Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
481 messages Options
1 ... 202122232425
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

hepster
Well I'm not saying I'm adding anything ATM.  I was just tooling around as this had always been something I had in mind (not necessarily for TWW).

The exact configuration for the unit has also been something I have thought about.  For TWW I feel as though a stronger more mobile defensively focused unit is warranted.  But that is only because I feel like there is a strong advantage to the attacking teams right now.  But, truth be told I hadn't really given it a lot of thought specifically.

As always the topic is surely open for debate.
“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

Shonn
I agree there is the advantage to the attacker in the current version.

Simply because there is a limit in scrambling, meanwhile the attacker  can mass all of their planes in the battle.
And the longer the game goes on, the more planes tend to be around as it's pretty difficult, safe mistakes or AA lucks, to see planes going down. Maybe with the new version it will change though!

I feel a mobile AA (Wiberwind alike) and the Tank Hunter could be good to have around, as some extra bits which help against possible mass infantry + artillery tactics.

I would say I'd do other modifies too, changing Copenhagen to be a Canal (it was not really but heavy minefields there.); Norway determines a canal control blocking the sea leading to Copenhagen for surface units (minefields still, shielding Copenhagen pratically).
Adding on that a rule - by the "Rules" and not in mechanical terms, that due to their friction, Allied and Soviet naval units cannot stack in same SZ.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

hepster
Well for accuracy sake we made Copenhagen the controlling territory as a natural strait.  Unless someone is sending you subs en-mass then you are fairly protected as long as you can hold Copenhagen.
“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

Shonn
To hold Copenhagen is the issue in my eyes!
An aimed and decise UK (and UK alone) effort can easily take that out from Germany at turn 6ish unless Germany over-invest in Westfront and goes nowhere in Russia.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

hepster
Isn't that part of the challenge with Germany?  The balancing act between Defending Europe and pressing the Reich's interests in Russia.

I'd be willing to pitch my talents in leading the Fatherland against your best efforts as Winston Churchill to break fortress Europe.  There are a number of different options open to Germany which are dependant on the outcome and moves of the first 4-6 rounds.  

Making all of the Western Front a no go zone for the Allies kind of a limiting option.

I don't disagree with the idea that if Germany does to little Copenhagen is an easy target, but at the end of the day much can be done to eliminate it as a viable option for Britain.  
“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

Ventessel
I didn't see a dedicated bug report thread anywhere, so I'm tossing this in here.

I was playing a local game when on round 7 the game encountered an error during Russia's tech activation phase.
Here's the error report below:

triplea.engine.version.bin:1.8.0.3
Exception in thread "Triplea start thread" java.lang.IllegalStateException: No such Property Field: m_isTwoHit for Subject: UnitAttachment attached to:games.strategy.engine.data.UnitType called russianFortification with name:unitAttatchment
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.getPropertyFieldObject(PropertyUtil.java:121)
        at games.strategy.engine.data.DefaultAttachment.getRawPropertyString(DefaultAttachment.java:118)
        at games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.TriggerAttachment.triggerUnitPropertyChange(TriggerAttachment.java:2076)
        at games.strategy.triplea.delegate.TechActivationDelegate.start(TechActivationDelegate.java:105)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.ServerGame.startStep(ServerGame.java:633)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.ServerGame.runStep(ServerGame.java:530)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.ServerGame.startGame(ServerGame.java:333)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.LocalLauncher.launchInNewThread(LocalLauncher.java:100)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.AbstractLauncher$1.run(AbstractLauncher.java:57)
        at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source)
Caused by: java.lang.IllegalStateException: No such Property Field: m_isTwoHit
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.getFieldIncludingFromSuperClasses(PropertyUtil.java:100)
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.getFieldIncludingFromSuperClasses(PropertyUtil.java:107)
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.getFieldIncludingFromSuperClasses(PropertyUtil.java:107)
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.getFieldIncludingFromSuperClasses(PropertyUtil.java:107)
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.getFieldIncludingFromSuperClasses(PropertyUtil.java:94)
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.getPropertyFieldObject(PropertyUtil.java:118)
        ... 9 more
Exception in thread "Triplea start thread" java.lang.IllegalStateException: No such Property Field: m_isTwoHit for Subject: UnitAttachment attached to:games.strategy.engine.data.UnitType called russianFortification with name:unitAttatchment
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.getPropertyFieldObject(PropertyUtil.java:121)
        at games.strategy.engine.data.DefaultAttachment.getRawPropertyString(DefaultAttachment.java:118)
        at games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.TriggerAttachment.triggerUnitPropertyChange(TriggerAttachment.java:2076)
        at games.strategy.triplea.delegate.TechActivationDelegate.start(TechActivationDelegate.java:105)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.ServerGame.startStep(ServerGame.java:633)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.ServerGame.runStep(ServerGame.java:530)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.ServerGame.startGame(ServerGame.java:314)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.LocalLauncher.launchInNewThread(LocalLauncher.java:100)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.AbstractLauncher$1.run(AbstractLauncher.java:57)
        at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source)
Caused by: java.lang.IllegalStateException: No such Property Field: m_isTwoHit
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.getFieldIncludingFromSuperClasses(PropertyUtil.java:100)
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.getFieldIncludingFromSuperClasses(PropertyUtil.java:107)
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.getFieldIncludingFromSuperClasses(PropertyUtil.java:107)
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.getFieldIncludingFromSuperClasses(PropertyUtil.java:107)
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.getFieldIncludingFromSuperClasses(PropertyUtil.java:94)
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.getPropertyFieldObject(PropertyUtil.java:118)
        ... 9 more



Now it looks like there's a problem adding those extra properties to the Russian fortifications and buildings. I would go through the XML and try to fix it myself but (1) this is my first game of Total World War and I didn't know if someone else had created a hotfix and (2) I HATE Java. A lot.

Thanks for any help in advance!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

wirkey
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by L & H Studios
we discovered some serious bugs:
some minors forts and trenches (Romania and Finland) don't give support to infantry.
All other (minors and majors) work fine.
Non-playable Neutrals doesn't work the way it should either.
For the playable neutrals, they are fine.


Naval units build in Borneo (SZ 93) don't change ownership to UK
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Ventessel
Played a game of the Dev Ed and noticed that when you scrambled fighters to defend against enemy air incursions that your fighters were then trapped fighting in the regular battle in that province.

Normally, not an issue. However, with the new land/sea combat values, those aircraft basically get wiped out unless you win the battle (and they have minimal effect on the overall battle since they only get one round of fire during the intercept phase).

Perhaps giving the option for defending aircraft to retreat before the main battle begins? Or if that is impossible given engine limitations, allow the interception air battle to last longer so that interceptors can down more enemy aircraft?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

wirkey
it is exactly the way it is supposed to be. Air battles take part before normal battles, determining air supremacy. Whoever gets air supremacy can use his planes in the following ground (or sea) battle.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

Shonn
Hmm how exactly air supremacy is determined?
I fear it's not doable by the system but it would be good that planes fight their own round in the skies, and then take part to the ground round.
Then at 2nd round there is again sky battle, surviving planes can fight in the ground battles for both sides.
And so forth.

Just 1 round to determine full aeriel superiority and then only that player's planes fight is a bit silly.
But I suspect the engine is limited in the department.

I was to complain about the Advanced Fighters being worse than their regular counterparts in the current version of the game where 3 Territories affect them - which looks iffy to me - but IF the new version is coming out debugged soon enough that is a superfluous thing.

Also - but that could be a whim of mine - as airplanes also offers air recon and such, more than having them just being crap vs the ground, they can offer support to some unit due to air recon / interdiction to enemy moves in the region more than a destroying force by itself. (Which means that to send 2 Inf with a bazillion of planes for territory exchange serves little, but in a major battle planes can give +1 / +2 each to this or that troop.).

Just food for the thought.

Thumbs up for the Submarine change.
Just played a game where USA stacked up like 40 submarines, that's like a ton of AA fire on the attacking DDs, and a massive "soaker" of losses for the real units as cruisers and battleships.
And to lose just ... 40 * 4 = 160, well 13 DDs just because you attack that stack, heck!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

hepster
Shonn in the current DEV ED all fighters fight (prior to ground combat) until one side prevails (regardless of the number of rounds).  The side with remaining fighters then have them participate in ground combat for 1 round at greatly reduced combat values.

What you are suggesting is, I fear, not possible with the engine.  Providing support to ground troops has already been discussed between myself and Rolf, but we had gone with the first setup.

The version has been done as an experiment and thus represents the first draft of a concept.  Personally I feel that the nerfing for the ground combat values of fighters and limiting them to 1 round of participating to be a bit to much as they now represent a negligible factor in any battle (other than to eliminate an opponents air).

Further development is clearly required as a few issues also became apparent.  Depending on whether Rolf is interested in continuing with TWW (in any incarnation) will determine if and when new versions become available.  If he has no interest then I will at some point pick up the mantel.
“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

Shonn
Fighters should support ground all the rounds.
Mayhaps the idea could be to randomize the aerial losses (exactly as AA losses can be randomized).

Conceptually the fighters try to shot down opponent bombers as well - to go through the escorts instead of simply dogfighting the escorts.

Which can make sense because you can immolate some fighters good only vs air to shot down bombers that otherwise can impact severely the ground combat itself later.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version 2.5

thsw
In reply to this post by L & H Studios
Hello

Really impressive game! I have the latest version 2.7.7 from the Depot.
However I get an errormessage and the game quits, when "improved defensive structure" is researched with succes by anyone...?
Seen that others have exerienced it too.
This is the message:
Regards and good luck.

triplea.engine.version.bin:1.8.0.3
Exception in thread "Triplea start thread" java.lang.IllegalStateException: No such Property Field: m_isTwoHit for Subject: UnitAttachment attached to:games.strategy.engine.data.UnitType called russianFortification with name:unitAttatchment
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.getPropertyFieldObject(PropertyUtil.java:121)
        at games.strategy.engine.data.DefaultAttachment.getRawPropertyString(DefaultAttachment.java:118)
        at games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.TriggerAttachment.triggerUnitPropertyChange(TriggerAttachment.java:2076)
        at games.strategy.triplea.delegate.TechActivationDelegate.start(TechActivationDelegate.java:105)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.ServerGame.startStep(ServerGame.java:633)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.ServerGame.runStep(ServerGame.java:530)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.ServerGame.startGame(ServerGame.java:333)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.LocalLauncher.launchInNewThread(LocalLauncher.java:100)
        at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.AbstractLauncher$1.run(AbstractLauncher.java:57)
        at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:695)
Caused by: java.lang.IllegalStateException: No such Property Field: m_isTwoHit
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.getFieldIncludingFromSuperClasses(PropertyUtil.java:100)
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.getFieldIncludingFromSuperClasses(PropertyUtil.java:107)
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.getFieldIncludingFromSuperClasses(PropertyUtil.java:107)
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.getFieldIncludingFromSuperClasses(PropertyUtil.java:107)
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.getFieldIncludingFromSuperClasses(PropertyUtil.java:94)
        at games.strategy.util.PropertyUtil.getPropertyFieldObject(PropertyUtil.java:118)
        ... 9 more
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version ? New Features

hendriks1
In reply to this post by Rolf Larsson
Sorry, but how again do I get that .xml file to work. I placed it in maps under my user name in tripla, maps->games, so both are there now, TWW 2.7.7.2 and this Dev ED, but how do I select to play that game, I can't see it in games once I start TripleA...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version ? New Features

hepster
This is how you setup should be.  






Remember that you can have the TWW game folder in one of 2 places...

Either in the Triple A folder in your user account...

or in the Triple A folder on the C/: drive.

Either will work perfectly provided you don't have 2 different TWW game folders.
“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 ? New Features

Veqryn
Administrator
Can you guys please release version 2.7.8 so that people will stop running into the isTwoHit bug?
The one on the map list has had this known bug for more than half a year now...
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 ? New Features

hendriks1
In reply to this post by hepster
Thanks Heps, I have it set up JUSt like that, as always. I have 2 folders, yes, 1 in program files and 1 in my user ID. The one in my user ID has the games folder in which the 2 versions reside.

When I open TripleA, I see the games list with many games, but I only see TWW Dec 1941, not the DEV one. So, my problem is to actually start that game through triplea...

Hoping you guys can release this as a real new version without the =2hits bug...

Thanks!!!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version ? New Features

hepster
I can't remember exactly, but I think I remember having the same problem.

I think I actually had to change a line in the "Dev_Ed" XML.  I think the XML was actually labelled wrong at either the beginning or end.  I can't remember, but I will check into it for you.

Also I will begin to try and clean up the TWW XML and then re-post it so that some one can load it onto the repository.  Might take a bit of time as I am currently VERY busy at work.
“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 ? New Features

Antonius
In reply to this post by Veqryn
Interesting map, this!
Shows what can be done with TripleA if one's really into XML.
I like how it seems to integrate several maps that i've played and liked over the time.


I too ran into the "No such Property Field: m_isTwoHit" error.
Pretty annoying since it only happens sometime into a game, when you research the "proper" Tech.
(in my case, "Improved A.C. Carriers" as it's called in the PDF, "ImpovedCarriers" as it's called in the XML)
This problem is "caused" by BOTH "TwoHit"-Upgrades that are are provided by the techtree though.
i.e. for Carriers AND Fortifications.

Looking at the error message, it seems pretty clear to me, though admittedly without looking at the Java source, that the problem is with the Java itself, not the XML.
It seems that "isTwoHit" is simply not part of every class, Carriers and Fortifications in this case.


Thinking that the engine were set up in some way that the "missing" varable m_isTwoHit might be "dynamically" created by the XML,
i took a look into the XML and tried some changes:
For example, i tried to add a "isTwoHit" property to the carrier's definition ("<country>Carrier"-attachment).
When i defaulted the property to FALSE, the XML parsed but the error persisted (of course).
When i tried to default the property to TRUE, the XML yielded a parsing error.
So it seems to me, that Carriers were simply not intended to become two-hit units, reinforcing my "feeling" that the problem is with the Java-Code rather than the XML (or at least with the XSD).


As a workaround, so i could at least play the map, i resorted to simply removing the "TwoHit" capacity of Carriers by editing the "triggerAttachment<country>AC" attachments.
(Same for the Forts)
Of course, that changes the tech tree, as the tech gives the units totally different boni/Stat-increases and, in effect, makes it a different game.


I would like being able to keep the "two hit carrier", since it's a good idea in my eyes.
If this can be done through changes to the XML, i'd like to be pointed at the proper documentation (i didn't see a XML-Style-Sheet either).
Otherwise, i'd welcome it if the code itself were adjusted, perhaps by adding a "HitPoints" property to any unit, the value of which we can then set through the XML.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Total World War: December 1941 Version ? New Features

wirkey
This is a known bug of the map that occurs because the engine was changed some time ago and the map in the depot wasn't updated accordingly. There should be a download link of the latest version some posts before (might need to go some sides back). I hope the depot version will get updated soon.
1 ... 202122232425