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 Revised version T Available

 
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 Revised version T Available Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
WaW Revised version T Available - 3/18/2010 12:53:13 AM   
explorer2

 

Posts: 465
Joined: 11/30/2007
Status: offline
Version 3T Changes (April 5, 2010)

1. Hanoi no longer given to China if GE creates Vichy. China receives 3000 supply instead if Vichy is declared, representing the aid from the USA that flowed through Vichy Hanoi.
2. Thailand starts game as historically accurate neutrals. (Becomes JA when Pacific Blitz is played)
3. North Blitz card simulates GE surprise attack by giving Stavanger and Bergen to GE, though Bergen gets only 5 Riflemen to occupy it.
4. JA ports start game with 2 hex radius that are JA sea hexes to avoid West from blocking fleet from leaving for Pearl Harbor.
5. Lowered SU starting staff level 10%
6. Lowered SU first turn of winter while awake supply bonus by 2000
7. Gibraltar Strait now opened so ships can go through


Version 2T Changes (March 26 2010)

Fixed Venice. In version T1 Venice stopped being a producing city. Now restored to City 4.
Fixed West Stops Vichy from Forming card not given when Historical Blitz option chosen.
Coastal Artillery changed to Coastal Defenses: Gains the defensive abilities versus subs of 2 destroyers.
Added road from Oslo to Stavanger.
. . . . . I found a good map of Norway at the time that showed a major highway used between the 2.



Version T Changes

The big effect of lots of changes from S to T: Germany, Japan, & China should have a greater possibility of victory.

I. Fixes

a) Coastal Artillery vs. units in Big Sea were previously unable to attack, and defended at half strength. Now function same as vs. regular sea, full strength attack and full strength defend.
b) Italian Morale Restored to Normal (version S was set to a maximum of 8 instead of starting at 8)


II. New Features

a) Accelerate Ship production Game Option (sent by bwheatley)
This will double the random chance of you getting a hull built.

b) Purchase Additional Manpower Action Cards (sent by bwheatley)
The West can buy 800 additional manpower for 500PP and a morale loss of 10% beginning in 1944.
Germany can buy 800 additional manpower for 300PP and a morale loss of 10% beginning in 1945.

c) Consequences to JA Delaying War with China
If Japan does not begin the war with China by July 1941, the following conditions occur:
1) All Chinese cities produce at 125% of normal until war begins (restores to 100% at that time)
2) USA gives China 2000 supply per turn until JA begins war with China
3) In August, October, and December 1941, China gains Guns 1, Heavy Infantry II, and Staff II, if war has not begun by those times
4) In August 1942, if JA has not begun war with China, China may declare war on Japan, and Japan then loses Pacific Blitz Card. At that time, West receives Persuade USA to join West card (150 PP). When played, USA joins West and West declares war on Japan.
5) China victory conditions now only require holding Kunming, Chungking, Sian, Beijing, Shanghai, & Canton

d) West & Soviet Union at War
Once Berlin is occupied by either Western Allies or Soviet Union, the 2 automatically are at war with each other.

e) Incident at Nomohan Card (JA/SU war) renewed each January
If JA & SU are at peace, each January they are given the Start War between JA & SU (Nomohan Incident) card.


III. Adjustments to Improve Balance
a) GE receives new city 4: Dresden
b) GE begins game with Staff II
c) GE & JA only need to hold their VPs 18 turns instead of 24 turns for victory.
d) If JA does not own Hanoi by July 1941, China gets 60PP & production in all Chinese cities increases to 125% of normal
e) West receives manpower grant of 800 13 and 25 turns after USA enters.
f) New Bomber research (dive and level) requires completed research of the previous level of the other bomber type.
.....For instance, Dive Bomber 3 requires Dive Bomber 2 & Level Bomber 2.
g) Effects of Winter Reduced:
.....Maximum single turn readiness penalty 1939-1942 is reduced from 50 to 40.
.....Maximum single turn readiness penalty in 1943 is 35.
.....Maximum single turn readiness penalty in 1944 & 1945 is 30.
h) SU Production when awake but not at war changed from 45% to 55% prior to June 1941 & from 55% to 65% starting June 1941.
i) SU auto wakes February 1941 instead of January 1941.
j) Chinese Partisan Levels Reduced
.....From 7% to 5% for no 900pp & for Sian Conquered
.....From 6% to 4% for No City Garrisons
.....From 4% to 3% for 900pp present all garrisons OK
k) JA gets Fighter II & Heavy Infantry II when they begin war with China
l) JA gets Carrier III, BB/CA III, Destroyer III when they play the Pacific Blitz Card
m) Partisan Levels Decrease to very low when occupying garrisons PP kept high
.......Yugoslavia: . . . 100 PP if not at war with Soviet Union,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 PP if yes at war with Soviet Union
.......Greece: . . . . . .100 PP (until West has 100 PP in Italy, then Greek partisan become many)
.......Soviet Union:. . 850 PP (before capturing Big 5 Cities & assuming all city garrisons are adequate and not winter)
..............................1500 PP (after capturing Moscow, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Kazan, & Gorki, & cities garrisoned & not winter)
.......China: . . . . . . .1100 PP (assuming all city garrisons are adequate)

IV. Unit Changes

a) Sub 3 & 4 have defense versus air increased by 1 each.
b) Flak 4 anti-air range increased to 3
c) Battleship & Cruiser bombardment strength versus land units reduced by 60%
d) Coastal Artillery strength versus surface ships increased by 33%
e) The Soviet Union Partisan unit is reduced from containing 8 partisans to 5, but gets extra supply.
f) The trucks added to the free SU Worker Battalions in version R have been removed.


< Message edited by explorer2 -- 4/5/2010 2:23:16 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 3/18/2010 3:37:07 PM   
Barthheart


Posts: 3194
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Nepean, Ontario
Status: offline
Thanks for your continued efforts with this scenario Explorer2!

Well done... we'll have to play a game soon.

_____________________________

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 explorer2)
Post #: 2
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 3/19/2010 2:12:57 AM   
Tufkal2

 

Posts: 834
Joined: 12/31/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline
This looks really nice. Also hoping to play a game here sometime soon.

_____________________________


(in reply to Barthheart)
Post #: 3
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 3/19/2010 2:55:01 AM   
Barthheart


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lunaticus

This looks really nice. Also hoping to play a game here sometime soon.


Start one up... :)

_____________________________

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 Tufkal2)
Post #: 4
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 3/20/2010 9:45:17 AM   
LazyBoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 5/7/2005
Status: offline
This is a great scenario and I love playing it

I have just quit as the Axis/Japan in a version s game.

I glad to see the Italian moral was a bug instead of my bad management.

A couple of things made me quit.

1/ Air combat, Twice in the game I built up my air power with better tech level and greater numbers, they also had experience of 40+, when intercepting they were shot down in droves and alot did not intercept. Some of this may be due to readiness as Idid not understand its effects

2/ Subs, As Japan I had destroyed all U.S forces, captured Peal Harbour and had 122 VPs. The U.S built Subs that went round my cities and destroyed the cargo ships in my HQ's.

They then attacked mainland Japan and destroyed all my new production ships including a carrier hull, level 3 destroyers, for no lost. I appeared not to defend at all.

As costal guns cant attack Subs, I think that subs should not be able to attack shipping in port.

Lastly As Japan I attacked and destroyed the U.S Carriers in main land U.S, I may be a good Idea for the Carrier start position to be randomised.

Sorry if I sound grumpy, the ups and downs of this game does have a real moral effect, at least on me.

(in reply to Barthheart)
Post #: 5
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 3/20/2010 2:37:31 PM   
explorer2

 

Posts: 465
Joined: 11/30/2007
Status: offline
I"m curious LazyBoy, were you playing vs. AI or vs. human?
I sure understand how it can be quite depressing and infuriating when playing a game of WaW, where you put lots of time into it, when things don't go well. It makes me crazy too!

quote:

ORIGINAL: LazyBoy
1/ Air combat, Twice in the game I built up my air power with better tech level and greater numbers, they also had experience of 40+, when intercepting they were shot down in droves and alot did not intercept. Some of this may be due to readiness as Idid not understand its effects


Not sure how to respond to this. I don't think there are any signficant differences between WaW air combat and standard AT air combat.

quote:

Subs, As Japan I had destroyed all U.S forces, captured Peal Harbour and had 122 VPs. The U.S built Subs that went round my cities and destroyed the cargo ships in my HQ's.


Good for you for getting 122 VP. U nfortunate for you for not defending your ports with destroyers. Coastal artillery, like in real life, have little effect on subs. And like in the real war, subs can wreak havoc on undefended ships (cargo and hulls). And it seems you're learning how, even if you have level 3 DD, if they have low readiness or low XP, they'll be hurting in any battle. I've personally had the exact same thing happen to me until I learned my lesson. Personally, I think the best counter is to have a good defense with DD, not to change the rules in this case.

quote:

Lastly As Japan I attacked and destroyed the U.S Carriers in main land U.S, I may be a good Idea for the Carrier start position to be randomised.

This is truly a good idea. I'll add it to the list.

Good luck with your next game :-)

(in reply to LazyBoy)
Post #: 6
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 3/21/2010 9:15:42 AM   
LazyBoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 5/7/2005
Status: offline
While I understand a good defence with DDs is a reasonable answer.

In terms of WAW that a huge amount of resources that will cripple Japan, I was attacked by 12 U.S subs, what would I need to defend every Production centre and coastal cities with HQs.

U.S spends 24000 PPs on 12 subs.
Japan even with 6 DDs per port is 12000 PPs times the number of locations, i.e when stating war with U.S, Japan would need 6 DD's * 7 locations = 84,000 pp's plus supply cost's.

All of this while trying to conquer the world

This would be a good tactic for the Germans to use instead of cutting sea lanes

For the scale of this scenario this effect is massive.

In real life the odd sub got into a port and did a little damage, I dont know of any occasions where packs of subs attacked ports directly

While I think stopping this sort of attack is the best answer, could you add a new sub formation that defends against subs but has no attack value and has a lower cost than DD's.

Great Scenario though

< Message edited by LazyBoy -- 3/21/2010 9:25:03 AM >

(in reply to explorer2)
Post #: 7
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 3/21/2010 8:16:42 PM   
explorer2

 

Posts: 465
Joined: 11/30/2007
Status: offline
LazyBoy-
I understand your point. I would like further feedback from experienced players before making changes.
IN games I have seen the normal response is to station Carrier Air around ports, they have a range that can usually cover a few, with a couple of DD's in port. And typically you're not putting cargo ships in every port, I'm not sure why you would have a need for that.
The best solution I'm guessing is actually the sea mine unit. I and a few other people tried to get it to work right and never could though. In reality, sea mines and sub nets were the real answer to subs coming into port. They were used extensively. I wish I could get them to work.

I'd be very interested in other people's feedback to this issue.

(in reply to LazyBoy)
Post #: 8
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 3/21/2010 9:25:55 PM   
Tufkal2

 

Posts: 834
Joined: 12/31/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline
I am certainly not the expert on historical usage of subs but my understanding is also that subs were mainly a weapon to attack ships (especially merchant shipping) outside of ports. As it is they are a fearful weapons of naval attacks against ships outside and inside of ports.
However I think there are some options:
-> why not lower the attack values of subs against land hexes (port) drastically? That way sub attacks against an anchored fleet are not very effective
-> additionally coastal guns could also fire against subs in order to simulate some sea mine effect. I understand sea mines in the open sea will not work but in port hexes this should work

Also I think that sub anti-supply effects might currently be strong if the sub is next to a port and too weak if not next to a port.

But there are some limitations to the naval model of AT. As the game is the best attack on Pearl Harbour might be a combined naval attack with both battleships and carrier air...


_____________________________


(in reply to explorer2)
Post #: 9
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 3/21/2010 9:54:21 PM   
tweber

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: explorer2

LazyBoy-
I understand your point. I would like further feedback from experienced players before making changes.
IN games I have seen the normal response is to station Carrier Air around ports, they have a range that can usually cover a few, with a couple of DD's in port. And typically you're not putting cargo ships in every port, I'm not sure why you would have a need for that.
The best solution I'm guessing is actually the sea mine unit. I and a few other people tried to get it to work right and never could though. In reality, sea mines and sub nets were the real answer to subs coming into port. They were used extensively. I wish I could get them to work.

I'd be very interested in other people's feedback to this issue.



Why don't you just copy shore batteries, call them sub nets, take down combat vs ships and give them high defensive combat vs subs?

(in reply to explorer2)
Post #: 10
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 3/22/2010 2:35:37 AM   
82ndtrooper


Posts: 1083
Joined: 12/19/2008
From: tennessee
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lunaticus

I am certainly not the expert on historical usage of subs but my understanding is also that subs were mainly a weapon to attack ships (especially merchant shipping) outside of ports. As it is they are a fearful weapons of naval attacks against ships outside and inside of ports.
However I think there are some options:
-> why not lower the attack values of subs against land hexes (port) drastically? That way sub attacks against an anchored fleet are not very effective
-> additionally coastal guns could also fire against subs in order to simulate some sea mine effect. I understand sea mines in the open sea will not work but in port hexes this should work

Also I think that sub anti-supply effects might currently be strong if the sub is next to a port and too weak if not next to a port.

But there are some limitations to the naval model of AT. As the game is the best attack on Pearl Harbour might be a combined naval attack with both battleships and carrier air...


you are 50% correct on the historical usage of subs. They where used to attack merchant vessels in open sea, However their main usage has been a weapon of deterrence. What i mean by this is that they cause all nations great fear and thus all nations spend a huge amount of resources to defend against them. Subs didn't attack more ships in port because of these defenses, which consisted of patrols of destroyers and aircraft at important harbors. while harbors had sub nets and some mines these where not really very effective at stopping the subs it was the active defenses of destroyers and planes that kept them away.

I ask this question. If subs were not considered a huge threat to attack ships in port then why do all nations still invest a huge amount to keep their ports safe from sub attack?

A German sub got into Scappa Flow through sub nets and mines and caused great damage in WWII. This taught the allies and the axis that you had better defend your ports or your fleet is a helpless sitting duck.

The vast majority of destroyers in WWII where used to defend instead of offense. For example the USA started WWII out with like 60 destroyers, by the end of the war they had over a thousand.
http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/ww2us_destroyers.htm

the USA built more destroyers then any other ship by a huge amount and most where never on the front lines. they defended harbors and coastal shipping lanes.

people don't realize how much of every military is dedicated to support and not combat. The actual combat forces of any military is only around 30%. (Support includes garrison duty and area defense)

In these games people want to concentrate on offensive forces and have every single unit they make out on the front lines fighting which is completely historically wrong.

I think anything in this game that forces players to do the opposite of that is a good thing including the ability of subs to sink ships in a harbor.

I will however agree on one thing.
subs should never be able to destroy a ship hull, which is not in the water at all but on land in a dry-dock. so that should be changed so that only land forces can destroy one.

and for japan maybe a solution would be to let them start with a few more destroyers. But even if you do this people wont use them for port defense they will all be out with the front line fleet, so japans ports will still be open to attack. But at least people couldn't complain when a player does attack a Japanese port.

I try to defend my important ports with Planes and destroyers on patrol nearby. When a fleet is in the port i pull my defenses close and when they leave i spread them out again. a few planes and destroyers combined with the fleet in port make it suicide for any sub fleet to attack usually.

The mechanics are already in the game to defend, people just don't do it.

and to the original poster. Japan is the hardest regime in the game to play for even the most experienced player, and it should be because historically japan only had a very slim chance of success.

So I understand your frustration but it sounds to me like you where doing a great job with them !

/salute



_____________________________

HHC 302nd Engineer Battalion
82nd Airborne Division
Honorably Discharged Jul/80

(in reply to Tufkal2)
Post #: 11
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 3/22/2010 4:08:17 AM   
LazyBoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 5/7/2005
Status: offline
My main concern here, is That Japan and UK have all of their limited production on the coast.
For these countries to invest the required resources in defence and still try to be offensive is almost beon them

The only defence is to position experianced DD's and or Aircraft in each coastal city.
I agree that air power is a good area counter attack, but they wont defend against these attacks, unless they are based in the target hex.

The attack in my game was

12 subs attacked Hiroshima and for no lost destroyed 2 new DD 3's, 1 CV 2 and 1 cv 3 hull.

They then attacked Osaka destroying another new DD.

These 12 subs, together with 4 more were the only U.S forces in the Pacific
And they crippled Japans productionfor the turn, a result which far exceeds their size.

(in reply to 82ndtrooper)
Post #: 12
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 3/22/2010 4:09:57 AM   
82ndtrooper


Posts: 1083
Joined: 12/19/2008
From: tennessee
Status: offline
on another note I would like to discuss this change.

c) Battleship & Cruiser bombardment strength versus land units reduced by 60%

this is the second time BB's have had their effectiveness reduced and i am very concerned that this will be too much. BB's and naval bombardment in general has played an important role in recent warfare. as talked about here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_gunfire_support

BB's are very expensive to build and extremely costly to keep supplied and hard to protect.  If they are going to be worthless then maybe we should just remove them from the game.
Their range is limited to 2 hexes if a player doesn't want his troops hit by a shore bombardment then keep them away from the coast.  If a player cant support his troops with some planes or subs or other assets to defend against a naval shore bombardment then that's poor planing on his part and they deserve to have their troops blasted to smithereens.

BB's where the most powerful artillery in history to continue to Nerf them while leaving the land based artillery alone in this game is the wrong thing to do.

I have heard the arguments that naval bombardments where ineffective in WWII and they simply are not true.  Yes blind bombardments on heavy defenses and dug in troops where not very effective and in the pacific almost all the islands we attacked where against such defensive positions, but once troops landed and could direct the naval gunfire it was devastating as talked about in the above link.

Also on D-day the attack was a surprise one and that limited the length of time that the navy could do a shore bombardment so as not to give away the surprise. But once again once allied forces got on the beach and where able to direct the naval fire it was very effective as any artillery is.

I quote from the above link.

" The heavy-caliber guns of some eighteen battleships and cruisers were used to stop German Panzer counterattack at Salerno. Naval gunfire was also used to help curb German operations in Normandy, although the surprise nature of the attack precluded the drawn-out bombardment which could have reduced the Atlantic Wall defenses sufficiently, a process that fell to specialist armoured vehicles instead. "

To point at certain instances in WWII where naval fire was ineffective due to fortifications and the need for surprise and then claim that BB's and cruisers in this game are too strong and make BB's useless is wrong. 

Any troops not entrenched and hit by directed artillery will take heavy casualties especially from the most powerful artillery in the world.

at the very least an 16-18" shell from a BB in this game should do 3 times as much damage as the land based 6" shell so if that's not the case then somethings wrong.
plus most BB's had 9-12  of these guns so a single BB should be the equal to 27 land based artillery at the very minimum.

in other words the BB's and cruisers are fine and this change needs to be rethought in my opinion.

or we need to reduce the land based arty in this game also.

for reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship



< Message edited by 82ndtrooper -- 3/22/2010 5:35:17 AM >


_____________________________

HHC 302nd Engineer Battalion
82nd Airborne Division
Honorably Discharged Jul/80

(in reply to 82ndtrooper)
Post #: 13
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 3/22/2010 4:29:07 AM   
82ndtrooper


Posts: 1083
Joined: 12/19/2008
From: tennessee
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LazyBoy

My main concern here, is That Japan and UK have all of their limited production on the coast.
For these countries to invest the required resources in defence and still try to be offensive is almost beon them

The only defence is to position experianced DD's and or Aircraft in each coastal city.
I agree that air power is a good area counter attack, but they wont defend against these attacks, unless they are based in the target hex.

The attack in my game was

12 subs attacked Hiroshima and for no lost destroyed 2 new DD 3's, 1 CV 2 and 1 cv 3 hull.

They then attacked Osaka destroying another new DD.

These 12 subs, together with 4 more were the only U.S forces in the Pacific
And they crippled Japans production for the turn, a result which far exceeds their size.


ok when i play Japan i seldom if ever make any naval units at more then 1 place reducing my need to defend more. thus i can concentrate my defenses. a force of 10 carrier air and 4 DD's will usually do the job. you should be making plenty of carrier air anyway to replace your losses and if you just station this reserve of planes at that port there is your defense. they will automatically defend when the port is attacked. I usually have a reserve of at least 10 planes sometimes more.

plus when you play the pacific blitz card you now get......

l) JA gets Carrier III, BB/CA III, Destroyer III when they play the Pacific Blitz Card


this gives you carrier air 3 also. and the USA cant attack you until this card is played and by the time they upgrade to subs 2 or 3 you should have several DD III in place.

I understand that subs can be a threat but if you rethink your defenses a little bit I think you will find its a threat that can be drastically reduced.

another hint is that I always put my supreme command in this port also so that all production ( not including naval which i don't make anywhere else anyway) go to this port. so any planes i make anywhere automatically go there and are on defense.

My point is there are lots of little tricks you can do to help and that there is plenty of defense already in the game to stop just such an attack as this.

_____________________________

HHC 302nd Engineer Battalion
82nd Airborne Division
Honorably Discharged Jul/80

(in reply to LazyBoy)
Post #: 14
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 3/22/2010 1:34:27 PM   
Barthheart


Posts: 3194
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Nepean, Ontario
Status: offline
I have to agree with everything 82ndtrooper has said here about subs and defence. I think the right balance is here now and making subs weaker will make them pointless to build. They should cause great fear in the enemy and cause large amouts of production to go to defence.



_____________________________

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 82ndtrooper)
Post #: 15
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 3/22/2010 7:52:15 PM   
Jeffrey H.


Posts: 3154
Joined: 4/13/2007
From: San Diego, Ca.
Status: offline
I'm not sure what the timescale is of each tun in this scenario but something to consider in the BB/Artillery discussion:

Sustained ROF is usually much higher with a battery of land based artillery. In other words, how much net explosive by weight is hurled out in 1 game turn ?

The big ships had big guns, but they were not meant to hurl 1000's of 16" shells. They were most likely capable of a much smaller ROF and more or less designed for blasting other ships with a well placed volley. How many volley's did the ships magazines hold ?



_____________________________

History began July 4th, 1776. Anything before that was a mistake.

Ron Swanson

(in reply to 82ndtrooper)
Post #: 16
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 3/23/2010 3:44:52 AM   
Tufkal2

 

Posts: 834
Joined: 12/31/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline
I have one more comment on a completely different subject.

As it is it might really be that the Historical Western Blitz/France Frozen option is too strong in favour of the Axis. The Axis can land in the first turn of the invasion some paratroopers on the railroad junction between Orleans, Vichy and Maginot which is nearly impossible to dislodge if the Lille armoured units are taken out. Then even the HQ in Paris cannot help evacuate units from the Maginot and they will all be lost which is maybe too strong really. Would be willing not to use this in our game as it might be too unbalancing (unless nobody minds). Maybe it is an optiion after all to let France unfreeze in April so that they have at least one round of preparations. This would make a huge difference.


_____________________________


(in reply to Jeffrey H.)
Post #: 17
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 3/23/2010 10:00:51 AM   
tweber

 

Posts: 1411
Joined: 6/27/2007
Status: offline
It would be interesting if you could take Paris directly by para assault.  I played once where Paris was left lightly guarded and I was able to bypass all the defenses.  Do you have enough air power to sufficiently reduce the garrison?

Another option my be to sacrifice some dd and invade the different channel ports. 

(in reply to Tufkal2)
Post #: 18
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 3/24/2010 4:18:24 AM   
GrumpyMel

 

Posts: 864
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline
I think one of the reasons why subs had relatively little effect on shipping inside of ports (apart from mines and nets) was simply due to the fact that most ports have relatively constricted approaches. The subs ability to kill depended largely on it's ability to approach it's targets undetected and without being engaged by any available escorts.

With a constricted approach to a port, the defenders search patterns can be pretty well concentrated in a small area making it much easier to detect and engage on approach and definately alot more difficult for the sub to escape after the attack if it does get in. Compare that with hitting ships in the open sea where a sub can choose to strike anywhere along a ships route and approach and withdraw from any vector it wanted.

In any event, I think subs should have a rather difficult time with port strikes as historicaly that wasn't a common employment of them. AT tends to abstract alot of the rear echelon units that historicaly existed and I don't neccessarly think this is a bad thing. Perhaps the simplest solution might be allow Coastal Guns a good defensive value versus subs and rather the thinking of them as just simply "shore batteries", think of them as encorporting all the defensive elements used to protect ports... mines, sub nets and local patrol craft that were used for ASW.

(in reply to tweber)
Post #: 19
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 3/24/2010 5:11:49 PM   
explorer2

 

Posts: 465
Joined: 11/30/2007
Status: offline
Grumpy Mel-
I think your idea of changing Coastal Artillery to a more generic coastal defense, as others have also suggested, is indeed the best and easiest solution.
I'll add that to the next version.

Thanks all for your great input.

(in reply to GrumpyMel)
Post #: 20
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 3/25/2010 4:38:58 AM   
LazyBoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 5/7/2005
Status: offline
Its been a good decussion, I have learnt heaps, and are rewriting my manual incorperating all the ideas and tactics.
Thanks Guy's

(in reply to explorer2)
Post #: 21
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 3/25/2010 9:00:20 AM   
82ndtrooper


Posts: 1083
Joined: 12/19/2008
From: tennessee
Status: offline
I can agree with GrumpyMels suggestion also, it will also make coastal batteries more important. As it is right now i have never built one because i would rather build mobile units with that 6k production.

In reply to Jeffery H.

Good point on the ROF.

I did a little research and found that the big guns 14-18"  ROF was limited to the crews stamina and training. but was roughly 2 rounds per min. good fresh gun crews could achieve 3 rounds per min for a short time and others only 1.25 to 1.5 a min. However the 5.25 inch guns could sustain 7-8 rounds per min and they are pretty much equivalent to land based arty. every ship from destroyers up had some of these guns including BB's,  in this game we don't let DD's do shore bombardments, leaving all that duty to cruisers and BB's which we continue to reduce.

The length of a game turn is roughly 1 month.
I don't recall ever hearing of any battleship running out of ammo and having to leave an engagement to resupply because of that. So i don't think ammo was a factor in their ability to provide indirect fire support. I think general resupply like food and fuel had much more of an effect and is handled nicely in the game already.

In fact that's my whole concern, its a huge burden to keep a large navy resupplied and if BB's and cruisers are going to keep being nerfed then I will just delete them rather than supply them and build carriers and destroyers  instead and two good viable units will be removed from the game because of people complaining. and we will have huge fleets of carriers and destroyers going around then carrier air will get nerfed because people will start complaining about their being too much of it.

Both japan and England rely heavily on their navy's and the bombardment ability was fine after the first reduction.

/salute


< Message edited by 82ndtrooper -- 3/25/2010 12:01:30 PM >


_____________________________

HHC 302nd Engineer Battalion
82nd Airborne Division
Honorably Discharged Jul/80

(in reply to LazyBoy)
Post #: 22
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 3/25/2010 1:46:35 PM   
kondor


Posts: 714
Joined: 5/27/2004
From: Croatia
Status: offline

First congratz on a new version!

I had some experiance with ver. R and it seems that Axis/Japan have an easier job now. That is a good thing.

I haven't read changes in ver. S but would like to address other issue-Special units.

In ver. R when I played special units where hardly built...
Especailly flak 88 (flak immobile was a much better choice altough they where unefficiante vs air) and katyusha (cost as art II, damage as art II but range 1 made them not a good thing to produce even they have their own transport).

Maybe making a flak 88 a little more deadlier and add range to katyusha attack (or making them cheaper to produce) would make them more interesting?

What do you guys think?

@ explorer2 Few guys and me are going to start another round of WaW. Should we use ver. S or is newer version close to shipping?

(in reply to explorer2)
Post #: 23
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 3/25/2010 7:57:11 PM   
explorer2

 

Posts: 465
Joined: 11/30/2007
Status: offline
Kondor-
Current version is actually T, not S, and is much better than S.
Even so, I have found a few minor things (errors in messages) in T and one major (somehow I accidentally changed Venice so it no longer is producing) that I will correct in the next day or 2 and call T2 or something like that.

(in reply to kondor)
Post #: 24
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 3/26/2010 11:06:13 AM   
LazyBoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 5/7/2005
Status: offline
Explorer2, I missed your question on if I was playing the AI or human, Human is the answer.
Peter, my opponent, thought it would be a good idea if a free card detailing the state of each countries victory condititions was avaliable.

It would have where each Regime is in terms of winning the game

i.e Japan has held 110 victory points for 5 turns of 18, Western powers hold Berlin

Another thing we where not sure if Germany and Japan need to hold the required victory points continuasly or can accumulate turns with the required VP's

(in reply to explorer2)
Post #: 25
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 3/27/2010 3:54:30 AM   
explorer2

 

Posts: 465
Joined: 11/30/2007
Status: offline
Just posted version 2T (3:50 GMT 03/27/2010) with the corrections to Venice, Stop Vichy card now given if choosing Historical Western Blitz, and new defense vs. subs to Coastal Artillery.

Victory conditions:
For each player for each turn one of the last messages you get is a score screen. I recently modified this to show GE & JA victory points and number of turns held. I believe I already have a message notifying if Berlin is taken by West. Good idea I guess to add something about if how many Chinese cities are controlled by China. NOt much notice can be given about SU I think, since it only has to take Berlin.

GE & JA victory points: do not need to be without interuption. It's a TOTAL of 18 turns. You could lose cities for awhile, then if you take them back, the counter does NOT start all over.

Hope that helps and hope you guys have a lot of fun.

(in reply to LazyBoy)
Post #: 26
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 3/27/2010 4:57:09 AM   
LazyBoy

 

Posts: 190
Joined: 5/7/2005
Status: offline
Cool, thanks for the clarafications and all the work you have done

(in reply to explorer2)
Post #: 27
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 4/5/2010 10:30:01 AM   
kondor


Posts: 714
Joined: 5/27/2004
From: Croatia
Status: offline
I see that version 3T is available... I take my hat to explorer2 and his overtime in this mode...
Looking forward to reading list of changes...

(in reply to explorer2)
Post #: 28
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 5/10/2010 10:41:36 PM   
bwheatley

 

Posts: 3650
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline
GPW has a pretty good sea mine unit. might want to take a look there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: explorer2

LazyBoy-
I understand your point. I would like further feedback from experienced players before making changes.
IN games I have seen the normal response is to station Carrier Air around ports, they have a range that can usually cover a few, with a couple of DD's in port. And typically you're not putting cargo ships in every port, I'm not sure why you would have a need for that.
The best solution I'm guessing is actually the sea mine unit. I and a few other people tried to get it to work right and never could though. In reality, sea mines and sub nets were the real answer to subs coming into port. They were used extensively. I wish I could get them to work.

I'd be very interested in other people's feedback to this issue.


(in reply to explorer2)
Post #: 29
RE: WaW Revised version T Available - 5/11/2010 1:03:30 AM   
explorer2

 

Posts: 465
Joined: 11/30/2007
Status: offline
Thanks bwheatley for that insight.
I have seen it, and it doesn't have the ability to be placed by ships.
They just start in the game in place.
I need to be able to produce and place them and have them work only against the enemy ships of course (whoever places them would know where they are)

(in reply to bwheatley)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Mods and Scenarios >> WaW Revised version T Available 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

2.250