NEW WORLD ORDER

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
260 messages Options
123456 ... 13
ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW WORLD ORDER

ice
theo try real players insteat of easy computer, ai is really bad for tripple a, and even worse for mods. also ll will disable those bad luck attacks if you want.

ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW WORLD ORDER

Guderian
In reply to this post by sieg
I have downloaded NWO last year (from the now-lost tripleadev.org site) and also asked a few questions then.
The version i have downloaded (last year) was "1.8", it was recommended that i download and try Version1.7 because on my resolution of 1024*768 a buy window with more than 20units is... unplayable.
(The units are displayed all right and the entryfield is useable, but the buttons to manipulate the numbers to buy are moved below the entry field by the engine and thus are out the visible frame of each unit, inaccessible in effect)
I did so (download+play the 1.7 version), but soon made "my" house-mod, by combining the two versions (1.8map because of the Krim connection with basically the 1.7units, and some fixes and fine-tunes i think were necessary)
Since then, i have enjoyed+played this map extensively - this and "the great war" are my favorites.

Now i come back to check for more maps/new versions and find the "version count" is back to 1.4 to 1.6?
What's that about?
I was under the impression that versions count "up" not, down :P

I have since downloaded and tested (only a few rounds yet, mind you - 23units still play badly on 1024*768) the "official 1.6" version.


Comments+questions:
1) the east-west um... deficiency is still around:
Czech,Romania,Sicilia
(Hint: East is right and right is where the thumb is left)

2) Connections:
I am not sure, because i did not keep track of my edits throughout, but on the earlier versions a few connections were missing, resulting in... unneeded errors.
Among them were Romania-Bulgaria (dunno if west or east, i "corrected" them in my mods)
and Kaluga (which seems fixed now, from a quick glance into the XML)

I have also tried and introduced some more canals (gibraltar, messina, korsica and found it... easier defendable for the italian, who was too easily overwhelmed otherwise

3) Truck:
Ok, it is no longer at 1/1/3 as it was in V1.7/v1.8, but the desctiption is still off ;)
Besides:
I never quite got the "wisdom" of introducing Mot-Inf (scout) and the truck, when the tank can do both roles in one unit at a cheaper price (than the two combined)
(same with the T-boat - truck and T-Boat were the two units i removed from "my" 1.8 mod to keep it playable on my resolution)

4) Switzerland:
Is much, MUCH too overdefended.
In 1.7 it was 12 or 14infantry, in 1.8 it was i think 6bunkers, now it is 8bunkers?
You ARE aware that the ONLY reason switzerland was not conquered was that the axis needed that "neutral" territory for financial transactions and such, and despite swiss "propaganda" had nothing to do with the "strength" of the swiss army? :D

5) "new" nations:
I appreciate the presence of France as an allied player (though the weak AI kind of negates the advantages).
Also, the IPC changes for Finland and it's presence on the Axis side were a  good idea imo.

However, i am really questioning "colonial France" - it seems to me, that this (and the reduction of Tunis from 5 to 4IPCs, along with the naval forces in sz44) more than "a bit" limit the Axis' possibilities on the african/arab theater.
In the games i have played with v1.7/1.8, the Italians were ALWAYS stalemated at around tobruk and C/S-Turkey, with the Brit (having conquered iran/iraq and built a factory in saudi arabia) more than easily held him at bay on both fronts.
While the Russian player usually held N Turkey (usually defended by the brit too) and more than held the german at bay at around it's initial starting line.
So with this setup, the italian player not only has to defend against the brit, but also against colonial france
(even having denied/delayed to him the utlimatively needed tunis to even keep up the stalemate situation)
AND he is missing "his" 2IPCs from Bulgaria...

Which brings me to:
6) Romania:
Upside: the territories are useable from the start, not only after round 2-4.
Downside: Similar to the Italians, the IPCs are missing for the germans; the romanians cannot put on sufficient pressure on the russians, and neither can the germans without the IPCs, resulting in even more weakness on the Odessa/Ukraine front.
What's the purpose of this player?

7) Yet even more Allies advantages:
The factory in the S.US... this is one the US player had to build, these 15IPCs are again much too much of an advantage (imo).
Again, based on my games done with the 1.7/1.8 versions and my resulting mod(s), the US player was he winning point every time, with the brit holding off the italian and the russian keeping the german occupied enough so he cannot effectively strengthen his navy (after basically destroying the brit navy) enough to withstand the US onslought.
The US player was ALWAYS in control of the atlantic (with the german navy all but defeated and the allies having free reign all over) by round 15 at the latest.
By round 20, with the US side having conquered Ireland (always) and Iceland, Gibraltar (moe often than not held by the US player too), the allied invasion of spain or france was successful.
Even placing an additional initial german factory in Austria and relocating two tanks and 2inf from Nuernberg to Venezia (So germany could 100% take Marseille in the first move) did NOT make the game "axis-sided" :/


This all means to me:
I really LOVE the setup, the map as such (it's "artwork" and territory-distribution) and the level of detail that's possible through it.
But, this (new) map is even more ally-sided than it was before, because of the fractioning and some unit placements.
Has anyone really ever actually WON as axis player against a (good) HUMAN opponent with this setup (i.e. this "new NWO" )?


I will try to find enough time to test it in a somewhat timely manner, but from the few rounds i have done so far, i am thinking about getting rid of "colonial france" and romania at the least, and perhaps even having to relocate a few initial german forces to... even the odds some more :/

p.s.:
I fully support the guy that insisted on placing an Inf on the baleares, especially since it now has an IPC...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW WORLD ORDER

Guerrilla_J
guderan, when played right, italy has tunis rnd 1, and morocco rnd 2

i suggest watching some experienced players, just pop in and observe when you can

italy is usuallly quite massive, and if played well, can juggle UK in east med and US if they go spain
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW WORLD ORDER

Guderian
well, "experienced" is... a flexible term.
I do consider myself somewhat experienced, but ofc you are only as good as your competition.
(and i do confess that i play more "with" my opponent than "against" him - fun is my motivation, not domination).


Tunis in Rd1 is pretty standard, yes, even with the "new" units.
At least with these "new" naval units in SZ44 the two planes in "west" (named east in sieg's maps, but the one NOT connected to SZ46) Sicilia now have a nice, immediate, use.

Taking it is not the problem though, holding it against a dedicated brit player is.
5IPC ("old" version, =NWO= ) Tunis is imo required to keep the brit at bay.
(together with the 3 from a factory placed in tripolis OR a steady transport of units from Taranto to Tobruk for which you'd need two more transports anyways, so building the factory is not too bad, and less vulnerable to brit navy, imo).

Morocco in Rd2 sounds interesting (much like "paris rush" did), but really is simply too far off to help against the brit who's taking iran/iraq, perhaps even building a factory in Saudi Arabia and is then (more than) well set up to hold these two fronts against the italian, no matter what.

With the IPC reduction for tunis the italian's pressure on ElAlamein is weakened and the added defenses for Greece mean that the italian is stalled to take Ankara until Rd4 or even 5 because he has to stop a round to build "expendable inf" before taking istanbul.

*shrug*
I've simply found that in +NWO+ the brit (and even the russian) is now already AT Ankara by the time Italy is able to take it.
(which is needed to keep the balance IT vs GB there)
BUT, ofc, there are many ways to play a map and perhaps not too many people play it like we do,
meaning i/we am/are simply using the "wrong" tactics for the map
:P

It's mostly fun though, so not too "wrong" at all, hehe.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW WORLD ORDER

OnanTheBrBr
In reply to this post by Guderian
Dear Guderian.
First off, thx for your concern and interest.
@ 1) and 2)  (territory names and connections)
 -I did not change anything about the map itself, used it as sieg made it, since it is a success. Territory names should be corrected of course, as well as the kiev issue (which is no issue anymore in 1.6 I think).
Introducing new channels I oppose though. Italy does not need to be strengthened. It can be pressured by the allies, but only at the price of an unleashed germany. It is in balance if played correctly (and moves are pretty much standard for italy by now...).

@ 3) (introducing scouts and trucks)
-scouts are superior to tanks in offense. Trucks have range 3 and if one needs defense, they are cheaper and more flexible then tanks (while focusing too much on the defense is bad though). When scouts where costing 3 IPC, they were superior to tanks in almost any respect, except the needed production capability. If you dont see that, you probably only look at attack and defense values, and dont take hitpoints into account. Tanks were almost never bought (by the veteran players at least) in the recent versions prior to 1.6. Huge scout armies were rolling over the old continent. Thats why the scout price was slightly upped, to make the tank - and other units like the elite and the artillery - attractive again. Scouts still have their purposes, though not in masses anymore. But they still beat tanks as offensive units and also provide cheaper range 2 cannon fodder. In 1.6, BALANCED stacks are the key.

@ 4) (switzerland)
True, no one ever takes switzerland anymore. But then, a fine balance is reached in 1.6, and an attackable Switzerland would only ruin that again by giving extra income to the axis. Maybe see the bunkers not as army, but as a symbolization of Switzerlands importance for the axis in financial terms, as u pointed out so well ;))

@ 5) (colonials)
as guerillaJ put it correctly, you should visit a veteran game. Then u will easily see, that the colonials are usually crippled against Italy after round 2. And having the colonial territories in north africa also helps italy defending the Mediterranean - cause the US dont get these territories, when they free them. 1.6 is not intended or balanced for playing against the AI though... UK and Italy fighting hard for turkey and going back and forth in north Africa is an intentional part of the game balance. U seem a bit fixated on an axis point of view. Allies need a chance to win too :).
In 1.6, they get it. Together with the allies now finally realizing their potential, allies have slightly the edge on 1.6. But only slightly.

@ 6) Purpose is to take away IPC from Germany. Otherwise, Germany could steamroll Russia and no one would want to play allies anymore. Kidding a bit here. Romania can be played very differently. In any case, it gives axis an advantage too, since it enables 1-2 hits (clearing a Russian block in its turn, so that germany can push through), which is quite powerful.

You ask if someone ever has won as axis on this 1.6 NWO version?
I have played 29 NWO games now. Played against every single regularly playing veteran player here and did beat all of them except for one (26 wins in total). As axis. To prevent the impression that I am boasting about myself here (well, I am a bit, hehe :-) ), I have to add that I have 3 games pending where it looks undecided or even bad for the axis.
I see a bit more allied wins then axis wins recently. But only a bit.
Hope that answers your balance question.

Get the full 1.6 NWO (EB) here: http://rapidshare.com/files/208977262/_NEW_WORLD_ORDER1.6_.zip

Get the full NWO 1.6 NWO (EB) which changed phase order here:
http://rapidshare.com/files/212789361/_NEW_WORLD_ORDER1.6_.zip

Get Gneis-Xrays NWO 1.6 version which changed phase order here:
http://rapidshare.com/files/218232072/NWO1.6Gneis-XrayExtended.zip

Regards, ErnieBommel
For Downloads, Help, Maps and Links, visit Bommel's TripleA Supply Depot
ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW WORLD ORDER

ice
hey onan,

found a bug in ur changed phase order version, dont know if its known already but when germany takes empty paris they get the money and then they can use it in the same turn to buy stuff, should be 1 round later ofcource.

experienced guys will notice it but some of the starters on the map wont.

other then that it makes the game faster for sure so good job.

ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW WORLD ORDER

OnanTheBrBr
This post was updated on .
hey ice!
wew, thx for pointing that out, mate. Could only think of the little difference, that if one flies over AA's in combat move, then he would know before the purchase if AA's did hit or not.
Both cases are rather rare, of course. But while the AA thing is hardly severe even IF it occurs, the Paris thing has impact. Guess allied players should thus keep in mind to at least let one inf in Paris (which is a good idea anyways, usually).

Thx again for the hint and glad u enjoy the faster gameplay,
EB

Get the full 1.6 NWO (EB) here: http://rapidshare.com/files/208977262/_NEW_WORLD_ORDER1.6_.zip

Get the full NWO 1.6 NWO (EB) which changed phase order here:
http://rapidshare.com/files/212789361/_NEW_WORLD_ORDER1.6_.zip

Get Gneis-Xrays NWO 1.6 version which changed phase order here:
http://rapidshare.com/files/218232072/NWO1.6Gneis-XrayExtended.zip

For Downloads, Help, Maps and Links, visit Bommel's TripleA Supply Depot
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW WORLD ORDER

schulte123
In reply to this post by sieg
does anyone know a way to make this work? it looks really tight but it keeps giving me errors, should  come with instructions...

running a mac any ideas?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW WORLD ORDER

kerr101
In reply to this post by Vork
I was just wondering if I could know about how to keep Finnland safe sometimes i take my 2 bombers into the capital but that rarely works you end up losing both of them because of the factory that Russia has. One time I had Finns till round 4 but Russia had 24 inf somehow and i had no chance but anyways thanks for the Germany opening.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW WORLD ORDER

OnanTheBrBr
In general, the easiest way to find an answer to any basic strategy question is to join a game played by any of the veterans, to have a look how they just do it.
To answer your question a bit more specifically: Germany has to constantly ship support to Finland, if the axis intends to hold it - which is advisable. The first 4 rounds are usually the critical ones, since Russia already has a bit lot of units which it only needs to gather in Belomorsk, and also because after that, the effect that defense is cheaper then offense starts to take effect. So you might need to have German fighters ready, and/or buy extra transports to bolster Finland during that time, in case Russia pushes hard there.

The usual game develops certain critical theaters were decisive victories can be won. Finland is one of these, while the others are:
-the italian/british navy race in the Middle east and coupled to that
-the question who gets to hold Ankara (or more in general the whole middle east)
-a western allied bridgehead
-a possible allied/german fleet scenario
-Ukraine/Donetsk
-Leningrad
-Spain
-Gibraltar

This is only to sketch a general picture. The beauty of the map is that it allows for quite diverse approaches. An example is a strong German/Italian/Romanian push into Russia, aiming at a rapid subjugation of Russia at the cost of limited and slowed expansion elsewhere.

Hope this helps to get you (and others) off to a better start.

Regards,
EB
For Downloads, Help, Maps and Links, visit Bommel's TripleA Supply Depot
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW WORLD ORDER

Svefred2
In reply to this post by sieg
Hi Sieg.

Could you please check the last entries in this thread and see if you can help me.
I am desperate to play NWO:(
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW WORLD ORDER

OnanTheBrBr
In reply to this post by sieg
wew, 2/3rd of the thread disappeared...
For Downloads, Help, Maps and Links, visit Bommel's TripleA Supply Depot
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW WORLD ORDER

OnanTheBrBr
SGB, anything that can be done about the disappeared 2/3rds of the NWO-thread? Quite some info got lost there...
For Downloads, Help, Maps and Links, visit Bommel's TripleA Supply Depot
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW WORLD ORDER

OnanTheBrBr
Just for everyone curious, here are the updated standings of the NWO tournament.

http://www.bracketmaker.com/tmenu.cfm?tid=338147&tclass=behold%3A%20NWO%20Finals!


Concerning the discussion about the inf @ 2 IPC:
I recommend having the artillery's (highly underused thx to the large size of the map) price lowered drastically to 3 IPC. Thought long about that, having 3.5 IPC in mind first. There are disadvantages of artillery this cheap, one of these surely is that it makes the artillery very strong compared to tanks, favoring it that way and thus it might make the game slower/less dynamic. So I am not sure about it. But it significantly makes it easier to overcome stalemate positions, since it makes offense a lot cheaper.
It has to be coupled to raising the elites stats to 2/3/1@3 (2/2/1@3 before), since otherwise, the balance of the Finland theater get completely messed up. (Might even still be the case...)

Alternatively, and less drastically, the artillery could be made 2 for 7, for an effective price of 3.5 IPC. This is not too elegant, but is acceptable for something like artillery, and should preserve balance best.
It should be kept in mind that the cheaper artillery favors allies more then axis, so if coupled to other changes also favoring allies, there should be some axis compensation.

So for a complete list of recommended changes open for discussion:

1) art price lowered to 3IPC AND elites defense raised to 3
OR
1a) art price lowered to 3.5IPC (2 for 7)
2) BigArmor price lowered to 7IPC
3) cruiser lowered to 14 IPC


Optional:
4) scouts could be put to 1/1/2@3 with isArtillery ability (as in Lebowskis version, credits to him)
  ->this makes it less intuitive, since new players often miss on the artillery ability. But then, the 2-for-1 isnt too intuitive either... Good point is that it strengthens offense again a little, so it might work well together with option 1a). Disadvantage is that it makes the Scout/Tankette pretty strong again, which might lead to an overuse of the unit again (while it was a unit nicely in balance at 3.5 IPC).

5-...)Odessa suggested making air more expensive and navy cheaper. Both I consider too much a change, but lowering navy prices makes air more expensive in relation too, but in a more mild manner. So what is suggested is to lower the price of all naval units costing 14 or less IPC by one, and all costing 15 and more IPC (BB and Carrier) by 2. BB could also be lowered by 3 IPC to keep it in balance with subs.
A nice side effect is that this makes the t-boat an interesting, but balanced choice at 5IPC. Beforehand, a t-boat at 5 IPC was likely to be abused at choke points, but with all other naval units also lowered in price, it stays in balance, while still getting the biggest discount of all units (16.6% compared to 12.5%).

These proposed changes were the results of a discussion with Gneis, who is working on a new experimental release.

@Gneis I recommend making a normal version parallel to your extended one. Without Mustang, Bismarck and special German U-boats. The units are balanced, I think, but the Mustang (3/3/6@13, not landable on Carriers) is too similar to the normal Bomber to justify his existence, I think. And while the Bismarck (4/5/2@22-23, replacing the BB 4/4/2@21-22) and the U-boats (2/3/2@7, replacing the normal subs 2/2/2@7) surely mean some eye candy, and give some national flavour, they also complicate the game for beginners, without adding too much game value.

Best Regards,
EB
For Downloads, Help, Maps and Links, visit Bommel's TripleA Supply Depot
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW WORLD ORDER

Gneis
Well Coward Onan let me give my opinion:

The Elites like Lebowskis version are very cool, in that version they cost 4 though odds are: 2-3-1- cost 4 (and can be supported by artillery), I like the 3 defense, but should be consider seriously to avoid making NWO abeeter game at defense than at offense.

Concerning Artilleries I think 3 is very cheap, although I love the idea I think is extremely cheap, and yes although the 3.5 thing may be bothering, well I think is the more balance thing.

About Scouts I think they are good as they are, although Lebowskis version give them and interesting thing serving as artilleries there is one thing dont like: if you make and attack with one Infantry vs one Infantry if you missed the first shot at 3 (one Scout attacking at 1 and the Infantry at 2) and the defender hits, the bonus is lost and you get only a unit attacking at one, I vote for mantaining actual odds at 3.5 also.

About Big Armours and Cruisers no discussion they more reduce price
at 7 and 14

In general I love odessas idea of reducing naval although I have played few games with coward Prosser its a ggod adition and made very attractive the naval units, the odds are thanks to coward Ernie suggestions and work very fine:

T boat cost 5        2-1-1

Sub cost 7            2-2-2

Cruiser cost 13      3-3-2

Battleship cost 22  4-4-2

Big Armour cost 7   4-4-2

Transport cost 7    0-1-2

Super Sub cost 11  3-3-3

Destroyer cost 11   3-3-2

M29 cost 19 (same odds as usual) (and the other Big plane also cost 19)

The Special red dot plane for Axis cost 12 and same odds as usual

Extended units:

Escort Carrier cost 7                  0-1-2 (one Fighter)

U boat (Germany only) cost 8      2-3-2

Bizmarck (Germany only) cost 23  4-5-2

Naval Mine   cost 3                    0-2-0 (Submersible, maximum 2 per sz)

Light Armour cost 4                    2-2-2

Mustang (Red dot unit, USA only)  3-2-6 cost 12 (cannot land on Carriers)

Fleet Carrier (USA only)               1-4-2 cost 16 (can carry 3 Fighters)

Well, one note, can you help me to add red dot to Mustang? please coward Ernie!









Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW WORLD ORDER

Gneis
In reply to this post by OnanTheBrBr
One thing I have been thinking coward Ernie with Artilleries at 3.5 who will buy Elites? for .5 extra you have artillery support and the same odds as Elites!

Another thing maybe C poland should have a Factory? To be more historical, it could be streghten enough and give ussr somethins to compensate that dont you think so?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW WORLD ORDER

OnanTheBrBr
Hey Gneis,

About the Artillery:
The balance with the elite is one of the reasons I also mentioned the possibility of having art @3 IPC and the elites defense then raised to 3.

But since so far, I also tend to like the art at 3.5 more, the elite will have to stay as it is. It still will be bought to maximize amphibious invasions (which was his usual role anyways already).

About the factory:

At least for me, 1.6 is a good version, and I am trying not to change anything that is not necessary.
And it would have to be completely changed to become historical.

But ur version is experimental, and a factory in C.Poland is surely within reasonable limits. But keep in mind with every compensation, that if u give anything extra to Russia, it can be easily used to unbalance Finland. Every 2 inf (or worse) that can be brought extra to Finland cost Germany roughly 12 IPC (4 IPC for 2 inf and 8 for the transport).
Critical time window is Round 3 here.

Regards,
EB



-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
> Von: "Gneis (via Nabble)" <[hidden email]>
> An: OnanTheBrBr <[hidden email]>
> Betreff: Re: NEW WORLD ORDER

>
>
>
> One thing I have been thinking coward Ernie with Artilleries at 3.5 who
> will
> buy Elites? for .5 extra you have artillery support and the same odds as
> Elites!
>
> Another thing maybe C poland should have a Factory? To be more historical,
> it could be streghten enough and give ussr somethins to compensate that
> dont
> you think so?
>
> ______________________________________
> View message @ http://n2.nabble.com/NEW-WORLD-ORDER-tp2187321p3789824.html
>
> To unsubscribe from Re: NEW WORLD ORDER, click
> http://n2.nabble.com/subscriptions/Unsubscribe.jtp?code=Sm5pbW9AZ214LmRlfDM3ODI1NTl8MTc3MDQyNDAy

--
GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01
For Downloads, Help, Maps and Links, visit Bommel's TripleA Supply Depot
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW WORLD ORDER

OnanTheBrBr
In reply to this post by Gneis
Hey Gneis,

I think having the artillery at 3.5, while keeping the elite unchanged is indeed the better thing to do. I think this especially because I dont want to make 2 move-1 units more attractive, since that would only serve to slow the map down.

Carrier @ 13 IPC, btw.

Good list for the rest. Think lowering the superBombers in price while also introducing the Mustang means giving the US 2 nice extras, but it is within limits.

All your extra units appear balanced to me in general.

Although I am reluctant to change the initial setup, I would place 1 extra UK inf in Jordan, giving the UK more opening options in the middle east. I would compensate Italy with one extra inf in Albania, which makes the rather unattractive take of Greece in Ita1 a tiny bit more an option.

In total, it should be kept in mind that lowering the naval costs benefits the allies more then the axis (especially the US buying transports). The cheaper units mainly help the western allies to get into the game considerably faster. The introduced special units (Mustang, 2 new carrier types) also are of bigger benefit to the allies then the axis. The UK gets a slightly bigger plus with the inf in Jordan then Italy gets with the inf in Albania for Greece. The lowered costs for superBombers amount only 5% of the units value, but still, its another plus for the allies.

So, concluding, I warn that with the above mentioned changes, balanced will probably impaired.

Keep in mind, a balanced map is one where ErnieBommel wins always - with both sides.
Kidding ;)

Regards,
EB


-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 14:29:33 -0700 (PDT)
> Von: "Gneis (via Nabble)" <[hidden email]>
> An: OnanTheBrBr <[hidden email]>
> Betreff: Re: NEW WORLD ORDER

>
>
>
> Well Coward Onan let me give my opinion:
>
> The Elites like Lebowskis version are very cool, in that version they cost
> 4
> though odds are: 2-3-1- cost 4 (and can be supported by artillery), I like
> the 3 defense, but should be consider seriously to avoid making NWO
> abeeter
> game at defense than at offense.
>
> Concerning Artilleries I think 3 is very cheap, although I love the idea I
> think is extremely cheap, and yes although the 3.5 thing may be bothering,
> well I think is the more balance thing.
>
> About Scouts I think they are good as they are, although Lebowskis version
> give them and interesting thing serving as artilleries there is one thing
> dont like: if you make and attack with one Infantry vs one Infantry if you
> missed the first shot at 3 (one Scout attacking at 1 and the Infantry at
> 2)
> and the defender hits, the bonus is lost and you get only a unit attacking
> at one, I vote for mantaining actual odds at 3.5 also.
>
> About Big Armours and Cruisers no discussion they more reduce price
> at 7 and 14
>
> In general I love odessas idea of reducing naval although I have played
> few
> games with coward Prosser its a ggod adition and made very attractive the
> naval units, the odds are thanks to coward Ernie suggestions and work very
> fine:
>
> T boat cost 5        2-1-1
>
> Sub cost 7            2-2-2
>
> Cruiser cost 13      3-3-2
>
> Battleship cost 22  4-4-2
>
> Big Armour cost 7   4-4-2
>
> Transport cost 7    0-1-2
>
> Super Sub cost 11  3-3-3
>
> Destroyer cost 11   3-3-2
>
> M29 cost 19 (same odds as usual) (and the other Big plane also cost 19)
>
> The Special red dot plane for Axis cost 12 and same odds as usual
>
> Extended units:
>
> Escort Carrier cost 7                  0-1-2 (one Fighter)
>
> U boat (Germany only) cost 8      2-3-2
>
> Bizmarck (Germany only) cost 23  4-5-2
>
> Naval Mine   cost 3                    0-2-0 (Submersible, maximum 2 per
> sz)
>
> Light Armour cost 4                    2-2-2
>
> Mustang (Red dot unit, USA only)  3-2-6 cost 12 (cannot land on Carriers)
>
> Fleet Carrier (USA only)               1-4-2 cost 16 (can carry 3
> Fighters)
>
> Well, one note, can you help me to add red dot to Mustang? please coward
> Ernie!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________
> View message @ http://n2.nabble.com/NEW-WORLD-ORDER-tp2187321p3784580.html
>
> To unsubscribe from Re: NEW WORLD ORDER, click
> http://n2.nabble.com/subscriptions/Unsubscribe.jtp?code=Sm5pbW9AZ214LmRlfDM3ODI1NTl8MTc3MDQyNDAy

--
GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01
For Downloads, Help, Maps and Links, visit Bommel's TripleA Supply Depot
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW WORLD ORDER

Gneis
In reply to this post by OnanTheBrBr
thinking about the C Poland factory why would be your recommendation? Streghten it but adding what to USSR? or with my changes maybe isn´t neccesary that for USSR? I have played a couple of times and thinking about the Ally naval units coming earlier in game maybe is so not bad for Axis the Factory, I can´t do a theory about the 2 games I have played but T boats for Germany have probe to be very good and cheap to help her...

Glad to see your opinion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEW WORLD ORDER

OnanTheBrBr
In reply to this post by Gneis
Hey Gneis,

yesterday, I joined ur game again, but again wasnt able to watch it. Could you send me your current version, or post me a link, ideally together with a savegame.
What are you feelings about your testgame with guerrillaJ, especially about the naval changes?

Regards,
EB

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 11:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
> Von: "Gneis (via Nabble)" <[hidden email]>
> An: OnanTheBrBr <[hidden email]>
> Betreff: Re: NEW WORLD ORDER

>
>
>
> One thing I have been thinking coward Ernie with Artilleries at 3.5 who
> will
> buy Elites? for .5 extra you have artillery support and the same odds as
> Elites!
>
> Another thing maybe C poland should have a Factory? To be more historical,
> it could be streghten enough and give ussr somethins to compensate that
> dont
> you think so?
>
> ______________________________________
> View message @ http://n2.nabble.com/NEW-WORLD-ORDER-tp2187321p3789824.html
>
> To unsubscribe from Re: NEW WORLD ORDER, click
> http://n2.nabble.com/subscriptions/Unsubscribe.jtp?code=Sm5pbW9AZ214LmRlfDM3ODI1NTl8MTc3MDQyNDAy

--
Jetzt kostenlos herunterladen: Internet Explorer 8 und Mozilla Firefox 3.5 -
sicherer, schneller und einfacher! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/chbrowser
For Downloads, Help, Maps and Links, visit Bommel's TripleA Supply Depot
123456 ... 13