World at War Variants

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
15 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

World at War Variants

sneakingcoward
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: World at War Variants

ice
4th topic on same subject

plz use 1 and the same topic for this plz

ice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: World at War Variants

Rolf Larsson
There does not seem to be a main thread, so I pick this one.

Waw variants updated in depot. Moved to All other maps/experimental, due to the massive change in turn order.
Waw pbem, not uploaded cause the turn order seems like a complete new game, without any other changes.
Map skin seems not doing much, just nation/unit colors from what I have seen, relief is missing, not uploaded.

For further upload requests, please make sure, the folder is clean, means everything not needed should not be there. Pictures, additional folders like unused etc.

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

Re: World at War Variants

sneakingcoward
the turn order was always like this, otherwise pbem is not possible.

changes are only scrambling, unit owner change, factory handling, multi hit, etc.

its not a copy of waw, it uses only the rectified map of waw.
otherwise it has nothing to do with it.

the turn order and benefits of it are not the goal of the game.

the goal is the brutal fight for transport, fuel and construction benefits.

it uses v3 rules and all game engine features....

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: World at War Variants

Serdeval
In reply to this post by sneakingcoward
IMO, scramble rules should be applied for fighters (ONLY) when attacking/defending from carriers... otherwise there is no any significant advantage in using carriers instead of just islands.

Also, Germany, Japan and Russia could use "scorched earth" tactics for not to let behind (when retreating) any construction at all.

SOME OTHER SUGGESTIONS.-
GERMANY:
-NEW UNIT SUGGESTED: V1 Rocket (turn 9): Damage as heavy bomber, but can be shoot down by AA guns or intercepted (scramble rules) by jets. Cost 6 (F3), 2 range. Produced by FactoryHomeUpgrade only. Transported by train or land transport.
-NEW UNIT SUGGESTED: V2 Rocket.- (turn 12) Damage as heavy bomber, can't be intercepted. Cost 10 (F5), range 2. Produced by FactoryHomeUpgrade only. Transported by train or land transport.
-CHANGE SUGGESTED: Me262 should have 2 defence and 2 attack points (instead of just 1 each)and just 4 movement points (instead of 6 as it actually is) at 10 cost (instead of 9). Turn 9.
-CHANGE SUGGESTED: King Tiger: 4/5/1 cost 10 (F5), 2 hp. Size 5. Turn 8

RUSSIA:
-Medium tanks should be able to transport 1 soldier each. Turn 4.
-More subs at the beggining in Baltic sea.
-CHANGE SUGGESTED: IS2: 4/4/2 cost 10 (F3), 2 hp. Size 5. Turn 8.

GBR:
-More battleships at the beggining.
-NEW UNIT SUGGESTED: Meteor: 1/1/6 (scramble 4/4) can intercept V1s. Cost 8 (F4). 2 transport cost. Turn 12.

US:
-NEW UNIT SUGGESTED: P80: 2/2/6 (scramble 4/4) can intercept V1s. Cost 9 (F4). 2 transport cost. Turn 15.
-NEW UNIT SUGGESTED: Pershing: 3/3/1 cost 8 (F4), 2 hp. Size 5. Turn 8.

GENERAL:
-NEW: Radar: AA (and coastal guns) hits in 2 or less; permit airplanes to fight against normal subs (not super subs). GBR turn 1, France turn 2, US turn 3, Germany turn 5, Itally turn 7, Japan and Russia turn 9.
-CHANGE SUGGESTED: Artillery: Should provide support to just 1 soldier.
-CHANGE SUGGESTED: Super sub: Should be able to attack through enemy ships into positions behind them and be available just to Germany and Japan.
-CHANGE SUGGESTED: SuperCarrier: Should be available just to US and Japan only.
-NEW UNIT SUGGESTED: Coastal gun: As AA, but against ships in mixed territories (part land, part sea). Can be transported by train only. Can be produced by FactoryHomeUpgrade only.
-NEW STRATEGY SUGGESTION: Siege. If a territory lose contact with any FactoryHomeUpgrade of their own property and it can not be suplied by sea, it will just have one attack (not a complete turn, but a single round) for trying to breake the siege. If it fails, units remaining are half captured (rounded down), half destroyed (rounded up), and can be used by the captor (but for any kind of soldiers).

Note: Suggested changes are done in order to provide a few special units (only available) to some powers (trying to give them "personalities") while keeping most of the units the same for everyone.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: World at War Variants

sneakingcoward
- IMO, scramble rules should be applied for fighters (ONLY) when attacking/defending from carriers... otherwise there is no any significant advantage in using carriers instead of just islands.
at islands its normally not used. for gb, germany..

- Also, Germany, Japan and Russia could use "scorched earth" tactics for not to let behind (when retreating) any construction at all.
this is called here demolition.
available here for all, but only with edit before placement.

V1:
heavy means 2 dice rolls ?

V2:
how to do with existing ruleset ?

Me262:
1-1 is for ground, 5-5 is for air.
Me was an air fighter...
move 6 to give an opposite to long range fighter

BigArmour:
4-4 and cost 8 due to comparison with armour 3-3.
bigarmour should win in combat.

rus:
halftrack does the transport thing.

gbr & us
more units make it even more complex...

general:
- permit airplanes to fight against normal subs (not super subs)
dont know how to do this...

- Artillery: Should provide support to just 1 soldier.
art gives 2, halftrack 1 support.
good value comparison

- Super sub: Should be able to attack through enemy ships into positions behind them
existing ruleset v3.
destroyer blocks sub movement

- SuperCarrier: Should be available just to US and Japan only.
existing

- Coastal gun: As AA, but against ships in mixed territories (part land, part sea)
how to do ?

- Siege. If a territory lose contact with any FactoryHomeUpgrade
how to do ?


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: World at War Variants

Serdeval
First of all: Congrats, this map is BY FAR my favourite one. Now:

Scramble from carriers: I know it is "off" in islands (or continent territories, as it should), BUT, IMO it should be on in carriers. Why? Well, you are paying a lot for having them, so they should provide good advantages (instead of just picking a strategiclly placed pacific island and sending there all of your airplanes). Also, this unit was the one winning the pacific war and was much more cappable and feared than the battleships... but ingame no one will chose carriers over battleships as they actually are. Giving carriers scramble ability could be a way to compensate it a bit.

Scorched land: How can I edit before placement?

V1: No, it does do mean 2-6 (BigBomber).

V2: I don't know, srry.

Me262: I know 1-1 is for ground, but that plane was a good fighter/bomber plane so it should be IMO equal to the 2-2 long range allied actually have... instead, it lacked range in comparisson to allied long range fighter/bombers, so it was not that much "strategical range" able, but just tactical (normal range); that's why I suggested that allied airplanes to surpass it in range.

Big armour: For sure they should win in combat, but they were so expensive to produce. Also, Russian heavies were able to surpass German ones in speed and splash damage (due to high caliber guns... maybe should be able to give support to 1 troop?) and Germans had better accuracy/penetration (thats why they should defend better IMO); and both had cappable armor (compared to the standard penetration of the time -allied and Russian ones, so similar each other, not with the very high German one). Also this tanks were the end of their different combat philosophies, so maybe they could have a little differences from each other...

Rus: Again, T-34 was able to carry out some soldiers in its rear back... it even had banisters for that porpouse... but Russians lacked halftracks, so maybe we can take halftracks away from Russia but we can give them this ability. After all, Russian tanks were not supposed to fight Blitzkrieg tactics, but to stick with the infantry most of the time...

...

Artillery: Suggestion was intended to enlarge Katyusha's power (mobile rocket launcher power over normal one).

Coastal guns: I have played a map (I don't remember which one now, but guess must to be some variant of a classical one) in which, when any enemy airplane try to fly over a territory with aa guns, engine ask you if you want to fire at them with your aa guns when you have radar tech researched. So I guess it could work that same way: 1) If you are trying to land your forces in an amphibious assault into a territory equiped with a coastal gun, it should fire at the invading boats/ships as aa guns fire to airplains. 2) If any enemy ship tries to cross by or stand into a mixed territory (part sea, part land) equipped with a coastal gun and a radar, that gun should be able to fire at them at 2 or less...

Siege: Again, I have no idea, srry.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: World at War Variants

Serdeval
In a second thought, I guess V2 could be fired during non combat movement phase. After all no combat will occur, just the damage to the targets...



I has been wondering for a while now about introducing "FOG OF WAR" to the game. I guess it could work this way:
1) Only the owner will know which and how many troops he/she have buy.

2) Only own faction will be able to see allied (and own, of course) troops disposition.

3) 3 Different factions will exists: Allied, Axis and Comintern (USSR and China). So, any allied unit opering in any Russian territory will be considered as "lend and lease" and will become red (Russian) next turn.

4) During combat, it MUST be ONLY shown the hits taken, not the ones missing. Also, you should be able to see just the amount of hits recived that were needed to end your force. I mean, if you sent a single unit in your attack, you must be able to see JUST the FIRST hit recived regrdless how many hits your force had taken.

5) Only carriers can detect units in adjacent SEA territories. Any other SEA unit is able to detect enemies just the very same terriotry they are in.

6) However Submarines are only detected by Destroyers or airplanes with radar.

7) Supersubs are detected just by destroyers.

8) Land units does not detect other units but the ones they destroy. In a major battle bettween forces without any previous recognition, agressor will just see the amount of hits taken (but no more than the ones needed to destroy his/her force in any case) and the kind and amount of troops he/she have already destroyed, but will not be able to see the entire force unless he/she destroy it all.

9) Defender will allways see the entire attacking force.

10) If anyone is interested in knowing how many and which kind of troops are emplaced in any determined enemy territory, then a recognizance mission should take place.

11) Recon missions are able only to fighter and jet planes.

12) Recon missions must take place during non combat phase move, since it is not an attack. Besides, that will let the player know where to place his/her own units accordingly prepparing his next attack.

13) If the territory target have aa guns on it and/or fighter planes and/or is under scrambling rules (and the owner send aircraft to intercept them), a normal combat will occur (yes, I know it is the non combat move phase, but this action is not a propper attack either).

14) Just in case the one performing the recon mission have any survival plane returning to own territory the recognizance will succed. In such case, player will exactly know how many and which troops enemies have placed in that territory.

This changes are intended to help airplanes to play a major roll ingame, as well as aircraft carriers, as they actually did in WW2 (and continues to do).
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: World at War Variants

Serdeval
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: World at War Variants

sneakingcoward
This post was updated on .
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: World at War Variants

Serdeval
I have been playing "WatW FUEL AA Range" a lot lately and have some suggestions that I´m sure will improve the map:

1) The actual need of airbases for airplanes to properly work (if not "landed" on a carriers) does complicate the use of airplanes in land combats a lot... but the idea have potential. Actually, most players I have played against avoid using airplanes at all (since they think "airplanes are ruined"), but in the Pacific theatre where we can have carriers. It can totally change if only AA devices and other airplanes can fire back airplanes when they are attacking.

1.1) In this way, it´s the perfect pretext for the introduction to the game of the AA vehicles (able to follow tank´s progresses); and to reduce the actual movement of AA guns to just 1 -as any artillery- (actually, AA guns have 2 movement points, what is too much mov for arty). AA vehicles will also hit airplanes with a 1 (2 or less if on a territory with radar, as AA gun). AA vehicles attack/defend with 1 (1/1/2) and cost would be 4, fuel cost of 2.

2) Actually (in the latest version) guns can´t landing attack, (and sometimes infantry soldiers either -as in Java and sumatra) which is not a good idea IMO. If a limitation want to be placed for this both units, it should be instead, getting aboard a sea transport may be considered as 1 movement and landing as a second movement. So, only units with 2 or more moves per turn can land in a single turn.

3) Air to air att/def of bombers is actually so high. It was proven that sending bombers without fighter escorts was suicidal. So I recomend:
a) To nerf it to 1/1 (from its actual 2/2) in the normal bombers.
b) Nerfing air to air att/def also in BigBombers from its actual 3/3 to only 2/2.
c) Also, big bombers should do double damage than normal ones, so I would give them 2-12 (or 3-8 at least) bombing damage instead of their actual 2-6.

3.1) Just USA and GBR should have access to Big Bombers.

4) Me262 needs major modification IMO: a) Reduce max movement from its actual 6 to 4. Its range was tactical only, not strategycal.
b) Buf its air to air att/def from its actual 4/4 to 5/5.
c) It was a capable fighter/bomber, so its normal stats should be 2/2/4 (instead of its actual 1/1/6 -range reached when in airbase-)
d) Cost should be raised to 12 (from its actual 9) and 5 fuel (from its actual 3).

5) SuperSubs should only be able to Germany, but instead, Germany would not be able to produce Aircraft carriers.

6) Normal carriers should have a single HP (instead of 2, as they actually have), but should cost 13 (instead of 18, as they actually cost). SuperCarriers should have just 2 HP (instead of 3 they actually have) and cost of 20 (instead of 27 as actually is). Fuel cost should remain in both cases.

6.1) Only Japan and USA should have access to SuperCarriers.

I guess with this few modifications game will be better balanced, will be more "noob friendly" and will keep its actual spirit.

Other less important suggestions I have for this map are:

1) Japan Super Battleships (Yamato): 5/5/2, cost 35, fuel 10.

2) IS3 (USSR heavy tank) 4/4/2 gives art. suport up to 2 infantry (as guns do), 2 attacks. Cost 15. Fuel cost 7. Actual image.

3) King tiger (German heavy tank): 4/5/2 2 hit, 2 attacks, cost 15, fuel cost 6. Actual image.

4) Allied heavy tanks (Pershing/Churchill imagges needed): 3/3/1, 2 HP, 2 attacks, cost 12, fuel cost 5.

5) Calliope and Wurfrahmen40 should be the American and German versions of the Russian´s "Katyusha". So, they should be as follows:

a) Katyusha: 3/1/2 cost 4 fuel cost 1.
b) Calliope: 4/2/2 cost 6 fuel cost 3. Image needed.
c) Wurfrahmen40: 4/1/2 cost 5 fuel cost 2. Image needed.
All of them can give art support up to 2 troops.

6) Finally, Akita, Tientsin and every fuel producing european/african territory should provide only 75 fuel points per turn. That will encourage the race for the oil in the other places, as it actually happened.

TYVM.

Edit: Also, artillery (guns) should be the only ables to return fire after a naval bombardment.

Side note: Giving all units unique abilities turn them necessary, at least, for some situations, which is a warranty of most nplayers will use them instead of just pick the most rentable option between price and att/def numbers...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: World at War Variants

sneakingcoward
thanks for your comments, specially me262 needs some optimisation..

are you up for a pbem, also 2vs2 ???
write me at wgbt@gmx.at


Reg. 1 and 1.1 aa vehicles
only with airbase planes can be really used, otherwise they can roam around for fun.
planes are the most important units in this game.
you can only win with them.
the aagun unit is an aavehicle.
with 1-1-2 and attack/defend aa of 1 of 6 hit, with only 2 targets
2 move and 5 cost is proper value balance

Reg. 2 invading restrictions
only inf, para, armourdvehicle, halftrack and armour can invade from a landing boat
makes it more realistic because any not selfpropelled vehicles or units cant really make an amphibious assault.
we need storm units.

Reg 3 planes, escort and intercept
bombers have 2-1, bigbombers 3-1, fighter 3-3
1-1 would be too low. even with this values its very costly.
a fighter costs 7 compared with 12/15 for bombers and is 50% stronger...

bombing damage is 1-6 for bombers and 2-6 for bigbombers (calculation 1-5 + 1 bonus)
this is median 3 for bombers and 4 for bigbombers, so 33% higher, almost the unitcost increase...

Reg 3.1 bigbombers
not only brit and us were using them, also ger and rus and japs had access.
ger was using them in the atlantic for the convoys until the transports had 1 spitfire on them...for 1 time use.
it was the he177

Reg 4 me262
a lot of tries til now
from 2 hit to 5-5...
if me262 only 4 move then ger needs unit longrangefighter...historic me110
now its the philosophy of cost 9, att/def of 1-1 and air 4-4 with move 6.

Reg 5 supersubs and carriers
not only ger had it, also japs, brit, us...
and carrier also ger tried to build but it didnt get ready...due to divertion of resources.

Reg 6 carriers
hitpoints here are distributed acc the size of a ship.
a carrier can absorb more hits then a destroyer
carriers should be expensive because they are.

Reg 6.1 supercarriers
only japs and us can build

Reg 7 fuel production
when you use only inf and art you consume no fuel, you save a lot
when a bombing campaign is rolling even 6 patches with 100 fuel each is not enough..
its difficult to balance this.
japs has to race anyway also ger if it wants to have an air campaign or bigger armour stacks.
and brit has to hold their middle east patches, without them they are grounded.

Reg more unittypes
Japan Super Battleships (Yamato): 5/5/2, cost 35, fuel 10
what would it bring to have more of them ?
make a battleship with 27 cost and a torpedoboat with 6 cost, this is together 33 cost and 5-5 att/def and 7 fuel. together 4 hits.
its the same then yamamoto ship.
the vision of this game is, to have as less unittypes as possible to make it streamlined.
the unittypes should be all special in his art for special purpose, to make them all necessary.

this is inline with your side note:
"Giving all units unique abilities turn them necessary, at least, for some situations, which is a warranty of most players will use them instead of just pick the most rentable option between price and att/def numbers... "

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: World at War Variants

Serdeval
1.- Agree. It´s just that I would enjoy a lot to see those AA vehicles all over there. And yes, the airbase is a graet idea, so I guess you should keep it. Also, airplanes only hitable by AA and ships (but subs, of course).
This would be even more realistic and airplanes will play a major rol as IRL.

2.- Landing manouvers also are so risky. Germans had good luck in Norway (but in Narrvik, that ended bad, of course) and allies were lucky to in Normandy. So, make it a 2 moves manouver sounds fair to me, due to the risk of enemy units to intercept and sink the landing force. Maybe could be introduced as a side restriction for landing.

3.- For game balance can be ok, but as far as I read in the info ingame, BigBombers have 3/3 air to air defence, as much as a fighter, which turn them unnecessary.
Lets rmemeber that after the october 43 raid over Germany "Bomber Harris" ordered to stop any other bombing attempt until the P51s were ready to escort them in big numbers due to the major disaster they had suffered. And yes, bomber planes were more expensive than fighters. In compensation, heavy bombers will get a devastating 3-8 or 2d6 damage, so it turns the unit fantastic if properly escorted, as it should be IMO.

4.- It is hard playing the axis. It´s a challenge for expert players when playing against other veteran players (as it should be IMO). But Ger really needs the stats suggested for Me262... and the introduction, then, of the Me210 for counter the capable P38 of the americans (LongRangeFighter). Also, "DiveBombers" instead of "DiveFighters" name could be used for the 3/2/2 air units.

5.- Other nations had big sumersibles (some japs even carried airplanes, lol), but nothing compared to the Type XXI It could shoot 3x than the most rapid fire subs of the time, was more accurate and fast than any other even being submerssed, had a very reinforced hull (for the time) was able to submerse deeper and faster than any other and was undetectable for the time. All of this made it the very first true submarine (not just a submersible) of all the time. And yes, Ger were working in the Graf Zeppelin, but for compensation (if just Ger have SuperSubs), this tech should be kept away from them IMO.

7.- Transports should be able to transport fuel too: Sea transports and trains 100 each one, and land transports 50-60. Fuel should be given to other nations, since it frequently happens that brits are out of it and the states have plenty, Ger and Jap run out and Itally have plenty and so. So allied nations should be able to share it between them and axis nations between them too IMO. This will encourage even more sea action, of course.

And yes, I would enjoy playing a game with you... but I choose allies my friend ;)
Serdeval@hotmail.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: World at War Variants

Serdeval
I could not edit (dunno why, srry), so I double post:

"Defence" unit should cost 3, as the cheapest infantry trrop. The main reasons I find are:
1) Bunkers and this guns ("defences") put together become an annoying, cheap combo.
2) It have 4 points (3 in def and 1 in mov) as well as soldier cheap troop )1 att, 2 def, 1 mov).
3) It is one of the most capable defences in the game, so there is no reason for it to be THAT cheap.

Artillery will get more balanced this way I guess. If normal arty (howitzers) are the only land unit able to fire back to ships, AA guns the only (but for AA vehicles, if any) land unit able to fire back to airplanes (but able to fire to land units too, of course, as they actually are), and AT guns ("Defence") able to fire just to land units and only during defence, but being cheap and the most capable of the 3 for doing this. In fact, AT gun could be even buffed to 1/3/1 at the price of 4 since there is no reason for it not to attack even if in a poor way.

For "giving" resources/material to an ally of yours (if implemented anytime) maybe you should send them to ally´s capitol. Once there, system will ask you if you want to keep them for yourself or you want to give them to your ally. If so, colors will change and/or resources will be taken away from you and given to the said ally.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Aw: Re: World at War Variants

sneakingcoward
defence:
only due to engine reason (a move 0 unit is not transported), it has 1 move.
but acc. game notes it doesnt have to move alone, it needs a transport...
so it is not moving alone, so a 2 cost should be ok.
 
generally, i questioned already the programmers...
normally each unit should have att/def values for land and air separate...
this would be the right handling...
 
 
Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. Januar 2015 um 05:36 Uhr
Von: "Serdeval [via tripleadev]" <[hidden email]>
An: sneakingcoward <[hidden email]>
Betreff: Re: World at War Variants
I could not edit (dunno why, srry), so I double post:

"Defence" unit should cost 3, as the cheapest infantry trrop. The main reasons I find are:
1) Bunkers and this guns ("defences") put together become an annoying, cheap combo.
2) It have 4 points (3 in def and 1 in mov) as well as soldier cheap troop )1 att, 2 def, 1 mov).
3) It is one of the most capable defences in the game, so there is no reason for it to be THAT cheap.

Artillery will get more balanced this way I guess. If normal arty (howitzers) are the only land unit able to fire back at ships, AA guns the only (but for AA vehicles, if any) land unit able to fire back at airplanes (but able to fire to land units too, of course, as they actually are), and AT guns ("Defence") able to fire just to land units and only during defence, but being cheap and the most capable of the 3 for doing this. AT gun could be even buffed to 1/3/1 at the price of 4 since there is no reason for it not to attack even if in a poor way.

For "giving" resources/material to an ally of yours (if implemented anytime) maybe you should send them to ally´s capitol. Once there, system will ask you if you want to keep them for yourself or you want to give them to your ally. If so, colors will change and/or resources will be taken away from you and given to the said ally.


 
If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/World-at-War-Variants-tp7583179p7587461.html
To unsubscribe from World at War Variants, click here.
NAML