World War II v5 1942 Second Edition

Cernel

@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.

Cernel

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

Schulz

@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.

Cernel

@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.

Cernel

@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)).

Schulz

@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.

0_1525826164738_Adsız.png

Cernel

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

Cernel

@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).

Schulz

@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.

Cernel

@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.

Schulz

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.

Cernel

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.

Cernel

@cernel For example, since a main element is making Armour much more hard hitting than in original, you can call it "WWIIv5 Lightning War".

Schulz

I think we should adopt the same concept to v3 map. v3 has clearly better graphics than v5.

Cernel

@schulz I think both maps I wouldn't personally take as basis for any mayor projects, but I'm not a fan of the Revised style Russian front, so v3 is some better there (as I said).
So I think that, if this is about done, I would stick to v5 here (then doing something similar for v3 may be another project, if you really want to, with its own topic, once this one is finished up).
Also the fact that v5 is almost totally unplayed kind of make the mod more interesting, as you get to play a map that you would otherwise never consider (for a bunch of reasons).

Cernel

I know that you disagree, but in my opinion the game is currently significantly unbalanced in favour of Allies.
You need to play your mod with a very good allies player; see if you can beat him.

If what I'm saying would be acknowledged, to rebalance it, my suggestion is to go back with the original naval costs, except increasing the cost of Carrier to 20 (while keeping Fighter at 8).
Also, with Bomber at cost 10, which is interesting and I think I like it, if balanced, Fighters need to be better interceptors than escorts.
You said that it doesn't work for you to have a defence greater than the attack, but I've tested it, and it works correctly, in at least my MBM mod of v3.
This is the code, you can paste for your Fighter:

    <attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="fighter" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
      <option name="movement" value="4"/>
      <option name="carrierCost" value="1"/>
      <option name="isAir" value="true"/>
      <option name="attack" value="3"/>
      <option name="defense" value="4"/>
      <option name="canIntercept" value="true"/>
      <option name="canEscort" value="true"/>
      <option name="airDefense" value="2"/>
      <option name="airAttack" value="1"/>
    </attachment>

So, I believe that if you paste the above code, you will have Fighters doing air battles at 1 in offence and 2 in defence.

I think you got confused by the fact that the tooltip says 1. I believe that is just a display bug, I just opened a ticket for (I never noticed it before):
https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/3421

Also since there is a similar optional rule for the original game, I suggest you add the following canal, not as an option, but as a fixed rules change.

    <attachment name="canalAttachmentTurkish" attachTo="15 Sea Zone" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
      <option name="canalName" value="Turkish Straits"/>
      <option name="landTerritories" value="Turkey"/>
      <option name="excludedUnits" value="transport:infantry:artillery:armour:aaGun"/>
    </attachment>
    <attachment name="canalAttachmentTurkish" attachTo="16 Sea Zone" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.CanalAttachment" type="territory">
      <option name="canalName" value="Turkish Straits"/>
      <option name="landTerritories" value="Turkey"/>
      <option name="excludedUnits" value="transport:infantry:artillery:armour:aaGun"/>
    </attachment>

Also removing the mention in note about the optional rule, and notifying that transports (and their cargo) can move through, but air units cannot, for this canal only.

I want also to point out that all rules changes from the original must be made clear in notes (the players should never have to find out any by playing it out). For example, the air battle rules and the factories that get destroyed must be documented in notes.
Also, I see that it is low luck for anti aircraft default. If this is intended, document it in notes, as well (player should not be obliged to read through all the options to see if any default is different, either)

Comon, rename the mod. It shouldn't read as original. People were joining probably thinking that we were playing the actual Spring 1942 2nd Edition.

Cernel

Oh, a thing I somewhat just overlooked: having lowered Japanese production to 22, also starting PUs should be lowered the same (to 22 PUs, from the current 30 PUs). I just suggest keeping the tradition of having equal starting productions and PUs, in all cases.

The increasing of carrier cost to 20 can also be offset a bit by decreasing the cost of transport to 6, but, on the other hand, you may prefer to increase its cost to 8 or more, if you want to incentive Pacific play (the cheaper the transports, the more convenient is for Americans to go Atlantic, just setting up a pipeline of transports from Eastern Canada to France).

Also, the two AAgun in the United States and the AAgun in Japan can be deleted.

Better you upload it in here, when you got it some stable (and with its own mod name!), as it is strange to talk in forum about something not available anywhere.

Schulz

In the next version, Sub cost will be 6, destroyer 8, cruiser 11, battleship 18, carrier 16, aaGun 6. (And maybe we have to make 18-20 Factory cost insead of 15 ?)

Also Jap will start with 22 Pus instead of 30. USA starts with -1 Armour and Infantry.

BTW if Axis takes Moscow, then there is still no possibility any allies victory.

And renaming the map, editing Turkish straits and air defense of fighters etc...

Cernel

@schulz Those costs seem fine to me, but cruiser would be better balanced down to 10, then (cruiser is the worst cost effective naval unit in original).

Schulz

0_1527083729994_WW2v5_1942_3rd.xml