World War II v5 1942 Second Edition
-
@cernel For example, since a main element is making Armour much more hard hitting than in original, you can call it "WWIIv5 Lightning War".
-
I think we should adopt the same concept to v3 map. v3 has clearly better graphics than v5.
-
@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). -
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.
-
-
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.
-
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...
-
@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 Latest suggestions:
- Midway down to 0 production (give it to Central United States at 4)
It's a game, and many places, like Alaska or Madagascar, are overvalued, but, in case of Midway, since it was a barren island with virtually nothing productive in it, should really not have a production value (you already have Hawaii at two).
- Iwo Jima down to 0 production (give it to Kiangsu at 2 or Solomon at 1)
Almost the same as Midway; Iwo Jima or anything around there should not influence production.
Also, it would make sense that Kiangsu is worth 2, as it has Shanghai and, probably, Peking in it, and anyways that is the most important zone of China.
If you strongly want income contention in Pacific, rather give that 1 production point to Solomon, instead of Iwo Jima.
Also, Solomon at 1 would incentive pacific play more than Iwo Jima at 1, as the Americans fleet is likely to move there (common move).- Union of South Africa up to 2 production (take it from Egypt down to 1 production)
It makes sense to distinguish it from the rest of Africa, since it was the most worthwhile part of Africa (raw matherials and some industrial productivity). So, better that at 2 than Egypt. Also, it might get a factory in it, in a few games.
- Remove 1 production from Russians and add 4 production to Americans (Russians down from 26 to 25 and americans up from 38 to 42 (you can add them up to Central and Eastern United States))
Stronger Americans mean that Pacific play is more feasible, despite India factory being unlikely, at production 2, and opens up more to Americans playing both oceans, as a worthwhile strategy.
Fix the notes, so to tell everything the mod is about:
- Remove the line "1. Several territories/SZs added or modified.", as that is a leftover from the original notes, about the differences coming from v4 (no need keeping any in the mod, as it would be also confusing with what's different for the mod).
- No need to tell anyone production; they can see that in stats (and Japanese now is at 20, not 22).
- Mention that Hawaii is not a victory city anymore, beside the fact that Eastern Canada is.
- Remove the two "Optional Rule" lines from notes, and tell that bombing air battles is default (bomber at 1 and fighter at 1/2).
- Tell that AA guns defend vs bombing and factories have no AA ability themselves.
- Tell that AA guns defend at 4.
I know that some of those were specified the other way round in the game, and you deleted them, but those were the differences from v4, while your notes should be the differences from v5, even in the cases you go back to v4.
-
Also I wonder if a name like "World War II v5 1942 Third Edition" would be acceptable to the repository admins ( @redrum and @Lafayette). This mod seems about ready for at least the experimental.
-
Giving 1 Pus to Solomon instead of Iwo Jima would be just extra bonus to the US. Jap is unable to easily retake Solomon.
The older version had 2 serious issue. One of them was inevitable collapsing of the Russia. And another of them was huge USA production. Game was totally depends on dices. If Russia hold caucasus then Axis losing become inevitable due to huge US Production power. Making the US more vulnerable in the Pacific could bring the balance otherwise USA would never invest in the Pacific.
I think the weakest Allies country should be UK not Russia.
-
I have a question for the map maker of this map. I'm assuming this map is equivalent to the A&A 1942 2nd Edition as in the board game (released ca. 2012) and my question concerns the optional rule SZ16 (Black Sea) not being accessible to ships and how to implement this rule when playing against the AI?
Between human players, this isn't a problem but playing against the AI, there is a reasonable chance for ships to be sent to SZ16. I noticed that the other optional rule Raids may be preceded by air battles has a check/uncheck box in Map Options. Therefore is it possible a similar option can be incorporated into this map, or if not, is there another way to be able to implement this option?
I know this map is probably not played very often but it is a map I would like to use to introduce people who can't get to an actual board game, interested in A&A and of course TripleA. -
@scousemart This could be achieved by changing the game XML. You just need someone who wants to make the needed changes.
-
Actually, this thread is not really the main thread of "World War II v5 1942 Second Edition", but about making a variation of it. I think the title should be changed accordingly.
If your question is actually for the map maker of "World War II v5 1942 Second Edition", I doubt he will answer, of we can even be sure about its identity, if anybody put a claim.
I suggest opening a new topic for your question. If the matter is being able to swich canal on and off in a clean/easy supported way, it'd have to be a feature request.
-
@cernel Yeah, I was wondering about this thread when I was reading some of the posts.
I'm quite happy to open a new topic as suggested however, regarding asking for a feature request, would I be doing that in the same post? Also would it be in this Maps/Mods thread or somewhere else on the forums?
Thanks in advance for your help. -
@scousemart There is a "Feature Requests & Ideas" subsection.
You can ask to support the v5 official optional rule to get a canal in Turkey. Also, for your information, World War II v3 has that option too (tho not o.o.b.). Practically that would need having a property to switch on/off canals and an option to flag canals as optional, then changing the v5 (and probably v3 too) xml.
-
@cernel Super, I'll give it a try. I just hope I can word it correctly... :smiling_face_with_open_mouth_closed_eyes:
Also maybe someone could edit this thread title, so not to confuse with my new thread...
-
@cernel @scousemart
This was already discussed here Optional SZ 16 rule, with an edited xml file for this purpose.Cheers...
-
I've played A/A for awhile but I'm relatively new to TripleA. I've been playing this version a lot because while I learned the global rules a long time ago I don't remember them well enough and the rules state that it won't stop me from making illegal moves, which I most certainly would at some point.
Anyway, I've noticed a fair amount of one-sidedness in this map with the Axis having a noticeable advantage. One problem, as I think has been pointed out here, is the incredible weakness of Russia. It falls inevitably after a few moves, and if Japan can hold onto India that's game over right there. The problem, as I see it, is that the Allies don't have a good way to distract Germany. It's so powerful, especially after making headway against Russia, that landing units in France and bombing Berlin just doesn't cut it. At the same time, the US and Japan tend to get locked into stalemate in the Pacific forcing the UK into a lost ground war in India.
Am I just a noob who's playing this wrong or is this a legitimate complaint?
-
@jaketheking This version favors the Axis heavily. Give Russia a bid of 24.
