@redrum said in Total World War (TWW):
@Hepps So I played a few rounds to get a feel for TWW and wanted to give some feedback as I know you are planning to use some of the features/inspiration in TWW in your new Global Dominance map. I'm definitely not an expert and haven't even played a complete game so there is always a chance that I'm missing something so feel free to point that out. This is meant to be an initial review of the map that may potential lead to interesting discussions on various features of it.
- +The map is absolutely beautiful but also very functional and easy to distinguish all of the various features. Its probably the best map from a graphical standpoint hands down. I'm actually a little surprised no one has made mods of it (if you would allow that).
I have never been asked to be perfectly honest.
- +The rules manual is also fantastic and looks very professional. Its probably one of the better strategy game manuals I've seen.
- +Probably the most historical map setup of WWII that I've seen. Does a pretty incredible job balancing historical setup with engaging game play.
- +/-Its very complex but also has a ton of depth. You pretty much have to at least skim the game manual to have any idea how to get started. I'm guessing it tends to be overwhelming for a lot of players that want to try it out. It would probably be best as a PBF/PBEM map given the size and duration and its kind of a bummer that there isn't a larger following (at least that I can find).
Yes like many more advanced games reading the manual is pretty much a must. Otherwise a player will simply flounder around thinking things are not working properly.
- +/-Uses some unique features that I haven't seen in any other map and really shows the flexibility of the TripleA engine. Only downside is that this makes it tough to pick up and the AI isn't compatible.
Yup this is 100% a PVP map.
- +/-Historical event popups add some nice flavor though some seem to be better than others. Some examples of ones that seemed a little odd were the first turn Japan popup that is in all Japanese and I conquered Tobruk on Germany's first turn but then got a popup about it on Italy's first turn which seemed kind of strange.
They were done for fun... IF you really look at the Japanese intro I think you will find it is actually in English.
- -The game manual explains the game options well but recommended settings seem kind of unclear. I played with all the defaults and no added rules during the bid step. Not sure if that is what most folks play with or what the map is primarily balanced around. It would be very beneficial to have a section laying out recommended options for a player's first game. Do most players play with any of the 5 bid options at the start? Do most folks play it with LL or dice?
Yah I'll post some recommended setting in a subsequent post.
- -There are a lot of different systems that each is fairly complex and most add a decent amount of depth. I think the challenge is that the learning curve to get started is pretty high. I wonder if creating a version with like 50-75% of the features as a intro to get the feel for things would help. If you removed say the production system, L&L, and auto unit placement events that would seem to make things more digestible.
It is obvious to me that the learning curve is the single greatest barrier to people learning the map. Probably why I spent months building one of the most comprehensive game manuals I have ever written.
I personally am not interested in making a TWW light. In fact I am going the other direction with GD and making a game with even more complexity.
- +I actually love the major/minor system used and wish more maps did this. It makes production more reasonable so for instance the UK can't spend all its PUs to build a giant fleet in Egypt but minimizes the number of different units so that they can attack together. Having separate purchases but unified unit ownership/movement/attacks seems genius. It also allows nations to be properly represented but not have 15 different full turns each round which is one major drawback of say WaW.
The Majors & Minors is one of the defining characteristics of TWW. Glad you like the concept.
- -Exiled Allies is an interesting concept though seemed to have little effect on the first few rounds I played. I'm guessing they become more relevant as Allies would gain back some of their territory? They seem to add a pretty good deal of complexity with trying to understand that most of their income is going to UK directly or they are Military Protectorates giving free Materials to certain UK minors based on number that are owned. So far not seeing much depth added here for the amount of complexity but I concede that it may matter more in later rounds.
While the EA can seem a little daunting at first and feel like they won't add much to the game... they can actually become a pretty significant part of an Allied victory. While some of the things like the protectorates and material exchange might seem cumbersome when you first start playing, they are very necessary when you play more and appreciate how this setup affects game balance... especially if the Allies can re-conquer the Island chains in the South Pacific later in the game. Again, what you see as complexity now... diminishes greatly as you get familiar with the game. The where and the how of most of the protectorates (especially those which award materials) become second nature after you acclimatize to the game design. As you get more experienced you may even find yourself fighting furiously to hold onto a couple protectorates because those materials you gain in Bombay or Sydney can be a real focal point for your British Allied strategy.
- -Neutral nations seem interesting though I played without politics since that is the default. This makes those nations permanently impassible which limits flexibility some. Might be better if they turned to just heavily guarded neutral territories when diplomacy is off.
You can set the game up to declare war on Neutrals only. Thereby basically giving you the ability to attack them only. The political system is not ideal (hence why I designed an entirely different one for GD) and most players normally play with the Declare War only option now,
Units and Terrain Effects
- +Pretty incredible unit set with lots of variety and each unit feels unique. Might be the best unit set of any map I've played and each turn I feel that there are a number of different units I'd like to build.
Yah while it might seem like a lot of units to the uninitiated... truth is they are all relevant and unique. Still a few design improvements are needed but overall I have always been very satisfied with how they work and operate.
- +Like the idea of unlocking advanced units with research as well.
One of my favorite features... nothing as gratifying as rolling your first heavy tank off the assembly line.
- +Enjoy having terrain effects and really make fighting in different areas feel much more realistic. Add a good deal of depth to the game through needing to build different units for different regions.
Thanks, really is part of the reason why there are additional units in the roster.
- +Like the idea of using hulls to make some sea units take 2 turns to build.
This was critical in slowing the spamming syndrome. I am taking this concept further in GD.
- +Units with the terrain bonuses and defensive structures end up being more defensive oriented which allows more territories to be held and less of a 'let's make 1 giant stack of units' game.
That was part of our initial goal... to create a game where maybe there were multiple fronts rather than just 1 enormous stack in Kursk. This is really why I am making GD so much bigger without changing the income ratios too much. This way you will have vast tracts of land that you cannot cover with a single stack... and without copious ammounts of income... you are forced to spread your armies over large areas in order to stop a break through.
- +/-Sub vs destroyer is kind of interesting mechanic and not sure I have a strong opinion on this yet. It seems subs are potentially very strong the first few rounds until nations develop Improved Destroyers as there is no unit with "isDestroyer" besides a few starting Heavy Destroyers. After that they kind of become just a cheap fodder unit for attacking and being able to go through straits.
The was the idea... to make subs more of a viable unit for longer in the game. The concept was half way to where we wanted it in this game. Subs remain a viable option as a unit throughout the game and players often use them in sizable numbers to stop large fleets. GD goes even further in the direction of having subs being able to survive longer into a game even without a large surface fleet for protection.
- +/-Initially, having marines as the only unit that can amphib assault is an interesting idea. Though this makes getting Special Warfare ASAP pretty important for naval nations and would seem like maybe just making non-marine infantry very weak on amphib assaults might be better for more flexibility.
The entire idea came from wanting to make Special Warfare a necessary pursuit as far as a tech research path. It was also really placed into the game as a way to achieve a more historical unit setup without destroying playability as it allowed us more freedom with starting units while still limiting what could be mobilized on turn 1 or 2 depending on research results... certain theaters really exemplify this... Japans first turn would be a smoke show if they could land any and all units... North Africa is slowed enough to allow the British time to muster defenses. I think if you really look at what you could do without this mechanism... many parts of the initial game balance would be severely impacted and not for the better. None-the-less I am designing GD with what you suggested... where non-marine infantry can amphibious assault from start but with stiff penalties to attack values.
- -I think there are probably too many different terrain effects and some of them like "Coast" just don't seem that useful. Forest and Jungle should just be combined together as they have almost the same bonuses and adds another column to the unit vs terrain table. Overall, have a little too much complexity for the added depth and feel like it could be more streamlined some.
- -Automatic unit placement events just seem kind of unnecessary. Seem like an extra system that adds complexity but adds very little depth or impact on the game. Also is one more symbol on an already complex map.
The only terrains I am planning to change is coast. So many aspects of how it (coast) operates is problematic. It was included for a couple very specific technical reasons related to the Tech Tree... but I shall not go into the details. Needless to say, once again as you play more... the terrain effects become pretty much second nature... the specific impacts in battle are often offset by the fact that the battle calculator takes them into account. So really as long as you know what works well and what doesn't in any given terrain... you don't really have to sweat the details all that much.
- +Very unique system with multiple different production facilities for different unit types which is interesting and adds depth.
I agree. Making production a multifaceted part of the game makes a player have to truly think about how and where they are going to focus their energy and use their resources.
- +Using materials/trucks/engineers to build structures is pretty interesting and really makes a player have to plan ahead as well as not allowing structures to just appear half a map away (say in Africa).
That was the whole point. We designed it with the idea that there should be the possibility to say build certain units in a remote region... but that should really take a concerted effort on the part of a player... not just drop a factory French West Africa and start pumping Battleships out the very next turn.
- -I really don't like the engineer unit and feel its somewhat unnecessary. It ends up being a headache to remember not to move/attack with them. I'd almost rather them be a noncombat unit like trucks or just removed entirely. I think most of the depth from the build system is from the materials and trucks not engineers.
I get that... but we created a game where the player is required to think further ahead than just pushing stacks around. It does get easier as you get more familiar... but it can be challenging... that was intentional. I have altered the engineer for GD to make its role far more specific.
Restricted Territory and Lend Lease
- +Like that Allies can't just bring units into Russia or China
- +L&L is a very cool concept and seems to work pretty well. Makes it kind of interesting for the Allies to need to clear certain areas to be able to supply Russia/China with units. Not just sending them PUs.
That was the goal. I feel there are still opportunities in making it a little better... and that will come with GD.
- -L&L unit restrictions for the various countries is difficult to remember and I end up having to look at the game manual again and again to remember what can be used per nation.
That becomes second nature as you play more. If you continue playing you won't even have to look.
- +Love the idea of having a tech tree though the TripleA support for this is terrible so you have to keep looking at the game manual. Like most of the bonuses overall and feel its probably the best research system of any map I've played.
This is why we included a PDF inside the map folder. When printed on 8 1/2" x 14" legal paper the manual can be very helpful right beside the computer. Once again, after you play for a while referring to it becomes less of a necessity.
- -Kind of wish there were actually fewer options and a more dependent tree as having to choose from 10-12 options is kind of overwhelming and difficult to balance. I'm guessing there are a couple of pretty standard starting tech focuses as in particular Special Warfare and Improved Destroyers seem to be must haves more any naval nation.
While there are some pretty consistent mainstays as far as priorities... I think if you play some experienced players you might be very surprised as to what is chosen as a priority. I think the only single one that is consistently done every game is Special Warfare by Japan. Other than that I know I personally have a number of different choices I make for any given nation based on what I see the opposition doing and achieving.
Thanks for all the input. Looking forward to finally playing you in the lobby some time.