Realism and history are not the same thing.

Realistically, those pacific islands are not worth much. Historically, Japan invested a lot into defending them. Which was almost certainly a mistake and a very poor use of her resources. In TripleA, players have perfect information and battles are simple probabilities. Do you want players to fight over these islands, like happened in history? Then make fighting over them worthwhile.

Its not a mystery than players will give attacking a territory worth 6 a higher priority than attacking a territory worth 0.

This is an interesting topic.

I think the answer is to make Japan and Asia more valuable, in particular relative to Europe and Africa. Looking at a map such as WW2 Revised, where the USA tends to go very heavily in Europe. Why doesn't the USA go Pacific? You mean why doesn't the USA target Norway (worth 3), Algeria and Libya (worth 1 each), and then Western and Southern Europe (6 each) instead of 3 islands worth 0 each?

So I don't think the answer is to force Russian-Japanese neutrality. If Japan cannot affect the land war of Eastern Europe, it just makes going Pacific an even worse strategy for the USA.

@Hepps
I find that somewhat hard to read.

Currently there is an issue of territories being relatively crowded, so I would prefer a PU marker that poppped less. In fact, I would happily take the faded numbers you have in that canal picture.

Those shells look great to me

There is a way to do what you are suggesting.

It sounds like you are looking to create a rather complex map. I think the best path is to start testing unit and support attachments on your own, to see what creative ways you can find to implement some of your desired features.

@Schulz
You cannot initiate a battle where ships can bombard enemy shores normally unless there is an amphibious assault.

Look at Age of Tribes if you want to see an indirect way for land/sea units to hit each other.

Limit the number of combat rounds.
Remove the feature where a nation loses all its PUs when its capital falls.

These help reduce the win-more problem in the game.

In Age of Tribes, Mortars and Missile Launchers are land units that can sink enemy ships.

@Boston said in World At War - Official Thread:

People seem to prefer playing axis, but I've seen allies do better in most cases. I'm reserving judgment on map balance with perfect play on both sides

Japan's opening moves are really difficult. My experience with this map is that it favors the allies really heavily for newer players, largely because the allies can really mess up Japan (or Italy) during the first few turns.

If Japan executes their opening well, its a different story. I find that a Japan that goes really hard at Russia with mobile units does really well. I'd be curious to see if an expert allied player could overcome this. I have a feeling that what a person does with the USA separates good players from great players.

I've also noticed that if a unit is isInfrastructure, it cannot have an targeted attack. You won't get an error, the targeted attack just won't fire.