Total World War: December 1941 (BETA) 2.8.0.5
-
That too can work tbh - but it means some reworking.
Fighters having some AA against other planes when both defending and attacking and less regular attack / defence. (and Naval Fighters too or they'll end up being used as fighters on land too)
That should mirror some 'air battles' too that go each round on. -
@shonn Separate air battles are not slated for TWW. My work on TWW is winding down. Completely separate air battles will be included in GD only.
All the work I am doing for TWW is really just as a way of doing proof of concept for many of my idea's for GD.
-
I did not meant 'separate air battle' which I think it's a wrong concept by how TripleA works.
What I mean is to give 'AA fire' (like AA, Anti Tank, etc) to fighters / naval fighters against other planes.
It is not a separate battle - but each round fighter shoot at other planes (like each round an AA shoots specifically to planes, and AT to tanks).I don't think it will be massive work that in terms of coding.
-
@shonn Generally, I think tanks and tacts are fairly balanced and agree with @Hepps that fighters/n.fighters are overpowered. If fighters/n.fighters were nerfed a bit then tanks/tacts become a more needed source of attack power. In regards to AT guns, if anything they are underpowered (true before and after the changes to shoot every round). I don't believe I've ever built an AT gun in any of the 10-15 TWW games I've played and if I see my opponent building a significant number of them then I know I've already won. Glad to play against anyone that wants to try some AT gun strategy to prove me wrong.
-
They're built if you produce armour.
If you do not produce armour (which is easily countered by having many cheaper AT in the mix of forces) then no, no one plays an AT strategy. -
@shonn Separate air battles is the definitive solution. In my prototype design it solves OHHH SO MANY issues and finally makes air warfare sensible and realistic.
I have no idea on what basis you have already determined it doesn't work for Triple A, as to my knowledge the prototype I have is the only functioning example of these mechanics.
-
@shonn As both Germany and Russia, I often have a good number of tanks and mech and hope that my opponent builds lots of AT guns.
-
I meant if there is a whole airbattle and only 1 side gets through fighters and bombers - that's conceptually wrong.
If it is possible to have 1 air battle round - then 1 ground round, and cycling that way all is good.
-
@shonn Why would it be conceptually wrong?
-
In the mirror of the scale of the fights no side had 'total' air superiority unless the enemy did not had pratically absence of fighters / bombers (ie - late '44).
If you take in the average time of the war when both sides had an active airforce there was no side having absolutely 0 bombers or so flying through enemy fighters.
Thus it should be that each round there is 1 round of air combat - do it with separate air battle OR with AA style fire - and then the surviving planes support ground forces for 1 round of ground combat.
It is called realism where bombers can go through fighters - albeit with losses.
-
All the map changes and unit placements are now complete.
Now I just need a hand with all the conditions and triggers to make the Vichy rules complete.
-
The new Sub & Destroyer rules are all now in the game and are undergoing rigorous testing.
So here is how the changes break down...
-
The "isDestroyer" mechanic is completely removed from the game.
-
Submarines can submerge throughout the entire game (nothing can prevent this).
-
Submarines no longer have a "First Strike" at Destroyers on defense.
-
Destroyers and Strategic Bombers now begin the game with the ability to "Depth Charge" attack submarines @ 1 on offense for the first round of combat (whether the defending sub submerges or not). If the submarine remains surfaced it is subject to normal combat rolls from all enemy units (including all fighter units).
-
All aircraft can attack and defend against submarines (provided they remain surfaced) from the start of the game.
-
Improved Destroyers Tech increases destroyer "Depth Charge" attack to 2.
-
Improved Strategic Bomber Tech increases the Strat. Bomber "Depth Charge" attack to 2.
-
Advanced Destroyer Tech (which unlocks the unit) enables construction of the Heavy Destroyer which has a "Depth charge" attack of 3 (on offense) and a defensive "Depth Charge" @ 1.
-
Submarines now start the game with an attack value of 3.
-
Submarines now have "Wolf Pack Tactics" where they get +1 Att. & Def. when paired with Allied subs.
-
Submarines now receive -2 to their defense if they share a SZ with Allied surface vessels (meaning submarines are rendered useless defensively when paired with surface fleets).
-
Improved Sub Tech now gives Subs a +1 to attack. (4 total).
What does all of this mean for the game?
The intent is to create an environment where submarines are now a threat throughout the game, where they are powerful on offense and vulnerable on defense. Where they can try to survive in open waters by submerging to avoid the strength of surface fleets while being subject to limited attacks from ASW efforts. It creates a "cat and mouse" dynamic that is absent in all current mechanics.
Subs are now designed to be all but useless defensively when paired with their own Surface fleets. While this is a very abstracted mechanic... it is designed to make submarines even less useful for covering fleets defensively and reduces their roll to purely fodder if a player does try this.
As soon as I have all the Vichy triggers and conditions figured out the game will be released as TWW 3.0; The Second Happy Time.
-
-
@hepps Nice! I've also been doing a similar submarine model for Big World 3. I also added actual underwater sea zones to really spice it up. Although that is pushing the envelope and may be hard for people to accept at first. But it sounds fun to me.
Are you adding convoy centers, blockades and/or a mechanism to strangle England by sea? An interesting mechanism might be the idea I once pitched to you a while back, about transports shipping actual materials to the home island, from Canada and America. Where once those materials arrive, they can be converted into currency or a intermediate currency. This will give Germany more incentive to adopt a Atlantic based strategy, so they can sink those materials while they are in transit.
-
@general_zod The whole convoy and resource exchange will play a much bigger role in GD. TWW will not incorporate these as the map really has to be specifically designed for them to be effective.
-
Hello to everybody. It's my first post here. Hopefully my input is welcome.
First I have to say, that I do love this map. Very good job done by the creators. Especially the goodies like the manual and the ingame notes help immersing into the fight a lot.
Usually I play all the nations on my own and surprise myself. Left half of the brain is for allies, right one is for axies.
While playing I noticed some things. Hopefully, I don't get on Hepp's nerves with this list. The list is not in a prioritized order, I just took notes the last couple of months as soon as something hit my eye. Here we go:
a) Opening battle calculator as China the opponent is Germany, Japan would be better.
b) Moving Materials and AAs without trucks or trains when a dock is present. I think it was meant to make loading easier. At the moment one can move mat and AA via land, e.g. from Northern Italy to Vichy to Western France without any trucks or trains. Is it intended that way?
c) It would be nice, if in the manual the attack and defense values for dogfights in air combat would be given.
d) If a major power liberates a minor power, e.g. Germany liberating Romania, and a material is present in Romania, Germany cannot move the material with a truck from outside Romania in the moving phase. Whereas when e.g. Germany liberates Western Germany with a present material it is possible to move a Western Germany's material with a truck from outside W. Germany. This is an inconsistency. Same is applicable for Britain and it's minors.
e) Terrain effects / attack and defense values for fighters / advanced fighters and tactical bombers / advanced tactical bombers: For each and every terrain the modifications for the advanced fighter / adv. tactical bomber is one point worse than for the normal fighter / tactical bomber. The unmodified attack / defense value for the advanced airplanes could each be reduced by one point and the modifications could be the same like for the normal fighter / tactical bomber. This would be no change in the game mechanics but would make the comparison between the normal and advanced types much easier to comprehend. Example: fighter has got 5/6, advanced fighter 8/9. But for every terrain the advanced fighter is -1/-1 worse than the fighter. So the adv. fighter could have 7/8 and the same terrain modifications as the normal fighter. Same is applicable for naval fighters and tactical bombers.
f) Manual: description of tactical bomber: "can bomb mat and trucks." Should be "can bomb mat, trucks, air transport and trains.
g) The strategic bomber ist capable of bombing railways, the advanced strategic bomber isn't. Why? Is there a reason for it?
h) Manual : modification according to g).
i) Manual: trains and railways are not explained.
j) Manual page 5: the damage values for bombing by adv. and normal strategic bombers are incorrect.
k) Haven't tried yet, but are trains meant to be lend-and-leasable?
l) Why are the advanced airplane types not lend-and-leasable?
m) If one bombs and destroys the factory of the neutral nations, there is no way for a neutral nation to ever build materials or a new factory again. It is kind of an issue, when you liberate the capital of an allied neutral nation ("allied neutral nation" makes no sense, I know
) and your opponent has bombers in the vicinity, he just bombs the factory that arrives for free after liberating. Then the neutral nation is for ever stuck. Earns PUs every round, but cannot spend them. Might be an idea to have a lend and lease zone for materials in the neutral nations capital.n) Players tab: would be nice to have aggregated values for the axies and the allies. A sum of Axis-Germany + Italy + Axies Japan and a sum of Allies Britain + USA + Russia + China.
o) Technology tab: Would be nice to have a matrix instead of a long list.
p) When transporting via train, it is impossible when carring on item to pick up a second item on the way. But it is possible to drop stuff, move forward and then pick up and transport somethinวต else. Feels like an inconsistency.
q) The tec tree for China is different to the other nations. Might be an idea to mention that in the manual.
Again, thanks a lot for creating such a beautiful map, that gave me hours and hours of pleasure. Looking forward to Global dominance. I'm a big fan of huge maps.
-
This post is deleted! -
@kurtkafka Good feedback and very detailed. I'll address a few of these as they are engine issues/limitations not the specific map:
a. Yeah, generally the battle calc could use some better logic on what players to default to. The one that is even more irritating is that if you open the battle calc over say an Egyptian territory, it opens to them instead of the UK so you can't add many of the units without switching.
b. This is an engine limitation as there isn't a way to only give free movement for loading. You need to player enforce only using the free movement to load into a transport (can't remember if that was added to the manual).
n. Yeah, the engine does it by alliance and the way majors/minors are setup in this game makes it display that way. I haven't thought much about if there would be an easy way to improve that for TWW.
o. The tech tab is really used for National Objectives for most maps so is a bit of a stretch/hack the way its used to track techs for TWW. That being said the "Players" tab does have the matrix version but it unfortunately shows all the minors/neutrals so is a bit tough to read.
-
@kurtkafka said in Total World War: December 1941 (BETA) 2.8.0.5:
Hello to everybody. It's my first post here. Hopefully my input is welcome.
Welcome to the thread. Yes all input is welcome and appreciated. whether it is actioned... that is an entirely different matter.
First I have to say, that I do love this map. Very good job done by the creators. Especially the goodies like the manual and the ingame notes help immersing into the fight a lot.
Thank you very much. We spent a great deal of time figuring new stuff out and trying to manipulate things to make a comprehensive game. Rolf deserves most of the credit as he was the "Teuton of Triggers" and his skill at manipulating an XML remains unparalleled (with the exception of maybe @Frostion whom is a genius in his own right).
Usually I play all the nations on my own and surprise myself. Left half of the brain is for allies, right one is for axies.
That is truly unfortunate. You should really join the Lobby and dig in to a foxhole with the rest of us. Playing with yourself can be fun... but playing with someone else is exponentially more gratifying.
While playing I noticed some things. Hopefully, I don't get on Hepp's nerves with this list. The list is not in a prioritized order, I just took notes the last couple of months as soon as something hit my eye. Here we go:
I only have one nerve... and Prastle is already occupying it.
(just being funny).a) Opening battle calculator as China the opponent is Germany, Japan would be better.
Red addressed this in his response... and he is the resident expert.
b) Moving Materials and AAs without trucks or trains when a dock is present. I think it was meant to make loading easier. At the moment one can move mat and AA via land, e.g. from Northern Italy to Vichy to Western France without any trucks or trains. Is it intended that way?
Yes the intent is that the ability is to be used only to load transports. The ability to move to an adjacent terr. is meant to illegal and player enforced. I will add it to the manual, I forgot to.
c) It would be nice, if in the manual the attack and defense values for dogfights in air combat would be given.
They are given on page 6.
d) If a major power liberates a minor power, e.g. Germany liberating Romania, and a material is present in Romania, Germany cannot move the material with a truck from outside Romania in the moving phase. Whereas when e.g. Germany liberates Western Germany with a present material it is possible to move a Western Germany's material with a truck from outside W. Germany. This is an inconsistency. Same is applicable for Britain and it's minors.
Yes this has been an issue for a while. I will reexamine to see if I can make a consistent method. This has bothered me for years.
e) Terrain effects / attack and defense values for fighters / advanced fighters and tactical bombers / advanced tactical bombers: For each and every terrain the modifications for the advanced fighter / adv. tactical bomber is one point worse than for the normal fighter / tactical bomber. The unmodified attack / defense value for the advanced airplanes could each be reduced by one point and the modifications could be the same like for the normal fighter / tactical bomber. This would be no change in the game mechanics but would make the comparison between the normal and advanced types much easier to comprehend. Example: fighter has got 5/6, advanced fighter 8/9. But for every terrain the advanced fighter is -1/-1 worse than the fighter. So the adv. fighter could have 7/8 and the same terrain modifications as the normal fighter. Same is applicable for naval fighters and tactical bombers.
Good point. Most of this is a by-product of 4 years of fiddling and adjustments. But your solution looks obvious enough. I will examine and make changes. Very good points.
f) Manual: description of tactical bomber: "can bomb mat and trucks." Should be "can bomb mat, trucks, air transport and trains.
Some of the manual changes were missed with the ongoing development. I will try to revisit and make additions.
g) The strategic bomber ist capable of bombing railways, the advanced strategic bomber isn't. Why? Is there a reason for it?
My idea was that Advanced Strategic Bombers are high altitude bombers and thus incapable of pinpoint bombing raids on rail lines. It was also meant to limit the abilities of the ASB since they are a quite potent unit.
h) Manual : modification according to g).
i) Manual: trains and railways are not explained.
Yeah some of the later additions to the game did not get the same indepth explanations as the early ones. It is really because of how I designed the original manual. Based on how I designed it.... changes and alterations can be very challenging. I will do my best but no promises.
j) Manual page 5: the damage values for bombing by adv. and normal strategic bombers are incorrect.
Yes page 5 was never fixed. I will add it to the list of things to do.
k) Haven't tried yet, but are trains meant to be lend-and-leasable?
Yes they are in limited areas. Russia -> china via Altay. Britain -> China via E. Szechwan and Allies-> Russia via Persia, Murmansk,Archangel and SFE
l) Why are the advanced airplane types not lend-and-leasable?
I suppose they could... but it was deemed to be over powered. something potentially for the future... but again no promises.
m) If one bombs and destroys the factory of the neutral nations, there is no way for a neutral nation to ever build materials or a new factory again. It is kind of an issue, when you liberate the capital of an allied neutral nation ("allied neutral nation" makes no sense, I know
) and your opponent has bombers in the vicinity, he just bombs the factory that arrives for free after liberating. Then the neutral nation is for ever stuck. Earns PUs every round, but cannot spend them. Might be an idea to have a lend and lease zone for materials in the neutral nations capital.You could make a special L&L player rule for neutrals. I do not plan on doing any of this within TWW. It is just more work than I am willing to put into TWW since this is addressed in GD already.
n) Players tab: would be nice to have aggregated values for the axies and the allies. A sum of Axis-Germany + Italy + Axies Japan and a sum of Allies Britain + USA + Russia + China.
I defer to @redrum for this.
o) Technology tab: Would be nice to have a matrix instead of a long list.
See above.
p) When transporting via train, it is impossible when carring on item to pick up a second item on the way. But it is possible to drop stuff, move forward and then pick up and transport somethinวต else. Feels like an inconsistency.
I defer to @redrum as whether a mechanic like this is even doable.
q) The tec tree for China is different to the other nations. Might be an idea to mention that in the manual.
I will try to fit it in somewhere.
Again, thanks a lot for creating such a beautiful map, that gave me hours and hours of pleasure. Looking forward to Global dominance. I'm a big fan of huge maps.
Just happy to hear you are enjoying it. GD will certainly be huge by any standards... and since much of it builds and corrects for things in TWW... you are sure to like it.
Thanks for the input.
-
@hepps Just think of me as the fly your always swatting at and it bugs you constantly
-
@redrum and @Hepps
Thank you very much for the quick answers.o) ah, the players tab. I'm using an 14" Laptop so the tabs are as small as possible and so I didn't see the Text in front of the crosses.
[quote]That is truly unfortunate. You should really join the Lobby and dig in to a foxhole with the rest of us. Playing with yourself can be fun... but playing with someone else is exponentially more gratifying.[/quote]
I'm too slow a player for playing in the lobby.q) The Chinese tech tree is already in the manual. It's a footnote and the Chinese flag on the boxes of the achievable techs. Sorry, I haven't had a proper look beforehand.
