World At War - Official Thread
-
@undying I think you played dice as the result you described in Pearl Harbour would be impossible with LL?
If you think it's broken towards one side why don't you play with a bid?
While you are right that the italian attack in the red sea is highly dicey, I don't think it's that much of a game changer. And I like some varieties in my games. Makes it more dynamic.
Everything -
@wirkey it wasnt with dice i only play LL and my opponent can attest to the result. i missed my sub die then miss the navy die on all rounds of combat and he touched all his dice. i understand the dynamic thing but it should be available throught strategy and tactics not by dice screwing up whole games ( for both side, my opponent completly acknowledge that this battle make or break the game every time ). adding one sub to the attack would fix the battle for a more fluid game. if a maps needs a bid it means its not balanced, i prefer the map to be balanced.
@Cernel ill keep that in mind but if we want a fun and balanced game a tweak needs to be made otherwise the game s over by round 1 half the time ( even if my case is very extreme theres a lot of time where the japanese end the battle with only 3 planes remaining (( bomber dead too )) ). and if japan ends that battle with less than 4 planes its game over because u lose the rest of the fleet in sz 104 without those planes.
@wirkey i think its dicey towards one side. if axis gets unlucky on 1 round its game over, if allies gets unlucky its a lot less dramatic. u guys talk like u play this map a lot but i dont remember seeing you play this map in the last 2 years and neither cernel. theres a difference playing once a year and playing 5 games a week. players who play the game a lot knows how the game feels more than someone who doesnt play as much.
-
@wirkey the results i described are easily doable.
Japan have 5 subs 1 DD and 4 planes + 1 bomber: ( 1 hit + 1 die at 4 for subs ) + ( 2 hits + 1 die at 3 for rest )
USA have 1DD 1 cruisers and 3BB ( 17 power )
first round of battle : japan attack = 1 hit for subs, 2 hit with rest of fleet ( missed my dice ) = 3 hits total = USA dmaged 3 BB
USA DEFEND : 3 hits = japan remove 3 subs
2nd rounds : japan attacks : subs miss, fleet miss = 2 hits again. = usa remove DD and cruiser
USA = 3 hits = japan removes 2 sub 1 DD.
u can figure out the rest of the battle yourself.
now @Cernel i know u said i can remove DD 1st round as japan losses but wirkey was claming the results im saying are impossible on LL and its not. thats the whole point of this discussion.
the whole point of this discussion is that axis 1round is unbalanced / too dicey. u guys can say whatever you want but all players will tell you that pearl harbor is broken and can ruin a game. dont fix it if u dont want to but ppl will keep leaving after pearl harbor when they are fucked by stupid dice. Players that play LL dont want "forced-dicey battles". we want to win because of strategy and tactics.
no one like sz 57 either this combat should be removed and units replaceelsewhere or fix the battle by making it non dicey. cernel says he prefer some luck in his game, good for you but i dont see you play WAW so if you could listen to the players that plays it it could be nice, at least for pearl harbor
-
@undying Since no one really owns the map.... why not create solutions and then post new setups.... then you can create a poll in the first post and make a game plan based on the responses of active game players.
-
@undying So, I believe taking 3 submarines instead of 1 destroyer and 2 submarines is definitely a wrong choice, as you would eventually take out that destroyer anyways, most likely, and, even without taking into account the Americans destroyer eventually getting killed (thus the submarines becoming better attackers than both the destroyer and the fighters), that is going to just increase variability, that in such a case is clearly against Yamamoto (as there is little point in winning the battle with more submarines surviving than average, if getting lucky).
Consequently, I'd say in this battle the Yamamoto destroyer should be surely selected first as casualty. Of course, you can get even worse odds by, for example, taking the bomber first as casualty, but I don't think there's much point in discussing suboptimal casualties choices.
As long as you take the destroyer as the first casualty, then submarines, then fighters, the worst you can remain with is 2 fighters and 1 bomber (all Americans killed, of course), and this is only in the case Yamamoto misses everything and Americans hit everything (and, in this worst case, you can decide to remain with 3 fighters, instead of 2 fighters and 1 bomber, if preferred).
However, if wanted, it is possible to lower the variability in a balanced fashion. My suggestion, in such a case, would be:
- Remove 1 Yamamoto destroyer in 88 Sea Zone
- Add 1 Yamamoto submarine in 88 Sea Zone
- Add 1 Americans submarine in 83 Sea Zone
Sending 6 submarines, 4 fighters, 1 bomber (instead of 5 submarines, 1 destroyer, 4 fighters, 1 bomber) would improve the worst case scenario for Yamamoto to 3 fighters and 1 bomber remaining (or 4 fighters, instead, if preferred).
The Americans submarine off San Francisco addition would be purely a compensation for the fact that reducing variability in 91 Sea Zone is in favour of Axis (Axis has more to lose than to gain from dice variability there).
However, here we would be talking of having absolute autohitting for the attacker in the first combat round (albeit tempered by Americans rolling a 5 on defence), that may be seen as lame, or anyway less fun than the current setup, by players who enjoy a substatial level of dice influence in Low Luck; so this needs to be debated (in this thread) by World At War players.
Ultimately, it will be up to @redrum only if to approve any changes aimed at reducing dice variability for this battle, of whatever.@redrum Regarding the fact that Yamamoto is prompted to take 3 submarines as casualties, maybe this should be actually considered an issue of the autoselect? I'm thinking that the autoselect is doing his job wrong here, in that, as being supposed to maximize power, when units have the same attack power, it should take those able to first strike last as casualties, unless all current defending units are either able to negate such ability or unable to be hit by the units possessing the same (in this game, except only if you are attacking a defending force of destroyers or air units only). Of course, in such a case, fighters would be autoselected before submarines.
-
@hepps said in World At War - Official Thread:
@undying Since no one really owns the map.... why not create solutions and then post new setups.... then you can create a poll in the first post and make a game plan based on the responses of active game players.
Current map owner is @redrum, as stated in the linked old thread, unless he disowned himself at some point.
-
@Undying
i am ll player and i understand your point. but ok we reduced the risk of pearl habor by taking the russian sub out of pacific that even could have destroyed one of your 5 subs. so rigth now the risk is very low and the result you describe is only possible by bad casualty choise. so under the line i am really fine with pearl habor as it is now. only my 2cent, epi -
why are u all favoring dicey outcome instead of stable gameplay and strategy tactics inthe 1 round ? we should be able to play different strategies by choice no having those strategy forced on us by dice results.
@Hepps ive made a suggestion in my 1st post and idont know how to make a poll.
allies team is so strong on this map its absurd. 2 players of equal skills will have allies winning most of time time unless a big fuck up ( happens to all of us ). i dont see how making 1st round battles "standarized" like TUNIS ( big upgrade from NWO here ). im talking about the "must do moves" here: like pearl harbor, tunis, lorraine ( that one had some luck for +1 or -1 hits but it doesnt matter much cuz theres so many units compared to pearl harbord and sz 57 where each hit feels like a stroke of luck or bad luck ),
i think playing sieg maps ( and subsequently LL ) and claiming you want to have a dicey game is counter intuitive. i think most WAW/NWO players prefer to have control over their strategy than having dice decide if u defend on one front or can go offenssive.
and lets be clear, the pearl harbor battle is really random and if yamato fumble its game over theres no denying it. so where is the fun in that ?
like invading dutch turn 1 with hisachi, thats a good exemple of a fair gamble and not a "forced dicey battle". the player knows its risky but the player choose by himself if its work the risk to go for turn 1 or better wait for turn 2. pearl harbor is by no means that way, its a must do battle and sending a AC or BB bad we all know it.
adding a sub and keeping destroyer + adding a US subs at los angeles seems ok to me, altho i dont feel like USA needs another subs, remember that USA can send many planes at pearl harbord on his turn and wipe outeverything with 1 or no losses so waht does it matter than yamato gets a "regularized" battle if it makes for a fun and fair game ? i dont see the problem
ps: i play allies as much as axis on this map and im putting myself in the view of US player, 1 -2 subs remaining in pearlhardbor is very a easy/trivial thing not even worth a sweat.
-
@undying I'm open to adjusting the starting positions but I'd ask that you get a decent number of WaW veterans to post here on their views. There are 3 lobby WaW games going right now and thoughts from those players would be interesting. So far I see your view on it and the opposite from @epinikion so don't see much reason to strongly consider it.
-
@redrum most players dont have an account and dont bother posting stuff you know how it is. If you are serious about this situation you or cernel can join games and ask what they think about pearl harbor.
as i said most of the time japan have 1 or no boats left in pearlharbor after tha battle ( + planes ), so killing 1 or 2 sub for USA is nothing. or as cernel said, adding 1 USA sub that can counter attack pearl harbord could make up for it if its really un fair to US player. altho i dont think USA needs another sub for counter attack i prefer to play with an added US sub than having to deal with this random pearl harbor battle on yamato1.
-
@undying To be clear, what I said is that (if actually wanted by most WAW players) the variability in the round 1 battle off Pearl Harbor can be significantly reduced by swapping the destroyer for one more submarine (removing the destroyer and adding 1 submarine in 88 Sea Zone) (as that would assure the attacker scoring 4 autohits on combat round 1, instead of currently scoring either 3, 4 or 5 hits).
But reducing variability in that battle is obviously to the advantage of Axis; so such a change would also slightly improve Axis position in the game, averagely, from now, and this is another item of general balance.
And yes, as @redrum said, they do need to come in here giving their opinions, if they actually care; the lobby and hosts are the place where to play the game, not the place where to change it.
-
I have just started playing this map, but i noticed it make more sense for USA to go Japan first. The war in Europe relies on large numbers, that means lot of transport boats is needed, and before that to win the naval warfare requires some time.
Second reason probably is Pearl Harbour, if you build 3 carriers there and the nearby fighters scramble, you have a very strong navy there quite near to the enemy. Contrast to going Europe, your staging point is very far off.
-
@lord-bevan Correct; in this map Americans are meant to focus on killing Yamamoto and Hisaichi. Actually, usually you would place mostly battleships in the factories nearest to the enemy (as Pearl Harbor is at start game), rather than carriers (naval bombardment is of crucial importance in grinding Yamamoto down). Americans in Europe is minor and mostly a byproduct of going for taking the Neutrals in South America.
-
I play this map every Friday night with three other players (my two cousins and best friend). We don't play with low luck because we like the uncertainty of battle and feel that playing with dice is more in line with the original Axis & Allies. If I want no luck, I'll play Chess or Diplomacy.
We are relatively new to this map, but so far have had all kinds of different results when it comes to Pearl Harbor. So I guess my question would be then, how would these starting position changes that you are proposing affect a game that doesn't use low luck?
This is off topic (and I know it has been addressed before), but so far I think the map's biggest weakness is how easy it is for the the Japanese to overrun the Russians in the East, which (as everyone knows) wasn't a real front during WWII. It reminds me of the original Axis & Allies, where you could win with the Axis by building factories with Japan in Asia and overrunning the Russians with tanks.
Thoughts?
-
So I've seen some criticism to this and other Sieg maps that there isn't a very good counter to infantry spam.at first I thought it was just some whining, but when I sat down and crunched the numbers, there seems to be some validity to this.So let's look at the numbers of infantry spam and the most cost effective response, inf + art. Art costs 3.5 and inf cost 2. To evenly match at stack of inf with inf + art, you would need to spend $5.5 to their 4, or roughly 1.375:1 cost ratio to crack a stack. That doesn't seem too bad, but we should compare it to non-Sieg maps whose primary distinguishing characteristic is the $2 inf. On most other maps inf cost 3 and art cost 4. This means you spend $7 to crack their $6 stack giving us a ~1.16:1 cost ratio. In effect, the discount given to defense has doubled from non-Sieg to Sieg maps.
Proposal: Reduce the cost of art to 3. What does this do? In my cost effectiveness analysis, to brings the cost ratio down from 1.375:1 to 1.25:1. Currently, people just don't really buy artillery that often and I doubt it'll have a dramatic effect on a map that heavily values mobility. Ah, but what of the elite who also sits at $3? Well it will still have it's own place as a unit since it is supported rather than supports but also it only takes up 2 space on a transport to the art's 3.
-
@pax25 said in World At War - Official Thread:
This is off topic (and I know it has been addressed before), but so far I think the map's biggest weakness is how easy it is for the the Japanese to overrun the Russians in the East, which (as everyone knows) wasn't a real front during WWII. It reminds me of the original Axis & Allies, where you could win with the Axis by building factories with Japan in Asia and overrunning the Russians with tanks.
Thoughts?
Likely you know this, but the map offers an alternative game, "WAW 1940", in which Russians has only one capital in Moscow and Sibirsky production is cut in half.
-
Just chiming in my 2c, I don't play the map much. I dislike the extent to which bombard spam is a major strategy component, and the degree to which it obviates the importance of land forces in naval theaters. in this one it seems even moreso that it's the case than in NWO; haven't played TRS in long enough to remember how that was.
-
@cernel Yeah. We are planning on giving that one a try. Looks like it also has less neutrals at the start and less different types of units.
-
-
If this game ever gets a new version released, I would change or I suggest changing the name of "Mech.Inf" to "Mech.Art", in both games of this game's map, because this is what it is (it is exactly the same as an "Artillery", but faster). Just keep the old named images in the folders too, for backwards compatibility.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login