World At War - Official Thread

sneakingcoward

you should try
world at war variants - vXXX
here are infantry and paratroopers and all the things you will like.

Cernel

@redrum Since the basis is Revised rules, I suppose the notes (for both games of this map) should tell that combat resolution (comprising fly overs) use Low Luck, and also fully explain how that changes the original rules, if reading the Revised rulebook and the game's notes are supposed to give you full information. The only thing that appears telling you that you are using Low Luck is the point number 1 in "Rules Clarifications", but the actual explanation only covers what you can do during Combat Movement (tho, that substantially implies that you are using Low Luck, but that is definitely not clear).

Reference:
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/1310/waw1940-game-is-letting-destroyers-defend-at-5

wasoo

Is there a recommended grouping of countries for 6-7 players?

redrum

@wasoo There are some WaW team games here that you can see how nations were divided (mostly 8 player games): https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/category/33/team-games

Below are probably the 8 largest nations which are usually split for a 8 player game and the smaller ones then distributed among them. For Axis, you'd probably combine either the Japan nations or Germany/Italy if you only had 3 Axis players. For Allies, you'd probably have Russia, US, and UK as the 3 main players and divide up France and the other more minor nations with each of those.

Axis
Germany
Italy
Yamamoto
Hisaichi

Allies
Russia
US
France
UK

Schulz

I've enhanced flags maybe someone would like to adopt them.

Lord Bevan

got bid purchse
but no bid placement

Cernel

@redrum said in World At War - Official Thread:

Here is the map thread from the old forum for historical purposes: http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/WORLD-AT-WAR-tp5862407.html

I cannot access this page nor find the old forum anywhere. Has it been deleted? Is the entire sourceforge TripleA forum gone? This would be a huge loss of information...

ubernaut

@cernel i was surprised it was still active recently i guess we'll always have the internet archive

zlefin

How come some nations don't get access to trucks aka Mot. Inf aka the 1/3/3 for 5 unit?

sneakingcoward

@zlefin

play waw variants...here you get much more

Cernel

@zlefin said in World At War - Official Thread:

How come some nations don't get access to trucks aka Mot. Inf aka the 1/3/3 for 5 unit?

It may be that only Sieg knows or knew the answer. I can tell you that every power is either able to purchase Mot.Inf or able to purchase Marine, and they were able to do so all the same before the version 2.0 of the game (we didn't make any changes here). Substantially, the game divides the powers into two groups: those which are able to purchase Mot.Inf but not Marine and those which are able to purchase Marine but not Mot.Inf. The former seem to be chiefly European/Atlantic powers and the latter seem to be chiefly Asian/Pacific powers.

Cernel

@sneakingcoward said in World At War - Official Thread:

@zlefin

play waw variants...here you get much more

This is probably not a very good solution if he/she wants to play in the lobby because "World At War" is a very popular game there, whereas all variants of it are rarely if ever played.

Cernel

I'm spectating a game (at regular options) played by two good players, and the Allies got a bid of 8, used to bid 4 infanty units more.

I've no idea myself if this means that the game requires a bid for the Allies to be balanced.

I know that some good World At War players affirmed that the game requires no bid.

One of the players made me notice that a bid of 8 could have been used to add a destroyer to the fleet next to Pearl Harbor.

I'm not a World At War player myself, so just letting any players draw their conclusions.

LaFayette

@cernel Personally, 4 inf in spread in africa could be used to prevent Italy from getting an aggressive foot hold there. Pearl harbor results in Japan having a single left over sub, no subs, or crashing a bomber. An extra DD there would likely guarantee no subs left or a crashed bomber. Overall not a huge net TUV gain and strategically not much different.

Generally no bid is needed, the dice rolls in the first round counter-act most bids that could be placed in any case. A really good World at War player perhaps favors axis. A super strong japanese push that secures the pacific by round 3 is just hard to defeat. There is a lot to that map, push and pull's everywhere and almost any front can get blocked or start to go bad.

Also, axis tend to be more fun to play. The first 3 to 4 rounds they are advancing and allies take a beating. Then allies come to their own and either have slowed axis down enough where they can push on more fronts than the axis can handle, or it evens out and the axis maintain and keep their edge.

luhhlz

@Cernel @LaFayette
WAW is the best. I haven't played enough games/opponents to know...it's so dynamic, even with optimal play. The only things set in stone are Germany goes after France first, and Japan goes after Dutch first. Some things I'm not sure about-
-how long AUS can hold out
-how overpowered UK stacking heavy bombers is in an equal-ish position
-'optimal' US strategy (east vs west) - right now US seems totally flexible in choosing where to go, depending on how the game unfolds. But given the relatively inflexible optimal Axis early round plays, probably one would be better than the other?
edit- I always go south first with US, then split E/W pretty evenly. Maybe a round or two of uneven splits, timed to big pushes.

wirkey

@luhhlz said in World At War - Official Thread:

@Cernel @LaFayette
WAW is the best. I haven't played enough games/opponents to know...it's so dynamic, even with optimal play. The only things set in stone are Germany goes after France first, and Japan goes after Dutch first. Some things I'm not sure about-
-how long AUS can hold out

Depends: If Japan goes all out on Australia it's pretty doomed. But that will keep China and Indieá pretty strong

-how overpowered UK stacking heavy bombers is in an equal-ish position

Never seen that strategy. And I played a lot of games

-'optimal' US strategy (east vs west) - right now US seems totally flexible in choosing where to go, depending on how the game unfolds. But given the relatively inflexible optimal Axis early round plays, probably one would be better than the other?

I usually only have a logistic chain of two to four transports going to Norway, France, Spain or Northern Africa with some limited Navy/AF. The remainder goes in the Pacific with big Navy and small amphibious forces.

edit- I always go south first with US, then split E/W pretty evenly. Maybe a round or two of uneven splits, timed to big pushes.

Going south is a big mistake for the US imo. Your enemies are in the East and West.

luhhlz

@wirkey
will think about this, maybe try W first. SA is a lot of money and WAW is a long game.

wirkey

@luhhlz said in World At War - Official Thread:

@wirkey
will think about this, maybe try W first. SA is a lot of money and WAW is a long game.

Yes, South America has a lot of value. But remember, taking over territories from your enemy is worth double the PU: your income and declining it to your enemy.-

So I usually leave South America it to the Dutch. Not much they could do anyway and maybe just use one or two US-transports to take what's left.

Boston

The map slightly favors Axis is the consensus that Blinchik and I reached. Best estimate is about 4-10 bid given to allies to balance. That said, it's only really an issue in high level play, and there are so many opportunities to play sub optimally that it shouldn't be noticeable in most games.

luhhlz

@wirkey said in World At War - Official Thread:

enemy is worth double

that is very true

I usually leave South America it to the Dutch.

:face_screaming_in_fear: