WW2-Global

[WVCivnut]

Between turns:
France -- Lost one bomber to flak. Attacked my stack of infantry on the radar tower. 5 French tank destroyed and 1 infantry - no losses for Germany.

England -- They sank 4 of my subs but lost 2 Lt Cruisers and 3 DDs. The Tirpitz was sunk one turn from home - almost made it.

Italy -- Still banging their heads against the Yugoslavians.

Soviets -- Massive air bombardment, 2 bombers shot down by flak. No ground attacks.

German Unit Builds -- 1 Infantry and 1 Panzer III

Turn 6
Liberated Lille from the French. City defenders numbered 5 Inf, 1 tank, 3 artillary, and a flak. Germany lost one of it's most honored units -- LAH SS Division and 1 Inf Div in the attack. Also, 2 tanks and 2 infantry outside the city were eliminated.

The German navy sank another British carrier (Glorious), which went down by torpedo. Several DDs in the area were also sunk.

The German airforce caught the Russian planes on the ground, reloading in Kishinev. 6 total planes were destroyed. We couter attacked on the ground, eliminating 2 tanks near Iasi and advanced more units near Lwow. 2 tanks were destroyed near Leipaja also. A worker is rebuilding the road to Leipaja ASAP.

Got a spy implanted into Britain this turn. If you'd like to see a detailed unit breakdown - let me know. It is a vast force.

 

[WVCivnut]

Between turns:
Norway -- Ran into one of my subs and declared war.

Spain -- Looks like they ran into a French sub and declared war. All the Allies jumped in too.

France -- 1 bomber lost to flak. They made a counter attack on my force that took out their radar tower outside Paris. I lost 2 infantry and both motorized inf retreated. France lost 2 infantry in the battle.

England -- Battled Norway's navy and sunk a couple more of my roving subs.

Italy -- Italy and Yugoslavia are pretty wore down by the war.

Soviets -- Lost 3 planes to my CAP. Destroyed one of my infantry near Leipaja with a tank.

USA -- Sank the Graf Spee off of Nova Scotia.

German Unit Builds -- 8 Infantry, 1 Security Div and 1 Panzer III

Turn 7
Captured Verdun - city forces were 8 Inf, 1 Tank, 3 guns. Germany lost 1 Inf, 1 Pz II and 1 Pz III.

Stukas took out 2 Russian tanks near Iasi and 1 near Leipaja. German planes caught 2 Russian fighters on the ground at Lwow.

 

[Rocoteh]

Well, as far as I know Stalin was actually quite fond of Hitler and the international Pariahs of that time (Soviet Union and Germany) were on the short and medium term close allies. The western Allies were seriously contemplating to declare war on the Soviets in order to side with the Finns in the winter war, thus I do think such a change (favourite gov=fascism) might very well represent the situation at the beginning of WW2.

All the best

Baldurslayer,

Yes I agree.
Without the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact its hard to see WWII starting.
Hitlers nightmare was a two-front war and he wanted to avoid such
a war at all costs.
Without the pact the invasion of Poland probably would not
have occured.

When Barbarossa was launched June 22, 1941 there were 16 full strenght
infantry divisions allocated to France and no mobile divisions (Just 2 Panzer brigades.)
Thus one can not say there was a West front at time.


The change in version 2.4 will not make Soviet-AI more aggressive
toward Britain and France but it will be less aggressive toward
the Axis.



Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

1. Wouldn't this change make them more favorable to the Axis and more inclined to attack the Allies? I think item 2 will solve the early German/Soviet war problem. I vote against this change.

2. I agree that making this change will help. How about Spain also? They seem to get into many early wars - especially with France which distracts them from the German front.

On the MP version -- I'm really looking forward to playing it. Thanks for working on that. My thoughts on country breakdown:
Germany - Germany, Italy and Findland
USSR
America
Great Britain
France
China
Japan
Independants - all other countries. It might be benificial to cut down on the number of cities and units held by the Independants to reduce their value. Especially in South America and Africa. It might be best to make them unplayable.

Another option would be to make China controlled by America (like in Axis & Allies) with Chinese specific units buildable only in China and maybe a couple of auto producers for Flying Tigers and such. Then the Independants could be broke down into Minor Allies and Minor Axis countries.

WVCivnut,

1. As mentioned in the Post before this I think overall effects will be
positive.

2. Yes its possible I will change the forces of other nations also.

On the MP version:

Notes have been taken. I will have your ideas in mind.

On playtest-reports:

Thank you for the reports. I have read them all with great interest.

If you can inflict high losses on the Soviet forces I guess AI soon will
sue for peace.
It will be very interesting to hear at which point in this playtest
the changes for version 2.3 will have a clear impact.

Thank you and welcome back with more reports!

Rocoteh

 

[WVCivnut]

WVCivnut,

It will be very interesting to hear at which point in this playtest
the changes for version 2.3 will have a clear impact.

Rocoteh

I haven't noticed any differences from 2.2 as of yet. But I didn't use drafts much anyway. Panzers don't seem to be rolling out much slower - still 3-4 turns. Maybe the increase in cost was not enough?

I could research Land/Air 1940 a few turns sooner if I went to 100% science but I can't afford that. It might make a difference in 20 turns or so.

 

[Rocoteh]

I haven't noticed any differences from 2.2 as of yet. But I didn't use drafts much anyway. Panzers don't seem to be rolling out much slower - still 3-4 turns. Maybe the increase in cost was not enough?

I could research Land/Air 1940 a few turns sooner if I went to 100% science but I can't afford that. It might make a difference in 20 turns or so.

WVCivnut,

OK I see.

Hopefully the impact of changes made will appear later.

Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

I batman,

"First and foremost, I would recommend absolutely no AI civ's, no matter how difficult it becomes to merge the civ's, or how unrealistic the 8 human civ's become (ie. China/U.S).
Since the AI is so badly designed, we all know how much a human player could prey upon the AI civ's."
I batman

That can for sure have crucial impact on play-balance.

"Second, and this one is sure to be controversial, is to have no preset alliances. This suggestion was made for future editions of TCW, and I think it has a lot of merit. Asssuming you have a human-only game, then you can have house rules that disallow things like U.S. allying with the Axis, but by having no alliances, real human politics becomes more important. Imagine the human leader of the Allies cajoling the human U.S leader to enter the war in 1939."
I batman

Very interesting you say this since I have been thinking of house-rules instead of alliances.

"Third, with a human only MP game, you can turn on all trade, and limit the placement of scarce resources more."
I batman

Yes that is a positive aspect of MP-games.

"I have a 4th suggestion, that is more game specific to the Allies, U.S and Soviet Union.
Forgive me if it already exists, but as I said I have not had time to play this and 2.2 as much as I would like, though I think it would only make sense for a human only MP game.:
Create a significant new tech branch called Lend-Lease, but has value to only the Allies and Soviet Union. It would have to be 2-4 techs long, to make the commitment to it somewhat painful for the U.S. Now, upon research of say the 2nd tech, this allows for the discovery of a new resource called Allied Lend-Lease, found only in the U.S mainland. This resource would be required for a wonder (or wonders) that only the Allies could build in the U.K. This wonder, or wonders, would then pump out units that would emulate the historical Lend-Lease of 1940/1941.
Once the resource is available, the U.S. would have to trade it to the U.K. to make it worth anything to anybody.
A Tech further along in the same branch would release a resource that would do the same thing for the Soviets."
I batman

OK, I will see if the above suggested can be included in a MP-version.
Probably it will require a large amount of playtesting.

"Now, in a perfect civ world, it would be set that only the U.S. could go down this tech branch. And since the U.S. human player would have to commit a significant amount of research time to this tech branch, and it does him no good specifically, he could make the decision not to proceed.
This would hurt the U.K. and the Soviets. Once again, real human politics would be required to convince the U.S. to sacrifice.
Historically, a lot of U.S. isolationists did not want to enter any Lend-Lease with the U.K. or the Soviets so this would emulate that debate."
I batman

When Lindbergh held his Des Moines-speech it represented a rather strong
isolationist-opinion now remembered only by few people.

"Lastly, I want to let you know that although an 8 man PBEM (which I assume is the ultimate goal for an WW2-Global MP) is great fun, it is slow-going. In the TCW 8 man PBEM, we have had a total of nine really great, dedicated players over a period of almost 13 months, and we have managed to get through something like 50 plus complete turns. That is 400+ touches/email fowarding.
And that is with a tremendously dedicated group. So any MP game for this scenario, will be very slow."
I batman

I understand that.
For that reason I think it will best that players of the MP-version
will create most of the victory-conditions just before a specific MP-game
starts.

Rocoteh

 

[I_batman]

I understand that.
For that reason I think it will best that players of the MP-version
will create most of the victory-conditions just before a specific MP-game
starts.

Rocoteh

Rocoteh, yes, agreed.
That is a very good idea, in my opinion.
Though TCW work has bogged down recently, there has been serious talk about civ-specific victory conditions in the MP game.
That way even the weakest civ can compete with the most powerful civ in a race to their specific goals.

Those house rules/victory conditions become very interesting, and require a lot of play-testing.
Fortunately, it appears you have no end to player/testers for WWII-Global.

 

[Baldurslayer]

Hi there,

I have started with a Germany 2.3 game and so far the most profound effect of the changes have not been the cost of tanks but rather the cost of battleships since sea tiles (+offshore drilling) won't get the extra war time shield (and port towns tend to have a lot of sea tiles, thus the drastic reduction)

Something else I noticed, in my last few games Strasbourg (despite the fortifications and / or perhaps because of them) was always the first French town to be taken by German forces and due to the situation of the rives in northern France, further advances start from Strasbourg territory and head up north.

All the best

 

[Fattysbox]

Hi all,

First post I suppose and first time trying 2.3. I have to say I love the scenario and the impeccable detail put into it. Rocotech, you may be aware, but here is a good resource for naming Allied ships, including destroyers.

www.uboat.net/allies/warships/

As for my review, I'm afraid I can't go into much detail. I prefer quicker games and the load time between turns is very long for my comp. Probably has been posted before, but is this normal? (My comp is decent, 3.2Ghz, 512MB, plenty of virtual memory). If this is normal speed, then any way to decrease load time? Although I agree the number of destroyers may represent actual numbers in historical context - is it necessary for load time?

I may have to go back to WW2 in Europe for fastser play... Though I am craving for WW2 global

Apologies if all this has been rehashed before

 

[Baldurslayer]

Hello Fattysbox,

Well, my computer is slightly weaker than yours and I promise you there are people out there that play WWII global with significantly weaker systems.

In relation to loading times, the initial loading time when setting up a new game is really bad but from then on waiting times are bearable in my personal opinion, thus make a savegame after the initial loading period and you are in the clear.

There have already been some tweaking to reduce the time in-between turns, most notable the turning off of sea-trade routes etc.

It is perhaps not fast pace action but interesting action it is, laughing at the AI works wonders for me.

All the best

 

[Rocoteh]

Hi there,

I have started with a Germany 2.3 game and so far the most profound effect of the changes have not been the cost of tanks but rather the cost of battleships since sea tiles (+offshore drilling) won't get the extra war time shield (and port towns tend to have a lot of sea tiles, thus the drastic reduction)

Something else I noticed, in my last few games Strasbourg (despite the fortifications and / or perhaps because of them) was always the first French town to be taken by German forces and due to the situation of the rives in northern France, further advances start from Strasbourg territory and head up north.

All the best

Baldurslayer,

Thank you for the information.

There have been complaints with regard to earlier versions
that it have been to easy to build huge fleets.
Hopefully naval units have not become to expensive though.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

Hi all,

First post I suppose and first time trying 2.3. I have to say I love the scenario and the impeccable detail put into it. Rocotech, you may be aware, but here is a good resource for naming Allied ships, including destroyers.

www.uboat.net/allies/warships/

As for my review, I'm afraid I can't go into much detail. I prefer quicker games and the load time between turns is very long for my comp. Probably has been posted before, but is this normal? (My comp is decent, 3.2Ghz, 512MB, plenty of virtual memory). If this is normal speed, then any way to decrease load time? Although I agree the number of destroyers may represent actual numbers in historical context - is it necessary for load time?

I may have to go back to WW2 in Europe for fastser play... Though I am craving for WW2 global

Apologies if all this has been rehashed before

Fattysbox,

I do not lack sources to name all ships. Its more a matter of the time
it will take to name them all.
Thank you for the link anyway.

On load and waiting time:

Actions have already been taken to reduce waiting time.
Probably its not possible to go further.

Many people will still find the current situation acceptable.
I am aware of the fact that all people will
not think so.

A solution would then be to create a WW2-Global "light".
However I know from the other scenarios I have done that interest
is less then one could think for "light" versions of the main scenario.

Rocoteh

 

[Baldurslayer]

Baldurslayer,

Thank you for the information.

There have been complaints with regard to earlier versions
that it have been to easy to build huge fleets.
Hopefully naval units have not become to expensive though.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

Oh, I wasn't complaining just surprised that tank production was not as affected in relative terms as I expected. A Bismarck in Hamburg took about 11 turns in 2.2 and 19 turns in 2.3, I do applaud this change!
Too expensive ... we'll see, but so far I don't thinks so. Perhaps it might be an idea to reduce the frequency of U-boat wonder output since with fewer capital ships, "free" subs can become too overwhelming ... On the other hand that was perhaps the idea to simulate the massive submarine threat.
As a German player I never build subs since I get more than enough for free but now with increased costs I might have a motivation to build them but since there are masses of them already I don't.
Btw. what about removing the submarine spotting for AAA Cruisers (no need for destroyers anymore)

All the best.

 

[Rocoteh]

Oh, I wasn't complaining just surprised that tank production was not as affected in relative terms as I expected. A Bismarck in Hamburg took about 11 turns in 2.2 and 19 turns in 2.3, I do applaud this change!
Too expensive ... we'll see, but so far I don't thinks so. Perhaps it might be an idea to reduce the frequency of U-boat wonder output since with fewer capital ships, "free" subs can become too overwhelming ... On the other hand that was perhaps the idea to simulate the massive submarine threat.
As a German player I never build subs since I get more than enough for free but now with increased costs I might have a motivation to build them but since there are masses of them already I don't.
Btw. what about removing the submarine spotting for AAA Cruisers (no need for destroyers anymore)

All the best.

Baldurslayer,

I understand that you was not complaining.

What I refered to was the fact that some other players have meant
that it have been far to easy to build huge fleets (in earlier versions).

On submarines:

Yes its possible that the frequency of the U-boat wonder should
be reduced.

Removing the submarine spotting for AAA Cruisers:

Its a good idea that I will probably implement in version 2.4.

Best Regards

Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

Rocoteh, yes, agreed.
That is a very good idea, in my opinion.
Though TCW work has bogged down recently, there has been serious talk about civ-specific victory conditions in the MP game.
That way even the weakest civ can compete with the most powerful civ in a race to their specific goals.

Those house rules/victory conditions become very interesting, and require a lot of play-testing.
Fortunately, it appears you have no end to player/testers for WWII-Global.

I batman,

I am now thinking of a MP-version with just 6 human players.

Civs should then be:

1. Germany-Italy

2. Japan

3. Soviet

4. France-China

5. Britain

6. US

The idea is of course that all the above Civs should be interesting
to play during a MP-player game that will last for many months.

I know that you think AI-controlled Civs shall be left out
even if it will give unrealistic results.

Its possible I will implement that idea.
This is an important issue and I welcome
comments from all players of the scenario that think the new MP-version
should be interesting to play.

Rocoteh

 

[dferrill]

I batman,

I am now thinking of a MP-version with just 6 human players.

Civs should then be:

1. Germany-Italy

2. Japan

3. Soviet

4. France-China

5. Britain

6. US

The idea is of course that all the above Civs should be interesting
to play during a MP-player game that will last for many months.

I know that you think AI-controlled Civs shall be left out
even if it will give unrealistic results.

Its possible I will implement that idea.
This is an important issue and I welcome
comments from all players of the scenario that think the new MP-version
should be interesting to play.

Rocoteh

Ive never played multiplayer is there very many who play ? just a idea why not make the rest of the civs in a locked neautral alliance non playable and unable to be allied with human player if possible.

 

[dferrill]

Japan update week 2 1940 demigod lvl so far things are going slow building up infastructure before i go on the offensive survived US naval assualt much better then last version it severly cripples japan if you lose over half your fleet I currently have Hong Kong under siege with my troops and naval attacks and air raids from Taipe, Hong Kong is defended with alot of British troops and artillery, knocked out there planes so its just a matter of time before Hong Kong falls.one thing ive noticed different then last version communist China is buiding tanks they didnt in last version so thats a good thing it was too easy to take there citys with just infantry defending the city also makes them a little more aggressive now that they have tanks was like shooting fish in a barrel last version when they attacked with just infantry and in last version they used the draft so much none of there cities had a population over 2 so i think the draft change was good and will make the AI more challenging forcing them to build better defenses in there cities i will update more on this change in the game as i progress so far i think its a positive change , time will tell.

 

[Rocoteh]

Ive never played multiplayer is there very many who play ? just a idea why not make the rest of the civs in a locked neautral alliance non playable and unable to be allied with human player if possible.

dferrill,

Although not a majority, there are a large number of people
that consider multiplayer versions of scenarios interesting.

On your idea:

I think the basic position I batman and other people
have is that AI-participation in a MP-version will damage
play-balance during all circumstances.

Then if one eliminate AI 100% from a scenario like WW2-Global
it will create great problems with realism that must be solved.
(Like how to handle Latin-America.)

My own position is that I am prepared to make a MP-version without
AI given there is a substantial support for such a solution among people
that are interested in MP.

Rocoteh

 

[Rocoteh]

Japan update week 2 1940 demigod lvl so far things are going slow building up infastructure before i go on the offensive survived US naval assualt much better then last version it severly cripples japan if you lose over half your fleet I currently have Hong Kong under siege with my troops and naval attacks and air raids from Taipe, Hong Kong is defended with alot of British troops and artillery, knocked out there planes so its just a matter of time before Hong Kong falls.one thing ive noticed different then last version communist China is buiding tanks they didnt in last version so thats a good thing it was too easy to take there citys with just infantry defending the city also makes them a little more aggressive now that they have tanks was like shooting fish in a barrel last version when they attacked with just infantry and in last version they used the draft so much none of there cities had a population over 2 so i think the draft change was good and will make the AI more challenging forcing them to build better defenses in there cities i will update more on this change in the game as i progress so far i think its a positive change , time will tell.

dferrill,

Thank you for the report.

Very interesting what you mention about Communist-China.
The removal of the draft seems to have had a very positive impact here.

When AI decrease population-levels in cities with draft it will also
increase the risk for so called "auto-razing".
Not even placing wonders can stop that type of razing!

Welcome back with more reports.

Rocoteh