World War II v5 1942 Second Edition

Cernel

@schulz said in World War II v5 1942 Second Edition:

On the paper they have equal PUs but de facto 17 German fighters are by far more valued than 5 Carrier+10 Fighter. Because German fighters can threat UK, USA fleets and Russian units at the same time.

That is true, but, practically, in the basic maps, Germans are better off focusing on infantry and armour buy. So the matter is not how good this German buy is compared to enemy buys, but how good this German buy is compared to what Germans can otherwise buy.
This is not really advantaging Germans very much, as this is just an alternative to buying the better armours, they already can.
You can see that, amongst my suggestions, there is making factories destroyed upon capture, that is a big disadvantage to Axis, especially in a game where Russia is especially weak.

Cernel

@schulz To be clear, reducing the cost of fighters is to make them purchasable for Germans (and Russians), in the moment you have a better deal for armours. This, of course, also comprises them being better at menacing the Allied fleets, that don't forget is already balanced by the fact that Allies get cheaper fighters, to menace Germans, in turn. If you make fleets cheaper, you just defeat this purpose, and Germans go back not buying any air and the discount goes almost entirely in favour of Allies, that, of course, buy air, instead. So, doing that (both cheaper fighters and cheaper ships) would be mainly a massive bonus to Allies only.
So, I still suggest lowering the cost of fighters to 8, while not touching the prices of any other naval units, but making carriers costlier / weaker (if you don't want to change the stats of carrier, you can just up the cost to 20, as making carrier cost 6 PUs more would about balance each fighter costing 2 less (otherwise you never buy battleships)).

Schulz

@cernel

I have played this map by myself which fighter cost is 8 and other naval unit costs 2 less (except submarine and transport). I'd say game is still unbalanced and favor of Axis. Russia is doomed to fall and Allies cannot win the game if Axis takes Russia. It is really game over for Allies if Germany hold France and Jap builds a fac to India.

Russias need at least +2 production power and Allies has to start with more units.

Your purpose would make the balance worse, Allies would even need more help in this situation.

Look the game. Allies did lose.

0_1525826164738_Adsız.png

Cernel

@schulz Making factories destroyed upon capture would likely bring close to balance.

Cernel

@schulz If you go that way, and I guess carriers are 12 PUs, I'd lower the cost of battleships by 4 (to 16) of cruisers by 4 (to 8 ) and submarines by 1 (to 5).

Schulz

@cernel

Making factories destroyed and reducing naval unit costs could only delay the collapsing of Russia. Jap can already take out Russia by alone if she build a fac to India. Russia needs help in this map. I am going to increase the power of Russia.

Cernel

@schulz Hard to say with little play, but I believe what we played was only slightly in favour of Axis. If I sum up all here, my guess is that your next version Allies will be overpowered.
At least hold off with changing any production values anymore, as I think the cheaper ships and destruptible factories combined are already more than enough.

Schulz

Without helping Russia, Axis would be always favour. It is the only triplea map that Germany is almost 2 times stronger than Russia. And Japan becomes stronger than USA within a few rounds. If Allies ignore Japan and Germany continues holding France I don't think so Allies can win.

Cernel

I know I already told you privately, but I'll add here too that whenever you mod you should change the infoname. Here it should be called "WWIIv5 XXX", where "XXX" is whatever you want.

Cernel

@cernel For example, since a main element is making Armour much more hard hitting than in original, you can call it "WWIIv5 Lightning War".

Schulz

I think we should adopt the same concept to v3 map. v3 has clearly better graphics than v5.

Cernel

@schulz I think both maps I wouldn't personally take as basis for any mayor projects, but I'm not a fan of the Revised style Russian front, so v3 is some better there (as I said).
So I think that, if this is about done, I would stick to v5 here (then doing something similar for v3 may be another project, if you really want to, with its own topic, once this one is finished up).
Also the fact that v5 is almost totally unplayed kind of make the mod more interesting, as you get to play a map that you would otherwise never consider (for a bunch of reasons).

Cernel

I know that you disagree, but in my opinion the game is currently significantly unbalanced in favour of Allies.
You need to play your mod with a very good allies player; see if you can beat him.

If what I'm saying would be acknowledged, to rebalance it, my suggestion is to go back with the original naval costs, except increasing the cost of Carrier to 20 (while keeping Fighter at 8).
Also, with Bomber at cost 10, which is interesting and I think I like it, if balanced, Fighters need to be better interceptors than escorts.
You said that it doesn't work for you to have a defence greater than the attack, but I've tested it, and it works correctly, in at least my MBM mod of v3.
This is the code, you can paste for your Fighter:

    <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="fighter" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
      <option name="movement" value="4"/>
      <option name="carrierCost" value="1"/>
      <option name="isAir" value="true"/>
      <option name="attack" value="3"/>
      <option name="defense" value="4"/>
      <option name="canIntercept" value="true"/>
      <option name="canEscort" value="true"/>
      <option name="airDefense" value="2"/>
      <option name="airAttack" value="1"/>
    </attachment>

So, I believe that if you paste the above code, you will have Fighters doing air battles at 1 in offence and 2 in defence.

I think you got confused by the fact that the tooltip says 1. I believe that is just a display bug, I just opened a ticket for (I never noticed it before):
https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/3421

Also since there is a similar optional rule for the original game, I suggest you add the following canal, not as an option, but as a fixed rules change.

    <attachment name="canalAttachmentTurkish" attachTo="15 Sea Zone" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
      <option name="canalName" value="Turkish Straits"/>
      <option name="landTerritories" value="Turkey"/>
      <option name="excludedUnits" value="transport:infantry:artillery:armour:aaGun"/>
    </attachment>
    <attachment name="canalAttachmentTurkish" attachTo="16 Sea Zone" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
      <option name="canalName" value="Turkish Straits"/>
      <option name="landTerritories" value="Turkey"/>
      <option name="excludedUnits" value="transport:infantry:artillery:armour:aaGun"/>
    </attachment>

Also removing the mention in note about the optional rule, and notifying that transports (and their cargo) can move through, but air units cannot, for this canal only.

I want also to point out that all rules changes from the original must be made clear in notes (the players should never have to find out any by playing it out). For example, the air battle rules and the factories that get destroyed must be documented in notes.
Also, I see that it is low luck for anti aircraft default. If this is intended, document it in notes, as well (player should not be obliged to read through all the options to see if any default is different, either)

Comon, rename the mod. It shouldn't read as original. People were joining probably thinking that we were playing the actual Spring 1942 2nd Edition.

Cernel

Oh, a thing I somewhat just overlooked: having lowered Japanese production to 22, also starting PUs should be lowered the same (to 22 PUs, from the current 30 PUs). I just suggest keeping the tradition of having equal starting productions and PUs, in all cases.

The increasing of carrier cost to 20 can also be offset a bit by decreasing the cost of transport to 6, but, on the other hand, you may prefer to increase its cost to 8 or more, if you want to incentive Pacific play (the cheaper the transports, the more convenient is for Americans to go Atlantic, just setting up a pipeline of transports from Eastern Canada to France).

Also, the two AAgun in the United States and the AAgun in Japan can be deleted.

Better you upload it in here, when you got it some stable (and with its own mod name!), as it is strange to talk in forum about something not available anywhere.

Schulz

In the next version, Sub cost will be 6, destroyer 8, cruiser 11, battleship 18, carrier 16, aaGun 6. (And maybe we have to make 18-20 Factory cost insead of 15 ?)

Also Jap will start with 22 Pus instead of 30. USA starts with -1 Armour and Infantry.

BTW if Axis takes Moscow, then there is still no possibility any allies victory.

And renaming the map, editing Turkish straits and air defense of fighters etc...

Cernel

@schulz Those costs seem fine to me, but cruiser would be better balanced down to 10, then (cruiser is the worst cost effective naval unit in original).

Schulz

0_1527083729994_WW2v5_1942_3rd.xml

Cernel

@schulz Latest suggestions:

Midway down to 0 production (give it to Central United States at 4)

It's a game, and many places, like Alaska or Madagascar, are overvalued, but, in case of Midway, since it was a barren island with virtually nothing productive in it, should really not have a production value (you already have Hawaii at two).

Iwo Jima down to 0 production (give it to Kiangsu at 2 or Solomon at 1)

Almost the same as Midway; Iwo Jima or anything around there should not influence production.
Also, it would make sense that Kiangsu is worth 2, as it has Shanghai and, probably, Peking in it, and anyways that is the most important zone of China.
If you strongly want income contention in Pacific, rather give that 1 production point to Solomon, instead of Iwo Jima.
Also, Solomon at 1 would incentive pacific play more than Iwo Jima at 1, as the Americans fleet is likely to move there (common move).

Union of South Africa up to 2 production (take it from Egypt down to 1 production)

It makes sense to distinguish it from the rest of Africa, since it was the most worthwhile part of Africa (raw matherials and some industrial productivity). So, better that at 2 than Egypt. Also, it might get a factory in it, in a few games.

Remove 1 production from Russians and add 4 production to Americans (Russians down from 26 to 25 and americans up from 38 to 42 (you can add them up to Central and Eastern United States))

Stronger Americans mean that Pacific play is more feasible, despite India factory being unlikely, at production 2, and opens up more to Americans playing both oceans, as a worthwhile strategy.

Fix the notes, so to tell everything the mod is about:

Remove the line "1. Several territories/SZs added or modified.", as that is a leftover from the original notes, about the differences coming from v4 (no need keeping any in the mod, as it would be also confusing with what's different for the mod).
No need to tell anyone production; they can see that in stats (and Japanese now is at 20, not 22).
Mention that Hawaii is not a victory city anymore, beside the fact that Eastern Canada is.
Remove the two "Optional Rule" lines from notes, and tell that bombing air battles is default (bomber at 1 and fighter at 1/2).
Tell that AA guns defend vs bombing and factories have no AA ability themselves.
Tell that AA guns defend at 4.

I know that some of those were specified the other way round in the game, and you deleted them, but those were the differences from v4, while your notes should be the differences from v5, even in the cases you go back to v4.

Cernel

Also I wonder if a name like "World War II v5 1942 Third Edition" would be acceptable to the repository admins ( @redrum and @Lafayette). This mod seems about ready for at least the experimental.

Schulz

@cernel

Giving 1 Pus to Solomon instead of Iwo Jima would be just extra bonus to the US. Jap is unable to easily retake Solomon.

The older version had 2 serious issue. One of them was inevitable collapsing of the Russia. And another of them was huge USA production. Game was totally depends on dices. If Russia hold caucasus then Axis losing become inevitable due to huge US Production power. Making the US more vulnerable in the Pacific could bring the balance otherwise USA would never invest in the Pacific.

I think the weakest Allies country should be UK not Russia.