Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
481 messages Options
1 ... 9101112131415 ... 25
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

hepster
That is also what we have been thinking of.  Good suggestion Zim.
“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

zlefin
In reply to this post by hepster
what's well documented is that people often don't read game manuals.  evidently the phrasing was unclear or something;  but people often don't read game manuals (or manuals in general).  The trend for games for ages now has been shorter and shorter manuals for that very reason; while a few people read them thoroughly and love them, most simply don't; and just put things in and try to play them. In game notes tutorials and references are used a fair deal; but most people don't want to hunt for a manual.
I did read the manual, and it is very well done; but having game notes is good practice.

The pdf may not be hard to find for me, or you; but remember that some people are far less proficient with computers, or with where triplea puts downloaded maps; for them it may require some real effort to find.

Instructions can be simple but hard to follow; saying the pdf is with the download doesn't mean you can find the download easily on your system.
If you dont' want to play with such people; that's your prerogative; it's bad from a design perspective; but as this isn't a commercial product you can do as you wish; even excluding people from playing the game because they aren't committed enough to find manuals.
TWW is fun because it's a good map; not beacuse you artificially restrict the community.  Letting more people play a good map is not a bad thing.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Veqryn
Administrator
In reply to this post by hepster
The game notes should do the following:

1. Introduce someone to the game.  (not talking rules here)
Pretending someone has never played TWW before: you need to convince them to play your map, and obviously tell them a little more about it.

2. Include very basic overview of the rules.

3. Include important "quick" little things, so that people can use the wonderful new "Notes" tab to look up things without having to go find the pdf.

4. Clear and concise directions on how to find the manual, along with a brief description of all the things the manual covers that the game notes do not cover (so that the user understands WHY they still need to read the manual).


And lastly, until such a future time as we can include either links, or picture resources for notes, in our game notes, then you can do the following:
5. Include literal full sized pictures of the game manual, as html text.  Obviously it will only work for people who are online, which is why you still need points #1-4.


5.
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
The problem with gamenotes and notifications is the html format, cause there is no way to referece the local path for images. I tried all variations, assuming the current path during gameplay is the triplea installation folder, the java installation folder and the map folder, none of these worked.

It would be no problem to display images loaded from local harddisk, if both, the gamenotes and the notifications would be just images. For example, the situation when you have to select scrambling units; the resourceloaderclass loads the images of those planes from the map folder and it comes with a popupwindow. So the code is there, it just has to be modified for notifications, to not use the notifications method/function java is using, when a notification should be displayed as well as when the gamenotes entry is selected from the menu.
The only problem is, that all new gamenotes and notifications need to be images, no big deal, just do the normal html stuff for those, open with a browser and make a screenshot or two and save those images within the mapfolder, changing stuff would require a little more time so. Same for notifications. Plus it would require to change all existing maps, but most don´t have notifications and the gamenotes could be done rather quickly. With the next version there will be a info about outdated maps, so probably all fine if this would break backwards compatibility, cause the benefit is nice images without loading time and offline availability.

About next tww version, we set up another many hours overworking and improving a lot more than we initially thought, so it may take a while.
We now have custom dice!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Veqryn
Administrator
actually the problem is not the resource loader or anything

the problem is that you do not know What the path will be on the user's computer.

This is because it is an HTML text object, and not a "file" object.  You will NEVER be able to mix a file created with the resource loader, with an HTML text object inside of a JLable.  Because the JLabel is using Java's internal HTML engine to render itself.

the following examples worked for me, but will not work for you because your username is not same as mine:

jar:file:/C:/Users/veqryn/triplea/maps/World%20War%20II%20Pacific.zip!/smallMap.jpeg

file:/C:/Users/veqryn/triplea/maps/World%20War%20II%20Europe/smallMap.jpeg

file:/C:/Users/veqryn/workspace/triplea/maps/minimap/smallMap.jpeg



now, if I knew how to do pattern matching (which I do not), and I had a good chunk of time, we would be able to code something that either replaces your whole path string, or adds on the "file:/C:/Users/xxxxxxxxx/" beginning bit onto the image paths.


<br>
<br><img src="file:/C:/Users/veqryn/workspace/triplea/maps/minimap/smallMap.jpeg" alt="test local image"/>
<br>
<br>
<br><img src="file:/C:/Users/veqryn/triplea/maps/World%20War%20II%20Europe/smallMap.jpeg" alt="test local image"/>
<br>
<br>
<br><img src="jar:file:/C:/Users/veqryn/triplea/maps/World%20War%20II%20Pacific.zip!/smallMap.jpeg" alt="test local image"/>
<br>
<br>
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

hepster
Veq, quick question for you.

Is there a way to add a sound to play each time a notification is prompted?

Do I need to add a prompt for each individual notification?

I've got a good sample of a News reel sound track from the 40's and I wanted it to play each time a notification pops up.

Thanks Hepps.

P.S. I got all the rest of the sounds for each nation working.  Thanks for your help with that.
“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

Rolf Larsson
Lets hope that play sounds with triggers will come with next engine release, too.
Combined with images displayed instantly, this would allow to create an excellent atmosphere and feeling within a game.


most changes for next version, that are done already:

technologies(objective) panel adjusted for new techs
all new airtechattachments changed for all players
all Conditions for available airtechs changed for all players
all Conditions for airrtechs changed for all players
conditions and triggers for tacticalbomber range added
more than 200 triggers for airtechtree changed for all players
trucks  implogisticstech movement after capture fixed
Removed Support given from TacticalBombers with advanced tacticalbombertech
Set Support given from AdvancedTacticalBombers to +1att 1:2, +1def 1:1 for tanks
Territoryeffects for new units, plus some changes to existing ones
AdvancedHulls +2AA attack for cruisers
NavalFighters set to 4/5
NavalFighters cost set to 11PUs
Bombing targets set for Rockets and StrategicBombers: Productionbuildings, ResearchCenter, Airfields
Bombing targets set for Tactical Bombers: Truck, Material
Changing Poland to be Russian territory after taken by Russia, EA unit not granted
canal settings for new airunits included
AA settings for new airunits included
Added AdvancedNavalFighters
Added AdvancedTacticalBombers
TacticalBomber -1 attack, -1 airattack
All Aircraft cost +1
changed required technologies for rockets conditions and triggers
removed carriercost from Fighters and AdvancedFighters, no longer possible to land or launch from carrier
all Carriers adjusted to give movement to new/changed units
all Airfields adjusted to give movement to new/changed units
FIC made japanese, but remaining the buildrestriction there until taken and liberated
all Bombers Urban -1 att/def terrainmodifiers
Pgs placement resulting in Combat fixed
Northern Finland Hills set and visual
Northern Finland added to AlpineInf building list
Manchuria AlpineInf building corrected
GoldCoast at 2 set and visual
New Zealand set 2nd capital of Australia, Perth removed as 2nd capital
Special Inf Minor-Major changing ownership with ISWtech corrected
setupchanges
changes to gamemanual for supports, technologies, terrainmodifiers, new units
changes to gamemanual for playerenforced rules regarding paratroopers and airtransports
new images for all advanced units for all players
some decoration images corrected(citynames etc.)
starting prototype units changed for germany and japan, heavyartillery prototype removed for germany
...
and all those minor changes and corrections we made, but I forgot to mention/note

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

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Dima
nice work
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

Penguins
Hello Hepps,

Nice work! Can you make a smaller version of this with just the European

theatre? ALso possibly without naval units too? If you got rid of the sea

units then you wouldn't have a lopsided game once the Allies build up

their ships and still get the extra income they got in the first place

because they need to build up their navy before they can attack. I see

this as a way of preventing more chnages and future versions to balance

out your game. This is version 2.5?

The only real way to balance out any game would be to

give both sides the same thing or try to give them both the same thing if

possible. Although Risk is not balanced from a map stand point, it makes

up for it in units and wealth so to speak to even it out and it has lasted

the test of time without having to make differnt versions like A&A Games

or games that try to mimic A&A Games have had to do. This is because

every player gets the same amount of units that have to conquored in

the beginning.

Thanks.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Rolf Larsson
No
We now have custom dice!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Veqryn
Administrator
In reply to this post by Penguins
LOL
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

hepster
In reply to this post by Penguins
Hello Penguins,

Thanks we are very happy with where we have made it thus far.

As far as the European theater only idea.... while I like the idea of creating "Theater specific" versions of T.W.W., currently I have absolutely no interest in making anything more T.W.W. related (aside from perfecting the game balance).  I believe I speak for both myself and Rolf when I say we are about as burnt out on designing this game as two individuals can be.  Perhaps sometime in the future.  I never shut the door completely on anything.


I'm quite surprised it took you as long as it did to make the "No Naval" suggestion here.  Unfortunately I am 100% opposed any such idea.  The only way I would consider creating a game without naval units is to design a game with no water territories.  I like Risk.  I always have.  But I have always liked more dynamic and realistic games for the very reason that they create a more challenging environment and game atmosphere different from that of Risk.

Penguins wrote
The only real way to balance out any game would be to

give both sides the same thing or try to give them both the same thing if

possible.
I could not if I tried dissagree with this statement more  (and believe me I'm trying). I could go into a very long speech about why I feel this way, but having seen all your posts on the issue I know that it would be a fruitless en-devour.  Yes balancing a game without any variation in team income or units is easy... that is why X's & O's hasn't changed or Checkers,  or chess or Risk.  Finding a game balance is not necessary since the games are inherently balanced by the parameters of their design.

Most A&A games are imbalanced because of lack of testing.  Period. In a race to make money the simply never spend an adequate amount of time testing the games to find the hidden plays and units that cause inevitable balance issues.  That is not to say it is impossible.

Thanks for your interest though.

Cheers,  Hepps  


“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

Penguins
Don't take this the wrong way because I appreciate everything you've written. I like to think in terms of "reality" and the "facts". Be what it may people can play any game and it will last long enough for them to say possibly "this was a good game". It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out in the long run that what you said about A&A Games being unbalanced, especially if one side does not have the same experience as another to lose rather quickly. In other words a novice player even if they have the Allies for instance can make mistakes and end up losing.

The Great Jluius Ceasar wrote about the victor in battle is the one who had more resources, meaning money and material. Rommel lost in Africa not because he was a bad General, but because he simply didn't have enough resources like petrol and tanks to keep up with the Allies. He wrote about this all the time and knew that Germany couldn't win the war because of it, despite how good he commanded over there. All was lost before Hitler saw it.

The facts are this: Games that have the same of everything tend to last a lot longer than those which are totally subjective. In other words in these types of games it is more or less a educated guess where to place untis and how much to give etc....

That is why there have been so many chnages, versions to say the least it makes it look like nobody put the time in to really play out those games. In reality you don't really have a good competition unless the sides are equal, unless you prefer to spend your time watching uneven or unbalced action. I don't.

How fun is it to watch a good football team play a bad one? it wouldn't be fun to watch unless you are truely a fan of the better team. But a person like me wants to watch match-ups that involve two good teams play one another to see who is really good. That way there is no guessing about the better team, they leave it all on the fieled so to speak and the winner is truely the winner unless there are foul ups in reffing or dumb, bad luck and one side loses by a 1 or 2 points by a fluke accident.

People are interested in the Super Bowl more than any other game because it is the two best teams playing off against one another and each team deserves to be in the game and represent their Conference. Lets take this to a lot lower level and use that concept in playing out games in Triple A.  People want to see balanced games period, not games that are subjective in nature and games which tend to have more versions out later in time. They want to know that what they are spending their time on is actually a good game that seems realistic in terms of fairness.

Nobody can dispute that chess, checkers, or any game that has equal starting situations is unbalanced unless you consider the player who moves first to have an advantage.

The suggestions I suggest would hold up over any game where people just guess and say for instance, Lets put 5 infantry here along with 2 tanks. Oh and lets place 3 infantry here with 1 fighter and say "Yeah I think that's balanced". They can't because it's an opinion, not a fact.

Chess, checkers and other games that have the same things leave no doubt about what is fact and what is opinion. The more versions and the more rule chnages and the more scenerios to add to already exisitng games makes me not trust any game that is made by that individual. Take 1940 Europe for instance, the original game had it so easy for the Axis to do Operation Sea Lion. Then it took many many months to fix it and chnage the scenerio around. I lost faith in these types of games as I'm sure alot of others have too.

Maybe the lobby can attest to what I'm writing. I Wonder how mnay people stopped playing there or how many people gave up on Larry Harrris' games all together because of what I'm writing.

Keep it simple, keep it equal and above all else keep it real,
and I don't mean from an historical point of view because this is impossible more or less.

If you keep ships in any game then you have to give the Allies more money. If you give one side more money they have the advantage because they can buy more than their opponent. More money helps this player win over time.

Small Scale
Me gets $3.00 per turn
You gets $1.00 per turn

By turn 10 I have gotten $30.00 and you have gotten only $10.00 and this is what Larry's games consider fair or any game that gives one side more money to start with and throughout the game as well. The whole game basically one side gets more money.

Maybe it's me and I just don't get it. But it makes sense to me. I would take the side that gets $3.00 per turn over the side that takes $1.00 per turn any day of the week even if I don't win, the odds are always going to be on my side if I go with the side that gets more money. MAabe that is why alot of people play Allies.

Thanks Again,

Penguins

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

hepster
Penguins wrote
Don't take this the wrong way because I appreciate everything you've written. I like to think in terms of "reality" and the "facts". Be what it may people can play any game and it will last long enough for them to say possibly "this was a good game". It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out in the long run that what you said about A&A Games being unbalanced, especially if one side does not have the same experience as another to lose rather quickly. In other words a novice player even if they have the Allies for instance can make mistakes and end up losing.
Not really sure what point you are trying to make with this paragraph.  If you are talking about player experience then it would seem to me you have branched off into a completely different topic of conversation.


Penguins wrote
The Great Jluius Ceasar wrote about the victor in battle is the one who had more resources, meaning money and material. Rommel lost in Africa not because he was a bad General, but because he simply didn't have enough resources like petrol and tanks to keep up with the Allies. He wrote about this all the time and knew that Germany couldn't win the war because of it, despite how good he commanded over there. All was lost before Hitler saw it.

The facts are this: Games that have the same of everything tend to last a lot longer than those which are totally subjective. In other words in these types of games it is more or less a educated guess where to place untis and how much to give etc....
Well good games with evenly matched opponents and no dramatic swings of luck one way or the other can also go on for a long time.  So again I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Penguins wrote
That is why there have been so many chnages, versions to say the least it makes it look like nobody put the time in to really play out those games. In reality you don't really have a good competition unless the sides are equal, unless you prefer to spend your time watching uneven or unbalced action. I don't.
It seems to me that your basic assumption is that because A&A games have imbalances that there is only one solution.  That is simply a very narrow and simplistic perspective.  Game balance can be achieved through any number of different avenues.  If you choose to make the most simplistic game possible, then this task will be super easy.... Give everyone the same P.U., starting units and available moves and no luck factor...  sounds to me like you might like a little game called checkers.   But there is no challenge to it.  Instead of developing strategies you are simply creating a game where the only determining factor is luck in battles.  Sounds very uninteresting to me.      


Penguins wrote
How fun is it to watch a good football team play a bad one? it wouldn't be fun to watch unless you are truely a fan of the better team. But a person like me wants to watch match-ups that involve two good teams play one another to see who is really good. That way there is no guessing about the better team, they leave it all on the fieled so to speak and the winner is truely the winner unless there are foul ups in reffing or dumb, bad luck and one side loses by a 1 or 2 points by a fluke accident.

People are interested in the Super Bowl more than any other game because it is the two best teams playing off against one another and each team deserves to be in the game and represent their Conference. Lets take this to a lot lower level and use that concept in playing out games in Triple A.  People want to see balanced games period, not games that are subjective in nature and games which tend to have more versions out later in time. They want to know that what they are spending their time on is actually a good game that seems realistic in terms of fairness.

Nobody can dispute that chess, checkers, or any game that has equal starting situations is unbalanced unless you consider the player who moves first to have an advantage.

The suggestions I suggest would hold up over any game where people just guess and say for instance, Lets put 5 infantry here along with 2 tanks. Oh and lets place 3 infantry here with 1 fighter and say "Yeah I think that's balanced". They can't because it's an opinion, not a fact.
You seem to think that we are not trying to take vast amounts of data and factors into account when we are developing game mechanics and a starting setup to a game.  If you think that most of us are just shooting in the dark without looking at a multitude of criteria then you are making a broad and very presumptuous assumption.  In many things in life trial and error are still the back-bone of the learning and growing process.

Penguins wrote
Chess, checkers and other games that have the same things leave no doubt about what is fact and what is opinion. The more versions and the more rule chnages and the more scenerios to add to already exisitng games makes me not trust any game that is made by that individual. Take 1940 Europe for instance, the original game had it so easy for the Axis to do Operation Sea Lion. Then it took many many months to fix it and chnage the scenerio around. I lost faith in these types of games as I'm sure alot of others have too.
There is a difference between you loosing faith and there being no solution.  So there are imbalances in most A&A games... they can be fixed.  The reason I have no interest is examining them is that most do not interest me.  We have built a game that is a significant departure and represents a new and challenging turn-based strategy game.   Now we are in the process of fine tuning the balance and design.   The reason we are doing it using Triple A players is because it is easier and more productive to have people outside the design team testing the game.  Some times when you are too close to the problem it is hard to identify the underlying issue(s) and find clear solution(s).

Penguins wrote
Maybe the lobby can attest to what I'm writing. I Wonder how mnay people stopped playing there or how many people gave up on Larry Harrris' games all together because of what I'm writing.
I think that if your other thread is any indication.... you are in the minority by a huge margin.  I'm sure most people would agree that many games have balance issues.   However the vast majority seem to want to find solutions.  Not significantly reduce the complexity to eliminate the problems.  If everyone wanted a simple game, then nothing beyond Risk would have ever been created.



Penguins wrote
Keep it simple, keep it equal and above all else keep it real,
and I don't mean from an historical point of view because this is impossible more or less.
Then play risk.  I don't want simple,  and equal is relative to far more factors then just giving everyone the same stuff.  There are so many other factors that come into play and I have absolutely no inclination to try and explain them to you.


Penguins wrote
If you keep ships in any game then you have to give the Allies more money. If you give one side more money they have the advantage because they can buy more than their opponent. More money helps this player win over time.

Small Scale
Me gets $3.00 per turn
You gets $1.00 per turn

By turn 10 I have gotten $30.00 and you have gotten only $10.00 and this is what Larry's games consider fair or any game that gives one side more money to start with and throughout the game as well. The whole game basically one side gets more money.
Your over-simplification of the picture is staggering and only reenforces within me a lack of enthusiasm to pursue the topic further.


Penguins wrote
Maybe it's me and I just don't get it. But it makes sense to me. I would take the side that gets $3.00 per turn over the side that takes $1.00 per turn any day of the week even if I don't win, the odds are always going to be on my side if I go with the side that gets more money. MAabe that is why alot of people play Allies.
Clearly you don't.  And I don't understand where you have gotten the idea that people exclusively play the Allies.  Personally I prefer playing the Axis.  Furthermore I have no idea how 50-60 games are played daily on the Lobby if no-one is playing the Axis?

At the end of the day the type of game you are looking for is something I am not.  I have absolutely no intention of EVER making a Risk-A&A Hybrid style game and nothing can be said that would change my opinion.  If you want to pursue that avenue then I wish you the best of luck.  But for my part I think we can put this to rest in this thread.  I have no interest in continuing in a long debate where we have such dramatically differing views on the subject.


Hepps

“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

wirkey
In reply to this post by Penguins
Sorry, can't hold myself. If you want a balanced game, try tic tac toe!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Veqryn
Administrator
In reply to this post by Penguins
Complex games get balanced by play testing.

Sure, you argument makes sense if someone makes a game purely out of head and never actually tests it in action.

But what if, after 1000 games between very skilled people, you have found that the sides are winning about evenly?  Then it is balanced.

And if you've found that one side is winning more, you tweak things by giving the other side some small advantage in some way.

Then you repeat and do another round of playtesting of games, and recording the results.


That is the solution: to do many many tests, and then tweak things based on the statistics

The solution is not to take away all forms of complexity until the game resembles something you'd play against a child.

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

Zim Xero
I think we are hi-jacking this thread and need to stop and make a new thread.  That said, asymmetry is one of the key features that makes TripleA one of the best strategy game systems ever implemented.  If you want equal, then make your own equal game, using your own equal effort.
'thats the way it is' makes it neither desireable nor inevitable
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Penguins
My last post about this subject so I'm going to add this right from the Wikipedia on the internet.

"Axis & Allies is a popular series of World War II strategy board games, with nearly two million copies printed.[1] Originally designed by Larry Harris and published by Nova Game Designs in 1981,[2][3][4] the game was republished by the Milton Bradley Company in 1984 as part of the Gamemaster Series of board games. This edition would be retroactively named Axis & Allies: Classic to differentiate it from later revisions. In 1996."

If you read this closly you'll see that this game was started back in 1981. That's 32 Years in my calculations. So in 32 years this game has not been balanced out or any A&A Games has yet to be balanced out. How many more years do they have to wait before they are balnced out?

Here is Wikipedia about Stratego a fully balanced game that has been around since 1961, alot longer than 1981.

The modern game of Stratego, with its Napoleonic imagery, was originally manufactured in the Netherlands by Jumbo, and was licensed by the Milton Bradley Company for American distribution, and introduced in the United States in 1961. This game was born during WW I back in the 1920's.

Here is Wikipedia about Risk

Risk is a strategic board game, produced by Parker Brothers (now a division of Hasbro). It was invented by French film director Albert Lamorisse and originally released in 1957 as La Conquête du Monde ("The Conquest of the World") in France.

56 years of game play and it is more balanced than AA will ever be or any games that try to mimic AA Games.

So in 32 years AA has not been a complete balanced game? Is that fair to say? Even with all the Differnt Maps? Even with the addition of New Rules? Even with the addition of New Versions? Even with the addition of New Scenerios? I think this speaks for itself.

IT IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO BALANCE OUT, IF IT WERE POSSIBLE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY NOW DON'T YA THINK AFTER 32 YEARS!

The reason it can't be balanced or in other words (fair) and will never be fair is because one side gets more than the another unlike any other kind of game out there in the WHOLE ENTIRE UNIVERSE so it will never really be balanced from a scientific or other wise logical standpoint.

If people choose to think they will one day find balance go for it. People are still chasing and hunting for Big Foot and the Lochness Monster because they still have belief they exist like people think balance exists in a game in which all the physical evidence proves that one side has the upper hand.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

hepster
This will also be my last post related to this.

I don't agree with you.  In any way, shape or form.  Your skewed  misinterpretation of the information serves only to try and build a case for your view.

Please create your own thread if you want to pursue this ridiculous line of (and I am being liberal in the application of this word)  thought.

Much appreciated.
“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
In reply to this post by Penguins
Hi Hepster, Rolf,

I really like your game, but I want you guys to basically throw away everything that you have done.

Please cut the map in half, and also remove all sea zones.  Delete all sea units, and air, and like half of the land units please.

Also, the technologies are way too unbalanced, they should go as well.  Same with the minor powers.

I've played this game against the AI before, and I think that my suggestions would make the map far far more balanced.  

There is just no way to balance a map that is more complex than RISK, so you guys better just start over.

I look forward to testing your revised map against the AI soon,

thanks,
veqryn
Please contribute to the TripleA 2013 donation drive:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/2013-TripleA-Donation-Drive-tp7583455.html
1 ... 9101112131415 ... 25