Total World War: December 1941 3.0.0.6

ubernaut

@Aidan even if you prefer dice which i tend to once ive gotten more used to a map at least if im not playing against others, just to add some unpredictability, you should try low luck enough to get used to it because it really teaches the math of this game a lot better than dice does.

i would maybe even suggest playing low luck on a simpler variation of the game before using it on TWW just because this map has a lot of bonus/penalty factors making it even harder to tell what's going on if you don't have all that in your head already.

ubernaut

noticed that if you land more than one allied plane (at least of one type) in eastern szechwan one unit converts the other cause an error which forces the unit to be sacrificed, not sure if that's a bug but it seems like one.

Hepps

@ubernaut You are meant to only be able to L&L one aircraft per turn.

Since you cannot otherwise have units in Chinese Territories unless their Capitals have been lost... the second unit cannot be there and is thus removed.

ubernaut

@Hepps i think it should warn you during movement phase (like carriers) instead of placement phase (when you can't do anything about it) then.

Hepps

@ubernaut Not even sure whether that is possible. @redrum might know. He seems to know everything else.

redrum

I don't think a custom warning like that is possible as the removal is handled by custom triggers for TWW. You could have some sort of notification using conditions/triggers but that would have to fire at the end/beginning of a phase. So you could inform the player that they are losing the planes but you couldn't warn them before the phase is over.

ubernaut

@redrum well it does currently warn you but it does so during the placement phase so there's nothing you can do even though the engine presents an option to change your placement.

ubernaut

if an allied neutral liberates a territory with automatic unit placement should that not create the free units?

Hepps

@ubernaut Please specify what you mean or provide an example. I'm not 100% sure what you mean.

ubernaut

playing with politics, turkey joins axis liberates syria and bagdad neither gave the bonus free units.

Hepps

@ubernaut Ah ok. Will look at it.

redrum

@ubernaut I'm guessing the free unit triggers don't consider the neutral players.

ubernaut

@redrum @Hepps here's a save file in case it helps

autosaveAfterTurkeyCombatMove.tsvg

-xAAAx-

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

Update Sub unit attack from 4 to 3 (3/1/2)

I'm thinking that subs should start off as 3/2/2 instead of 3/1/2. This way improved subs (+1 attack/defense) could then provide a modest defense in mixed fleets.

This would make improved subs (4/3/2) provide 1 defense (4/1/2) in mixed fleets while advanced subs (6/4/2) provide 2 defense (6/2/2) in mixed fleets.

This also keeps the tradition of incremental increases in power as units are upgraded with the related technologies. Here, that tradition would be extended to the defensive capabilities of subs with 0 defense in mixed fleets < improved subs with 1 defense in mixed fleets < advanced subs with 2 defense in mixed fleets.

Like discussed, advanced subs would be very attractive with +2 attack and +1 defense over improved subs for +2 PU, which would largely relegate improved subs to early losses on attack and sub fodder on defense.

Hepps

@xAAAx The reason I don't want Subs to gain a defense is that with their cost they would be viable as defensive fodder. (As we have seen in previous versions of TWW) So then you could stack Subs and use them like transports (except that they inflict first strikes on defense)... except that they would also have the ability to be highly effective at smashing the enemy on offense.

The entire design is meant to make Subs a useful offensive weapon while making them (comparatively) unattractive as cover for a fleet defensively. This is intended to make Sub spamming less attractive. Like stacking 25 Subs off the coast of Germany to defend an otherwise meager fleet.

Aidan

@ubernaut

Thanks for the advice.

My friends and I are already in the habit of calculating averages and carefully considering the math when we've played A&A Global 40, but the dice often are such that we have to re-evaluate the situation.

For instance, last game I played as Germany and Italy and my ally Japan got into a defensive fight with the US fleet at Japan (SZ 6). The battle calculator gave Japan a 5% chance of winning but he won anyway, with two damaged BBs to spare. His three defending subs also all rolled ones. I just about fell out of my chair at the luck...

I'm honestly not sure I like the idea of low luck only because it seems to turn the game into a number crunching simulator. I'd appreciate some more food for thought on the topic though, since maybe I'm missing the point of it.

LovePlayingAAA

Hi, is the Russian-Japanese Nonaggression Treaty now included in the actual version (its 3.0.0.3 right?). If not: is it possible to download a version with Russian-Japanese Nonaggression Treaty manually? I really would love to play this version.

Best
LovePlayingAAA

Hepps

@LovePlayingAAA No sorry. Thus far it is only a conceptual idea.

ubernaut

@Aidan low luck should actually be maybe called almost no luck the only part that is random is the remainder so for instance, 3 infantry will always score exactly 1 hit on attack unmodified. 4 would be 1 hit plus one normal 2 out of 6 roll. it is definitely a different game and it teaches you to think in terms of those odds without as much need for a battle calculator, at least when it comes to small battles.

redrum

There is a bug in v3.0.0.3 where the Exiled Allies Toulon Fleet event is firing even though Vichy hasn't lost their capital. You can just not roll for saving any of the fleet and edit it back in.