2 Mar 2019, 23:14
@Hepps Ok. I added it to the list for the next release.
Total World War: December 1941 3.0.0.6
-
@Hepps Ok. I added it to the list for the next release.
-
yeah just started messing around with TWW so i have the images on still so far that's the only one I've seen with the broken link image.
-
Hi all!
Here is an idea concerning starting technology.
Currently every major player in the game starts with five tech tokens (China stars with zero tech tokens).
When either Japan or Italy gets lucky and rolls for special warfare during round one then (in the case of Japan) the Exile Allies islands in the Pacific or (in the case of Italy) Western Egypt/Cairo fall much faster.
To slow, but not eliminate these outcomes, I propose to remove the five tech tokens from the start of round one and replace them with double tech tokens at the end of round one.
Thus, any player ending round one with one tech center will end the round with six tech tokens while any player ending round one with two tech centers will end the round with twelve tech tokens.
Also, tech tokens will not be purchasable until the second round.
Thoughts?
-
@xAAAx Its an interesting idea. I do think whether UK, Japan, or Italy get Special Warfare round 1 can make a major impact on the early game. I think the problem is really that Special Warfare is too strong as a tech for naval powers as it makes amphibious assaults very black and white (you can or you can't). While I think we could try to do something around making techs less random in the first round or 2, that would really just be a band aid and really what needs done is reworking Special Warfare.
I think the Special Warfare line needs to be more gradual so that amphibious attackers have significant penalties and that penalty becomes less and less as you work through the tech line. So keep most of the territory effect bonuses but adjust SWF line like this:
- no SWF - all inf can amphib but have a -2 attack (essentially just act as casualties)
- SWF - amphib inf have a -1 attack
- Improved SWF - amphib inf have no negative bonus
- Advanced SWF - allows amphib with non-inf
This is just conceptual so would need more thought on exact values and balance. But this would make SWF less powerful and make amphib assaults a more gradual tech advancement.
-
RE:
TODO
Improve destroyer's counter to subs
Here is a concept for consideration.
Both subs and destroyers start at 3/3/2. Improved subs get +1 attack while improved destroyers get +1 defense. Advanced subs get +3 attack while advanced destroyers get +3 defense.
Another option is for subs to start at 4/3/2 with +1 attack for improved and +2 attack for advanced while destroyers start at 3/4/2 with +1 defense for improved and +2 defense for advanced.
Either way, subs and destroyers have equal attack vs defense as they tech up.
That leaves the subs ability to sink ships without them being able to return fire.
I don't think Hepps wants to remove this ability altogether, so what I propose is to add a defensive depth charge to destroyers that fire each round of combat that is strong enough to achieve parity with subs (i.e., when an equal number of subs attack an equal number of destroyers—of the same tech level—the result is a 50/50 battle).
-
@redrum Red, I agree that special warfare is kind of an all or nothing deal. For example, Britain is often able to hold onto at least one protectorate whenever Japan doesn't get special warfare in the 1st round; however, Britain is certain to lose all protectorates when Japan does get special warfare in the 1st round.
With this idea, how would Britain hold on to Malta? Perhaps add some additional fortifications and air fields to make attacking Malta in the early rounds not too appealing to Italy.
Maybe change the infantry to a combat engineer then add a second air field and both a second entrenchment and a second bunker. Also move the destroyer and transport to somewhere else in the middle east so that the combat engineer is stuck there.
The idea is that even if Cairo falls, Malta could remain as a thorn in Italy's side.
-
@xAAAx
Destroyer/Sub - Well, I don't think we necessarily need to make subs and destroyers more similar in stats. They are meant to feel like very unique units with very different purposes. They just need to be tweaked a bit to be more balanced in the overall naval system as I think right now subs are a bit too strong compared to destroyers. The idea is to make subs very cost effective attackers, hard to hunt, and weak for defending fleets. While destroyers are meant to be good screens for capital ships, be able to hunt subs, and be able to defend fleets against subs. These things are mostly true in the new system but destroyers just need to be a bit stronger in hunting subs and defending against subs. I think just increasing the strength of destroyer's depth charge and/or allowing it to work on defense as well as attack can achieve this.Malta - I actually think Malta's current strength is ok. Most games I play, Malta tends to last for a while and some it lasts the entire game. I think it should be a choice for Italy. If Italy wants to invest in a decent amphib assault and pull forces/pressure away from Egypt then they can to take it. If we add too much more defense to Malta then it will essentially have no chance of ever being taken especially when you consider UK can often put some air units there to help defend. IMO, the Axis could have conquered Malta during WWII if they had chosen to put more focus on it and it was probably a mistake that they didn't. They chose to put all the focus on driving towards Egypt rather than securing Malta. They had drawn up plans but decided to cancel them for various reasons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Herkules
-
@redrum Yeah, I was gonna bring up how Malta never fell during WWII, but edited it out as I thought that the point wasn't relevant—largely for the reasons that you discussed (i.e., Malta could have been taken by the Axis).
The idea behind adding fortifications to Malta was that prospective changes to starting tech tokens or the formula for special warfare could make Malta more vulnerable than it currently is.
-
gotten this message a few times when ai tries to attack subs with air:
Mar 05, 2019 2:55:57 PM games.strategy.engine.message.unifiedmessenger.UnifiedMessenger invoke
WARNING: Cant add an event, not a step. Must be in a step to add an event to the step.
Trying to add event: Recording Battle Statistics
java.lang.IllegalStateException: Cant add an event, not a step. Must be in a step to add an event to the step.
Trying to add event: Recording Battle Statistics
at games.strategy.engine.history.HistoryWriter.startEvent(HistoryWriter.java:120)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.ServerGame$1.startHistoryEvent(ServerGame.java:123)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62)
at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
at games.strategy.engine.message.unifiedmessenger.EndPoint.invokeSingle(EndPoint.java:151)
at games.strategy.engine.message.unifiedmessenger.EndPoint.invokeMultiple(EndPoint.java:134)
at games.strategy.engine.message.unifiedmessenger.EndPoint.invokeLocal(EndPoint.java:120)
at games.strategy.engine.message.unifiedmessenger.UnifiedMessenger.invoke(UnifiedMessenger.java:145)
at games.strategy.engine.message.UnifiedInvocationHandler.invoke(UnifiedInvocationHandler.java:48)
at com.sun.proxy.$Proxy13.startHistoryEvent(Unknown Source)
at games.strategy.engine.history.DelegateHistoryWriter.startEvent(DelegateHistoryWriter.java:35)
at games.strategy.triplea.delegate.GameDelegateHistoryWriter.startEvent(GameDelegateHistoryWriter.java:42)
at games.strategy.triplea.delegate.BattleTracker.sendBattleRecordsToGameData(BattleTracker.java:1105)
at games.strategy.triplea.delegate.BattleDelegate.end(BattleDelegate.java:113)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.ServerGame.endStep(ServerGame.java:462)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.ServerGame.runStep(ServerGame.java:434)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.ServerGame.startGame(ServerGame.java:290)
at java.util.Optional.ifPresent(Optional.java:159)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.LocalLauncher.launchInNewThread(LocalLauncher.java:41)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.AbstractLauncher.lambda$launch$0(AbstractLauncher.java:51)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748) -
-
@redrum not sure only noticed it happened when the AI attacked subs with air both times im pretty sure but ill try to pay attention if it happens again.
i've also noticed that under certain circumstances AA guns seems to be able to move on their own. is that a bug or is that supposed to be possible under certain conditions in this game?
-
@ubernaut it's a player enforced rule as docks give AA and material +1 movement in order to allow them to load onto transports without trucks.
-
@redrum ah gotcha thanks for clarifying. curious one other thing about train tracks noticed there are two in certain territories. is building more than one track on a territory just for redundancy vs strat bombers or is there some other reason it's advantageous to double them up?
-
@ubernaut Just redundancy vs strat bombing.
-
@redrum gotcha thanks, confirmed anytime ai attacks subs with air power it creates that message in TWW.
Question, regarding the new sub rules can subs still submerge vs depth charge? Does air only attack of subs get one shot or is it a battle to the death unless attacker retreats?
Also noticed that AI never submerges subs (not just in this game but all games) even when it really makes sense to do so. AI seems able to retreat from battle curious why the submerge decision logic is more difficult.
-
@ubernaut They can submerge after the 1st round of depth charge fires. So if I say have 12 destroyers (no techs) attack a stack of subs with LL then they will always kill 1 sub and then the subs can choose to submerge. Not sure what you mean by "air only attack of subs".
The AI should submerge if it doesn't have good odds of surviving. I'm fairly sure it works on maps like revised but haven't ever tested in on TWW. If you have a save game showing an example of when the AI should clearly submerge its subs then I'm glad to take a look at it.
-
ive never seen hard ai submerge subs on any map i will send the next save after i attack subs which should be submerging. air can attack subs without the assistance of destroyers now so im guessing they act just like destroyers now (in terms of ability to attack subs before they submerge) so i believe you answered my question there.
-
sorry correction, i think ive seen subs submerge in the past but not recently (this version of the engine for sure).
-
@ubernaut Yeah, strat bombers work exactly the same way as destroyer depth charge. Its possible that I accidentally messed something up with the AI. I'll try to do a quick test later today.
-
@ubernaut I ran a quick test with the latest pre-release and the AI properly submerges remaining subs on revised when I attack 10 subs with 10 BB: test_revised_submerge.tsvg
