Naval Forces
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
- TulliusDetritus
- Posts: 5581
- Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
- Location: The Zone™
Naval Forces
If you played the old Task Force 1942: Surface Naval Action in the South Pacific yoy may remember that that wonderful game had a really nice feature.
When you created a SCTF the available ships were already organised: DesRon x, DesDiv y, CruDiv z etc
Then this is something I always wanted to see in WITP AE [8D]
Not only because it might be more aesthetic. IMHO It would help a lot to organise your naval forces. Imagine 80 Destroyers in Pearl Harbor. Right now it's just that: eighty destroyers... With the desron / desdiv feature things would be much easier. Now you would not see 80 DDs anymore. You would see for example DesRon 1 (let's say desdiv 1 and desdiv 2). You could then say "ok, desron 1 will be escorting x carrier/s" and "desron 2 will be assigned to SCTF" etc etc.
So what I would love to see is something like this: see picture =>
In other words, two more columns should be added. In fact a third column named TF (an abstract TF ie TF 17, around some carriers, you get the idea) would be nice too [:)]
This way, DDs, SSs etc could be easily organised. No need to alt tab to see the excel (if you organise your forces, as I DO).
So, could this be implemented somehow?
When you created a SCTF the available ships were already organised: DesRon x, DesDiv y, CruDiv z etc
Then this is something I always wanted to see in WITP AE [8D]
Not only because it might be more aesthetic. IMHO It would help a lot to organise your naval forces. Imagine 80 Destroyers in Pearl Harbor. Right now it's just that: eighty destroyers... With the desron / desdiv feature things would be much easier. Now you would not see 80 DDs anymore. You would see for example DesRon 1 (let's say desdiv 1 and desdiv 2). You could then say "ok, desron 1 will be escorting x carrier/s" and "desron 2 will be assigned to SCTF" etc etc.
So what I would love to see is something like this: see picture =>
In other words, two more columns should be added. In fact a third column named TF (an abstract TF ie TF 17, around some carriers, you get the idea) would be nice too [:)]
This way, DDs, SSs etc could be easily organised. No need to alt tab to see the excel (if you organise your forces, as I DO).
So, could this be implemented somehow?
- Attachments
-
- idea.jpg (29.9 KiB) Viewed 85 times
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
-
- Posts: 4839
- Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:37 pm
- Location: Germany
- Contact:
RE: Naval Forces
As much as I am also a true hierarchical/OOB 'fanboy', it would be purely kinda like eye-candy... I sometimes name my TFs though... RPG aspect, kinda.
Alas, it is good that I noticed your post. You seem to be the right man to point me in the right direction about the naval dispositions and structures... I'd require some documents/OOB *I done my Nafziger searches though* about the IJN, USN, etc for the SoPac/SWPac area... to possibly extend one scenario to include Operation Cartwheel...
Thanks in advance mate!
Klink, Oberst
Alas, it is good that I noticed your post. You seem to be the right man to point me in the right direction about the naval dispositions and structures... I'd require some documents/OOB *I done my Nafziger searches though* about the IJN, USN, etc for the SoPac/SWPac area... to possibly extend one scenario to include Operation Cartwheel...
Thanks in advance mate!
Klink, Oberst
- TulliusDetritus
- Posts: 5581
- Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
- Location: The Zone™
RE: Naval Forces
ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink
As much as I am also a true hierarchical/OOB 'fanboy', it would be purely kinda like eye-candy...
From my own experience (12 years playing the game) it would 100 % help [me] a LOT [:)] But right, I am an er... organisation freakshow [:D]
Also note this feature would be optional: players can freely ignore it [:)]
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
- TulliusDetritus
- Posts: 5581
- Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
- Location: The Zone™
RE: Naval Forces
Feel free to PM me. I have done zillions of diggings on the internets to find this oob / organisation thing. The US side though [:)]ORIGINAL: Oberst_Klink
Alas, it is good that I noticed your post. You seem to be the right man to point me in the right direction about the naval dispositions and structures... I'd require some documents/OOB *I done my Nafziger searches though* about the IJN, USN, etc for the SoPac/SWPac area... to possibly extend one scenario to include Operation Cartwheel...
Thanks in advance mate!
Klink, Oberst
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
RE: Naval Forces
It won't happen for the official scenarios.
1. Far too much work for extremely little benefit.
2. It requires not just michaelm to write new code which is not really within his authorised responsibility, but also the scenario designer to revamp the OOB for each scenario.
3. Additional HQs would need to be created in the OOB. There are few slots available for this.
4. The type of HQ created would be a problem. Using one of the exiting 5 HQ types would seriously unbalance the game in other areas. That is guaranteed to be the case.
5. Whether a completely new type of HQ could be created is something only known to the devs. But even if it could it would involve a serious rewrite of the code and testing which michaelm is not authorised.
6. The there is the great difficulty of findings any screen real estate to incorporate the change. I'm pretty certain that such a substantial alteration to the screen look is simply not possible without removing other, far more important displayed information.
7. You would still be stuck with adding each ship individually. Block movement of ships into task forces would be a very significant code rewrite as it currently does not exist.
Alfred
1. Far too much work for extremely little benefit.
2. It requires not just michaelm to write new code which is not really within his authorised responsibility, but also the scenario designer to revamp the OOB for each scenario.
3. Additional HQs would need to be created in the OOB. There are few slots available for this.
4. The type of HQ created would be a problem. Using one of the exiting 5 HQ types would seriously unbalance the game in other areas. That is guaranteed to be the case.
5. Whether a completely new type of HQ could be created is something only known to the devs. But even if it could it would involve a serious rewrite of the code and testing which michaelm is not authorised.
6. The there is the great difficulty of findings any screen real estate to incorporate the change. I'm pretty certain that such a substantial alteration to the screen look is simply not possible without removing other, far more important displayed information.
7. You would still be stuck with adding each ship individually. Block movement of ships into task forces would be a very significant code rewrite as it currently does not exist.
Alfred
RE: Naval Forces
While it would be good for organisation it would need a complete rewrite of naval combat to have any propose , probably with more mission types like for example screening/smoke to be more realistic than the current limited system that seems more fit for chaotic night combat than day light organised divisional based naval combat.
- TulliusDetritus
- Posts: 5581
- Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
- Location: The Zone™
RE: Naval Forces
ORIGINAL: Alfred
It won't happen for the official scenarios.
1. Far too much work for extremely little benefit.
2. It requires not just michaelm to write new code which is not really within his authorised responsibility, but also the scenario designer to revamp the OOB for each scenario.
3. Additional HQs would need to be created in the OOB. There are few slots available for this.
4. The type of HQ created would be a problem. Using one of the exiting 5 HQ types would seriously unbalance the game in other areas. That is guaranteed to be the case.
5. Whether a completely new type of HQ could be created is something only known to the devs. But even if it could it would involve a serious rewrite of the code and testing which michaelm is not authorised.
6. The there is the great difficulty of findings any screen real estate to incorporate the change. I'm pretty certain that such a substantial alteration to the screen look is simply not possible without removing other, far more important displayed information.
7. You would still be stuck with adding each ship individually. Block movement of ships into task forces would be a very significant code rewrite as it currently does not exist.
Alfred
I see [:(]
Many thanks [:)]
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
RE: Naval Forces
Hey, maybe if someone (who is also a WitP:AE player) wins that 800 million lottery prize ...
Can't be much more unlikely than just winning the prize ...
Phil
Can't be much more unlikely than just winning the prize ...
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon; Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au
----------------------------------------------
Email: aspqrz@tpg.com.au
RE: Naval Forces
This would be great (I too have excel sheet with DesRon/DesDiv organizations) - It really should have no purpose in the game except for few free text columns available for each ship.
This way the players could write whatever appropriate (DesRon/SubRon/CruDiv/CarDiv) on inappropriate (Keep off/whatever).
Game should then show this columns on few places.
Other way is to completely rework/rename "Naval Commands" available in game, but still allow ships/divisons to be transfered to major HQs.
This way the players could write whatever appropriate (DesRon/SubRon/CruDiv/CarDiv) on inappropriate (Keep off/whatever).
Game should then show this columns on few places.
Other way is to completely rework/rename "Naval Commands" available in game, but still allow ships/divisons to be transfered to major HQs.
- TulliusDetritus
- Posts: 5581
- Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
- Location: The Zone™
RE: Naval Forces
ORIGINAL: aspqrz
Hey, maybe if someone (who is also a WitP:AE player) wins that 800 million lottery prize ...
Can't be much more unlikely than just winning the prize ...
Phil
I see, Omnipotent Cosmic Forces will make this feature impossible [:'(]
Still, looks like the Microprose guys managed to do that back in the XXV Century... er no, I mean back in 1992 [:D] It's amazing then, they managed to avoid the aforementioned Cosmic forces...
I'm indeed a programming illiterate but it's just txt and only txt, nothing else.
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
RE: Naval Forces
Yes rewritting the naval combat to have units operate as part of divisions and not the current TF system would be more like Witp 2. With caveat i know nothing of the code a way i could see it if current TF level would be considered a Divsions and a new top level organisation called now TF would be coded. This would need to have code to handle its divisions depending on the type. So on combat screen you'll see destroyer division launches torpedo attack and all 4 destroyers launch torpedos, a battleship is damaged and depending on damage tolerance a destroyer division makes smoke and cover the damaged battleship. Daydreaming obviously.
- TulliusDetritus
- Posts: 5581
- Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
- Location: The Zone™
RE: Naval Forces
ORIGINAL: Dili
Yes rewritting the naval combat to have units operate as part of divisions and not the current TF system would be more like Witp 2. With caveat i know nothing of the code a way i could see it if current TF level would be considered a Divsions and a new top level organisation called now TF would be coded. This would need to have code to handle its divisions depending on the type. So on combat screen you'll see destroyer division launches torpedo attack and all 4 destroyers launch torpedos, a battleship is damaged and depending on damage tolerance a destroyer division makes smoke and cover the damaged battleship. Daydreaming obviously.
I think there's some misunderstanding [:)]
I do NOT want to change the naval combat routine. I am really happy with the mechanics of the game. For all I care they must remain untouched. These features would simply help the players out there who take seriously (or enjoy) the rational management of their forces. 80 destroyers at Pearl might be 80 sack of potatoes for that matter. If you don't use some kind of organisation, welcome to chaos!
It also would save time... think about this: once you have created a TF (rationally using the best ships - and classes available) it would be great to "name" this TF: an abstract name. Then you could easily reactivate this TF anytime you want, with the same ships, no need to waste your time (creating TFs is time consuming!) looking again for the best ships available...
You can of course throw the 80 sack of potatoes at Pearl to the fight (economy of forces? What for? [:D]), to find months later that most -if not all- of the DDs should have been already upgraded... Had you kept a rational organisation, some squadrons would be thrown to the enemy, yes, while others would be kept in reserve, ready to replace for example the fighting squadrons that need an upgrade...
And many other examples. An excel is a must but only a partial solution though. You still have to constantly alt tab. And it does not help when you need to form a TF again.
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
RE: Naval Forces
ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
ORIGINAL: Dili
Yes rewritting the naval combat to have units operate as part of divisions and not the current TF system would be more like Witp 2. With caveat i know nothing of the code a way i could see it if current TF level would be considered a Divsions and a new top level organisation called now TF would be coded. This would need to have code to handle its divisions depending on the type. So on combat screen you'll see destroyer division launches torpedo attack and all 4 destroyers launch torpedos, a battleship is damaged and depending on damage tolerance a destroyer division makes smoke and cover the damaged battleship. Daydreaming obviously.
I think there's some misunderstanding [:)]
I do NOT want to change the naval combat routine. I am really happy with the mechanics of the game. For all I care they must remain untouched. These features would simply help the players out there who take seriously (or enjoy) the rational management of their forces. 80 destroyers at Pearl might be 80 sack of potatoes for that matter. If you don't use some kind of organisation, welcome to chaos!
It also would save time... think about this: once you have created a TF (rationally using the best ships - and classes available) it would be great to "name" this TF: an abstract name. Then you could easily reactivate this TF anytime you want, with the same ships, no need to waste your time (creating TFs is time consuming!) looking again for the best ships available...
You can of course throw the 80 sack of potatoes at Pearl to the fight (economy of forces? What for? [:D]), to find months later that most -if not all- of the DDs should have been already upgraded... Had you kept a rational organisation, some squadrons would be thrown to the enemy, yes, while others would be kept in reserve, ready to replace for example the fighting squadrons that need an upgrade...
And many other examples. An excel is a must but only a partial solution though. You still have to constantly alt tab. And it does not help when you need to form a TF again.
Contrary to what you say in post #10, it is most definitely not "just txt and only txt, nothing else". You are asking for a completely new link to be created to cover something for which there already existing work arounds.
1. If creating a task force is such an ordeal, well don't disband any task force.
2. You can rename a task force to any name no longer than 25 characters. A mouseover on task forces located either on the map or on the task force list (hotkey T) will give you the name of the task force.
3. When creating a task force it is easy to populate it with ships of the same class.
(a) turn mouse over on, a pop over each ship discloses not just weapons/upgrade date/tonnage/speed all elements which are different from one class to another, the actual pop over says which class of ship it is.
(b) you can sort ships by their speed/endurance/gun values, again all elements which are different from one class to another.
4. You can easily see which ships are due upgrades and when. There are various filters to make the exercise really easy on the Ship List (hotkey S) and Task Force List (hotkey T).
5. Assign your ships to different existing HQs. Just because the name won't be DesRon8 does not invalidate the ease of locating them.
There is no need to maintain any excel spread sheets to keep track of your assets. There are many ingame aids which suffice. Many of those aids have been added in the patches. If it were so easy as you claim it to be to just add txt, don't you think the devs would have already done so?
You want everything to run automatically with minimal player effort. That requires creating links which is not an easy task on quite old legacy code. I remind you of what I said earlier about the problem of finding any screen real estate even if the coding were easy. Nominate yourself to do the screen redrawing pixel by pixel, I'm certain the offer would be favourably looked upon.
Just because some other game had what you want doesn't mean it can be replicated easily here. Firstly, who would do the work? Name the workers. Secondly, you are assuming the database structures are similar, a very big assumption (hint they are not similar). Thirdly you want essentially eye candy. In functional terms you can already accomplish it using the existing aids. Fourthly, it is not clicking which takes up most of the time in playing AE; rather it is thinking through the game problems and arriving at appropriate responses which really takes up the game time.
Alfred
RE: Naval Forces
+1. The systems in game work fine for me too. The opps report, intell, ETC. all good. I have tried tracker and looked at a few others, but I always go back to the 3 ring binder. I change stuff I like to do. I KEEP my notes. Mostly because of the concussion I suffered 14 months ago and the resulting loss of short term memory....GP
Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330
AKA General Patton
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester
DW2-Alpha/Beta Tester
New Game Development Team
"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton
AKA General Patton
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester
DW2-Alpha/Beta Tester
New Game Development Team
"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton
- TulliusDetritus
- Posts: 5581
- Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 1:49 am
- Location: The Zone™
RE: Naval Forces
ORIGINAL: Alfred
There is no need to maintain any excel spread sheets to keep track of your assets. There are many ingame aids which suffice. Many of those aids have been added in the patches. If it were so easy as you claim it to be to just add txt, don't you think the devs would have already done so?
Much to my chagrin I believe you: it's *impossible* to do, ok [:)]
And no, the game does not list concrete things. That is false.
Look carefully the screenshot below. With a few mere clicks I know the HUGE mega horde known as the Red Army has exactly 26 Motorcycle Regiments and only 26. This, in an army of maybe 8 million men. Irrelevant, I know, but most of the stuff you get with a few clicks is not irrelevant at all.
So WitP AE can list for example all the Farragut destroyers with a few mere clicks? No it doesn't. It doesn't list only the divisions either... Or many different sophisticated combinations, which are 100% possible in WitE. Guess what, from day one (circa summer 2004) I always used an excel sheet in WitP. Why? Because I obviously needed it. Surprise, no need of the sheet when I started PBEM games in WitE. Weird, don't you think? The Red Army is a huge mega horde. Why? Look carefully the screenshot and tell me again this is possible in WitP and that I don't need an excel [:-]
You want everything to run automatically with minimal player effort.
Is this some sort of pissing contest? Did Nimitz do endless desperate diggings to find his eight - and only eight - Farragut destroyers or some kind soul quickly told him the Farragut's whereabouts? Just saying...
Fourthly, it is not clicking which takes up most of the time in playing AE; rather it is thinking through the game problems and arriving at appropriate responses which really takes up the game time.
That sounds philosophical. Thanks for letting me know how to play the game after 12 years. Sure, no need of clicks to form the huge, astronomical US Armada circa summer 1944... Oh, and don't forget the search / asw missions for all your floaplanes... A good commander would let them rest -or train - whilst their ship is disbanded, if you know what I mean. Oh, you don't disband TFs either.
And don't forget to pay attention to the screenshot [;)]
- Attachments
-
- motor.jpg (220.25 KiB) Viewed 85 times
"Hitler is a horrible sexual degenerate, a dangerous fool" - Mussolini, circa 1934
RE: Naval Forces
I like the chrome you suggest as well.
Loved TF42 and the fantastic "you are there" feeling I got whenever I played it.
IMHO it beat the "Great Naval Battles" series to pieces and did not have as much of a clunky interface.
If developed further with aviation less abstract, it might have really gotten the popularity the game engine deserved.
Fighting Steel was another favorite and simulated as well as the metal miniatures used to.
(It has been upgraded and enhanced by its' fans...)
Loved TF42 and the fantastic "you are there" feeling I got whenever I played it.
IMHO it beat the "Great Naval Battles" series to pieces and did not have as much of a clunky interface.
If developed further with aviation less abstract, it might have really gotten the popularity the game engine deserved.
Fighting Steel was another favorite and simulated as well as the metal miniatures used to.
(It has been upgraded and enhanced by its' fans...)