Bug Reports and Enhancement Requests

[herwin]

I generally agree with this analysis, although by 1944, the USN was flying offensive air superiority and flak suppression missions in support of ground and landing operations.

The allocation unit for air operations is the sortie, and air units are sortie generators. The number of sorties generated depends on range, fuel/ammo capacity and the willingness to build up a maintenance backlog (among other factors). A given air unit should be able to generate a var of sortie types, with a variety of effectiveness levels. Thinking about air operations that way clears up a whole raft of modelling issues.

[Menser]

I would like a simple timesaver ....when you bring up the ships in port screen (by cliking on the anchor) I would like to see a form TF button.

[LargeSlowTarget]

I see a lot of nice ideas have been added, but in my opinion it would be more useful to get some basic things right instead of adding fancy stuff. For example, instead of raising ships and capturing aircraft I would prefer to see stacking limits for ships being loaded/unloaded - currently you can unload a convoy of a hundred AKs at a small port in the same time it takes to unload a single AK. Docking space, lighterage, stevedore and storage space limits are none-existant. This is one of the major reasons for the fast pace of WitP operations compared to the real war. Limit unloading capacity of e.g. a size 2 port to four ships and you won't see a hundred B-17s descending on Rabaul from Port Moresby in May 42 (as happens in all my games where I didn't took PM early...) - for lack of sufficient supplies at PM. [/align] [/align]And I think I have mentioned it long ago, but just to make sure - ship class filters in the 'create TF'-screen would be nice, so one can hide the 100+ AKs at say Osaka to quickly create anew TF with the new AR that just got built - instead of scrolling through half the list. The filters are already implemented  in the 'list all ships'-screen, so this shouldn't be that much work, no? [/align] [/align]Other wishes: [/align]- a toggle for base repairs on/off (saving supplies for defense and delaying actions instead wasted for futile repairs of doomed bases)[/align]- being able to set levels for supplies that should be kept at a base instead of draining-off to other bases (onyl surplus would do so) - in order to get some control over repairs of expanded/damaged industries. Could be useful for fuel/ressources/oil as well.[/align]

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Bahnsteig
Stop rebuilding full units from fragements. Sure it's possible to rebuild some of them, but not whole armies like all troops lost at Singapur and almost all armoured British troops lost in Burma and so on.

Second that. If a fragment is smaller than say 33% or 25% of full unit strength, then it should not rebuild. Instead, there should be a 'disband' option which would send the fragment's squads and equipment back to the pool. Fragment evacuation (the infamous sub-load fragment) just for rebuilding is cheesy and should not even need a house rule.

[Charbroiled]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: Bahnsteig
Stop rebuilding full units from fragements. Sure it's possible to rebuild some of them, but not whole armies like all troops lost at Singapur and almost all armoured British troops lost in Burma and so on.

Second that. If a fragment is smaller than say 33% or 25% of full unit strength, then it should not rebuild. Instead, there should be a 'disband' option which would send the fragment's squads and equipment back to the pool. Fragment evacuation (the infamous sub-load fragment) just for rebuilding is cheesy and should not even need a house rule.

I agree that rebuilding fragments is a bit gamey in the sense of manipulation of the system, however, just because a unit is wiped out, that is no reason for not being able to reconstitute the unit. If you have enough troops in the pool, you should be able to rebuild lost units. If you could rebuild lost units, there would be no need for the "infamous sub-load fragment".

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: Bahnsteig
Stop rebuilding full units from fragements. Sure it's possible to rebuild some of them, but not whole armies like all troops lost at Singapur and almost all armoured British troops lost in Burma and so on.

Second that. If a fragment is smaller than say 33% or 25% of full unit strength, then it should not rebuild. Instead, there should be a 'disband' option which would send the fragment's squads and equipment back to the pool. Fragment evacuation (the infamous sub-load fragment) just for rebuilding is cheesy and should not even need a house rule.

I agree that rebuilding fragments is a bit gamey in the sense of manipulation of the system, however, just because a unit is wiped out, that is no reason for not being able to reconstitute the unit. If you have enough troops in the pool, you should be able to rebuild lost units. If you could rebuild lost units, there would be no need for the "infamous sub-load fragment".

Agreed - and there is no way to create new units, etc. This has been hashed and rehashed virtually weekly since the game came out.

It still rather amazes me that after all the discussion about unit fragments where virtually everyone agreed on how it would NOT be gamey to rebuild fragments if the "experience glitch"* was fixed - that once the glitch WAS fixed, people are STILL moaning about rebuilding units.

*experience glitch = when unit was rebuilt, it was at the experience of the surviving fragment rather than diluting experience with new troops. This was fixed some time ago.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget



Second that. If a fragment is smaller than say 33% or 25% of full unit strength, then it should not rebuild. Instead, there should be a 'disband' option which would send the fragment's squads and equipment back to the pool. Fragment evacuation (the infamous sub-load fragment) just for rebuilding is cheesy and should not even need a house rule.

I agree that rebuilding fragments is a bit gamey in the sense of manipulation of the system, however, just because a unit is wiped out, that is no reason for not being able to reconstitute the unit. If you have enough troops in the pool, you should be able to rebuild lost units. If you could rebuild lost units, there would be no need for the "infamous sub-load fragment".

Agreed - and there is no way to create new units, etc. This has been hashed and rehashed virtually weekly since the game came out.

It still rather amazes me that after all the discussion about unit fragments where virtually everyone agreed on how it would NOT be gamey to rebuild fragments if the "experience glitch"* was fixed - that once the glitch WAS fixed, people are STILL moaning about rebuilding units.

*experience glitch = when unit was rebuilt, it was at the experience of the surviving fragment rather than diluting experience with new troops. This was fixed some time ago.

The disband option should be available for fragments, if only to allow other units to be rebuilt. The core of the unit should be identified with some unit on the map (or destroyed)--fragments should not be allowed to become the core. Rebuilding should from the core. The core may be disbanded, but that disbands all fragments, too. If the core is destroyed, the player should have the immediate option of rebuilding it or disbanding it. Rebuilding it, recreates the unit (after a delay) and allows all fragments to continue to exist. Disbanding it also disbands all fragments.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

...I would prefer to see stacking limits for ships being loaded/unloaded - currently you can unload a convoy of a hundred AKs at a small port in the same time it takes to unload a single AK. Docking space, lighterage, stevedore and storage space limits are none-existant...

From the 'Admiral's Edition description:

"Ports have also been reworked to allow for realistic limits for ability to handle ships, cargo and repairs, with much more control given to the player on how repairs are managed (especially at shipyards)."

HOORAY!!!

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Menser

I would like a simple timesaver ....when you bring up the ships in port screen (by cliking on the anchor) I would like to see a form TF button.

Simple answer, AE got it.

[Bahnsteig]

As far as air battles over the Eastern Front. Much of the air action there was concentrated over the front lines, or over bases just behind the front lines. Fighters would be covering the air space over their troops or base and the other side would be trying to get attack planes through to attack the enemy troops. If a pure fighter battle broke out, it would most likely be when to opposing CAPs encountered one another.

While reading some combat-reports from Moelders and other German aces, I start wondering why interceptions are impossible in WITP.
They worked without radar support and spotters.
It was quite simple, they knew that the russian planes will meet up at a easy to find meeting point like a lake, river, mountain... and there they could ambush them.
I'm pretty sure the allied forces in China didn't use beacon fires like in Europe, maybe the used radar-navigation, but without precise navigation maps of China, it seems unlikely.
So I guess they used easy to find navigations points to find there way through China.
If it's not possible to intercept them when the fly to their target, it should be easier to get them on their way back.
And as far as I know, AE will support this..
There was an air war before radar and sometimes you maybe just need a phone.
Imagine how a Commander from Shanghai calls someone in Nanchang or Hankow to tell that there have been bombed. An AirHq may be able to organize an intercept, now metter how small it is.
For me it's simple unrealistic that the allied could fly thousands of miles through enemy territory without getting attacked.
And I found out while reading combat reports from the PI in 44, there were several allied planes ambushed and shot down.

And I'm not talking about carrier Cap, I know that there weren't very effective with their not exicting warning time and so on.

It is unrealistic to penalize players from "flying over an enemy base" when they can not set waypoints, vary altitudes, etc. You assume that aircraft fly over your base, perhaps because of the "red arrow" the combat replay draws in - but that is just an assumption.

The red arrow shows me just where the raid starts and what's his target, not the flying route. They fly over an enemy base if the base is in the maximum range.
But the point is that you don't have to put waypoints and other things, because this will do your commanding officer. It's the same with the taskforces, you told them what to do, but you don't have much influence how it will happen.
It's pretty clear that the game simplifies some thing, but it makes no sence as long one side gets too much advantages.

[rtrapasso]

The game DOES do interceptions - not very often but they occur.

If you look at some of the air combats that occur, the units involved attacking bombers are not always the ones on CAP over the hex attacked. All combat (in animation/replay) is represented over the base attacked, however - this is a simplification the game makes.

As mentioned previously, the actual maximum range of the aircraft is not represented in the game - it is reduced by some percentage to allow for detour of geographical obstacles (including bases), storms, etc.

[Bahnsteig]

The game DOES do interceptions - not very often but they occur.

Yes, but we are not talking about the same interceptions like mentioned before.
A raid just flying near by a base should be attacked by some fighters flying cap or maybe a real interception, depens how long it was in enemy territory.
Not just only get intercepted if a base nearby is bombed.
I'm curious how AE will handle this.

[Czert]

After quick expiriences i found these things need improvment :

1.unit statistic (viev aircraft,vehicle, troop, screen) -
a) here i miss filter butons -  like select only figters, land bombers...etc - similiar to list of existing units
b) comparing of units - not only japanese planes (e.q fighters) vs Jp, but vs amicks too

2. overviev of industry - currently is pain to find which units I currently produce (and in which bases) - and if currently produced plane is obsolete or not (and if yes, auto upgrade to newer model - in production).

Edit -m i find it, but it is not interactive - i mean i find desired product, but I cant click on in and go directly to factory/base - i mus exit and manualy find base (on another scren or on map).
3. overviev of pool - i cant find it - I dont know ammount of planes which I have ready to replace/upgrade.
edit - i find it, but it is hiden and not easily acceaable (from main map screen).
4. upgrading of planes - it will be very heplful if game tell you if next upgrading plane was developed or is currently developed/not developed.
5. auto removing (on/off) of obsolete planes from production screen.

6.creating of task forces (transport) - currently you first create task force and then load units - and this sometimes lead to you have (big) over/under transport capacity for troops - it will be very helpfull if you first choice (multiple) troops to transport and destination (friendly port/base/beach or enemy p/b/b) and then chame auto choiuce best posible units.

7. production - it is paint to know which is good for what - if I want to increase e.q. aircraft production I have no clue if resource production is sufficient for expanded úproduction or not - look at e.q. HoI 2 - it is very easy game drectly tell you - 1 IC cost 0,5´rare, 1 metal 2 energy - and you imediatly know if you can expand or not or which resources to conquer. (it displaing you remaining time in days before you run out of this resource). Currently in game you have no clue.

8. map filters - filters - ít is pain to find desired resources to conquer - if it will be in large strategic map - similiar to task forces (and others things)filtering - it will be best.

More next time.

[Czert]

And anothers - surender evebnts - for booths - nations and units.
a)units - this is simple - if attaker have cca 20 and more mens, then defending unit insted of retreating (and again retreating) will simply surrender. In my game I hunting (and slovly killing) 200 mens size unit ()base force) with my tank regiment - and chasing them around map (IIRC over 20 combats until they are finaly eliminated) - and this is not funny.
b) nations - if you capture capital and cca 70% of all his bases - it will serender - it will give you control over all remaining bases (and at certain chance of units).
 
Unit
a) disbanding of subunits - it is very funny to have one (or two) men subunits without chance to disband them (and disbanded unis will simple will be adde to core unit - transfre will be dona via pool).
b) changing of units - this is simple - give us possibility to change type of plane of unit to another - of course - base unit type will remain (e.q. transport plane) - tranport/recoon plane with range of only 2/3 is pracicaly useless (and without chance to upgrade) - and it is not funny - and you have much better planes (with 2x bigger range).

[n01487477]

Occasionally I see an error such as this ... Nemo mod.

The rationale:
1. This base starts at 900 Res building.
2. The IJA garrison is not enough to cover the base.
3. It rebels and damages the Res.

Adding 250 to the Resources (when it should - 250) and adding -250, or 65286 to the damaged ... If this is a known problem then I'm sorry, if not I can provide files ... or more info.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: n01487477

Occasionally I see an error such as this ... Nemo mod.

The rationale:
1. This base starts at 900 Res building.
2. The IJA garrison is not enough to cover the base.
3. It rebels and damages the Res.

Adding 250 to the Resources (when it should - 250) and adding -250, or 65286 to the damaged ... If this is a known problem then I'm sorry, if not I can provide files ... or more info.

Are you patched to 1.806? This certainly resembles a known issue that was fixed a couple of years ago

[n01487477]

Definitely ... I have all the save files, I've replicated it again ...