RE: World at War v32a2 released

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: World at War v32a2 released

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] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: World at War v32a2 released

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 4/28/2008 3:52:09 PM

von altair

Posts: 316
Joined: 4/27/2004
Status: offline

Results of my artillery tests:

1 artillery range is too short and causes a lot of problems for defending side with current stack size. Stacking size increase doesn't totally fix this problem.

2 range is better and I really belive thats what it should be. No matter if it is a bit out of realism becose of mapscale. Thats only minor thing compared to playability. Current engine system will actually balance out that range thing quite well. With reduced stack value, both sides can form different artillery tactics and both can benefit greatly about counter ability. Attacker will have to protect artillery with soaking units, no matter if they are in backrow. Normally they didin't have to do that.

I will play this game to the end and start a new one with these changes. If it goes as well as tests and player community agree, I will fix those things along with stack point decrease with other artillery pieces as well.

I also agree, that we should do more teamwork, to make this excellent Tom's scenario even better. I am happy to help this out, since I like this game very much!

_____________________________

"An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?"

"Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?"

-Axel Oxenstierna

(in reply to seille)

Post #: 31

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 4/28/2008 4:54:08 PM

Barthheart

Posts: 3194
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Nepean, Ontario
Status: offline

My comments:

1) Fighter ranges seem about right, though I do agree that by Lvl IV you should be able to reach Berlin from London, but just. I don't think long range fighters could fight for a long amount of time at that range.

2) Level bomber ranges are a little short, but only if you consider them to be strategic bombers as well... maybe we need a new bomber class.....

3) Arty range of 2 just feels wrong when you can fire across the English Channel and other "80 km" wide straits. If the arty is to represent "really large guns" then it needs to be WAY more expensive and rare. Maybe also turn counter-battery back off, as it can be "represented" by the fact that you arty needs to be in the frontline.... this might correct for the CB loss inbalance.

4) AA should only have range 0, unless you want AA to represent AA complexes then they should be more expensive....

Additions I'm thinking of:

1) Shore batteries - arty that can only shoot at ships, immoble except by truck/train.

2) Split AA into light and heavy, light attacks fighters and dive bombers, heavy attack level (and strat) bombers. Heavy can't move on own.

3) Naval fighters and naval bombers, maybe even split naval bombers into naval divebombers and torpedo bombers. Give carriers ablility to carry 6 naval air units. Torpedos usless against ground targets.

4) Shore bombardment does more readiness and structural damage and less men/weapon damage.

There's many more but need to fill the ideas out more - Russian railroads, ramping production, variable manpower, different types of factories... etc.....

_____________________________

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty & well preserved body,
but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"

(in reply to von altair)

Post #: 32

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 4/28/2008 7:30:20 PM

IRONCROM

Posts: 679
Joined: 8/19/2007
From: Las Vegas, Nevada
Status: offline

Well I see I have people agreeing at least partly with my belief that air range is to short.

@Barthheart... I agree that the intercept range of the fighters now is pretty close. I would like to see it start at 3 instead of 2 and max out at say 6. I still think the attack range should be much further though. It should be able to reach Berlin by level III or IV.
The Brits started the war with the ability to hit Berlin with level bombers. They should be able to reach Berlin by no later than level bomber II. (IMO)

I'll stay out of the Arty debate for now. I trust your opinions on that. All of you have obviously given it a lot more thought than I have.
I would totally be game for adding more types of aircraft like Barth has suggested. I think the scenario functions fine with the current aircraft (range being the only issue) but I could see an argument for have 2 types of carrier air as Barth has suggested and I have even toyed with the idea of having 2 types of fighters. A short range interceptor and a longer range escort fighter. Although I think the current fighter simulates both pretty well. You could maybe simulate the air war better if you had 2 separate fighters.
I'm not sure about AA. I haven't given much thought to that. Some people have complained that it is to weak and if you shorten the range it will make it weaker since the ability to overlap them is where they get there strength. Range 0 would be more accurate for WAW though. If it were range 0 it would probably have to be stronger. I'm open to the idea of changing AA but I think it works fine now though.

_____________________________

(in reply to Barthheart)

Post #: 33

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 4/28/2008 7:32:12 PM

JAMiAM

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barthheart
1) Fighter ranges seem about right, though I do agree that by Lvl IV you should be able to reach Berlin from London, but just. I don't think long range fighters could fight for a long amount of time at that range.

I pretty much agree. The engine actually does a good job of abstracting this set of issues by using AP's proportional to the distance flown for attacking SFT's and the interception radius covers high intensity defensive operations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barthheart
2) Level bomber ranges are a little short, but only if you consider them to be strategic bombers as well... maybe we need a new bomber class.....

I visualize the level bombers as primarily strategic bombers, and lump all tactical bombers into the DB category. Granted that this rather restricts a fairly diverse range (historically) of planes into a single pigeonhole. If any class should be split, IMO, it is this one - twin engined TAC bombers, with a larger range and more deadly against soft troops, and single engined DB's with a shorter range and deadlier against vehicles, and ships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barthheart
3) Arty range of 2 just feels wrong when you can fire across the English Channel and other "80 km" wide straits. If the arty is to represent "really large guns" then it needs to be WAY more expensive and rare. Maybe also turn counter-battery back off, as it can be "represented" by the fact that you arty needs to be in the frontline.... this might correct for the CB loss inbalance.

Agree on the range issues, and would not even bother with making "really large guns". Counterbattery is theoretically a great idea. It is just poorly implemented at the current time. It is important to allow players to come up with reasonable defensive countermeasures to the gamey tactics of endless shore bombarding by enemy fleets. With the turn-based engine, no interception capability, and the movement allowance in WaW giving naval units the capability of having leftover AP's with which to move back away from the stricken hex, it makes it extremely hard to defend against such unrealistic and ahistorical uses of naval forces.

I would love to see Vic make an engine change here, so that CB is better represented. One thing that I have not yet tried is to see if the rulevar field for this function accepts a decimal value. Does anybody other than Vic know exactly what is going on under the hood when CB occurs? If the function was changed to accept decimal values, and then use this as a true variable over some range of CB effect, then the behavior could be better tuned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barthheart
4) AA should only have range 0, unless you want AA to represent AA complexes then they should be more expensive....

On the fence for this one. They only lend half support at range one, and are extremely vulnerable to direct attack. I do think that they should have a maximum range of one at this scale, however, and disagree with Altair's allowing the higher level techs to bump this up to two.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barthheart
1) Shore batteries - arty that can only shoot at ships, immoble except by truck/train.

You must have been reading my mind last night. What I am planning to do is to create coastal battery/fortress units that have the following basic characteristics:
- Immobile, even for truck/train. They will need to be emplaced by allocating production to an HQ unit that will then have to transfer out the SFT to another unit. Or, alternately, stay within the now immobilized HQ.
- Very resilient to air/naval/artillery bombardment.
- Highly effective against air/naval/artillery.
- High attack values when defending, and low attack values when attacking.
- High values for HP's, defense and entrenchment.
- Very expensive, yet durable, relative to other units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barthheart
2) Split AA into light and heavy, light attacks fighters and dive bombers, heavy attack level (and strat) bombers. Heavy can't move on own.

I don't see this as being particularly necessary at this scale.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barthheart
3) Naval fighters and naval bombers, maybe even split naval bombers into naval divebombers and torpedo bombers. Give carriers ablility to carry 6 naval air units. Torpedos usless against ground targets.

There is a definite need for the carrier air to be revamped. As it is now, the carrier air does not intercept, and this causes some pretty screwy results. So, I do agree on a need for splitting naval fighters and naval bombers up, but I think going with a further split into DB's and TB's is overkill. I would rather just reduce the effectiveness of the carrier-based bombers a bit from where it is currently. Not much though. Also, I'm pretty sure that the higher level CV's can already carry more Carrier Air SFT's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barthheart
4) Shore bombardment does more readiness and structural damage and less men/weapon damage.

I think that with a realistic CB effect, and with coastal battery/fortress units in important hexes, the current overpowering of shore bombardment will be ameliorated. At least, that's the direction I'd prefer to work from.

Ps. I hope you didn't think that my not wanting to argue with an engineer comment a few posts back didn't sound too snarky. Looking back at it, I thought it did. I should have put some smileys in there, or something...

(in reply to Barthheart)

Post #: 34

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 4/28/2008 7:33:40 PM

IRONCROM

Posts: 679
Joined: 8/19/2007
From: Las Vegas, Nevada
Status: offline

You know what be really great is if we could talk vorsteher into incorperating his Barbarossa artwork into the WAW scenario.

_____________________________

(in reply to IRONCROM)

Post #: 35

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 4/28/2008 7:47:33 PM

JAMiAM

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM

You know what be really great is if we could talk vorsteher into incorperating his Barbarossa artwork into the WAW scenario.

Vic (and Matrix) would want to make sure that it is all original artwork first. If he pulled it from Osprey, or some other copyrighted source, there could be legal issues with including it within an official patch.

(in reply to IRONCROM)

Post #: 36

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 4/28/2008 7:55:25 PM

IRONCROM

Posts: 679
Joined: 8/19/2007
From: Las Vegas, Nevada
Status: offline

My dream of the air war in the west...

Longer range level bombers will cause the German player to have to invest in multiple fighter formations to protect German and French industries since fighters have a short intercept range. But once Germany has made that investment the allies have to be able to add long range escort fighters to the air war or it will be over. AA Will be an additional deterrent but on its own never able to shut down a strategic bombing campaign without help from interceptors. Fighters should be the determining factor here as to the success or demise of a successful air campaign.
The scenario should be able to simulate this. That way an air campaign from the west would be a useful alternative to landing troops in 41',42',and 43' in order to take heat off of the Russians.
The scenario connot do that now.

< Message edited by IRONCROM -- 4/29/2008 9:40:46 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to IRONCROM)

Post #: 37

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 4/28/2008 9:14:17 PM

Barthheart

Posts: 3194
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Nepean, Ontario
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

...
Ps. I hope you didn't think that my not wanting to argue with an engineer comment a few posts back didn't sound too snarky. Looking back at it, I thought it did. I should have put some smileys in there, or something...

Not to worry... us engineers are made of thicker stuff than that!

(ie I hadn't noticed it could be taken that way!

)

On CB. this just happened in my game with IRONCROM. Ships counter-battery land arty! THat's the only way I can explain this result! Could make shore battery - naval combat fun!

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty & well preserved body,
but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"

(in reply to JAMiAM)

Post #: 38

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 4/28/2008 9:57:00 PM

JAMiAM

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barthheart
On CB. this just happened in my game with IRONCROM. Ships counter-battery land arty! THat's the only way I can explain this result! Could make shore battery - naval combat fun!

Yeah, it's a two-edged sword. As it is now, CB allows for both ships and artillery to fire at each other whenever either artillery attacks are launched against the ships, or ships SB a stack with artillery in it. Given the current CB behavior, it is best for the land player to let the navy SB his artillery laden stacks, as then the losses will favor him, rather than the ships. Then, of course, counterstrike with aircraft, naval and/or a BIG stack of artillery.

(in reply to Barthheart)

Post #: 39

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 4/28/2008 11:36:20 PM

seille

Posts: 2134
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: von altair

Results of my artillery tests:

1 artillery range is too short and causes a lot of problems for defending side with current stack size. Stacking size increase doesn't totally fix this problem.

2 range is better and I really belive thats what it should be. No matter if it is a bit out of realism becose of mapscale. Thats only minor thing compared to playability. Current engine system will actually balance out that range thing quite well. With reduced stack value, both sides can form different artillery tactics and both can benefit greatly about counter ability. Attacker will have to protect artillery with soaking units, no matter if they are in backrow. Normally they didin't have to do that.

Mhh, what can i say ? I agree completely.
Yes, it is not 100% realistic, but it�s better for playability and balance.
The only way to have really protected artillery is to keep it behind the frontline.
Why this is a problem ??
Just think the artillery is one hex closer to the front, but enemy can�t reach it in direct attacks.
Lets say it is a workaround to keep artillery out of direct enemy fire. Rear are status doesn�t help here always....

For the fighter ranges:
As some others already suggested the later allied fighters should be able to reach Berlin easily.
Maybe it�s really a good idea to give levelbombers a higher range overall.
The west should imho start with Levelbomber II.

(in reply to von altair)

Post #: 40

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 4/29/2008 12:58:12 AM

von altair

Posts: 316
Joined: 4/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
On the fence for this one. They only lend half support at range one, and are extremely vulnerable to direct attack. I do think that they should have a maximum range of one at this scale, however, and disagree with Altair's allowing the higher level techs to bump this up to two. can't move on own.

There must be some misunderstanding. Originally Tom tuned ALL AA ranges to 0. My patch contains minor damage upgrade and +1 range for lvl IV AA (so it is only +1, not 2). It is my opinnion, that AA should have ability to shoot adjacent hex. I just wanted to take it slowly at first and test it only on lvl IV Flaks. Besides there is 50% damage penalty for such range increase.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barthheart
3) Naval fighters and naval bombers, maybe even split naval bombers into naval divebombers and torpedo bombers. Give carriers ablility to carry 6 naval air units. Torpedos usless against ground targets.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
There is a definite need for the carrier air to be revamped. As it is now, the carrier air does not intercept, and this causes some pretty screwy results. So, I do agree on a need for splitting naval fighters and naval bombers up, but I think going with a further split into DB's and TB's is overkill. I would rather just reduce the effectiveness of the carrier-based bombers a bit from where it is currently. Not much though. Also, I'm pretty sure that the higher level CV's can already carry more Carrier Air SFT's.

I agree, that something has to be done with Carrier's ability to defend against air. My first plan was to reduce regular interceptor weight 20->4, to make it possible to use in carriers and fix situation. It is one way, another is to split Carrier Air to different planetypes, but I really belive that simplies solution is always the best. There is no need to create another interceptor, when we can use the existing one. More complex system is not always the best :)

< Message edited by von altair -- 4/29/2008 1:07:52 AM >

_____________________________

"An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?"

"Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?"

-Axel Oxenstierna

(in reply to JAMiAM)

Post #: 41

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 4/29/2008 1:06:27 AM

von altair

Posts: 316
Joined: 4/27/2004
Status: offline

About airplane ranges:

My current patch contains +1 rangestep for fighters and divebombers compared to original Tom's scenario. According for my testgames, that is mostly the best one. I haven't test level bomber ranges too much. Am I getting it so, that you guys want current level bombers to have longer range than current one is?

_____________________________

"An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?"

"Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?"

-Axel Oxenstierna

(in reply to von altair)

Post #: 42

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 4/29/2008 1:29:25 AM

JAMiAM

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: von altair

quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM
On the fence for this one. They only lend half support at range one, and are extremely vulnerable to direct attack. I do think that they should have a maximum range of one at this scale, however, and disagree with Altair's allowing the higher level techs to bump this up to two. can't move on own.

There must be some misunderstanding. Originally Tom tuned ALL AA ranges to 0. My patch contains minor damage upgrade and +1 range for lvl IV AA (so it is only +1, not 2). It is my opinnion, that AA should have ability to shoot adjacent hex. I just wanted to take it slowly at first and test it only on lvl IV Flaks. Besides there is 50% damage penalty for such range increase.

Indeed there must. The range for Flak I - Flak IV has been 1, since at least as far back as version 24. I don't have any older versions still on my hard drive, so I don't know what you mean by "originally". I recall that he had downgraded the higher level Flak from range 2, down to range one, quite early in the development of the scenario. Perhaps even with version for the initial release of AT?

(in reply to von altair)

Post #: 43

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 4/29/2008 2:15:39 AM

IRONCROM

Posts: 679
Joined: 8/19/2007
From: Las Vegas, Nevada
Status: offline

I think these ranges would probably model the air war well in West.

-Level bomber I starts with range of 12 hexes and increases one hex with each tech level.(West starts with Level II tech)
-Fighter I starts with an attack range of 10 hexes and increases one hex with each tech level. This insures later fighters can reach Berlin.(If it is possible I think the intercept range should start at 3 and increase one hex with each level)
- Dive bombers should stay where they are with a starting attack range of 5 hexes.

IMHO

_____________________________

(in reply to JAMiAM)

Post #: 44

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 4/29/2008 9:47:26 AM

seille

Posts: 2134
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

Early fighter range 10 is imho too much.
German fighters could rech London from northern France with some minutes fight over,
so i think they should have not more than 8 hexes range and intercept of 4 hexes.

Flak should not be too weak in this game.
If a player pays for level IV tech here he should have some payback !

< Message edited by seille -- 4/29/2008 9:49:37 AM >

(in reply to IRONCROM)

Post #: 45

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 4/29/2008 10:40:28 AM

SMK-at-work

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline

So when is a4 due out??!!

(in reply to seille)

Post #: 46

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 4/29/2008 8:08:43 PM

von altair

Posts: 316
Joined: 4/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

So when is a4 due out??!!�

Next patch will be v33a1 !

_____________________________

"An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?"

"Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?"

-Axel Oxenstierna

(in reply to SMK-at-work)

Post #: 47

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 4/29/2008 9:22:05 PM

IRONCROM

Posts: 679
Joined: 8/19/2007
From: Las Vegas, Nevada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: seille

Early fighter range 10 is imho too much.
German fighters could rech London from northern France with some minutes fight over,
so i think they should have not more than 8 hexes range and intercept of 4 hexes.

Flak should not be too weak in this game.
If a player pays for level IV tech here he should have some payback !

Early range of 10 probably is to far. Level IV fighter should have attack range of 12 though. That is the minimum range it takes to reach Berlin from England if the west player builds an airfield on the eastern coast of England.

Maybe the tech levels could go like this?

Fighter I- range 8
Fighter II- range 9
Fighter III- range 10
Fighter IV- range 12
Fighter V- range 12
or
Fighter I-range 8
Fighter II-range 10
Fighter III-range 10
Fighter IV- range 12
Fighter V-range 12

Anyway we do it I think we have end up with an attack range of 12 by level IV. (IMO)

_____________________________

(in reply to seille)

Post #: 48

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 4/30/2008 4:26:34 AM

tweber

Posts: 1411
Joined: 6/27/2007
Status: offline

Maybe we should make a long range bomber unit?� Something like the level bomber at close to 2x the range and cost.

Looks like the longest bombing range should be 15. This will allow bombing from Saipan to Tokyo.

< Message edited by tweber -- 4/30/2008 4:57:47 AM >

(in reply to seille)

Post #: 49

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 4/30/2008 9:31:49 AM

seille

Posts: 2134
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

15 range max souds good.
Late war fighters should be able to escort the bombers from London to Berlin.

Level Bomber ranges maybe:
12
13
14
15

(in reply to tweber)

Post #: 50

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 4/30/2008 9:56:13 AM

IRONCROM

Posts: 679
Joined: 8/19/2007
From: Las Vegas, Nevada
Status: offline

Scratch the level V fighter. apparently there is no level V fighter in WAW.

_____________________________

(in reply to seille)

Post #: 51

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 4/30/2008 11:10:53 PM

IRONCROM

Posts: 679
Joined: 8/19/2007
From: Las Vegas, Nevada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: seille

15 range max souds good.
Late war fighters should be able to escort the bombers from London to Berlin.

Level Bomber ranges maybe:
12
13
14
15

That sounds good. Allows for Saipan to Tokoyo run as well.

And for Fighter maybe...
8
10
12
14
Range of forteen allows a level IV fighter to fly escort from London to Berlin. (exactly 14 hexes)

_____________________________

(in reply to seille)

Post #: 52

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 5/1/2008 2:15:55 AM

Barthheart

Posts: 3194
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Nepean, Ontario
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM

quote:

ORIGINAL: seille

15 range max souds good.
Late war fighters should be able to escort the bombers from London to Berlin.

Level Bomber ranges maybe:
12
13
14
15

That sounds good. Allows for Saipan to Tokoyo run as well.

And for Fighter maybe...
8
10
12
14
Range of forteen allows a level IV fighter to fly escort from London to Berlin. (exactly 14 hexes)

Sounds good too.

Now on a different front, so to speak: German - Russian Garrison rules! When the Germans fail to maintian their garison lead the Soviets delcare war... whether they are ready or not!!!!

I think this should be changed to the Soviets can delcare war, if they so choose, and the Germans lose the Eastern Blitz card.

Current game I have going, Germans failed to maintain garrison levels, my Russians declare war in Feb. 1941 and no where near prepared for war, Russian winter bonus happens Germans lose readyness but the Russians can't get to them to take advantage of it! So we're both just staring across the border at each other....

Not too good me thinks.....

_____________________________

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty & well preserved body,
but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"

(in reply to IRONCROM)

Post #: 53

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 5/1/2008 8:34:26 AM

seille

Posts: 2134
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barthheart

Now on a different front, so to speak: German - Russian Garrison rules! When the Germans fail to maintian their garison lead the Soviets delcare war... whether they are ready or not!!!!

I think this should be changed to the Soviets can delcare war, if they so choose, and the Germans lose the Eastern Blitz card.

Indeed a better solution together with a notification for the players.

(in reply to Barthheart)

Post #: 54

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 5/1/2008 11:18:03 AM

Azghaf

Posts: 19
Joined: 11/15/2007
From: Cirencester, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barthheart

Now on a different front, so to speak: German - Russian Garrison rules! When the Germans fail to maintian their garison lead the Soviets delcare war... whether they are ready or not!!!!

I think this should be changed to the Soviets can delcare war, if they so choose, and the Germans lose the Eastern Blitz card.

Current game I have going, Germans failed to maintain garrison levels, my Russians declare war in Feb. 1941 and no where near prepared for war, Russian winter bonus happens Germans lose readyness but the Russians can't get to them to take advantage of it! So we're both just staring across the border at each other....

Not too good me thinks.....

Now being the German player in said game and admitting to this mistake

, I agree with Vance completely on this. There are other serious consequences as well - Japan is now at war with China, again before being truely prepared. The supply embargo suddenly hitting without any build up is crippling.

I think the loss of the supplies to Germany from Russia and knowing that Russia could declare war at any point is enough of a reason to maintain the Garrison levels.

Cheers

Dave

(in reply to seille)

Post #: 55

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 5/2/2008 7:01:07 AM

tweber

Posts: 1411
Joined: 6/27/2007
Status: offline

I have the Soviets declare war if the garrison rule is broken because there is no reason for them not too. It works to the allied advantage if the US is brought in early, if Germany and Japan lose the supply grants. If the Soviets are not ready, they do not have to prosecute the war.

In v33, the Soviets can build conscripts once at war so they have a further benefit. It is therefore really important for the German player to mind the border.

(in reply to Azghaf)

Post #: 56

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 5/2/2008 10:22:49 AM

seille

Posts: 2134
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline

But this event should be a advantage for Russia. With the current rules it could turn into a advantage for Germany.
Russia should have the declare war option then, Germany should lose the eastern Blitz Card.
Otherwise it�s forcing Russia into a war they are not ready for.

(in reply to tweber)

Post #: 57

RE: World at War v32a2 released - 5/2/2008 8:29:38 PM

von altair

Posts: 316
Joined: 4/27/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: seille

But this event should be a advantage for Russia. With the current rules it could turn into a advantage for Germany.
Russia should have the declare war option then, Germany should lose the eastern Blitz Card.
Otherwise it�s forcing Russia into a war they are not ready for.

I agree with you. Thats how it should go. I also think that Garrison event bugs somehow. My current game with Germans and v32a2 has lower garrison value than Russians, but they are not reacting it at all (year -40). Have to look into it a bit closer.

_____________________________

"An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?"

"Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?"

-Axel Oxenstierna

(in reply to seille)

Post #: 58