World At War - Official Thread
-
@zlefin
Having a balanced map is the ideal.What makes WaW so exceptional is the disparity between tactical initial placement (axis) vs income (allies). Pick x territories, give them +1 income.
Don't pick these territories:
...territories that the Axis easily take before round 3/4 (buffs Axis)
...capitals (no counterplay for Axis)
...battlefronts that are are already optimal for the Axis to advance upon (this will further railroad the gameplay)I think these are options:
Assam (I've never seen a Japan choose to go all out on Delhi first)
Iraq or one of the Arabias (it's a little too easy/enticing for Italy to just go straight into Russia)
Nordland or Oslo - give the British something more worthwhile to fight for
Midway/Pearl Harbor/Central America - unless you think KJF is US default strategy, then choose Morocco or Portugal. -
@zlefin I'm not aware of either side being favored and thought most people played it with 0 or a very small bid.
If there is a strong consensus that 1 side is favored by top players then I'm open to making some small adjustments.
-
@luhhlz To my knowledge, KJF is the most used strategy for the Allies. If I was going to adjust anything it would probably be to incentivize the USA to consider spending more in the Atlantic.
-
@zlefin said in World At War - Official Thread:
Should the map be slightly tweaked for balance? The current consensus seems to be that axis has a slight edge, and that a modest bid is needed for balance. So is it better to just leave it as is and let the bid handle it, or make some very minor balance tweaks? and if so, which tweaks? shoudl the tweaks focus on early game, mid game, or late game?
If the game at default is a little in favour of the Axis, playing it with dice may balance it or even flip the unbalance in favour of the Allies.
I'm not a player of this map, but it seems to me that Low Luck benefits the Axis.
-
@redrum said in World At War - Official Thread:
.
I can't speak for other communities; but in the lobby, and ladder play connected to the lobby; the consensus is that axis has an edge, and the typical bid is around 6-7.
KJF is basically always the US strategy from what I've seen; though there's some variation in the details and whether to have a small force doing somethings on the african coast vs Italy.
I don't think switching to dice is an option, while true that it would favor allies, it's a big change for a map which has been ll for a very long time. It's hard to balance a map for both ll and dice, as the balance points are different, and many players simply want ll, so you can't balance it for dice and then have them playing ll.
-
I've heard it was actually the Allies that had a very small edge over the Axis. In the original game, Russia had a submarine in the Pacific. Maybe it should be brought back if it is the case.
-
as ive said in previous comments years ago, the first round will dictate the game too heavily.
many key battles are based on luck in the first round ( or two, specificly in asia ) and that should be a no no, id rather have generic/balanced opening rounds than a flip flop based on lucky rolls ( all mentionned in my OG comment in this thread so im not going to explain everything again ).
so unless changes were made in the last few years to starting round, the same problems will occur.
edit: i went back to read all i wrote before and i think everything still stand today. ( unless changes were made to the 1st round since last time i played ).
-
I respect that opinion but I'm on the other side of it.
On a large map that takes a very long time to get deep into the game, I have a huge preference for every game being different, as soon as possible. Round 1 is the most important round, if it's on railroad tracks, it makes every game feel the same for a long period of time.
I agree with your argument for small maps where the first round can be gotten through in 10 minutes. Not for WaW where the first round can take 90 min if there are >2 people.
Making the first round battles go either way causes the map balance to be on a knife's edge, but it's worth it
-
completly disagree, theres nothign fun playing a long ass game when you know you lost in the first round.
LL games should not be based on round 1 lucky rolls but on a grand strategy and tactics used to reach that strategy goal. you can do that without relying on luck to dictate the game on round1.
thanks for your reply, since you agree that WaW is heavily dictated by first round when ppl were saying the opposite before.
-
Yes same to you, thanks for reply.
If a big battle is 95% chance of success, with excellent prospects if you win, but 5% chance of failure, and you will probably lose the game if you fail, then don't take that battle. I wouldn't. You can do better.
-
Hello! I have discovered this game recently and taking a look at the maps I decided to give this one a try. Thank you for it! I want to clarify a problem related with PUs. If I understood the rules correctly, Russians collect PUs always: "Exception: Russians may still collect income and even produce after all of its capitals are captured.".
In my first play and playing with Allies I lost Sibirsky and then I couldn't buy any unit with Russia anymore. I kept Moscow and Sverdlovsk (and other cities with factory). Without Sibirsky the production phase is skipped. Could it be a bug or it may happen under certain circumstances? Thank you!
-
If you have 0 PUs your production is skipped for that round. Were your PUs stolen?
You should collect PUs as normal this round and next round be able to produce
-
@luhhlz
Thank you for the answer. Yes, I have 0 PUs. But I didn't know about this possibility. How can I steal PUs from other players? I thought it works just gaining an opponent region. How is it possible that, in my case, all PUs were stolen at once? I'm sure axis players didn't touch many Russian regions, Moscow and Sverdlovsk included. I guess I'm missing something, but I have tried to find some information about stealing PUs and I haven't found anything. -
On most maps if you lose a capital they steal all your current PUs at that moment.
-
@luhhlz
Cleared! Now I have understood the concept. Thank you! -
World At War 3.0 or 2.1.1 ? - 2.5.2294 Java 11.0.6. Download Maps shows Version World At War 3.0 but once installed says Version 2.1.1 ?!?
Played many rounds and Fighters do not defend against Bomber raids?!? This is a massive problem, game unplayable as a result and results in nothing but a Bomber mass build by all countries and ZERO income by any faction by round 3-4.
Also - Subs being able to be hit by planes without a destroyer ruined the game with the latest changes made to it. Please tell me this is a bug and not intended?!?!
-
Sorry for the confusion. There is "World at War" which has "World at War" and "WAW 1940" which are both based off of game version 2.1.1 which follow rules Version 2. There is also "World At War Variants" which has "World At War Variant - v3", "World At War Variant - FUEL-AA-Range" and "World At War Variant - vXXX". These follow rules Version 3+.
By looking at the screen shots that you posted, at the very top, reads "TripleA - World At War" which play the way you posted. ie... There are no "Scramble", "Intercept" or "Escort" rules in play. Also no restriction between air units and subs.
If you don't see the "Variant" games, then you will need to download them. They are under the "Experimental" tab called: "World At War Variants"
I hope this helps
Cheers...
-
and @Falkon Powers
when you want to have it all.....waw variants vXXX
this is the most advanced version.
always ready for a game.
here is the game admin for all your requests. -
@sneakingcoward and @wc_sumpton
Thanks for the reply's! I'm aware of the World At War Variant's and have never played them. All I'm concerned about is the original World At War which I adored and love most of the changes with 2.1.1 that redrum and @Cernel did but... I have a 100 save games from the previous versions of World At War and that has Fighter scramble/defend option vs. Bombers for Bombing raids. Why was that removed, it's so fundamental to this map for balance... I just played through round 5 on a new game and basically by round 5 ALL factions are at Zero IC's every turn because it becomes a spam game of Bomber buys from round 1.
Begging for Fighters option to defend vs. Bombing raids be added back ... on my knees, begging...
Cheers all!
-
Thanks for your reply! Ugh, I've played World At War (original) many times on versions previous to 2.1.1 but it's been a few years, I just don't remember having this issue with Fighters not being able to defend on bombing raids... Ugh.. Anyways - any hope of getting that added?
Cheers!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login