Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

waw v33

 
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 >> waw v33 Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
waw v33 - 4/29/2008 6:07:46 AM   
tweber

 

Posts: 1411
Joined: 6/27/2007
Status: offline 		I just added v33 to the scenario bank. This was built off of WAW 32a1 - thanks for all the inputs. Here are the changes:

- Players can no longer directly build capital ships (CG, BB, CV). Instead, they must build hulls. A hull cannot move and has no power points (so it cannot be used for garison purposes on the East front). There is a 10% chance each turn that a CG hull becomes a CG, a BB hull becomes a BB, and a CV hull becomes a CV. So ships will now have a 10 month mean time to complete.

- The China supply bonus was not meant as US aid but meant to represent that the Chinese did not need as much supply. So, I took away the message that was added.

- The Soviets can only build conscripts once the war with Germany starts. They also don't get the 500 conscript bonus when the war starts.

My personal preference is that I like artillery with a range of 1 and with counterbattery on. It provides incentives to spread out artillery. However, feel free to tweek the scenario to your personal tastes.
Post #: 1
RE: waw v33 - 4/29/2008 4:32:45 PM   
Joshuatree

 

Posts: 507
Joined: 12/30/2007
From: Netherlands
Status: offline 		Good heavens man, I'm still at v27...

"There is a 10% chance each turn that a CG hull becomes a CG, a BB hull becomes a BB, and a CV hull becomes a CV. So ships will now have a 10 month mean time to complete"
Does that mean still 10% chance at turn 10?? or 100% chance at turn 10? 

(in reply to tweber)
Post #: 2
RE: waw v33 - 4/29/2008 8:59:27 PM   
tweber

 

Posts: 1411
Joined: 6/27/2007
Status: offline 		It is a 10% chance each turn.  It would be very difficult to attach state to a hull.  Statistically, the average number of turns would be 10.  However, it could come earlier or later.


(in reply to Joshuatree)
Post #: 3
RE: waw v33 - 4/29/2008 11:49:28 PM   
seille

 

Posts: 2134
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		10 month time to complete the bigs ships is ok.
Will i get additional shipyards to build some of them same time ?

How this will work in detail?
Can i buy some hulls in London and then get 2 BB and a CV 10 month´s later
or always only one ship ?
Will it block the other production slots ?

(in reply to tweber)
Post #: 4
RE: waw v33 - 4/30/2008 1:00:29 AM   
IRONCROM


Posts: 679
Joined: 8/19/2007
From: Las Vegas, Nevada
Status: offline 		That actually sounds like a pretty cool idea.

Sounds like the production cost will be the same, it's just the time it takes to finish will be delayed?
If your port has enough production to build 2 CG's in one turn then the port will build 2 empty hulls in one turn but the hulls won't actually become CG's til around 10 turns. On the next turn after you build the hulls you can build something else. Maybe one battleship. You will be able to build just as fast just have a longer wait til you get the finish product. If understand this correctly.

_____________________________


(in reply to seille)
Post #: 5
RE: waw v33 - 4/30/2008 1:22:43 AM   
JAMiAM

 

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

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM
Sounds like the production cost will be the same, it's just the time it takes to finish will be delayed?

Correct.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM
If your port has enough production to build 2 CG's in one turn then the port will build 2 empty hulls in one turn but the hulls won't actually become CG's til around 10 turns.

The mean time (average) will be 10 turns. It could come on line the very next turn. It could possibly never leave the slipway. It's a bit like flipping a coin each turn, for each hull, to see if it becomes a ship by landing heads. Only, this coin isn't a fair coin. On the average, it only lands heads-up one toss in ten.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM
On the next turn after you build the hulls you can build something else. Maybe one battleship. You will be able to build just as fast just have a longer wait til you get the finish product. If understand this correctly.

There will be a definite delay. Tom has added some "shipyard" counters with various numbers of hulls for the major powers, to get them ramped up a little.


< Message edited by JAMiAM -- 4/30/2008 1:23:09 AM >

(in reply to IRONCROM)
Post #: 6
RE: waw v33 - 4/30/2008 6:35:35 AM   
tweber

 

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

10 month time to complete the bigs ships is ok.
Will i get additional shipyards to build some of them same time ?

How this will work in detail?
Can i buy some hulls in London and then get 2 BB and a CV 10 month´s later
or always only one ship ?
Will it block the other production slots ?


There are no additional shipyards. However, a production site like London can build more than 1 hull per turn. Each hull has a 10% chance of getting complete. So if you have 10 hulls across your regime, you could have 0-10 promoted the next turn with the mean being 1.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 7
RE: waw v33 - 5/1/2008 8:46:28 PM   
Grymme

 

Posts: 1821
Joined: 12/16/2007
Status: offline 		Does this incorporate the changes in waw32a2 ?

Its starting to be a litte confusing with all these patches... although i am very happy for the extensive work being done.

(in reply to tweber)
Post #: 8
RE: waw v33 - 5/1/2008 9:09:21 PM   
seille

 

Posts: 2134
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		@Tom does aircraft have now a realistic range so late war bombers (and fighters)
can reach Berlin from London ?

The very low ranges for planes are annoying in v32.


(in reply to Grymme)
Post #: 9
RE: waw v33 - 5/1/2008 11:25:04 PM   
IRONCROM


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

Since seille and I have pleaded our case on this issue most of the other players involved in the discussion have agreed that longer air range in WAW is a good idea.

_____________________________


(in reply to seille)
Post #: 10
RE: waw v33 - 5/2/2008 4:51:14 AM   
tweber

 

Posts: 1411
Joined: 6/27/2007
Status: offline 		v33 was built off of 32a2.  I am thinking about making a long range bomber as a new unit.  Also, I need to fix cv air so they intercept.

(in reply to IRONCROM)
Post #: 11
RE: waw v33 - 5/2/2008 5:33:38 AM   
rickier65

 

Posts: 14231
Joined: 4/20/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tweber

v33 was built off of 32a2.  I am thinking about making a long range bomber as a new unit.  Also, I need to fix cv air so they intercept.



Tom,

was it built on 32va1 or 32va2? First post references 32va1.

Thanks
Rick

(in reply to tweber)
Post #: 12
RE: waw v33 - 5/2/2008 6:57:39 AM   
tweber

 

Posts: 1411
Joined: 6/27/2007
Status: offline 		WAW v33 was built off of 32va2.  I left some of the comments in.

I just posted v33a, key changes:

- Found bug in hull promotion messages
- Add heavy bombers and heavy bombers II.  They are available at bomber 2 and bomber 3 technology respectively.  They are 50% more expensive than level bombers and have longer range.  The heavy bomber II has a range of 16 so you can now cover all of Europe from London and Southern Italy.  You can also bomb Tokyo from Saipan.
- Fixed carrier air so they now intercept.
- Made an adjustment on the factory cost so it now has a 20 month payback.
- Lowered the level 3 and 4 R&D costs somewhat.

(in reply to rickier65)
Post #: 13
RE: waw v33 - 5/2/2008 8:01:06 AM   
DicedT

 

Posts: 800
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline 		I'm willing to playtest this if anyone wants a game.

(in reply to tweber)
Post #: 14
RE: waw v33 - 5/2/2008 5:06:41 PM   
Joshuatree

 

Posts: 507
Joined: 12/30/2007
From: Netherlands
Status: offline 		"I am thinking about making a long range bomber as a new unit"

I'm in favor of that. The Heinkel, Wellington were medium range bombers, but the Flying Fortresses, Condors and Lancasters had a much longer range.
Thinking of, maybe you could add a fighter/ bomber as well? Like the Typhoon, and Focke Wulf and Messerschmitt bomber versions. They could go on a bombing mission without escort, with a small range and limited bombing capacity.

(in reply to DicedT)
Post #: 15
RE: waw v33 - 5/2/2008 8:24:29 PM   
von altair


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

ORIGINAL: tweber

WAW v33 was built off of 32va2.  I left some of the comments in.

I just posted v33a, key changes:

- Found bug in hull promotion messages
- Add heavy bombers and heavy bombers II.  They are available at bomber 2 and bomber 3 technology respectively.  They are 50% more expensive than level bombers and have longer range.  The heavy bomber II has a range of 16 so you can now cover all of Europe from London and Southern Italy.  You can also bomb Tokyo from Saipan.
- Fixed carrier air so they now intercept.
- Made an adjustment on the factory cost so it now has a 20 month payback.
- Lowered the level 3 and 4 R&D costs somewhat.


Very good, just what I was thinking about. I also think that artillery case has to be fixed.
Normal artillery -> 1500 price and decreased stackpoint value. Small offensive value decrease is also needed and maby name can be changed to: Light Artillery. Then we need a new unit called "Heavy Artillery" with current stats but range 1 and 2500 price.
I believe, that we have strong agreement about this.

This will introduce new intresting tactical elements to already excellent scenario.

< Message edited by von altair -- 5/2/2008 8:51:58 PM >

_____________________________

"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 tweber)
Post #: 16
RE: waw v33 - 5/2/2008 10:33:41 PM   
IRONCROM


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

ORIGINAL: tweber

- Add heavy bombers and heavy bombers II.  They are available at bomber 2 and bomber 3 technology respectively.  They are 50% more expensive than level bombers and have longer range.  The heavy bomber II has a range of 16 so you can now cover all of Europe from London and Southern Italy.  You can also bomb Tokyo from Saipan.
- Fixed carrier air so they now intercept.


That sounds good.

Are Fighter IV's capable of flying escort from London to Berlin?

I'm thinking once Germany builds up some fighter formations to protect there Production cities the allies have to be able to fly escort missions to protect these expensive bombers or it will no longer be worth the investment.


< Message edited by IRONCROM -- 5/2/2008 10:43:57 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to tweber)
Post #: 17
RE: waw v33 - 5/2/2008 11:25:04 PM   
seille

 

Posts: 2134
Joined: 6/19/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline 		@IRON
I agree absolutely especially since these fat bombers can do ONLY strategic attack.
They won´t cause any damage to ships or land units looking at their stats.
This together with the too limited fighter range will make players thinking twice
to use them or not especially since players have to pay for research first.

@Tom
I vote for longer fighter range. At least they should be able to escort bombers from London to Berlin.
I talk about fighter IV of course.
You made the ships 5 times faster for more realism, now pls do the same for planes -> realistic plane ranges finally.
A P51D with drop tanks is no Me 109E. 10 hexes range for fighter IV is far away from realism.

(in reply to IRONCROM)
Post #: 18
RE: waw v33 - 5/3/2008 12:16:12 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline 		It seems that a lot of people have a hard nut for the P-51d as their image of what a Fighter IV should be, but they need to also consider that there are a lot of other planes that would likewise fit into that category that didn't have anywhere near the range of the Mustang. For example, some of the later model FW-190's, Ta-152's, Me-262's, and so on. Automatically granting a longer range based on the example of the P-51d, makes for a lot of other historical and realism issues. I see the creation of a new class of fighter (escort-fighters) as the only way to rectify this dichotomy. Maybe make them a little more expensive and use up more supplies (fuel) so that there is a valid (gamewise) reason to continue to build standard interceptor type fighters.

(in reply to seille)
Post #: 19
RE: waw v33 - 5/3/2008 12:23:51 AM   
IRONCROM


Posts: 679
Joined: 8/19/2007
From: Las Vegas, Nevada
Status: offline 		It was quit common for p38's to also fly escort to Berlin. The Zero was also known as a long range fighter.

(other long range fighters of the war: Mig5T range 2280 km's, mig51T range 2500 km's, bf110c range 2400 km's, beaufighter range 2816km's with drop tanks) Had the Germans needed a long range fighter in the late war I'm sure they could have bested the P51d

Besides this every power should have the ability to develope long range fighters.
The Germans had the best subs. but the game gives all players the ability to develope level IV subs.

And I truly do feel that the scenario does a good job of simulating both the short range interceptor and the long range fighter in the fact that the intercept range of the fighter is so much shorter than the attack range.

< Message edited by IRONCROM -- 5/3/2008 12:50:58 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 20
RE: waw v33 - 5/3/2008 12:51:39 AM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6165
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline 		The problem with the way that the fighters are all lumped together (for those who are unhappy with one restriction or the other) is that the load-out for a P-51d flying bomber escort to Berlin is much different from one that might be tasked with ground support. However, the engine is unable to enforce those restrictions without some compromise unless you break out different SFT's for every conceivable fighter/task combination. So, it makes sense to allow a P-51d to fly escort to Berlin, from East Anglia, but it makes no sense to allow it to strafe/bomb ground targets while it's there. Unless you break out long-ranged escorts from your general purpose fighter SFT's and make them specific to the task, by "solving" one problem, you create another.

I would say that the class of long-range escorts should sacrifice ground/naval attack capability for their range increases. Of course, with the increasing task-oriented sub-divisioning of the SFT's will come an increase in micromanagement and complexity. There is a fine line we should tread to not bury the relatively simple elegance of AT under too much chrome, while maintaining a reasonably plausible simulation.

(in reply to IRONCROM)
Post #: 21
RE: waw v33 - 5/3/2008 1:03:30 AM   
IRONCROM


Posts: 679
Joined: 8/19/2007
From: Las Vegas, Nevada
Status: offline 		Strafing and fighter sweeps over germany was one of the primary missions for long range fighters after bomber escort. In some theaturs of the war like the pacific it was the primary focus.

_____________________________


(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 22
RE: waw v33 - 5/3/2008 1:10:38 AM   
von altair


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

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM

Strafing and fighter sweeps over germany was one of the primary missions for long range fighters after bomber escort. In some theaturs of the war like the pacific it was the primary focus.


My personal opinnion about long range fighters is, that we need one, but with
a high cost. I prefer the same style to handle it than artillery and heavy bombers will
be taken care of. Normal interceptors will be like they are, but then there will be
long range fighters like ME-110 and P-51d etc. with high cost.

_____________________________

"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 IRONCROM)
Post #: 23
RE: waw v33 - 5/3/2008 1:18:04 AM   
JAMiAM

 

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

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM

Strafing and fighter sweeps over germany was one of the primary missions for long range fighters after bomber escort. In some theaturs of the war like the pacific it was the primary focus.

Yes, but general orders of expend your ammo on targets of opportunity while coming back is much different than an order to bomb German positions in Berlin. A long-range fighter escort is not the type of plane that would be tasked to the second mission. It makes sense to allow them full strength against air targets, but not against ground targets.

(in reply to IRONCROM)
Post #: 24
RE: waw v33 - 5/3/2008 1:19:11 AM   
von altair


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

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM

Strafing and fighter sweeps over germany was one of the primary missions for long range fighters after bomber escort. In some theaturs of the war like the pacific it was the primary focus.

Yes, but general orders of expend your ammo on targets of opportunity while coming back is much different than an order to bomb German positions in Berlin. A long-range fighter escort is not the type of plane that would be tasked to the second mission. It makes sense to allow them full strength against air targets, but not against ground targets.


Yeah, thats what I think as well.

_____________________________

"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 #: 25
RE: waw v33 - 5/3/2008 1:28:21 AM   
IRONCROM


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

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


Yes, but general orders of expend your ammo on targets of opportunity while coming back is much different than an order to bomb German positions in Berlin. A long-range fighter escort is not the type of plane that would be tasked to the second mission. It makes sense to allow them full strength against air targets, but not against ground targets.

Yes i do see some argument for this. But fighters already have the weakest ground attack ability.

Long range fighters were also sent out on fighter sweeps over germany will the sole purpose of strafing and finding German fighter to pick a fight with.( they weren't exclusive escorters)

_____________________________


(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 26
RE: waw v33 - 5/3/2008 1:38:39 AM   
JAMiAM

 

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

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM


Yes, but general orders of expend your ammo on targets of opportunity while coming back is much different than an order to bomb German positions in Berlin. A long-range fighter escort is not the type of plane that would be tasked to the second mission. It makes sense to allow them full strength against air targets, but not against ground targets.

Yes i do see some argument for this. But fighters already have the weakest ground attack ability.

Yes, but it is still quite strong, especially against infantry type targets.


quote:

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM
Long range fighters were also sent out on fighter sweeps over germany will the sole purpose of strafing and finding German fighter to pick a fight with.( they weren't exclusive escorters)

And you can accomplish the same thing by flying recon missions with them in areas where you expect fighter resistance.






(in reply to IRONCROM)
Post #: 27
RE: waw v33 - 5/3/2008 1:51:05 AM   
IRONCROM


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



quote:

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM
Long range fighters were also sent out on fighter sweeps over germany will the sole purpose of strafing and finding German fighter to pick a fight with.( they weren't exclusive escorters)

And you can accomplish the same thing by flying recon missions with them in areas where you expect fighter resistance.



Yes it does as far as engaging enemy air units goes. But if they have no ground attack ability then it will not model the ability to sfrafe. Allied fighters were constantly strafing German troops as the war progressed and they increasingly had greater control of the skies. Overall I don't think long range fighters were any less effective at strafing than short range ones were. If you weaken ones ability to attack ground targets then you have to weaken both.
IMHO

That doesn't mean I am for a weaker grond attack for fighters.


_____________________________


(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 28
RE: waw v33 - 5/3/2008 4:01:36 AM   
tweber

 

Posts: 1411
Joined: 6/27/2007
Status: offline 		Just added waw33c.  Here I add:

- Lg Rng Fighter and Lg Rng Fighter II.  These are level 3 and 4 fighters with range of the Heavy Bomber and that fighter like level 2 and 3 fighter respectively.
- Long range artillery.  Range of 2 but half the artillery power of it's counterpart.  Available at all 4 tech levels.

(in reply to IRONCROM)
Post #: 29
RE: waw v33 - 5/3/2008 4:51:13 AM   
IRONCROM


Posts: 679
Joined: 8/19/2007
From: Las Vegas, Nevada
Status: offline 		That's a good compromise. I'm totally satisfied.

_____________________________


(in reply to tweber)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Mods and Scenarios >> waw v33 Page: [1] 2   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

2.375