WCNAW Wish List

[admiralscheer1916]

I've been playing a lot of WCDB lately and thinking about some of the things I'd like to see in the future for NAW/WCDB. Some of these may already be in the works, some may be fairly easy to add, and some may be unrealistic. Anyway, here goes:

1. Pre-WWI fleets: For accurate replaying of Spanish-American War and Russo-Japanese War battles as well as hypothetical conflicts from the pre-Dreadnought era.

2. USA and minor navies: I know the WWI USA fleet is already in the DB but not active in the game. Minor navies such as Chile and Argentina as well as WWII Netherlands would be a nice addition as well.

3. Never builts: Planned but never completed ships such as the US Montanas, UK Lions, German H, and Russian Soyetskies as well as never completed inter-war ships stopped by treaty limitations.

4. Adjusting speed: The ability to change speed of both divisions and individual ships instead of the current maximum speed all the time by division.

5. Speed in knots: A nice level of detail useful especially in stern chases where slight differences in speed not currently accounted for in the game come into play.

6. Range in 2,000 yard increments: The range band concept is great. It's one of the things I really like about the game. This just adds a level of detail that would be useful in conjunction with the more detailed speed ideas.

7. Greater fleet limits: So larger battles like Jutland can be played. Also even medium battles stretch the current 32 ship limitation when you account for all the destroyers screening the forces.

8. Flexible divisions: To account for larger or smaller divisional orginization while allowing for unlimited number of divisions up to the maximum fleet size in terms of individual ships.

9. Different formations: Allowing for line abreast, echeloned, as well as screening formations for destroyers instead of just the simple line ahead currently in the game.

Just a few ideas, maybe realistic, maybe not.

Admiral Reinhardt Scheer, Kaiserliche Marine

[Warship NWS]

Hi AdSheer, most of your requests are already on my notes as canidates for future upgrades to the WC:NAW engine. The range part will be addressed with the new TacMap engine that will be part of WC:NAW v1.0 - 200 yard increment resolution. All your other requests are very plausible, stay tuned. ;)

BTW, I stickied your wish list so others can jump into it. :)

[admiralscheer1916]

Hi AdSheer, most of your requests are already on my notes as canidates for future upgrades to the WC:NAW engine. The range part will be addressed with the new TacMap engine that will be part of WC:NAW v1.0 - 200 yard increment resolution. All your other requests are very plausible, stay tuned. ;)

BTW, I stickied your wish list so others can jump into it. :)

Thanks! Make no mistake I LOVE this game and play it constantly. In fact, this game and SAS are the kinds of games I had dreamed about for the computer since the early 1980s when I first got into table top wargaming.

A. Scheer

[Warship NWS]

Thanks for the support A Sheer.. :)

[Stratos]

Like the ideas of Admiral!! But I have some more!

1-Mines: Let the WW1 ships minecapable, so they can put mines in the path of the enemy ships

2-Tiny ships: Corvettes, Gunboats ( river and sea ), QShips, Minesweepers, Trawlers...

3-Countries like Spain, Romania, Greece, Australia, Argentina... I know Admiral already said these but I repeat cause is very important!!

[Saffron]

I'm definitely looking forward to the hypotheticals and battleship/cruiser-turned carrier designs to show up in the game.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I'm definitely looking forward to the hypotheticals and battleship/cruiser-turned carrier designs to show up in the game.

Saffron and Admiral:

My only concerns about hypotheticals is just this: they never existed and its hard to determine what if any problems they may have had. Any design sounds good on paper, but until you build it you don't know what problems may have arisen. If I may offer an example:

On paper the USS North Carolina class is a pretty good design. But until it was built, nobody knew about the serious vibration problems it would suffer at high speed. You can't model that now can you? I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, but if you do any detailed research into ship designs you'll find that they are at best compromises that have certain flaws no matter what. They are not just thick armor, big guns and high speed. It seems that many gamers just want to play around with a hypo design because it seems more powerful than an existing design and will give them an edge. Until the ship is built, you do not know what problems it would have had and if they could be fixed. The best example is the German H class BBs. Sure the first two with 16" guns were essentially upgraded Bismarcks and can probably be modelled since the 16" guns at least existed and were fired in anger. But when you go to the Wagnerian fantasy ones with 20" guns then you leave the realm of reality and are just playing with fantasy. What's next? A ship with 30" guns and 200,000 ton displacement? You can design anything on paper after all. I would much more prefer ships that may not have seen service in WWII, but at least got built (Des Moines, Worcester and Tiger class cruisers perhaps). Maybe DEs, Frigates and corvettes to add some variety. Give me reality over wishful thinking. Sorry to be a bummer.

[Saffron]

Ed:

I think you may have misinterpreted what I meant by 'hypothetical.' I'm definitely not expecting pure "fantasy" ships to be included. I meant hypothetical as in -- what if the Lexingtons were built as cruisers instead of carriers? What if Germany did launch some H class ships? What if the US didn't cancel the Montanas? What if the Washington Treaty was never signed and all those battlecruisers weren't turned into carriers. Nothing on the lines of 200,000 ton super ships with 20 inch guns, but ships that were within reason. Essentially, the same ships that were included in FC.

I'd like to see the Russian navy included in NAW as well.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed:

I think you may have misinterpreted what I meant by 'hypothetical.' I'm definitely not expecting pure "fantasy" ships to be included. I meant hypothetical as in -- what if the Lexingtons were built as cruisers instead of carriers? What if Germany did launch some H class ships? What if the US didn't cancel the Montanas? What if the Washington Treaty was never signed and all those battlecruisers weren't turned into carriers. Nothing on the lines of 200,000 ton super ships with 20 inch guns, but ships that were within reason. Essentially, the same ships that were included in FC.

I'd like to see the Russian navy included in NAW as well.

Saffron:

In that case I can concur and I do want the Russian Navy since you could game out some interesting battles in the Baltic or the North Sea against Germany. Another sleeper navy for me would be the Swedish navy since they had some unusual ships designed to protect their coasts. I could see battles against either the Russians or the Germans in that case. But first and foremost I want the Dutch navy so I can game out some of the early battles in the Pacific! Kurt's with me on this one.;)

[keschofield]

Saffron:

In that case I can concur and I do want the Russian Navy since you could game out some interesting battles in the Baltic or the North Sea against Germany. Another sleeper navy for me would be the Swedish navy since they had some unusual ships designed to protect their coasts. I could see battles against either the Russians or the Germans in that case. But first and foremost I want the Dutch navy so I can game out some of the early battles in the Pacific! Kurt's with me on this one.;)

If we don't get the Dutch soon, I'm gonna put on my wooden shoes and go stomping down to Chris' house. :D

P.S. - I really do have a pair of wooden shoes. With the right pair of socks on, they are very comfortable but hard to walk in.

[Ed Rotondaro]

If we don't get the Dutch soon, I'm gonna put on my wooden shoes and go stomping down to Chris' house. :D

P.S. - I really do have a pair of wooden shoes. With the right pair of socks on, they are very comfortable but hard to walk in.

Kurt:

Now that would be a sight to see LOL!

[Saffron]

Another sleeper navy for me would be the Swedish navy

I'd like to see that, too. I've had a running argument with someone over how effective the Kriegsmarine would be against the Swedish coastal BBs. It would be interesting to game out a surface engagement between them.

[Kyle Holgate]

I believe some time back it was mentioned that hypothetical ships would be added - but only ones that were reasonably likely to be built. On top of that my GUESS is that another criteria would have to be that there must be enough information about them so as to have accurate game information.

As such the H44 and Super-Yamato are unlikely where as the original H class, the Lions and Montana (as examples) may be more likely to be added at some point.

[admiralscheer1916]

Saffron and Admiral:

My only concerns about hypotheticals is just this: they never existed and its hard to determine what if any problems they may have had. Any design sounds good on paper, but until you build it you don't know what problems may have arisen. If I may offer an example:

On paper the USS North Carolina class is a pretty good design. But until it was built, nobody knew about the serious vibration problems it would suffer at high speed. You can't model that now can you? I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, but if you do any detailed research into ship designs you'll find that they are at best compromises that have certain flaws no matter what. They are not just thick armor, big guns and high speed. It seems that many gamers just want to play around with a hypo design because it seems more powerful than an existing design and will give them an edge. Until the ship is built, you do not know what problems it would have had and if they could be fixed. The best example is the German H class BBs. Sure the first two with 16" guns were essentially upgraded Bismarcks and can probably be modelled since the 16" guns at least existed and were fired in anger. But when you go to the Wagnerian fantasy ones with 20" guns then you leave the realm of reality and are just playing with fantasy. What's next? A ship with 30" guns and 200,000 ton displacement? You can design anything on paper after all. I would much more prefer ships that may not have seen service in WWII, but at least got built (Des Moines, Worcester and Tiger class cruisers perhaps). Maybe DEs, Frigates and corvettes to add some variety. Give me reality over wishful thinking. Sorry to be a bummer.

I'm definately not in favour of the pie-in-the-sky designs being included. When I say "never built" I'm refering only to the ships that were actually laid down (or at least close to being laid down) and then were never completed ie. US Montana's, UK Lion's, German 16" H's and O class BCs ect.

R. Scheer

[asnrobert]

I'm with Kurt with regard to adding the Dutch fleet (along with the other minor navies). I would also like to see the ships of the Spanish-American War added. In addition, I'd like to see the other navies in the WW1 database (Britain, Germany, Italy, France, Austria-Hungar) have their ships of the SAW and RJW era added.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I'm definately not in favour of the pie-in-the-sky designs being included. When I say "never built" I'm refering only to the ships that were actually laid down (or at least close to being laid down) and then were never completed ie. US Montana's, UK Lion's, German 16" H's and O class BCs ect.

R. Scheer

Admiral:

We are on the same page here. I agree.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I'm with Kurt with regard to adding the Dutch fleet (along with the other minor navies). I would also like to see the ships of the Spanish-American War added. In addition, I'd like to see the other navies in the WW1 database (Britain, Germany, Italy, France, Austria-Hungar) have their ships of the SAW and RJW era added.

More ships to sink!!:D

[admiralscheer1916]

Just thought of a couple more:

A. The ability to start a scenario with pre-existing damage to ships. For example, at the main clash of fleets at Jutland Beatty, Evan-Thomas, and Hipper all had taken shell hits from the prior fighting including turrets put out of action.

B. Mine fields. Some actions such as Helgoland Bight I and II took place in close proximity to mine fields and had the very real possibility of striking mines as well as the knowledge that they were out there effected the ability to manuever.

Just a couple of suggestions I thought of.

Admiral Reinhardt Scheer, Kaiserliche Marine

[asnrobert]

More ships to sink!!:D

I think the 1890-1910 period is rich with possibilities besides the historical battles- there are a lot of opportunities for recreating hypothetical battles. What if Germany intervened in the Spanish-American War (I read a novel by Robert Conroy titled 1901 involving a war between Germany and the US- I'd love to recreate some of the battles in the book once the ships in WCDB are made available)? What if Britain went to war with Russia over the Dogger Bank incident? Suppose WW1 started a decade earlier- what would Jutland with pre-dreadnoughts look like?

[Ed Rotondaro]

I think the 1890-1910 period is rich with possibilities besides the historical battles- there are a lot of opportunities for recreating hypothetical battles. What if Germany intervened in the Spanish-American War (I read a novel by Robert Conroy titled 1901 involving a war between Germany and the US- I'd love to recreate some of the battles in the book once the ships in WCDB are made available)? What if Britain went to war with Russia over the Dogger Bank incident? Suppose WW1 started a decade earlier- what would Jutland with pre-dreadnoughts look like?

Robert:

Definitely worth examining.

[admiralscheer1916]

Just thought of another one: Delayed entry of forces. An example of this is Evan-Thomas's squadron was too far away to support Beatty in the opening rounds of Jutland but came in the equivalent of several game turns later.

Admiral Reinhardt Scheer, Kaiserliche Marine

[Ed Rotondaro]

Just thought of another one: Delayed entry of forces. An example of this is Evan-Thomas's squadron was too far away to support Beatty in the opening rounds of Jutland but came in the equivalent of several game turns later.

Admiral Reinhardt Scheer, Kaiserliche Marine

Admiral:

I would like that too as you could more accurately game Savo island since the US forces were separated from each other whereas the Japanese were in one group.

[Warship NWS]

Admiral:

I would like that too as you could more accurately game Savo island since the US forces were separated from each other whereas the Japanese were in one group.

That should be quite feasible after the TacMap system is finished and land is fully tested and implemented.

[admiralscheer1916]

A couple more.

1. Stack smoke from coal-fired ships.

2. Wind direction to determine where the smoke drifts.

3. Location of the sun and it's influence on gunnery.

Scheer

[fireinc]

I would like inclusion of ALL classes of ships included in all the National counter mix of Avalanche Press' Great War at Sea and Second World War at Sea

I'm a devote of the system (particularly GWaS) BUT rarely, if (n)ever, have opportunity for FTF play. The games Operational component is fairly solo'able, but the tactical resolution would be a sweet spot for the NAW/WCDB system once such play had resulted in a contact situation.

Or what about also including "tweakable" Generics with era/national appropriate mannerisms? Input a Year, rough tonnage range, Design type, Armor Rating, Main/Secondary/Tert sizes and mount numbers, and name 'em and let 'em go mix it up.

Best,

E!

[Warship NWS]

"Tweakable" generics would not be feasible. Even though the ship charts may look simple those combat factors are only indicators and heavily modified and calculated through our internal combat mechanics.

There will be a LOT of ship classes added after the release of WC:NAW v1.0. ;)

[Stratos]

Don't know If posting here is correct, but just read the new update on the Map sistem for the game and get a bit excited, sounds very very cool, but I have two questions:

1-Will be shells and torpedoes, displayed on the map while "flying/swimming" to their targets? Will splash appears on the map? ( that will be very cool )

2-For a wooden ships edition, boarding actions is a must, will be possible to do it?

[Warship NWS]

Don't know If posting here is correct, but just read the new update on the Map sistem for the game and get a bit excited, sounds very very cool, but I have two questions:

1-Will be shells and torpedoes, displayed on the map while "flying/swimming" to their targets? Will splash appears on the map? ( that will be very cool )

2-For a wooden ships edition, boarding actions is a must, will be possible to do it?

1- A red "firing line" will be shown so you can tell which ships/divisions are firing shells at each other. Torpedos will not be shown - have to think on that one.

2- When we start on a wooden ships/ironclads edition boarding would of course be included. ;)

Thanks.

[lecrop]

My wish list:

2 player, multiplayer and PBEM !

[Warship NWS]

My wish list:

2 player, multiplayer and PBEM !

If there is enough call for this I can see if it is feasible but it would take some work.

Thanks.

[Mart]

If there is enough call for this I can see if it is feasible but it would take some work.

Thanks.


Do you think, maybe, that you could do with a rest first? :)

Martin

[Warship NWS]

Do you think, maybe, that you could do with a rest first? :)

Martin

After WCNAW v1.0 is released I intend to take a *short* break...;)

[old_pop2000]

.....I intend to take a *short* break...;)


WHAT!!!! A BREAK? *sighs* *Takes a break, himself*:p

[keschofield]

WHAT!!!! A BREAK? *sighs* *Takes a break, himself*:p

My kids tell me that my mind took a permanent break 20 years ago!:p

[Kyle Holgate]

1- A red "firing line" will be shown so you can tell which ships/divisions are firing shells at each other. Torpedos will not be shown - have to think on that one.

2- When we start on a wooden ships/ironclads edition boarding would of course be included. ;)

Thanks.

Shell splashes from misses and what not seem logical, torpedoes maybe but only if the target ship actually would spot the "fish". I would think that this isn't something vital to game play, but would be a fun addition. Knowing a torpedo just missed would add to the pucker factor :eek:.
At some point tweaks to how the fog of war is set would also be interesting - so you aren't sure exactly how many hits you have made. Shell splashes could be mistaken for torpedo hits, gun flashes from firing mistaken for hits, etc. Until you see burning or speed drops, ship blows up, spins in circles from rudder hit, etc - many times a firing ship would not necessarily know he's hitting (or not hitting).
1.0 first though, then I think you've earned a break!

[Warship NWS]

As most of you should already know WCDB already had a FOW system included.. however, future editions of WCNAW will include a far more detailed and dynamic system of intel gathering, detection/identification, and communications routines.

[Scott Chisholm]

After WCNAW v1.0 is released I intend to take a *short* break...;)

Chris' idea of a "break" constitutes a 40-hour work week for most mortals....:p

[Warship NWS]

Chris' idea of a "break" constitutes a 40-hour work week for most mortals....:p

Pretty accurate really.. heavy week.. 70-80, moderate 50-60, light.. 40. ;) However, I can't think of anything else I would rather be doing for a living. :)

[old_pop2000]

Pretty accurate really.. heavy week.. 70-80, moderate 50-60, light.. 40. ;) However, I can't think of anything else I would rather be doing for a living. :)


I sure as hell can, cruising off the coast of the US, sitting on my balcony, with a glass of wine watching the whales.

Sorry, but I couldn't resist. :p

[m1shooter]

You forgot wargaming!

[old_pop2000]

You forgot wargaming!

True, very true.

[Saffron]

Speaking of FOW, I think it would be pretty nifty if, upon spotting a ship, you could actually get wrong information instead of just incomplete information. For instance, a Prinz Eugen showing up as a Bismarck (which, if I recall, initial shots were fired at PE instead of Bismarck due to misidentification) ... until better intel is gathered. Imagine having to rethink your entire strategy because you high-tailed it after what you thought was a juicy target only to find out the juicy target was actually over there --->

[Warship NWS]

To Saffy, that would be part of the dynamic "identification" I mentioned previously. Thanks. ;)

[Warship NWS]

Some reading for those of you who are interested in the combat systems developed for WCNAW,

http://forums.navalwarfare.org/showthread.php?t=1463

Thanks.

[theonlyone]

I was just curious, since last time I asked. Whether there will be an option included for all the sound effects including the gunfire to be turned off. You had said, maybe for v1.0, if not then in v1.1. Thanks.

[Warship NWS]

I was just curious, since last time I asked. Whether there will be an option included for all the sound effects including the gunfire to be turned off. You had said, maybe for v1.0, if not then in v1.1. Thanks.

Remind me after v1.0 is released.. I can look at this for v1.1. Thanks.

[Akmatov]

There will be a LOT of ship classes added after the release of WC:NAW v1.0.

Joy Joy Joy


wooden ships/ironclads edition

yet more JOY

[Akmatov]

While putzing about was thinking of scenarios and realized it wouldn't be possible to do one on the Dardanelles - not only no land, which you are working on, but no shore batteries. Just checking to be sure my assumption that they will be along eventually is correct. Especially if you are expanding into the sail and ironclad eras they will be absolutely necessary.

Right?

[Warship NWS]

Shore batteries are planned on.

Note, v1.02 is due out later today,
http://forums.navalwarfare.org/showthread.php?t=1540

[admiralscheer1916]

Hi all, just to let you know I'm following all these posts with rapt attention and it's pretty clear to me that a terrific job has been done with this project and that expectations have been exceded :)

I haven't purchased the upgrade yet as Marks are short at the moment and I must purchase coal for the Freidrich der Grosse and Hipper is no doubt running around spending me out of Wilhelmshaven; but have no fear! As soon as the Kaiser graciously blesses my navel budget with a fat deposit I shall upgrade immediately!

R. Scheer, Kaiserliche Marine

[planetbrain]

Would love to see inclusion of surface raider(s) targeting convoy escorts & merchant vessels type scenario, please.

[Warship NWS]

Would love to see inclusion of surface raider(s) targeting convoy escorts & merchant vessels type scenario, please.

Already on the list.. ;)

[PDF]

Then may we have subs too ? :D

[Cougar_DK]

Since RMB is continue throughout the game I'm wondering if it would be possible to change the "Fleet select" screen to use the RMB for "Continue" instead of LMB? As far as I can see is this the only screen that deviates from the 'standard' :)

[PDF]

A small UI nitpick : I do find the way F4-F8-F12 keys cumbersome, the game is mostly played with the mouse,a nd these kayes are far away, and not intuitive....

Couldn't the info be keyed to double-click, or key swapped with spacebar (ship/class name could be put elsewhere instead, I don't use it much). For F8-F12, why not more intuitive "characters" keys like O (Options) and S (Save) ?
Or maybe even allow players to remap keys by a .ini file or such ! :p

[Cougar_DK]

A small UI nitpick : I do find the way F4-F8-F12 keys cumbersome, the game is mostly played with the mouse,a nd these kayes are far away, and not intuitive....

Couldn't the info be keyed to double-click, or key swapped with spacebar (ship/class name could be put elsewhere instead, I don't use it much). For F8-F12, why not more intuitive "characters" keys like O (Options) and S (Save) ?
Or maybe even allow players to remap keys by a .ini file or such ! :p

I also asked for a little more user friendly way - like clicking on the Fn text with the mouse :)

[Warship NWS]

HI guys, I am monitoring your suggestions and adding them to my "suggestion" box. Thanks. ;)

[mscano]

I don't know if anyone has already suggested this, but a nice feature would be the ability to click on an attack listed in the battle report and see an instant replay of the specific attack.

[Warship NWS]

I don't know if anyone has already suggested this, but a nice feature would be the ability to click on an attack listed in the battle report and see an instant replay of the specific attack.

That would take a bit of work.. but I will put it in my "suggestion box" ;)

[gabeeg]

Here is my wishlist for WC-NAW...it is in no particular order and some of these has been mentioned by others and/or maybe already on the to do list (land)...just consider it an additional vote ;)

1. Splitting divisions other than disengaging - For example I have a destroyer division running at high speed to get in close for a torpedo run...one of the destroyers takes a few hits and loses speed but not enough to leave the battle...just the task at hand. right now I have to disengage the unit to keep the divisions speed up. I would rather it just fall out of line and still be able to be maneuver the unit that fell out.

2 & 2.5. Zoomable tactical map - Would allow for larger battle space and would allow things like visible torpedo wakes when zoomed in.

3. Course changes by degree.

4. Heading, facing, aspect in the 3d view.

5. Damage modeling in the 3d view (due to the current scale maybe have a switchable binocular view that shows modeled damage in the appropriate locations on the ship being viewed thru the magnified bino view).

6. Land representation

7 & 7.5 Carriers in the OoB (and naval air even if abstracted...as an option maybe)

8. Detailed end of battle report with ship by ship stats.

9. Breaking out OoB's to a editable xml, text or some such so that users can add units.

P.S. It seems that there is supposed to be music...I have not been able to hear any, is this currently still in the works or is this a bug? If it is just playing a mp3 file, it would be cool if it would allow users to copy over any mp3 to be used as game music.

...thanks for a great simulation!

[gabeeg]

Ohhh...one more!

10. I would like to be able to toggle the range lines on or off during other game phases such as the tactical maneuver phase.

[Warship NWS]

1. Splitting divisions other than disengaging - For example I have a destroyer division running at high speed to get in close for a torpedo run...one of the destroyers takes a few hits and loses speed but not enough to leave the battle...just the task at hand. right now I have to disengage the unit to keep the divisions speed up. I would rather it just fall out of line and still be able to be maneuver the unit that fell out.

Detaching ships is in the works but there will be a "cohesion" hit for doing so - there was good reason to operate ships in "divisions" ;)


2 & 2.5. Zoomable tactical map - Would allow for larger battle space and would allow things like visible torpedo wakes when zoomed in.

A zoomable map is in the works along with a 80nm x 80nm+ TacMap. I have no intentions of showing "torpedo wakes" however at this time.


3. Course changes by degree.

They 8 point compass course system will be retained - it does work.


4. Heading, facing, aspect in the 3d view.

Have to think on this one..;) I do have some plans of "alternate viewpoints" for the 3D battleviewer however.


5. Damage modeling in the 3d view (due to the current scale maybe have a switchable binocular view that shows modeled damage in the appropriate locations on the ship being viewed thru the magnified bino view).

Again, have to think on this one.. remember, that is a LOT of ship classes to cover. ;)


6. Land representation

Already in the works.. possibly by v1.1.


7 & 7.5 Carriers in the OoB (and naval air even if abstracted...as an option maybe)

Stick around.. been thinking of some ideas for CVs..;)


8. Detailed end of battle report with ship by ship stats.

My plan is a clickable "end of battle report" similiar to the scrollable combat report dialog - but clickable. ;)


9. Breaking out OoB's to a editable xml, text or some such so that users can add units.

Sorry but I have to say no to this one.. plus I do take ship class requests and the database is due to be expanded considerably in future updates.


P.S. It seems that there is supposed to be music...I have not been able to hear any, is this currently still in the works or is this a bug? If it is just playing a mp3 file, it would be cool if it would allow users to copy over any mp3 to be used as game music.

This is a coding engine issue, I have the code entered exactly the way it should work but it still doesn't :mad:.. so far I have been unable to rectify it. However, I am thinking of posting the MP3 music file for anyone to download and play in their own MP3 player -- nothing different then the game would do anyway. ;)


...thanks for a great simulation!

Thanks for the support. :)

[Warship NWS]

10. I would like to be able to toggle the range lines on or off during other game phases such as the tactical maneuver phase.

Range lines? :confused:

[gabeeg]

Range lines? :confused:

Sorry, I was referring to the gunnery range circles that you get when clicking during gunnery selection phase and you click on one of your units. There have been times when I would have liked to see these range circles during the tactical movement phase...

[Warship NWS]

Sorry, I was referring to the gunnery range circles that you get when clicking during gunnery selection phase and you click on one of your units. There have been times when I would have liked to see these range circles during the tactical movement phase...

Got it.. added to the suggestion box. ;)

[Saffron]

7 & 7.5 Carriers in the OoB (and naval air even if abstracted...as an option maybe)


I was thinking about something similar to this the other day. Remember in Fighting Steel how a damaged ship might get picked off by aircraft "off map" so to speak?

So many times I'd get into a fight and have an enemy ship limp away barely afloat, or one that was utterly disabled but I ran out of ammo before I could finish her off. It would add a little spice to the game if there was an abstract report at the end of a battle that showed what happened to heavily damaged ships.

For instance, getting picked off by an enemy sub, sunk by enemy aircraft, or even if perhaps fires and flooding still in effect at game's end continued to cause damage and sink the ship. Perhaps there would even be a random chance that the captain would order a scuttling.

It's not hugely important to the game, but it was something I thought might add some flavor so scenarios feel less like they happened in a vacuum.

[gabeeg]

".. plus I do take ship class requests and the database is due to be expanded considerably in future updates."

Someday, I would like to see the Turkish Navy represented (WWI) in the product:

http://www.naval-history.net/WW1NavyTurkish.htm#pc

[Warship NWS]

".. plus I do take ship class requests and the database is due to be expanded considerably in future updates."

Someday, I would like to see the Turkish Navy represented (WWI) in the product:

http://www.naval-history.net/WW1NavyTurkish.htm#pc

In the suggestion box..;)

[JMS]

So many times I'd get into a fight and have an enemy ship limp away barely afloat, or one that was utterly disabled but I ran out of ammo before I could finish her off. It would add a little spice to the game if there was an abstract report at the end of a battle that showed what happened to heavily damaged ships.



What you need is ramming! specially in the XIX century!

[m1shooter]

What you need is ramming! specially in the XIX century!

Ramming was generally frowned upon (unless there were dire circumstances) as you generally lost you ship as well or caused serious damage to yourself. The movies are great for this, you can ram and be on your merry way! ;)

Ed

[asnrobert]

Ramming was generally frowned upon (unless there were dire circumstances) as you generally lost you ship as well or caused serious damage to yourself. The movies are great for this, you can ram and be on your merry way! ;)

Ed

Yes, but you have to realize that at the battle of Lissa in 1866, the Austro-Hungarians used ramming tactics against the Italian fleet with good success. As a result, ramming was in vogue for the next several decades- ships were built with ram bows, and even some dedicated ramming vessels were built.

[Kyle Holgate]

Ramming was generally frowned upon (unless there were dire circumstances) as you generally lost you ship as well or caused serious damage to yourself. The movies are great for this, you can ram and be on your merry way! ;)

Ed

Ramming wasn't that unusual but it happened prior to the 1895-1950 time range covered by the current game. Now if WC: NAW 2000 BC- 1865 AD or something comes out - then it's quite possible it'd be in the game - along with Greek fire and boarding actions and what not!
Ramming was much more a useful tactic earlier than 1895

[Warship NWS]

Guy's this is a "wish" list.. not a chatter thread. You can discuss ramming in the general history section. Thanks. ;)

[bilbo8888]

- Dutch Fleet ( WW2 Pacific )

- Mine warfare

- Land and/or Land Batteries

- "Admiral's effects" ( a few historic names to lead fleets and give + or - in crew rating, gunnery or movements, even a chance to surprise enemy fleet before the actual start of the scenario

- "simple" campaign game ala FIGHTING STEEL

- detailed damage modelling ( ala Fighting steel again )

Good game

[Warship NWS]

- Dutch Fleet ( WW2 Pacific )

Already on the list.


- Mine warfare

- Land and/or Land Batteries

All on the list.


- "Admiral's effects" ( a few historic names to lead fleets and give + or - in crew rating, gunnery or movements, even a chance to surprise enemy fleet before the actual start of the scenario

I have some plans already in the works regarding "commanders". ;)


- "simple" campaign game ala FIGHTING STEEL

Future compatibility with SAS will deal with this topic.


- detailed damage modelling ( ala Fighting steel again )

I think you underestimate the damage modelling in WCNAW.. right now it is on par, and in some regards slightly exceeds, the work we did with FSP - and future engine upgrades will only increase the level of detail.


Good game

Thanks for the support. ;)

[Warship NWS]

Note, we are in the process of upgrading the engine detail level in regards to magazine explosions for v1.07. WCNAW already incorporates a detailed series of combat mechanics to determine the chances for a magazine to detonate, however, the next level of detail will take these calculations a considerable step further by including specific ammunition type/stowage and construction attributes in relation to each warship class in the database. More news to be posted soon. Thanks. ;)

[gabeeg]

When choosing a scenario to play you have to select the scenario to see the description...and if it is not one you want to play at the moment...there is no way to go back.
I would like to see a scenario selection that when clicked shows a description of the scenario and allows you to load it or go back to the scenario list.

[Warship NWS]

When choosing a scenario to play you have to select the scenario to see the description...and if it is not one you want to play at the moment...there is no way to go back.
I would like to see a scenario selection that when clicked shows a description of the scenario and allows you to load it or go back to the scenario list.

I will see what I can do.. possibly a "pop-up" box showing the description when you "mouse over" the name of the scenario. ;)

[bilbo8888]

- Historic Names in each class to chose from ( maybe just for the CL and heavier )

- a few hypothetic ships ( Z plan, british post war BB, etc ... )

- recon/gunnery director planes "bonus", maybe add the launch from ships before the actual start of the scenario

- damage control ( GNB was great in this departement, with counter flooding and fire fighting )

- (one of) my ultimate dream would to see an agreeement between NWS and GWAS to create THE PC naval wargame :D

Good game to all ( I HAVE to sink those Damned British Battle Cruisers ... ;) )

[Warship NWS]

- Historic Names in each class to chose from ( maybe just for the CL and heavier )

This can be done by editing the scenario.txt files.


- a few hypothetic ships ( Z plan, british post war BB, etc ... )

Some are already included.. more are in the works.


- recon/gunnery director planes "bonus", maybe add the launch from ships before the actual start of the scenario

On the list already.


- damage control ( GNB was great in this departement, with counter flooding and fire fighting )

No TF commander would be dealing with such matters.. too much micromanagement - especially if your expecting realistic DC mechanics. Ever try that in GNB with 20 or more ships in a fight? ;) That was the job of the DC teams.


- (one of) my ultimate dream would to see an agreeement between NWS and GWAS to create THE PC naval wargame :D

For operational scale.. SAS+WCNAW will fit the bill.

Thanks for the support. ;)

[bilbo8888]

This can be done by editing the scenario.txt files.



Some are already included.. more are in the works.



On the list already.



No TF commander would be dealing with such matters.. too much micromanagement - especially if your expecting realistic DC mechanics. Ever try that in GNB with 20 or more ships in a fight? ;) That was the job of the DC teams.



For operational scale.. SAS+WCNAW will fit the bill.

Thanks for the support. ;)

For the names in the class i proposed a list included in the fleet database, permiting to chose in it during the scenario creation, in the game interface, without having to edit any file.

[Warship NWS]

For the names in the class i proposed a list included in the fleet database, permiting to chose in it during the scenario creation, in the game interface, without having to edit any file.

I understood what you were asking for.. but it would require a serious number of man hours to type in the names for 400+ (and growing) classes of warships - which would require manually typing in several thousands of ship name entries into the database.

Thanks.

[bilbo8888]

I understood what you were asking for.. but it would require a serious number of man hours to type in the names for 400+ (and growing) classes of warships - which would require manually typing in several thousands of ship name entries into the database.

Thanks.

Fast, nice and great support, as always ... :D

[Warship NWS]

Fast, nice and great support, as always ... :D

BTW, if you need ship names just ask.. I'm sure Robert, our lead WCNAW beta tester, would be happy to try and help. ;)

[thewood]

Could you give us users a tool to enter them for ourselves...just the names that is. That would save having to type in names each time we build a scenario.

btw, is it possible to remove the barrier between WW1 and WW2 databases. I would like to do some "what ifs" and the restriction keeps me from doing that.

[asnrobert]

Could you give us users a tool to enter them for ourselves...just the names that is. That would save having to type in names each time we build a scenario.

btw, is it possible to remove the barrier between WW1 and WW2 databases. I would like to do some "what ifs" and the restriction keeps me from doing that.

As for the first question, I'll let Chris answer that. For the second, I believe Chris does intend to merge the two databases at some point in the near future.

[Kyle Holgate]

Could you give us users a tool to enter them for ourselves...just the names that is. That would save having to type in names each time we build a scenario.

btw, is it possible to remove the barrier between WW1 and WW2 databases. I would like to do some "what ifs" and the restriction keeps me from doing that.

You can open the scenario using a text editor and put names in yourself. I frequently do that rather than - as you say, typing them in one at a time as you input the ships.
Here is a clip from a scenario - change the Washington to anything you like - do the other ships, re-save it (maybe under a different name in case you messed up). Off you go.
CLASS:
BB NORTH CAROLINA
NAME:
WASHINGTON
DIVISION:
1
NUMBER:
1
CREW RATING:
G
POINT VALUE:
23
COURSE:
0

[Warship NWS]

Could you give us users a tool to enter them for ourselves...just the names that is. That would save having to type in names each time we build a scenario.

btw, is it possible to remove the barrier between WW1 and WW2 databases. I would like to do some "what ifs" and the restriction keeps me from doing that.

I can see about adding a dialog for a ship "name". For now, after you save the scenario as a TXT format you can alt-tab out of the game, open up the TXT file, enter the names, go back to the game, restart WCNAW back to the startup options, and then load the scenario. As to the database, I am looking into that at some point. Thanks.

[bilbo8888]

- a few generic merchants and tankers ( it's hard to manage a convoy raider campaign without any convoy to sink ... :) )

- a few generic Armed merchants, Auxiliary cruisers and "disguised" raiders ( same thing .. )

- MTBs, E-boats and MAS, even a generic MTB class ( could be important in a campaign too )

- why not a "moving" crew rating ? ( loss a class if battle goes wrong ( Flagship out of the line, too many disengaging units ... ), gain a class if battle goes right (british battlecruisers blow like popcorn .. )

sorry for the bad english

Good hunting to all

[asnrobert]

- a few generic merchants and tankers ( it's hard to manage a convoy raider campaign without any convoy to sink ... :) )

- a few generic Armed merchants, Auxiliary cruisers and "disguised" raiders ( same thing .. )

- MTBs, E-boats and MAS, even a generic MTB class ( could be important in a campaign too )

- why not a "moving" crew rating ? ( loss a class if battle goes wrong ( Flagship out of the line, too many disengaging units ... ), gain a class if battle goes right (british battlecruisers blow like popcorn .. )

sorry for the bad english

Good hunting to all

I believe there are plans to add merchant ships as well as armed merchant cruisers to WCNAW eventually.
I'm not so sure about the MTBs though- their very small size might make it difficult to model in WCNAW- Chris can answer that one better.

[Warship NWS]

- a few generic merchants and tankers ( it's hard to manage a convoy raider campaign without any convoy to sink ... :) )

- a few generic Armed merchants, Auxiliary cruisers and "disguised" raiders ( same thing .. )

- MTBs, E-boats and MAS, even a generic MTB class ( could be important in a campaign too )

- why not a "moving" crew rating ? ( loss a class if battle goes wrong ( Flagship out of the line, too many disengaging units ... ), gain a class if battle goes right (british battlecruisers blow like popcorn .. )

sorry for the bad english

Good hunting to all

All of the above except for a "moving" crew rating are in the works. ;) Crew "effectiveness" is already covered in the engine.

[bilbo8888]

All of the above except for a "moving" crew rating are in the works. ;) Crew "effectiveness" is already covered in the engine.

You really rock you know .... ;)

For the crew effectiveness, i think about an option for a "variable crew effectiveness", like variable morale in some land wargames.

A really bad blow ( magazine explosion on a close friendly ship for exemple ) could affect a crew, based on my many readings, mainly about WW2. Same thing if surprised, or badly hit without any chance to retaliate ( Night actions around guadalcanal for exemple ).

But it's just an idea ... you're the Boss ! ;)

[Warship NWS]

Being "surprised" is already covered..;)

[gabeeg]

I would like to see more options in the realm of formations and manuever (line ahead, line abreast, turn in succession, etc.) I think being able to execute and visualize basic formations and manuevers is one of the more urgent candidates for an update. This could also enable modeling of masking fire if you choose your formations poorly, ability to better protect vital ships within a formation, etc.

[Warship NWS]

To g, alternate formation options is in the works. Thanks.

[thevanderploegs]

Here's something that I've been wanting for a while but never said anything; about this and the WC version of the game. When selecting ship classes from the list on the screen, they do not appear in 'date order,' that is in order they were built. Although I'm familiar enough with the USN to know basically which class of destroyer came before which, and I usually know for the BBs and BCs of most countries, I haven't a clue which of the French DDs available for WW2 are old ones and which are newer ones.

Can a 'year' be put next to the class name to indicate the earliest it was in service? If I want to do a scenario that occurs in 1935, for instance, I don't want to be selecting ship classes that were built in 1940.

Regards,
Gary

[Warship NWS]

All ship class commissioning dates are shown in the PDF ship charts for reference. I could see about adding those dates to ship to the class selection screens.

[bilbo8888]

- REALLY needs a detailed after battle report for campaign game

- random setup ( ala Harpoon classic ) to spiced the scenarios

- zoom and unzoom in tactical view

- i dream about a joint project with GWAS ... all the navies, all the gorgeous top view ship counters ... lol

Sorry for the poor english

Good game to all and thank you again for all the work !!

[Warship NWS]

- REALLY needs a detailed after battle report for campaign game

Campaign game? However, I am planning on a "clickable/scrollable" interface for the "end of battle" screen.


- random setup ( ala Harpoon classic ) to spiced the scenarios

After land and larger maps are done I can look into this.


- zoom and unzoom in tactical view

Already in the works, including a larger map.


Good game to all and thank you again for all the work !!

Thanks for the support. :)

[bilbo8888]

Campaign game? However, I am planning on a "clickable/scrollable" interface for the "end of battle" screen.



After land and larger maps are done I can look into this.



Already in the works, including a larger map.



Thanks for the support. :)

By campaign game i mean using WCNAW to resolve engagements from other game ( like GWAS or other system ). At the end of battle, it's uneasy to check the level of damage of remaining ships.

Thanks

[Warship NWS]

By campaign game i mean using WCNAW to resolve engagements from other game ( like GWAS or other system ). At the end of battle, it's uneasy to check the level of damage of remaining ships.

Thanks

The interface I have planned for the end of battle dialog should help with this request. Thanks.

[jirik]

Hi,

would it be possible to add an option to quick battle generator - set point value of the ships that would be randomly added to each side. The reasoning behind it is that I can express preference for light forces or capital ships battle. Or the alternative would be providing an option - Force composition - Capital ships only/Capital ships heavy/Mixed/Light forces heavy/Light forces only and generate force composition based on this preference.

Thanks

[Warship NWS]

Hi j,

To be completely honest, I would prefer not to mess with the random battle generator. This is one of those "if it works don't mess with it" things. It took a while to design a generator that could draw up a variety of ship divisions with structured OOBs to pull from especially with some nationalities having limited numbers of ship classes per time frames. At this point I do not intend to add any more "requirements" of the generator as it is primarily intended for quick and dirty naval battles with a reasonable array of customization for the combat environment and size of battle. Let me know if this makes sense to you.

Thanks.

[jirik]

Yes and no. I understand that wou want to avoid major overhauling but... The problem is that I can either create a force according to my wish/mood/requirements in detailed scenario editor but I have to do it also for opponent so I am losing a part of surprise.
Or I have to use random generation but then I can spend quite many attempts to generate the forces to my flavour and keep the enemy forces in secret.
This is one of the cases where I would like to eat and have my cake at the same time.

[Warship NWS]

Ok.. I may be able to meet you half way. Optional manual selection for the player ships but random for the AI.. does that sound reasonable?

[jirik]

Deal done :-)

Thanks

[Warship NWS]

Deal done :-)

Thanks

My plate is already full for v1.07.. but I will see what I can do for v1.08+. Thanks.

[Christian Schwietzke]

Another request for a later time... how about the option to adjust certain parameters, such as hit probability, damage done, flooding and fire severity, bonuses for fire control and penalties for adverse conditions (night, fog etc), damage control effectiveness on a global (i.e. for all ships on both sides) scale?

I´m thinking of a similar option to the one that is available in SAS. You would probably have to implement this anyway once you create the SAS/WCNAW interface, so why not earlier (i.e. v1.08+)?

[Warship NWS]

To CS, sorry, not happening. WCNAW is much more complex - in terms of tactical gunnery/torpedo combat - compared to SAS. Any external modding of combat factors, calculations, would cause very unreliable results.

[Saffron]

I was looking over the demo for Battleship Zenith and I noticed something there that is completely lacking in WCNAW - listing. Do you suppose there will be listing effects incorporated at some future time?

Thanks.

[Warship NWS]

I was looking over the demo for Battleship Zenith and I noticed something there that is completely lacking in WCNAW - listing. Do you suppose there will be listing effects incorporated at some future time?

Thanks.

Listing does have an effect in WCNAW via flooding/floatation damage effects - even though "listing" is not displayed in the combat dialogs. v1.07 beta now includes more detailed severity levels for fires and flooding and I will be adding in further detail covering floatation damage in future updates.

[KG V]

Sooo, I keep on clicking through my AAR... and the game exits back to my home screen... any chance you could include a "Are you sure you want to exit?" dialog box before my pointer finger tosses me off the game screen? Preferably one I have to click "Yes" or "No" on? You could call it the "idiot box", and I'd be ok with that.

Thanks!

[Warship NWS]

Eh? Clicking through your AAR? The AAR is a TXT format.

[Saffron]

I think KGV means the "AAR" you receive after each combat turn, the one in game, not the AAR text document you have after the game is over.

[Warship NWS]

I think KGV means the "AAR" you receive after each combat turn, the one in game, not the AAR text document you have after the game is over.

That is the "battle report" dialog, it only requires you to scroll it to view the report.. no clicking required.

[KG V]

Well, where do I find the AAR's then? I'm confused....

[Warship NWS]

Well, where do I find the AAR's then? I'm confused....

AARs subfolder in your WCNAW game directory. ;)

[KG V]

AARs subfolder in your WCNAW game directory. ;)
ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[gabeeg]

I thought I had posted this request already but I could not find it when searching this thread... Would it be feasible to enhance the modeling of the torpedo salvos? What I would like to see:

1. Each torpedo individually tracked to allow for hits on other than the target ship (misses still have a small chance to hit ship following behind or on the flanks) and hits could cause more focused damage to ship systems depending on where the torpedo hits the hull (steering and flooding for hits near the rudder area, etc.).

Thanks!

[Warship NWS]

There are some updates in the works for a future update regarding torpedo salvoes, more on that topic after some other priorities are done first. ;)

[gabeeg]

Sounds Good Chris, look forward to hearing about your ideas on the torps!

I saw that someone mentioned early in the wish list thread for PBEM, I want to second that. It is not on the top of my personal wish list but man...I think that it might be a lot of fun.

[Warship NWS]

The first priority on my list is a larger, and zoom capable, map.. after that.. LAND. :)

[gabeeg]

...been at sea a long time...hoping to see land soon, before the scruvy sets in...could we see it perchance sometime this summer?

[Warship NWS]

As we are in the process of trying to finish up MNC and building up our board game listings on our main store it is taking a little longer then expected. I am estimating around September right now for v1.2 of WCNAW.

The zoom/larger map will be done first, and then land will be added.

Thanks.

[Stratos]

So no land on 1.2 yet. Right?

[Warship NWS]

So no land on 1.2 yet. Right?

V1.2 will have a larger/zoom map.. IF I can get time to work in land at the same time I will shoot for it. ;)

[Stratos]

Try it please. I'm sure land will change this game (for better) for ever!

[Warship NWS]

Try it please. I'm sure land will change this game (for better) for ever!

It will get done.. but zoom/larger map first.

[Saffron]

Out of curiosity, if the map is significantly enlarged, it will mean more game turns simply transiting to gain contact with the enemy. Given this, will the turn when the game begins to randomly determine an ending be increased?

Also, a question about land ... I want it now! No, just kidding.

Will there ever be land targets and shore batteries? Or will land only be a navigational issue in the game?

[Warship NWS]

a) The map is mostly to allow for more navigational space. The starting positions for generated battles is more determined by the max detection distance + some maneuvering space. As to any other scenarios.. the detection/nav gap will be up to the scenario designers.

b) Land will be at first navigation obstacles.. later, after the dust settles, I will add further dimensions to the terrain such as shore batteries, shoals, shallows, etc.

[Stratos]

Shoals, shallows, minefields ( I hope ) will be great, If we can really mix this tactical engine with a good strategical engine we will have the definitive Naval game.
BTW Didn't you intended to add a kind of 3d ships? Any progress on this?

[Warship NWS]

I have an idea for adding to the 3D environment but it is not a top priority at this point. ;)

[KG V]

I have an idea for adding to the 3D environment but it is not a top priority at this point. ;)
Still though, your elevation line drawings are pretty sweet, and accurate to boot.

[Warship NWS]

Still though, your elevation line drawings are pretty sweet, and accurate to boot.

Eh? What elevation line drawings? ;)

[Stratos]

You should share your ideas with the rest of us... :rolleyes:

[Warship NWS]

You should share your ideas with the rest of us... :rolleyes:

I am still not sure what KGV means with "elevation line drawings".. :confused:

[gabeeg]

...I had to go back and look...I thought I had missed something in the 100+ games I have played. Wouldn't really be surprising considering my level of observation...but nope...still not sure what elavation lines are being refered to.

As for 3D enhancement...I think this would be huge, at least for me. I am not talking first person shooter 3D but something simple (he says innocently) like perspective, rangem, facing, accurate shell fall (hits and misses) representation...maybe some very basic damage. I dont even need color or much more ship detail then is already there (just enough to represent damage better). It just adds to the immersion.

[Saffron]

Some simple ship facings would be nice - just the 8 standard directions would suffice. I'm a very visual person which is why "numbers games" don't appeal to me as often, and it would be great if I could see the aspect of my target, especially when firing torpedoes.

However, I'm sure that making all those graphics for each ship would be tedious. You'd need bow-on, stern-on, port and starboard bow, port and starboard stern, and port and starboard views. If you started adding graphics of damaged ships, then you'd have to make, say, three damage levels (light, moderate, severe) for each of these graphics, bringing the total number of graphics for *each ship class* to 24!

Now, I would absolutely love it if NWS gave this game a 3D element. I'd be running around the house squealing with delight, scaring the cats and having friends and neighbors calling the police, but as much as I would like to see it, I don't think they're going to do this. I'm certainly not saying I don't want it, but I appreciate the time and effort it would take.

[Stratos]

Well this is a never ending WIP maybe one day...
BTW what about the spanish navy and those "generic" small ships like armed tugs, sloops...

[KG V]

Eh? What elevation line drawings? ;)
The ones of the Ships on the top of the combat screens....

http://www.wargamer.com/files/articles/2795/20091106092304.jpg
Like Bismarck here on this screen...

Plan Drawings: From the top of an object
Elevation Drawings: The Object as viewed from the side.

Both are generally 2d representations.