World At War - Official Thread

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

zlefin

How come some nations don't get access to trucks aka Mot. Inf aka the 1/3/3 for 5 unit?

sneakingcoward

@zlefin

play waw variants...here you get much more

Cernel

@zlefin said in World At War - Official Thread:

How come some nations don't get access to trucks aka Mot. Inf aka the 1/3/3 for 5 unit?

It may be that only Sieg knows or knew the answer. I can tell you that every power is either able to purchase Mot.Inf or able to purchase Marine, and they were able to do so all the same before the version 2.0 of the game (we didn't make any changes here). Substantially, the game divides the powers into two groups: those which are able to purchase Mot.Inf but not Marine and those which are able to purchase Marine but not Mot.Inf. The former seem to be chiefly European/Atlantic powers and the latter seem to be chiefly Asian/Pacific powers.

Cernel

@sneakingcoward said in World At War - Official Thread:

@zlefin

play waw variants...here you get much more

This is probably not a very good solution if he/she wants to play in the lobby because "World At War" is a very popular game there, whereas all variants of it are rarely if ever played.

Cernel

I'm spectating a game (at regular options) played by two good players, and the Allies got a bid of 8, used to bid 4 infanty units more.

I've no idea myself if this means that the game requires a bid for the Allies to be balanced.

I know that some good World At War players affirmed that the game requires no bid.

One of the players made me notice that a bid of 8 could have been used to add a destroyer to the fleet next to Pearl Harbor.

I'm not a World At War player myself, so just letting any players draw their conclusions.

LaFayette

@cernel Personally, 4 inf in spread in africa could be used to prevent Italy from getting an aggressive foot hold there. Pearl harbor results in Japan having a single left over sub, no subs, or crashing a bomber. An extra DD there would likely guarantee no subs left or a crashed bomber. Overall not a huge net TUV gain and strategically not much different.

Generally no bid is needed, the dice rolls in the first round counter-act most bids that could be placed in any case. A really good World at War player perhaps favors axis. A super strong japanese push that secures the pacific by round 3 is just hard to defeat. There is a lot to that map, push and pull's everywhere and almost any front can get blocked or start to go bad.

Also, axis tend to be more fun to play. The first 3 to 4 rounds they are advancing and allies take a beating. Then allies come to their own and either have slowed axis down enough where they can push on more fronts than the axis can handle, or it evens out and the axis maintain and keep their edge.