World At War - Official Thread

[Schulz]

@zlefin

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.

[Undying]

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 ).

[luhhlz]

@undying

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

[Undying]

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.

[luhhlz]

@undying

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.

[Rhayader]

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!

[luhhlz]

@rhayader

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

[Rhayader]

@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.

[luhhlz]

@rhayader

On most maps if you lose a capital they steal all your current PUs at that moment.

[Rhayader]

@luhhlz
Cleared! Now I have understood the concept. Thank you!

[Falkon Powers]

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?!?!

[wc_sumpton]

@falkon-powers

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...

[sneakingcoward]

@wc_sumpton

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.

[Falkon Powers]

@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!

[Falkon Powers]

@wc_sumpton

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!

[ice1]

@falkon-powers waw is revised based so V2, v2 doesnt have scramble.

if you played with scramble that means you played the v3 variant.

for the record i have never seen a decent bomber strategy on a serious waw game. and everyone has 0 income that means you have to bomb 70-100 income from allot of nations. sounds a bit silly to me

ice

[Falkon Powers]

@ice1

Hi Ice!

Ok so I played 40 hours of the current version WaW the past couple weeks. I see the balance now and I must have been mistaken on older versions of this map having scrambler to bombing as well as the sub's can be hit 1 round via planes... It's we'll balanced.

There is one error I think however.

German's unit help shows Marines available for Germans, but on buy they are not available, can only edit add Marines now...?

Thanks

[ice1]

@falkon-powers

yes ur right on those units, the game units map offers allot more units then there are actualy in the game, i gues older versions or creators fantasy is the reason for this.

for the correct unit roster check the gamenotes

the gameballance for player vs player is extreemly good since its one of the most popular custom map, and even has a ranking system. soo 1000000's of hours playtime from players combined confirms the ballance imo

ice

[Fabulous Ferret]

Hello. After years of playing triple A I have finally made an account to specifically ask questions about this map. This is by far my favorite map but I have some serious issues with it. Is there a way to easily implement the diplomacy from Global 1940 and bring back true neutrals.
I only play against AI when using this app and so it is hard to have a game that accurately portrays WW2 when Both sides are fully at war before Poland or France fall, and the AI just goes around absorbing neutral territories.

Thanks,
Pan

[luhhlz]

@fabulous-ferret
The way it works is there’s the game engine logic (for all maps) and there’s the map files, so yes if one map has some feature, you can make any map can have that feature, by editing the map files (mainly the xml). You’d open up the two maps in a text editor and start copying stuff over.

Anyone can do it, but I don’t know how difficult the diplomacy option is to implement or how tech-y you are