WW2 Oil and Snow (1st ed.) NEW MAP RELEASE

[Hepps]

@ebbe said in WW2 Oil and Snow (1st ed.) NEW MAP RELEASE:

@schulz

Okej: Turkey adapted: starts neutral, but there is allways the chance they will join Allies or Axis throughout the game
(by a few chance rolls & bigger chance if this Alliance is performing well in conquering Victory cities )
and by this opening the Dardanelles for the Navy from and towards Black Sea... which I think is strategically interesting

Once part of the war, units will switch to active, coloured units and will be commanded by British or Germans depending on Alliance-choice.
If joining Allies the relation with USSR remains Neutral due to old tensions .

Example: Turkish troops are activated after Turkey joining the Axis...
and receive GArrison Reinforcements.
Suddenly the Italian Navy appears in Black Sea supported by Turkish Flotilla wiping out the Soviet Black Sea Fleet. . Soviets also trouble with Chechen Partisans but remain in control of Crimea. East Turkey will be partisan active territory once occupied by opposing Alliance player. Anyway... works fine?
I even saw A.I. all Turky (re)conquering Caucasus... splendid! ;

Next step to get a few more "Pro active Undecided Minors" :
I was thinking of: Portugal, Spain.. Sweden for example, could declare war to russians... if Russians will take Finland and or North Norway?
brasil and Mexico will allways join Allies
while Argentina will side with Axis if other South American Pro Axis countries are harrassed by Allies.

Also wanne make a swap for Italy If 2 of its 3 mainland Home-territories'are occupied...

The one thing I noted during the development of TWW was that the spontaneous addition of neutral countries to either side of the conflict was an issue for players since it had fairly dramatic effects on game balance. Players did not like having a highly competitive match change instantly in the middle of a game. Just an FYI.

[ebbe]

@schulz Wow that is a long post... reading through it:
okej:

1. danube navy-transportAxis: The only ships transported were fastboats and some small subs which were transported in parts.. and then reassembled in Constanca...

2. Western Turkey Partisans: I choose East Trueky: which is an assumption: as more mountaineous and less populated I could imagine it to be a perfect Partisan Heaven

3.--> "Realistically I don't think Spain and Portugal would declare war on Russia just because Finland and N.Norway were occupied."
Me too this trigger was reserved for Sweden only..
which still would but unlikely but I ended up in the Experimental Game Department so I just give it a try I like to make a more historical path scenario and another more free scenario...later.....maybe just declare War to USSR only , and swedish units limited to reconquer scandinavian territory? All very speculative ofcourse....
4. I think there is no scenario which Portugal joins the Axis:
I agree too... the treaty with UK seems strong....

5. Spain could have joined the Axis only if she was confident that Britain is already about to lose the war and significant German assist will be ensured. Spanish entry into the war could led Portugese entry into the war as well. That is the way I like to fix... very small change they would join early after devastating Civilwar, but I agree, more likely when Axis could like say occupy 3 or 4 Allied Victory cities for example

6Mexico and Brazil in WWII. they entered mexican mostly with airforce and brasil with an expeditionary force in africa

7. The italian case: I think I try if 3 out of 4 main Italian terr.'s are occupied ( N/s Italy, Rome and or Sicily ) surrender most units and continue as Allies partner with few Infantry and garrison only.

@ Hepps, thanks for the suggestion : I can understand that point:
but Turkey is small in Army size, and its PU's go to no one;
so I think it is just a sudden shock of the momentum of stepping in, not a game changer....?? How Turkey gets more units? Just by fixed limited
annual or biennial Infantry reinforcement only. To keep impact small but their representation alive in the game.

maybe I should take a break in this project untill I had time to take a
distance for bit more objective review Like I said I would.. haha...

before I might even think about let the USSR clash by chance with Allies after the Axis surrender and trigger the Comunist revolution in China.... well that sounds interesting though... hahaha.....

[jkprince]

I am back after a long hiatus to make a comment about the addition of neutral diplomacy... If you are to make these neutrals able to take a part in the war their territories should be revised and divided into three to four territories in order to make it so at least they do not fall in a single turn, and also allow them to be given slightly more PU income as to make them relevant ingame.
Attached is examples where I applied the process to Spain, Sweden and Turkey (obviously in a very simple manner)

[ebbe]

@joseph-prince Hej thanks for the suggestion, I fully agree in strategical perspective... but: I decided with my map size that most Terr's should be able to place at least 9 units without stacking.... and the proposed divisions would also need adaption in other terr's around the globe... or a bigger map in total.... for both options I lack the time...

How is testing this map by the way? You were my very first tester and haven't heard from you for a month or so...

[jkprince]

Plenty of units can fit in each territory even without making any adjustments to my disgusting border outlines! (and considering the fact these neutral nations didn't have large militaries you won't have to fit very many)

Anyway, I have played through the game numerous times, my most recent time I played I had a few annoyances...

1. The sound meant for when you conquer an enemy capital, with the screaming and shooting and "dun dunn" sound plays when you capture any victory city, even if you are liberating it. When the Free French liberates Paris there should be cheering and fireworks and the sound of a populace welcoming the liberators. This could potentially be changed by giving more territories original owners. This is particularly in the case of occupied France (Paris) and China (Shanghai) which are treated as if they have always been owned by their conquerors ingame
2. The japanese for an unknown reason decided capturing Mongolia is more worthwhile than continuing the invasion of China. They moved every single unit over to the border with Mongolia and Russia and completely ignored me (I was playing as China)
3. The newly added game start sound is extremely loud and overly dramatic. It also sometimes continues to play even when the German turn start sound is starting. I think a quieter and shorter starting sound would be much more preferable.

[Schulz]

@ebbe Sweden would never declare war on USSR just because Finland and N.Norway occupied. The Western Allies also would declare war on Sweden if it was the case since the British declaration of wars on Finland, Hungary and Romania showed that there is no way to conduct the war against the USSR separately.

Realistically I advise preventing any country being able to at war with the Soviets only.

Bulgaria is exception because it did't fight on the Eastern front (though they helped the Axis on the Black Sea). Also no clue why did they declare war on the US and the UK but not the Soviets.

the US never declared war on Finland as far as i know. I think it shows the USA should be unable to declare war on countries if they don't declare war on the US like Finland.

BTW there were actually three different kind participants. It wasn't just being in Axis/Allies or Neutral. They should be definitely represented if realism will be very hih priority.

1. Total participants
2. Partial participants
3. Formal participant

The first ones are full fledged combatants which committed almost all of its resources to conduct total war. The seconds ones did participate but never conduct total war economy or even sometimes only did send a token force.

For example Brazil was obviously capable to mobilize more than 26.000 troops but they didn't. It is considered token force so it would be very unrealistic having Brazil collecting all of its incomes without any penalty and being able to spend all of it for mobilizations which not happened even slightiest.

Romania-Hungary case is similar they weren't total participants either. They have keps significant forces against each other's border despite being on the same alliance.

Some of them just declared war on the Axis formally without contributing Allies war efford. Turkey for example did declre war on Germany and Japan but never committed on the war.

I think Italy could still surrender even if Allies never invaded Italy. Lets assume after taking N.Africa, Allies just decide to invade France and not Italy in 1943 and successfully carried out. After that Italy would likely abandon the Axis. Hungary had similar situation which tried to abandon the Axis way before the Soviets reached their border.

[ebbe]

@joseph-prince said in WW2 Oil and Snow (1st ed.) NEW MAP RELEASE:

are lib

Hej thanks for feedback:

1. yes liberation should sound different, lost it on my to do list thnxs
2. A.I. response japanese
   : can I do something about that...hmm.. I have the feeling A.I. sometimes just takes different approaches... to be less predictable, that was certainely the vcase this time then....
3. Music softer.... I 'll fix that... the drama I like somehow... but true it has been a headache issue solving the sounds at intro... still on my list if solvable at all...

and about the Spain placement suggestion: I choose a game with Name /terrain Labels, they acquire some space also

[ebbe]

@schulz okej thanks for sharing this views...you definately educated me & convinced me with strong arguments....... history sometimes is a complex thing... let's game ...

[jkprince]

@ebbe
It still can fit a good number of units each territory, even with the sizable name and terrain labels. Also, many players like to lower the unit size, so in some cases even more could fit

[ebbe]

@joseph-prince yes, for Sweden it was planned to do so... but I am moving slowly piece by piece...

[jkprince]

@ebbe Ok, I am just saying that each neutral should have at least 3-4 territories not necessarily in the layout I posted, but in a way that a land invasion of the country cannot take the capital in a single turn. What will be the colours of the new neutral countries units? (I see Turkey is yellow, I presume Sweden will be light blue or turquoise while Spain will be purple?)

Also, a slightly unrelated question... once you finish this 1941 version will you make any variants from earlier in the war? In particular I want to see either a 1939 or a 1936 (which would have a greatly more complex diplomacy system) version. Or are there any other projects you are thinking of?

[Schulz]

I can see no good reasons of having WWII scenarios before 1941 honestly.

It won't be interesting to see Germany conquering Poland, France or the Balkans all the time. It is repetitive and controlling these kind of nations without much choice wouldn't be enjoyable.

Yes realistically Germany could bogged down on the Northern France and it would led and interesting alternative history but WWII would just end in here.

I've always though what is the point of having France in NWO/WaW when it is doomed to fall in r3? Why not just strting the game just after the Fall of France?

[Cernel]

@schulz The Brazilians were not even that. What they "contributed" was paid for by the United States of America far in excess of its actual value and took a ridiculously long time of training until accepted as operative. I'm certain that, if the United States of America would have used the same resources for themselves, they would have got more and faster than giving any money to the Brazilians.

[ebbe]

1.7 uploaded.... end of weekend.....

[ebbe]

@joseph-prince Hej: my projects? I am becoming father in few weeks so that is the end of free time all other projects I suppose
My next project for autumn will be a decent 12 player Shogun/Feudal japan or a 2 player macro scale Stalingrad ....
-Sweden light blue indeed and Spain Light yellow....

neutrals: the size of the map choosen and layout up till now doesn't allow me to give neutrals space for capital AND 2 or 3 more spaces... I make Sweden and Spain 2 territories each, north and south.

[ebbe]

@Schulz Starting time game: yes a topic often coming around:
for me personally the pearl harbour start moment is too late for
experiencing all the european action; starting after fall of France would keep Japan many turns only active in China.... in my option I thought would be interesting to have Greece still unoccupied as jumping -board for Allies and 1 turn preparations for Barbarossa would be best. As for most the Western front after fall of france was a sitting duck Japan starts earlier now yhan historiclly but yes, sometimes one needs to sacrifice history for gameplay

[ebbe]

@Cernel : okej, clear... but I wanted the Smoking Cobras expeditionary force into the game,

Brazils input might have been sponsered and small, but I thought it was enough to be represented ingame.... !! Their expeditionary force came late and was only 3 battaliions, 15,000 men... but fought upto italy. And their small navy and airforce did really good job on sub hunting and convoy protection...

[Schulz]

I would suggest setting up countries totally unplayable (no income collection, mobilization, relocating units etc...) until they join the war. I mean like how nations join the war in CrazyG's WW1 map.

"This country will join the war in round:x because of destiny" does not make sense to me either. Just because a country joined the war on a certain date is not mean the otherwise couldn't happen.

Also the game can be anachronistic too. Because the most enjoyable part is wondering "Where and how deep the Axis will advance on Russia, N.Africa and the Pacific?" That's why I think 1941 starting date is more interesting than 1942 regardless of the starting month. 1940 is also ok if starts after the Battle of Britain .

[ebbe]

Funny Bug appeared: In my scenario if you want to build a Battleship or Carrier you don't have to buy a hull when purchasing: but when the ship of choice is placed , it will appear as a carrier- or battleship hull.

In the next turn it will automatically be switched into a readybuild ship...
it worked fine but some testers had the bug/situation where the hull would remain, (as the consumeHull didn't work properly),*
and by this could add another ship for free every turn ..
woehahaha... evil...
I added now also a remove Hull so that it works for sure... 1.8 update added.

[ebbe]

@wc_sumpton @Hepps

TO REPAIR OR NOT TO REPAIR that is the question...

Okej, personally in my ideal map, repairing all constructions as well as 2 hit units is done by a pop-up at game start, so that one has the choice to spend PU's on that and certainely not done for free. .
For now constructions can be Repaired by this popup and Battle Units have the option to be autorepaired in the presence of a repairing unit.... for free?

There are situations that for example a battleship is involved in battle and automatically takes in the first hit to avoid loss of other navy. I like the consequence used in f.e. Hepps Total War where the ship gets a less powerfull damaged stand-in.

But if this ship would lay next to a home factory it would immediately be auto-repaired for free , in end of this turn or start next turn , depending on setting. That seems to out of ballance for me.

For this I started making a Repair Damage -token, which can be bought to repair 2-hit units. (in my case Battleship carrier geavyArmour and Heavy Battleship )

Works fine : I let a trigger replace the damaged unit and the repair token with a healed unit.... but with one exception: I don't manage to get it functioning in PLACEMENT PHASE, for BOTH sea and land units. ( to avoid too many options / units to choose from in Purchase screen.

And placementAnySeaZone' option only seems to work player connected, not unit. Any idea anyone?