I agree with axis general that the east russia capitol should be removed, it has no historical or tactical use of anykind to be a capital.
dutch capital should be in the netherlands as i suggested many times :)
about usa, i dont agree yet, maybe i will when i truly see the unballance of it, but for now i have the feeling that usa cannot afford to ignore 1 side meaning they have to build on both sides to keep the ballance. when they go 100% pacific or 100 % europe the opposite axis will have a much easyer time getting strategic locations or even capitals.
i had a conversation with godking about allies being to strong, and i agree with him a little, first of all i think japan's first 2-3 rounds are way too complicated. its almost impossible to get a good foothold but instead they are being pushed back from the second turn by other allies. historicaly i think anzac has way too much production and units, and usa has too many ships/planes already ready to strike back at japan.
hope this helps, and feel free to prove me wrong:)
I tried playing on all human mode to test game and i was able to attack german territories on turn 1 with the Russians!! I thought the russians typically couldnt attack the germans unless attacked first or untill turn 4-5? Also can u plz come out with a complete list of rules for this map built into the map and easily accessible. And i do mean ALL THE RULES. Including when russia can attack, detailed info on mechanizes infantry, t.boats, and all other units, legal movements including flying over nuetrals to take them over, canals, etc, and of course all the basic rules players might take for granted. Would u also consider making the colors in the med and africa a little more discernable? All the beiges/light browns are really confusing.
Encountered a dilemma playing today and wanted the answer from the horse's mouth. Are canals only supposed to function if they are owned at the beginning of ones turn, or if a canal is completely captured during the combat phase, can it be used in the subsequent non-combat move phase? Say Japan holds Malaya at the beginning of the turn, captures Sumatra during combat, and then moves ships into Indian ocean via the canal. Is this legal?
I think the Dutch capital in Borneo should be kept in order to provide a much needed IPC boost to Japan.
Russian eastern capital should be kept as well in order to prevent Russia completely disregarding the east.
Splitting the USA sounds interesting, but could weaken it too much. The USA needs to be big, bad, and scary.
can only move trough a canal if you own the adjecent coutry(s). owning means its under your alliance control from the beginning of your turn. so capturing it and move trough in noncombat is illigal. compare it to capturing a factory, then you can build units there the next round.
this rule is the same for any axis and allies rulebook so im pretty sure seig has nothing different in mind for it.
Dutch capitol should be in Europe and not in Borneo. However their only other capitol should be in S America instead of Borneo. Also if they are are going to have a capitol in Dutch Guniea there should at least be a factory there.
Russian Capitol in Kaask needs to be removed! I have mentioned the reasons why.
Why isnt Gibraltar a canal? So many other less important places have them but not Gibraltar?
The game is close to being balanced in my opinion with the allies having an advantage. However this advantage is typically wasted since most automaticly send everything with USA after Japan and ignore Europe. Germany can easily push the Russians back to Moscow when this happens provided you dont waste all your money on massive fleets like too many people do. UK has a hard time pressuring Germany and Italy effectively without USA help.
Also please give USA access to trucks. No reason why they shouldnt have them when minor countries have them
-removing kaask capital is right from an historical view, but maybe it forces the russ to send less into the east of the map, thats the point im now not sure about.
-also the dutch capital in borneo is tactically realy important for the japs, i want to hold it cause of the TRS game dynamic, but maybe make anotherone in the Netherlands...
the problem with capital in the NL is that it would be a main targert for the uk, i think this could get an ugly spot for gameplay
-i will include trucks for all nations after the beta stage ( also name changes for terretorys.)
- the gibraltar channel : already thought about it, but in starting it makes it harder for axis, in the later game they can benefit from it. but for the historic it should be there.
-in general i noticed that allies have a light favour.
next update will balance the pacific situation more.
java.lang.IllegalStateException: Found too many files for:=WORLD AT WAR= found:[C:\Users\ANGEL\Documents\TripleA\triplea_1_2_5_5\maps\=WORLD AT WAR=.zip, C:\Users\ANGEL\triplea\maps\=WORLD AT WAR=.zip]
at java.awt.event.InvocationEvent.dispatch(Unknown Source)
at java.awt.EventQueue.dispatchEvent(Unknown Source)
at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpOneEventForFilters(Unknown Source)
at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpEventsForFilter(Unknown Source)
at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpEventsForHierarchy(Unknown Source)
at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpEvents(Unknown Source)
at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.pumpEvents(Unknown Source)
at java.awt.EventDispatchThread.run(Unknown Source)
the dutch should be a weak power that isnt even in the game after a few rounds, unless of course a liberation occurs. and the only capital should be in borneo, a europe capital would be traded by uk and germany or be a heavy burden to defend by germany. as i said before the south american capitaly is basically pointless, especially without a factory.
no comments on slit America sieg? it may not be wise to commit all of america to one side but actually dividing it prevents a 75/25 split too. and it gives them the option to send macarthur to europe or eisenhower to pacific to do 'can opener attacks'
perhaps sieg will post the complete zip with xml, that way I can post it on the map repository, that way you can install this map without issues gneis?
I can't upload it to the repository without the xml.
Sieg, if the reason you are not posting the xml (and your decision to keep the basetile borders hidden?) is because you are afraid others will steal the development of waw, then let me reassure you with these 4 comments:
1) my offer to you of giving you access to the source forge map repository is still open. you will have access to upload and change your maps as you please, without having to go through me first
2) so long as you are active, people have no reason to create their own mods of your map for the sole purpose of balancing your map
3) i promise not to mod your map, though i may give you pointers if I find a bug or incorrect use of the xml syntax or engine updates that require xml changes
4) as an open source project, we should be more willing to share our work with others, even if it means they copy or use our work (imitation is the highest form of flattery after all)
since we may soon have an unstable release and we have some good maps like this in later stage development, I'd like to ask the authors directly if they have anything on a wishlist for engine support.
If you do I can see about getting it done in time for a release.
so this is aimed at Sieg in this instance, but also to authors of other popular maps that happen to read this, and might be keen to update their maps come next release.
Thanks to Sieg for a great map. Just want to say to grizzly that I think it doesn't have to apologize for being large and epic; that's the whole point.
First of all; I see everyone playing 1.1.2. Where can I find that update?
And some comments/suggestions. Still not terribly experienced with the map, but anyways:
1. I have a feeling Axis is slightly at a disadvantage. A few more Hisachi men in china and/or a few more Germans in striking distance on Soviet?
2. As have been suggested, maybe the Russian eastern capital is giving a bit too much weight to an uninteresting part of the world.
3. Wonder if some of the sea zones are too big. While the European ones (and especially the med) is fairly finely split, partitions in the south sea (maybe not too important) and in the pacific (more important) aren't that much finer than AA50 or even classic (while land zones ofc generally are). Especially important close to Japan; if the allied fleet can install itself in sz 90 they pretty much force Yamamoto to withdraw to outside Japan, leaving much of the south open.
4. Same thing with Africa; I don't think it would hurt to split it up a bit more to better reflect the huge distances on that continent compared to Europe and China.
5. Same thing with USA and Canada; don't take away production or anything, but if combat DOES happen there, there should be some room to maneuver and time to mount a decent defence.
6. More production for Tokyo?
And finally; more of a question:
I see that while older maps like classic, revised, AA50 etc usually like putting islands inside sea zones while this map places them on edges or vertices of sea zones. Is there a conscious philosophy behind that?
Well I think if Russia ignores the east too long they will be in trouble anyways. I know if I am playing russia I would still max produce in Kaask even if its not a capitol. My argument is that Russia shouldnt lose its entire income with its loss. It should have the option to fall back and setup another line of defense should Japan fully concentrate on Siberia. Im sure others would agree that its loss would still spell eventual doom/problems for russia.
BTW Sieg you created an excellent map! Hope you dont think the suggestions are a negative because they are not meant to be. Thx for a great map
As far as balancing in the Pacific. Perhaps reduce the amount USA can produce in Hawaii? Being able to produce 4 battleships and be within quick striking distance to Japan may be a little overpowering. Your thoughts on this?