Final idea for the MICRO-MANAGING of Airbases Check it out!

[dorn]

Jun 20, 2019 4:23:14 GMT -6 dizzy said:

dorn you caught my unedited post by mere minutes! Look at the post you quoted above for the link to my template post. Copy from Airbase would include Carriers because they are listed in the left pane of the Air Group Management window and we dont need templates for that. Naval Air stations are home airfields and we dont need templates for those, at most you have what, 5 airbases to manage? So the copy feature and regular clicking is fine for those. Yes I play U.K. as well and the airbases and squadrons you have to manage are a time sucking chore with the current UI.

I agree but issue is that it works with smaller fleets or smaller nation.

With UK and very large fleet with quite restrictive investment into air power I have in 1956:

- 12 CV and 1 CVL (it could be even more)

- 21 airbases (could be even more)

So just copying helps but you still need to adapt anytime you enlarge your airbase etc.

Look at my proposed templates solution. You set up it once and they you just update your template! Even for carriers. Or if you like to have more situation airbases, you can create template which will have "space" for manually updated squadrons.

I added examples to previous post that you can easily see huge advantages of such templates I proposed.

[dizzy]

dorn, ok I read your proposal and I dont understand how it works. It looks like a lot of clicking. If I want templates for different bases for different type planes, then templates seem like a whole lot of more clicking. Why not just setup an airbase and use the proposed copy feature? On my other post where I detail using a Preferences file to create your templates, you'd have a set way to auto generate using a one click drop down list.

If you want to run me thru the clicks of how using templates uses less clicks than a copy airbase feature, please, enlighten me.

[dorn]

Jun 20, 2019 4:54:03 GMT -6 dizzy said:

dorn , ok I read your proposal and I dont understand how it works. It looks like a lot of clicking. If I want templates for different bases for different type planes, then templates seem like a whole lot of more clicking. Why not just setup an airbase and use the proposed copy feature? On my other post where I detail using a Preferences file to create your templates, you'd have a set way to auto generate using a one click drop down list.

If you want to run me thru the clicks of how using templates uses less clicks than a copy airbase feature, please, enlighten me.

No, you  set up one template and can be used almost everywhere as main point is that you do not set-up only numbers, but % so that this template can be used anywhere. Look at examples.

Flyingboats (click), 8 min (entering number)

Fighers (click), 30 % (entering number)

Torpedo bombers (click), 20 % (entering number)

Dive bombers (click), 20 % (entering number)

Medium bombers (click), up to 100 % (click)

Name (entering name)

Confimr (click)

And it is finished. You can copy it anywhere you need 8 flyingboasts and have F/TB/DB/MB by percentage of capacity. So you  can use one template for basis with 20/40/60/80/100/120 aircrafts and it works. All of them will have 8 flying boats and rest will be done by %.

You enlarge base - no problem as it is done by percentage.

So pratically you set-up templates and it is finished. You just update templates no matter how large airbase is.

But in the system is included that you can make templates which use only 80 % of capacity and the rest 20 % you can define manually base per base. The choose is up to you how you would like to use the template - if you want to define 100 % of planes or only 80 % and rest 20 % define base by base because you consider location important and want some difference. This system allow both.

Think about UK, France, you can set-up 80 % of airplanes same but than you want focus some airbases on TB/MB/F you can do it adding one squadron manually. Template will just use 80 % of the capacity and let 20 % handle you manually.

You decide to change it and control 100 % by template. Just simple changin one row in template and it is finished on all of your bases using that templates no matter about how large it is.

You want on all your carrier distribution of 40 % of fighters, 40 % of TB and 20 % DB. Easy to do. Create 1 template for all carriers:

Name template (name written)

Figherrs (click), 40 % (enter number)

TB (click), 40 % (enter number)

DB (click), 20 % (enter number)

Confirm (click)

It is finished, all your carriers have same doctrine.

[Fredrik W]

Thanks for good suggestions. After the next update aircraft readiness and replacement will be addressed.

[dizzy]

Jun 20, 2019 14:21:28 GMT -6 Fredrik W said:

Thanks for good suggestions. After the next update aircraft readiness and replacement will be addressed.

THIS POST is more of a request and is the bare minimum of everything the community agrees they want. Just wanted to point this one out. I look forward to what you plan on doing with it all. Thanks.

[alsadius]

Jun 21, 2019 11:04:31 GMT -6 dizzy said:

Jun 20, 2019 14:21:28 GMT -6 Fredrik W said:

Thanks for good suggestions. After the next update aircraft readiness and replacement will be addressed.

THIS POST is more of a request and is the bare minimum of everything the community agrees they want. Just wanted to point this one out. I look forward to what you plan on doing with it all. Thanks.

Dude, he gave you the answer you wanted. And you don't speak for the community any more than any of the rest of us do. Ease up. 

[dizzy]

alsadius The threads about Squadron management on the suggestions thread are quite extensive and cover many posts. Reading them all would be exhaustive. The post I refer to above has been agreed upon by everyone (with the exception of how templates should work), and is no longer the needle in the haystack. Furthermore alsadius, I've been PMed by multiple users on this board wondering what exactly fredrik will do after his cryptic response and they voiced their concerns with me. So I in tern expressed those concerns as my follow up post to what he said. And yes I do speak for you, alsadius as you have been silent on the issue and have not disagreed with the post in question. Feel free to do so now.

[alsadius]

I haven't been silent - I commented back on page 1.

To be clear, I have no objection to any of the ideas I've seen, but I won't insist on any one of them. Anything that solves the micromanagement issue well is fine by me. I don't want to stick Fredrik in a straitjacket - my concern is getting the problem fixed, not how exactly that's done. I don't know the code base here, nor have I thought about this in huge detail. I'd like to give the designers some leeway in how they choose to fix this, because they have a better sense of the constraints than I do, and because it's probably more front-and-centre for them than for us(since it's our hobby and their job). If they come up with something better than what we have, I want them to do that, not to do what we wandered towards on the forum. After all, they managed to make a game we all play heavily, so presumably they have some ability to design things we'll like.

[dizzy]

Jun 21, 2019 16:03:34 GMT -6 alsadius said:

I haven't been silent - I commented back on page 1.

To be clear, I have no objection to any of the ideas I've seen, but I won't insist on any one of them. Anything that solves the micromanagement issue well is fine by me. I don't want to stick Fredrik in a straitjacket - my concern is getting the problem fixed, not how exactly that's done. I don't know the code base here, nor have I thought about this in huge detail. I'd like to give the designers some leeway in how they choose to fix this, because they have a better sense of the constraints than I do, and because it's probably more front-and-centre for them than for us(since it's our hobby and their job). If they come up with something better than what we have, I want them to do that, not to do what we wandered towards on the forum. After all, they managed to make a game we all play heavily, so presumably they have some ability to design things we'll like.

Whatever Fredrik does is up to him. All we can do, as gamers, is provide feedback. No one is talking about putting fredrik in a straight jacket, although that topic may come up in the future if he addresses the Air Management problem and doesn't solve the mass clicking issue. alsadius, I'm glad we can be constructive here. No need for anything else.