World At War - Official Thread

  • Admin

    i am ll player and i understand your point. but ok we reduced the risk of pearl habor by taking the russian sub out of pacific that even could have destroyed one of your 5 subs. so rigth now the risk is very low and the result you describe is only possible by bad casualty choise. so under the line i am really fine with pearl habor as it is now. only my 2cent, epi

  • why are u all favoring dicey outcome instead of stable gameplay and strategy tactics inthe 1 round ? we should be able to play different strategies by choice no having those strategy forced on us by dice results.

    @Hepps ive made a suggestion in my 1st post and idont know how to make a poll.

    allies team is so strong on this map its absurd. 2 players of equal skills will have allies winning most of time time unless a big fuck up ( happens to all of us ). i dont see how making 1st round battles "standarized" like TUNIS ( big upgrade from NWO here ). im talking about the "must do moves" here: like pearl harbor, tunis, lorraine ( that one had some luck for +1 or -1 hits but it doesnt matter much cuz theres so many units compared to pearl harbord and sz 57 where each hit feels like a stroke of luck or bad luck ),

    i think playing sieg maps ( and subsequently LL ) and claiming you want to have a dicey game is counter intuitive. i think most WAW/NWO players prefer to have control over their strategy than having dice decide if u defend on one front or can go offenssive.

    and lets be clear, the pearl harbor battle is really random and if yamato fumble its game over theres no denying it. so where is the fun in that ?

    like invading dutch turn 1 with hisachi, thats a good exemple of a fair gamble and not a "forced dicey battle". the player knows its risky but the player choose by himself if its work the risk to go for turn 1 or better wait for turn 2. pearl harbor is by no means that way, its a must do battle and sending a AC or BB bad we all know it.

    adding a sub and keeping destroyer + adding a US subs at los angeles seems ok to me, altho i dont feel like USA needs another subs, remember that USA can send many planes at pearl harbord on his turn and wipe outeverything with 1 or no losses so waht does it matter than yamato gets a "regularized" battle if it makes for a fun and fair game ? i dont see the problem

    ps: i play allies as much as axis on this map and im putting myself in the view of US player, 1 -2 subs remaining in pearlhardbor is very a easy/trivial thing not even worth a sweat.

  • Admin

    @undying I'm open to adjusting the starting positions but I'd ask that you get a decent number of WaW veterans to post here on their views. There are 3 lobby WaW games going right now and thoughts from those players would be interesting. So far I see your view on it and the opposite from @epinikion so don't see much reason to strongly consider it.

  • @redrum most players dont have an account and dont bother posting stuff you know how it is. If you are serious about this situation you or cernel can join games and ask what they think about pearl harbor.

    as i said most of the time japan have 1 or no boats left in pearlharbor after tha battle ( + planes ), so killing 1 or 2 sub for USA is nothing. or as cernel said, adding 1 USA sub that can counter attack pearl harbord could make up for it if its really un fair to US player. altho i dont think USA needs another sub for counter attack i prefer to play with an added US sub than having to deal with this random pearl harbor battle on yamato1.

  • Moderators

    @undying To be clear, what I said is that (if actually wanted by most WAW players) the variability in the round 1 battle off Pearl Harbor can be significantly reduced by swapping the destroyer for one more submarine (removing the destroyer and adding 1 submarine in 88 Sea Zone) (as that would assure the attacker scoring 4 autohits on combat round 1, instead of currently scoring either 3, 4 or 5 hits).

    But reducing variability in that battle is obviously to the advantage of Axis; so such a change would also slightly improve Axis position in the game, averagely, from now, and this is another item of general balance.

    And yes, as @redrum said, they do need to come in here giving their opinions, if they actually care; the lobby and hosts are the place where to play the game, not the place where to change it.

  • I have just started playing this map, but i noticed it make more sense for USA to go Japan first. The war in Europe relies on large numbers, that means lot of transport boats is needed, and before that to win the naval warfare requires some time.

    Second reason probably is Pearl Harbour, if you build 3 carriers there and the nearby fighters scramble, you have a very strong navy there quite near to the enemy. Contrast to going Europe, your staging point is very far off.

  • Moderators

    @lord-bevan Correct; in this map Americans are meant to focus on killing Yamamoto and Hisaichi. Actually, usually you would place mostly battleships in the factories nearest to the enemy (as Pearl Harbor is at start game), rather than carriers (naval bombardment is of crucial importance in grinding Yamamoto down). Americans in Europe is minor and mostly a byproduct of going for taking the Neutrals in South America.

  • I play this map every Friday night with three other players (my two cousins and best friend). We don't play with low luck because we like the uncertainty of battle and feel that playing with dice is more in line with the original Axis & Allies. If I want no luck, I'll play Chess or Diplomacy.

    We are relatively new to this map, but so far have had all kinds of different results when it comes to Pearl Harbor. So I guess my question would be then, how would these starting position changes that you are proposing affect a game that doesn't use low luck?

    This is off topic (and I know it has been addressed before), but so far I think the map's biggest weakness is how easy it is for the the Japanese to overrun the Russians in the East, which (as everyone knows) wasn't a real front during WWII. It reminds me of the original Axis & Allies, where you could win with the Axis by building factories with Japan in Asia and overrunning the Russians with tanks.


  • So I've seen some criticism to this and other Sieg maps that there isn't a very good counter to infantry first I thought it was just some whining, but when I sat down and crunched the numbers, there seems to be some validity to this.So let's look at the numbers of infantry spam and the most cost effective response, inf + art. Art costs 3.5 and inf cost 2. To evenly match at stack of inf with inf + art, you would need to spend $5.5 to their 4, or roughly 1.375:1 cost ratio to crack a stack. That doesn't seem too bad, but we should compare it to non-Sieg maps whose primary distinguishing characteristic is the $2 inf. On most other maps inf cost 3 and art cost 4. This means you spend $7 to crack their $6 stack giving us a ~1.16:1 cost ratio. In effect, the discount given to defense has doubled from non-Sieg to Sieg maps.

    Proposal: Reduce the cost of art to 3. What does this do? In my cost effectiveness analysis, to brings the cost ratio down from 1.375:1 to 1.25:1. Currently, people just don't really buy artillery that often and I doubt it'll have a dramatic effect on a map that heavily values mobility. Ah, but what of the elite who also sits at $3? Well it will still have it's own place as a unit since it is supported rather than supports but also it only takes up 2 space on a transport to the art's 3.

  • Moderators

    @pax25 said in World At War - Official Thread:

    This is off topic (and I know it has been addressed before), but so far I think the map's biggest weakness is how easy it is for the the Japanese to overrun the Russians in the East, which (as everyone knows) wasn't a real front during WWII. It reminds me of the original Axis & Allies, where you could win with the Axis by building factories with Japan in Asia and overrunning the Russians with tanks.


    Likely you know this, but the map offers an alternative game, "WAW 1940", in which Russians has only one capital in Moscow and Sibirsky production is cut in half.

  • Moderators

    Just chiming in my 2c, I don't play the map much. I dislike the extent to which bombard spam is a major strategy component, and the degree to which it obviates the importance of land forces in naval theaters. in this one it seems even moreso that it's the case than in NWO; haven't played TRS in long enough to remember how that was.

  • @cernel Yeah. We are planning on giving that one a try. Looks like it also has less neutrals at the start and less different types of units.

  • Infantry spawn is really big problem in this map like other Sieg maps. Lets take a look some unit from different maps with the same cost:

    Conscript (Dom 1914) 0/1/1 artillery supportable, cost:2
    Peltast, Slinger (270 BC %40) 0/1/1 cost:2

    They are both considered great and one of the most cost efficient units in these maps though they are much more inferior versions of infantries from Sieg maps.

    Infantries are really superior (1/2/2 cost:2) but offensive units have the exactly the same costs besides artilleries that are more expensive.

    Nobody can win by playing offensively in this map under these circumstances because everything is serves to defensive players. A good game should give more opportunity to offensive players than defensive players since good attack is more complicated thing while inf spawn is the easiest way to counter any offensive attemp. Fighters, artilleries and bombers are by far less useful in this map. Players are just forced to spend %80-%90 of their moneys for infantries. They are even more shine in dice.

  • Moderators

    If this game ever gets a new version released, I would change or I suggest changing the name of "Mech.Inf" to "Mech.Art", in both games of this game's map, because this is what it is (it is exactly the same as an "Artillery", but faster). Just keep the old named images in the folders too, for backwards compatibility.

  • Moderators

    Also, how about the S.Submarine transporting Infantry to a sea borne assault, or any offloads, from a hostile sea zone?

    Personally I would think that a S.Submarine that submerged shouldn't be able to offload in any case (same as when naval units retreat), but the program allows you to do this.

    Also, I've no idea if this is a wanted behaviour (guess not), or how the players are supposed to know about it, since it is not covered by the referenced ruleset nor by anything in notes. So, either ways, this should be documented in "Rules Clarifications".

    Another similar matter is that the program allows you to use a Cruiser to offload in a territory and bombard another one. I think Cruisers should be restricted to bombard only the territory they offloaded to, if they offload any units (can bombard freely if they don't offload any). It really doesn't make sense that the rules restrict you to offload to only 1 territory, but then you can go bombarding another one. Probably this should be documented too, anyways.

    Regarding documentation, nobody said anything about my previous remark on the fact that the altered turn order is effectively a rules changer relatively to spending saved income captured from other players while not controlling an own capital (you may be able to spend it on the same round you took back your capital).

  • It is offical threat and changing somethings without taking approves of majority of WaW players looks like unimaginable for me. I am not really WaW player but the original game should not be changed but all mods are welcomed. Yes there are somethings that in WaW I dislike but also there are people who like these features.

    What kind of mod would I make?

    1. Reducing all incomes, starting armies, Pus
    2. Dividing USA into two separate countries
    3. Making USA more close to Europe
    4. Adding Upkeep system
    5. Techology
    6. Implementing v3 rules, costs

  • Moderators

    In this savegame, other people were playing in an automated host today, the game should have ended on Anzac round 12, if not before, by reaching the victory condition, with the liberation of Banjarmasin:
    0_1539464838321_BugReportCernel_World At War_1.9.0.0_20181013_01.tsvg

    The savegame linked above has been taken at the moment the game ended, by personal surrender of the Axis player (also, this game has been played by two of the best TripleA players).

    I tested it under similar conditions, but using TripleA, and it correctly gave the notification:
    Players: Americans, Anzac, British, Chinese, Dutch, French and Russians have just won the game, with this victory: Allies achieve Unconditional Surrender Victory by reducing the enemy under 6 Capitals!

    So, I don't understand where is the problem, and I don't know what engine they were running when they should have got the victory notification, but it would be good if someone takes a look at this. It could be that a side already won at some time beforehand (but strange they both didn't notice the notification, as I asked them), and a victory notification is buried somewhere in the history log. Otherwise, this is a bug, but I think not in the map.

  • @schulz i wish they didnt change all those things too. it feels like they changed stuff based on personal opinion or opinion of a small group of players.

    the original should still be available and all other changes be available as a mod/another file.

  • Donators

    Great job on this map. Learning this map has been a refreshing experience after playing NWO for a long time. I look forward to improving and exploring variations.

    Overall thoughts:

    • The round 1 battles are more volatile compared to NWO. This isn't bad; in fact, the extra volatility is useful to accelerate the game outcome, considering the map is huge.
    • Infantry, transports, and battleships are strong
    • There is substantial variation in the purchases among even strong players. over the first 5 rounds. This is in contrast to NWO where the top 5-10 players have very similar play the first 4 rounds. I'm unsure whether there is true variety, or that the map's optimal play hasn't been well explored yet. I suspect the latter.
    • People seem to prefer playing axis, but I've seen allies do better in most cases. I'm reserving judgment on map balance with perfect play on both sides.

  • Moderators

    @Boston said in World At War - Official Thread:

    People seem to prefer playing axis, but I've seen allies do better in most cases. I'm reserving judgment on map balance with perfect play on both sides

    Japan's opening moves are really difficult. My experience with this map is that it favors the allies really heavily for newer players, largely because the allies can really mess up Japan (or Italy) during the first few turns.

    If Japan executes their opening well, its a different story. I find that a Japan that goes really hard at Russia with mobile units does really well. I'd be curious to see if an expert allied player could overcome this. I have a feeling that what a person does with the USA separates good players from great players.

Log in to reply

Who's Online
Visitors Today