Total World War: December 1941 3.0.0.6
-
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.
-
Before punching at it, I must say that I like the mechanics. Keep that front more quiet but increase the paranoia level.
This is really not a symmetric situation. Can Russia ever realistically break the treaty first? I can imagine Japan moving away most of the army besides maybe 3-5 units. Then Russia can use the Barracks 1-2 times and Canada/USA can deliver around, lets say 6-10 units. Without air-support, thats barely enough for N-Manchu with the Fortress, and I believe there is 1 Russian sub to take out one of the water treaties. And this is all telegraphed, Japan can see it coming for rounds. The Allies must be so hard winning to ever do this.
The other direction is fine. Once Russia has moved some stuff away, Japan can certainly get 5 of the treaties without going too extreme. But that's a delicate timing, because early you have better things to do and later you can't direct too much army away from the other theatres. If Russia goes too thin, Japan breaks the Irkutsk Barracks.
-
@Gully While the distance factor lends itself to a Japanese invasion first... the real question becomes how much Japan can afford to send there without compromising its other fronts. If say Russia chooses to honour the treaty on turn 1 (which it most certainly will want to by design)... it means that Japan can realistically only capture 2 or perhaps maximum 3 of the 6 treaty territories. Thus immediately handing over 6 to 8 PU to Russia.
Traditionally the front collapses willfully by the Russians as Yakut is the ideal defensive position and choke point in the East. However, Vladivostok can easily be defended on turn 1. It is just not an ideal strategy in the existing game since you end up with a pocket of men that is trapped since there is no incentive for Japan to postpone an invasion and at the absolute minimum take Khabarovskiy Kray with a single infantry. Now that would be disastrous for the Axis since handing over 10 PU to Russia for turn 2 would not help their interests at all.
The entire situation then becomes one of whether each side continues to build up... or divert its resources to other fronts. Russia can use the 8 PU from retaining the territories in the East, to build its war machine in the West hurting German interests... if on the other side of the equation Japan decides to honour the agreement it can focus much more of its war effort in China and the Pacific theatre using the additional +6 PU from the treaty. After turn one it then becomes a question of who is maneuvering where and how much is being committed to the cat and mouse game of deciding when to open a second front.
Bear in mind that the way I have designed the treaty units... either side can still move naval units into (or through) a SZ containing the Treaty units provided there are no enemy combat surface vessels in the SZ at the start of the turn. The decision as to whether you want to capture the SZ or not is up to the player.
-
Just adding a note here based on the lobby conversation:
There is a potential bug where chinese fighters are land units instead of air units. This happens if the neutral nations are disabled as some of the triggers are during those phases. There could be other bugs as well when they are disabled.
<!-- canBeDisabled: if true means that the player will skip all of their phases. their delegates will be removed from the game (so triggers will not happen during those delegates either) -->The easy way to fix that is just make it so they can't be disabled. Alternatively, we can take a look at what triggers occur during neutral phases and try to move them right before or after to core player phases.
-
@redrum You are so very smart.
-
rulebook pdf file is missing from the current download
-
@ubernaut https://github.com/triplea-maps/total_world_war_manual/raw/master/TWW_lossy_new.pdf
It hasn't been updated for v3 yet. So you'll want to review the first post of this thread for changes to the rules.
-
noticed that the page image files in the download are actually newer than the previous included PDF, last page references 2.8.0.4 but the combined pdf is just missing. thought id give a heads up on that.
i made a combined pdf of my own just because reading the notes in-game is tough, but i don't have the ability to add stuff to git. anyway here is a temporary link that good for a week if anyone wants a slightly newer version of that: -
@ubernaut Yeah, looks like the PDF hasn't been regenerated from the note pages recently so is another point version or 2 behind them.
-
@redrum just started playing TWW recently noticed AI is pretty hobbled with all the complication added in this game, are there plans to make the AI more capable for TWW?
-
@ubernaut Yeah, playing vs the AI is pretty meaningless on TWW as it uses a lot of advanced TripleA features that the AI can't handle currently. You are better off finding a human opponent or even practicing against yourself. I'd say its maybe a dream at this point to make the AI more capable of playing TWW as it would take significant effort. Probably the biggest issue with the AI currently is it essentially can't build infrastructure as it doesn't understand how to handle materials.
I also considered making some sort of "AI-enabled" setting where some of the advanced rules are simplified for the AI so something like the AI not using materials at all and just making buildings cost more.
-
@redrum that seems interesting.
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