth mode.

Thanks for all the goodly works,
Doug



_____________________________

x - ARPAnaut
x - ACM
x - AES
Current - Bum



The paths of glory may lead you to the grave, but the paths of duty may not get you anywhere.
JT

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 98
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/5/2009 5:12:24 PM   
Brad Hunter


Posts: 1444
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

I'm seeing some TFs dock automatically. If I'm managing TFs, and don't want one to dock when it gets to its destination...



I think that this is what you're seeing:

"Refueling in port causes the TF to “attempt” to dock, up to the Port Docking Maximum." (pag 106)

Very good; adding that to Naval.

Thanks,

This mostly affects the "round-trippers," so refueling isn't really an issue.
fbs

ps: By the way, you realize that by requesting that change, the automatic refuelling will take longer, and you may end up losing a turn to refuel the TFs, right?


(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 99
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/5/2009 5:14:52 PM   
Hokum

 

Posts: 59
Joined: 4/14/2002
From: France
Status: offline
Better SiGint for everyone. Give wrong results if you must, but make it at least partially useful.

"Tsushima Fortress is located at Tsushima, Heavy Radio transmissions at Pearl Harbor"... okaaay. Thanks, I guess.

Oh, and more staff reports while we are at it. If my bombers weren't escorted by fighters, I want to know why.

(in reply to dorjun driver)
Post #: 100
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/5/2009 7:14:35 PM   
Pascal


Posts: 1640
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: in New England now after driving across US from CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hokum

Better SiGint for everyone. Give wrong results if you must, but make it at least partially useful.

"Tsushima Fortress is located at Tsushima, Heavy Radio transmissions at Pearl Harbor"... okaaay. Thanks, I guess.

Oh, and more staff reports while we are at it. If my bombers weren't escorted by fighters, I want to know why.


To add to this: perhaps being able to pay PolPoints for better SigInt or Counter SigInt. And as for better SigInt, how about once in a while the orders for a unit (ship, TF, LCU, sub, air unit, LCU) appearing? Yes, this means expanding the code for SigInt/FOW/CounterSigInt in general....


_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to Hokum)
Post #: 101
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/5/2009 7:37:52 PM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mullk

I don't know if know anybody has asked for this but on the ship selection screen have a switch to show ships only in port. Would be great when I'm trying to make several AK type convoys. If I sort by space the ships already in port won't show up.



Aye-aye, NAV-17, Sir! :)

Cheers
fbs

(in reply to mullk)
Post #: 102
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/5/2009 7:39:12 PM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rominet

Good initiative fbs!!

I would like to see a "halt/start" button on Allied HI factories as it is the case for the japanese factories.

To be able to stop where i want the use of fuel by allied HI centers as fuel is also used by ships.



Hahaha.. good one. Australia HI is driving me crazy too - dirty little bastards will not keep their hands off my precious fuel. Makes me want to bomb the HI industry myself

PROD-10, General!

fbs

(in reply to rominet)
Post #: 103
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/5/2009 7:40:14 PM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Wow, what's this thread doing all the way down here? Time to resurrect.

I would like to see malaria effects implemented.

There should be some rationale for wanting to occupy malaria-free zones and avoid the verminous fen that is malarial jungle bases. It seems as though a number of players have not seen any malaria effect even with months in small bases in the jungle. This is simply not a reflection of reality. Combat forces on both sides lost quite a bit of strength due to malaria, dengue, yellow fever, scrub typhus and the like. The 'malaria zone' reflects the predominating effect of these disabling diseases.

I request that malaria be reinstated, with the goal of implementation similar to the expected effect of malaria in WiTP. Namely, larger AF/Port sizes and /or HQ presence reduces the effect. This change never really did get implemented into the WiTP model, even though it was a nice idea.

Up with Plasmodium spp.!



Aye, aye, your files are being organized, Sir. LAND-1 for you (first request for land - congratulations!)

Cheers
fbs

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 104
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/5/2009 7:55:41 PM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dorjun driver

Would it be possible to synchronize the unit detail displays to the filter/sort settings of the higher level diplays? This works somewhat for individual ships, i.e., if the CV/CVL filter is set, the details screen cycles through only CV/CVL (unsorted). Not so much for the ACU and LCU contingent. In fact, on the AC unit detail screen, there are no NEXT/PREVIOUS buttons at all. Unless they are in stealth mode.

Thanks for all the goodly works,
Doug



Help me there, dorjun... synchronize which screen with which screen? Unit detail screen you mean the Task Force screen? To keep the ships in the task force screen sorted/filtered the same way as the Ship List screen?

Thanks!
fbs

(in reply to dorjun driver)
Post #: 105
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/5/2009 8:01:58 PM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hokum

Better SiGint for everyone. Give wrong results if you must, but make it at least partially useful.

"Tsushima Fortress is located at Tsushima, Heavy Radio transmissions at Pearl Harbor"... okaaay. Thanks, I guess.

Oh, and more staff reports while we are at it. If my bombers weren't escorted by fighters, I want to know why.


To add to this: perhaps being able to pay PolPoints for better SigInt or Counter SigInt. And as for better SigInt, how about once in a while the orders for a unit (ship, TF, LCU, sub, air unit, LCU) appearing? Yes, this means expanding the code for SigInt/FOW/CounterSigInt in general....




Aye-aye! GEN-7
fbs

(in reply to Pascal)
Post #: 106
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/6/2009 1:47:09 AM   
dorjun driver


Posts: 641
Joined: 4/20/2006
From: Port Townsend: hex 210,51
Status: offline
I'll be blunt 'cause I got to go.

Sorry for a Word screen shot, but I don't know.

But I got to go, I got to go, I got to goo-owoo.

fbs, I'll articulate the details when I get back,






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

x - ARPAnaut
x - ACM
x - AES
Current - Bum



The paths of glory may lead you to the grave, but the paths of duty may not get you anywhere.
JT

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 107
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/6/2009 2:33:21 AM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dorjun driver

I'll be blunt 'cause I got to go.

Sorry for a Word screen shot, but I don't know.

But I got to go, I got to go, I got to goo-owoo.

fbs, I'll articulate the details when I get back,



Haha.. very good, got it. Please review GEN-8, and advise if I understood it right

Cheers
fbs

< Message edited by fbs -- 9/6/2009 2:43:24 AM >

(in reply to dorjun driver)
Post #: 108
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/6/2009 4:40:15 AM   
dorjun driver


Posts: 641
Joined: 4/20/2006
From: Port Townsend: hex 210,51
Status: offline
So that's where it was?  Yup, GEN-8 hits it.

If I had had the wherewithal and time, well, I still wouldn't have found it.

DACE


_____________________________

x - ARPAnaut
x - ACM
x - AES
Current - Bum



The paths of glory may lead you to the grave, but the paths of duty may not get you anywhere.
JT

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 109
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/8/2009 3:03:19 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3442
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
If set to "Do not refuel", the "Replenish TF from port" is greyed out.  Each time the refueling option has to be changed to allow 'manual' refuel at the home port, then changed back to prevent automatic refuel at destination port. Request that the "Replenish TF from port" button remains active even if "do not refuel" option is selected.     


EDIT: AAARGGH, I lost my sig pic!

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 9/8/2009 3:05:47 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to dorjun driver)
Post #: 110
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/8/2009 3:29:18 PM   
drw61


Posts: 889
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: South Carolina
Status: offline
Had this posted in the naval thread but think it belongs here

Request for a change to ship withdraw

I keep selecting ships for TFs that need to withdraw. Could you please add a color coding to the ship if it is going to be withdrawn.
When selecting ships for a TF the ships are yellow, if a ship is to be withdrawn have it orange if withdrawing in the next 60 days and red if withdrawing in the next 30 days.

Thanks, Daryl

(in reply to jazman)
Post #: 111
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/8/2009 3:59:13 PM   
Historiker


Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
Let upgrades and conversions cost naval/merchant shipyard points

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to jazman)
Post #: 112
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/8/2009 4:26:50 PM   
goran007

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 9/3/2009
From: croatia
Status: offline
Although without radar it was hard to scramble enough fighters before bombing run, consider overwhelming effect in aerial combat.

I am sure that even B17's wouldn't survive if 5 or 10 times more zeroes with adequate experience would attack unescorted fat bombers, and plz dont make me laugh by stating that bombers were so big that Jap fighters did have trouble assuming distance to the target.
'Overwhelmed by Allied numbers, the Luftwaffe lost air superiority. Suffering from chronic fuel problems and a lack of trained pilots it ceased to be an effective fighting force by 1945.' (WIKI)


On other hand more missions should be abandoned if there is no adequate fighter escort or contact was lost during flight, also escort to bombers shouldn't be lost as often as it is.

Huge square formations of B17 flying unescorted without losses against good fighter cover never happened. If we consider loss rate of bombers during day time bombing of '43 in Europe i dont see reason why Japan wouldnt be able to acchieve same thing as Germans did,to make strategic bombing without adequate escort impossible: 'In October 1943 the USAAF had sustained such losses that a temporary suspension of deep penetration raids over occupied Europe became necessary'(WIKI)


edit: 'Formations of unescorted bombers were no match for German fighters, which inflicted a deadly toll. In despair, the Eighth halted air operations over Germany until a long-range fighter could be found; it proved to be the P-51 Mustang, which had the range to fly to Berlin and back' (WIKI)



Overwhelming effect in raids especially on airfields is the key. Question is: Is there enough bombers to push the screen of fighters aside and bomb the target, and Is there enough scrambled fighters to make attacker crying for there life.

Bomber i dont care weather is 2 or 4 engine is a fat slow duck, there is no way u can match it in any way with a small agile fighter that has a focused firepower of 4 or 6 cannons choosing side to attack.

1 on 1 bomber looses 9/10 against any decent www2 fighter that has a decent pilot.

About 20k bombers were lost on allied side (US and GB) in ww2...




< Message edited by goran007 -- 9/8/2009 11:32:57 PM >

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 113
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/8/2009 8:27:31 PM   
newland

 

Posts: 3
Joined: 8/7/2009
Status: offline
re GUI-1:
I understand this is very difficult to realize. A small and "dirty" way to help could be some kind of paste and copy with the coordinates in the OP-Report and Sigint like this:
You implement a hotkey with a box on screen where you put in coordinates of the map and the screen centers on that location OR if you mark the coordinates in a report the hotkey command copys the coordinates and jumps to that location.

I hope it is clear what I mean.

Thanks

P.S I really think in future patches one priority should be the management of information, (what you need when and where) to shave of some time in the orders phase. It's quite a lot of lifetime to play a game like that.

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 114
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/9/2009 1:38:06 AM   
DaveP

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 1/4/2002
Status: offline
Given how important it is to have TFs that can fit within a port's docking capacity, would it be possible to add a column for ship's tonnage to the TF creation screen?

(in reply to newland)
Post #: 115
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/9/2009 4:45:43 AM   
Swayin


Posts: 313
Joined: 1/27/2007
From: Bellingham, WA
Status: offline
A different color font for restricted U.S. air and land units (red?) when viewing the units at a base?

_____________________________

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves


(in reply to jazman)
Post #: 116
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/9/2009 9:08:06 AM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1878
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaveP

Given how important it is to have TFs that can fit within a port's docking capacity, would it be possible to add a column for ship's tonnage to the TF creation screen?


If you have the beta patch, then you can see the ship's tonnage in the mouseover.

(in reply to DaveP)
Post #: 117
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/9/2009 5:30:40 PM   
Czert

 

Posts: 255
Joined: 7/22/2006
Status: offline
option to expand size of air unit/land unit (at cost of supply and PP) - e.q. allow increse of 27 plane unit up to 36, engeniring regiment up to enginering battalion....etc.

_____________________________


(in reply to jazman)
Post #: 118
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/9/2009 9:29:24 PM   
DaveP

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 1/4/2002
Status: offline
Smeulders,

That will help some. I was waiting till the patch is finished and have not messed with the beta.

Thanks,
Dave



quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaveP

Given how important it is to have TFs that can fit within a port's docking capacity, would it be possible to add a column for ship's tonnage to the TF creation screen?


If you have the beta patch, then you can see the ship's tonnage in the mouseover.


(in reply to Smeulders)
Post #: 119
RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes - 9/16/2009 8:57:40 PM   
jb123


Posts: 276
Joined: 8/6/2009
Status: offline
I'm not sure if people are still using this but I would like to see a pick up troops option seperate from troop transport. For example, I am trying to pick up an unrestricted Brit base force in Jesselton with dutch transports flying from Balikpapan. When I click destination after selecting troop transport it tells me I canot move restricted command units because the computer thinks I am trying to move restricted dutch units from Balik to jessle....

Minor annoying thing

(in reply to jazman)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: List of User Requested Gameplay Changes Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.160