Total World War: December 1941

  • Admin

    @Krautz I just tested this in 3.0 and seems to work fine. Here is the save game showing it: test.tsvg

    If you have a save game to show/reproduce the issue please upload it here so I can take a look.

  • Admin

    Here is the v3.0 change log:


    • Revamp sub/destroyer mechanics to make game play more dynamic and less about just researching ImprovedDestroyers. Subs are meant to be strong units in open water that are difficult to hunt down but weak when trying to defend surface fleets and facing scrambling air defenses along coasts.
      • All air units can now target Sub/AdvancedSub without a Destroyer (can scramble to defend against them)
      • All surface ships give -2 support on defense to 1 Sub/AdvancedSub to decrease Sub/AdvancedSub effectiveness when defending fleets
      • Sub/AdvancedSub units: removed targeted defense against Destroyer/HeavyDestroyer
      • ImprovedSub tech: increases Sub attack to 5 instead of increasing targeted defense
      • Destroyer unit: added DepthCharge targeted attack of 1 against Sub/AdvancedSub
      • HeavyDestroyer unit: removed isDestroyer and added DepthCharge targeted attack of 3 against Sub/AdvancedSub
      • ImprovedDestroyer tech: increases Destroyer DepthCharge to 2 instead of give isDestroyer
      • StratBomber unit: added DepthCharge targeted attack of 1 against Sub/AdvancedSub
      • HeavyStratBomber unit: added DepthCharge targeted attack of 3 against Sub/AdvancedSub
      • ImprovedStratBomber tech: increases StratBomber DepthCharge to 2
    • Add German N.Africa Protectorates to show German control over the area and simulation Allied invasion impact.
      • Morocco and Algeria are both Protectorates so generate no income but if they both are owned Vichy receive a free material each turn
      • If either or both are captured by the Allies then the rest of Vichy N.Africa turns to German owned and Vichy's capital becomes an Occupied territory giving its income to Germany
    • Add Vichy Toulon Fleet events to show Vichy naval presence along Southern France and allow for operation Lila.
      • Added immobile German ships to SZ44: BB, Cruiser, 2 Destroyers, 2 Subs, and Transport
      • Added event if 1 of the 2 N.Africa Protectorate territories are captured by the Allies then on the next German turn they receive user action to pay 1 PU per ship to try to prevent them being scuttled (2/12 chance) and turn to regular German ships
    • Add Vichy Dakar Fleet events to allow for Operation Menance.
      • Added immobile German ships to SZ64: BB and Destroyer
      • Added event if West Africa is captured by the Allies then Dakar Fleet transforms into regular UK ships
    • Add several automatic unit placements in Western Europe and Africa (Both Vichy & Exiled Allies) to increase strategic value of capturing these territories.
      • Western France: 1 UK inf
      • Morocco: 1 UK inf
      • Tunisia: 1 UK inf
      • West Africa: 1 UK inf
      • Gold Coast: 1 UK inf
      • Cameroon: 1 German inf
      • French Equatorial Africa: 1 German inf
    • Increase PU and ownership of a few African territories to increase strategic value of controlling these territories.
      • Morocco: Increased PU to 2
      • Tunisia: Increased PU to 2
      • West Africa: Increased PU to 2
      • Nigeria: Increased PU to 2
      • French Central Africa: Starts as Vichy controlled

  • @redrum said in Total World War: December 1941 (Now Available):

    @spartan Depth Charge is actually only available to DD and strat bomber (not tact). So those are essentially the units that can hunt down subs at the moment.
    Yes, allowing air to scramble to defend against subs is intentional. This is to somewhat counter there not being a hard isDestroyer type unit anymore and simulate that defending fleets along coasts was generally much easier than open sea against subs:

    Thanks for the explanation, redrum! Though I am not sure yet if I´d agree - let´s see how the first round ends up 😃

  • After a lot of talking with different people I Like what you are trying to do with subs, i.e. make them the stealthy, survivable, niche type of unit they were.

    But I don't like how you are doing it. Especially with no defense.

    A crazy idea that plopped into my head is this:

    What if Subs were invisible? It can't be done on the boardgame but it can be done on a PC: They would not be visible except if a destroyer was on them.

    Keep the mechanic of Subs always being able to dive too.
    Nerf them a bit in terms of attack or increase cost.
    Nerf the destroyer a bit and lower costs so you can have more of them.

    This way the game turns into a real cat and mouse style of hunting down subs/killing convoys.

  • Admin

    @Ondis Its a cool idea and very similar to implementing a fog of war system. That being said, enhancing TripleA to be able to do that would be a lot of work so not something that is really achievable in the short-term.

    I'd be interested in why you think subs having little to no defense isn't a good direction? The idea is that they don't really need defense as they can submerge and really weren't used to protect surface fleets.

  • Well subs are used to protect carrier groups today and were lingering around them in WW2, but it doesn't really matter. If someone wants to use subs in the defensive role they should be allowed to do so.

    If subs are accompanying a fleet they won't chicken out as their comrades are being slaughtered.

    Plus it really makes for any type re-organization from Sub fleet to navy or even the other way quite cumbersome from a gameplay perspective.

  • Admin

    @Ondis Well you touched on some of the intentions of the change. Whether they are good or bad are somewhat up to each player's opinion but I'll describe the thought behind them 🙂

    So subs still provide their HP to the surface fleet so aren't completely useless (HP/fodder is often what you need most to protect BB and carriers anyways). They are just less effective as part of a surface fleet to simulate that they lose a lot of the element of surprise in comparison to hunting in wolf packs or alone.

    One of the goals is to create more variation across ships so that not everything feels like almost the same unit with just slightly different strength/cost and that they each have more of a defined role. Subs are meant to be used for attacking/harassing and controlling open waters while destroyers are meant for protecting capital ships and hunting subs.

    The more defined roles and variation across ships forces the player to make more long term strategic choices when purchasing units and determining what their goals are. It also creates more of a counter play type system so it becomes less of whoever has the most ships wins and more which types of ships you choose to build and how you position them. If they want to primarily create surface fleets and try to amphibious assault then destroyers are probably a better choice to protect their capital ships and transports. If they want to instead try to harass opponent fleets and force opponents to build more ships to protect their transports then subs are a good choice.

  • Well for me it's silly. There are some aspects you perhaps haven't considered. Say I have a huge sub fleet and a couple of surface ships like germany had. A big battle is coming where I need to defend, but in my case I might be better off with just using the subs, cause of this artificial limitation. It makes absolutely no sense that a sub is stronger on the defense on its own than if accompanied with surface ships. If you want it like this then remove sub def completely and lower cost further.

  • Admin

    @Ondis That can never happen. If you have a huge sub fleet and add any number of destroyers (or other stronger surface ships) the fleet will always be stronger on defense then just the huge sub fleet alone.

  • Ah. Each ship only negates the defense of one sub. Alright, I missed that. It's better gameplay wise but absolutely nonsensical. This whole setup doesn't make sense to me and seems to just force a type of gameplay instead of letting the player discover it on their own.

    All of this isn't because that makes sense, but because one wants to force a certain gameplay.

    I like the intentions of it but I'd rather have more versatile subs than this.
    In fact, and this may sound crazy, I would rather limit defense of subs when on their own, as that would indicate a sort of ambush or something like this, as opposed to when with surface ships that can readily warn them and where they can turn around and fire their torpedoes.

  • Admin

    @Ondis Well, I don't think there is much else I can say if you disagree that subs during ww2 were generally not as useful to protect surface ships as they were as lone hunters or in wolf packs. I'd encourage you to read this article which discusses how submarines were mostly utilized:

  • Of course they were more effective, but that is on the attack, not on the defense, so two different subject matters entirely. You've not limited their attack capacity in conjunction with other ships but their defense.

    On the issue itself I'd suggest keeping the removed AA defense that they had before vs Destroyers but letting them defend at least at 1 and 2 respectively, regardless of situation, or 1-3 if you prefer that. Maybe even 2-3.

    Still like the direction as I said, but without fog of war of some sorts ambushes are just too unlikely and they will find themselves hunted into oblivion in the high seas as it is now, not being able to be rescued by the main surface fleet in any effective manner due to their inability to contribute significantly to any fight.

  • Admin

    Did I miss something and there is this new feature that the EA don't get to produce anything? Doesn't seem right..tww ladder wirkey vs chewbaluba.tsvg

    MV 3.0

  • Admin

    @wirkey Not sure quite what you mean, could you describe the issue a bit more? Also you should probably upgrade TripleA to the latest stable version

  • Admin

    @redrum EA doesn't have any production phase

  • @wirkey @redrum I opted out of buying anything round 1 of EA but was not given the option of buying for EA in subsequent rounds. By design? It looks like game is subtracting PU for nat'l objectives, is that right?

  • @wirkey @redrum Reproduced on 13066 in Round 1. EA skips Purchase Units in Round 1.


  • Admin

    @chewbaluba @redrum @Hepps yeah, EA don't have any money in rnd1, but still can't produce in later rounds with PUs

  • Im not sure about the issue overall but the subtraction is probably due to the occupation/protectorate status of certain provinces, no?

    They should still be getting a few PUs, but just a few. For a couple of provinces in Africa and the one in the UK.

  • Admin

    @wirkey Ah I see. There is a bug in 3.0 causing the Exiled Allies PUs to be set to 0 at the start of the UK turn. And then since they have no money, it skips their turn. If you edit back in their PUs after the start of the UK turn then it should work fine. I'll look to put a fix in for

Log in to reply