Total World War: December 1941 3.0.0.6

redrum

@colin Heavy Tanks can't blitz. Page 5 of the notes is incorrect but page 6 clearly states that they don't have blitz.

colin

@redrum thanks, I guess I should have looked more closely

zlefin

bug report:
marines aren't getting the +1 def in coast/island for having advanced special warfare tech.

save:

edit: deleting link to save, since it appears to be the wrong save.

ubernaut

@wirkey starting to come around to your point of view on this one, at least for allies.

ubernaut

@colin @hepps @redrum really more than happy to help out with docs if i can.

wirkey

@zlefin said in Total World War: December 1941 3.0.0.6:

bug report:
marines aren't getting the +1 def in coast/island for having advanced special warfare tech.

save:

Tww_vs_Cohen.tsvg

no one got adv sw in that game

Shonn

Quite sure USA tecched that their last turn. Or so I saw in-game.
If the Save shows otherwise... it's worrying!

wirkey

@Shonn US got imp sw in rnd 6 and missed in rnd 7

zlefin

The US currently has the tech; they got it in round 8, so it should have been active for round 9. also it's listed as active in the tech tab.
I'll run some more tests and see what I can find.
maybe tech activation isn't when I thought it was; I thought it happened at end of the players' turn.

wirkey

@zlefin in that case you guys posted the wrong save

zlefin

good idea; ok, I dug around and found a different save which should be the correct one (and was when I checked it offline)

tww_advancedspecwar_marinedefmiss.tsvg

redrum

@zlefin It appears the ASW marine bonuses aren't triggered until right before USA's next combat move. So you should see the change during USA's round 9 combat move. Why it doesn't trigger til then I'm not sure.

@Hepps Any idea why the ASW unit buffs don't happen til the following turn rather than at the end of that player's turn?

    <attachment name="triggerAttachmentamericanASW5" attachTo="Usa" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player">
      <option name="trigger" value="conditionAttachmentamericanAdvancedSpecialWarfare"/>
      <option name="territoryEffects" value="Coast"/>
      <option name="territoryEffectProperty" value="combatDefenseEffect" count="1:americanMarine"/>
      <option name="when" value="before:usaCombatMove"/>
      <option name="uses" value="1"/>
    </attachment>
    <attachment name="triggerAttachmentamericanASW6" attachTo="Usa" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player">
      <option name="trigger" value="conditionAttachmentamericanAdvancedSpecialWarfare"/>
      <option name="territoryEffects" value="Island"/>
      <option name="territoryEffectProperty" value="combatDefenseEffect" count="3:americanMarine"/>
      <option name="when" value="before:usaCombatMove"/>
      <option name="uses" value="1"/>
    </attachment>

Hepps

@redrum Nope. Should be consistent with all other Techs. I will chastize @Rolf-Larsson next time I talk to him.

ubernaut

@Hepps @redrum love this basic idea.

mattbarnes

Hey guys. We’re still loving this map.

One question: when fighting against a human we will usually let the comp choose casualties in battles. But we’re finding it often removes AA and AT guns sooner than we’d expect. Does the comp ignore ‘targeted defence’ power when selecting casualties?

And some possible small bugs: it sometimes says “there is no AA gun in zone xx” after a plane flew over. I think it just means the gun missed its toll but the text is confusing. I’ve also had confusing messages when a plane tries to strat bomb and (presumably) has missed its roll.

redrum

@mattbarnes Responses:

Correct, the casualty selection doesn't consider targeted attack/defense. I would like to add better support for this.
I haven't noticed that. If you have an example please post it.

mattbarnes

@redrum Hey, no problem, it’s such a great game that there’s bound to be little imperfections. That said, including a little warning in the game notes or within the program would be handy to wake players to this issue. When you play, do you manually override the casualty selection? If so, how do you judge whether a defender would (say) prefer to lose a unit with 1/12 targeted plus 1/12 defence versus another unit with 3/12 defence? Has anyone done the stats?

I’ll try to find an example of the other thing in due course.

mattbarnes

Separate question: a 3-move truck can in theory move one object to the next territory and then go back and collect a second, effectively hauling twice its capacity. Is that regarded as reasonable (trucks can certainly do multiple journeys in real life) or is it seen as an exploit?

redrum

@mattbarnes Most override the automatic selection. When playing over PBEM/PBF, most players will just ask for an Order Of Losses (OOL) if it isn't obvious what the defender would like to choose. Different players have different preferences as sometimes you want to keep those AA guns to try to kill an extra plane for keeping an infantry that has more overall strength.

Trucks can land transport multiple units in the same turn. That is completely legal.

Cernel

Trucks can land transport multiple units in the same turn. That is completely legal.

Can you please add a line in pos2 to make this officially supported this way? This is how the engine works at the moment, and I surely like this behaviour (as it makes for more advanced and realistic logistic possibilities), but, based on the rules, it might be argued that a land transport should be able to transport only 1 unit per turn (so, at any point, someone might, then, enforce such a limit, potentially damaging games relying on the current behaviour).