Total World War: December 1941 (BETA) 2.8.0.5

[wirkey]

Why does Germany get those green marking above the infantry, even without special warfare and UK with adv sw doesn't get them? Same for the fighters

[wirkey]

@hepps said in Total World War: December 1941 (BETA) 2.8.0.5:

To give you a glimpse of the near future, the next release is currently under development.

TWW 3.0.0.0 will definitely feature...

• New Sub vs. Destroyer mechanics.

• New Occupation Territories for French North Africa (including some PU valuation changes for FNA as well as French West Africa). French North Africa will be German occupation zones (Similar to The British Occupation areas) and Vichy will not earn PU from them. However, French West Africa will increase slightly in value to compensate the vichy for the PU losses in FNA.

I am also toying with the following...

• Adding a single new Command unit for every nation.

• Adding Mongolia as a new Neutral Nation. This is meant to ensure there are fewer opportunities to exploit the region if you are playing without Diplomacy, while also adding some more zesty goodness if you are.

• Adding Saudi Arabia as a Neutral Nation. This is meant to ensure there are fewer opportunities to exploit the region if you are playing without Diplomacy, while also adding some more zesty goodness if you are.

• Adding Mexico as a Neutral Nation. This is meant to ensure there are fewer opportunities to exploit the region if you are playing without Diplomacy, while also adding some more zesty goodness if you are.

All of these proposed changes are designed to test just some of the new idea's that are being worked on in a Hepp's Secret Government subterranean bunker for Global Dominance.

What I will do is formally retire 2.7.7.2. It has had a good run... but alas progress is an insensitive bitch.

2.8.0.5 will become the Gold Standard for TWW. While 3.0 will be the playground for my evil maniacal tendencies. I do so adore human testing. :smiling_face_with_horns:

TWW 3.0 = GD? I remember a time you said you wouldn't contribute anymore to TWW.
About Mexiko, Mongolia, Saudi Arabia: I wouldn't make them neutral nations. I would just make them join another nation if attacked.
Mongolia goes to Russia/Japan if attacked by Axis/Allies
Saudi-Arabia to UK/Italy
Mexiko to US/Germany
Is it possible to change turn order? In that case you could even make them minors of the nations they join.

[Hepps]

@wirkey You are a keen one Mr. Wirkey.

Yes for the new neutrals I am adding them because I will have to create them for GD. So I figure instead of creating everything from from scratch I can build further on the existing XML of TWW.

Yes in GD all Neutral Nations will become Minor nations for a Major Belligerent. That is the long term goal for neutrals.

And yes while I had initially intended to abandon TWW in favour of developing GD, I have found TWW has been a great platform to introduce and test some of the new concepts.

[Hepps]

@wirkey Can you post a save game? The icons have been working flawlessly for me so I would need to see what is going on.

[Hepps]

@wirkey said in Total World War: December 1941 (BETA) 2.8.0.5:

Why does Germany get those green marking above the infantry, even without special warfare and UK with adv sw doesn't get them? Same for the fighters

I think I kind of covered it with you personally. What can happen is if you close a game then open another saved game.... (without closing Triple A) it seems the engine somehow keeps ghosts of the existing icons from the previous game. I have found the same issue if try to launch a saved game from a BOT that had a TWW game on it when you entered it. Wasn't sure if it was happening to everybody... but I guess it is.

currently the only solution I have found is to close Triple A completely then reopen it and load the saved game.

[wirkey]

@hepps since when does the overfly of a paratrooper over a SZ enables a cruiser to bombard from that SZ into the territory attacked by the paratrooper?
0_1533844700982_tww spartan bombard.tsvg

[Hepps]

@wirkey Well nothing in the XML has changed. So the either that behavior has always been the or something in the new engine has changed. I will examine your save.

[zlefin]

Why retire 2.7.7.2? is something in it buggy?

[Hepps]

@zlefin Yes it is bugging me that no one should need to play such a antiquated version of the game.

[Hepps]

So the design for 3.0.0.0. has begun in earnest.

Here is a glimpse of the initial changes to the Vichy situation.

So the changes will be a dramatic departure from the current game.

• While North and Western Africa are more valuable overall... it represents challenges for both sides.

• If North Africa is liberated but cannot be held. Germany will begin to earn even more PU.

• For the Axis the material gained every turn will enable Germany to strengthen Western Europe each turn that North Africa remains as protectorates.

• The loss of 1 PU (overall) for Vichy means that Western Africa is increasingly important to keeping them in the game as a valuable member of the Axis.

• The increased value of Western Africa makes it more significant to both sides.

• The significance of North and West Africa will force the Allies to have to commit more resources to liberating Africa if a European campaign is to be successful.

• The changing priorities for both sides should have a significant impact on how much can committed to the Egyptian front.

• The changes will mean that the Americans will likely have to play a more balanced game.

• The increase in the value of Nigeria will mean the British can develop production in Africa.

There is one other significant change that I will detail in a subsequent post once I have finalized the details.

[Gully]

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?

[Hepps]

@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.

[Gully]

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.

[Shonn]

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.

[Hepps]

@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.

[zlefin]

@hepps
that does not sound like a sufficient reason to remove an excellent checkmark point of a stable version.

[Shonn]

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.

[Gully]

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.

[Hepps]

@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.

[zlefin]

@hepps

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.