Total World War: December 1941 (BETA) 2.8.0.5

[wirkey]

@hepps true point, especially with stacking Murmansk. Guess next time i'll have to bring adv artillery and tanks
One thing I'd like to consider is the following: allied units already in Russia/China will still be able to move, even if the conditions of free movement are no longer valid. This might be done by those units changing to a new unit with same picture and stats, but a different name, which are able to move freely in china/Russia

[wirkey]

@Hepps forget my last point. That would be way too much triggers. One for every territory, not only for L&L

[Hepps]

@redrum To your point. In GD Newfoundland has 2 territories, both with the same movement possibilities. One shall be a L&L terr. the other will not. So that option will become available. In TWW I am not planning on any map changes... so we are going to have to live with that in this version.

[Hepps]

The previous post has been updated with my progress so far. (Strike through means changes are implemented). The train changes were slightly more significant than I anticipated. So the release may still be a day or two away.

I have also reordered the units in the production frontiers to make use of the new and improved Battle Calc.

As well the Tech Tab is back up and running.

[Ondis]

Huh! I'm not sure I'm reading this right but why is the AT a better AA than the AA gun O.o

Also adding that much AA to Advanced Armor seems op. Sure, the best armored divisions at the end of the war had mobile AA but it was of small caliber and few in numbers. A specialised AA group of stationary mixed caliber guns should be stronger here as well.

Are you sure these changes are balanced insofar the planes not getting any boosts, in some ways even getting nerfs. Not tested it so just askingl.

[redrum]

@ondis AT and Advanced Armor have "AA-type" attacks but only against tanks/mech/etc not air. So different units use "AA-type" attacks to target different types of units. AA is kind of a bad term and really should be called something like "First Strike" or "Targeted Attack".

[Ondis]

Ah yes, first strike yup. No worries then, just semantics. Love the reduced combat capability of units once hit. Hadn't thought of that.
I like the train addition but for a simpler game I would like it to be optional. I'd love to have it on PBEM but it would clutter a bit too much on an online game for me.

[Hepps]

@ondis The AA ability for armour & AT Guns are first strikes verses other mechanized units... not against aircraft.

If you read the actual game notes it is much clearer.

[Hepps]

@redrum I like "Targeted Attack". Works really well to separate out the different attack types. I think I just recycled the term "AA" because it is how all of it is described in the XML.

[Ondis]

So is the big change then that the AA/First Strike/Targeted Attack thing works in all combat rounds? Is that in addition to the normal defense values?

Doesn't this provide a very large combat boost to all units affected then? I've not played TWW since November (not had time until now) but in past versions is it true that it only worked for the first round? How has this then been balanced and won't it weaken mobile forces a lot?

I see for example AT used to be 1/3 now its 1/1. But do consider that in a forrest that 1/1 is bumped to 1/2. I.e. a 100 percent increase as compared to a 33 percent earlier, in addition to the constant First Strike.

[redrum]

@ondis Yeah, that is the major change. Units with "Targeted Attacks" use them every combat round not just round 1 but most of them were made weaker per round and many of the units had their defense reduced. It seems relatively balanced for the initial test games we've played.

[Hepps]

@ondis In most cases the combat efficiency of units with AA type attacks and defenses has been reduced to compensate for the infinite rounds of AA. So far the balance changes have been negligible. In fact so far it appears as though the changes make the intended use for the specialized units more pronounced and reinforced their situational benefits.

[Ondis]

Just added a small note as you wrote yours. It seems balanced on a first glance but there might be some things to consider in terms of terrain advantage.

@hepps. Yup. Liked that aspect of it. You may now be able to switch the strategic plan by changing the purchasing patterns to better exploit weaknesses in the enemy composition.

[General_Zod]

@redrum Also all the AAgun related global game properties are linked to it. And it uses separate rolls and even dice.

It's actually kind of messy as is.

[redrum]

@ondis In general, the total amount matters more than percent increase. Now that target attacks hit every round, adding it with the standard defense and terrain modifiers gives you the total amount its rolling against. The targeted attack portion is usually a bit more valuable but gives you a ballpark. Comparing that to the previous first round only target attack and previous defense should give an idea of balance. Terrain effects should essentially be the same.

@General_Zod Yeah, in the XML and properties it would be very difficult to rename and its a mess. Though how we discuss it as players and in manual/notes could use better terms which maybe some day make it back into the XML.

[spartan]

@Hepps Thumbs up, glad to have the tech tab back and thanks for implementing the train changes. Especially curious, how US changes would effectuate.

In addition: I liked your proposal about disabled tracks for captured territories you uttered the other day - may be something to add to your list?

[Hepps]

@redrum Yes I was referring to the terminology I/we use to describe it more so than attempting to change the code anytime soon. From what I remember from past conversations is that the code is a quagmire. (and not the good kind of giggidy Quagmire)

[General_Zod]

@hepps Giggidy

[Hepps]

@spartan Yes. There is a new feature request (much to Reds chagrin) relating to the damage of infrastructure on capture. I didn't add it to the list of new features within the game since it seems a little presumptuous to assume that just because I mentioned it, it will be done. However, that being said, if this feature is developed it will be implemented about 15 minutes after it is added to the engine.

[redrum]

@hepps 15 minutes! Can I hold you to that?