Total World War: December 1941 (BETA) 2.8.0.5

[General_Zod]

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

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

@hepps A couple clarifications for me required.

1. If Algeria (as a German Protectorate only) is taken by allies instead of Morocco, (not listed) I assume the Germans still gain the remaining 5 Vichy med territories (German Protectorates change into German Occupations). Correct?

Both are listed as requirements. The Liberation of either terr. produces the same result.

I meant in the list of what get liberated, but understood.

2. In this version allies essentially auto scuttle anything in Toulon fleet that Germans (trigger) can't save/capture. Meaning no other mechanisms?

No. The scuttling happens when either Protectorate is liberated. The Germans have to invest 1 PU per unit (7 Vichy units) to try and prevent the scuttle attempt.>

Referring to after the liberation takes place, but understood.

3. Desired, exact timing in sequence?

Well since either USA or Britain (I guess Russia as well, but really.... not really) can liberate. So ideally the Vichy fleet thing would be immediately following each Allied combat move.

Yeah I agree that the German turn is ideal as @redrum pointed out.

[Hepps]

Sure. I guess that's fair. I think it felt more natural to me for it to happen immediately.

But at the start of the next German turn would be good.

[Shonn]

Armour & Tactical Bombers

I feel that armour is less used an amount, now that the AT got beefed up with its cyclical fire.
I suggest that armour gets +1 attack as well with the Improved Armour tech.

Tactical Bombers are rarely seen beyond the starting allotment. In general a fighter (either type) is more versatile in attack and defence. Even more so as Fighters get the improved range rather easily (same branch) while TACs need strategic technology as prerequisite, so ultimately a Fighter has matching attack of a Tac or differs of 1 (and it's not something you can easily mass to cut a large difference), and Tac helps tanks which are not overly used as of now.
So I feel Tactical Bombers too should get some beef in a way or another.

[Hepps]

@shonn I have felt for a while now that the key lies in reducing the effectiveness of fighters rather than adding more power else where.

[Shonn]

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.

[Hepps]

@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.

[Shonn]

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.

[redrum]

@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.

[Shonn]

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.

[Hepps]

@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.

[redrum]

@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.

[Shonn]

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.

[Hepps]

@shonn Why would it be conceptually wrong?

[Shonn]

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.

[Hepps]

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.

[Hepps]

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.

[General_Zod]

@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.

[Hepps]

@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.

[kurtkafka]

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 somethinǵ 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.

[kurtkafka]

This post is deleted!