Total World War: December 1941 (BETA) 2.8.0.5

Hepps

@wirkey Such is your right.

zlefin

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.

redrum

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?

General_Zod

@hepps

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.

redrum

@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

redrum

@wirkey @Hepps Here is the PR fixing the transport loading bug: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/3344

Hepps

@redrum I knew if I threw the right slant on this you'd want to prove me wrong.

wirkey

@hepps @redrum I knew being lazy for 5 minutes spares me work for 10 minutes

wirkey

British trains in Eastern Szechwan don't change ownership to China

zlefin

subs are kinda too strong now. they could use some nerf-ing; there's simply very very few things that can beat them at a tuv-equivalent cost, and those have to be setup just right to do so.
it's not good for something to have so few counters, and for those counters to be very select in application as well.

redrum

@zlefin They were actually nerfed a bit in 2.8 as they used to have 3 AA vs destroyers and now only have 2 AA vs destroyers. I actually think they are relatively balanced now. They do well in TUV trades when attacking but pretty poorly on defense. I think keeping them pretty strong is fairly important to force most naval nations to want to get improved destroyers fairly early.

@wirkey @Hepps There is a bug with L&L trains in Eastern Szechwan. The add/remove triggers point the the wrong condition "conditionAttachmentLLbTRAESC" instead it should be "conditionAttachmentLLbTNAESC".

    <attachment name="triggerAttachmentLLbTNAESC" attachTo="China" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player">
      <option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachmentLLbTRAESC"/>
      <option name="placement" value="Eastern Szechwan:Train"/>
      <option name="when" value="before:britainEndTurn"/>
    </attachment>
    <attachment name="triggerAttachmentLLbTNAESC" attachTo="Britain" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player">
      <option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachmentLLbTRAESC"/>
      <option name="removeUnits" value="Eastern Szechwan:Train"/>
      <option name="when" value="before:britainEndTurn"/>
    </attachment>

    <attachment name="conditionAttachmentLLbTNAESC" attachTo="Britain" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.RulesAttachment" type="player">
      <option name="directPresenceTerritories" value="Eastern Szechwan" count="1"/>
      <option name="unitPresence" value="Train" count="1"/>
    </attachment>

zlefin

their AA vs destroyers may be 2 instead of 3, but it's now EVERY round remember, so it's not a nerf, and more of a buff really. they do well in tuv trades on defense as well, and the only cases where they don't are one where there are no enemy destroyers so they can simply submerge and avoid all damage (but fail to protect other ships). straight destroyers WITH the imp destroyer tech attacking subs lose.
20 dd with imp dest attack 20 subs, run it in the battle calc: the subs win.
and 20 dd's cost MORE than 20 subs.

and remember - you can't jus tattack with 1 dd and a bunch of air: the subs first strike shot kills the dd and they get to submerge immediately after without taking a round of shots.

Hepps

@zlefin Yah, I will re-examine. The DD defense each round is problematic. The "is Destroyer" mechanic is such a limiting factor. I have already made an entirely new system but it is not being included in TWW for the time being.

I will re-engineer the sub behavior for the next release.

redrum

@hepps @zlefin Oh, I thought we had decided to leave sub AA attack to be only on the first round. If its every round then I'd agree they are probably too strong now.

Hepps

@redrum Did you fix it Red? Or had you just found the issue?

Just want to know whether I still need to address it.

Hepps

@redrum Yes I had intended to leave it for one round only. But it appears in my zeal to add the infinite rolls to everything else I must have changed the subs at the same time.

redrum

@hepps I didn't fix anything yet as wasn't sure if you had many any changes locally that you hadn't pushed to github and didn't want to conflict with you. I'd say at a minimum here are probably the needed changes for 2.8.0.4:

Fix L&L trains in Eastern Szechwan (probably good to double check the rest of train L&L)
Change subs AA back to just 1 round
Reduce BB bombard a bit to probably 2x4 or 2x5

I can make those changes if you want. Didn't want to change/fix anything without at least getting your thoughts.

zlefin

that reminds me of a technical question I was wondering: is it possible to have bombard damage be affected by the terrain? much like how the terrain support attachments affect combat values? it seems weird at times that bombardment is equally effective vs an open coast as it is vs a mountain jungle island.

'twas fun getting to play a game again.

redrum

@zlefin Not currently. Right now there are only 4 territoryEffect options:

combatOffenseEffect	values: the name of the unit, and the count of how much offense you want to give this unit
combatDefenseEffect	values: the name of the unit, and the count of how much defense you want to give this unit
noBlitz				values: the names of the units that can't blitz through this territoryEffect, can be multiple units (separated by a colon ":")
unitsNotAllowed 		values: the names of the units that are not allowed into or through this territoryEffect, can be multiple units (separated by a colon ":")

But its probably a good feature request and would probably be rather easy to add if a map maker was interested in using it.

CrazyG

@redrum
I'm interested in it, and I'm 99% sure Hepps would be as well