Total World War: December 1941 (BETA) 2.8.0.5
-
@wirkey That has always been the case. Since the Neutrals cannot move any units while they are neutral they are capable of placing units anywhere.
The reason we did this is because when the Neutrals were given full control of themselves they would do extremely silly moves. Leaving themselves very vulnerable to attack. We tried a number of different things but in the end decided to lock their unit placements but allow them to build anything anywhere. Materials were left of the list since the AI had no idea what to do with them nor bought any under any circumstance. This was the best solution to a challenging situation.
-
I'm still seeing a battle calc with battleships. Running 10 naval fighters attacking 5 battleships thru calc shows the battleships winning 100% with many of them surviving; but the actual results of the battle should be the naval fighters winning nearly all of the time.
-
@zlefin Yeah, I just tested this and you're correct. The BC doesn't appear to handle the damaged units properly. I'll have to look into fixing this. Though this particular scenario highlights how strong naval fighters are on TWW (I'd argue OP) especially as this doesn't even include improved fighters tech which makes it even more lopsided.
TripleA Developer with a Passion for AI: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/105/ai-development-discussion-and-feedback
-
they are kinda OP; ever since some other changes a long way back at least. but that's another story for the balance arguing; and it's hard to get the balance just right.
then of course there's the complicated interplay between tech tree and unit balance; and the issue that tech trees can decrease unit diversity in gameplay.as to the calc bug; from a few other test scenarios I looked at; I suspect that when it converts the units into the damaged versions it's setting them to 2 hp rather than 1.
oh yeah; that reminds me of another, lesser, issue: historically, units in triplea maps were just as tough damaged or undamaged, so automatically taking the first hit on multihp units was a good default rule (both for the cas picker default, and hence for battle calc which uses those rules), but that doesn't apply with these battleships that get markedly worse when damaged. sure you can repair them eventually, but if it's a losin gbattle there won't be a repair, and even if you win, getting to a repair location may be slow; it's often better to take hits elsewhere rather than letting the bb get hit now.
-
@redrum Nor does it include Advanced Hulls. Nor having some Cruisers in the mix with Advanced Hulls.
Also as @zlefin has mentioned... have you run the battle paying far more attention to the casualty selection for the BB's?
*** Also it is in my view it is not necessarily a bad thing that in this example of pitting extreme numbers of single unit types against one another... that naval fighters would be capable of inflicting dramatic losses against an armada of BB... since BB are not designed to be the weapon of choice to fend off an enormous aerial assaults. Large surface vessels were shown to be particularly vulnerable to aerial attacks.***
-
@zlefin PR to fix the BC issue with damagedChangesInto units: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/3390. And yeah, its definitely better to not take BB hits often in TWW. It would be a significant change to update that in the BC and default casualty selection though. Probably should be on the list somewhere though
@Hepps Fair point though I think just about any naval unit is at a disadvantage to naval fighters (destroyer, cruiser, BB, etc). Generally, I think sea units should have more bang for the buck in strength since air units have more flexibility. But changing any of these things at this point in TWW would be very significant to balance.
-
@redrum I agree. Just playing the devils advocate. We have known for quite a while that Air power reigns supreme in TWW. While I am sure some greater efforts could be undertaken to refine the balance between them within the game... and not just to their comparative strength verses navies....but over all... The changes are substantial at this point. Especially given that there are numerous other things I'd like to change.
This is why I have undertaken a new project. So that I could start off with new concepts where they are needed in order to address issues without having to disrupt the overall play-ability of TWW. In truth many of the late additions were done ONLY to test the new features. I never envisioned continued development of TWW. It just seems to have a way of sucking me back in.
-
Hi,
it's interesting, that the biggest change made here is not discussed: the reduction of the defense value anti-tank gun from 3 to 1. This cripples my standard tactic when playing Soviets: I buy and move from the western allies as many as possible anti-tank guns in order to stop the german invasion. Now this seems to be impossible - how to stop the german tanks? My opinion: The game is now balanced strongly in favour to the axis, the allies have almost no chance.
-
@loveplayingaaa The defense was reduced but the AA defense roll against tanks was increased and made to hit every battle round instead of just the first round. AT guns are probably a little bit weaker with no techs but if you research the AT gun techs then they become very strong on defense vs tanks.
-
@redrum @LovePlayingAAA the first strike against tanks was reduced from 2 to 1, not exactly sure about the normal defensive roll. But with the first strike in every round of combat I think the ATs got even stronger.
Just building ATs with Russia is a poor strategy imo. If I see that with Germany I would go heavy on artillery, which is cheaper anyway and with a good logistic infrastructure can be on the frontline really quick. And with a lot of ATs the Russian army isn't in a position to make big counterattacks which the Axis can use to circumvent the strongholds and win against Russia on economics. -
@LovePlayingAAA @wirkey I very much agree with @wirkey . The AT were extremely OP in the previous version. While their immediate combat effectiveness has been reduced it makes them far more a situational unit now, where they were a significant mainstay unit when dropped in numbers in Urban Centers. Now they may be an opportunity buy and if you pursue the Anti Tank technologies they have the potential to be highly effective.
I agree that their role has been changed... but for the better in my opinion. Bear in mind that with the other accumulated changes within the game (including, but not limited to +4 new Infantry for Russia @ game start) I am seeing a very strong Russia. In several of my numerous games Russia puts up stiff defenses and also I have seen them on the offensive.
The changes may very well necessitate you to re-evaluate your strategies... I know it has mine.
If you are finding your efforts being thwarted repeatedly... then feel free to post game saves here so I can review to examine what transpired and see if it is something I need to consider for future changes. -
-
I consider AAgun and ATgun late-game specialist units. Extremely efficient for exactly one job, bad for everything else. You need techs to make them viable.
Consider a late-game situation. You produce four AAguns for 16 PUs. Before combat, they kill a fighter for 11. That means, you essentially paid 5 PUs to add four hitpoints and 12 firepower (or more on good terrain) to your army. How crazy is that? If you can afford to lose only inf in the first round, they kill another fighter. Insane value. ATguns are not as extreme, but still very high value, better than inf.
Here's the downside. They don't attack. Congratulations, you just built a fence around Moscow but lost all the important Barracks around Moscow. An important part of Defence is, make sure the enemy doesn't survive next to your army. And other techs (Production, Fighter-Range) are more urgent. That's why I consider too many AAguns or ATguns a newbietrap.
-
With the development of the new unit icons added with conditions feature, here is some initial thoughts on how TWW is looking to take advantage to add icons to various units when the appropriate techs are researched: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/882/unit-icons-added-by-conditions/15
-
Also a new feature to specify small map properties so the visualization can be much improved in the near future: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/887/mini-me-map-options
Sample of what can be done:
Original:
-
Alright, my two TWW games have ended. Who's in for another one?
-
@gully Depends if you are ready to lose this time?
TripleA Developer with a Passion for AI: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/105/ai-development-discussion-and-feedback
-
@redrum LOL! Only a Texan struts around twirling his guns like that.
-
@redrum totally ready to lose!
-
@gully Now that's the attitude I like to see. Good to start one up whenever you are. Easiest thing is either message me here on the forum or start a PBF thread with your preferred settings and which side you'd like to play.
@hepps I just like to give my opponents the up front realization of their inevitable destiny. Tends to help minimize the crying and rage quitting. Also are you sure that is a gun and not something else
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