WORLD AT WAR

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1099 messages Options
1 ... 52535455
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WORLD AT WAR

Cernel
But, at redrum, since you are the new owner of the map, maybe you want to join the lobby sometimes and talk with some WAW players, to have some opinions (it is much easier to talk about a game with the map in front of you). You can see almost all the big names listed in the NWO Ladder, to tell the good ones apart (tcurin, andycool, Dany, epinikion, warlock...).

Also, I hope that ice will playtest the map at some point (or tell here if he has already), especially since the sea zone split was from him, initially, thus it would be critical to have his opinions on balance, even if only based on a few games.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WORLD AT WAR

Cernel
In reply to this post by redrum
2 games in a row that I join, both cases both the Axis and the Allies player didn't see the 88 Sea Zone deathtrap...

And in all cases they were experienced or fairly experienced, albeit not the top guns.

(player names substituted with Axis=Player1 and Allies=Player2 and others=Player3+)

Cernel:  hey Player2, your first game with the new WAW?
Player2:  no
Player2:  italy looks so ugly
Cernel:  so why didn't you kill the japs on 88 SZ on round 1? that was +26 swing average for Americans
Player1:  yeah, I learned agains Player3 that that is a deadzone
Player2:  sorry I donĀ“t find sz 88
Player1:  won't do that again
Cernel:  yeah
Player1:  next to wake
Player1:  and midway
Cernel:  guess Player2 didn't see that the 2 bombers from the continent reach
Cernel:  yah I had many people complaining about the italy colour
Cernel:  it is too bright right?
Player2:  it looks like shit
Player1:  not for me, but people mention that it looks like the neutrals
Cernel:  uh really?
Cernel:  those must be color blind
Cernel:  at least italy is quite different from neutral
Player1:  for me it is
Player1:  I don't mind the light green
Cernel:  in the next one I will grey the italy colour out a bit
Player2:  well it look different then neutrals
Player1:  as long as its all over africa and stuff :)
Cernel:  I see that many fall in the 88 sea zone deathtrap
Player1:  yeah i adjusted my axis opening for it
Cernel:  but here Player2 didn't see the counter either, so you got graced
Player1:  I need that against Player2
Player1:  Only recently I started playing this map
Cernel:  I think Player2 doesn't play this much
Cernel:  not sure
Player1:  you play this map a lot
Player1:  I always see you starting a ffa
Player2:  well I have played the old version alot
Player2:  from the start of it
Cernel:  no I don't like this game
Cernel:  and yes I like multi / ffa


Just to give you the clear info that now the Yamamoto open appears to be very tricky.
A possible engine solution would be that when you Ctrl+B in a territory the BattleCalculator asks you if you want to add the possible attackers too, and, in this case, you can like select "Americans" and get automatically the info of all Americans units that can reach 88 Sea Zone. Since the AI already can do that, I guess the basic functionality for something like this is already coded.
This was mentioned by LaFayette as something he would like very much.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WORLD AT WAR

darren
In reply to this post by Cernel
That new version of WAW in triple A 1_0_9 is so terrible. The AI is so stupid and makes such stupid attacks and defense. The version you made _1_8_0_9 is so much better and the AI is smarter and makes better attacks.

LOL Germany doesnt even take Paris round 3!!! Its THAT BAD! Can you suggest what is the best version of WAW, and where to get it?

Thx.

P.S. what country to you live in?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WORLD AT WAR

sneakingcoward

is this question for me ??

[hidden email]


On 10.01.2017 08:07, darren [via tripleadev] wrote:
That new version of WAW in triple A 1_0_9 is so terrible. The AI is so stupid and makes such stupid attacks and defense. The version you made _1_8_0_9 is so much better and the AI is smarter and makes better attacks.

LOL Germany doesnt even take Paris round 3!!! Its THAT BAD! Can you suggest what is the best version of WAW, and where to get it?

Thx.

P.S. what country to you live in?


If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/WORLD-AT-WAR-tp5862407p7595176.html
To unsubscribe from WORLD AT WAR, click here.
NAML

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WORLD AT WAR

Eskarpas
Important issues with realism that could be altered without sacrificing gameplay:

1.Baltic States should be neutral at the beginning. They were occupied later than Poland was (1940). They should be shown as very weak (1 soldier) while the Soviet troops there should be initially retreated (with perhaps a couple more added to compensate), giving the Soviets strategic choice how to spread the attack between BS and Finland.

2.In reality, France had no colonies, let alone of capital-significance, in northern Canada during WW2. I understand that the goal was to give France a capital outside Europe, however, this could be easily rectified by making a French capital in French Guiana and/or (a more "dangerous" location) French Equatorial Africa and/or Tahiti.

3.The neutral powers that are outside "real" WW2 regions are currently made very weak for some reason (in the game). E.g. Mexican army is smaller than Irish. This gives a non-realistic strategy of attacking these powers (e.g. US conquest of Latin America is typically played by AI). Instead, the army sizes of these powers should be increased significantly (perhaps so should be the production of these provinces) so that such strategy would become a "niche" at best (i.e. limited to conquering some neutral powers when they are in a strategic location to strike enemies; and such conquest should incur damages it incurred in reality).

4.In reality, Hungary started WW2 as an Axis power. Perhaps it could be added to Romania (as Bulgaria was) to make it more powerful, or as a separate power making the collaboration needed in Eastern Front between various Axis forces even more interesting. The German troops typically used to conquer Hungary should be lowered accordingly.

5.The Netherlands does not control the Netherlands in the game. As I see this has been corrected in one version of WAW, it may also be edited in the other. As this would lead to Germany taking some PUs with the conquest of Netherlands, the starting PUs may be altered accordingly. The Netherlands would retain an alternative capital in the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia).
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WORLD AT WAR

Cernel
In reply to this post by sieg
I'm about to release WAW 2.1.1. Did anyone notice any details or whatever worth changing, during all this time?
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WORLD AT WAR

Cernel
In reply to this post by darren
darren wrote
That new version of WAW in triple A 1_0_9 is so terrible. The AI is so stupid and makes such stupid attacks and defense. The version you made _1_8_0_9 is so much better and the AI is smarter and makes better attacks.

LOL Germany doesnt even take Paris round 3!!! Its THAT BAD! Can you suggest what is the best version of WAW, and where to get it?

Thx.

P.S. what country to you live in?
I'm not an expert of WAW or AI, but I believe the biggest issue of Hard and Fast AI is that they like to take Neutral far too much, and get distracted by that (just talking of 2 sided games; I would make very different considerations for 3+ sides, especially FFA).
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WORLD AT WAR

Cernel
In reply to this post by Cernel
@redrum Now that I'm re-reading the stuff, I wish to add this clarification in WAW notes:

(in any case, as per normal rules, you are allowed to move a carrier during combat movement only if starting or ending movement in a hostile sea zone (to escape combat or to do combat or both); otherwise, you must wait non combat movement, to move the carrier at all)

Can I do it?

For discussing it further, redirect to:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/Seig-trio-default-rules-discussion-tp7590530p7595713.html
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WORLD AT WAR

Cernel
In reply to this post by Cernel
Retaking the matter here.
@redrum Since the bids will soon not anymore show up in "Game Options", I'll go ahead removing 1 of the options, but leaving the bids, so that, then, when you will remove the bids from showing, in the release too, the options will be all in 1 column, instead of all in 1 column plus only 1 option at the start of a second column.
I'll remove Kamikaze Airplanes. It's a silly option anyways, and I really don't like how it reads, because you would think this would add some cool special kamikaze rules, not just allowing to use full movement.
Likely nobody ever used that option in WAW anyhow, or close so. I prefer not having options that are not meant to be ever used.
Fine?
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WORLD AT WAR

redrum
Administrator
That's fine. I will warn you though that there is a good chance we rework the Game Options menu as a whole so I wouldn't worry too much about having a certain number of options and columns. It may eventually be like a new tab in the player selection window and its size could change.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WORLD AT WAR

Cernel
In reply to this post by redrum
Here it is the new world_at_war map, with World At War version 2.1.1:

https://www.sendspace.com/file/fcwybo

No default gameplay changes have been made, from the previous 2.1.0.

The changes have been mostly on a few units, in particular:

- Making some Japanese and Hisaichi air units more distinctive.

- Giving a set of 6 different battleships (instead of the same for everyone):








(I know I did something similar in the past, and it has been refused, on the ground of being confusing in telling them apart from other naval units; but this version I believe there can't be a way these battleships can be confused with any other naval units in the game, even for inexperienced players)

p.s.: This update is important because it comes with two corrections in the unit costs of WAW 1940: t.boat from 8 to 7 and transport from 7 to 8.

@redrum: As the new map owner, you should update the download description from the current:

Very large file, over 40mb, download could take a while.
If link does not work, download manually from:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/tripleamaps/files/

Includes World at War 1940 Mod by Ice
the reasons being:

1) The file is now almost 60 MB and, anyways, I would not tell so, as you can see it in the download window and you have the progress bar.
2) That sourceforge link redirects to the old World At War version 1.1.9, that is not anymore playable with the current engine.
3) The ice's mod is called "WAW 1940", now (I've changed it to make clear that is a mod).

Moreover, since this forum is deprecated, I expect you are going to open a new Topic in the new one, for people to contribute their opinions on the World At War game of this map. I don't know if such a topic should be about WAW 1940 too or you would open a second one for it or just not (I mainly suggest you to be clear, in case, if the topic is for World At War only or for all the games in the world_at_war map, so people know if they should talk about WAW 1940 in there or not, to avoid confusion).

I believe this should be the last (or about so) update of world_at_war, on my side. Thanks all.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Aw: Re: WORLD AT WAR

sneakingcoward
hey cernel,
 
from where do you get your symbols ?
do you have a collection ?
 
 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. Juni 2017 um 07:10 Uhr
Von: "Cernel [via tripleadev]" <[hidden email]>
An: sneakingcoward <[hidden email]>
Betreff: Re: WORLD AT WAR
Here it is the new world_at_war map, with World At War version 2.1.1:

https://www.sendspace.com/file/fcwybo

No default gameplay changes have been made, from the previous 2.1.0.

The changes have been mostly on a few units, in particular:

- Making some Japanese and Hisaichi air units more distinctive.

- Giving a set of 6 different battleships (instead of the same for everyone):








(I know I did something similar in the past, and it has been refused, on the ground of being confusing in telling them apart from other naval units; but this version I believe there can't be a way these battleships can be confused with any other naval units in the game, even for inexperienced players)

p.s.: This update is important because it comes with two corrections in the unit costs of WAW 1940: t.boat from 8 to 7 and transport from 7 to 8.

@redrum: As the new map owner, you should update the download description from the current:
 
Very large file, over 40mb, download could take a while.
If link does not work, download manually from:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/tripleamaps/files/

Includes World at War 1940 Mod by Ice
the reasons being:

1) The file is now almost 60 MB and, anyways, I would not tell so, as you can see it in the download window and you have the progress bar.
2) That sourceforge link redirects to the old World At War version 1.1.9, that is not anymore playable with the current engine.
3) The ice's mod is called "WAW 1940", now (I've changed it to make clear that is a mod).

Moreover, since this forum is deprecated, I expect you are going to open a new Topic in the new one, for people to contribute their opinions on the World At War game of this map. I don't know if such a topic should be about WAW 1940 too or you would open a second one for it or just not (I mainly suggest you to be clear, in case, if the topic is for World At War only or for all the games in the world_at_war map, so people know if they should talk about WAW 1940 in there or not, to avoid confusion).

I believe this should be the last (or about so) update of world_at_war, on my side. Thanks all.
History plays dice
 
If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/WORLD-AT-WAR-tp5862407p7595720.html
To unsubscribe from WORLD AT WAR, click here.
NAML
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Aw: Re: WORLD AT WAR

Cernel
My collection is almost only this one forum. The main Topic has been this one (the great work made by Joe Pants):

http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/Tons-of-new-unit-images-tp7586442.html;cid=1497469105658-775

But, yes, most units, comprising all the above battleships have been modified by me (as you can infer by their names). Feel free to use them for any projects. It would be good to have more maps in which the battleship is not the same for everyone. Pretty much all I've done or modified for this one is in the map folder. I've also made a "unit/alt" folder with the basic images, in there, to make easier for everyone to redo (I suggest you refer to that, in the first place).

@redrum: Opinions? If you still don't like the different battleships, I can switch back to same, but I think you should try it out. I really believe it is fine for gameplay and adds flavour. Also, all battleships have a marked black hull, to further telling them apart. I really don't see the point in all maps in which you have the same battleship for everyone but different submarines; I'd rather, then, give the same submarine to everyone as well.

A thing I forgot to mention is that this new version has a greyed out colour for Italians; the Italians colour happened to be the most widespread complaint (didn't look bad to me, actually; hopefully this one will be preferred, but it's hard to guess what people want).
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Aw: Re: WORLD AT WAR

redrum
Administrator
@Cernel - I'm fine with those changes as long as lobby WaW players agree.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Aw: Re: WORLD AT WAR

Cernel
LOL That is hard to determine. What are you dubious about, if any?
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Aw: Re: WORLD AT WAR

redrum
Administrator
Mostly just whether folks like the battleships and can easily tell them apart.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Aw: Re: WORLD AT WAR

Cernel
Right, I'll see what opinions I can get. Also, I had a few complaints about the fact that they didn't like the look of the new (Iowa) battleship in the 2.1.0; I guess because it is kinda slim. One said it looks like a fish.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Aw: Re: WORLD AT WAR

Cernel
In reply to this post by redrum
A clarification.

Did you mean you will wait to update to what I posted until it seems that the lobby WAW players like the changes from current or that you would update and then we would have to gauge their opinions.
I assumed it was the second case, as the first one is just not feasible, as I guessed we all realise.
It would need them to manual install the new version, and come here to give their opinions; both are not happening.

By all means, you are the owner of this map and I don't care about WAW; so I can post another version with a single battleship again. Back to the Iowa only?

I just posted the finished version with the new battleship because this is a change that can't be properly judged without having the finished map and the way to see stuff is by seeing it in the actual map. If you still want single battleship for all, it is very easy to change it back. As you can see in the map, the matter is just to see the Iowa vs the Yamato in Pacific and the King George V vs the Bismark in Atlantic; aside from this, there is the Littorio for the Italians only and the Russians only battleship is likely to never get to float.

Having done the battleship changes in the final version was not to force them, but to properly allow you and anyone (probably noone) following this thread to evaluate the actual changes to the game. I've also included the single-battleship alternative in the folders.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Aw: Re: WORLD AT WAR

Cernel
I'm not sure if you are upset at me changing the battleships without asking you first? Of course I can change them back. Asking the lobby players first is not really a thing.

The matter is that if I just drop the images here in a forum post, nobody can really see how it actually looks, but by opening the map and playing it or joining the lobby with the new map and spectating a game (which you can do, as the new map is fully compatible with 2.1.0, of course). Of course, I already spectated several games with the new 2.1.1, and the new battleships look perfectly distinctive and playable to me.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Aw: Re: WORLD AT WAR

redrum
Administrator
@Cernel - Releasing with the new battleship images is fine as its really the only way to get feedback from folks. Just want to make sure if we get mostly negative feedback on them then we change it back after say a few weeks.
1 ... 52535455