@ubernaut said in Can we fix TWW?:

@cernel not trying to rush you 🙂 @Nothingtoseehere and i were planning to have a game of TWW we were waiting on the fix so we could help test. should we wait you figure or might it be a while?

I'm having a situation it's probably better you start your game as it is very unlikely it will be a matter of days at this point. Sorry.

@alkexr

It's the topic of the first video. Gondor is strong, but the naval invasions are a huge pain to defend against.

I wasn't sure if things had been changed after the first video, but based on the first video I don't think naval invasions have been made any easier. While you've added new coastal settlements and made it a bit harder to move troops between them, you haven't made it any harder for Gondor to mount a naval defense.

The crux of the problem is that black ships are a 7/4/2, and dromunds are a 5/5/2. This means that while black ships have an advantage when attacking dromunds, they're at a disadvantage when attacked (while still costing 15% more). This means that Gondor can build a fleet in the sea zone just south of Dol Amroth / Western Belfalas. Any sea zone within 2 spaces of any Gondor territory is within 2 spaces of the Belfalas SZ. This means that Gondor can preemptively attack the Harad fleet no matter where they are before they have a chance to land. This is the same strategy I used in the current version. Gondor need only spend 24 IPCs a turn the first turn and any subsequent turn that Harad builds ships to completely neuter them.

Ideally the sea zones would be designed so that Gondor would have to split their fleet to properly defend against a Harad invasion, thus forcing them to spend more on defense than Harad spends on attack. One way to do this would be to give black ships an extra movement (but still make it require 4+ move to get from the City of Corsairs to the Gondor coast). Though this might make black ships too powerful. Another way would be giving black ships more defense, so they maintain their advantage over dromunds even when attacked.

Gondor still would have the money to outspend Harad on navy, but if Harad is more efficient than Gondor, it at least might make sense for them to try, And then Gondor will have to decide how much it can afford to divert from Mordor to protect its coast.

@silverbullet

What's the news here?

I moved that from "News" to "Maps&Mods", while guessing that you maybe want to discuss the popularity...

There have been a few improvements to the map and to the engine to make this map work better.

A few issues with the map itself were fixed, it got a facelift, and some changes in the 2.6 prereleases have taught the AI how to use consumable units, which made AIs be able to play effectively on the main continent (but not yet explore with ships).

There have been some other non-AI fixes in the 2.6 prereleases fixing some UI glitches the map experiences with 2.5.

I also added the mountain territory effect, but unfortunately we can only use it for territories that are all-mountain, since TripleA doesn't yet support directional territory effects.

Would be interested to hear if people had a chance to try it and have feedback. Cheers!

@rogercooper For World War II v3 1941, 11% is needed for the Allies.
For World War II v3 1942, 15% is need for the Allies.

I've finally gotten around to improving the map image for the "Cold war" map. The changes have been submitted.

Any mod of NML should have a different name so its clear. If the user continues to create mods of existing maps without changing the name then please let mods know so they can address the issue.

@island
You might consider adding some victory conditions.

@luhhlz Yeah this one does have a balance issue (wasn't tested by said person).

The AI does play Martians, but not Nemo pirates well. The Nemo Pirates not doing many causes
the Entente to have the advantage.

Germany can easily take St.Petersburg in turn 2-3 which IMO does make up for Austria being weak (Austria is basically trying to hold against the alliance which is too strong IMO in this game).

The US is the boring part I completely disagree. I always deal with a German invasion of the US so unless AI is not doing that which it always does, you can't really use the US to send support. I haven't tried rushing France but I think through Belgium is the way to go through IMO Turn 2 to 3 kills of Russia is better.

Also what AI are you using, Fast, Easy or Hard? Thanks for the critique though

Sorry - yet another question - I see that the attack on Pearl Harbour is not possible. Is that deliberate, since the game is deemed to start in 1940?

@chrishomko
always looking forward to new maps. good luck!

@mattbarnes i always had trouble using that option but last i heard it works just only transports specific units.

Map rename to state proper goals. Moving this discussion to NATO Russia 2022 thread.

@strategery

I remember looking at the map a few months ago; I suspect there are some bugs as a result of the map not having been updated since 2018-ish and changes in the triplea engine since then. Or maybe the bugs were present at the time and simply weren't noticed due to the map not being played much. I've never seen people play the map in the lobby, so I'm not sure how much actual play it sees.

@lafayette Hmm. Ok. I already have an automated "Victory" system which seems to accomplish the same thing.

I'll probably write a surrender system into the game. I have a few ideas on how it could be accomplished.

@schulz thanks, I'll play until 10-20 times (which isn't too hard) and then give some thoughts