World At War - Official Thread

zlefin

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.

Pax25

@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.

Schulz

Cernel

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.

Cernel

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).

Schulz

Cernel

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 1.9.0.0.12408, 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.

Undying

@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.

Boston

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.

CrazyG

@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.

luhhlz

I've been a fan of NWO and TRS for a while, and just found this map, and I love it. Kudos to sieg and all that worked on it!!

Also totally disagree with undying, and agree with the guy that responded to him: in the best maps, luck plays the crucial role of making the game proceed differently each time you play it. I never play low luck. Choosing when to gamble, and adapting to lucky/unlucky battle is what makes AAA fun.

I love how many theatres the UK/US can choose from. I also love the huge starting disparity between axis/allies income/total army size.

I don't know whether it's balanced yet.

Cernel

I have to say, even tho I'm not a player myself, I've watched many games by now and it seems that nobody buys "Elite", but very rarely and quite marginally. While the "Marine" unit has its niche space, it looks like the "Elite" is almost pointless.

I wonder if the World At War players would prefer the Elite being completely removed from the game. Or maybe the defence value of both Elite and Marine increased to 3.

It sort of itches me when I get offered to buy pointless units; so just wondering.

sneakingcoward

you should try
world at war variants - vXXX
here are infantry and paratroopers and all the things you will like.

Cernel

@redrum Since the basis is Revised rules, I suppose the notes (for both games of this map) should tell that combat resolution (comprising fly overs) use Low Luck, and also fully explain how that changes the original rules, if reading the Revised rulebook and the game's notes are supposed to give you full information. The only thing that appears telling you that you are using Low Luck is the point number 1 in "Rules Clarifications", but the actual explanation only covers what you can do during Combat Movement (tho, that substantially implies that you are using Low Luck, but that is definitely not clear).

Reference:
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/1310/waw1940-game-is-letting-destroyers-defend-at-5

wasoo

Is there a recommended grouping of countries for 6-7 players?

redrum

@wasoo There are some WaW team games here that you can see how nations were divided (mostly 8 player games): https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/category/33/team-games

Below are probably the 8 largest nations which are usually split for a 8 player game and the smaller ones then distributed among them. For Axis, you'd probably combine either the Japan nations or Germany/Italy if you only had 3 Axis players. For Allies, you'd probably have Russia, US, and UK as the 3 main players and divide up France and the other more minor nations with each of those.

Axis
Germany
Italy
Yamamoto
Hisaichi

Allies
Russia
US
France
UK

Schulz

I've enhanced flags maybe someone would like to adopt them.

Lord Bevan

got bid purchse
but no bid placement

Cernel

@redrum said in World At War - Official Thread:

Here is the map thread from the old forum for historical purposes: http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/WORLD-AT-WAR-tp5862407.html

I cannot access this page nor find the old forum anywhere. Has it been deleted? Is the entire sourceforge TripleA forum gone? This would be a huge loss of information...

ubernaut

@cernel i was surprised it was still active recently i guess we'll always have the internet archive