Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: patch update

 
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 >> RE: patch update Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: patch update - 1/5/2008 8:09:42 PM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline 		I agree, it would be nice to see half the US CV's in the South Pacific and the other half near Midway. As I was saying, increasing the weight on Capital ships, specifically HF's would help provide the screening you refer to. Perhaps HF's should be weighted at 10 or more instead of 4 and LF's given a boost too. Afterall CAG pilots would rarely select transports unless there were so many CAG's that all the good juicy targets were already selected.

These values might gives us good results
CV 50, HF 10, LF 3-4, TF 1, SF 1
Vs old
CV 40, HF 4, LF 2, TF 1, SF 1


I kind of figured 40x to 1x meant just that. But it's a lot harder to get a general % chance of CV selection when say 2 CV, 4 HF, 4LF, 3 TF, and 1 sub are in the mix. Maybe HW can tell us the equation to plug these ships into.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to MrQuiet)
Post #: 31
RE: patch update - 1/5/2008 8:30:43 PM   
MrQuiet

 

Posts: 805
Joined: 4/2/2005
Status: offline 		Who is this HW person you keep refering to? Head-a-Wondering? JK

My thoughts also.
quote:

I agree, it would be nice to see half the US CV's in the South Pacific and the other half near Midway. As I was saying, increasing the weight on Capital ships, specifically HF's would help provide the screening you refer to. Perhaps HF's should be weighted at 10 or more instead of 4 and LF's given a boost too.




quote:

These values might gives us good results
CV 50, HF 10, LF 3-4, TF 1, SF 1
Vs old
CV 40, HF 4, LF 2, TF 1, SF 1


Those numbers look good.
I would make sub fleets the same as Light Fleets.
This way they can be mixed into the task force and divert some of the air attack (usualy airpower week vs subs) as a viable asset assignment strategy.

But even just removing the auto CAG double-up vs Carrier will make Carriers much more survivable and will lead to more damaged Carreir Fleets than destroyed which I think would be better. Its that second Cag attack vs Carrier with reduced evasion and possible damage that dooms them most of the time. Meanwhile there are other fleets in the group not even getting targeted. Realistic, probably. Good for cool global strategy game? I would prefer to see high value assets more distributed in the theater/s.

< Message edited by MrQuiet -- 1/5/2008 8:31:34 PM >

(in reply to Lebatron)
Post #: 32
RE: patch update - 1/5/2008 9:02:20 PM   
Lebatron


Posts: 2166
Joined: 5/30/2005
From: Upper Michigan
Status: offline 		Actually I was thinking about boosting the sub number to 2 ,but didn't because when I thought about German bombers attacking into a sea zone with one sub and one transport and the German bombers preferring the sub which they probably can't hit, I decided I didn't like the idea. Afterall, in real life what target do you think them German bombers would want to sink. Transports for sure. In the game however with one transport and one sub in the sea zone the German bomber has only a 50% chance to get lucky enough to target the transport. To weight the subs even more would in effect protect Allied transports from German air strikes even more. Since the Germans rarely invest in ASW, placing subs into transport fleets gives them a form of unrealistic immunity. 

_____________________________

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

(in reply to MrQuiet)
Post #: 33
RE: patch update - 1/6/2008 6:47:41 AM   
WanderingHead

 

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

ORIGINAL: MrQuiet
quote:

ORIGINAL: BoerWar

quote:

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead

  • modify Russian militia mobilization, so that it won't occur if Russia attacks Germany before Germany attacks Russia.


    • I hope by "Russia attacks Germany" you mean that they actually move forces into Germany controlled territory as opposed to automatically cancelling these units when the war counter says Russia may attack. Otherwise a new German strategy to keep all of those militia off the board will be to build until the war counter maxs out and then strike. You may lose the one suprise attack, but it might be worth it.

    What he means is Russia actually initiates combat vs Germany, not nessesarily moving forces into German Lands.
    And not just DOW vs Germany.
    Could be air or Naval attack in the Baltic for example.
    I wonder how long the standoff could realisticly go before SU would 'have to attack' if they want to win the war?


    That's correct. By "attack" I meant initiates "combat with".

    (in reply to MrQuiet)
    Post #: 34
    RE: patch update - 1/6/2008 6:57:00 AM   
    WanderingHead

     

    Posts: 2134
    Joined: 9/22/2004
    From: GMT-8
    Status: offline     		Currently only CAGs emphasize capital ships. I don't think non-CAGs should be added to this.

    BTW - sometimes I actually prefer to go after trannies (with weaker anti-ship air), a better chance of eliminating 2 population.

    How the odds work for CAGs: take the weighting of each fleet, sum them all. Then divide the weight of each indivisual ship by the total and multiply by 100%, and that is the percentage chance it is targeted.

    Lebatron's point that this is a grand strategy game is well made. This combat is abstract. I'd like unique targeting because it is consistent with all other non-suppression fire targeting, hence better for gameplay. I'd like to reduce the double team on CVs by CAGs because I think it makes them too vulnerable, which tends to make carrier warfare a stalemate while the WA sit back and wait for complete dominance.

    It's also been pointed out that the heavy emphasis on CVs doesn't really fit in an abstract game with 3 month turns. Much would depend on luck, and targets of opportunity found in the big wide ocean.

    The precise CAG target weighting, I don't feel too strongly about. I'm inclined to leave it unchanged for the sake of leaving it unchanged (no need to obsolete that aspect of the manual).


    < Message edited by WanderingHead -- 1/6/2008 7:37:19 AM >

    (in reply to Lebatron)
    Post #: 35
    RE: patch update - 1/6/2008 7:34:09 AM   
    WanderingHead

     

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

    ORIGINAL: SGT Rice
    I tend to agree with Art that this is an option the Axis are unlikely to use ... if I'm reading it correctly it requires 30 supply points to bring one of these resources online.


    You've sort of misread it. If you look at post #14, I described the code implementation. The code implementation allows for resources to start with "undevelopment" levels up to 4. If it starts at undevelopment level 4, and if a 1 upgrade per turn limit were imposed, then it would indeed take 30 supplies and 5 turns to bring the resources online.

    But these things are modable, and that is not how I would expect it to be used in GG or in UV. I would envision something more like starting some resources at undeveloped level 2. I am undecided on whether the per-turn development limit is better as 1 level/turn or 2 level/turn. Assume 1 level/turn, then it would take 3 turns and 20 supplies to bring a level 2 undeveloped resource online.

    This would progress as follows:

    turn 0: resource starts at 2 levels undeveloped
    turn 1: expend 5 supply, ends at 1 level undeveloped.
    turn 2: expend 5 supply, ends at 0 level undeveloped, promoted to double damaged after production
    turn 3: expend 10 supply to repair double damaged (as normal)
    turn 4: the resource is producing for you!

    total to develop: 20 supplies and 3 turns

    but it could also easily be set to be 20 supplies in 2 turns or 15 supplies in 2 turns.

    In addition to having some resources start two levels undeveloped, some could start 1 level undeveloped. That's what I have now, a mix.

    If the WA only very rarely develop Iraq, I'd wouldn't be bothered at all. It is however a worthwhile goal for the Germans, particularly with FM=3 in 1942 so that the Germans can start using those resources even if not at war with SU.


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: SGT Rice

    Unless you're able to create a second category of supplies (fuel) that are required in order to move ships/tanks/aircraft, then it would be very difficult to represent the strategic importance of oil in a meaningful fashion. I know that the game engine keeps track of where things come from (those little country flags are even displayed on supply points). Would it be possible to 'flag' supply points from designated factories (refineries), restrict the resources that can be shipped to those factories/refineries, and then require the resulting 'fuel' points in order to move ships/tanks/aircraft?


    IMO, it can work well enough. Or well enough to be interesting. But better would be to break both resources and supplies into "materials" and "energy" classes. But that would clearly be a new game.


    (in reply to SGT Rice)
    Post #: 36
    RE: patch update - 1/7/2008 1:34:24 AM   
    Marshall Art

     

    Posts: 566
    Joined: 8/6/2005
    Status: offline     		With resources half-developed this feature is much more appealing to me. If I am playing Axis and need a few more resources online to gain AV probably the easier way would be to invade a few neutrals or take that last Allied territories needed instead of going defensive and waiting until the resources are developed. Sounds like an interesting alternative though.

    (in reply to WanderingHead)
    Post #: 37
    RE: patch update - 1/7/2008 1:44:45 AM   
    Marshall Art

     

    Posts: 566
    Joined: 8/6/2005
    Status: offline     		One thing that keeps bothering me is the way the Combined Arms modifier can be activated by simply putting one single Tank, Arty or Tac. Bomber into the mix (in most cases there is no shortage in Infantry). Example: Japan building their single-armour or more general the big land-unit stacks with just one air unit. I wonder why 55 Infantry, 25 Artillery can gain sudden boost because of only one tank and/or one Tac. air in reality. Should't there be a limit on the number of units that actually can gain the modifier?

    For example: take the type of unit required for the CAM that has the least number of units in combat and give only say twice as many units of all types the CAM? Out of 10 Inf, 5 Arty, 2 Tanks and 1 Tac. air only 2 each of the Inf, Arty, and both Tanks and the Tac.air would get the CAM.

    I also feel that simply having more tanks than the attacker should not prevent the attacker from gaining CAM (besides having all required units present). Historically, The Germans had less tanks than both France/UK in 1940 and Russia thoughout but still succeeded.

    Any thoughts?

    (in reply to Marshall Art)
    Post #: 38
    RE: patch update - 1/7/2008 3:08:19 AM   
    MrQuiet

     

    Posts: 805
    Joined: 4/2/2005
    Status: offline     		Marshall Art I think the CAM feature design was intended 'kiss' i.e. not getting to complex for us average folks.
    Your idea of limiting cam to a group of units based on a multiple of the least available arm in the combined arms is definately interesting though and quite original. I could see that actually working in game.

    But, I like that you have to have more armor units to achieve cam because it forces SU to build armor instead of just artillary.
    I sort of look at the game more like complex chess on a world map than a war simulation though as that is what more interests me.

    Other opinions will no doubt vary.

    -MrQ

    < Message edited by MrQuiet -- 1/7/2008 3:10:44 AM >

    (in reply to Marshall Art)
    Post #: 39
    RE: patch update - 1/7/2008 6:27:44 AM   
    Lucky1

     

    Posts: 383
    Joined: 10/30/2006
    Status: offline     		Although I am only now beginning to appreciate all the subtleties involving CAM, I think Marshall Art's idea has significant merit (I am probably not alone in having done the token Japanese tank thing). Certainly, it would spur more diversified builds....

    (in reply to MrQuiet)
    Post #: 40
    RE: patch update - 1/7/2008 6:58:33 AM   
    WanderingHead

     

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

    ORIGINAL: Marshall Art
    For example: take the type of unit required for the CAM that has the least number of units in combat and give only say twice as many units of all types the CAM? Out of 10 Inf, 5 Arty, 2 Tanks and 1 Tac. air only 2 each of the Inf, Arty, and both Tanks and the Tac.air would get the CAM.


    I personally like the idea. I would modify it slightly, in part because I'm thinking of how difficult the above would be to implement given artillery firing at a different range from other units.

    What I like is require only a single air unit to get CAM - air is excluded from the equation of how many other units get the CAM bonus.

    Determine the minimum count of units from the 3 classes (artillery, infantry/airborne, armor), call this number CA_count. Give the CA bonus to the first CA_count artillery units to fire, the first CA_count infantry/airborne units to fire, the first CA_count armor units to fire. In total, 3*CA_count land units will receive the bonus, distributed over all of the land classes.

    This looks easier for implementation, and by distributing the bonus evenly over all of the land classes would also remove some of the arbitrariness (like if more artillery got CA instead of armor, the results could be very different). If you had a perfect 1/3 distribution of land unit classes, every land unit would get the bonus.

    I don't know what to do with it though ... I am always reluctant to change the combat unless there is a real fundamental problem. I don't think there is currently a fundamental problem or deficiency.

    (in reply to Marshall Art)
    Post #: 41
    RE: patch update - 1/7/2008 9:15:33 AM   
    Marshall Art

     

    Posts: 566
    Joined: 8/6/2005
    Status: offline     		The "problem" simply put is that you are not really encouraged enough to build all land unit types. Yes you need all types in some quantity but one single tank is enough to give 15 Infantry and 10 Arty the CAM in the case of Japan, or at even highter numbers for Russia typically. This means that Russian Arty is at a huge advantage over German Arty just because they are joined by one single tank. Reverse of course also possible. Building Armour is not rewarded enough IMO, after all this is WW2 not WW1.

    I agree that Air units might be excluded, since they are more precious and can more easily explained being "everwhere" across the battlefield.

    In limiting the CAM to just one (1) unit you actually went even beyond my suggestion. I wonder if this would not nullify the CAM in bigger battles to some extent. I like the CAM, and do not want it to become a rare occurence, but do not like the big CAM stacks of Arty/Inf either.

    One trade-in for the Japanese could be to reduce Armour cost from 4 to 3 (turns/resources), since most of their tanks were of the cheaper kind anyway. Or alternatively they would not get so much of CAM as they in fact had only few tanks around.

    (in reply to WanderingHead)
    Post #: 42
    RE: patch update - 1/7/2008 9:26:09 AM   
    WanderingHead

     

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

    ORIGINAL: Marshall Art
    In limiting the CAM to just one (1) unit you actually went even beyond my suggestion. I wonder if this would not nullify the CAM in bigger battles to some extent. I like the CAM, and do not want it to become a rare occurence, but do not like the big CAM stacks of Arty/Inf either.


    Oh ... you know, I misinterpreted your suggestion. I thought you were saying that the _total_ number of units (summed over all classes) that got the CAM would be twice the number of the minimum CAM qualifier units.

    But you actually meant that many in each class. I see now that all I did was eliminated the need for more than one air unit, and changed your factor from 2 to 1.

    Your suggestion is probably easy enough to implement. I'd still say only a single air unit is sufficient (or at least air would deserve a bigger multiplier than 2 - which I like less because it is more complicated).

    How then would it work in with the opposition's units? Would the defender still be able to do something to nullify all CAM?


    (in reply to Marshall Art)
    Post #: 43
    RE: patch update - 1/7/2008 1:46:54 PM   
    Lucky1

     

    Posts: 383
    Joined: 10/30/2006
    Status: offline     		Maybe this is to radical, but why not give defenders CAM as well per the same rules? After all, we are talking about three month periods during which fronts ebbed and flowed with attacks and counter-attacks.

    Just an idea....

    (in reply to WanderingHead)
    Post #: 44
    RE: patch update - 1/8/2008 1:56:09 AM   
    Forwarn45

     

    Posts: 718
    Joined: 4/26/2005
    Status: offline     		Assuming I understand this right - I don't like the idea of changing the CAM to reduce the amount of units it applies to in certain circumstances - UNLESS you were also to increase the bonus itself. It is an important bonus, but a subtle one. The current system is (relatively) simple and is possible for both sides to take into consideration as the defender can counter it in reasonable ways. Reducing the effectiveness of CAM in some situations may have the unwanted side-effect of causing players to disregard it entirely.

    Reading all the suggestions lately, I think I am feeling rather conservative. After the last patch, for the most part I quite like the game as is.

    (in reply to Lucky1)
    Post #: 45
    RE: patch update - 1/8/2008 11:53:33 AM   
    WanderingHead

     

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

    ORIGINAL: Forwarn45
    Reading all the suggestions lately, I think I am feeling rather conservative. After the last patch, for the most part I quite like the game as is.


    Hey, if I recall correctly _you're_ the one who started the whole air targeting issue :).

    I very much doubt that CAM is going to change. Shouldn't tease it out. What I do want to do is wrap this one up and then in fact be done ... that is the hope!


    < Message edited by WanderingHead -- 1/8/2008 11:54:37 AM >

    (in reply to Forwarn45)
    Post #: 46
    RE: patch update - 1/8/2008 7:19:46 PM   
    Lebatron


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

    ORIGINAL: Marshall Art

    One thing that keeps bothering me is the way the Combined Arms modifier can be activated by simply putting one single Tank, Arty or Tac. Bomber into the mix (in most cases there is no shortage in Infantry). Example: Japan building their single-armour or more general the big land-unit stacks with just one air unit. I wonder why 55 Infantry, 25 Artillery can gain sudden boost because of only one tank and/or one Tac. air in reality. Should't there be a limit on the number of units that actually can gain the modifier?

    For example: take the type of unit required for the CAM that has the least number of units in combat and give only say twice as many units of all types the CAM? Out of 10 Inf, 5 Arty, 2 Tanks and 1 Tac. air only 2 each of the Inf, Arty, and both Tanks and the Tac.air would get the CAM.

    I also feel that simply having more tanks than the attacker should not prevent the attacker from gaining CAM (besides having all required units present). Historically, The Germans had less tanks than both France/UK in 1940 and Russia thoughout but still succeeded.

    Any thoughts?


    I had tried during development to convince Joel to use a more realistic CAM. One idea of mine was to add a tiered point structure like +1,+2,+3 bonus depending on force % compositions. The better balanced the higher the bonus, but Joel felt that was to complicated. Fair enough. In the end, what we got works well enough to encourage the building of tanks. In Japan's case, the token tank thing, as Lucky1 puts it, is easy for the Russians to counter by using two tanks. If China is the target, so what, let Japan have its +3.

    I'll add this suggestion to help balance force mix a little further which stays in spirit with the standard CAM rules. Add this additional rule. Rule 4) the attacking force has at least as many bombers as the Defending Force.

    This is similar to rule 3) the Attacking Force has at least as many armor units as the Defending Force.

    This rule would encourage the building of more bombers, especially for Russia. If Russia uses 2 tac air to support an army, that would force the Germans to use 2 bombers themselves to get CAM.

    _____________________________

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

    (in reply to Marshall Art)
    Post #: 47
    RE: patch update - 1/9/2008 8:15:10 AM   
    Forwarn45

     

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

    ORIGINAL: WanderingHead
    Hey, if I recall correctly _you're_ the one who started the whole air targeting issue :).


    Oh yeah, that's right! Anyway, glad to hear no major changes for CAM. Although I don't mind the minor change Lebatron mentions simply requiring equal air to get the bonus.

    (in reply to WanderingHead)
    Post #: 48
    RE: patch update - 1/9/2008 7:50:20 PM   
    Marshall Art

     

    Posts: 566
    Joined: 8/6/2005
    Status: offline     		I am not happy with the Rule No. (4) as you suggested, simply because I am not in favour of Rule No. 3 already. Just going by numbers is not the way I feel CAM should be awarded. See also my post regarding Heavy Bombers that will follow.

    (in reply to Forwarn45)
    Post #: 49
    RE: patch update - 1/9/2008 8:00:00 PM   
    Marshall Art

     

    Posts: 566
    Joined: 8/6/2005
    Status: offline     		Well you asked for ideas and feedback so I made some suggestions below. They might – (C) in particular - look complex at first and some may discard it from the get-go because they feel obliged to the KISS principle but IMO it is not really difficult to implement IF desired and there have been rather math/probability-heavy improvements made in the last update as well, such as the CAG-Counter-strike which includes a formula I have not even bothered to look at. If nothing else than maybe the ability to mod this would come out of it so be it.

    Here is the primer: As it is now all units get CAM regardless how many of each unit type exist in one region, as long as at least one unit each of the unit types is present. The CAM simply applies the CAM to all units regardless how the distribution among the 4 unit types. During WWII, except maybe for the late war US troops all armies were still mainly mobile-on-foot which resulted in only certain core units/corps being able to actually follow-through/execute Combined Arms tactics. The percentage of units able to apply “modern” tactics of course increased during the war. Units used as cannon-fodder should not get a CAM just because they happen to be in a region where a CAM.capable core group is present.

    To account for the above I suggest the following:

    A. Heavy Bombers & CAM

    Similarly to Militia that was excluded from qualifying units also exclude Heavy bombers in addition to Fighters to qualify for CAM (both to get CAM in the first place and to receive CAM bonus). Justification: H.B’s were mainly used for infrastructure and industry attacks, in parts for carpet-bombing of suspected enemy deployment regions (e.g. Normandy) but with lesser effect then the Tactical Bombers whose primary task was to actually support own land forces and interdict enemy formations. In AWD too many H.B’s are used to gain CAM, which is not realistic IMO. In the case of H.B’s you should not be able to bomb factories in one turn and support ground troops with the same type of aircraft. This would also further increase the need and use of Tactical Bombers over H.B’s.

    B. Gaining of CAM and denial of CAM to the opponent

    Take away the requirement that only the force that has a higher number of tanks can gain CAM. Only the provision that all required units present should have to be fulfilled. Do allow the defender to also gain CAM if he qualifies (i.e. has all four unit types). There is a counter to deny the defender his CAM: take out his air first! (As used historically). This also gives a player on the defensive a reason to build all unit types – combined with (C) there would be motivation to “out-CAM” the opponent.

    alternative option: Deny CAM if the other player qualifies for CAM (offset)

    C. Allocation of CAM bonus

    - This is a mix of several suggestions in part made in this thread above -

    Instead of applying a fixed CAM to all units present in the region, make the CAM “level” dependent on the number and distribution of forces. Increase the max. modifier from 3 to 4 to account for the “special” bonus that is applied in reflection of the sometimes earth-quake like advance of armies applying combined-arms tactics over those that do not. Then, limit the number of unit that get max. CAM to the smallest number of units present of any of the four required unit types to account for a “core army” using CA-tactics. I’ll call this number “MIN-count”. MIN-count equals to Minimum( number of Inf/Para, number of Arty, Number of Armour, Number of Tac.B./CAG).

    There can be a “reduced” CAM if desired to underline the importance of the CAM for the unit types with higher numbers present: Reduce the CAM from 4 to 3, then down to 2 and finally 1, for the same number of additional units. Thus a number of units equalling MIN-count from each of the four unit types can receive max. CAM (level 4), if present, another number equalling MIN-count can get CAM level 3, and so on until level 1.

    As I am not capable of putting this in words as well as into tables, on to 4 examples:




    Attachment (1)

    (in reply to Marshall Art)
    Post #: 50
    RE: patch update - 1/11/2008 12:01:34 AM   
    christian brown


    Posts: 1441
    Joined: 5/18/2006
    From: Vista, CA
    Status: offline     		Without addressing every point made above, I'd like to strongly support Art's argument about HB's above. They should not count toward obtaining CAM. If we take the Luftwaffe as the prime example of a "dive-bomber heavy" (i.e. an almost purely TACTICAL air force) air arm and see it's use in furthering the ground mission in combined arms operations - and contrast it with how often TAs are actually built by the German player in this game........it doesn't feel right at all. Truly strategic air forces (Britain's Bomber Command, the USA's 8th AF) were often very ineffective when used in a tactical role. Air Forces (e.g. the US 9th AF) committed to ground support roles on the other hand made a big difference on the field of battle. The composition of these forces was very different; HEAVY bombers in the case of the former and light, medium or diving models in the latter.

    I have no problem with HB's being used against ground, sea and air units, they can and did do great damage to their opponents - but it was a less precise, more heavy handed and indiscriminate kind of attack - not the sort of thing a blitzkrieg or other truly combined arms operation requires.

    I think this rule change will encourage the construction of tactical bombers and will give the game a more realistic feel.

    _____________________________

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

    (in reply to Marshall Art)
    Post #: 51
    RE: patch update - 1/11/2008 4:03:43 AM   
    Lebatron


    Posts: 2166
    Joined: 5/30/2005
    From: Upper Michigan
    Status: offline     		Marshall Art, I'm 99% sure Brian wouldn't tackle such a huge change. It may introduce all kinds of new bugs and Brian has been expressing his interest in wrapping this up. So I think he would only make a change or two that would be easy to code. Hence my simple rule that takes the concept of tank parity and applies it to bombers also.

    I agree with you and Christain that HB should be removed from the CAM bonus. So ideally I would like to see rule 4 added and HB dropped from CAM. I think it would be simple, have a realitively low chance of introducing new bugs, and does not obsolete the old system but rather enhances it.


    _____________________________

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

    (in reply to christian brown)
    Post #: 52
    RE: patch update - 1/11/2008 2:23:27 PM   
    GKar


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

    ORIGINAL: Lebatron

    Hence my simple rule that takes the concept of tank parity and applies it to bombers also.

    I agree with you and Christain that HB should be removed from the CAM bonus. So ideally I would like to see rule 4 added and HB dropped from CAM. I think it would be simple, have a realitively low chance of introducing new bugs, and does not obsolete the old system but rather enhances it.


    I agree. Better these two changes than none at all.

    (in reply to Lebatron)
    Post #: 53
    RE: patch update - 1/11/2008 4:11:09 PM   
    Lebatron


    Posts: 2166
    Joined: 5/30/2005
    From: Upper Michigan
    Status: offline     		Yes, better these two changes than none at all.



    _____________________________

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

    (in reply to GKar)
    Post #: 54
    RE: patch update - 1/11/2008 11:39:34 PM   
    SGT Rice

     

    Posts: 653
    Joined: 5/22/2005
    Status: offline     		How about modability for the random tech events; would that be in the easy-to-do category?

    Ditto for stacking limits; could we limit the #s of units (by type) that could be deployed in a given region/island/etc.?

    < Message edited by SGT Rice -- 1/11/2008 11:44:17 PM >

    (in reply to Lebatron)
    Post #: 55
    RE: patch update - 1/12/2008 1:33:31 AM   
    Marshall Art

     

    Posts: 566
    Joined: 8/6/2005
    Status: offline     		I would swallow the new tac number rule for the H. B. exclusion 


    (in reply to SGT Rice)
    Post #: 56
    RE: patch update - 1/12/2008 1:36:25 AM   
    Marshall Art

     

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

    ORIGINAL: Lebatron

    Marshall Art, I'm 99% sure Brian wouldn't tackle such a huge change.



    As said above I was not expecting to find open arms with this just wanted to demonstrate what could be made out of it. If only the ability to mod CAM were easy to built in?

    (in reply to Lebatron)
    Post #: 57
    RE: patch update - 1/19/2008 8:18:41 AM   
    WanderingHead

     

    Posts: 2134
    Joined: 9/22/2004
    From: GMT-8
    Status: offline     		Guys, I've been out of commission a while. Swamped at work, a phenomenon which is only going to get worse for the rest of this year.

    Lordy, so many topics.

  • mod-able tech events: I agree that this should be the case, but it is a lot of work so it can't happen. Frankly, my preference would be that all "events", including things like Vichy and Italian surrender, were entered in exactly the same syntax with exactly the same mod-ability. It is just the work to do it, and in particular to test it, that makes it infeasible right now.

  • mod-able CAM: no way! I'm not making any judgment on Marshall Art's proposals (which in principle I like), just the work and bug risk involved.

  • stacking limits: this would have to be mod-able, and while I am in general in favor of mod-ability these kind of low level rules don't really seem to make sense there. And mod-ability does entail more work (and broken save compatibility). I don't want the work.

  • CAM and tac bombers: The so-called "rule 4)" the attacking force has at least as many bombers as the Defending Force. This is intended to make it easier to obtain CAM? Because now a single defending bomber would no longer prohibit CAM.

  • CAM and heavy bombers: everyone seems to agree that heavy should be removed. I don't have a problem with that.

  • back to air v naval: I'll make it unique targeting

  • back to CAG v CV: we still agree to eliminate double team? Does anyone want to stand up for keeping it as is? Nothing else would change (targeting weights will not change).


    As an aside, you know I love this game. Indeed, I am trying to wrap this up and limit the work I have to do. In truth, I don't mind work as much when I _know_ it results in something everyone wants, changes that unambiguously make things better. But I will certainly push back against work for things that don't seem fairly clear cut. And I think the game is in pretty good shape, which means not many more changes are likely to be so clear cut.

    And yes, I'm human and my personal fascination with oil impacted some of the things I've done. I admit that it is easier to do more work for my own obsessions than others' obsessions. I also made some of the bigger recent changes over the winter break when I actually had some time.

    (in reply to Marshall Art)
    • Post #: 58
    RE: patch update - 1/19/2008 9:16:10 AM   
    WanderingHead

     

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

    ORIGINAL: WanderingHead
  • CAM and tac bombers: The so-called "rule 4)" the attacking force has at least as many bombers as the Defending Force. This is intended to make it easier to obtain CAM? Because now a single defending bomber would no longer prohibit CAM.


    • Actually, there are two ways to interpret this, and I don't understand which was meant. I originally read this as making CAM harder to obtain (which I would oppose), but then reread it as making CAM easier to obtain (which I could accept).

    (A) easier to obtain: if the attacker has arm+inf+art+TB then he attains CAM, UNLESS the defender has a quantity of armor greater than the attacker OR the defender has arm+inf+art plus a quantity of TB equal or greater than the attacker.

    (B) harder to obtain: if the attacker has arm+inf+art+TB then he attains CAM, UNLESS the defender has a quantity of armor greater than the attacker OR the defender has a quantity of TB equal or greater than the attacker OR the defender has arm+inf+art+TB.


    (in reply to WanderingHead)
    Post #: 59
    RE: patch update - 1/19/2008 11:56:42 AM   
    SGT Rice

     

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

    Thanks very much for your willingness to entertain suggestions and provide feedback. I can certainly relate to the need to balance gaming with real life. Based on your responses I'd like to clarify one of my comments.

    The request for mod-able stacking limits. I don't think of this as a low-level change; I believe it could be used by scenario designers to fundamentally change the way the game is played. There are a number of critical strategic locations on the map (Gibraltar, Malta, Bonin Islands, Wake, Midway, ...) which could never have served as bases/staging areas for large formations of troops or aircraft; but with the current implementation of AWD they perform that function as well as island nations like Britain or Japan. Imposing stacking limits (say 1 air unit, 1 militia, 5 supply in the case of Wake/Midway Islands) could drastically change the way the game is played. Consider this ... if there are no major bases in the Northern Pacific to support a US campaign against Japan, then historical US offensives through the Central & Southern Pacific (and Japanese defenses to oppose them) make much more sense in game terms; without recourse to artificial mechanics like victory points. Stacking limits could also be used on naval unit types; allowing us to limit port basing to realistic levels. Sorry to belabor the point; but I thought this could be a major improvement.

    As you say; more mod-ability is almost always a good thing; it gives the game more life and helps the gaming community sustain interest for a much longer period of time, by allowing it to continue to improve.

    Also wanted to ask for a clarification of your comments: when you say:

    quote:

    back to air v naval: I'll make it unique targeting
    , what exactly does that mean? Does it mean to allow the player to select priority target types? Or does it mean attacking aircraft would each select a different (unique) target? Or something else I'm missing? Thanks again.

    < Message edited by SGT Rice -- 1/19/2008 11:59:37 AM >

    (in reply to WanderingHead)
    Post #: 60
    Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
    All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> RE: patch update Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
    Jump to:





    New Messages No New Messages
    Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
    Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
     Post New Thread
     Reply to Message
     Post New Poll
     Submit Vote
     Delete My Own Post
     Delete My Own Thread
     Rate Posts


    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

    0.656