World War II v5 1942 Second Edition

  • I don't like armour costs (6) of the map. Is this map playable with 5 armour cost?

    Does the map need bid?


  • Moderators Admin

    @schulz I'd rather:

    • Give Armour the ability to give support and reduce its cost to 5 (I know this makes the artillery suck).
    • Give defence 4 to AA guns.
    • Reduce production of Japan to 6, Borneo to 2, Philippine to 1 and Manchuria to 1 (-8 production Japanese total).
    • Remove the factory in India.

    Anyways, I don't like the Revised style Russian front. That really makes no sense, as frontline was never like that, and West Russia should be Moscow, while the "Russia" territory should be the Urals.
    Rather better using the WWIIv3 map, that has a more reasonable drawing for the Russia front.
    I've no idea why in the v4+ games they insisted going back to Revised.

  • 0_1525621017349_fgfhhhghghg.png

  • @schulz My experiments with the map showed that Russia needs a bid of 24.

  • Moderators Admin

    @rogercooper Yeah... Me and @Schulz played a game and found out that tha map appears to be silly unbalanced in favour of Axis. It may be that we are not seeing some strategies, but my guess it is rather that this map's playtesters were not very skilled.

    This is the reason of my suggestion of lowering Japanese income by 8, that practically means 8 less TUV per turn. Russia is still likely to get killed, but, with low income Japan, Allies can still win after Russia is gone, if they got a grip somewhere.

  • Moderators Admin

    @schulz I suggest you make a bug report in GitHub, about this.

  • Moderators Admin

    @cernel So, after playing the map, here there are some additional suggestions:

    • give 1 production Caroline taking it out from Thai (down to 1)

    Just to make Pacific slightly more a worthwhile target for Americans. Not much else that can be done, since those islands weren't really worth anything, and those worth something are already overvalued.

    • make factories destroyed upon capture

    It gives Russians some needed respite from the Germans strategy of taking Leningrad and producing in there (that factory is not really defensible), and it makes sense, since the Germans don't have a factory in France (that you can assume was destroyed upon capture before the start of the game, when France was captured).

    • make mongolia passable Russians owned (0 production value) with 1 infantry in it

    Mongolia neutral and impassable is the biggest nonsense of traditional TripleA games; aside from this, this is a minimal change, here (it slightly advantages Japanese advance, but Russians get 1 infantry more).

    • give artillery defence 3

    Just to make it less worthless, without getting complicated.

    • lower cost of fighter to 8

    Since Armour can support, Fighter is less of an interesting buy for, say, Germans. So, this is for letting Germans and Russians consider buing some air, expanding purchase strategies. Also to rebalance the much better AA gun.

    • increase cost of carrier to 16, decrease attack to 0, decrease defence to 1, and make it unable to move during combat move

    If Fighter gets cheaper, Carrier needs to get costlier or worse, to keep balance on the sea (Fighter + Carrier are already a very good choice compared to the rest). Also, Carrier unable to attack makes sense, and unable to move during combat move helps especially in multi not having to check some noob is making some illegal moves, since TripleA doesn't support.

    • factories unable to defend themselves

    The fact that factories have integrated AA guns is dumb for gameplay and doesn't even make sense. Who the hell had that idea? Why did they do that?

    • AA guns can defend vs bombing raids too (not combat only)

    Of course, removing AA factories means that AA guns need to be the ones AA firing, as per norm.

    • fighters can intercept and escort; escort at 1, intercept at 2; bomber escort itself at 1

    I like this stuff, and it is realistic. Might be making strategic bombers too weak a strategy, tho; so this needs playtesting, after implementing.

    • remove vc hawaii and add it to eastern canada

    So that Axis don't get too early VC win in "Honorable Surrender".

    • add a factory to Eastern Canada

    Not really important. Basically adding there the factory we removed in India. It simply makes sense.

    • decrease Western United States income to 6 (-4) and increase Eastern United States income to 16 (+4)

    Minor tweak. Just giving the Americans some placement limits in Pacific, if they go full in there. Also more realistic.

  • Well, every change is ok but we could face some problems by changing the power of fighter and carrier. Decreasing cost of fighter and power of carrier is big bonus for Germany. UK and US will have to build enormous navies. If we make fighter cost 8 then we have to decrease cost of naval units. In classic v3 rules, 5 destroyers have %50 chance to take 4 enemy fighter and 5 destoryers are monetarily equal to 4 fighters.

    Also probably we will have to decrease bomber cost to 10 if we make fighter cost 8. But I really like decreasing cost of fighter idea.

    The same problem with carriers. Decreasing power of carrier is huge bonus for axis.

  • Moderators Admin

    @schulz I really think all the above would balanced. Yes, germany can spam figher at 8 to menace naval build, but with armour able to support that is balanced out, as otherwise germany can go for infantry + armour buy only, no air at all, that is a very good strategy.
    Making carriers more costly or worse is needed because you have to think as carrier + 2 fighter. If you reduce fighter cost by 2, then carrier + 2 fighter cost 4 PUs less total; so balancing either by increasing cost of carrier by 4 PUs or a mix of cost increase and diminished power, as I suggested. I would not change any other naval units costs. Too many changes are not good for a mod, because it is more stuff to track and remember.

  • Moderators Admin

    @schulz Also, it makes sense that air is much more cost efficient than sea units, for sea battles.

  • @cernel

    Lets make a math;

    carrier cost is 14, fighter cost is 10.

    Assume Allies have 5 carrier and 10 fighter (total 170 PUs). And Germany have 17 fighter (170 PUs).

    On the paper they have equal PUs but de facto 17 German fighters are by far more valued than 5 Carrier+10 Fighter. Because German fighters can threat UK, USA fleets and Russian units at the same time. And Germany can hold France
    with just these fighters. 17 German fighters have also %60 chance to sink whole allies navy.

    for your proposal:

    carrier cost is 16, fighter cost is 8

    allies have 5 carrier 10 fighter (total 160 PUs), Germany have 20 fighter (160 PUs). Then Germany has %95 chance to sink
    the Allies navy.

    Fighters are already much more cost efficient than sea units in v3 rules. If we just decrease fighter costs to 8 and we make
    carriers almost useless, Allies would be definitely doomed to fall. I would like to still play the map but Allies would be wiped
    out very easily.

    BTW I have noticed that, If I give aa ability to AAGuns, they become capturable by enemy forces and they do not take as casulaties in battles. So their 4 defense power also become useless.

  • Moderators Admin

    @schulz said in World War II v5 1942 Second Edition:

    On the paper they have equal PUs but de facto 17 German fighters are by far more valued than 5 Carrier+10 Fighter. Because German fighters can threat UK, USA fleets and Russian units at the same time.

    That is true, but, practically, in the basic maps, Germans are better off focusing on infantry and armour buy. So the matter is not how good this German buy is compared to enemy buys, but how good this German buy is compared to what Germans can otherwise buy.
    This is not really advantaging Germans very much, as this is just an alternative to buying the better armours, they already can.
    You can see that, amongst my suggestions, there is making factories destroyed upon capture, that is a big disadvantage to Axis, especially in a game where Russia is especially weak.

  • Moderators Admin

    @schulz To be clear, reducing the cost of fighters is to make them purchasable for Germans (and Russians), in the moment you have a better deal for armours. This, of course, also comprises them being better at menacing the Allied fleets, that don't forget is already balanced by the fact that Allies get cheaper fighters, to menace Germans, in turn. If you make fleets cheaper, you just defeat this purpose, and Germans go back not buying any air and the discount goes almost entirely in favour of Allies, that, of course, buy air, instead. So, doing that (both cheaper fighters and cheaper ships) would be mainly a massive bonus to Allies only.
    So, I still suggest lowering the cost of fighters to 8, while not touching the prices of any other naval units, but making carriers costlier / weaker (if you don't want to change the stats of carrier, you can just up the cost to 20, as making carrier cost 6 PUs more would about balance each fighter costing 2 less (otherwise you never buy battleships)).

  • @cernel

    I have played this map by myself which fighter cost is 8 and other naval unit costs 2 less (except submarine and transport). I'd say game is still unbalanced and favor of Axis. Russia is doomed to fall and Allies cannot win the game if Axis takes Russia. It is really game over for Allies if Germany hold France and Jap builds a fac to India.

    Russias need at least +2 production power and Allies has to start with more units.

    Your purpose would make the balance worse, Allies would even need more help in this situation.

    Look the game. Allies did lose.


  • Moderators Admin

    @schulz Making factories destroyed upon capture would likely bring close to balance.

  • Moderators Admin

    @schulz If you go that way, and I guess carriers are 12 PUs, I'd lower the cost of battleships by 4 (to 16) of cruisers by 4 (to 8 ) and submarines by 1 (to 5).

  • @cernel

    Making factories destroyed and reducing naval unit costs could only delay the collapsing of Russia. Jap can already take out Russia by alone if she build a fac to India. Russia needs help in this map. I am going to increase the power of Russia.

  • Moderators Admin

    @schulz Hard to say with little play, but I believe what we played was only slightly in favour of Axis. If I sum up all here, my guess is that your next version Allies will be overpowered.
    At least hold off with changing any production values anymore, as I think the cheaper ships and destruptible factories combined are already more than enough.

  • Without helping Russia, Axis would be always favour. It is the only triplea map that Germany is almost 2 times stronger than Russia. And Japan becomes stronger than USA within a few rounds. If Allies ignore Japan and Germany continues holding France I don't think so Allies can win.

  • Moderators Admin

    I know I already told you privately, but I'll add here too that whenever you mod you should change the infoname. Here it should be called "WWIIv5 XXX", where "XXX" is whatever you want.

Log in to reply