Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
481 messages Options
12345 ... 25
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

hendriks1
I would agree with Dima here.

The shared tech is great, but if germany gets improved warfare this means italy can start landing/attacking in the med in R2, as otherwise it needed great luck to get this, now that option is doubled. This also impacts landing in Leningrad. The option to have this coming from the UK and flowing to the US and coming from Italy to Germany is better, but might still unbalance stuff. I am thinking of specific techs that can be shared, not all of them. i.e. germany can share its techs on improved ranges and defensive techs, but not ground warfare techs. But, it's been a great introduction and now we need to fine tune it.

Totally agree with the EA's, haven't tried that yet, but they should not be able to build production facilities, give that option if they are liberated.

The map is beautiful, that has to be said, whish I could see on my big screen at home!

I am thinking in this version, the chances for the Axis have gone down a bit?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

wirkey
I think it is way to early to make any qualified conclusions. I agree that it seems that share tech is in allies favour. I have two ideas to limit it: the first is that germany and japan shares tech, but that might change it to axis favor. The other is that only tier 1 techs are shareable.

With the EA, i don't agree with dima and hendriks.
It has been possible to build barracks in Java (or any other DEI island) with Australia and/or India. EA only have very limited resources, so building a barrack in Java means, that no barrack in Congo will be placed. At least both won't be building at full capacity as EA start with income of 8. The earliest you can build a barrack in Java is rnd 2. Buy rnd 3 japan should be able to take Java, meaning that this barrack won't build anything.

If EA are not able to build any production facility they are useless! They can build two infantry per round in London, never more.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Rolf Larsson
Interesting ideas, limiting the share tech for US and Germany to benefit is very easy and appears most accurate historical. I agree with Wirkey here, we have to see how things turn out, in the end it is optional anyway, so no need to take any actions right now.

Since we rushed 2.5 a bit to get it ready on wednesday, some things were not working correctly or missing.
Therefore, here is

Version 2.5.1:

Download Total World War Version 2.5.1 from Mediafire

Fixes:
- Starting Notification
- Wrong PUs displayed
- Exiled Allies player switching Units correctly, building now working correctly everywhere for them
- The Materials from Dutch East Indies Islands are now again given correctly to SouthAfrica, India and Australia
- China LL in Eastern Szechwan working now correctly for Fighters and TacticalBombers from US and Britain
Those are all issues we recognized so far.

Should any obvious balancing problem occur within the next days, there will be a quick update to 2.5.2
Sadly I am currently unable to upload to repository for whatever reason, so manual download and copy to maps folder.
I will upload 2.5.1 as soon as it is working again.

Have fun!

We now have custom dice!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

hendriks1
Thanks Rolf! Yes, probably you have updated the Shanghai PU display into the correct 3.

Could somebody explain me how I can upload this file into the game, it's been a while since I've done that and I seem to have forgotten.

When I go into triplea, I don't have ANY TWW folder under MAPS, only other triplea games, so where do I extract this into?

Also, I've updated to 2.5 now but need to revert back later as we're still trying to complete a 2.4.1 game, how can I do that?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5.2 available

Rolf Larsson
Version 2.5.2 available for download from repository, the normal way to download maps.

Changes/Fixes:
- finally all PUs displayed correctly
- removed double name and PU entry for Norilsk
- income regulation for Bid and Options for germany changed, now no more need to watch out for anything here (save unspent PUs)
- Exiled Allies changing ownership correctly with Brits in their capital
- SpanishInfantry correctly requires spanishBarracks now after they joined one side
- Game notes adjusted and new techoverview images uploaded

Have Fun!


@hendricks:

If the latest version is for some reason not available from depot(the normal way to get maps) and a link is posted instead:

Open your Browser(not Triplea), download file and place the file in your Triplea maps folder.
(Windows XP) C:\Documents and Settings\userName\triplea\maps
(Windows 7)  C:\Users\userName\triplea\maps
(Mac) /home/user/documents/triplea/maps
(Linux) /home/user/triplea/maps
Simply download the .zip file and move it to the maps folder.  No need to unzip.
Check:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/Download-Maps-Links-Hosting-Games-General-Information-td4074312.html
If you don´t know what to do.
We now have custom dice!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5.2 available

hendriks1
Thanks Rolf, if I need to revert back to 2.4.1, where can I find that version?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5.2 available

Rolf Larsson
Want to finish a saved game?

Uploaded again, especially for you (hope it is the correct one):

old version 2.4.1: Download from mediafire

Enjoy!
We now have custom dice!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5.2 available

Odesa
Tribute to Rolf and Hepps for making TWW 2.5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcWrDoJ460U&feature=plcp

All in good fun/jest no offence to any other gamers LOL!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Dima
In reply to this post by L & H Studios

Opinions, suggestion & facts for v 2.5.2 , cuz i dont know with what to start , i m gone divide them in to categories. Here it goes:


1. Game option : Shared Tech.
 At the moment from what i have see it brings great unbalance in the overall gameplay, many players trying to avoid it.
Fact is that Germany/Italy and USA/UK get superior from a tech point of view in round 4 when they each got like (6-7 tech allredy) and Japan/Russia feel the pain of this (they manage to have around 3 tech at this point). Contrary to popular belive that this option gives a huge adv. to the Axis i must say that the actual beneficiars on the long term ar the Allys ( UK/USA got a bigger impact on the game vs Italy).
My suggestion is that you redesign this option to work only for USA (recives British techs ) and Germany (recives Italian Techs) and Russia/Japan recives +3 tech tokens each round.This will somehow will show the American/German superiar tehnological advancement and in the same time will guarrante that Russia/Japan will get a tech each round.

2. Units in the game

2.1 Self P. Art. it costs 6pu has 5 att and 3 def and can support +1 att at a ratio of 1:1 requires Factory and R.C to be build, after you spend 3 rounds in reserch to get it.
    A Tank costs the same amount  has 6 att and 5 def and can blitz, requiers a Factory to be build, and after 1 round in reserch it can support Mech Inf.
 I think this comparation says all that can be sayd about this unit.

2.2 Hvy. Tanks ar to cheep in my opinion, maybe a raise at 11 pu or maybe 12 pu , just keep in mind that they ar a 2HIT unit and they can repair for free. So a player can apply the fallowing skirmish tactic, get 5-6 hvy tanks , build a factory need the front line , attack the enemy and inflict dmg then fall bk to the factory and repete = profit, and all for just 4 extra pu  that you pay for a tank.

2.3 The old Mech Inf. problem...... this unit is still not worth buying in 90% of the situations...... im just gone say the fallowing : FOR 1 EXTRA PU BUY A TANK! ( it has +2 more att, +2 more def and it can Blitz and it recives support from Tactical same as the Mech Inf) ALL for just 1 PU!

2.4 Trechments & Forts , have you guys ever thot of giveing them HP and that you can make SBR against them? just a thot.... specialy when i know that many of the Normany forts have been destroyd by sea and air bombardment.


3. Gameplay

3.1 Exiled Allys, they represent a big unbalance factor in the current version cuz of 2 things: 1st they can build in protectorat/occupayd  terr and second the protectorat terr give 3 materials for free each round to 3 minors even if ,lets say thers only 1 protectorat terr left on the map.
Lets use ower imagination and creeate the fallowing scenario: in round 2 , exiled allys build a Brks in Java, Uk leaves all the other protectorat terr emthy so that the Japs get them and in 1-2 rounds gets them bk to get the pu for the Exiled Allys , in the meen time UK( exiled allys ) builds up a strong defence on the magical island of java , and just cause Java is a protectorat (with a normal value of 3 pu) it gives evry round 3 materials ( 15 free pu), sad for japan that they cant mount a decent invasion on Java..... cool story,good balance,no?
Btw if its possible for the EA to build in protectorats/occupaid terr why thers not a sistem that allows Japan to build in its protectorat?(Indochina) that would be fair

3.2 Starting Materials Setup for India and  USA, at the moment it is possible cuz of the initial placement of the materials in India to build with the UK in round 1 a production building in any indian terr, or Ragon. Same for the USA, that has the possibility to build 2 RC's in the first round. Is it normal? Rolf sayd that this will be fixd

3.3 Leningrad still falls in the second round if the german player wants 2, dosent matter what the russian player does. Maybe 1 more Inf ther from the start? or a in the extrem condition a raise to 3pu(get it from Volgarod)? (but that will meen a raise  to 3pu for Kharkov(get it from Central Norway ) ... :))
On the side note, no Dock in Vladyvostok or Trech in Murmansk? and no transport in the Far East?

3.4 Norway has a total of 5pu, and since this version ( odd??) i see that most of the players ar going for it ( i refere to the UK )..... maybe a modification to Central Norway? -1 pu and + Forrest?


3.5 Last thing , for the moment atleast :)) Why dont you guys move the Airplant from Hungary to Romania, is more historical accuret , plus Romania is the main capital for the Danube Axis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Air_Force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For%C5%A3ele_Aeriene_Regale_ale_Rom%C3%A2niei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAR_80
vs
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-pictures/hungarian-air-force-28890.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%81VAG_H%C3%A9ja
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Air_Force 

Romania build almost x2 more airplanes then Hungary, and it had its owne fighter plane, it wasent something like the italian copy that the hungaryans used. Just think about it


Anyway, fine map overall and sry for the the bad english, hope this helps somehow
Cheers
Why stay and die, when you can retreat and fight a other day when the odds are favorable to you?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Dima
This post was updated on .
PS : I still think the Axis has to many Airplants overall, and Russia has just 1!! If a country build 20 mediocre airplanes in 4 years that meens that they have a aeronautical industry?

And on the side note, so that i bring something new, cuz i have observed this 1 sea unit tactic focuse build (for example if a player reached Adv. DD, he starts building only them), why dont you make some sea units to give some att/def support to some capital ships( BB/Carriers) or viceversa,  just a thot....ther ar so many land/air units that give suport, why not sea units?


AND a BIG LOL to Odesa's post
Why stay and die, when you can retreat and fight a other day when the odds are favorable to you?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Rolf Larsson
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Dima
thx for the feedback Dima.

1. Game option : Shared Tech.
 At the moment from what i have see it brings great unbalance in the overall gameplay, many players trying to avoid it.
Fact is that Germany/Italy and USA/UK get superior from a tech point of view in round 4 when they each got like (6-7 tech allredy) and Japan/Russia feel the pain of this (they manage to have around 3 tech at this point). Contrary to popular belive that this option gives a huge adv. to the Axis i must say that the actual beneficiars on the long term ar the Allys ( UK/USA got a bigger impact on the game vs Italy).
My suggestion is that you redesign this option to work only for USA (recives British techs ) and Germany (recives Italian Techs) and Russia/Japan recives +3 tech tokens each round.This will somehow will show the American/German superiar tehnological advancement and in the same time will guarrante that Russia/Japan will get a tech each round.

2. Units in the game

2.1 Self P. Art. it costs 6pu has 5 att and 3 def and can support +1 att at a ratio of 1:1 requires Factory and R.C to be build, after you spend 3 rounds in reserch to get it.
    A Tank costs the same amount  has 6 att and 5 def and can blitz, requiers a Factory to be build, and after 1 round in reserch it can support Mech Inf.
 I think this comparation says all that can be sayd about this unit.

2.2 Hvy. Tanks ar to cheep in my opinion, maybe a raise at 11 pu or maybe 12 pu , just keep in mind that they ar a 2HIT unit and they can repair for free. So a player can apply the fallowing skirmish tactic, get 5-6 hvy tanks , build a factory need the front line , attack the enemy and inflict dmg then fall bk to the factory and repete = profit, and all for just 4 extra pu  that you pay for a tank.

2.3 The old Mech Inf. problem...... this unit is still not worth buying in 90% of the situations...... im just gone say the fallowing : FOR 1 EXTRA PU BUY A TANK! ( it has +2 more att, +2 more def and it can Blitz and it recives support from Tactical same as the Mech Inf) ALL for just 1 PU!

2.4 Trechments & Forts , have you guys ever thot of giveing them HP and that you can make SBR against them? just a thot.... specialy when i know that many of the Normany forts have been destroyd by sea and air bombardment.


3. Gameplay

3.1 Exiled Allys, they represent a big unbalance factor in the current version cuz of 2 things: 1st they can build in protectorat/occupayd  terr and second the protectorat terr give 3 materials for free each round to 3 minors even if ,lets say thers only 1 protectorat terr left on the map.
Lets use ower imagination and creeate the fallowing scenario: in round 2 , exiled allys build a Brks in Java, Uk leaves all the other protectorat terr emthy so that the Japs get them and in 1-2 rounds gets them bk to get the pu for the Exiled Allys , in the meen time UK( exiled allys ) builds up a strong defence on the magical island of java , and just cause Java is a protectorat (with a normal value of 3 pu) it gives evry round 3 materials ( 15 free pu), sad for japan that they cant mount a decent invasion on Java..... cool story,good balance,no?
Btw if its possible for the EA to build in protectorats/occupaid terr why thers not a sistem that allows Japan to build in its protectorat?(Indochina) that would be fair

3.2 Starting Materials Setup for India and  USA, at the moment it is possible cuz of the initial placement of the materials in India to build with the UK in round 1 a production building in any indian terr, or Ragon. Same for the USA, that has the possibility to build 2 RC's in the first round. Is it normal? Rolf sayd that this will be fixd

3.3 Leningrad still falls in the second round if the german player wants 2, dosent matter what the russian player does. Maybe 1 more Inf ther from the start? or a in the extrem condition a raise to 3pu(get it from Volgarod)? (but that will meen a raise  to 3pu for Kharkov(get it from Central Norway ) ... :))
On the side note, no Dock in Vladyvostok or Trech in Murmansk? and no transport in the Far East?

3.4 Norway has a total of 5pu, and since this version ( odd??) i see that most of the players ar going for it ( i refere to the UK )..... maybe a modification to Central Norway? -1 pu and + Forrest?


3.5 Last thing , for the moment atleast :)) Why dont you guys move the Airplant from Hungary to Romania, is more historical accuret , plus Romania is the main capital for the Danube Axis

Romania build almost x2 more airplanes then Hungary, and it had its owne fighter plane, it wasent something like the italian copy that the hungaryans used. Just think about it

3.6 I still think the Axis has to many Airplants overall, and Russia has just 1!! If a country build 20 mediocre airplanes in 4 years that meens that they have a aeronautical industry?

3.7
And on the side note, so that i bring something new, cuz i have observed this 1 sea unit tactic focuse build (for example if a player reached Adv. DD, he starts building only them), why dont you make some sea units to give some att/def support to some capital ships( BB/Carriers) or viceversa,  just a thot....ther ar so many land/air units that give suport, why not sea units?

Anyway, fine map overall and sry for the the bad english, hope this helps somehow
Cheers
1. 100% agree, more or less useless and overpowered. Was the last thing just included. I already said I prefer the Germany/US benefit only for this option.

2.1 Yes, they have an AAstrike vs. Tanks and Mechs, which is missed in the documentation and they should give better or more support.

2.2 Have shown you the math. for it, plus they can not blitz(missing in manual too I think, cause we changed a few times), but with a 2hit unit so powerful you can´t be careful enough, not sure what exactly is to be done, but already considered a lot of possilites, there is -1 attack, there is repaired by RC, there is movement 1, there is consuming a normal tank to be build with adjusted cost and there is the option of raise normal cost, but I want to see a few more games, until that is decided. Should they be overpowered currently, than it is really not much, due to my calculations and you already pointed out the circumstances, falling back wait 1 turn and come back...means time for the defender, a loss of initiative. Taking the tech requirements into consideration, the advantage they gave is exactly right for them, but this will be observed, I can assure you.

2.3 There is much more support for Mechs now, their terrain modifiers are better compared to tanks, they can be +1att and def with techs.

2.4 Yes

3.1 Descritption in manual is a bit unlucky, nothing changed here, if only 1 is left, Australia will get 1 material still.
All 6 of them give South Africa, India and Australia 1 Material each. 5, 4 or 3 give Australia and India 1 Material each and 2 or 1 of them give only Australia 1 Material per turn.

3.2 Yes this is one major point of the next discussion round about setup and balance.

3.3 I checked your history in the game with sonrix, you could have send much more there to defend.

3.4 Yes Scandinava is much more likely to be attacked now due to seazone changes. not sure if PU changes are needed, but could be good.

3.5 Hm maybe, plane can be used 1 round earlier then, black sea route and right to attack, that was the idea behind it, but yes maybe.

3.6 Too many AircraftPlants, yes, to lure players like you into building many of them, only to recognize later that there are way to less ground units.
Have you ever build more than 3 planes with Russia?

3.7 Supports for Ships, interesting yes, I would make tons of support more, to represent the combined arms tactics and ensure a good mix of all untis, but this has to be considered additional and therefore the overview suffers. Maybe, currently we are in observation mode, lets see a few more games and how things turn out, major imbalances due to certain unit stacks are to be avoided, so your suggestion points in the right direction I think.

@Odesa:
Big Lol, yes, cool!


To everyone: Please post/send your savegame files at the end of a game to me/here ( so that I can analyse your strategy and crush you!), we need a lot of them to judge balance. In case you don´t want to do it public, just click on my name, send me a mail with: TWW, savegame topic and send me the link where you have uploaded it. Thanks.



We now have custom dice!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

hepster
This post was updated on .
1. Game option : Shared Tech.
 At the moment from what i have see it brings great unbalance in the overall gameplay, many players trying to avoid it.
Fact is that Germany/Italy and USA/UK get superior from a tech point of view in round 4 when they each got like (6-7 tech allredy) and Japan/Russia feel the pain of this (they manage to have around 3 tech at this point). Contrary to popular belive that this option gives a huge adv. to the Axis i must say that the actual beneficiars on the long term ar the Allys ( UK/USA got a bigger impact on the game vs Italy).
My suggestion is that you redesign this option to work only for USA (recives British techs ) and Germany (recives Italian Techs) and Russia/Japan recives +3 tech tokens each round.This will somehow will show the American/German superiar tehnological advancement and in the same time will guarrante that Russia/Japan will get a tech each round.
Yes this feature is definitely broken.  I think you are on the right page by limiting it, however I still feel like even including this in a redefined manner would require a completely separate XML so that the starting setup could be adjusted to reflect the faster advance of Germany and the U.S.  I believe that the game setup can only be set to a balance with one option.  As soon as you add multiple variables some aspect of the setup will be out of balance for one of the 2 options.  

2. Units in the game

2.1 Self P. Art. it costs 6pu has 5 att and 3 def and can support +1 att at a ratio of 1:1 requires Factory and R.C to be build, after you spend 3 rounds in reserch to get it.
    A Tank costs the same amount  has 6 att and 5 def and can blitz, requiers a Factory to be build, and after 1 round in reserch it can support Mech Inf.
 I think this comparation says all that can be sayd about this unit.
I agree that this unit even with the A.T. strike is somewhat underpowered.

2.2 Hvy. Tanks ar to cheep in my opinion, maybe a raise at 11 pu or maybe 12 pu , just keep in mind that they ar a 2HIT unit and they can repair for free. So a player can apply the fallowing skirmish tactic, get 5-6 hvy tanks , build a factory need the front line , attack the enemy and inflict dmg then fall bk to the factory and repete = profit, and all for just 4 extra pu  that you pay for a tank.
So Dima if you are buying 5-6 Heavy Tanks, that means you've just spent 50 or 60 P.U.!!! Kinda sounds like a nations entire budget.  And given that you will, in most cases only have 1 or possibly 2 Terr. in which to build them (as these require a Factory & Research Center in a terr. to build them),  I can't see them getting spammed as severely as your example indicates.  Plus they will inevitably be built away from the front lines.

2.3 The old Mech Inf. problem...... this unit is still not worth buying in 90% of the situations...... im just gone say the fallowing : FOR 1 EXTRA PU BUY A TANK! ( it has +2 more att, +2 more def and it can Blitz and it recives support from Tactical same as the Mech Inf) ALL for just 1 PU!
I do agree that there is still an issue with Mech.  Below you will find my idea's on the unit.

2.4 Trechments & Forts , have you guys ever that of giving them HP and that you can make SBR against them? just a thot.... specialy when i know that many of the Normany forts have been destroyd by sea and air bombardment.
I do believe that if Entrenchments & Fortifications are changed to be an "Is Infrastructure" (ie. having hitpoints like production Facilities and can be Strategically bombed) unit, they will no longer act as combat units.  Therefore they would no longer have a combat roll.  This would reduce their value as a defensive unit immensely.  As much as I'd love to see this I don't think there is anyway to have them function this way and still be of any use to a player.


3. Gameplay

3.1 Exiled Allys, they represent a big unbalance factor in the current version cuz of 2 things: 1st they can build in protectorat/occupayd  terr and second the protectorat terr give 3 materials for free each round to 3 minors even if ,lets say thers only 1 protectorat terr left on the map.
Lets use ower imagination and creeate the fallowing scenario: in round 2 , exiled allys build a Brks in Java, Uk leaves all the other protectorat terr emthy so that the Japs get them and in 1-2 rounds gets them bk to get the pu for the Exiled Allys , in the meen time UK( exiled allys ) builds up a strong defence on the magical island of java , and just cause Java is a protectorat (with a normal value of 3 pu) it gives evry round 3 materials ( 15 free pu), sad for japan that they cant mount a decent invasion on Java..... cool story,good balance,no?
Btw if its possible for the EA to build in protectorats/occupaid terr why thers not a sistem that allows Japan to build in its protectorat?(Indochina) that would be fair
We were discussing this very topic earlier yesterday.  The issue is not whether or not the E.A. should be allowed to build in the protectorates, but rather how to balance the game in such a way that the added advantage comes with more challenges.  I am currently working on a new setup to account for this.

Personally after playing 6 games I feel that the D.E.I. materials gifting should be limited to only India and Australia.  I feel we should eliminate the materials for South Africa entirely.  Doing this would reduce the free materials to Britain (something I feel is necessary) and allow us to better divide the equation for who gets materials....  ie.  3-6 D.E.I. protectorates held = 1 material for  both India & Australia.  1-3 D.E.I. protectorates held = 1 material for Australia.

Your reference to French Indo-China and the E.A. protectorates is not a fair comparison.  French Indo-China was basically invaded by Japan but then allowed to retain it's soverenty.  The Vichy French simply "permitted" the Japanese to have troops stationed in the country.  The Dutch East Indies "Occupation" is simply labelled that way to differentiate it from the other British Protectorate.  Comparing these two different situations as being the same is really just over simplifying the actual situation.

3.2 Starting Materials Setup for India and  USA, at the moment it is possible cuz of the initial placement of the materials in India to build with the UK in round 1 a production building in any indian terr, or Ragon. Same for the USA, that has the possibility to build 2 RC's in the first round. Is it normal? Rolf sayd that this will be fixd
U.S.A. was designed to be the only team on the map capable of building 2 R.C. in turn 1.  This is not a mistake.

As Far as India,  I agree with you 100%.  I think, especially given that they receive free materials from the D.E.I. that either: A) one of the 2 materials needs to be removed or B) that the Truck in Bombay be removed or at least moved out of Bombay to another Terr. for the start of the game.  Again this is part of the starting changes I am currently working on.



3.3 Leningrad still falls in the second round if the german player wants 2, dosent matter what the russian player does. Maybe 1 more Inf ther from the start? or a in the extrem condition a raise to 3pu(get it from Volgarod)? (but that will meen a raise  to 3pu for Kharkov(get it from Central Norway ) ... :))
On the side note, no Dock in Vladyvostok or Trech in Murmansk? and no transport in the Far East?
I have seen many players hold Leningrad for 3-4 turns.

I don't understand why there would need to be a Trench or Fort. in Murmansk... currently the Allies can get 11 units into that terr. before the Germans can even move.

3.4 Norway has a total of 5pu, and since this version ( odd??) i see that most of the players ar going for it ( i refere to the UK )..... maybe a modification to Central Norway? -1 pu and + Forrest?
I like the idea of adding forests to Central.  I'm not sure a P.U. reduction is necessary.  Again I think it has more to do with the Germans inability to defend it rather then an issue with the value.


3.5 Last thing , for the moment atleast :)) Why dont you guys move the Airplant from Hungary to Romania, is more historical accuret , plus Romania is the main capital for the Danube Axis

Romania build almost x2 more airplanes then Hungary, and it had its owne fighter plane, it wasent something like the italian copy that the hungaryans used. Just think about it
Man it is always something with you and Hungary and Romania!    I wonder overall how many aircraft you have built with Danube in all your games? Maybe 1?   But I see what you're saying.  Moving it to Romania would make sense.
 

3.6 I still think the Axis has to many Airplants overall, and Russia has just 1!! If a country build 20 mediocre airplanes in 4 years that meens that they have a aeronautical industry?
The only part of this I agree with is Finland.  The rest seem reasonable.

3.7
And on the side note, so that i bring something new, cuz i have observed this 1 sea unit tactic focuse build (for example if a player reached Adv. DD, he starts building only them), why dont you make some sea units to give some att/def support to some capital ships( BB/Carriers) or viceversa,  just a thot....ther ar so many land/air units that give suport, why not sea units?
So throw out some specifics.  Sounds good if you can provide some examples of what you think would work.



Rolf Larsson wrote
2.1 Yes, they have an AAstrike vs. Tanks and Mechs, which is missed in the documentation and they should give better or more support.
Rolf can you post the value?  Somehow I missed that and I have no record of what the value is supposed to be for the A.A. strike vs. Tanks and Mech.



Rolf Larsson wrote
2.3 There is much more support for Mechs now, their terrain modifiers are better compared to tanks, they can be +1att and def with techs.
Rolf after looking at it more closely what you have said is only sort of correct.  While it is true that Mech. Inf. have better terrain modifiers than tanks (comparing the straight +/-  from terr. to terr. between the two) the truth of the matter is that even though the minuses for Mech.s is lower they are actually worse in every terrain type in terms of combat strength.  I have to agree with Dima on this.  Mech. are currently still virtually useless.  I have come up with some modified numbers.



These changes would actually help make Mech. a better buy.  This way they would have value as a defensive unit.

To be honest the more I look at it the more I think I like the idea of giving Mech. the ability to transport Inf. in non-combat moves in addition to the values above.  But that's a whole new level of change.


Rolf Larsson wrote
3.1 Descritption in manual is a bit unlucky, nothing changed here, if only 1 is left, Australia will get 1 material still.
All 6 of them give South Africa, India and Australia 1 Material each. 5, 4 or 3 give Australia and India 1 Material each and 2 or 1 of them give only Australia 1 Material per turn.
Yes I had no idea how this was working.  I'm only to happy to re-write this section of the manual after we have hammered out the changes for the future.

Rolf Larsson wrote
3.2 Yes this is one major point of the next discussion round about setup and balance.
I have come up with some idea's for changes to the starting setup.  They also take into consideration some of the other thing mentioned above.
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Veqryn
Administrator
maybe one way to limit it is to have a LONG delay

so for example, country A develops awesomeTech1

all of country A's allies will get that tech, but they all have to wait 4 or 5 rounds before they get it


that would certainly help with the OP-ness of it


Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Rolf Larsson
This post was updated on .
Share Tech:
Well I think we go with Germany/US to benefit only and it is optional, so if someone wants to have super tech Germany and US it seems ok.

MechInf: My latest thought is slightly different, hitting 2 in one blow. Tanks at 7, consequently HeavyTanks at 11. That wasn´t much considered, cause 6 for tanks feels so right.

Math:
Tank: att 6, def 5 move 2, compared to the slow art/inf at: att 6, def 6 and 2hits with values going down, it feels right.
MechInf seems to be adjusted automatically:
7 MechInf: att 28 def 21,  5 Tanks: att 30 def 25
after all mech techs:
7 MechInf: att 28 def 21 + blitz, probably requires the +1 attack/defense from mechtechs to go away and the +1 att/def to come back with tank techs:
would be then:
5 Tanks: att 35 def 30 + mech support(+5) and yes additional transport option in noncombat for mech. or slight adjustment for terrain modifiers.
What happens to Heavy Tanks after this:
11 Tanks(full tech): att 77 def 66  7 HeavyTanks: att 63 def 49, but 7 free hits, which means 7 HeavyTanks at att 56 def 42 seems better, so attack 8 for them.
Lets look at HeavyTanks at 12(with current values):
8 HeavyTanks: att 72 def 56 , 12 Tanks: att 84 def 72, but 8 free hits, so with attack 8 for heavytanks:
att 64 def 56 it seems fine, can take 3 Tanks as hits and still be at about the same values, which means those 8 free hits are only 5 free hits + the requirements, retreat and no blitz...seems fine to me
Fighter : att 5 def 6 highly mobile, compared to tanks 6/5 in cost would be 10 / 7 seems right too.
Hm, 12: 7+5: 1 Tank 1 Mech, with all techs: att 12 def 9, take 1 hit(the mech) and still have att 7 def 6, which means the heavytank with 8/7 would look a little silly, so probably stay with att 9 def 7 if cost would be 12. Even 11 for heavytanks at 9att 7def seems right then.

Dutch Islands: Works perfectly fine I think, the materials are given in round 2 first, means SouthAfrica will get none, cause Japan normally takes one of those islands in turn 2. Remaining India and Australia, India +1 or 2 for free overall ( if 5 or 4 are still controlled+1), Australia +2 at least overall, I guess and +1 each round as long as one island remains in control.

Mobile Art. AAstrike vs mech and tanks(note that they can strike at heavytanks from start, AntiTank guns require the advanced Tech for it) is currently only 1, should be 3. And support should be 2 Infs, Mech +1 on attack and +1 for 1 inf/mech on defense.    Seems we forgot that unit somehow.
We now have custom dice!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Dima
Maybe insted of doing so many changes cuz of the Mech Inf. you could use the fallowing approch:

1.Mech Inf 4/4/2/5 and recives support from Art and Tactical only.

2. Imp. Tanks gives : Mech Inf: Support Tanks 1:1 , Imp. Mechanization gives +1 at and allows blitz with Tanks and the 3d Tier R&D Mech Inf can blitz Alone and can carry 1 inf in noncombat

The main thing that makes players avoiding Mech Inf in the first place is that they got crappy stats at start (even tho i must recongnize if you do the R&D up to tier 3 they make it for evry pu you spend on them) but no1 reserches up 2 tier 3 cuz ther ar more important tech to be discoverd. So a initial stat boost in defence by +1 and a rework on the tech tree will solve the problem, even tho i dont like the noncombat carry caracteristic.

On the other hand i have thot about the Sea support sistem, here ar some ideeas:

- BB and CV recives +1 att from Naval Fighter at a ratio 1:1, this will somehow will reflect the a sea reconissence for the BB/CV's in the battle

- DD's and Hvy DD give support in defence for Carriers, +1 def ratio 1:1 , this will represent Carrier grup doctrine and Carrier battle position

- CV recives +1 def from BB, this will somhow reflect that in a defensive battle the main enemy fire will be concentrate on the BB and the CV will have a free hand in the battle , and yes somhow for balance, in all my TWW games i dont know if i bought 1 or 2 CV's

A other ideea for a more divers sea warfare would be to implement 2 new sea units:
- Escort Carrier, cost: 8pu 1at/2def can carry 1 Naval Fighter (this will be a cheap version of the Carrier)
- Capital Transport, this could be unlockd via R&D , and will cost 1 hull and 2pu, this will be a 2hit unit and will have a 12 carry capacity, and stats 0/2/2 or something similar
Why stay and die, when you can retreat and fight a other day when the odds are favorable to you?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

hepster
Dima wrote
Maybe insted of doing so many changes cuz of the Mech Inf. you could use the fallowing approch:

1.Mech Inf 4/4/2/5 and recives support from Art and Tactical only.

2. Imp. Tanks gives : Mech Inf: Support Tanks 1:1 , Imp. Mechanization gives +1 at and allows blitz with Tanks and the 3d Tier R&D Mech Inf can blitz Alone and can carry 1 inf in noncombat

The main thing that makes players avoiding Mech Inf in the first place is that they got crappy stats at start (even tho i must recongnize if you do the R&D up to tier 3 they make it for evry pu you spend on them) but no1 reserches up 2 tier 3 cuz ther ar more important tech to be discoverd. So a initial stat boost in defence by +1 and a rework on the tech tree will solve the problem, even tho i dont like the noncombat carry caracteristic.

I like the idea's.  I think if we used the Terrain modifiers I attached to the above post a 4/4 structure would work well.

Though I would still have tanks support Mech. Inf. and I would switch the arrangement of tech.s a bit.

Imp. Tanks----  Tanks support Mech. Inf. +1 @ 1:1 basis.

Improved Mechanization----  Allows Mech. to Blitz with Tanks.
                                       May carry 1 Inf during non-combat.

Advanced Mechanization---- +1 Att. for Mech. Inf.
                                        May Blitz alone.

The reason I switched the att. bonus to the last Tech. is because it represents a huge bonus for combat (Since if paired with a tank you are now adding +2 to every combat situation).  While the ability to carry a single Inf. during non-combat moves seems like a less potent ability especially since it can only be utilized by background units or you have to leave them out of the battle in order to use this ability.




Dima wrote
On the other hand i have thot about the Sea support sistem, here ar some ideeas:

- BB and CV recives +1 att from Naval Fighter at a ratio 1:1, this will somehow will reflect the a sea reconissence for the BB/CV's in the battle

- DD's and Hvy DD give support in defence for Carriers, +1 def ratio 1:1 , this will represent Carrier grup doctrine and Carrier battle position

- CV recives +1 def from BB, this will somhow reflect that in a defensive battle the main enemy fire will be concentrate on the BB and the CV will have a free hand in the battle , and yes somhow for balance, in all my TWW games i dont know if i bought 1 or 2 CV's

A other idea for a more divers sea warfare would be to implement 2 new sea units:
- Escort Carrier, cost: 8pu 1at/2def can carry 1 Naval Fighter (this will be a cheap version of the Carrier)
- Capital Transport, this could be unlockd via R&D , and will cost 1 hull and 2pu, this will be a 2hit unit and will have a 12 carry capacity, and stats 0/2/2 or something similar
As far as the naval suggestions, I like it except for the support for B.B.  since I feel like they are plenty potent on attack and defense currently, especially with the current techs. available.  Cruisers (especially without Techs) are a difficult unit to justify buying so support for them is a decent way to make them more appealing.

I also like to see BB and CV gain an A.A. defense (@2) vs. Aircraft due to the "Advanced Anti Aircraft" Tech.  

I do like the idea of Carriers gaining some kind of support on the defensive from a destroyer escort.

As far as your unit suggestions I like them.  I have already designed both.

For the large transport the only thing I had installed was that it could not land units as part of a amphibious assault.  Otherwise it would be to potent a unit.  

Either way I don't think we'll be adding them to T.W.W., but  they are planned for G.D. so you'll see them at some point in the future.
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Dima

I suggested +1 att support from Mech Inf for Tanks cuz of the fallowing things:

1st. Its WWII and Tanks was the top unit in land battles, not Mech Inf.

2d.The +1 att support from Tanks for Mech Inf, resembles more to the French early wwII war strategy. Wher the Tanks wher used to support the Inf vs the German strategy wher the Inf was ment to support the Tanks, creeating the Blitzkrig theory. Btw the Frech Army had more tanks then the germans when the war started, but cuz they wher spred allong all the divisons to support them, they proved inefective vs the german Panzer Divisions that wher reguarded as speerheads. Plus if you give +1 support for the Mech that will meen that the Tanks will have 6+1 att and mech 5+3 , and i dont know if thats right.

3d. Your "Unit Priceing theory" needs to be the same for all the units, i m saying that cuz, for example Rolf allways argues that the crapy stats and the big price or 5pu is argued by the fact that they recive support from 3 units. OK i understand that, but according to this theory the regular Inf unit should cost also 5pu, cuz they recive support from Art & Trech/Fort and also get the best defensive bonuses in most of the terrains. So establish a priceing strategy for the units, either we the player pay more for the unit that gives support or for the unit that recives support , if you decide that we must pay in both cases then all the prices need to be rethinkd.

 I'm sincerly tierd of this Mech Inf issue, specialy when i dont really agree with this changes, i still would like to see the Mech+ Assalt Inf ideea that i posted in 2.4 , but its better then nothing. Cheers guys
Why stay and die, when you can retreat and fight a other day when the odds are favorable to you?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Rolf Larsson
In reply to this post by hepster
The solution for MechInf will be a little different, because of some engine restrictions.
The current landtransportsystem does not allow for selecting what can be transported. It is not yet working like the seatransport, with a transportcapacity or cost.
I had some thoughts about Mechs and my conclusion is, that we did very well so far with defining the units, they all have a special purpose, some more some less, but they all seem justified.
When it comes about MechInf, there can be lots of value shifting and support to balance it out, but as long as it is so very similar to tanks, it will be always considered a light tank and therefore compared exactly to them.
So taking the engine limit and this thoughts into consideration, it will have to be like this imo:

MechInf: att 3 def 2 move 2 cost 5, can transport anything trucks can transport during noncombat.
This alone would boost it to be the super unit, cause it is a 2 move infantry and a truck that can defend. (costs:truck=2, inf=3) all in one.
As another improvement the terrain values will be slightly improved to : at least one better compared to tanks, with reduced values maybe even more

The Improved Mechanization technology will allow: can blitz with tanks for sure, +1 def for mechs
and I think it should give support to tanks on defense 1:1 +1, sounds a little strange for fast aggressivly used units to support a defense, but it feels right, if taking a look at how tank divisions were set up with addition of mechs to clear out dug in infantry positions and anti tank defenses.

The Advanced Mechanization technology will allow: can blitz alone and attack +1

all of that in addition to:
AntiTank Guns not beeing able to hit MechInf. anymore and ATs to be without a movement of its own, like AAs they will have to be transported, cause using AT for any attack seems ridiculous not only because of reality, but also because we need more things to transport then and one of my favourite games from older days: Blitzkrieg has it very similar to this, often requiring heavy transportation for bigger ATs to move.
And ATs are way too good anyway now, nearly infantry, but with a good chance to kill a 5 or 6 unit before battle, plus the constant upgrades with tech to make it have def 5, aastrike 4 in the end, since they do aahits vs. units that are less costly, I think the +2 defense compared to AAs makes it very well balanced then.


Since Cruiser are mentioned, it is similar to Mechs. no clear role of their own (little battleship), but I am not so worried about those, cause Cruiser are the Battleships of the minors.
Anyway I like a little support for ships, but I think Carriers should start with AA ability at 1 and gain it to be at 2 with a carrier tech, cause the AdvAA tech is already very good and naval techs seem to be the least attractive ones.




We now have custom dice!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Dima
Rolf Larsson wrote
The solution for MechInf will be a little different, because of some engine restrictions.
The current landtransportsystem does not allow for selecting what can be transported. It is not yet working like the seatransport, with a transportcapacity or cost.
I had some thoughts about Mechs and my conclusion is, that we did very well so far with defining the units, they all have a special purpose, some more some less, but they all seem justified.
When it comes about MechInf, there can be lots of value shifting and support to balance it out, but as long as it is so very similar to tanks, it will be always considered a light tank and therefore compared exactly to them.
So taking the engine limit and this thoughts into consideration, it will have to be like this imo:

MechInf: att 3 def 2 move 2 cost 5, can transport anything trucks can transport during noncombat.

I hope your not serios about 3/2/2/5

Any1 else has a suggestion or something to say about the Mech Inf?
Why stay and die, when you can retreat and fight a other day when the odds are favorable to you?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Storm
For one not quite as experienced as all of you seem its kind of difficult to share ideas. The seemingly quite easy way you juggle all those shortened words and numbers and can stay on the topic is quite astonishing. So please simply discard my ideas if they were already mentioned and I didn´t notice or understood

So I don´t know if my ideas are possible or even working or were already sorted out in the previous version of TWW but here they are.

- How about the mechinf supports more than 1 inf unit? or
- gets firststrike upon all inf (like AA on Airplanes)
- Is the only unit with movement of 3 and still able to blitz
- can even blitz in more heavy terrain
- can get out of battle (because of its relative lightness and speed in relation to tank) like a sub that is submerging except when airplanes are involved into battle. Airplanes would then be the ones with anti-sneak ability like destroyers in relation to subs

The second thing I wanted to post is a bit of help to remove a few mistakes. I got a list of some wrong scripting mainly between terrain effects and countries. Is that already needed or are there still going to be some changes to the map in this matter? If not, then where to post the mistakes? Into the bug section of sourceforge (it seemed to me this was not the place for ingame mistakes)?

And the last question for today are the spelling mistakes in countries and cities intentional? And if not can you fix them or are they inside the pics of the map and therefore not changeable? If you can change them I would start to take a better look and make a list. It was just that I noticed a few like Hannover and Rovaniemi and thought for sake of reality and correctness it would be nice to have a perfect map tp play with.

But aside all of this just let me thank you for this already wonderful and fantastic map!
Try and you can fail. Never try and you already failed.
12345 ... 25