World At War - Official Thread
WWII full world map game based on revised rules that was originally created by Seig (MIA).
Here is the map thread from the old forum for historical purposes: http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/WORLD-AT-WAR-tp5862407.html
This is the pull request for the new "World At War" 2.1.1 and "WAW 1940" 2.1.1 to go live.
As said, I suggest to update the description and the download version.
I believe this should be the last (or about so) update of world_at_war, on my side. Thanks all.
I strongly suggest getting around updating WAW shortly before the start of August, so that everyone will get the update notification after that. If it is too low on your list of priorities, I think you can delay updating the download description, besides updating the version number (so to figure as updated), if that would otherwise mean waiting after the end of July.
There is a problem with either the behaviour or the current notes of World At War version 2.1.0 and 2.1.1, as well as WAW 1940 version 2.1.0 and 2.1.1.
The "Combat Movement Before Purchase Phase" ingenerates a rules change that it is not explained in notes.
A player retaking its own capital may have saved income (that it captured from other players while not controlling an own capital itself) that he would not normally be able to spend on that same turn, but, by retaking an own capital without battle, he would be, instead, due to the fact that combat move is before purchase and the engine behaviour that anticipates the ownership change at combat move when a battle is not required.
Here you can see an example, in which the case of a player having no capitals, yet having saved income, is presented and clarified:
The difference of combat move before purchase is that you can liberate your capital before purchasing, thus (if your captured capital is left undefended by your enemies) you can use any captured PUs on that same turn.
Mind you that this can also couple with the other special rule, already spelled out in notes, of capturing income before purchase. For example, if a player (beside Russians) starts the turn with no capitals and, on that same turn, it both liberates an undefended own capital and captures an undefended enemy capital, it will be able to spend the captured income on the same turn, that would have been impossible, under the normal phase order, for the duplice reasons of not having that captured income yet and not having a capital to spend any income anyways.
I realised this problem just recently because, in a game of "270BC 40%", I took Carthago with RomanRepublic, then Carthage took Roma its next turn, thus taking all RomanRepublic income plus the Carthage income I just captured, but having no capital to use it. However, on the same turn in which Roma fell, he also manoeuvre so to be able to retake Carthage its next turn and, having 3 ballistas in Carthago, and no reinforcements at hand, I left 1 ballista in there, just so that Carthago wouldn't have been retaken before purchase, hence delaying of 1 turn the Carthage ability to spend its massive looted income, and, even more important, having the possibility to recapture it, actually likely in the case both my ballista survived to then counterattack. This game proved it possible for such a rule change to have a very great impact!
With this said, "270BC 40%" is a game with few units around, so having to spare a ballista to delay a capital liberation is something of some major impact, while I guess having to leave a unit is not anywhere that big deal for WAW. However, this doesn't decrease the importance of this item that much, as I'm under the impression that this matter can be easily overlooked by many (thus forgetting to leave the unit to impede the early liberation, not seeing the matter at all).
I believe there is also the item that the WAW clarifications may be used as a basis, and copypasted, in other games having combat move before purchase, as they are not only the special rules of that game, but also probably a referring point (and the best detailed one thus far) of what changes you incur once you apply such an altered phase order to a v2 rules game, which would have quite an extensive influence, as bot v2 is the most popular ruleset and the combat move before purchase is a popular choice for custom games, that might want to copy all or part of the WAW notes on their own ones (think about all custom games having combat move before purchase, plus mods of classic games adopting it).
So, I believe this is an actual rule change, due to the combat move before purchase, that we all missed (or at least I don't recall anyone pointed out here or in any other Sieg maps and related topics), and should, either:
1- be added and explained in notes, as a rules change of the altered phase order, or
2- be added and explained in notes, as a user enforced limit of the engine, in that you should avoid making any purchases if they are allowed only by capitals reconquered on the same turn (meaning limit yourself never to purchase anything, if you are not Russians and start the turn with no capitals), or
3- be corrected at the engine level, restricting the capital requirement for purchasing to territories you owned since the start of your turn (basically, it would be like you test if you have enough capitals in which you can place units, instead of testing just for any capitals) (so that purchase being before or after combat move won't matter) (probably in this case it would be opportune to clarify in notes that retaking a capital on the same turn won't allow you to purchase anything, if you weren't able at start turn (not having any capital at that point), to not have people wondering), or
4- add a property that causes always destroying captured income for players not meeting their "retainCapitalNumber" at end turn (it should be end turn, not immediate, so not to have different outcomes depending on battles' order, when both capturing an enemy capital and liberating your own on the same turn); meaning that, when that property is true, if the conditions that make you unable to collect new income are met, then there is also the effect of losing all resources (not just PUs) you may already have (I suggest this applying tho whatever resources, comprising tech tokens), then adding this property, setting it true and not editable, and adding this special rule in notes (not as part of the Combat Movement Before Purchase Phase, in this case), or
5- make a set of triggers, for World At War, implementing what the above described property would do.
@redrum, do you agree this needs to be either added in the special rules, one way or the other, or corrected at the engine level?
My clear preference would be 4, as I also think that the "normal" behaviour of players with no capitals hiding the captured income in some secret treasuries and it remaining hidden forever nowhere, even if all territories of that player are conquered, is really nonsensical to the extreme. So, I think it would be nice to give the mapmakers a property to have a sensible behaviour, for custom maps (they can already do it with triggers removing income, of course).
However, considering that this map is "World At War", it would be out of its style to make custom rules for cases not gameplay related, thus this would drive to exclude 4 and 5 alike.
Anyhow, I tend to think this would not exclude 3, as, in my mind, it is kind of intuitive that if you have no capitals in which you can place any units, thus no capitals able to produce, then you should not be able to produce at all.
The number 3 behaviour would be also in line with other turn-based behaviours, like the case of passing through canals, in which the engine tests for what was owned at start turn, not at that moment.
So, maybe, even tho in a custom map my preference would be surely 4 (and I would still advice to make a property for that anyway), in the interest of keeping the behaviour as it would have been in regular Revised, then I would probably advise option 3, for this game.
However, that is up to a developer to do such an engine change and, if there is not the intention to do so, I would say proceed as per point 1 would make the most sense, considering that all other instances of rules changes due to the altered phase order are resolved the same way.
In case 3 or 4 get made, pos2 will need to be updated (I can do that).
Still pointing out that I advise not touching the map, but doing it at the engine level (3 or 4; probably 3 is more fitting here), if otherwise decided, instead, I would prefer doing the change myself. Are you fine with me doing it or do you prefer doing it yourself? Of course, it should be done the same way both in "World At War" and in "WAW 1940".
Also, should the version, in this case, be increased to 2.1.2 or 2.2.0 (I'm really undecided, since this would be a rules change not previously clarified, thus, arguably, a change to the gameplay dynamics, which would require upgrading to 2.2.0) or should it rather stay as 2.1.1, since you haven't yet merged my commit to upgrade to 2.1.1 or since it is just a change in notes?
This is what I think I would, then, add, as a point of "Combat Movement Before Purchase Phase", in the case number 1:
- Liberating an own capital empty of combat units (combat units are all units but Factory and AAGun) allows spending all (captured) PUs one might have (comprising income just captured from undefended enemy capitals) right away in the same turn's purchase phase, even if controlling no own capitals at start turn (it is advised to leave at least one cheap combat unit in capitals liable to be liberated by the original owner, if it may have a considerable captured income and it is not expected to control any own capitals at start turn, except for Russians).
On more general terms, I personally believe that it would be cool if putting combat move before or after purchase would not cause any rules changes (or maybe having a new integrated phase, in which you can both combat move and purchase), beside only the case of not being able to validate movements requiring landing on new carriers, thus I support 3, as a step in such a direction (tho I also support 4, as that is what would make the most sense).
Myself, I would suggest to do both 3 and 4, tho for this issue only one of the two would be required, if solving this issue at the engine level.
p.s.: If this is not going to be addressed at the engine level (my suggestion), I suppose I will add an analogue clarification to my "270BC Cernel Variant" and "270BC 40%" variants, as it is a subtle difference easy to be overlooked (my opponent in the aforementioned "270BC 40%" game took a while to realise why I left a ballista in Carthago, despite me explaining the difference in the behaviour, due to move before purchase).
p.p.s.: As I anticipated, I believe it is not clear if this topic is about talking of the "World At War" map or of the "World At War" game; meaning if it should be used for talking about "WAW 1940", or whatever other mods may be added for the "World At War" map, beside the "World At War" game, or not. Personally, my preference is "WAW 1940" having its own thread, but I doubt that "ice" will reopen it in this forum and I'm not sure if people should be supposed to talk about it in the related topic in the old Sourceforge forum (I guess not, since it is deprecated) and there is also the unclarified matter if "ice" is still the "owner" of the "WAW 1940" mod, or if you did take ownership of the whole current map, comprising it (in case: no, I don't want to be the "owner" of "WAW 1940", and I'm not re-opening the related topic, now in the old deprecated forum, either (I guess if it is clarified that this topic is not for "WAW 1940", and noone is opening a topic for that, then people are supposed to open a topic themselves each time they want to talk about something related to that, that I believe it would be dispersive, and it is a problem for whatever maps or games having dedicated topics in the old forum that have not been recreated in the new one, likely because the referring user being currently inactive)), or if it may be regarded as an un-owned particle (or owned by "ice", no matter if he agrees?) inside the World At War map owned by you?
p.p.p.s.: Just for your info, from discussions I had elsewhere, I am under the impression that ice won't soon come reopening topics for his maps and mods in this forum (comprising reopening a "WAW 1940" topic in this forum), if we are waiting for that to happen.
p.p.p.p.s.: Waiting for clarifications regarding if "WAW 1940" discussions are in topic here or not (I'd suggest not), I'll go ahead remarking (and giving the readers of this topic the information) that the "WAW 1940" 2.1.1 comes with an important correction in the costs of transports and t-boats (that I set wrongly in the current version), which is particularly critical for the latter, as the 2.1.0 costs make t-boats absolutely inferior purchases (I already said this in the old thread for WAW 1940 in the deprecated Sourceforge forum).
How about you just merge that pull request and update the version number today or tomorrow, so that people will have the notification about the update at August? We should try to have people updating this closely together, because of the skin changes (Italians colour, battleships, etc.). Then, you can rewrite the download description and decide what to do for the own capital liberation issue, or whatever it is holding you up, any time you want in the future.
@Cernel Should be updated now. Sorry I missed your post on that you'd made the pull request. I pretty much cleared the old description and just put a very simple one in for now. If you have a good description then I'm glad to add that in.
@redrum I preferred letting you presenting it, let's say for principle, but I actually think almost no presentation at all looks good too. After all, this map is a classic, by now. I would just suggest to clarify that the map is "anachronistic".
So, I'm going to push these things that are what I believe would be the bare minimum to make sense, on my perspective:
- Removed =WORLD AT WAR=, since there is already the title.
- Changed "sieg" to "Sieg", since it is upper case in notes.
- Changed "Very large WW2 map based primarily on revised rules." to "Very large WW2 anachronistic map based primarily on Revised rules.".
- Changed "World at War 1940 Mod by Ice" to "WAW 1940 mod by ice.".
To be fair, instead of "WW2 anachronistic map" we should say "fantasy map with a WW2 flavour", since so many things belong to no time, but I think the shifting timeline is the main thing, since we see like China in 1937 and pacific at the end of 1941, while Europe is 1939.
On the capital liberation issue, I guess it would be sensible the most to let the WAW players discuss it here and agree about a solution, tho I think this is just going to never happen at all, based on what we got so far.
@redrum Also on the account that NWO is referred on the board itself, I'm thiking it is due to clarify that this map is kind of "NWO in the World", as the fact that you see "Sieg" doesn't necessarily imply that, and not everyone is supposed to know about the "Sieg trio", so I've pushed the addition of:
", using mostly the New World Order units structure".
I've not referred to TRS, since the map only reference NWO, in the box lower right.
@Cernel Makes sense. Both of those PRs are merged now.
I think that the SBR power of the S.Bomber should be 1d6+1 (instead of normal 1d6), meaning average 4.5 damage instead of 3.5.
At 1d6+1, with cost 18, it would be almost pointless to SBR, but at least it would be not totally worthless, just mainly for flavour, as you would think a S.Bomber should not be absolutely worthless for SBR (with the current 1d6 damage and cost 18 you could as well just remove the SBR ability from the S.Bomber).
So I propose changing the SBR power of the S.Bomber from 1d6 to 1d6+1.
@Cernel Given that could affect balance, you'd need to get some feedback from a few veterans.
2018/08/31 TripleA Lobby
(5.43.14) BF-109: the following terriroties are considered originally owned by the chinese peking, shantung, fukien kwangsi and hainan
RodgerB has joined
Cow has joined
paulc has left
Cow has left
RodgerB has left
(5.50.27) TimeLord: that bot is shot
Rikileitr has joined
(5.50.48) riverrat: ok
(5.51.13) TimeLord: 602
(5.52.04) Undying: i undestand english lol i knew waht u meant
(5.52.23) Undying: its still wrong in the axis and allies sense of play
luke72paradis has joined
(5.53.29) Undying: waht i dont like is some theater are greatly affected by 1st round luck
(5.53.45) Undying: like italian sub + plane attack
(5.53.56) Undying: that battle alone can swing the theater one side or the other
cjnatz33 has joined
(5.54.56) BF-109: hmm
(5.55.22) Cernel: the italian sub in indian ocean in WAW?
(5.55.42) BF-109: don't see how that swings a whole theater
(5.56.02) Rikileitr: hi
(5.56.06) Undying: yes cernel
(5.56.20) Undying: well if it fumble uk is super strong and flexible
(5.56.25) Cernel: some complained about that, but I think most WAW players are cool with it
(5.56.50) Undying: and if ita win ( sub remain or not ) its super crippling for uk it feels
(5.57.00) luke72paradis: ww2 revised ,503
(5.57.17) Undying: i also think that starting yamato territories should go back to yamato if liberated by hisachi or thailand
(5.57.35) Undying: who do i talk to for that? lafayette ?
(5.57.54) Cernel: I give you the link to the official WAW thread in forum
(5.58.14) BF-109: they arnt original yama territoies they are china
(5.58.27) Undying: when the game starts, they are yamato countires
(5.58.30) Undying: stop playing on words
(5.58.41) Cernel: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/145/world-at-war-official-thread
(5.58.48) Undying: ok thanks
(5.59.24) Undying: You were slapped by Undying
(5.59.36) Cernel: y?
(5.59.38) BF-109: i know, but they are china territories, game starts about 1939ish, japan had already invaded china
(5.59.40) Undying: so its redrum and you who @adjust@ waw map ?
(5.59.46) Cernel: yep
(5.59.52) Cernel: but owner is redrum
(5.59.57) Cernel: not me
(6.00.04) Undying: do u understand waht i mean about starting territories ?
(6.00.06) Undying: ok
Rikileitr has left
(6.00.12) Cernel: yeah
(6.00.22) BF-109: only battle i don't like is pearl harbor because luck can effect it
(6.00.29) Undying: yeah
(6.00.29) BF-109: i hear u but disagree i like it
(6.00.33) Undying: i send 1 DD now
(6.00.44) Undying: it doesnt affect achina at all
(6.00.46) Cernel: I suppose you mean that also peking and shantung should go to hisaichi if yama takes them and to russians if russians take them, right?
(6.00.50) BF-109: even then ive seen japan end up with 2 fighte left
(6.00.57) Undying: yes cernel
(6.01.09) Cernel: yeah just tell that in forum
(6.01.29) Cernel: that basically you want that special rule about not game start original ownerships removed
(6.02.00) Cernel: maybe redrum will open a poll or something about it idk
(6.02.25) BF-109: i think it makes sense for china, it was china after all
(6.03.07) Undying: it doesnt change anything for china
(6.03.11) Undying: ur argument is invalid
(6.03.26) Cernel: well the china shenario is representing the early china invasion; so those territories are japanese since 1 or 2 months
(6.03.27) BF-109: it lets me get paid twice as axis if china takes them
kusiag has joined
(6.03.45) Undying: yeah
(6.03.51) Cernel: since the japs didn't yet reach shanghai
saxmandw has joined
(6.03.55) Undying: it just makles no sense to be like it is now
(6.04.03) Undying: its contrary to basic rules
Rikileitr has joined
(6.04.29) Rikileitr: S
(6.04.41) Cernel: I think v3 is the first game that has different originals; but yes revised has nothing like that, so it can be affirmed it is contrary to revised rules
kusiag has left
wenxingren has joined
kusiag has joined
(6.04.59) Undying: the game start like this
(6.05.09) Undying: its called original not because how historic it was
(6.05.16) Undying: its called original because u start the game with it
Rikileitr has left
Rikileitr has joined
(6.05.28) Undying: original territories * i mean
kusiag has left
(6.05.48) Cernel: yes that is in classic and revised; v3 introduced the concept of having originals not necessary as start game
(6.06.04) Undying: those are shit games Lolll
(6.06.09) Undying: just kidding
(6.06.15) Cernel: typical example of revised is that belorussia is original germans even tho historically that would totally be soviet
kusiag has joined
(6.06.27) Undying: thers many exemples
(6.06.30) Undying: even in WAW
(6.06.47) Cernel: well waw not so many as revised, since it starts earlier
(6.06.55) Cernel: for example?
(6.07.11) Undying: im sure tehres some in africa
(6.07.45) Cernel: you mean wrongly assigned ownerships? there are tons of them, but that's not related to original, they are just wrong both as current and as original
(6.07.55) Undying: lol
(6.08.04) Cernel: I think the main one is
(6.08.16) Undying: depends what date u say the game starts
(6.08.28) Cernel: that Truk is Americans (while it was Japanese, like all Carolines, and actually the main pacific base of Japan)
(6.08.41) Cernel: Truk is silly whatever date
(6.08.51) Cernel: it's exactly the same as if pearl harbor would be japanese
(6.08.58) Undying: lol
(6.09.03) Undying: pearl harbord is 41
(6.09.20) Undying: and if game start in 41 all poland should be grey and france too
(6.09.22) Cernel: no I mean the same as if Japanese would own the hawaii
wenxingren has left
(6.09.38) Cernel: yeah the game is anachronistic
(6.09.59) Cernel: it roughly represent late 39 in europe, late 37 in china and late 41 in pacific
(6.10.09) Undying: so it would make sense to keep the starting territories theway it was in nwo and rising sun
(6.10.16) Undying: yeah lol
(6.11.15) Cernel: it feels odd to me that peking is not original chinese, but yes it can be easily argued that since the game has so many wrong ownerships then what's the point
(6.11.42) Cernel: (tho I know peking was not the capital back then)
(6.11.56) Undying: im sure sieg created it the same way as nwo and revised regarding starting territories. someone took the liberty of changing it i think
(6.12.07) Cernel: it was me
(6.12.18) Undying: plz revert back
(6.12.21) Cernel: that made the original ownership change for those territories
(6.12.26) Undying: im house ruling this until its fixed
(6.12.38) Cernel: well, I'm not the owner of the map; for changes you have to ask redrum
(6.12.50) Undying: i slapped him hes afk
(6.12.56) Cernel: it might be that others waw players are ok with that idk
(6.13.17) Undying: most players wont mind, only bf seems to be hard on on it
(6.13.25) Undying: lol
(6.13.43) Cernel: if you want I can paste this discussion in the official waw thread I linked?
(6.13.50) Cernel: so redrum can see it when not afk
(6.13.51) Undying: i also think shore bombardment should be limited but thats another story
(6.14.00) Undying: id really love that
(6.14.08) Cernel: ok
(6.14.10) Undying: plz
(6.14.55) Cernel: I think best way would be making a poll in forum and see the votes
(6.15.04) Undying: the fact sieg created it that way should be enough
(6.15.12) Undying: its in line with NWO And TRS
(6.15.36) Undying: why target WAW with this rule ?
(6.15.58) Undying: why not all sieg maps ? why not be subsequent with all territories then
(6.16.07) Undying: im not sure waht was the point of changing it
(6.16.29) Undying: it doesnt affect china at all so its not a ba lance issue for china
(6.16.41) Undying: it just make yamato and hisachi more of a nightmare to play
@cernel I'm almost sure in the past there was a property to activate original ownership (when it was called "occupied territory of", or something like that). I cannot find such a property anymore. I think a good solution would be adding an option so that players can set if having special starting ownership or go with start game, but this would need a developer to add such property, if not currently available.
Still, it would be left to decide the default for it, of course.
@cernel Hi, ive been grinding this game alot recently and i play NWO for years.
I have mixed feelings about this map. the territories are well done and allow for tactics to be used more than any other AA map but the problem lies inthe 1round of the game.
Theres too much luck invovled in round 1 and it can break/swing the game way too hard on one side or the other.
The biggest culprit is pearl harbor. i just had a pearl hardbor as yamato where i send 5subs, 1DD, 4 planes and 1 bomber ( the standard, i send DD for safety ). Well guess what, all my dice miss and all USA dice Hits.
The result ? heres the result : i quit the game after i had 1 plane and 1 bomber remaining while he still have 1 BB alive.
its not fun for me or anyone playing allies because the game is broke and theres nothing japan can do.
in a map that claims to be the most balanced map the 1rounds "must to do moves" should be regulated with a -1 or +1 differential not this bullshit hawaii setting.
theres other exeples too like the italian sub+plane attack on british TP+DD in suez canal, whats the point of this 100% luck based combat ? all it does is swing a theather in a direction more than another.
theres too much of those luck based combat for axis on round 1 and all it does is make the game chaotic/unreliable and we as players have no control over these situations because its luck/dice based and its really frustrating.
im not the only one who feel that way.
hawaii is easily fixable by adding 1 yamato sub that can reach it,
as for indian sz 57 italian battle, im not sure how to fix it. maybe make it so 1 more italian fighter can reach, if ppl still decide to send 1 sub and 1 plane only they are asking for luck based combat ( and thats ok because its a choice ) but using 2 planes +1 sub would make more sense for italy and would feel better. ( im not saying to ADD a plane, just moving one from north africa to east ethiopia or something like that. or maybe just add abomber that can reach with 4 move ).
the german sub attacks on usa TP and french TP are heavy luck based too but they are a choice and not mandatory compare to hawaii. i know this may be frown upon but personaly i feel like the french tp i sz 34 around africa and the german sub in sz 37 should both be removed.
Hello @undying. You are the first actual player to reply to this thread!
Quick question on 91 Sea Zone: you took out 3 submarines as casualties, on combat round 1, correct? Odds are better if you take out 2 submarines and 1 destroyer, instead.
@undying I think you played dice as the result you described in Pearl Harbour would be impossible with LL?
If you think it's broken towards one side why don't you play with a bid?
While you are right that the italian attack in the red sea is highly dicey, I don't think it's that much of a game changer. And I like some varieties in my games. Makes it more dynamic.
@wirkey it wasnt with dice i only play LL and my opponent can attest to the result. i missed my sub die then miss the navy die on all rounds of combat and he touched all his dice. i understand the dynamic thing but it should be available throught strategy and tactics not by dice screwing up whole games ( for both side, my opponent completly acknowledge that this battle make or break the game every time ). adding one sub to the attack would fix the battle for a more fluid game. if a maps needs a bid it means its not balanced, i prefer the map to be balanced.
@Cernel ill keep that in mind but if we want a fun and balanced game a tweak needs to be made otherwise the game s over by round 1 half the time ( even if my case is very extreme theres a lot of time where the japanese end the battle with only 3 planes remaining (( bomber dead too )) ). and if japan ends that battle with less than 4 planes its game over because u lose the rest of the fleet in sz 104 without those planes.
@wirkey i think its dicey towards one side. if axis gets unlucky on 1 round its game over, if allies gets unlucky its a lot less dramatic. u guys talk like u play this map a lot but i dont remember seeing you play this map in the last 2 years and neither cernel. theres a difference playing once a year and playing 5 games a week. players who play the game a lot knows how the game feels more than someone who doesnt play as much.
@wirkey the results i described are easily doable.
Japan have 5 subs 1 DD and 4 planes + 1 bomber: ( 1 hit + 1 die at 4 for subs ) + ( 2 hits + 1 die at 3 for rest )
USA have 1DD 1 cruisers and 3BB ( 17 power )
first round of battle : japan attack = 1 hit for subs, 2 hit with rest of fleet ( missed my dice ) = 3 hits total = USA dmaged 3 BB
USA DEFEND : 3 hits = japan remove 3 subs
2nd rounds : japan attacks : subs miss, fleet miss = 2 hits again. = usa remove DD and cruiser
USA = 3 hits = japan removes 2 sub 1 DD.
u can figure out the rest of the battle yourself.
now @Cernel i know u said i can remove DD 1st round as japan losses but wirkey was claming the results im saying are impossible on LL and its not. thats the whole point of this discussion.
the whole point of this discussion is that axis 1round is unbalanced / too dicey. u guys can say whatever you want but all players will tell you that pearl harbor is broken and can ruin a game. dont fix it if u dont want to but ppl will keep leaving after pearl harbor when they are fucked by stupid dice. Players that play LL dont want "forced-dicey battles". we want to win because of strategy and tactics.
no one like sz 57 either this combat should be removed and units replaceelsewhere or fix the battle by making it non dicey. cernel says he prefer some luck in his game, good for you but i dont see you play WAW so if you could listen to the players that plays it it could be nice, at least for pearl harbor
@undying Since no one really owns the map.... why not create solutions and then post new setups.... then you can create a poll in the first post and make a game plan based on the responses of active game players.
@undying So, I believe taking 3 submarines instead of 1 destroyer and 2 submarines is definitely a wrong choice, as you would eventually take out that destroyer anyways, most likely, and, even without taking into account the Americans destroyer eventually getting killed (thus the submarines becoming better attackers than both the destroyer and the fighters), that is going to just increase variability, that in such a case is clearly against Yamamoto (as there is little point in winning the battle with more submarines surviving than average, if getting lucky).
Consequently, I'd say in this battle the Yamamoto destroyer should be surely selected first as casualty. Of course, you can get even worse odds by, for example, taking the bomber first as casualty, but I don't think there's much point in discussing suboptimal casualties choices.
As long as you take the destroyer as the first casualty, then submarines, then fighters, the worst you can remain with is 2 fighters and 1 bomber (all Americans killed, of course), and this is only in the case Yamamoto misses everything and Americans hit everything (and, in this worst case, you can decide to remain with 3 fighters, instead of 2 fighters and 1 bomber, if preferred).
However, if wanted, it is possible to lower the variability in a balanced fashion. My suggestion, in such a case, would be:
- Remove 1 Yamamoto destroyer in 88 Sea Zone
- Add 1 Yamamoto submarine in 88 Sea Zone
- Add 1 Americans submarine in 83 Sea Zone
Sending 6 submarines, 4 fighters, 1 bomber (instead of 5 submarines, 1 destroyer, 4 fighters, 1 bomber) would improve the worst case scenario for Yamamoto to 3 fighters and 1 bomber remaining (or 4 fighters, instead, if preferred).
The Americans submarine off San Francisco addition would be purely a compensation for the fact that reducing variability in 91 Sea Zone is in favour of Axis (Axis has more to lose than to gain from dice variability there).
However, here we would be talking of having absolute autohitting for the attacker in the first combat round (albeit tempered by Americans rolling a 5 on defence), that may be seen as lame, or anyway less fun than the current setup, by players who enjoy a substatial level of dice influence in Low Luck; so this needs to be debated (in this thread) by World At War players.
Ultimately, it will be up to @redrum only if to approve any changes aimed at reducing dice variability for this battle, of whatever.
@redrum Regarding the fact that Yamamoto is prompted to take 3 submarines as casualties, maybe this should be actually considered an issue of the autoselect? I'm thinking that the autoselect is doing his job wrong here, in that, as being supposed to maximize power, when units have the same attack power, it should take those able to first strike last as casualties, unless all current defending units are either able to negate such ability or unable to be hit by the units possessing the same (in this game, except only if you are attacking a defending force of destroyers or air units only). Of course, in such a case, fighters would be autoselected before submarines.
@undying Since no one really owns the map.... why not create solutions and then post new setups.... then you can create a poll in the first post and make a game plan based on the responses of active game players.
Current map owner is @redrum, as stated in the linked old thread, unless he disowned himself at some point.