Last Patch? Final change suggestions

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Last Patch? Final change suggestions

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 >> Last Patch? Final change suggestions

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/8/2008 8:06:02 PM

Lebatron

Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline

Brian,

If this is going to be the last patch, then I have some last minute suggestions that I believe will benefit gameplay and are very simple to change. These have been on my mind for a long time.

1. If the German's refuse Spanish entry due to the event, there should not be a +3 US WR bump. Forcing the +3 bump on the Axis player no matter what he decides to do is entirely wrong. This has lead to the German player having no choice but to accept Spanish entry because he's penalized either way. Does it make sense that the US would accelerate war preparations when the Spanish don't enter the Axis Alliance? Turning down Spanish entry only does one thing. It moves the Spanish to pro Axis if they aren't already there. If they're already pro Axis, then refusing their entry is a non-event in game terms. Again, why the bump? There are other times when the Spanish move to pro Axis that doesn't warrant increased US war prep, so why that particular time? I would like to see this change made official, and who cares about obsoleting the manual. That's what the readme is for. If not official, then at least allow this to be modded please.

2. Modify the U-boat snorkels technology event so that it can trigger in 1942 instead of 1943. Why? Because in practice it's not much of a help. If the German player wants to push his U-boats to EV4 as fast as possible the event usually triggers so late that it gives the German player nothing. The tech only seems worthwhile in two cases. In the first, Germany stops investing once they hit EV3, or somewhere shortly beyond that, and waits till the event hits to finish his research to EV4. The problem with waiting around for the tech to help out is that the Allies hit ASW3 and the U-boats lost the race to stay ahead. In most cases, I find it better to race to EV4 and not depend on the snorkel event at all. So the first case I pointed out where the event is useful is not actually useful. In the second case, the Germans plan on going all the way to EV5. Here the event will actually help save the Germans some investment, even when they go full speed to EV5. However, to me that is not much of a benefit, because I don't always go past EV4. Moving this event to 1942 will go a long way to making the U-boat campaign more viable and give a more historic feel to the battle of the Atlantic. In other words, the tide will turn at the more historically correct time. Right now that seems to be coming 6 months to a year to early.

Requests 1 and 2 are simple to change and have high return in gameplay value.

3. Would you organize the technology events screen in chronological order? It's apparent that they should be organized top to bottom 1941,1942,1943.

4. Would you place the technology events into the data files like you did with the political events? It would be great to have the means to mod these, then I can improve the U-boat snorkel event if my request is not made official.

5. Change the neutral view mode so the Allied turn season is displayed correctly.

6. My post regarding the view replay feature gathered a lot of support. It would be nice if you reconsidered giving it a try. Hiding movements that are in fog of war would be a great improvement. This topic was discussed @here@

7. Fix replay playback speed to the non-player animation speed setting instead of the player animation speed setting. In practice what I've been doing is changing my player animation speed from .2 to .5 just to slow down the replay when I watch it, then change it back to .2 once I'm finished watching it. If it was tied to the non-player animation speed I could leave it at .5 and never bother changing it each time I have to watch a PBEM replay.

< Message edited by Lebatron -- 1/9/2008 1:59:27 AM >

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

Post #: 1

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/9/2008 12:50:38 AM

SGT Rice

Posts: 653
Joined: 5/22/2005
Status: offline

My biggest request for a quick fix would be to scrub the list of random political events and make them a little less random.

For example, the Iraq coup event has a 5% probability whenever it shows up in the event queue, regardless of the current geopolitical situation. I've seen examples when:

a) The coup takes place while Italy was neutral and there were no Germans within 1000 miles of Iraq, and
b) Numerous cases where the Germans have occupied Syria and/or Palestine, then had to occupy an undefended Iraq, torching the rail and resources in the process.

I think its obvious that in case (a) the coup should never happen and in case (b) it should be virtually certain. My suggestion is that all the coup events should have variable probabilities based on the proximity of Axis/Allied controlled territories and units. We took a little step in that direction with the Spanish coup; I think more needs to be done.

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 2

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/9/2008 1:53:17 AM

Lebatron

Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SGT Rice

My suggestion is that all the coup events should have variable probabilities based on the proximity of Axis/Allied controlled territories and units. We took a little step in that direction with the Spanish coup; I think more needs to be done.

There is support for that now in the data files and modders could make the Iraq coup more like the Spanish one very easily. If players got requests like this, pitch them in the mods section and modders like Brian or myself may consider them.

I will consider making changes to the Iraq coup as you suggested for UV2.2

< Message edited by Lebatron -- 1/9/2008 2:01:54 AM >

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to SGT Rice)

Post #: 3

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/9/2008 1:58:14 AM

Lebatron

Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline

One other small one

7. Fix replay playback speed to the non-player animation speed setting instead of the player animation speed setting. In practice what I've been doing is changing my player animation speed from .2 to .5 just to slow down the replay when I watch it, then change it back to .2 once I'm finished watching it. If it was tied to the non-player animation speed I could leave it at .5 and never bother changing it each time I have to watch a PBEM replay.

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 4

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/11/2008 6:18:57 PM

Lebatron

Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron

6. My post regarding the view replay feature gathered a lot of support. It would be nice if you reconsidered giving it a try. Hiding movements that are in fog of war would be a great improvement. This topic was discussed @here@

I think a simple compromise that would prevent players from watching all opponents moves, even the ones in fog, would be to replay combats only in PBEM games. You know the middle button none of us ever uses. It should be turned on during PBEM games that are using fog with no option to turn it off. In this way players can't closely watch every move. This would probably be a simple thing to add to the next patch. Any support for this?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Lebatron -- 1/11/2008 6:19:51 PM >

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 5

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/11/2008 10:37:40 PM

GKar

Posts: 617
Joined: 5/18/2005
Status: offline

Hmm, sounds a little too radical to me.

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 6

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/12/2008 6:21:15 AM

christian brown

Posts: 1441
Joined: 5/18/2006
From: Vista, CA
Status: offline

For what it's worth, Lebatron's got my support on all points. The "view combats only" in VCR mode change for FoW PBEMs seems particularly important. A player should not be able to see an opponent's moves in VCR mode that they are unable to figure out on their own turn.

_____________________________

"Those who would give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and will lose both."
~ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to GKar)

Post #: 7

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/14/2008 2:02:44 AM

goodtimes

Posts: 9
Joined: 6/10/2007
Status: offline

There are a few ideas I would like to mention. (I will leave it to those of you who play the game alot to decide if they are of any use):

HB could have a EV bonus if 'escorted' by fighter units.

HB units, once they reach a certain level of development, could be marked for one-time use (like kamakazi aircraft) to simulate V1/V2 rockets.

For more unpredictability, there could be a say, 1% chance any units travelling by transport, damaged rail, or amphibiously invading could be 'delayed' and stuck in place that turn. (Likewise there could be a 1% chance anything in the bottom left box of the Production Screen could be 'delayed'

(in reply to christian brown)

Post #: 8

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/14/2008 3:56:26 AM

christian brown

Posts: 1441
Joined: 5/18/2006
From: Vista, CA
Status: offline

quote:

For more unpredictability, there could be a say, 1% chance any units travelling by transport, damaged rail, or amphibiously invading could be 'delayed' and stuck in place that turn. (Likewise there could be a 1% chance anything in the bottom left box of the Production Screen could be 'delayed'

Those ideas are really cool and out of the box.

_____________________________

"Those who would give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and will lose both."
~ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to goodtimes)

Post #: 9

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/19/2008 8:30:42 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SGT Rice

My biggest request for a quick fix would be to scrub the list of random political events and make them a little less random.

For example, the Iraq coup event has a 5% probability whenever it shows up in the event queue, regardless of the current geopolitical situation. I've seen examples when:

a) The coup takes place while Italy was neutral and there were no Germans within 1000 miles of Iraq, and
b) Numerous cases where the Germans have occupied Syria and/or Palestine, then had to occupy an undefended Iraq, torching the rail and resources in the process.

I think its obvious that in case (a) the coup should never happen and in case (b) it should be virtually certain. My suggestion is that all the coup events should have variable probabilities based on the proximity of Axis/Allied controlled territories and units. We took a little step in that direction with the Spanish coup; I think more needs to be done.

As Jesse pointed out, this is mod-able.

Global Glory adds a Syria coup (reflecting the Vichy forces there that the British were very legitimately worried about). The Syria coup becomes more likely if Iraq is German, and vice versa. It only goes to 10% however, not the virtually certain you suggested. I could see going higher, but virtually certain seems overkill.

It would be easy to change both these mid-east coups to not occur if the Italians are neutral, and even to include some other prereqs like Tobruk is German controlled. Will consider for GG.

Other than Iraq, what do you have in mind? Global Glory has many many event changes, all trying to provide a slightly more realistic and less predictable political environment. While I like it (of course) I imagine it is possible that some people might look at it and find it too much. Even I have to consult my manual sometimes to figure out what may happen. Have you looked at these events?

< Message edited by WanderingHead -- 1/19/2008 8:54:22 AM >

(in reply to SGT Rice)

Post #: 10

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/19/2008 8:49:18 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
1. If the German's refuse Spanish entry due to the event, there should not be a +3 US WR bump.

I agree. However, the implementation is difficult. Right now, the event fires and the WR is increased. Then later the German turn rolls around (OK, I know the perception is that it is already the German turn, but it is different...), and Germany gets to make its decision. There is actually nothing remembered to say that the _reason_ Germany is making this decision is the event. It could have been, for example, because the WA attacked Spain. As far as the internal mechanics are concerned at this point it is the same.

The best I can seem to think of, without a bunch of special purpose code for no other reason, is that there is a _second_ event which fires if the first event has fired but Spain is still neutral. This second event could do nothing but reduce the WA WR. Kind of kludgy feeling though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
2. Modify the U-boat snorkels technology event so that it can trigger in 1942 instead of 1943.

If others agree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
3. Would you organize the technology events screen in chronological order? It's apparent that they should be organized top to bottom 1941,1942,1943.

OK.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
4. Would you place the technology events into the data files like you did with the political events? It would be great to have the means to mod these, then I can improve the U-boat snorkel event if my request is not made official.

The only reason it won't happen is the work. I agree in principle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
5. Change the neutral view mode so the Allied turn season is displayed correctly.

already accepted that one :).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
6. My post regarding the view replay feature gathered a lot of support. It would be nice if you reconsidered giving it a try. Hiding movements that are in fog of war would be a great improvement. This topic was discussed @here@

Hard to implement, but your "Combat Only" suggestion helped. Heck, I didn't even know that button was there.

The best I can imagine for this is a that with a game option some of the buttons would be greyed out and not accessible. It is possible, but the more I think of it the more I think that it is still an awful lot of work. Anything that hooks to the GUI becomes a lot of work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
7. Fix replay playback speed to the non-player animation speed setting instead of the player animation speed setting. In practice what I've been doing is changing my player animation speed from .2 to .5 just to slow down the replay when I watch it, then change it back to .2 once I'm finished watching it. If it was tied to the non-player animation speed I could leave it at .5 and never bother changing it each time I have to watch a PBEM replay.

This might be easy, really depends on how hard it is to find where it gets done in the code. I'll keep it in mind.

BTW - I am keeping track of the plans on the original post here. Unfortunately, my earlier stated enthusiasm for finishing this patch right away has bogged down in work work work and a family trip to Disneyland, all keeping me away from AWD code work (sometimes it is not just time that is lacking, but energy).

< Message edited by WanderingHead -- 1/19/2008 8:55:08 AM >

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 11

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/19/2008 9:00:23 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: goodtimes
HB could have a EV bonus if 'escorted' by fighter units.

HB units, once they reach a certain level of development, could be marked for one-time use (like kamakazi aircraft) to simulate V1/V2 rockets.

For more unpredictability, there could be a say, 1% chance any units travelling by transport, damaged rail, or amphibiously invading could be 'delayed' and stuck in place that turn. (Likewise there could be a 1% chance anything in the bottom left box of the Production Screen could be 'delayed'

The EV bonus goes explicitly against a proposal someone else made. Right now, if you have enough fighters your bombers will never be fired upon by a fighter. I think that is good enough bonus for fighter cover.

I don't think the HB/V1/V2 idea would make much sense in play terms. It is hard to envision actually throwing a bomber away like that. I'm afraid that I wouldn't want to make the coding effort.

The unpredictability in transport would kind of break the way the game plays, making it very difficult (or impossible) to code in a way people would be happy with. Right now you can undo everything (except things that reveal FOW or involve combat). Personally, I would find this far too frustrating to play with.

(in reply to goodtimes)

Post #: 12

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/19/2008 12:21:28 PM

Marshall Art

Posts: 566
Joined: 8/6/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron

2. Modify the U-boat snorkels technology event so that it can trigger in 1942 instead of 1943. Moving this event to 1942 will go a long way to making the U-boat campaign more viable and give a more historic feel to the battle of the Atlantic. In other words, the tide will turn at the more historically correct time. Right now that seems to be coming 6 months to a year to early.

Giving out the event RP in 1942 will only prolong the time the Uboats were dominant and then in 1943 suddenly the sub war will stop as there is no hope for Germany to ever get ahead again. Both is not as it should be. I vote for the event to remain in 1943.

Justification:
Germany can always obtain a significant tech advantage in the early years of the war by starting to research sub EV right away at max. speed. By the time the Allies have Sub attack 2 (with at least DDs but beneficially also some air units like CAG or HB) the sub EV is already close or beyond 3 which gives the subs enough probability to score and still survive the counter attacks. Of course the sending out of big fleets of DDs will eventually kill a sub but at a huge fuel expense for the AW player. This IMO is realistic because the early war subs were great attackers but dreadful evaders/defenders because of poor battery endurances and limited diving depths as compared to later models.

By the time the WA reach sub attack 3 which should be sometime in 1941/1942 the tide clearly turns as it did historically. Note the tide turns means subs still can get a good shot but are highly vulnerable to be hit themselves. That was the time Germany looked for other options, such as the snorkel, new sub models and also new hunting grounds, like places further away from the Nothern Atlantic (operation drumbeat for instance, but also long range subs in the Idian Ocean). UNTIL they had the new sub models they pretty much had to fight on KNOWING most of the subs would not come back just to keep the pressure up on the WA. To reasonably continue the sub war Germany will invest into EV 4 until sometime late 1942/early 1943.

By the time the new subs were available of course history showed it was too late but with the event occuring in 1943 this gives the German player a incentive to go for EV 5 subs because otherwise he will not reach it in time.

I would like to compare this to the Jet fighter event - would you move this ahead also just to give the German fighers more punch earlier on? Both events are IMO intended to give the German player an incentive to keep his research up in later years and thus create the "wonderweapons" that stunned the Allies late in the war. With all goodies given out early there is no chance the Axis will ever get a slight advantage ever in the late war or have a motive to go for better units as the WA will out-research them easily.

< Message edited by Marshall Art -- 1/19/2008 12:25:50 PM >

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 13

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/21/2008 4:41:37 PM

Lebatron

Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline

The U-boat snorkel tech event has a 20% chance to trigger starting in 1943. In practice that means it usually doesn't trigger until late 43 or early 44. Far to late to be of much help. Either the German player has already hit his desired EV level by then, or he has already stopped rebuilding his U-boat fleet. In either case the event might as well not exist. Comparing it to the Jet fighter event is not a good comparision, as that tech does help the German player reach a higher fighter EV. Here's a better comparison. How useful would it be to have the allied tranny events happen long after D-day? In other words my simple point is what use is there for an event that does not help in normal play? 9 out of 10 times when it fires it gives me free points that I'm never going to take advantage of. That's the true test of whether some tech event has any worth. The way I see it, if the snorkel event does not help the German save some points getting to EV4 then it's not much use.

The U-boat campaign is an expensive option to pursue. German investment here effects the army in negative ways. Some say a strong U-boat campaign does not pay off as well as directing that production toward a strong army, and I agree. Since this is a game first, and a recreation of history second, I prefer to error on the side of what balances strategic options that improve overall game variety. Those that have dismissed the strong U-boat campaign as the weaker option may reconsider it again. For those that dissagree about moving the snorkel event up a year should ask themselves why there is a player bias against a strong U-boat campaign in the first place. Apparently it's the cost vs payoff. Reducing the cost to get good subs(EV4) is the simplest answer to make players re-evaluate the cost vs payoff equation.

In no way do I think moving the event up a year is going to break things. The fact is it will only help out the weaker option and make it somewhat more viable. It still may not make it a balanced option, which is why I have no fear it will break the game.

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to Marshall Art)

Post #: 14

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/21/2008 8:38:56 PM

Marshall Art

Posts: 566
Joined: 8/6/2005
Status: offline

I am quite the opposite of being against the strong Uboat strategy, in fact I like to use a strong Uboat fleet to catch the WA offguard at some point - note to my opponents - not necessarily in all games

My probability knowledge maybe needs some refinement but VERY roughly you can estimate the chance of getting the event by Winter 1943 as 20 %, 40% by Spring, 60% by Summer etc. So on average the event should come in spring or summer of 1943, and not in late '43/early '44. Of course actual games can look different, some events seem to take forever to activate when you count on them.

Here is the point of your argumentation I do not agree with (If I quote correctly):
You state to be able to carry through a sub-war Germany needs the RP gift earlier so they can earlier reach EV 4. Otherwise they would never use the gift to go to level 5.

I'd say if Germany does not have EV 4 by early 1942 there is no point they went on a sub campaign in the first place because at that moment Allied counter measures can be at level 3 provided they invest into it from the beginning
(a strategy most players use - invest in ASW regardless what the Axis players do. Not ingenious but I have kicked myself -you know where- several times because I let a couple of turns pass without ASW investments and paid the price).
Thus the Allies can hit/damage EV 4 subs almost as often as they KILL EV 3 subs.

Assuming the snorkel event came in 1942 it would activate in Spring/Summer most likely. So to give Germany some RPs so they can finish EV 4 in later 1942 is throwing RPs into a lost cause.

On the other hand, assuming I have built a sub fleet, fought through 1942 with EV 4 and have a choice of either sacrificing the remaining subs in 1943 for good or instead go for EV 5, then I would be extatic to get RPs in 1943 or even 1944 because the Allies cannot go to ASW 4 as fast as I can go to EV 5.

As I said I feel no change is necessary but if you feel you need to help the cause of the Uboats I suggest a different solution:
Lower the DD ASW RPs that are granted at the beginning of the game. Instead of (not sure - about 6-8?) give them only 1-2 which gives Germany several turns more of "happy times" early on, accepting political implications (which is more in line with the actual events, ASW 2 is a killer for EV 2 subs anyway but even EV 3 subs) and keeps historical events in line.
After all we call it the snorkel event and not the "gameplay adjustment for Uboats" event. Alternatively increase the probability to 30%.

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 15

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/21/2008 10:01:17 PM

GKar

Posts: 617
Joined: 5/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Art

My probability knowledge maybe needs some refinement but VERY roughly you can estimate the chance of getting the event by Winter 1943 as 20 %, 40% by Spring, 60% by Summer etc. So on average the event should come in spring or summer of 1943, and not in late '43/early '44.

Actually the chance for the event to happen until the given season (included) is

Wi '43 - 20.0%
Sp '43 - 36.0%
Su '43 - 48.8%
Fa '43 - 59.0%
Wi '44 - 67.2%
Sp '44 - 73.8%
Su '44 - 79.0%
Fa '44 - 83.2%
Wi '45 - 86.6%
Sp '45 - 89.3%
Su '45 - 91.4%
Fa '45 - 93.1%

read: almost 60% in 1943.

Basically I agree with what Lebatron said above and would favour moving the event to 1942 to make sub war for Germany more attractive.

(in reply to Marshall Art)

Post #: 16

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/21/2008 11:07:27 PM

SGT Rice

Posts: 653
Joined: 5/22/2005
Status: offline

From Wikipedia:

quote:

The first boat to be fitted with a snorkel was U-58 which experimented with the equipment in the Baltic during the summer of 1943. Boats began to use it operationally in early 1944 and by June 1944 about half of the boats stationed in the French bases had snorkels fitted.

(in reply to GKar)

Post #: 17

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/22/2008 12:30:18 AM

Marshall Art

Posts: 566
Joined: 8/6/2005
Status: offline

Thank you for doing the math - so it is quite precisely in the 3rd turn that on average the event should have triggered, given a 20% chance. At 30% it would be the second turn (51%).

Anyway to do Lebatron justice I left out by mistake that in 1943 there are 2 other events that were checked first in the versions prior to 1.020. Thus it appeared that the snorkel event came up in 1944 most of times as in 1943 after positive checks the Jet engine and the Allied AA event triggered. Since in V 1.020 the events can occur simultanously this "delay" is already gone allowing the snorkel event to come up earlier - hard to estimate but probably close to two turns earlier on average. So we are almost half way there where Lebatron wants to go with the event.

I feel that we are discussing an adjustment that is heavy impacted by personal likes and preferred strategies here. As all the tech events more or less are based on somewhat historical events (tech advances) I would prefer no not tinker with the availability dates but rather toy with the starting RP levels which more easiliy can be altered without such obvious misrepresentations like snorkels in Winter 1942 when the Uboats were still on the winning side WITHOUT snorkels.

I looked into the 2x2 tourneys and found that out of the 7 games played in round 1, 5 had significant Uboat action going on - hard to say at which tech levels though. I counted 5 or more subs on the map as "Uboat campaign" for this assessment in case you wonder. Most Uboat campaings appear to be successful even, if not even being in those games where the Axis won. In the other games where AARs are available there are also several more games. So to say Uboats are not getting built/completed enough appears to be far from reality.

What just came up as an idea to me is another way UBoat could be made simply harder to get: Once attacked they are considered driven deep so ships ad trannies in particular can pass them. Why not make it a rule that only one attack by an attacking force can be made, whether that force consists of just one attacking unit or a whole fleet, as the sub submerges to escape (all units of that force can fire, just no second force assembled next can)? Thus the WA would need to allocate ASW forces prior to an attack because there is no second on that Uboat in that turn. Just a fancy idea I am sure not easy to get implemented.

(in reply to SGT Rice)

Post #: 18

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/22/2008 6:07:46 AM

Lebatron

Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline

Marshall Art I think you may be confusing a new moddibility feature that allows more than one political event to trigger each turn. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know that has not impacted the tech events. So earlier events that have not triggered can still delay the U-boat event a few seasons. So unless this has been recently changed, I stand by my earlier estimate.

It's funny that you said this. "After all we call it the snorkel event and not the "gameplay adjustment for Uboats" event." Being a gameplay balancing adjustment is its actual purpose. The language to describe it is just flavor. A comparable event(s) to help transport amphib level was added to help with the cost to develope to level 6. It was found to be to expensive during dev so somewhere along the climb up the tech ladder 2 events were necessary to give the proper offset in cost. Giving them fancy names like LST and Higgins boats was just flavor so it doesn't appear to be some last minute fudging created to fix an imbalance. I'm surprised some of you can't see it for what it is. Its simply a tool to help nations hit certain tech levels at the right time. They could have simply been called "fighter helping tech for Germany", "Tranny helping tech for WA's" and so on, but that wouldn't look good. Honestly I don't care what Wiki says about when snorkels began to be used. That's irrelavent. The U-boat helping event was in my opinion intended to help get to EV4 not EV5. The spread to get from EV4 to EV5 is what about 18 on average. The tech gives few points. Am I supposed to get excited when the tech finally triggers and my tech screen shows 4EV 3/18? When I see that it looks totally pointless to invest any more in sub tech. 15 production can be more wisely spent. The current implemetation of the U-boat event is weak, very weak. Either it moves up to 1942 or if left at 1943 then the event should give more free points because EV4 to EV5 is just to expensive. +6 more points would be a good starting point.

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to Marshall Art)

Post #: 19

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/22/2008 8:26:56 PM

Marshall Art

Posts: 566
Joined: 8/6/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron

Marshall Art I think you may be confusing a new moddibility feature that allows more than one political event to trigger each turn. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know that has not impacted the tech events. So earlier events that have not triggered can still delay the U-boat event a few seasons. So unless this has been recently changed, I stand by my earlier estimate.

I may have been mistaken by the new feature that is in GG 3.0 and projected it into the stock scenarios. However to allow unrelated events to activate in the same turn is a good idea regardless in what scenario. Hope you agree at least on that

Of course the events are manual adjustments to balance a game. What I just oppose is to "rape" an event that is referring to a historical advancement to fix a deficit I not even agree that it exists. Not sure why my suggestion to take away some of the RPs already there for DD ASW instead did not find any reception. I like about the game that it is in fact more in line with history than most others on the market and while players are free to try alternative strategies they still are somewhat restricted by the system so they cannot stray too far from what were possible in WW2. Your proposal just interferes with this "feel" of the game I have.

Moving away from snorkels and general feel -

If you want to play agame with a major investment into U-boats I assume you would start developing sub EV right away at max. speed. Thus with not more than 5 subs until 1940 and with not more than 10 subs thereafter you need 6 RPs to get to EV3 and 14 to get to EV4. With 1 RP per turn until Fall 1940 and 2 thereafter you reach EV3 in Fall 1940 and EV4 in Summer 1942. Probably earlier as with the attack on Russia the max. spending goes up.

So if we assume the "snorkel AKA gameplay adjustment" avent activates in 1942, with 20% that would be - guess what - in Summer 1942 on average. An Axis player who went for Uboats is already at or one turn before EV4 when he receives the gift. Where is the adjustment? Where is the benefit? Should I be rewarded with RPs for not investing into research from the start?

On the other hand, if it remains in 1943, you have some chance to continue the Uboat war beyond 1943 because then you go for EV5. IMO, the sub war until 1942 is a good strategy and a strategy used more than occasionally, and the event should encourage the players to continue the sub war and not start it in the first place.

Last, I do very much agree that the current points given out if an event activates are not really encouraging to follow through with that research. I ignore some events completely as a handfull of points cannot make me throw in 15 more. I suggest to increase the range of points granted from 1+Die[4] and 6+Die[4] to 3+Die[6] and 8+Die[6], respectively. The increase in base numbers gives more RPs while the die adds even more unpredictability. On average the RPs awarded are increased and by about 3.

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 20

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/23/2008 9:06:42 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

Were there any other major tech advances for uboats that might be more reasonably in 1942?

If it were in in 1942 the probability would need to be lowered. Say 15%, then the cumulative probability is
Wi42 15%
Sp42 28
Su42 39
Fa42 48
Wi43 56
Sp43 62
Su43 68
Fa43 73

Or, the '43+ research bump could be increased to 6+die(4) like some of the other events.

(in reply to Marshall Art)

Post #: 21

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/23/2008 6:56:09 PM

Lebatron

Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline

Well if your interested in adding a new U-boat event how about adding one called improved batteries. It could start in 42. Yet I would prefer it to stay at 20%. As I stated above, I could live with the snorkel event staying in 43 but would like to see it receive the higher range of free points like the LST event. Going from EV4 to EV5 needs more than just a 3 point bump.

I agree with MA that the current 1+d4 or 6+d4 bumps could use a little extra muscle. However I would prefer more base and not more randomness. So I feel the d4 works well enough. We should start with at least +2 more on the base.
3+d4 and 8+d4 seem like a good starting point. But I would even support 4+d4 and 9+d4 if others felt it needed it. This second option is closely related to MA's suggested amount but without using a d6.

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 22

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/23/2008 6:59:34 PM

Lebatron

Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Art

I may have been mistaken by the new feature that is in GG 3.0 and projected it into the stock scenarios. However to allow unrelated events to activate in the same turn is a good idea regardless in what scenario. Hope you agree at least on that

Yes in some cases I do use that when it's important to not have a minor event block an important response. Like in the case of Portugal getting invaded and Spain responding.

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to Marshall Art)

Post #: 23

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/23/2008 8:11:41 PM

Lebatron

Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline

Refreshing my knowlege on the subject, I would say that my suggestion should be reversed. I would have the snorkel event start in 42(small size bump) and place the improved battery one in 43(large size bump). The improved battey tech event is based on the type XXI. It's key improvement was a battery capacity 3x better than Type VII. Also it could travel faster underwater than on the surface. Of all the tech events that could be tied to the development of the Type XXI I would say one refering to battery tech would most apply.

If you were looking for a third tech event for U-boats. I would suggest one based on the developement of pattern running torpedoes. This event could give incentive to go from trop 3 to torp 4.

_____________________________

Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 24

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/23/2008 10:53:06 PM

SGT Rice

Posts: 653
Joined: 5/22/2005
Status: offline

From a play balance perspective I'd like to offer a little feedback from the first round of the Lightning Tourney. The new transport rules make it significantly more difficult for the WA to carry out the basic function of transporting men, supplies and resources around the planet.

In a 'normal game' of AWD (a fictitious creature I just created) the basic route around the Cape of Good Hope will be reduced to 25 point capacity and require 3 additional transports in the gaps between ports (South Atlantic 9 next to French West Africa, South Atlantic 17 next to French Equatorial Africa and Indian Ocean 1 NW of Madagascar). The basic route across the North Atlantic gets reduced to 25 capacity. The Murmansk run can vary wildly, as it did in our test game ... after Karelia fell I had to use 5 transports (3 in the Barents Sea) just to get 15 supply points from the UK to Russia.

I rather like the effect this has from a simulation standpoint; in areas where they lack shore installations, patrol vessels, patrol aircraft, etc. the Allies would have to organize more convoys, zigzag more, etc., etc. So I think this is a very good change that should be kept ... but we probably need more games under our belts to understand if the U-boat men still need play balance help. But it would be REALLY nice if tech events were moddable like political events, so they could be used as a play balance tool in the future

(hint, hint).

One further note about the Cape of Good Hope route: the convoy gap off of West Africa that I referred to above could go away in a future mod, if the map were altered to insert the CW possession of Sierra Leone with the major port of Freetown (which should fit into French West Africa kind of like Gibraltar fits into Spain). Don't know why I didn't remember this place back during playtesting; I've stared at its major port symbol on a WIF map a thousand times. Here's an informative newsclip; from a May 26, 1941 article in TIME magazine titled "Africa's Hong Kong".

quote:

The harbor of Freetown, which is Britain's best between Cape Town and home, lies on the south side of the River Rokell's estuary, five miles from the open sea, landlocked by forest-smothered, humidity-choked countryside. It is a huge roadstead, capable of mooring the largest fleets. It has a seaplane landing as well as facilities for watering, coaling and minor repairs. For the last few weeks its ample anchorage has been taxed by a constantly shifting flotilla of about 100 merchant ships of all pro-British registries.

The Battle of the Atlantic first made Freetown important�as an assembly point and stopover for north and southbound supply ships. With the necessity of concentrating on convoys in the North Atlantic, the Royal Navy was unable to give heavy protection to ships very far south of Dakar. Convoys gathered at Freetown, 500 miles to the southeast.

But last week the Freetown base suddenly became more important than ever. With Dakar and Casablanca reportedly about to be turned over to the Nazis, it was Britain's�and might be the Americas'�most strategic base on the east shore of the South Atlantic. If raiding action were to come from Dakar and Casablanca, counteraction would have to come from Freetown.

Word reached the U.S. last week that the British, conscious of Freetown's new strategic importance, were taking steps to strngthen it. The 22,424-ton Monarch of Bermuda, late of the pleasure trade deposited "between 3,000 and 5,000 troops" there, adding to the port's reputed garrison of 30,000. Freetown would never become a Singapore, but it was repidly becoming Africa's Hong Kong�a base dedicated to defensive harassment and delay.

This nicely highlights many of the reasons why the new tranport rules are such a good addition to AWD. Whaddya say Jesse, got another map mod in you

?

< Message edited by SGT Rice -- 1/23/2008 11:05:18 PM >

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 25

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/27/2008 7:41:33 AM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
5. Change the neutral view mode so the Allied turn season is displayed correctly.

I've looked into this. I think it opens too much of a can of worms.

The issue is simply that after the WA turn is over and the game is saved, it is already the next season. At that point, it is more properly called "the start of the German turn" than the "end of the WA turn", and perhaps posts with images should simply reflect that fact.

I can't (easily and safely) change it so that the save is still the WA turn. It needs to know which player can open the file to play the turn.

I could simply fool the turn display, but that is ultimately more confusing. There is more to it than that. There is the Winter graphics, and the correct display of production and resources, etc. At least now it is all consistent and straightforward.

It is best to leave this as it is, and just be aware that a save after the completion of the WA turn is the beginning of the next German turn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
6. My post regarding the view replay feature gathered a lot of support. It would be nice if you reconsidered giving it a try. Hiding movements that are in fog of war would be a great improvement.

Looking at the implementation of this. It looks doable.

The replay only knows about the first and the last region of the unit's move. Unfortunately it can't look at any intermediate regions, as perhaps it should. I'd propose the following:

if either the first or the last region is visible to the viewing player, then the move will be visible. Otherwise, if FOW is enabled then the move will be invisible.

An alternative is that you force all such moves to replay fast (not the setable non-player animation speed), so it is seen that something happened and you get the general gist, but you can't 100% figure it out.

The question is whether this should be forced on everyone. I think it is reasonable though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron
7. Fix replay playback speed to the non-player animation speed setting instead of the player animation speed setting.

I changed it so that all playbacks use the non-player animation speed.

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 26

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/27/2008 3:12:00 PM

GKar

Posts: 617
Joined: 5/18/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lebatron

6. My post regarding the view replay feature gathered a lot of support. It would be nice if you reconsidered giving it a try. Hiding movements that are in fog of war would be a great improvement. This topic was discussed @here@

I'm usually too lazy to watch all movements in replay thus such a change would level the playground for me.

(in reply to Lebatron)

Post #: 27

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/27/2008 11:07:43 PM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SGT Rice
My biggest request for a quick fix would be to scrub the list of random political events and make them a little less random.

For example, the Iraq coup event has a 5% probability whenever it shows up in the event queue, regardless of the current geopolitical situation. I've seen examples when:

a) The coup takes place while Italy was neutral and there were no Germans within 1000 miles of Iraq, and
b) Numerous cases where the Germans have occupied Syria and/or Palestine, then had to occupy an undefended Iraq, torching the rail and resources in the process.

I think its obvious that in case (a) the coup should never happen and in case (b) it should be virtually certain. My suggestion is that all the coup events should have variable probabilities based on the proximity of Axis/Allied controlled territories and units. We took a little step in that direction with the Spanish coup; I think more needs to be done.

I think what you are saying is actually to have more geo-political context driven probabilities of some of the events. I.e. the probabilities are adjusted based on things like which regions are controlled by whom.

I've done a lot of that in GG. Could you take a look and offer any further specific suggestions?

I personally very much like using this approach for increased political realism and uncertainty, as I said before.

(in reply to SGT Rice)

Post #: 28

RE: Last Patch? Final change suggestions - 1/28/2008 4:53:16 PM

SGT Rice

Posts: 653
Joined: 5/22/2005
Status: offline

Brian; here's a specific proposal for Middle East politics.

#.#.# - Arab region (Cairo, Transjordan, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia) coups

The Arab populations of the Middle East would have risen up against the colonial powers if the Axis powers had made any legitimate threat to take control of the region. Each of the five regions listed above checks for the event separately.

Requirements: Arab region has not been previously Axis-controlled, Axis controls at least one adjacent land region.

Probability: 0% base, +25% for each adjacent Axis-controlled land region (Cyprus counts as an adjacent land region for Cairo, Transjordan, Syria). +5% for each adjacent Axis land/air unit, -5% for each adjacent (including those in-country) Allied land/air unit.

Effect: If Arab region is not occupied by Allied ground units, it becomes German controlled, 1 militia and 1 supply created. If Arab region is Allied-occupied then up to 5 supplies (if any in the region) are destroyed and the rail infrastructure (if any) is damaged one level. Event may trigger twice for each region.

< Message edited by SGT Rice -- 1/28/2008 4:56:03 PM >

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 29