Total World War: December 1941 3.0.0.6
-
Thanks for the feedback!
-
3.0.0.1 is now live. Please update and provide any feedback here.
-
@redrum Thank you sir.
-
@Hepps is it intended that the Vichy ships, that were being saved from scuttling can't move?
-
@wirkey They can't move that turn but should be able to move the following turn similar to how inf gained by conquering certain territories work.
-
Appears there is a bug with North African territories turning back to Vichy owned after the Protectorate falling. Here is a save game showing that it being captured by UK2 and then turning back to Vichy owned in Italy2: test.tsvg
And here's a save right before it happens that you can see it turn back to Vichy after Italy's tech phase: test2.tsvg
-
The bug is fixed now and will be part of v3.0.0.2 release.
-
I am just playing 3.0.0.1, just at the beginnng of turn 2. When will axis or allies have the opportunity to get or scuttle the vichy ships? In turn 1 nothing happens regarding these ships.
-
@redrum In turn 2 you conquered murmansk? How the heck did you do that? Thats magic! Normally I get it in turn 6 or 7. And how works that funny "conquering Morocco" thing?
-
@LovePlayingAAA If/when the Allies capture Algeria or Morrocco, then you'll get the opportunity to scuttle/save the Vichy ships during Germany's next turn.
That was actually a game I was watching in the lobby not playing in so can't speak to the strategy that the players were taking.
-
v3.0.0.2 is now released with the following change:
- Fix North African territories turning back to Vichy owned after the Protectorate falling
-
So with the technical fixes done and a few games of testing of the new version... I thought I would now table my ideas for the fine tuning of the game set up based on how these changes have affected the opening turns and game-play.
Here are my thoughts...
1) Naval Fighter on Florida moved to Eastern U.S.
Rational... Since fighters can now hit Subs from start of game, the fighter on Florida limits the potential success of either sub attack by the Axis on turn 1. Moving the Fighter to Eastern U.S. achieves 2 things... allows for attacks on both the transports in the Caribbean and further limits the potential attack on the starting US fleet off NY.
-
British Sub moved from SZ 7 to SZ 10 with the main Scapa Flow fleet.
Rational... Completely eliminating the chance of success in SZ 7 is a HUGE blow to the balance of the game on turn 1. By moving the Sub to 10 with the rest of the fleet ensures that an attack on SZ 7 is possible but at a cost. More or less returning this battle to its previous balance.
-
Vichy BB in SZ 64 to turn into a DAMAGED BB if West Africa is captured.
Rational... Having the BB be fully functional upon capture seems overly potent. By turning it into a damaged BB the unit is far more vulnerable to counter attack and stalls it from being repaired for 3 turns.
-
A British Naval Fighter moved from SZ 148 onto Java
Rational... This gives the British the choice to either scramble and try to inflict as much damage as possible during the Battle of Java Sea... or allow the Japanese to win soundly... but retain the fighter to fight a later day.
- B British A.A. Gun added to Sumantra
Rational... the Japanese progression in the South is just too easy. The addition of the A.A. Gun will simply add the potential for a slight delay and possibly one fighter casualty.
-
British A.A. Gun added to Papua
Rational... the Japanese progression in the South is just too easy. The addition of the A.A. Gun will simply add the potential for a slight delay and possibly one fighter casualty.
-
American DD added to SZ 129
Rational... the Japanese progression in the South is just too easy. The addition of the D.D. will force the Japanese to either extend themselves further on turn 1 or allow the D.D. to retreat southward and support Australia in later turns.
Please feel free to provide comments or insights into whether you agree with my musings... or if you think other changes would be more effective to establish the best possible balance.
"A joyous heart sours with the burden of expectation"
Hepster -
-
@Hepps 1-3 are close to no brainers given the new sub rules. 4-6 are interesting ideas to slow Japanese south expansion. I haven't played v3 enough to say whether Allies or Axis are stronger but those changes would seem to indicate you think the Axis are.
-
@redrum To be honest... the first 2 are simply because of how the mechanics change affected the opening round in the Atlantic. The 3rd is by virtue of it being a brand new concept.
The others are really just some idea's towards something I have noticed about the Pacific war since removing the Factory from the West coast. Japan, properly played and with a little luck... really has no issue what-so-ever. Now with American interests on the west coast delayed by 2 turns (1 to build the factory... Rnd 2 dropping Hulls)... the issue is exacerbated more than it ever was (especially when you consider that between 8 or 10 PU are going straight into the Atlantic theatre). These changes are meant to bring the Pacific back closer to what it was before. The Naval fighter in SZ 148 has been something I have debated for years. Giving the Brits the choice seems fair as the decision will truly come with costs and benefits to both sides. Besides... making it the players decision seems more fun than having it already a forgone conclusion since the Japs also have to decide whether to commit resources to dealing with the new DD... or throwing all it can at the Java Sea battle.
-
@Hepps Fair though we did buff China when we removed the US pacific factory. So in theory japan should be having to invest more into China. The naval fighter move to Java and AA gun in Papua are probably fine. The other 2 changes are a bit harder to judge as Sumatra has a lot of defense bonuses so could be painful to capture and an extra USA DD could definitely slow Japan down a bit.
-
@redrum True... this why I am throwing out throwing out to the community.
-
@Hepps nice presentation on your proposed changes : )
-
@beelee Thanks. They say a picture is worth a thousand words.
-
And here is an idea I have been musing over for years since it was brought up so many times over the game's history.
This represents a conceptual idea... I want to see what the players think of it before I entertain any idea of including it in the game.
Russian-Japanese Nonaggression Treaty
The concept works on the idea that either side can attack each other at any point in the game. However, if you do so there are implications to your actions.
If you attack the opposite side then you need to be prepared with a stunning blow. Otherwise you reward the enemy with free PU for however many "Treaty" territories that are left intact for the defender.
The border territories for each nation contain "Treaty" units that govern this. The more stunning your surprise attack... the more crippled your opponent will be. While a less prepared attack will reward your opponent with more free PU as the enemy rallies due to your treachery.
The situation looks like this...
The guidelines for the treaty look like this...
The idea here being that if each party honours the treaty... then it is one less front for them to actively pursue... they may have to continue to build up in an arms race... but can divert resources to other fronts.
If treaty is honoured...
Russia stands to benefit from this by retaining roughly 8 PU in territories per turn. (Based on what it normally looses before the front stabilizes in most games historically)
Every round that the Treaty is honoured... Manchuria receives +3 PU and Japan receives +3 PU
Manchuria and Japan will stand to earn 3 PU less per turn each in captured territories. But Japan can safely reroute roughly 46 PU worth of units to bring to bear on China without risk to its border.
Once any treaty territory is violated... all the remaining units are automatically removed from game and the 2 nations are to be considered fully at war with one another.
I am posting this more as a brainstorming idea than as something to add to the game at this point as I was really planning on using the concept in a different project. Wanted to really see what people thought of it as a concept.
"A joyous heart sours with the burden of expectation"
Hepster -
@Hepps Good conceptual idea to make things more historical and add some flavor. I'll have to think about it from a game play perspective.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login