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: 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 >> RE: waw v33 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: waw v33 - 5/3/2008 6:49:41 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		I still think a beter fix would be to have long range fighter as a type that parallels normal fighters but is more expensive, so you get to choose which you buy.  There was no particular technology involved in creating them - just how you arranged the internal aircraft structure to accomodate fuel tanks!

IMO Fighter bombers are probably best addressed by giving high tech fighters similar ground attack to lower tech dive-bombers - they should ideally have somewhat shorter range in the ground attack role, since it usualy involved external stores in place of external fuel tanks.  Presumably fighters do not attack cites, etc when you do strategic attacks, so they will fight as pure fighters in that role at least.

Zeros had enourmously long range but are only lvl 2 naval.....

(in reply to IRONCROM)
Post #: 31
RE: waw v33 - 5/3/2008 7:40:07 AM   
tweber

 

Posts: 1411
Joined: 6/27/2007
Status: offline 		The long range fighter does parrallel the normal fighter, only starting at tech level 3. 

At that point, you can buy either.  For the same ammount, you can buy a better short range fighter or an inferior long range fighter.  I wanted to keep the price 2000 for both because all the production sites are in multiples of 2000.

Feel free to add additional units if desired.

< Message edited by tweber -- 5/3/2008 7:43:52 AM >

(in reply to SMK-at-work)
Post #: 32
RE: waw v33 - 5/3/2008 7:46:58 AM   
explorer2

 

Posts: 465
Joined: 11/30/2007
Status: offline 		I just recently started my first WaW game, v32a2.
If I upgrade to 33c, will I be able to continue my current game, but with all the 33 adjustments, or would I have to start a new game from the beginning with 33c?
Thanks for a GREAT scenario and I'm impressed how quickly Tom is making adjustments.


< Message edited by explorer2 -- 5/3/2008 7:48:53 AM >

(in reply to tweber)
Post #: 33
RE: waw v33 - 5/3/2008 7:50:45 AM   
tweber

 

Posts: 1411
Joined: 6/27/2007
Status: offline 		Once you start a game, the version is frozen so you would have to restart.

(in reply to explorer2)
Post #: 34
RE: waw v33 - 5/3/2008 8:20:52 AM   
SMK-at-work

 

Posts: 3396
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: New Zealand
Status: offline 		Ah - of course...I forgot the groupings in WaW...despite playing it constantly for ages!!

How is the long range fighter inferior?  I suspect it should probably only be inferior in ground attack - it's true the USAAF escorts were told to use up all their ammo on ground targets if they could - but they didn't carry heavy air-ground-weapons so their effect was limited - they should probably only get hte same ground attack as level 1 ordinary fighters.

(in reply to IRONCROM)
Post #: 35
RE: waw v33 - 5/3/2008 10:29:37 AM   
seille

 

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

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

The problem with the way that the fighters are all lumped together


That´s true of course. But until a guy comes and creates a complete unit set with the most common plane types
this is a better solution than simply forbid the player to fly attacks that should be possible with late war tech level.
And at least the west was able to attack Berlin WITH escorts.

A solution for more realistic unit setup would be what i did some time ago.
Breaking up the generic set completely and create own sftypes and itemtypes for each regime.

Means a lot of work, but you could be more special with sftype setup, so the west could have the only long range fighter,
but Germany would have the strongest fighters. You could incorporate the good and weak points for the plane types per
regime. Same for tanks or artillery of course. But that´s a terrible work.
The good thing is that you can make the sftypes slower/faster or cheaper/more expensive per regime.
Or simply give the russian medium tank more hitpoints than the german

What Tom did with the new special units, but for the complete unit set. I did that for russia and Germany (just splitting up
sftypes and itemtypes) and it´s a lot of work.

@Tom
I think the long range fighters you created are a good compromise.

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 36
RE: waw v33 - 5/3/2008 10:29:46 PM   
bwheatley

 

Posts: 3650
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline 		yay!

(in reply to IRONCROM)
Post #: 37
RE: waw v33 - 5/4/2008 6:34:41 PM   
bbragnar

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 3/10/2008
Status: offline 		I'm having a problem with WaW v33. There comes up an arithmetic error exception problem during the AI's turn. I have not had any problems with previous versions.

(in reply to bwheatley)
Post #: 38
RE: waw v33 - 5/5/2008 3:34:42 AM   
JAMiAM

 

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

I noticed that somewhere down the line, the rising production option became deselected by default in version 33c. This should be selected by default, as this is the option which allows for the increased production multipliers starting in 1942, and all of the PP grants, that occur in a gradiated format for the five powers. If somebody starts a game of 33c, it would be a good idea to remember to select this option before playing.

(in reply to bbragnar)
Post #: 39
RE: waw v33 - 5/6/2008 5:27:01 AM   
zook08

 

Posts: 138
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline 		Two questions about an ongoing v32xx game:

What's the use of the "Allies abandon Paris" card?

The Germans attacked France without the Blitz or declaring war on the Allied Minors. They won in France and declared Vichy. They own previously neutral Amsterdam now (I don't know if they captured it or got it for free), so I'd guess they are at war with the Minors. But the Minors didn't join me. Is there something wrong?


(in reply to IRONCROM)
Post #: 40
RE: waw v33 - 5/6/2008 10:23:33 PM   
zook08

 

Posts: 138
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline 		Another point is shore bombardment; the default values are much too high for this scale. The Royal Navy can easily clear any hex, urban or fortified, from all defenders and the Royal Army just has to wade ashore and occupy the smoking ruins. Secondly, port defense bonus vs. sea attack should be much higher, to the point where attacking a fleet in port is suicidal.

(in reply to zook08)
Post #: 41
RE: waw v33 - 5/7/2008 3:33:21 AM   
von altair


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

ORIGINAL: zook08

Another point is shore bombardment; the default values are much too high for this scale. The Royal Navy can easily clear any hex, urban or fortified, from all defenders and the Royal Army just has to wade ashore and occupy the smoking ruins. Secondly, port defense bonus vs. sea attack should be much higher, to the point where attacking a fleet in port is suicidal.



I agree that shore bombardment is too strong atm. Defense values against it should be increased a bit, but not in suicidal line. There are good ways to counter such things.



_____________________________

"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 zook08)
Post #: 42
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: waw v33 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

1.016