Total World War: December 1941 3.0.0.6

Hepps

@ubernaut said in Total World War: December 1941 3.0.0.3:

@Hepps what about adding a weak DC to BB and CR?

There had been a fair ammount of discussion related to this. My reservations about doing this is based on the desire to have each unit have a special role within the game. Creating this mechanic in the BB & CR will reduce the significance of the DD role. Also I feel as though the BB & CR already have substantial value with their assigned roles.

But as with most things... no idea is ever truly shelved.

redrum

@wirkey @Hepps AA support is included in the latest pre-release and will be in the next stable.

ubernaut

@Hepps thought about that but given the notion that we know the DC is already a bit weak adding a 1 DC to them seems somewhat more realistic a correction than a negative defense penalty. Just my 2¢ i know you all have thought a lot more about this than i have.

Hepps

@ubernaut I get what you are saying... but the 2 things are not really directly comparable...

By using the negative support to Subs... you are always penalized when they are defending fleets with them (Subs) included. Yet not so if you have just a Sub flotilla.

Whereas under your suggestion BB & CR simply become much more effective against Subs... regardless of how they are positioned.

I want Sub hunting to be difficult. The system and power ratings are designed to make Subs less effective as defensive unit. Which I feel is truer to how they were as units during WWII. Making more units capable of hitting them with DC attacks does not achieve a better balance IMO.

ubernaut

@Hepps well sub hunting at 8% success seems about right for capital ships, while subs having 0 value in large defensive fleet clashes doesn't really seem right. i think saying that a 1/12 DC hit per capital ship makes them much more effective is a bit of an exaggeration, destroyers are pretty infective at that same rate currently.

~~if BB and transport attacks a BB + sub the transport fleet has advantage under the current maths, that seems really odd to me.~~

i guess they are sort of tied but that still seems odd to me, that's what i get for editing a reply.

Hepps

@ubernaut Remember... the negative support mechnism is being used as a way to circumvent some of the engine limitations... as soon as you allow Subs to defend when paired with fleets... their defensive rolls become "first strike" shots... giving the defender a huge advantage in the grand scheme of things when you mass Subs with a major fleet.

ubernaut

@Hepps maybe i don't fully understand DC rules, don't DC hits circumvent normal first strike rules?

Hepps

@ubernaut No. Sub First strike shots take presidence over other AA type shots... but that really isn't what I am referring to.

ubernaut

@Hepps here's a thought (sorry if it's already been considered) instead of the negative defense bonus what if mixed fleet just negates sneak attack?

Hepps

@ubernaut Would be awesome.

ubernaut

@Hepps just to be more specific meaning only on defense the way the current penalty works.

Hepps

@ubernaut As I had said... much of the design is done to work within some of the current limitations of the engine. There are some plans to eventually change some of the "is Sub" properties... but currently the solutions are not all that easy.

ubernaut

@Hepps gotcha, been a bit out of the loop recently.

redrum

@Hepps Well you can have all subs not be first strike on defense all the time by setting the property Defending Subs Sneak Attack to false.

Also just to point this out, its fairly rare that a sub only stack is going to choose to not just submerge as they have pretty minimal defense and are almost always better off submerging and then counter-attacking. Honestly, you could give subs a flat 0 defense and remove the negative support attachment and wouldn't make much difference. I think the only edge cases here are you have just a few capital ships (BBs or carriers) with a large number of subs so that most of the subs wouldn't get their defense canceled out and you'd use them to defend those ships.

Hepps

@redrum Oh I had not realized that the sub first strike could be set independently for defense. Guess it has been a while since I have gone through the properties list. Thanks for pointing that out.

redrum

@Hepps Yeah, the sub properties are pretty confusing. Here is the thread I did some research and tried to outline everything we have today: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/355/sub-xml-properties

redrum

v3.0.0.3 is now live. The first post is updated and here is a list of the changes:

Bug fixes:
- Fix chinese fighters are land units instead of air units bug when disabling neutral players
- Fix USA start notification
- Allow marine production in Morrocco, Tunisia, West Africa, Nigeria, Gold Coast
- Allow alpine production in Nigeria
- Fix bug where liberating russian or chinese L&L territories you can't reinforce them in ncm as they turn russian/chinese immediately instead of being the territory of the nation on turn
- Fix bug where L&L UK truck not being removed from Soviet Far East
Starting unit updates:
- Naval Fighter moved from Florida to Eastern U.S.
- British Sub moved from SZ 7 to SZ 10 with the main Scapa Flow fleet.
- British Naval Fighter moved from SZ 148 onto Java
- British A.A. Gun added to Sumatra
- British A.A. Gun added to Papua
Sub/destroyer updates
- Update ImprovedDestroyer tech from DepthCharge 2 (+1) to 3 (+2)
- Update HeavyDestroyer unit from DepthCharge 3 to 4
- Update ImprovedStratBomber tech from DepthCharge 2 (+1) to 3 (+2)
- Update HeavyStratBomber unit from DepthCharge 3 to 4
- Update Sub unit attack from 4 to 3 (3/1/2)
- Update ImprovedSub tech from +1 attack (5/1/2) to +1 attack/defense (4/2/2)
- Update AdvancedSub unit from 6/3/2 to 6/4/2
Add Toulon Exiled Allies fleet save actions for if Vichy's capital falls before North Africa Protectorate

ubernaut

is it safe to open a 3002 saved game with 3003?

redrum

@ubernaut Yes but it'll not include all the v3.0.0.3 changes.

ubernaut

@redrum gotcha thanks