Total World War: December 1941 3.0.0.6

[ubernaut]

question about the improved special warfare advancement the manual says "+1 Att.for Alpine (combat paratroop)."

What exactly does that mean? i'm assuming that like the other upgrades given with this advancement that it provides an additional attack bonus for Alpine inf but it seems to also enable Alpine troops to get Air-dropped in the attack phase, does the bonus apply to situations regardless of terrain or does this apply only to hills/mountians?

[redrum]

@ubernaut Yes, it increases their base attack by 1 (so all terrain). And it allows them to be paradropped into combat.

[ubernaut]

@redrum got it, thanks again for clarifying

[wirkey]

@hepps @redrum is it possible that you could give support to "AA hits"? I just had the idea that naval fighters increase the chance for a DC hit.

[Hepps]

@wirkey I like the idea... but I do not think that is supported currently by the engine.

@wirkey is looking for another unit named after him... the Wirkey Hurricane.

[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.