World at War v32a2 released (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Mods and Scenarios



Message


von altair -> World at War v32a2 released (4/23/2008 6:18:03 PM)

There are some main bugs in v32 version. They are now fixed in this patch with some
added modifications. This patch contains some balance fixes, which will make the
game better in human vs. human games. AI won't give too much fight anyway.

Feel free to try it and please give constructive feedback about these things. I will
modify it, if needed.

http://www.yourfilehost.com/media.php?cat=other&file=World_at_War_v32a2.pt2

NOTE: This only contains .pt file, so you need an original zip file with graphics installed

Patch WaW v32a1 - Von Altair
- Japan supply (from USA) now works correctly, earlier it just gave message, no supply.
- Soviet Aid card will be now redealt after the use. SU also get a message about it.
- China was getting supply from USA, but didin't get a message. Now they do.
- USA HQ with cargoships moved from inland to beach.
- Added some roads and bridges to Japan
- Soviets got 15 trains more, divided to 3 fronts.
- Added some heavy forest to Finland, to make that area more historical.
- SMG got 20% defense bonus in fortification, fortress, urban and heavy forest, +10 cost too.
- Transport plane cost 2000 -> 1000.
- Long range transport plane 2000 -> 1500
- Elite Infantry tech req. 4 -> 3.
- Added Paratroop II-IV (uses Basic Rifle techs). They are like infantry but weaker anti-tank cabability.
- Carrier Air supply cost -> 40
- Increased Flak off/def values slightly, Flak IV got +1 AA range
- Fighters & Dive bombers got 1 rangestep more (according to tests, this is the best one)
- Germany got Submarine tech lvl 2, subs are not upgraded though
- German color is now dark grey with better flag
- German minor color is now light grey with the same flag as Germany
- Reduced Cruiser AA ability slightly
- Increased Carrier AA ability (it now has the same off/def values than Flak), Carrier IV got +1 AA range like Flak IV
- Soviets can now build Conscripts
- German and Japan uses own Carrier Air graphics, not Allied one!
- Optional: Special Rules - Allied anti-blitz card and France prepared card comes to play with this

Patch WaW v32a2
- Fixed winter environment battlemodifiers (they were not set at all)
* This is actually major bug in very good scenario. It has been there at the beginning.
* For example: Fighters and Divebombers have 50% penalty, when attacking against
* urban hex. When winter weather kicks in, they didin't have that penalty at all.
* Mostly all units had the same problem. So basically units were totally unbalanced
* at winter
- Max. 6 HQ's can now be chained (earlier it was 4). This is very important for Allies.
- Tweaked AI a bit, to make it give more challenge.




Barthheart -> RE: World at War v32a1 (4/23/2008 6:48:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: von altair

...
- German color is now dark grey with better flag
...
- German and Japan uses own Carrier Air graphics, not Allied one!



von altair, unless you include these new graphics with the scenario file, people will get an error that they can't find the graphic.

Otherwise this looks interesting......




von altair -> RE: World at War v32a1 (4/23/2008 7:02:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barthheart

quote:

ORIGINAL: von altair

...
- German color is now dark grey with better flag
...
- German and Japan uses own Carrier Air graphics, not Allied one!



von altair, unless you include these new graphics with the scenario file, people will get an error that they can't find the graphic.

Otherwise this looks interesting......


You are right, but all those graphics are in default game and/or included in original waw.
So everything works fine, when a player installs original waw first.




IRONCROM -> RE: World at War v32a1 (4/23/2008 7:34:17 PM)

I like those changes.

Since this is a player mod. Maybe we should play with this version Barthheart. I could give it a good test run then.

Nice work von.[:D]




Barthheart -> RE: World at War v32a1 (4/23/2008 7:36:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM

I like those changes.

Since this is a player mod. Maybe we should play with this version Barthheart. I could give it a good test run then.

Nice work von.[:D]


Sure, fire it up!




IRONCROM -> RE: World at War v32a1 (4/23/2008 7:40:06 PM)

I'll get my turn to you this morning.




Barthheart -> RE: World at War v32a1 (4/23/2008 7:41:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: von altair


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barthheart

quote:

ORIGINAL: von altair

...
- German color is now dark grey with better flag
...
- German and Japan uses own Carrier Air graphics, not Allied one!



von altair, unless you include these new graphics with the scenario file, people will get an error that they can't find the graphic.

Otherwise this looks interesting......


You are right, but all those graphics are in default game and/or included in original waw.
So everything works fine, when a player installs original waw first.


Yep your right.... I should really have checked this out before my comment....[:-]




Delyn Locksmiths -> RE: World at War v32a1 released (4/23/2008 10:20:30 PM)

I get an unhandled exception error with it. Not sure why/




von altair -> RE: World at War v32a2 released (4/25/2008 7:51:18 AM)

Everyone should stop playing old waw versions right away and read first message
in this thread once again :)




Barthheart -> RE: World at War v32a2 released (4/25/2008 4:39:23 PM)

Good find von!

I also found some more slight errors in the build costs etc for landscape types:

LocType AutoRebuild EPCost SupplyCost PPCost

Fortification 150 250 200 4
Fortification LF 200 200* 200 4
Fortification HF 250 250 300* 3*

Fortress 150* 500 500 10
Fortress LF 200* 200* 200* 4*
Fortress HF 200* 250* 300* 3*

Airfield 150 100 300 3
Port 100 200 500 3
Military Base 125* 400 800 6 - both a port and airfield

City(16) 1600
City(8) 800
City(4) 600*
SpecialCity(4) 600*
City(2) 200
City(0) 200
Resource 200
Factory 250

Stars mark inconsistant numbers.

Anyone want to suggest correct values?

Maybe you can fix and add these to your mod?


EDIT: ARRGH! Can't do tables......[:@]




JAMiAM -> RE: World at War v32a2 released (4/25/2008 4:51:35 PM)

Hi Vance,

Those building costs, and auto repair costs were changes that I had made in my unreleased mod that Tom had used as a basis for the scenario. They are intended to be that way, as building certain types of fieldworks in differing terrains can be either more or less expensive. Likewise, for the auto repair, since the terrain would dictate the ease of repair, once damaged. I was trying to get *away* from cookie-cutter costs.[;)]

The auto repair boost for the 4000 cities was to raise that up a bit since strat bombing of them was reducing them too quickly in some of the games that I was playing.




Barthheart -> RE: World at War v32a2 released (4/25/2008 5:24:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Hi Vance,

Those building costs, and auto repair costs were changes that I had made in my unreleased mod that Tom had used as a basis for the scenario. They are intended to be that way, as building certain types of fieldworks in differing terrains can be either more or less expensive. Likewise, for the auto repair, since the terrain would dictate the ease of repair, once damaged. I was trying to get *away* from cookie-cutter costs.[;)]

The auto repair boost for the 4000 cities was to raise that up a bit since strat bombing of them was reducing them too quickly in some of the games that I was playing.


Ahhhh...hmmmm..... I'll have to think about the build costs.... I was thinking that building in more difficult terrain should cost more/be harder to do. I know what you mean by cookie-cutter stuff but I personally like some kind of progression... but I'm an engineer so that kinda comes with the personallity...[;)]

I was also thinking that Factories shouls have a very low rebuild and be completely destroyable. Would make Engineers more valuabale, shameless plug [:D]. Maybe Ports, Airfields, Mil. Bases as well. Would also make people invest in air defence....

Would really like to here from others playing this scenario, then maybe we can come to some kind of consensous and not have 13 versions of WAW as IRONCROM suggested in another thread...




JAMiAM -> RE: World at War v32a2 released (4/25/2008 7:05:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barthheart


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Hi Vance,

Those building costs, and auto repair costs were changes that I had made in my unreleased mod that Tom had used as a basis for the scenario. They are intended to be that way, as building certain types of fieldworks in differing terrains can be either more or less expensive. Likewise, for the auto repair, since the terrain would dictate the ease of repair, once damaged. I was trying to get *away* from cookie-cutter costs.[;)]

The auto repair boost for the 4000 cities was to raise that up a bit since strat bombing of them was reducing them too quickly in some of the games that I was playing.


Ahhhh...hmmmm..... I'll have to think about the build costs.... I was thinking that building in more difficult terrain should cost more/be harder to do. I know what you mean by cookie-cutter stuff but I personally like some kind of progression... but I'm an engineer so that kinda comes with the personallity...[;)]

I was also thinking that Factories shouls have a very low rebuild and be completely destroyable. Would make Engineers more valuabale, shameless plug [:D]. Maybe Ports, Airfields, Mil. Bases as well. Would also make people invest in air defence....

Would really like to here from others playing this scenario, then maybe we can come to some kind of consensous and not have 13 versions of WAW as IRONCROM suggested in another thread...

Well...I certainly wouldn't argue with an engineer, but the reasoning behind my decisions is roughly as follows. There are three types of "currency" with which to "purchase" the fortifications, and fortresses. EP's, which obviously represent the local engineering assets necessary to construct the level of fortification. This takes into account the nature of the terrain, and effective change in deployment/protection status that improvement offers over the base terrain. In forests, it is relatively easier to get untrained (non-engineer) troops to knock down a few trees, clear a few fire zones, etc. Supplies, representing enough "extra" goods, concrete, etc., within the chain of command (supply) that is available. Obviously, troops that aren't getting bullets and food should be unable to construct fieldworks more extensive than the normal spadework that the autoentrenching allows. Finally, PP's which represent an amalgamated Political and Industrial cost to the changing of the hex's characteristics. For open terrain, the amount of construction necessary to provide the protection level delta that is afforded by improvement is higher for fortresses, as I envision them requiring a more substantial outlay in terms of bunkers, concrete, extensive entrenchments, etc., in order to reach the same level of protection that is obtained within a more restricted terrain. Fewer people generally live in forests compared to open areas, so there is less political upheaval in relocating people from the built-up areas. Also, there is generally easier access to building materials, wood, stonework, etc., so that the costs of obtaining and transporting them to the area are lower, as well.




Delyn Locksmiths -> RE: World at War v32a2 released (4/26/2008 1:03:50 PM)

for some reason this wont download for me now. Though the other file did fine. Can you put it on the community site?




Delyn Locksmiths -> RE: World at War v32a2 released (4/26/2008 1:44:32 PM)

working now, strange.




von altair -> RE: World at War v32a2 released (4/27/2008 5:10:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Delyn Locksmiths

for some reason this wont download for me now. Though the other file did fine. Can you put it on the community site?


Its on the community site too. Please, let me know what do you like about modifications.




von altair -> RE: World at War v32a2 released (4/27/2008 5:41:31 PM)

Counter artillery effect is good in waw32, but, I am wondering why range have been reduced to 1. What do you guys think, should artillery still have range 2 with counter
artillery effect?




IRONCROM -> RE: World at War v32a2 released (4/27/2008 6:29:01 PM)

I think Tom shortened the range cause of the size of the map. Each hex is probably a eighty kilometers(just guessing).
Range 1 arty doesn't bother me. I'm not sure he should of shortened aircraft range though. I some people complained about fighter III's being able to reach Berlin or something. Thing is the Allies did bomb Berlin from bombers based in England. I don't remember for sure but I'm guessing some of the later versions of allied escort fighters were able to reach Berlin also. P51's maybe. I think the default range for aircraft in WAW would actually be the most historically accurate range.
Probabaly range 1 arty would be the most accurate also.




seille -> RE: World at War v32a2 released (4/27/2008 7:15:11 PM)

For me range 1 is always a problem since you have to place the artillery direct in the frontline
and canīt move it back after firing (long time ago i suggested a adjustable AP reserve for moving after
firing/attacking). This together with the high stacking value makes the artillery hexes very vulnerable to
enemy ground attacks. Thatīs why artillery should have always range 2.
Realism aspect: In a one month turn itīs easily possible to bring the artillery in a range for firing,
fire and move them back. Thatīs why these 80KM are no problem.
For range 1 i wish at least a high reduction in stacking points for the artillery.

I prefer artillery range 2 myselfīto keep the artillery balanced and behind the main line.
Making them rear area is here not enough because of the high stack value. You simply canīt place enough protection
in the same hex without penalty. Imho a big advantage for the attacking player.

edit: Counter artillery is ok with me.




IRONCROM -> RE: World at War v32a2 released (4/27/2008 7:21:41 PM)

That's a valid point from seille. Sold me.




JAMiAM -> RE: World at War v32a2 released (4/27/2008 9:18:56 PM)

The problem with counterbattery being enabled seems to be an engine problem. If you have a stack of 5 artillery attacking a stack of 20 infantry and one artillery then you get horribly skewed results like 2 defending infantry killed and one or two attacking artillery killed. Something needs to be adjusted within the CB routines so that more realistic results are achieved. As it is now, the safest thing to do is to drop an artillery SFT, or two, into every frontline unit to make them fairly impervious to artillery bombardments.




JAMiAM -> RE: World at War v32a2 released (4/27/2008 9:29:49 PM)

As far as the one hex, or two hex, ranges for artillery, I'm on the fence between the two. Seille brings up some good points, but the counterargument of the hex scale is a strong one, too. It doesn't make much sense to be able to hit defending airfields a hex behind enemy lines with artillery, when playing at this scale.

As far as not being able to move the artillery back, that is simply not true. With these later versions of WaW, the trains allow you to move in 5 AP increments, so you can often move such that you will have 5 AP's left over after the bombardment, and can move back behind your own lines. Another means of moving back your bombarding units is to use strategic movement to move the entire unit back. Alternately, a double transfer from unit, to HQ, to unit, can accomplish the same thing.





seille -> RE: World at War v32a2 released (4/27/2008 11:06:41 PM)

I know the negative effects of the counterbattery fire when the target is mixed artillery/infantry.
And there is indeed no good solution than concentrating own artillery fire as good as possible.
I played only one time with that feature turned on and that was a great war game.

For WaW iīm not a specialist especially not for the later versions. That i can move the artillery in and out when carried
on trains i did not know. The other solutions i know, but thatīs not really a good way since it will cost a lot of readiness
and (the turn after that) supply. Moving out a unit with strategic transfer i do only in emergency cases where i fear the opponent
will destroy it in his turn.


I think the guyīs who played one WAW game after the other could tell us some impressions here.
How the range 1 and counter battery works in the game.
For myself i can say iīll think twice if i produce artillery or mortar with such a range 1 setup [;)]




IRONCROM -> RE: World at War v32a2 released (4/28/2008 12:38:19 AM)

-Agree with seille on strategic transfer. It's not a good option.
-I haven't seen a lot of artillery duels in WAW. Counter battery is only a problem if your bombarding another hex with arty.
-One hex arty is more realistic for WAW. But it does make them more vulnerable

Does anybody agree with me on air range?




JAMiAM -> RE: World at War v32a2 released (4/28/2008 1:00:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM
-Agree with seille on strategic transfer. It's not a good option.

I disagree. I've used it to great effect in many pbem games. It's a great way to "hit and git". Though you suffer a 50 readiness drop, you can recover all of that in the following turn. Provided, of course, that you're producing and distributing adequate levels of supply, that you're not suffering winter effects, and that you're not getting dinged by bombarding a hex with artillery counterbattering your own.

quote:

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM
-I haven't seen a lot of artillery duels in WAW. Counter battery is only a problem if your bombarding another hex with arty.

Then you haven't played this scenario against Tom. He puts an artillery unit in about 50-75% of his front line units and there are a lot of artillery duels going on. I think that CB fire is an excellent idea, but I'm not thrilled with its current balance and level of development in AT. It needs to be tweaked somewhat.


quote:

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM
-One hex arty is more realistic for WAW. But it does make them more vulnerable

As they should be, to a more reasonable degree. At this scale, at least. I think Seille had some good ideas about balancing them better by reducing their stacking value, and in my mod I'm going to do that for them, as well as far the rest of the drawn pieces (AA, AT, IG's).


quote:

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM
Does anybody agree with me on air range?

I emphatically disagree with you on air range. The vanilla ranges are horribly out of place at this scale. The current ranges are almost perfect with respect to realistic operating radii for the aircraft. There could be a bit more stretch for the level bombers, but even there, you have an issue with a lack of differentiation between antagonists. LB's current range is too low for some of the airframes that were in use, and right for others. DB's are right for most all tactical type bombers. Fighters, it could be argued, still have too big a radius, but there are gameplay issues with reducing it any more. Other than a few notable exceptions, being both long-ranged and a fighter was mutually exclusive throughout most the war. At least until drop tanks, and that should be considered a level III, or level IV tech.






IRONCROM -> RE: World at War v32a2 released (4/28/2008 2:10:00 AM)


I didn't I agree with counter battery. I have no opinion either way. I was just pointing out that arty duels are not common in WAW.

As far as operating range of aircraft in WAW goes. You can't even bomb Paris from planes based in London unless you upgrade. And targets in Germany are out of range no matter what the tech Level. How can someone playing west launch an strategic bombing campaign. It is not even close to being historical. You are wrong.
(P51d had a combat range of 950 miles and an operational range of 1300 mile with drop tanks. The distance from London to Berlin in flight miles is 580 miles)

After strategic transfer. With good supply the arty will get back only 30 of 50 in the lost rediness.(I've tested it)
Besides I think a player shouldn't have to use there limited transport capacity for something that wouldn't be an isue if the arty had a range of 2 hexes.
Using strategic tranfer means losing tranport capacity and losing rediness.




JAMiAM -> RE: World at War v32a2 released (4/28/2008 4:08:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM
As far as operating range of aircraft in WAW goes. You can't even bomb Paris from planes based in London unless you upgrade. And targets in Germany are out of range no matter what the tech Level. How can someone playing west launch an strategic bombing campaign. It is not even close to being historical. You are wrong.

Are you talking about fighters, or about level bombers? Level bombers have a range of 7 hexes at level one, since they move at Air14. This allows Level I Levelbombers based in London to hit half of the Ruhr targets and all non-Vichy targets in France and Benelux. Assuming, of course, that they are not trying to fly around neutral countries. If you build an airbase at (40,14) in East Anglia, you can hit 3/4 of the targets in western Germany with Level I Levelbombers. The strategic bombing campaign didn't start taking off for the Allies until mid-43. You should be at level III techs by then, for a couple of directed tech targets.

I would argue for more differentiation in some of the starting tech levels for various nations, and Level II bombers would be a good idea for the West at the start. This would extend their range to 8 hexes at the start of the game.

As far as the P-51d is concerned, that should be considered a Level IV fighter. Something not readily acheivable in the game until around 1944.

If you'd like to playtest any of the WaW variants under consideration, I would be happy to give you a little more variation in your results...[;)]

You're right on the strat move's readiness recovery being only 30, as opposed to my previous claim of being able to recover all of it. I still don't see that as a major issue though since it's not likely a tactic that you would be employing every turn. Only on those turns where you are left with artillery overextended on the front lines. Still, it's better than having artillery hitting airfields behind enemy lines.




IRONCROM -> RE: World at War v32a2 released (4/28/2008 9:15:16 AM)

I'm kinda talking in general. And your right about "level bomber I"

Historically the British bombed places like Berlin, Hamburg, Kiel, Bremen, Wilhelmshaven in 1940.
They also had long range fighters that were capable of flying escort to places like cologne at the beginning of the war.(Beaufighter is an example)

P38's came in service in 1941 and served in Combat extensively in 1942. Early p51a's came in service in 1941 but the p51b's and c's which were capable of flying escort to Berlin didn't show up in Europe in large numbers until mid to late 1943. First escort flights to Berlin didn't happen until early 1944.

Munich was bombed by allies starting in 1941. Prague was never bombed intentionally but was flown over extensively by allied bombers going to other targets.

My opinion would be to start "level bomber I" out with a range of 12... They could then bomb Berlin from hex 40,14(Better yet give level II bombers a range of 12 and start the west out with level II bombers)
And I think fighters should be able to reach Berlin by level 3. Or maybe 4.
It has to be acheavable without sacrficing too much by mid 1943. And if someone wants to make long range fighters there top priority over anything else and dedicate the bulk of there production to acheave that goal. I see no reason why it shouldn't be possible to reach that goal in say mid to late 1941.(At a heavy price of course)

Having a shorter intercept Range for fighters than the attack range seems to do a pretty good job of simulating both the long range fighter and the interceptor all in one unit.

I havn't given much thought to Divebomber range. They should probably have the shortest range. The current range is probably pretty close to where they should be.

IMHO




SMK-at-work -> RE: World at War v32a2 released (4/28/2008 9:35:42 AM)

One thing about arty range 2 is that it gives the right effect compared to lvl 1 - especially if you consider it as the very heaviest artillery, and "mortars" as the "normal" division level artillery. 

Perhaps modify "mortars" to be "medium artillery" with a range 1 arty shot, and arty to be very heavy arty and possibly more expensive??




seille -> RE: World at War v32a2 released (4/28/2008 12:27:03 PM)

The aircraft range in WAW is very short especially for intercepting.
Canīt say i like it ! Having the planes close enough to the front to
hit the attacker makes them vulnerable to ground attacks.
But ok, thatīs the same for both players.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.59375