World At War - Official Thread
-
The map slightly favors Axis is the consensus that Blinchik and I reached. Best estimate is about 4-10 bid given to allies to balance. That said, it's only really an issue in high level play, and there are so many opportunities to play sub optimally that it shouldn't be noticeable in most games.
-
@wirkey said in World At War - Official Thread:
enemy is worth double
that is very true
I usually leave South America it to the Dutch.
-
@luhhlz said in World At War - Official Thread:
@wirkey said in World At War - Official Thread:
enemy is worth double
that is very true
I usually leave South America it to the Dutch.
I'll tell you a secret
There are two similar strategies, where dutch really use those MPPs.
The first is building UK carriers and having dutch planes on them,
the second one is using dutch carriers with US (maybe LR) planes on them. Increases the range of the planes -
There seems to be a problem with the map options - bid. I tried giving each nation a bid of 6 to test; and while each nation got a production screen to select what it would build; none of the nations got to actually place the units selected.
I'm guessing I never noticed this before since everyone seems to use edit to add bid units rather than using the map options - bid settings.
Are other people seeing this same issue if ya test?
I also tested a few other maps, including the other sieg maps, and found no problems with any of them. So it seems to only be affecting WaW.
-
@zlefin yeah it looks like the bid placement is out of order for all countries. But unplaced units don't expire so you can still place the units during your round 1 placement.
Current:
<step name="germansBidPlace" delegate="placeBid" player="Germans" maxRunCount="1"/> <step name="germansBid" delegate="bid" player="Germans" maxRunCount="1"/>Should be:
<step name="germansBid" delegate="bid" player="Germans" maxRunCount="1"/> <step name="germansBidPlace" delegate="placeBid" player="Germans" maxRunCount="1"/>Edit- to clarify, this is an issue with the WaW map xml
-
@redrum If you are still the current owner of this map, how would you rule on this case (I can provide the save-game.)?
During the Americans turn, the Americans Fighter in 110 Sea Zone (on a Dutch Carrier) was combat moved to Banjarmasin and thereafter non-combat moved back to the sea zone (on a Dutch Carrier) so to avoid having to fight in the sea zone.
Is this acceptable? If not, what should happen to the game?
Anyone else wants to weight in?
I'm sure whoever followed the Revised ToC 14 will most likely remember this matter...
Here it is the full conversation I had:
(13:55:11) Lorenz: hey Cernel
(13:55:19) Lorenz: US move
(13:55:42) Cernel: which one?
(13:56:06) Cernel: which move
(13:56:13) Cernel: sorry it's my turn now brb
(13:56:30) Lorenz: thai put 1 carrier + 1 cruiser in sz 110 ( my plan was to force him to move his US plane) but he moved it in combat move to borneo, then put it back in the sz110 despite the thai fleet in non comba...
(13:56:44) Lorenz: non combat move (without edit) is it normal ?
(13:57:33) SS5thDivWiking: wow good 1
(13:59:10) Arctic-General: its same if i buy any carrier and then fly other nation planes there even sz is occupied by enemy - and its good in rules
(13:59:18) Cernel: back
(14:00:51) Cernel: so I can only give an answer for World War II Revised
(14:01:08) Cernel: do you both agree that here World War II Revised rules apply?
(14:01:17) Lorenz: IDK
(14:01:22) Cernel: meaning I would answer this question as if this was a Revised game
(14:01:28) Arctic-General: its different map
(14:01:32) Cernel: I need you both to agree to that
(14:01:36) Cernel: otherwise I cannot answer
(14:01:42) Cernel: there is not a World At War rulebook
(14:01:56) Cernel: and the World at War nots do not address this matter
(14:02:05) Arctic-General: there is plenty of different rules and i dont know them
(14:02:13) Lorenz: me too
(14:02:14) Cernel: I know the answer for World War II Revised though
(14:02:23) Lorenz: which is ?
(14:02:48) Cernel: the notes of this game say
(14:02:49) Cernel: WW2V2 rules (aka Revised) are used as the basis, with the following changes and clarifications
(14:03:05) Cernel: if by this we assume that Revised rules apply to this map (if not differently stated)
(14:03:49) Cernel: then the answer is that the first part of this move is legal
(14:04:12) Cernel: he can launch the usa plane from the dutch carrier and move to Banjarmasin durinc Combat Move
(14:04:30) Lorenz: That, ok I agree
(14:04:35) Cernel: however, after having done that, he cannot move the fighter any more for this turn (so TripleA is wrong letting it move again)
(14:04:45) Cernel: this would be the short answer
(14:04:49) Cernel: however there is more
(14:05:03) Cernel: instead of what he did
(14:05:24) Cernel: he could have just kept the american fighter inside the dutch carrier as cargo for the whole turn
(14:05:38) Cernel: practically achieving the same result as the moves he made
(14:06:04) Lorenz: No, because plane would have attacked the thai fleet, no ?
(14:06:13) Cernel: also in the case, the TripleA program is worng in always forcing the fighter to take off the carrier (and obliging the carrier to attack if not leaving the sea zone)
(14:06:14) SS5thDivWiking: but the fighter would not been seen as attacking Thai fleet in combatmove then?
(14:06:33) Cernel: at Lorenz: yes for what TripleA does, but TripleA is wrong
(14:07:01) Arctic-General: why the game not block noncombat move if unit is already moved in combat phase? And also if i buy carrier there, i can landother nation planes there even sz is occupied - many players do that
(14:07:05) Cernel: if TripleA would work correctly, the fighter would have had the option not to take off the carrier and just remaining as cargo in 110 sea zone the whole turn, attacking nothing
(14:07:44) Lorenz: YOu can but because it is only at the end of the turn, after the combat/noncombat move
(14:08:23) Cernel: in World War II Revised (non LHTR) a plane can never move both in combat and non combat move
(14:08:35) Cernel: planes who move twice a turn
(14:08:41) Arctic-General: But here it can, ots different map
(14:08:48) Cernel: actually move in combat move and then in the retreat phase of conduct combat
(14:08:51) Arctic-General: not blocked
(14:09:07) Cernel: I gave the answer assuming this is World War II Revised rules
(14:09:18) Arctic-General: even NWO and WAW has different options to do
(14:09:35) Cernel: otherwise, if we assume what what the engine does are the rules, then this move would be legal (as this is not a bug: this is how the engine is meant to work)
(14:09:55) Arctic-General: am not giving up in this and plane will stay in carrier
(14:10:04) Cernel: so, on this matter, I cannot answer
(14:10:17) Lorenz: Thanks Cernel for you time
(14:10:23) Lorenz: and answers
(14:10:29) Arctic-General: You can even fly planes attack without tranny to max. range, but thr must be possibility get carrier there
(14:10:34) Cernel: are you both ok if I paste this whole conversation in the World At War forum in case anyone has anything to say on the matter?
(14:10:43) Arctic-General: y
(14:10:43) Lorenz: Sure, thanks
(14:10:57) Cernel: ok I paste this them good luck have fun with your game -
@cernel I would agree with you as the game is based on revised rules unless otherwise noted.
-
@redrum said in World At War - Official Thread:
@cernel I would agree with you as the game is based on revised rules unless otherwise noted.
Well, then how to solve the "conundrum" for the game in question? I see 2 main ways.
-
Since the combat movement to Banjarmasin was legal but the subsequent non-combat movement was illegal, undo the non-combat movement, editing the Fighter into Banjarmasin (as if it just stayed there). This would solve the matter in favour of Lorenz.
-
Since the final result (of having the Fighter attacking nothing and ending the turn on the Dutch Carrier of which it was cargo at the start of the turn) was attainable by simply letting the Fighter being cargo for the whole turn (as @Panther clarified), leaving the game as it is. This would solve the matter in favour of Arctic-General.
Of course, feel free to advance some other solution: mine are mostly just examples of possible rulings.
I want also to point out that I don't think that the principle "the game is based on revised rules unless otherwise noted" is workable in every case. Here, for example, you cannot just leave the Fighter "inside" the Carrier because TripleA will force it to take off thus fight. Of course, in this case there is the rather easy solution of editing the Fighter out before Conduct Combat and back in thereafter.
On this matter, the Revised Tournament of Champions have specific rules.
Since all fighters on any carriers are considered cargo, at the start of the turn and until they launch, cannot launch after the carrier moves and you are never obliged to launch any fighters from any carriers (unless you want them to engage in combat):
Any fighters owned by the turn power that are cargo on allied carriers in hostile sea zones can stay in the same zones without attacking anything for the whole Combat Move and Conduct Combat phases. If they do so, they can still launch, move and land, if wanted, during the subsequent Non Combat Move phase.As the current TripleA program (incorrectly, for this game) always forces you to launch all your fighters, please be sure to enable edit mode and remove any fighters you want to keep as cargo (especially any fighters on allied carriers inside hostile sea zones you want to keep inside the same zones without attacking anything). Any such fighters you remove will be considered being cargo, during both the Combat Move and the Conduct Combat phases. Then, as long as the carriers, they are cargo of, have not been removed, still with edit mode, add them back, into the same sea zones as the carriers they are cargo of, during the subsequent Non Combat Move phase [...] (edit mode doesn't allow adding fighters back as cargo, so you will have to wait them landing, to be assigned to any carriers).
In case any doubts might arise about what is cargo of what, upon removing or adding any fighters, be sure to make it clear (by immediately notifying your opponent [...]). -
-
@cernel I would say #2 since that is the ultimate result the player was going for. Looks like that would align with the ToC rules as well.
-
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?
-
@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.
