further mods with new unit (navalmines), several new units for neutrals, and slight adjustment of Russia and US productin capacity.
In reply to this post by OnanTheBrBr
sometimes having the higher number of scouts help a defense, but most of the time (when it matters) it does not.
one cannot simply run a few experiments then assume the conjecture is now fact
try 35 scouts as attacker, then 28 scouts, 9 armour as defense, then change it to 43 scouts in defense. try a bunch of scenario's if you like, put some inf in front of both, but in most cases having a superior number of units, but much less damage per fire will end in disaster
however this doesn't always apply to germany, since they can always stay 2 spaces away, and have the other powers break the barrier, hence no need to be able to defend a position before they can attack again.
so I suggest either a special german scout, which costs 3.5, or light armour that costs 4 or something and no scout for germany. simply raising the scout price for everyone doesn't change too much since russia needs them just as bad, plus they have to defend their postion for a turn before they are able to attack again
Greets guerillaJ. I dont give one example and assume its conclusion to be a fact. I think u misunderstand the intention of the change. I did not at all intend to change anything concerning the russian-german balance with the change of the scout price, and I never said so either. I wanted the scout not to be seen as the dominant unit in the late game - and that is what others in the community also complained about.
As it is for russia needing scouts: on the map version I presented to the community, russia receives a compensation for the raised scout price. compensation is worth the extra price of 16 scouts and is given in inf. So russia can simply skip buying some inf in the first rounds and thus afford the EXACT same netto buys as before the changed price (for the first round(s) that is). And that is what counts against the initial german TUV superiority. In the later rounds, there are also less scouts to be expected from the german side, thx to the raised costs, so russia will also need less to maintain offensive pressure. In the first games tested it worked out very well, by the way.
And for your examples: I never stated that pure scouts are better then a mixed force. But of two mixed forces the one with more scouts and less armor is the one that wins in defense as well as in offense - if not going to unrealistic extremes. As realistic, I consider at least one third of the force consisting of inf. Try it out for yourself. No question that a bit (!) of firepower "behind" the hits serves well and is a smart choice. Same as with early ftrs/modern ftrs: while the early ftrs are the better choice in most battles (surprising for some maybe), due to the higher number of hitpoints they provide, it quickly becomes the better choice to mix in a couple of modern ftrs for firepower (2/3rd early 1/3rd modern is a good rule of thumb over a wide range, as most know). But while this is quite nicely balanced with the planes, the optimum lies far more in the extremes when it comes to mixing tanks and scouts - as can easily be seen on the battlefields. Forces of many scouts and very few tanks are far superior to forces of many tanks and few scouts. You actually point that out yourself with your example (28 scouts + 9 armor ...).
Furthermore, the whole change came together with the defense for trucks raised to 3. Infs plus Katjushas plus Trucks are a VERY evil combination for russia now.
Even more, the Big armor's defense has been raised to 4, but at the price of 1 IPC, making it actually a less attractive buy (but providing the option of a dedicated landbased DEFENSIVE buy now, as it didnt exist before). Since Germany is the main purchaser of Big armor, this is slightly in russias favour also.
But again, it never been my intention to change anything considering the german-russian balance. I only wanted to change the battlefield composition.
Still, thx for your thoughts. Appreciated.
lol Onan, im glad my thoughts are still appreciated
attacker 70 inf 40 tanks.... defender 50 inf, 20 scouts, 30 tanks
then 50 inf, 70 scouts
attacker 70 inf 40 tanks, defender 40 inf, 20 scouts, 40 tanks
from this i kept taking away 3 tanks and adding 5 scouts for defender, and it did calc better untill I got to 45 scouts, 25 tanks, then at 50 scouts and 22 tanks it started doing worse.
yet what you say can be quite true, when backed by air or other heavy hitters, but one cannot simply run the battle calc, and since it says it does better, then just leave it at that.
you run a great risk of only being able to win that battle by numbers, rather than damage per fire, thus opening yourself up to being hit just once (where you will have to take scouts as casualties)
of course they are, appreciated your thoughts, I mean. Just teasing about your hot-headed quit, and even that not seriously.
Did your example.
70inf 40arm attacking 20inf 20scouts 40tanks. 52% attacker win.
Then step wise taking away 3 tanks and adding 5 scouts. Attacker continue to drop to 30% and then slowly raising again to only reach 55% at a defending force of 20inf 75scouts 7arm.
Thing is that scouts beat armor over a long stretch WHILE DEFENSE IS WHAT SHOULD BE THEIR WEAKNESS, since they ALWAYS beat armor in offense, no matter what combination. The battle shows also that the rule of thumb of mixing the main force of scouts with about 1/3rd other units, be it tanks or inf or planes, gives the best results. The conclusions stays that the scout is much better as the main unit in a force then the tank - which is what most consider wrong / dont like it. With the scouts at 3.5 IPC, the optimal composition of a force is just shifted away from having the scout as the main unit towards having it as a support unit, thats all.
I am well aware the fact that scout forces can be treacherous battlecalc wise and are vulnerable to strafes. BUT in reality, that is rarely the case, as it only applies to forces being about equally strong within very narrow margins.
Finally, the simple fact that almost all veterans compose their armies with scouts as the main unit just says enough. So far, my Mod seems to work very nice. Trucks at 3 defense MIGHT be abused, but still keep them at 3 so far.
ya scouts rock, I buy a combo of scouts and armour; maybe 2-1. it's just someone came into a game of mine and said that I should just buy scouts and no tanks using your post as reference saying they do better on defense too (I was allies, russia and british med had impressive scout and tank stacks)
just thought that would be nuts, a good tanks size behind the scouts gave it good options I thought, being able to move into a dangerous spot in route to another location, (or threatening a few spots at once without being behind inf). being able to hold a place after taking it; ie., finnland, Donestk, Minsk. I dont know why I think I'm right, I just do. Often I'll just pick one side of an arguement that doesn't have a current voice to see if we all can arrive at a better understanding as a result, not that I think I know everything, which it can often be misunderstood as such.
I think you misunderstood me on that game we stopped playing ernie, when you said do you resign, and my response "ya you can call it that" it didn't mean I didn't want to acknowledge it as a resignation, just didn't care what we called it, just wanted it over, those 1 inf attrition bombards on ankura, combined with the 60 unit german navy were eating at my nerves.
cool, so we settled two arguments ;)
I think I understand well how you felt. When I took my 2(!) beatings from warmonger, underestimating Russian scouts and consecutively being locked out of Ukraine (Ukraine, not Donetsk!) virtually forever with Germany made my teeth 2 millimeters shorter from grinding... Losing isnt fun and few can really take it well here - and I admit I am not among them... Still, I managed a "gg, thx for your time towards warmonger" between my clenched teeth before leaving to demolish the interior of my house. Glad I kind of received that from you too now ;)
Ye, scouts rock. A bit too much. 2-1 scout tank ratios just look odd on the battlefield (think 3-1 is possible too even), and thats just the DEFENSIVE side. Much more important, they ALWAYS beat or at least match every other unit on offense, and that with a movement of 2.
I think units should have weaknesses. Subs beat BBs, BBs planes beat subs, BBs safeguard against 1-2 strikes, t-boats are the best naval value, but move at 1, planes are flexible, but grant few firepower for the money compared to land based units etc. - whom am I telling that? Thats how it should be in my opinion. Maybe a scout 1/1/2 for 2IPC (better 2.5) and a "light armor" 3/1/2 for 4IPC would have been interesting alternatives. The one unit mobile cannonfodder and the other a really offensive choice with a definite weakness in defense at its cost. But didnt want to change the original NWO that much. Also, this "light armor" would have been too similar to katjushas probably ( a GREAT unit!).
NWO Mods (including 1.5EB): ftp://bloodstorm.servegame.org/tripel%20A/new%20world%20order%20modds/
PS.: I noticed many silent readers follow this thread. Greetings and thx for the interest in this illustrious daily NWO-theory circle, making this the most read thread on the board by now! ;))
And all hail SIEG for creating NWO! :)
+NEW WORLD ORDER+ 1.6
First Of All Thanks To The Whole Crew For Their Support.
Whithout U Guys NWO Never Came to This Stage... :)
Changes in 1.6
1. Scouts Now Cost 3.5 ( 2 Scouts for 7 IPCs)
2. 1 Transport Added in Sz 31, 1 T.Boat in Sz30 For Uk ( Removed 1 tp. and sub in Sz30)
3. Big Armour Raised To 4/4/2/8
4. Bunkers Now Buyable 0/3/0/6 Two Hit ( 1Per Terretory, Can Be Placed with Edit, Same cond. as Ic, Red Dot)
5. Cruisers Now Cost 15 and Can Transport 1 Unit (No Tank)
6. +4 Infantry for Russia ( +2 Kubyshev, +1 Kazakh, +1 Svedlovsk)
7. US +1 Tank in Central and +1 Bomber in W.U.S
8. +1 T.Boat in Sz 26 for Germany
9. +1 Bunker In Leningrad ( Now 2 There)
10. Trucks Raised to 1/3/3/4
11. Russia plus 3 Ipc, Uk +1 Ipc, Romania +1 Ipc
12. Baleares Now 1 Ipc
13. Me 262 Changed to 12 Ipcs
In reply to this post by osa1011
Most (good) Mods have that written in the GAME NOTES.
Where to find these? start a game and look to the right of the menu, thats all :)
Just wanted to say that I appreciate all the work and thought into the new versions. I also wanted to ask someone who was knowledgeable on making a map for triple A using the map utilities. I'm considering attempting to create or modify a map and/or modify NWO for the AA50 rules. I don't know Java and am not sure if that expertise is necessary. I read the link to the developer documentation. However I'm unable to figure out how to get started with map utilities. Can anyone explain how to open and use the map utilities? Thanks.
Just an FYI on some upcoming news for NWO... Sieg has provided me his game to include within the triplea download (coming soon). Now you'll be able to get your NWO fix "out of the box," so to speak.
If emailing me at ComradeKev at yahoo.com , please add TripleA to the subject line
Great to have you visit here depsite the amazing work you do on the new TripleA release.
I advise including the last version I uploaded here in the new release. It has a couple of mistakes corrected and straighened game-notes (for example, players had disagreements on how to play the bunkers). Some other minor tweaks like having LL checkied by default and Tech phases removed (Tech is virtually unplayable in NWO) have been applied too, to make the NWO experience even more enjoyable; details in my former post.
I am rather sure sieg will give his "go ahead" on this too. Some gut feeling ;P
INFO [AWT-EventQueue-0] ChatController->Chatter:subotai port:3300 ip:192.168.1.101 is joining chat:games.strategy.engine.framework.ui.ServerStartup.CHAT_NAME
java.lang.IllegalStateException: Found neither zip:/home/h/triplea/triplea_1_0_3_2/maps/New World Order.zip or dir:/home/h/triplea/triplea_1_0_3_2/maps/New World Order for skin:New World Order
This is from the latest unstable 1032, I think that if mods are included in the triplea version, maps should also be included in the triplea package.
A quick bug to report. I tried using the 1.6 version from the d'load link in your sig and the one that came with the latest TripleA beta and both have an issue where the rolled dice are not being displayed during battles. Also, the combat move phase is coming before the purchase units phase. (v1.2 doesn't have these issues.) I'm running the latest version of Java on XP. Let me know if there's a setting that I'm missing or if you have a snippit of code to insert. I look forward to playing your mod once it's fixed.
then just use the stable version, and the turn order is the new and improved way of doing things, kind of like from horse and buggy to automobile
lol what a noob - thats all I can say about someone who doesn't realize the benefit of that turn order in NWO, obviously hasn't played it much
and why insist on playing the beta? i've been to that lobby, like 0-5 ppl there, wait all day for an NWO prolly
Relax... I deleted that post to avoid this type of drama... but since you decided to drag it in here anyway... I'll stand by what I said. As far as my experience with the game goes, I'm 99% sure I've been playing it since before you were born. *lol* It's just a bug report so don't take it so personal.
Its ok, Cal.
But while I probably would have put it differently, guerilla is not wrong in the core of his sayings.
If you use the TripleA beta, u gotta report bugs there. Its not called beta for nothing. They are not related to NWO.
And the combat phase before the purchase phase is explicitly intended in this version of 1.6 here, to speed up gameplay. As it is written in the post just above yours...
But take it easy and welcome :)
Hi i'm new to this site, and grabbed your mod, and its very good, very slick.
Don't suppose there is a way to unlock who is at war with who, i love hypertheticals and switching up who is at war with who.
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|