Total World War: December 1941 (BETA) 2.8.0.5
-
it gets both of those shots even if only one inf is attacking, which is brutal!
it makes it into a super-efficient attrition engine. -
@zlefin I hadn't realized that. I thought the restriction on the amphibious assault would still apply. I suppose because the bombard is originating from a single unit it is over looked.
-
idunno, i'm just noting what I see in game, i'll run some more tests to isolate the behavior. it's possible that it's only errors in the battle calc'er that don' tshow up in the real game.
-
@zlefin Well in truth I had included the multi-Bombard as an initial test for some future concepts.... I had pretty much already decided to reduce the BB bombard to 2x 4 and then have the damaged BB have 1 x 4.
Helping with HOH had really pulled me away from continued work on TWW. So I have not looked at it in quite a while.
-
@Hepps once again I have to make a bug report:
after an amphibious assault (with bombard), transports that originated in the territory where the assault came from, can't be loaded in that SZ. (see attached game: Germany can't load in SZ 27)0_1522769365408_tww Krautz 3.tsvg -
I found a save which let me quickly do the test; one bb supporting a single unit definitely gets both its bombard shots. I added a couple extra cruisers to make sure it wasn't just letting any numbe rof shots go through and it was not.
one bb + 1 landing inf had the same bombard effect
as one bb + some cruisers + 1 landing inf. -
@zlefin Cool. Thanks for doing the extra check. I have already made the changes to the XML.
-
so what is it now, 4x2? but can still get in both shots in one landing with one inf?
-
@zlefin Yes. I am not concerned with the double bombard issue atm. Since that can be examined as a separate behavioral curiosity.
@wirkey So in your example are you saying the german transports were present in the SZ but were not utilized during the amphibious assault... and then during the subsequent NCM you tried to use the (unused) transports and they were unusable?
"A joyous heart sours with the burden of expectation"
Hepster -
ok; that should limit the exploitability. then it'd take the otherwise weak gun-laying techs to increase it enough to be a problem.
-
@hepps Germany started with 4 transport in that SZ. Two were used in an assault on Copenhagen, one was used in assault on Leningrad and the other one was not used during CM. But I wasn'T able to load them in NCM in that SZ (loading in a different SZ was fine)
-
@wirkey Sounds to me like that is an unintended side effect of the changes they made to the silly CM/NCM engine enforced movement rules. Not sure though... a bug report seems warranted.
-
@hepps guess I will have to make a bug report some time. But at the moment I'm way too lazy.
-
@wirkey Such is your right.
"A joyous heart sours with the burden of expectation"
Hepster -
are there any techs that should be changed/rebalanced? it seems like some techs don't see much use.
oh, and could you set a TUV value for damaged battleships? right now I think they count as 0 tuv; which makes the battlecalc results a bit odd as simply wounding a battleship results in the full 22 tuv shift.
on another note, was runnin gsome battle calcs, and some numbers seem odd: please try running 10 naval fighters (attacking) vs 5 battleship (defending), no techs involved and let me know what the battle calc says. maybe there's somethin wrong with the battlecalc in the version I'm using.
-
I think the restriction is per bombard unit not per bombard shot. Though not sure anyone has ever tried multi-shot bombard before. Might just need to adjust the logic if its generally more intuitive for bombard shot per amphib unit.
@wirkey I'll try to take a look at your save game later today.
@zlefin Can you post your battle calc result so I can take a look and then compare it when I get a chance?
-
The ratio of 1:1, landing unit:bombarding ship is not so bad. If you consider the real battleship bombard was devastating. I was aware of this, I didn't mention it because I figured you just had not gotten to game notes regarding it.
Is it an exploit? Well it can be if the bb is cheap and easy to build or if a nation is flush and can buy everything it needs every turn. But if you have the cost of bb set accordingly it's a cool ability. I would leave it until it truly becomes exploited. Which it has not to this point.
This makes up for lack of a super bb imo. Let the enemy worry and air bomb them if they are getting raped. Or the enemy would have to invest in 2hp fortifications tech.
Another supporting reason to keep it is tww is mostly a LL game. It can't be exploited much in LL.
-
@wirkey There does appear to be a bug and I was able to reproduce it. It doesn't have anything to do with TWW or the CM/NCM change (@Hepps). It appears this was a problem a long time ago that was only partially fixed: https://sourceforge.net/p/triplea/bugs/555/
The problem is the engine doesn't properly take into account selecting the proper transport when trying to load in NCM after some of the transports in a sea zone were unloaded during CM. So it tries to load the infantry into the transport that already unloaded so you get the error. If you move the 1 remaining transport to a different sea zone then it will actually let you load just fine
-
@wirkey @Hepps Here is the PR fixing the transport loading bug: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/3344
-
@redrum I knew if I threw the right slant on this you'd want to prove me wrong.
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