AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/20/2006 3:56:38 AM

Timmeh

Posts: 767
Joined: 12/20/2005
Status: offline

post em here'

< Message edited by Timmeh -- 7/20/2006 5:02:29 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/20/2006 5:20:03 AM

a511

Posts: 518
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Hong Kong
Status: offline

great to see a new AAR, particularly, its the one for AWD, keep it on!!
the game looks so promising to me, cant wait to start a pbem outright ...
btw, whats that suppressing effect on bombing? am i right that bombing alone no longer damage/destory a land unit, instead it lower its effectiveness when engaged in subsequent land battles?

a511

(in reply to Timmeh)

Post #: 2

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/20/2006 5:33:23 AM

Timmeh

Posts: 767
Joined: 12/20/2005
Status: offline

yes, although enough successful suppression type unit attacks and you will damage a unit but this is now much more difficult to do, this new mechanic reduces the chances that the enemy air alone can kill off ground units.

This of course is dependant on how much air vrs how many defending ground units, but the desired result of being unable to totally clear an area of arty and other ground units with just air prior to invasion or attack is achieved ( air, ship bombardment and some op fires and AA are all supression type attacks now )

(in reply to a511)

Post #: 3

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/20/2006 5:38:51 AM

a511

Posts: 518
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Hong Kong
Status: offline

how abt the effect on suppressed units engaging in land battles? whats the max effect?

(in reply to Timmeh)

Post #: 4

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/20/2006 5:42:21 AM

Timmeh

Posts: 767
Joined: 12/20/2005
Status: offline

A suppressed unit will suffer a damage point if its total suppression points equal or exceed its durability rating times 5. Previously damaged units will never suffer a second damage point due to suppression.

When attacking a unit that has suppression, add 1/3 of the target unit�s suppression to the attacker�s die roll.

(in reply to a511)

Post #: 5

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/20/2006 6:21:00 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

And units with suppression suffer a penalty when they fire which is based on the suppression amount and a random factor.

(in reply to Timmeh)

Post #: 6

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/20/2006 9:37:28 AM

fcam1387

Posts: 397
Joined: 5/17/2006
Status: offline

Are you guys aiming to have an improved AI for this new version?

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 7

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/20/2006 9:39:56 AM

JanSorensen

Posts: 3684
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcam1387

Are you guys aiming to have an improved AI for this new version?

Here is what Joel Billings said in another thread:

quote:

The AI has had another several months of work done on it, so I think it plays better. However, don't expect miracles. We do have two new 1939 campaigns that are stacked for play against the computer. They make it more interesting and allow you to avoid having to add combat help in order to get a more challenging game.

(in reply to fcam1387)

Post #: 8

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/20/2006 9:44:26 AM

Timmeh

Posts: 767
Joined: 12/20/2005
Status: offline

from what i've seen (and this is mostly on normal settings ) the AI is less prone to some of the same mistakes like massing transports off Gibralter to be slaughtered and both sides seem to do well with the new amphib and naval rules.

like any AI, play it enough and you know what happens. as for this game follow my AAR and you be the judge. remember that its set on normal aswell.

(in reply to fcam1387)

Post #: 9

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/20/2006 6:51:02 PM

Forwarn45

Posts: 718
Joined: 4/26/2005
Status: offline

It looked like you were able to attack the Low Countries and then attack Western France, all in Spring of '40 with units that used to be able to move just 1 - infantry, etc. Has there been a change to how far units move or did I miss something?

(in reply to Timmeh)

Post #: 10

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/20/2006 7:04:15 PM

Timmeh

Posts: 767
Joined: 12/20/2005
Status: offline

both attacks originated from W.Germany. Inf is still one and armor two.

Vichy was(is) created when either west or eastern france fall. If I'd moved into the netherlands in the winter I would've had the option to assault the french territory of my choice, not going forced my hand into teeth of the maginot line : ( as I didn't want to exposed my armor too much. I probally would of come out with a better result if I did go west though.

< Message edited by Timmeh -- 7/20/2006 7:05:31 PM >

(in reply to Forwarn45)

Post #: 11

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/20/2006 7:09:29 PM

Forwarn45

Posts: 718
Joined: 4/26/2005
Status: offline

IC. I missed that it was Eastern France you attacked rather than Western. So the French give up when they lose Maginot. That's an interesting change.

(in reply to Timmeh)

Post #: 12

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/20/2006 10:25:31 PM

Timmeh

Posts: 767
Joined: 12/20/2005
Status: offline

Grotius wrote in the wrong thread , please comment on the AAR here

quote:

Excellent AAR. Did I hear you say that an elite militia will automatically upgrade to a regular infantry? Cool.

Also, how is Japan's economy before taking the Dutch East Indies etc? In GGWaW, I recall not having a lot of leeway for investing in tech, for example, but you seem to be investing steadily.

Likewise, what good does it do to bomb Chinese factories? In GGWaW they produced only 1 in every 3 turns anyway. Has that changed? Or do you get some sort of VPs for bombing them? Maybe you're looking to improve auto-victory odds? Is there still an auto-victory?

I want to be able to ignore China for as long as possible, even only producing every three turns they could still plop down some supply and screw me over as i plan on pulling troops from the Chinese coast for island duty and if the Chinese have no supply I dont need to worry about them.

Also i run the chance that some of my air units may obtain vetern status which would be good for later.

(in reply to Forwarn45)

Post #: 13

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/21/2006 8:53:42 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

Sorry about posting in the wrong spot! And thanks for the reply. :)

(in reply to Timmeh)

Post #: 14

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/21/2006 9:30:02 AM

GeneralPatton

Posts: 14
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

The stealing technology feature sounds good. (Though why in the world would China have a higher tech value for bombers I don't know). I was wondering if there is any sharing of tech between allies. The Axis (especially Japan) have a lot of problems keeping up tech wise even if they cripple or conquer Russia. If the Western Allies upgrade subs then both Japan and Germany have to research anti-sub tech. The same goes for fighters.

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 15

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/21/2006 9:55:37 AM

Timmeh

Posts: 767
Joined: 12/20/2005
Status: offline

yes you can send spies at your allies to obtain intel and tech 'steals' an expensive folly if you dont get the rolls though. I'm just learning this system too so stop asking the hard questions

(in reply to GeneralPatton)

Post #: 16

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/21/2006 11:23:52 AM

a511

Posts: 518
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Hong Kong
Status: offline

do u think by moving the time line to '39 just give too much time for the Axis to build/research units (e.g. the 7-7 GER infantry in '41!!!, never gonna happen in WAW!!) such that it is harder for the WA to turn the tide? any potential imbalance issue?
btw, whats the war readiness reading for US and RUS just b4 pearl harbour and barbarossa?

a511

(in reply to Timmeh)

Post #: 17

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/21/2006 11:43:13 AM

JanSorensen

Posts: 3684
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: a511

do u think by moving the time line to '39 just give too much time for the Axis to build/research units (e.g. the 7-7 GER infantry in '41!!!, never gonna happen in WAW!!)�such that it is harder for the WA to turn the tide? any potential imbalance issue?

In 1939 and 1940 the limit on how much you can put into any one field of research is keep to a minimum to avoid too early tech.

(in reply to a511)

Post #: 18

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/21/2006 12:10:23 PM

a511

Posts: 518
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Hong Kong
Status: offline

ic, but u can still research 7-7 infantry in '41 ... that means if u dont research on certain units, they will go obsolete by say '42 ... though u still need those obsolete units for the sake of "combined arms" bonus ... is that the case (as im too late to be part of the beta-tester program, i dont have a game on hand to verify the statement)?

a511

(in reply to JanSorensen)

Post #: 19

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/21/2006 1:14:57 PM

Timmeh

Posts: 767
Joined: 12/20/2005
Status: offline

well I'm guilty of keeping my inf numbers low aswell this game (15) and am starting to build more inf and arty now. I did focus on this as my main strategy with Russia was to keep atleast a one tech advantage in fighters, inf and armor. so far I've been able to do it but at a cost of numerical inferiority.

(in reply to a511)

Post #: 20

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/21/2006 1:30:11 PM

Timmeh

Posts: 767
Joined: 12/20/2005
Status: offline

here is the WR on post thaw turn 2. before i attacked the wallies were pushing up to 30 and would of entered possibly spring or summer 42 if I didn't attack them. Russia was also in the 20's I believe and wouldn't unfreeze for a couple of turns after the wallies I'm guessing. WR jumps the allies to x3 almost right away and after that cats out of the bag this bar is really ignored for the remainder of the game.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Timmeh)

Post #: 21

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/21/2006 10:19:32 PM

Timmeh

Posts: 767
Joined: 12/20/2005
Status: offline

...

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Timmeh)

Post #: 22

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/22/2006 12:03:07 AM

GeneralPatton

Posts: 14
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

What do the big white circles with a number in them in England/Moscow/Stalingrad indicate? Factories?

(in reply to Timmeh)

Post #: 23

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/22/2006 1:01:18 AM

Timmeh

Posts: 767
Joined: 12/20/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GeneralPatton

What do the big white circles with a number in them in England/Moscow/Stalingrad indicate? Factories?

I'll touch on that in the next turn but essentially they indicate strategic victory points ( a big element in the east vrs west clash following an Allied victory when some new territories on the map get assigned a victory point or two after the surrender of teh axis)

you'll notice an odd plane just off new zealand now aswell whenever the Japanese get air units in range. This acts as victory points too and combined with the regular rp count goes towards each sides total.

(in reply to GeneralPatton)

Post #: 24

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/22/2006 3:57:24 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

Does the game give the US incentive to island-hop in the Pacific now? You said in your AAR that there are new limits on amphibious invasions. In particular, you said an amphib assault had to start from a "coastal" area. But does anything stop me from making a beeline to the Bonins and bypassing everything else?

(in reply to Timmeh)

Post #: 25

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/22/2006 4:24:42 AM

Timmeh

Posts: 767
Joined: 12/20/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Does the game give the US incentive to island-hop in the Pacific now? You said in your AAR that there are new limits on amphibious invasions. In particular, you said an amphib assault had to start from a "coastal" area. But does anything stop me from making a beeline to the Bonins and bypassing everything else?

The game is open ended in that regard although debate is still ongoing on how much add to the victory points ( and rp's) the wallies leave in Japanese hands if they ignore the real world political realities if Austrailia fell like its going to here. Already in the next build the points for air in range and Victoria have been bumped to 4.

The wallies are 3 amphib rating with their transports right now so in order to land a single inf they'd need two transports in the bonin island sea zone and two transports in each sea zone that the inf had to travel over to get to the battle ( consider the amount of transports needed to move even 2 inf over that many sea zones and you'll see the dificulties involved.)

I have the Wallies down to 26 transports right now so I haven't bothered to place any inf there yet as they dont have the transports to spare for a gamble like that.

< Message edited by Timmeh -- 7/22/2006 4:25:39 AM >

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 26

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/22/2006 6:37:05 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

Also, a 3 amphib means that the max number of units you can land amphibiously in any are during a turn in 3 (4=4, 5=5, 6=limited only by number of transport points you have). Also, all sea areas moved through during the turn by a unit invading is charged the amphibious cost for the unit (not just the last area).

(in reply to Timmeh)

Post #: 27

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/22/2006 9:19:37 AM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

Thanks for the clarification. Those sound like good changes; I hope they don't slow the Wallies down *too* much in the Pacific, but we shall see.

(in reply to Joel Billings)

Post #: 28

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/22/2006 10:14:51 AM

Uncle_Joe

Posts: 1985
Joined: 8/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Does the game give the US incentive to island-hop in the Pacific now? You said in your AAR that there are new limits on amphibious invasions. In particular, you said an amphib assault had to start from a "coastal" area. But does anything stop me from making a beeline to the Bonins and bypassing everything else?

and

quote:

I hope they don't slow the Wallies down *too* much in the Pacific, but we shall see.

The WAllies still have a lot of potential speed in the Pacific. They certainly arent slow to get into the action if they prepped any kind of a force. A few possible changes might also encourage more of the Pacific action in the SoPac region but that remains to be seen if it happens or not.

_____________________________

(in reply to Grotius)

Post #: 29

RE: AWD teaser AAR comment/question thread - 7/22/2006 7:53:17 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

quote:

A few possible changes might also encourage more of the Pacific action in the SoPac region but that remains to be seen if it happens or not.

Cool. I can see as how that's a tough design decision. On the one hand, you want to give the players some incentive to replay the war in the Pacific on roughly historical terms. On the other hand, you also want to make it reasonable to deviate from the historical course by bypassing SoPac altogether.

(in reply to Uncle_Joe)

Post #: 30