War at War changes



  • I’ve recently begun playing this variation of A&A. It’s a lot of fun, but I’m curious about suggestions for improvement. Tried to find the designer, Sieg, but can’t find the name here in the forum.

    Anyway, I can mention a few things I thought of while I’m writing this anyway:

    • Holland should definitely be Dutch. Very strange that it isn’t.
    • In the same way it would be rational that Belgium starts off as French. This also gives Germany an incentive to hit it immediately, instead of keeping it as a safe-guard against Allied landings.
    • It would actually be much better if Neutrals were handled in about the same way as in G40, were some are pro-Axis/Allies and the rest true neutral.
    • Subs are just crazy. Cost 7 while having all their benifits and the same battle-stats as destroyers, which cost 8. Though I just now came to understand that they can be targeted by air without a destroyer present.
    • T-boats are clearly over-priced, despite their attack-value. 5, or maybe even 4, would be more appropriate.
    • Infantry costing 2 is also rather insane, although the map sure is a lot bigger, so they’re extra hampered by their slow movement. I understand the rationale however to be able to differentiate between infantry, elite and marine.
    • In the same way tanks costing 5 is likely too cheap considering for instance advanced fighters.
    • A revision of overall costs, like doubling them in order to get more room for optimization, and likely also then income from territories is a big under-taking. Could be good though.
    • Caucasus, Iraq and the DEI should in a historical sense have higher income-values, considering their extremely important oil-resources. This has of course to be in concordance with game-balance.
    • Would like to have the option of playing with the purchase-phase preceeding the combat move-phase, the original A&A-way.


  • The original game will most likely be kept as it is to respect the original creator and keeping the balance.

    However the things you listed are very easy to implement, you just need to extract the XML, work on it, then give a different name hence it will be a mod. The hardest one is convincing players to play the mod over the original one.

    A waw mod can be more attractive to non-waw players rather than waw players because they are already like waw because what it is now.

    Not playing a map is fundamental decision because of so many disagreements. I mean their game preferences over waw is simly not lie over relatively minor stuffs and the reasons could be very different.

    For examle I've never liked waw because I've already made up my mind about what kind of WWII map would I like and waw simply not fit them.



  • I would be interested in playing a waw mod if come close to this direction:

    1) Do upkeep: It is not preference or idea, it is a must especially for bigger maps. Millions of units are not needed, they bring nothing other than more calcultion troubles. And growing stacks mean greater risks like might losing a game due to miscaulcation.

    2) Draw option: Comebacks, surprizes and uncertainity until the end are fun but rarely present in TripleA games. They usually ends in a nowhere very anti-climaticly. In reality Germany reached its military production peak in 1944 certainly they have still hope in that point.

    3) Avoid "must be done" stuffs as much as possible: Instead make all of them real choices with pros and cons for more replayability. For example why is Russia railroaded to spam always 6HP per round in Sibirsky in here? Why there is no downside in this purchasing which should have been. It is something every allies player must have to do but I ask why? Why there is no more option other than spamming 6 hp per turn in this area?

    4) Starting date: There is no surprize France will fall and its not interesting. The most appealng parts of the game obviosuly Barbaross and Japanese expansion which plenty of options. I do believe 1940/jun or 1941/Jun are the best dates for WWII scenarios.

    5) Two-Ocean Going USAThe US in waw is not really two-ocean going one instead predictable one similar to Sibirsk factory issue. Its expected to follow always very similar routes which lies on spamming HP (whatever it is) to contain Japan first and sending token force to N.Africa/Spain. First USA should not have been deprived "Germany First" option and "Japan First" should have been just a strategy among others not a railroaded task.

    6) Get rid of minor nations: 5-8 nations are enough the others presence not outweight their minus of slowing down games.

    7) Set-Up: There are just too much unit, better to have fewest units as much as possible to speed up.



  • @Schulz said in War at War changes:

    I would be interested in playing a waw mod if come close to this direction:

    1) Do upkeep: It is not preference or idea, it is a must especially for bigger maps. Millions of units are not needed, they bring nothing other than more calcultion troubles. And growing stacks mean greater risks like might losing a game due to miscaulcation.

    This could actually be a great addition to the game, even for other variants. Regarding the realism aspect, this would account for the challenge of keeping secure supply.

    2) Draw option: Comebacks, surprizes and uncertainity until the end are fun but rarely present in TripleA games. They usually ends in a nowhere very anti-climaticly. In reality Germany reached its military production peak in 1944 certainly they have still hope in that point.

    Didn't really understand what you mean by "draw"? If I think in terms of chess that would be like smoking a peace-pipe. Nobody wins, but nobody loses. Perhaps you meant something like drawing cards though, adding another aspect of chance?

    4) Starting date: There is no surprize France will fall and its not interesting. The most appealng parts of the game obviosuly Barbaross and Japanese expansion which plenty of options. I do believe 1940/jun or 1941/Jun are the best dates for WWII scenarios.

    I agree, I find the Battle for Paris particularly uninteresting in this map. There's almost no chance in hell that Paris will be possible to defend, so it's just a matter of mechanic.

    5) Two-Ocean Going USAThe US in waw is not really two-ocean going one instead predictable one similar to Sibirsk factory issue. Its expected to follow always very similar routes which lies on spamming HP (whatever it is) to contain Japan first and sending token force to N.Africa/Spain. First USA should not have been deprived "Germany First" option and "Japan First" should have been just a strategy among others not a railroaded task.

    Agree with this as well.

    6) Get rid of minor nations: 5-8 nations are enough the others presence not outweight their minus of slowing down games.

    Here I think differently. Since there are no scramble-options or such, the minors don't prolong the game much. Sure, it's one more series of turns between UK and US, but that's fully manageable.

    I believe the midget-nations, although usually not doing any great impact on the board, still have their roles to play.

    One of the points of having the minors on board I suppose is the risk of losing a capital giving the other side it's treasure. Makes a lot more incentive to protect those territories, instead of just letting them go because they're "just a factory".

    7) Set-Up: There are just too much unit, better to have fewest units as much as possible to speed up.

    Don't regard this as much of a problem really. Having more units does give a lot more variation and spread of different possibilities reagarding troops. Think that's actually a good thing.



  • @Schulz said in War at War changes:

    The original game will most likely be kept as it is to respect the original creator and keeping the balance.

    Definitely. It's the designer's choice.

    However the things you listed are very easy to implement, you just need to extract the XML, work on it, then give a different name hence it will be a mod.

    Thanks! I'll try and figure it out.

    The hardest one is convincing players to play the mod over the original one.

    Likely so, but I don't mind.



  • Upkeep is possible to implement, the important one is finding good upkeep/cost ratio and in my experiences with upkeep, it works best with 5%-10%. For example infantry cost is 2 and 0.1 upkeep (5%) would work perfectly. But armour upkeep should be definitely higher than 5% but still should not be higher than 10%.

    Yes, draw means nobody wins and nobody lose pretty much same with chess. Because of the cumulative aspects of games, the loser side really cannot turn the tide of the war and the fate of the games always seales in the middle of games and just there should have been draw option that gives a good reason the loser side to continue.


Log in to reply