Total World War: December 1941 3.0.0.6

[wirkey]

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

@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.

1. actually I'm not sure if it was that way at all, that you get neutrals money.
2. pretty sure neutrals didn't keep their money. All they had the round war was declared on them, was what they had collected the round before. I think this is what it should be.
3. unless players agree to go a different way: Neutrals collect their income but loose it, if they aren't at war at the beginning of their turn. But they get an inf placed in the capital every 2nd round (or 2 inf in 3 rounds or whatever...)

[ubernaut]

@wirkey maybe i'm missing something, been dabbling with TWW all my game so far i've had politics on and have not seen what you are talking about in 2.7, 2.8 or 3.0. Neutrals are not accumulating PU's or infantry. Have yet to capture or lose a capital yet so cannot speak that in particular.

[redrum]

@Gully Count me in. We should be releasing v3.0.0.3 soon so if you don't mind waiting a few days, I'd say let's do that then start one up. You'll probably want to review all the changes if you haven't already.

[Gully]

@redrum wirkey was faster. You are the final boss again.

Hm, the sub changes. First look and I think it helps the Allies in the Atlantic (British air superiority, also cant combine Kriegsmarine and subs anymore). And in the Pacific, you have to decide whether you want a fleet that controls large areas or one that can poke and do small trades efficiently. Pacific overall will be more interesting I think.

[redrum]

@Gully Ah, that's ok, I enjoy being the final boss! Just need @Hepps to design me a sweet final boss image and yes I realize he'll probably give me a unicorn with a rainbow

[ubernaut]

is there a limit for making constructions on occupied territories? tried building a trench in french indo china and got a message telling no more constructions are allowed.

[redrum]

@ubernaut Yes. Japan can't build anything in French Indochina since its an occupied Vichy Territory. Its similar to how Britain can't build infrastructure directly on occupied exiled allies territories.

There are sections in the manual that covers French Indochina and the other british occupied/protectorate territories that highlights most of that. Though I'm not sure why French Indochina isn't actually owned by Vichy France (might be cause they didn't want Vichy France building there either?). @Hepps would have to weigh in on the history there.

[ubernaut]

@redrum must have missed that bit thanks again.

[wirkey]

@ubernaut you can only build there if it was taken by Allies and recaptured by Japan.

[redrum]

@wirkey Do you know why it isn't initially owned by French Indochina?

[wirkey]

@redrum yeah, but can't tell you. Would have to kill you if I told you and I really want to avoid that

[redrum]

@wirkey LOL. Geez first you steal my game with @Gully and now you won't even share the deep dark secrets of TWW's past

[redrum]

So thinking through the best way to adjust destroyers to make countering subs more interesting and balanced, here is my proposal at this point:

Option #1 (weaker strength but can hunt and defend against subs)
Destroyer: 2A/2D with 2 DepthCharge on A/D/Flyover
Improved Destroyer Tech: Increases DepthCharge from 2 to 4
Heavy Destroyer: 3A/3D with 6 DepthCharge on A/D/Flyover

Option #2 (same strength just hunt subs more effectively)
Destroyer: 3A/3D with 2 DepthCharge on A
Improved Destroyer Tech: Increases DepthCharge from 2 to 4
Heavy Destroyer: 5A/5D with 6 DepthCharge on A

Option #3 (weaken subs and just increase destroyer hunting a bit)
Sub: 3A/1D
Improved Sub: Increases attack from 3 to 4
Improved Destroyer Tech: Increases DepthCharge from 1 to 3
Heavy Destroyer: 5A/5D with 4 DepthCharge on A

Thoughts?

[ubernaut]

@redrum seems pretty good to me, Destroyer DC is def too weak as is.

[ubernaut]

engine sometimes fails to remove lend-lease unit:

autosaveBeforeEndTurn.tsvg

[redrum]

@ubernaut Can you clarify? I'm guessing you mean that a UK truck should have been removed from Soviet Far East?

[ubernaut]

@redrum yeah sorry

[redrum]

@ubernaut Ok. Is that the only one you've noticed? If so its probably just a missing or incorrect trigger for that specific territory & unit.

[ubernaut]

@redrum so far yeah, but ill be paying more attention in the future.

[Hepps]

Some good discussion going on here in regards to the new and exciting naval rules...

I like some of what I see but I fear that changing things to completely nullify the Subs advantage is a step in the direction of making them utterly useless once more.

The entire idea around these changes has been to create a more dramatic and dynamic.

If Destroyers are given the ability to "hunt" Subs while on defense... as well as the "flyover" ability... it is returning Subs to a non-existent role.

Currently when I am seeing Sub spams... they are definitely a threat... and are nearly impossible to destroy outright... but they are generally not a threat to large naval groups as they are increasingly vulnerable to air cover. More over... as per the design... building fleets with large numbers of Subs is also highly detrimental to the fleet as the fleet becomes very vulnerable to attack unless the Subs are offered up purely as fodder (thus eliminating them as a threat since they have to be kept surfaced and used as casualties to salvage the fleet... or they submerge and the fleet gets decimated).

All that being said I do agree the perfect balance has yet to be achieved.

So here is where my designs were/are going...

Destroyer Att 3 / Def 3 / move 2 / Att Depth Charge vs Sub 2
Improved Destroyers (tech) +1 to Depth Charge Att.
Advanced Destroyers (tech) Att 5 / Def 5 / Mvt 2 / Att Depth Charge vs Subs 4

All Depth Charge value changes will be the same for Strat. Bombers.

Submarine Att 3 / Def 1 / Mvt 2 / Surprise First strike / Negative support with surface fleet (-2 Def) 1:1 basis
Improved Subs (tech) +1 support to allied Sub on Att & Def 1:1 basis
Advanced Sub (tech) Att 5 / Def 3 / Mvt 2 / Surprise First Strike / Negative support with surface fleet (-2 Def) 1:1 basis