Total World War: December 1941 3.0.0.6

beelee

@Hepps oh no I'm busted

Wasn't even able to log off hee hee

Cernel

@ubernaut The main item was to get rid of the silly dynamic that placing ships in hostile sea zones blocks your opponent from loading its existent ships (and TripleA doesn't do a good job displaying what's loaded).

I would change the behaviour of that property in that you can always load as long as the ship is not blocked (from moving further) by enemy units.

This would mean that you can always load in the sea zone you started the turn into (as currently nothing in TripleA blocks you from moving out a hostile sea zone) (a movement 0 sea unit would be able to load too, as the reason why it cannot move is not being blocked) and you can also load in hostile sea zones you moved into only if the transport ship itself is a submarine (like the S.Submarine of WAW), and there are no destroyers blocking it (doesn't matter if you have no movement left).

Practically, adding a check that if an enemy ship is (potentially) blocking your ship from moving any further, then you are also blocked from loading any units.

But this would be best done by also atomizing submarines abilities, so that you can assign any ships the ability to move past other ships (thus being always able to load in hostile sea zones), without having to make such units full fledged submarines.

It makes the most sense to me that if a ship is blocked from moving further, then it should be also blocked from loading any more (but if a ship can or could move further, then it should definitely be able to load too).

wirkey

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

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

@redrum I only know one player who makes all his movements (better most of them) during cm. That's a leftover from nwo/waw, where it had the benefit for better planning your purchase (between cm and combats). But as there is no advantage of making non combat moves during combat movement phase, I'd go with it.

People should not make non-combat movements during Combat Movement. That is forbidden by the rules. You are supposed not to let your opponent do so (like for any illegal moves not enforced by the program).

WAW and NWO are no exception to this, as long as an exception is not present in the game notes.

I know that it's forbidden by the rules. But especially in nwo/waw games it has always been the case as it simplifies the purchase when you know which units you will have around next turn (e.g. for loading transports etc). As I do that myself I will never forbid that.
In TWW tough, there is no reason to make non combat moves before fighting as the purchase phase is at the very end. But as there is no advantage and only disadvantages in doing so, I don't say anything either. I just recommend to all players to not make those moves as they might miss some opportunities with trucks/rails.

Hepps

@wirkey Yes hard-coding this into the engine seemed like forcing an antiquated rule that really only ever mattered in a board game.

ubernaut

noticed something confusing, the russian-chinese lend-lease icon is reversed as compared to the other lend-lease territories the way the icon is arranged it would appear to be a chinese-russian lend-lease territory.

Hepps

@ubernaut Sure give that a try and let me know how many units Russia gets.

ubernaut

@Hepps well the manual makes it pretty clear but the icon is def a bit misleading.

Hepps

@ubernaut I may be perfect.... but the world is definitely not.

Perhaps I had a momentary case of dyslexia while designing that icon.

prastle

@Hepps It appears others are examining your typing skills my friend Apparently I can still use pt form? Gigglez

Hepps

@prastle In light of some of my glaring errors... I shall condone the further use of your blasphemous interpretation of English till further notice.

ubernaut

@Hepps i know the feeling.

redrum

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

@Hepps I came up with an idea about the destroyer/sub issue. I think giving destroyers AA capabilities against subs moving through their sz might be way to balance the two units a bit more. To start with I would only give them those first shots during "overfly" (moving through the SZ) and not during combats. Starting with some value that might make a difference; my idea was for 3/4/5 with destroyer/imp/adv tech and 6 with advanced destroyer.

So I like this idea since destroyers no longer block sub movement. I did some testing and it appears to work properly when setting isAAforFlyOverOnly=true on destroyers. The only limitation is that fly over AA uses the attackAA as the strength so would have to be equal to the combat defense AA of the unit.

Given that we could do something like make destroyer depthcharge have a base strength of 2 for attack/defense/flyover and 3 with improved destroyers and heavy destroyers would have say 4.

wirkey

@redrum I think I'd prefer higher values. Starting with 1 or 2 just doesn't make any difference if you have the single DD blocking imo. To be some kind of deterrence it has to have a higher value.

beelee

yea been using the DD shoots at the sub when the sub passes through or enters the DDs SZ. I also have it shooting at the sub before combat, so had to lower attack from 1 in 6 to 1 in 10 since it'll shoot twice now if the sub attacks the DD. Once moving in and once before combat.

Not what I wanted but was only way I could get it to work in NCM too.

Anyway, just letting you know that it works.

Cernel

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

yea been using the DD shoots at the sub when the sub passes through or enters the DDs SZ. I also have it shooting at the sub before combat, so had to lower attack from 1 in 6 to 1 in 10 since it'll shoot twice now if the sub attacks the DD. Once moving in and once before combat.

Not what I wanted but was only way I could get it to work in NCM too.

Anyway, just letting you know that it works.

If the fact that you get shot during Combat Movement in the final destination and moreover in Combat Resolution, as well, is true, that should rather be considered a bug. This should never happen, in any rulesets, and I believe it doesn't happen for regular AA guns, so it should not happen in some other applications.
I suggest you open a bug report, with the savegame.

wirkey

three related questions:

When was it changed, that if you conquer a (neutral) capital that you get all the money?
when was it changed, that once the neutrals are at war, they don't loose all the money
what are we supposed to do with the neutrals while they are not at war? I find it very unrealistic if the just kept building their army. But doing nothing doesn't seem right, either.

redrum

@wirkey Not sure I can answer any of those given I pretty much never play with politics on and most players don't. But here are my thoughts:

#1/2. I honestly have no idea if that used to be how it worked so I'll have to defer to @Hepps. Might we worth testing 2.7 or 2.8 to see if the behavior there is the same or if something has changed (I'm not aware that anything has). My expectation is however it works now is how it worked in 2.7.7.2.

#3. I think their turns should just be skipped and that they shouldn't build any units. Otherwise they end up with an absolutely massive stack that makes ever attacking them completely insane. That way it may eventually be worth players attacking them to open up the map a bit more towards late game. But again, I don't think neutrals were ever balanced that well or fully flushed out so that its better to just play with politics off.

ubernaut

found a bug tried strat bombing Vladivostok got a result of 0 damage and the following error:

Mar 12, 2019 9:43:46 AM games.strategy.engine.framework.GameRunner lambda$start$0
SEVERE: null
java.lang.NullPointerException
at javax.swing.ImageIcon.<init>(ImageIcon.java:240)
at games.strategy.triplea.image.DiceImageFactory.getDieIcon(DiceImageFactory.java:168)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.DicePanel.create(DicePanel.java:70)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.DicePanel.setDiceRollForBombing(DicePanel.java:36)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.BattleDisplay.bombingResults(BattleDisplay.java:165)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.BattlePanel.lambda$bombingResults$17(BattlePanel.java:408)
at java.awt.event.InvocationEvent.dispatch(InvocationEvent.java:311)
at java.awt.EventQueue.dispatchEventImpl(EventQueue.java:758)
at java.awt.EventQueue.access$500(EventQueue.java:97)
at java.awt.EventQueue$3.run(EventQueue.java:709)
at java.awt.EventQueue$3.run(EventQueue.java:703)
at java.security.AccessController.doPrivileged(Native Method)
at java.security.ProtectionDomain$JavaSecurityAccessImpl.doIntersectionPrivilege(ProtectionDomain.java:74)
at java.awt.EventQueue.dispatchEvent(EventQueue.java:728)
at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpOneEventForFilters(EventDispatchThread.java:205)
at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpEventsForFilter(EventDispatchThread.java:116)
at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpEventsForHierarchy(EventDispatchThread.java:105)
at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpEvents(EventDispatchThread.java:101)
at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpEvents(EventDispatchThread.java:93)
at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.run(EventDispatchThread.java:82)autosaveAfterBattle.tsvg

ubernaut

tried editing this reply to make the save file easier to spot but my edit got flagged as spam by akismet

redrum

@ubernaut Its a known error and has already been fixed in the latest pre-release with this PR: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/4140. Thanks for reporting it though.

The error is caused by the engine not properly finding and displaying the die image icon for '0' (miss for bombing). It doesn't cause any game problems so you can just close the error and ignore it. It'll be fixed in the next TripleA stable release.