Total World War: December 1941 (BETA) 2.8.0.5
-
I like that. West-Africa always felt kinda boring so far. England collects it and that's it, only choice is how early can you afford to collect it without losing Egypt.
But that's a big buff to the Europe-Axis. An extra material for Germany for a long time (need to take Morocca AND Algeria to prevent it), and extra PU for Vichy to spend on subs or aircraft. Extra Material to maybe build a Barracks. Allies need something to balance, maybe 1-2inf when liberating West-Africa and/or Morocco?
-
@gully The Vichy actually earn 1 less PU per turn. Neither them nor Germany collect PU from the protectorates while they remain as such.
And yes I was intending on adding EA unit placements to several of the African territories if they are liberated.
And yes the idea is to make some difficult decisions for both sides to make the war in Egypt more of a balancing act.
-
Ah right. I forgot that intact protectorates don't deliver their PU value. So that's some longer-living protectorates than the Dutch East Indies. I like it.
-
I do not think the changes are entirely healthy as they're right now - at least in the intent that it is there.
Vichy should have either a barracks already built - either in Algeria or West Afrika, and / or a minor fleet (1 to 2 units, probably both DDs or at best 1 Cruiser and 1 DD) out of Dakar (unable to attack on G1) to represent the Vichy navy thereby present (Also to ensure that single tranny is not just some butchery meat for the British Navy - if really they need to divert assets in the area).
Germany loses the flexibility of the Vichy PUs of North Afrika that now go in a resource (whereas they could have got mobile troops) for 1 additional PU that can easily turn in 1 additional PU to the Brits (and brits have already 1 extra PU off Nigeria) whereas it will be high effort for the Germany to defend / delay a territory in which they struggle to bring reinforcements.
-
@shonn All I will say is there is a lot to consider about what we know about our existing opening moves for Germany. I think if you take a moment to edit in the Tranny, then re-examine your G1 moves.... I think you might find Germany could consider some new approaches to its opening moves.
But discussion is certainly welcome.
-
@hepps
that does not sound like a sufficient reason to remove an excellent checkmark point of a stable version. -
Tried that out - definitely does not work for me.
The Germany Air Trannies cannot get to Algeria in G1. Which means they cannot get a resource via airborne there for a barrack.Germany can divert submarines to threaten the British squadron off Gibraltar but that comes with the rather large sacrifice of not attacking other UK forces - which to me means losing G1 advantage of enemy scattered - since in most cases what I saw is that the UK - USA pack up their things in convots and submarines turn quite redundant there (They may go kamikaze to sink 1 or 2 trannies but getting sunk in turn by the combined escorts of USA + UK).
If you don't do that - the UK can simply blockade with their Gibraltar squadron the zone there to prevent Algeria resource to be shipped.
And by turn 3 they have their tank or plane factory done in Belgian Congo.
So as it is now to be it just seems that the Allies are to sink a cheap unescorted transport, and that a resource is being handed to them, pratically stranded in that region (So a bonus to them) or with extreme risks / tradeoffs for the Axis considering the Allies have naval superiority there AND if Germany tries to extract it via air transport, the only airfield that is there is somewhere that the Allies by turn 3 can invade with UK and USA forces as well.So after this ulterior evaluation I do not think the change is any good. It may delay Allies of 1 turn maybe - but it will net them more PU on the long term, 1 resource probably handed to them, and in general less flexibility for Vichy produced forces due to even less BPs once the West Afrika falls.
The Allies do not even need to strictly direct forces in the turn 1 or 2 there (unless they wish to hasten conquest) since anyhow there will be only the starting 3 troopers and if Germany gets a barracks there it will be in the extreme of West Afrika, with the dedication of shifted submarines that do not attack stuff in G1, and eventually the assistance of the fighter starting in Africa getting parked in Marocco (and thus not offering cover in Libya).And as Wirkey pointed out in the chat, UK producing in Nigeria is neither good either.
I'd also add 1 INF per side (Germany / UK) to the respective Guyanas.
-
well, if one complains that it makes Axis OP, and one complains that it makes Allies OP, you might be actually okay
The material is never a donation to Allies. Leave it on the Transport and it'll never become helpful for Allies. You can't be forced to drop it somewhere where you can lose it. And you can move it to sz64 (Liberia) in Germany1 and simply sacrifice the Transport in Ger2 to drop it to Morocco. It's easy to make use of it from there.
Inf to the Guyanas is in total a slight buff to the Allies I think. They can assist their inf, the Axis can not. Still a good idea though.
-
@zlefin Wouldn't really be affecting the balance. 2.8.0.5. is intended to remain the Gold standard for the game.
3.0.0.0 is meant to be an experimental version. To be perfectly honest I am more concerned how the Destroyer-Sub mechanics will affect the game. this is why I am using an experimental version to test them.
-
well, to me 2.7.7.2 remains a good checkpoint worth saving. I don't see 2.8.0.5 as a gold standard; not yet at least. imho that's still 2.7.7.2.
I'd like to keep it forever; as I think it's a good end point for that line of it.
while I know the history is different; it's akin to how ww2vX has many different X's each one worthwhile in their own way.
-
@Hepps If a player captures materials during their turn, should they be able to transport those materials during non-combat move of the same turn? Currently, the engine allows it unless you capture them over minor nations territory. You can see my game vs Gully where I lost Finland as an example of where I'm going to take back Finland this turn but won't be able to transport the materials as they are given to Finland instead of Germany: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/894/tww-2-8-0-4-redrum-axis-vs-gully-allies
-
@redrum This has come up before and I just keep forgetting to address it formally.
I feel as though captured things should be consistent within the game. Since really the "loot" is a by product of capturing the territory... it feels like they should be unusable (same as trucks). since you cannot move a captured truck on the same turn that you capture it.... and since you cannot build with a material in a newly captured territory.... I feel as though captured material should be unmovable/unusable during the NCM in which they are gained.
I am open to discussion before arbitrarily making a permanent rule and adding it to the rule book. But that is my feeling on the subject.
-
I agree with you Hepps. This seems to be the most consistent rule - noncombat stuff can only be used if you control it for a turn. Trucks can be trapped over multiple turns if the territory is traded again and again.
And if an allied power captures it? For instance, if Italy took Finland in that save? Engine behavior is that it can be used no problem, since Germany (Finland) was in posession at the beginning of their turn.
A weird exception are damaged rails. They can be repaired immediately after conquering.
-
@gully Well the rail is not the only thing that can be repaired in the same turn it is captured. Research Centers are also repairable in the same turn they are captured. so by extension the two things operate consistently since they are the only 2 capture-able things that have the possibility of being repaired.
-
I'd probably agree not being able to move them is more consistent but materials are pretty unique. The struggle is that if you can't move them til next turn then any factory you lose is a 3 turn loss as then take back means you lose 1 turn to capture, 1 turn to move/build, and only on the 3rd turn can use build with it. Where in most games you capture back then can use next turn and units like trucks you capture then can use next turn. So kind of a tough call on consistency vs gameplay.
-
@redrum Sure, I get what you are saying. I guess that is why I opened the discussion up to debate. I definitely get the appeal of having them available immediately. I think we've all been is a situation where we could have benefited from being able to rebuild sooner.
The other half of the equation is whether I can make either system work free of user enforced rules.
-
@hepps it will almost certainly get too complicated but my favorite would be a mix of both: materials resulting from destroyed production facilities shouldn't be moveable while captured materials should be.
-
@hepps did you take a look at it? I've tested several possibilities with transports and air transports coming from different territories aswell as the bombardment. And for me it looks like it'S certain that the bombard is triggered by the air transport flying over the SZ with the bombarding unit. Besides that, it only occurs if there is also an amphib assault, just paradropping won't trigger a bombard.
-
@wirkey I haven't tested. I imagine it has always been the case. I would need to install an older engine and recheck with 2.7.7.2.
I will look at it as soon as I can.
-
@wirkey I'm guessing the engine checks "did a land unit's route come over X sea territory adjacent to the battle site" and if so then allow bombardment from there. But I'd need to reproduce it and take a look at the code. Meaning that this has probably always been the case for TWW para and probably affects other maps as well.
