Total World War (TWW) 2.7.7.2

[Hepps]

@prastle I think your headaches are beer related... or rather the lack of beer when you stop drinking. AKA hangover.

[Hepps]

@CrazyG If you want to learn you can play against me. I am very tender for beginners and try to help my opponent along while they develop their understanding of the game.

I mean I WILL spank you.... but it will be more of a gentle fun spanking... and we can always adopt a safe word.

[CrazyG]

@Hepps
Do you do PBEM? I don't get many opportunities to commit several hours to a lobby game these days

[Hepps]

@CrazyG With all the scrambling checks I find it hard to maintain my attention in the PBEM or PBF format... since it means after every nations combat moves you have to send an email to see where you are going to scramble before you can even resolve the turn.

I rather enjoy knowing my opponent is on the other side of the screen shaking in his boots.

[Hepps]

@redrum said in Total World War (TWW):

@Hepps Thanks for all the responses and that helps to understand some of the mechanics as well as your reasoning behind them. And I totally get that after you play a few full games, more things become second nature (just hard to get folks to that point). Looking forward to your setting recommendations and what you see as most popular (I'd be willing to help to help edit the manual to add those in if you want).

Adding it to the manual is easy. No issue there.

Couple of Follow Up Questions

1. Did you market/advertise/spread the word around TWW much? I'm guessing folks in the lobby and old dev forum knew about it but beyond that? It could almost be considered a standalone game itself given the quality and depth. I noticed you made a few posts on the old forum under 'L & H Studios' was that just a username or were you looking to create a company around it?

We never did anything other than using the forum and launching games in the lobby. We figured most players would try it based on seeing active games in the lobby and see the merits of the concept... hoping that a core group of players with a deep understanding of gameplay would eventually "pressure" others into learning.

L&H Studios was just for fun. If we had gone into some commercial pursuits we'd probably have used it to create a partnership (discussed at one time). But mostly it was just me being an insomniac.

2. At least at a high level, I would be interested in making a 'light' version that's potentially somewhat AI compatible. While there are a number of things higher on my list of TODOs, is it something you would be open to myself or others doing? My thought is essentially use the map, unit set, terrain effects, and nation setup then strip out construction system, research, L&L, Politics (these are the things are very unique and more trigger based).

TWW is as open concept as any other map here... if you want to make a lite version... knock yourself out. I personally think its waste of time making yet another No Name generic vanilla flavour map, since we have 50 or so of those here already that rarely get played... but again... if you have interest... beat it to death like a cheap hooker.

3. Theoretical: If you say had a couple of months to change/add/remove things from TWW what would you do? Or if say someone came a long and wanted to 'work for you' to further its vision while you gave them direction.

I am always open to seeing it progress... I am just fully immersed in GD. I put GD aside initially to collaborate on TWW with the understanding we'd develop GD after TWW was complete. Since that never happened I am now 100% about GD. While I love the idea of flushing a few things out that never really came completely together to my satisfaction in TWW... I am simply done with making it a focus for myself until GD is the game to end all other turn-based games. GD has been 25 years in the making... I'm done with distractions and diversions.

4. Do you do PBF/PBEM? If so then I'd definitely be open to a game. I don't really play live games much as I don't have the continuous time (often end up with 30 mins here and there rather than a few hours to focus) and play very slowly especially when learning a new map. Otherwise if you know of any folks that do play it as PBF/PBEM that would be helpful as well.

As you can see from a response I already posted... no. I'd rather play a half hour at a time live than by any other method. Just the way I'm wired... I like the chat and the banter since it recons back to a time when I sat with friends around a board and flung verbal poo at each other like really sophisticated monkeys over a "couple" of beers. Alas they are all much too cool and important now (or at least their wives are) to "waste" time doing something we all love. So it's lobby play for me. If I wanted to have a 1 sided experience... I'd spend time with my wife.

[prastle]

@Hepps gigglez u could be correct

[redrum]

@CrazyG Cool. Well since it seems @Hepps can't handle playing without the ability to intimate and mock his opponent in live play (j/k), I'd be glad to play a PBF/PBEM game with ya. I think I definitely qualify as 'newer to TWW' as I've never played more than 2 rounds against the AI on it. I tend to mostly do PBF over on A&A (http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?board=40.0) but open to doing PBF on this forum or directly doing PBEM (those are in order of preference but not a big deal either way). I'm also waiting for @Hepps to post what he considers the standard/most popular settings but if you have a good feel for those then we can setup it today.

@Hepps Thanks again for the responses. I kind of feel TWW is a little different animal that most TripleA games so it would almost need a form of recruiting or marketing to spread awareness (helps that the map and manual are beautiful). Fair point on the lite version though we have very few maps that use terrain effects well and use that type of major/minor nation setup which IMO are 2 of my favorite aspects of it. I would kind of see it as a step between the true TWW and the 50 different A&A rules based clone maps. I'll try a game with CrazyG since it appears we are both more of PBF/PBEM type players. I also think you might be doing something wrong if its a 1 sided experience with your wife

[Hepps]

@redrum Ok. So if you are learning and want the most broadly accepted standard settings...

National Tech Advancements On
War vs Neutral Only On
LL seems the preferred setting for most players, though truth be told it was designed for dice.
Notifications are generally off as it was really just done for flair... doesn't really matter either way as they are simply aesthetic and don't affect game-play what-so-ever

The choices in the map options are really personal preference...

Select AA casualties is really matter of how much you like randomness since bombing runs can be really premeditated if you get to select your own casualties.

Scramble to any amphibious assault is also just a preference. Once you start playing it really doesn't matter since both sides have to work with the setting.

[Hepps]

Note... Borneo unit transfers.

[Hepps]

Ok. So while testing for my new map I have been using the TWW XML as a base.

Since I have been adding and removing things from this XML I figured I'd take the time to correct some issues and add a few new things.

The plan is to release a new TWW 2.8.0.0. when the next Stable Engine is ready for release.

The planned game changes are as follows....

1. Removed all Advanced Units from the starting line up and replaced with normal units.

2. Added the Strait of Messina to the map.

3. Added Trains & Rail to the map. (Very limited additions for Trains). {will detail unit abilities and properties in a subsequent post}

In addition to that I am either working on or have already fixed the following...

A) Fixed remaining unit transfer issues between Major-Minor in Pacific. ie. Borneo-SZ 93, Queensland-152, etc. etc.

B) Trying to isolate support issues with Combat Engineer in Urban attacks.

If there are any other things you can think of that are not functioning properly please let me know.

Please keep these items limited to things that are a bug! I am not planning on changing any unit abilities or Stats at this time.

[CrazyG]

Any particular reason for removing the advanced units from the start up? I always thought it was a cool addition.

[Hepps]

@crazyg

We added the Advanced units to give people a taste of what was up the Tech Tree. It was really never meant to be permanent. Just something to draw people into the idea that there was something "down the road" and to enjoy learning the game.

From a redesign or re-release standpoint... I kind of want to get the game back to having players rely on Tech development to achieve these units.

Since I have both XML's still I suppose I can add both to the map release. Since the original is still entirely intact.

[Cernel]

@hepps Rather than two games, you can have a trigger related custom option for placing those units at start game. You can copy the code for the "Stuka" of "World At War", mutatis mutandis.

[Cernel]

@cernel I mean, the code that places 2 "Stuka" in Berlin at start game delegates. You can use it for placing whatever, with a custom option like the one it uses.

[Hepps]

@cernel Yah... I could put in triggers and just include it with the opening options purchase phase. True.

[Hepps]

Finished pretty much everything.

Since I didn't have my originals I had to re-create some of the infrastructure units within the game. So all disabled units will now have a slightly different appearance...

While for the trains I left them charcoal coloured so that they would stand out next to the white infrastructure units and the rest of the coloured units of each nation...

Some minor things to do to the XML still, but other than trying to figure out exactly what is going on with the Combat Engineer in Urban, the new release is nearing completion.

[redrum]

@hepps Looks good. If you further explain the CE issues and post the XML, I'm glad to take a look.

[Hepps]

@redrum Thanks for the offer Red, but fortunately after much testing and searching today I isolated and found the issue.

It was actually a wrong modifier value attached to the Combat Engineer in the "Special Warfare" tech.

Which means I am nearly 100% ready. Now that this major issue is resolved... I can look at why the British trucks in the Soviet Far East don't disappear when they are supposed to.

[Hepps]

Entering the final stretch for the TWW 2.8.0.0 release.

Worked on some of the final change details today. Here is a taste.

All bombing units now have possibility to miss.

Strategic Bombers

-Strat. Bomber will inflict 0-6 Damage with a 25% chance of missing the target altogether.

-Improved Strat, Bomber will inflict 0-8 damage with a 20% chance to missing.

-Hvy. Strat. Bomber will inflict 0-12 damage with a 10% chance of missing.

Tactical Bombers

-Tact. Bomber will inflict 0-2 damage with a 30% chance of missing.

-Improved Tact. will remain unchanged from normal Tact.

-Advanced Tact. Bomber will inflict 0-3 damage with a 25% chance of missing.

Rockets

-Rocket will inflict 0-3 damage with a 50% chance of missing.

-Improved Rockets will inflict 0-4 damage with a 33% chance of missing.

-Advanced rockets will inflict 0-6 damage with a 33% chance of missing.

I have reduced the damage Strat. Bombers and Rockets inflict on targets slightly as there seemed to be a general consensus that bombing damage (rockets in particular) was to steep.

I will provide the next set of changes when I get home tonight.

[redrum]

@hepps Are you changing bombing HP for some units? Wondering about tactical bombers doing different amount of damage.