WaW Revised Status & Version History

Discuss and post your mods and scenarios here for others to download.

Moderator: Vic

Grymme
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 5:06 pm
Contact:

RE: WaW Revised Status & Version History

Post by Grymme »

A couple of issues i have detected.

- Nomohan incident. It says it costs 20PP but actually cost 40PP. It also doesnt state that it gives 20PP to the soviets.
- Japan cannot, it seems, buy transport planes. I can however build paratroopers. How to build transport planes?
My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com

30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G
springer
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 11:16 pm

RE: WaW Revised Status & Version History

Post by springer »

Hi Grymme,

I think you are one of the best two-player scenario builders in AT.  Thinking about transports and Japanese paratroopers: I can see the the problem.  You can build paratroopers, but not transport.  But on the other hand, I think that Japanese paratroop operations were notoriously slim during WWII.  If in AT, you want to launch Japanese para attacks, I think some research is needed.  I think the solution is problematic.

My own feeling is to give the Japanese some air transport (but to keep it small, since sea transport appears to predominate).  See Japanese air transport in Wikipedia.

Paratrooper operations are real, but thin see Imperial Army Paratroops and Marine Paratroops  in Wikipedia.

I think the Japanese could've committed to large-scale paradrops, but it would take a tech advance to show the commitment to specialized training of the paratroops.

My bias is based on a personally subjective criteria: As I write this, I look at the emergency chute my Marine Grandfather pulled off a dead aviator and compare it to one of my father's chute (who did 200 jumps), and realize there is a major difference in tech commitment.  On the other hand, it may not be fair to compare two chutes with very different foci of purpose.  I guess, however, that I'd stick to the idea that Japanese parachute units need to have some sort of tech upgrade before they can be implemented.

An interesting, but far from official website on Japanese paratroopers is here
Grymme
Posts: 1776
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 5:06 pm
Contact:

RE: WaW Revised Status & Version History

Post by Grymme »

Springer. Thanks for the flattery.
 
The japanese did use paratroopers in the NEI for example. As for historical or not. The point of WAW i guess is to change the history. The japanese definatly had the technology and industri to deploy paratroopers if they had wanted and commited since 1940. They didnt, but that shouldnt stop players doing it in WAW. But in any case if the shouldnt be able to produce transport planes then they shouldnt be able to produce paratroopers.
 
But i do hope i will be able to in some way and that i have missed something,
My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com

30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G
Tufkal2
Posts: 834
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 3:50 pm
Location: Germany

RE: WaW Revised Status & Version History

Post by Tufkal2 »

Dear Ally,
production for Transporters (=transport planes) is under the Transport category, not the planes category....
You should be able to produce directly when the game starts for you...
[:)]
bwheatley
Posts: 3654
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 4:08 pm
Contact:

RE: WaW Revised Status & Version History

Post by bwheatley »

lets get this new mod and try and see how she goes :)
-Alpha Tester Carrier Force
-Beta Tester ATG
- Mod Maintainer (past) for ATG's WAW mod
- Mod Maintainer (past) for ATG's GPW mod
-Beta Tester WITE
-Alpha Tester WITW
-Alpha Tester WITE2
-Alpha Tester Wif
-Beta Tester Command
springer
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 11:16 pm

RE: WaW Revised Status & Version History

Post by springer »

Hi Grymme,

I totally agree that WAW is about changing history.

My note was less about capacity than doctrine. Japanese industry could certainly have created such a force, but the doctrinal commitment missing. My idea was that PP expenditures not only represent upgrades in equipment but commitment toward doctrinal change. Thus, if the Japanese want to create an effective large-scale parachute assault force, you could represent the effort required to create the staff, research, and doctrine as PP.

This is strictly a "what is the purpose of a feature" design choice in the scenario. I can certainly see the argument that if physical ability is present, it should be allowed. I just think that PP costs for changing historical doctrinal directions (in order to change history) allows the player to think in terms of trade-offs (i.e., should I upgrade my cruisers [which also includes upgrades in cruiser tactics]or invest in a viable airborne army?)

bwheatley
Posts: 3654
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 4:08 pm
Contact:

RE: WaW Revised Status & Version History

Post by bwheatley »

in 6t gibraltor can't get penalty free supply from anywhere canada, britian or middle east. was this intentional?
-Alpha Tester Carrier Force
-Beta Tester ATG
- Mod Maintainer (past) for ATG's WAW mod
- Mod Maintainer (past) for ATG's GPW mod
-Beta Tester WITE
-Alpha Tester WITW
-Alpha Tester WITE2
-Alpha Tester Wif
-Beta Tester Command
bwheatley
Posts: 3654
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 4:08 pm
Contact:

RE: WaW Revised Status & Version History

Post by bwheatley »

also i noticed gibraltor was damaged at 50% i don't know if that happened after i declared the vichy card or not but is that also intentional?
-Alpha Tester Carrier Force
-Beta Tester ATG
- Mod Maintainer (past) for ATG's WAW mod
- Mod Maintainer (past) for ATG's GPW mod
-Beta Tester WITE
-Alpha Tester WITW
-Alpha Tester WITE2
-Alpha Tester Wif
-Beta Tester Command
User avatar
ehzorg
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 4:52 pm

RE: WaW Revised Status & Version History

Post by ehzorg »

Hey explorer, what are the effects of the new hex type I'm seeing in version U3 called "Australian Supply Sea"? It appears to take the same amount of AP for ships to move through as big-sea hexes... but what's different?
explorer2
Posts: 465
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:45 pm

RE: WaW Revised Status & Version History

Post by explorer2 »

ORIGINAL: bwheatley
also i noticed gibraltor was damaged at 50% i don't know if that happened after i declared the vichy card or not but is that also intentional?

I didn't make any changes to Gibraltar itself, just changed the hex due south to ocean. If there's a supply penalty that wasn't there previously, let me know and I'll look into it. By changing the hex under it, the computer may now be using a slightly different route to do supply, which in theory could put it over the limit of no supply penalty. Let me know if it still seems to be a problem.
explorer2
Posts: 465
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:45 pm

RE: WaW Revised Status & Version History

Post by explorer2 »

ORIGINAL: ehzorg
Hey explorer, what are the effects of the new hex type I'm seeing in version U3 called "Australian Supply Sea"? It appears to take the same amount of AP for ships to move through as big-sea hexes... but what's different?

A new type of hex was necessary in order to get supply to (historically accurate) go fairly close to Guadalcanal on the route from USA to Australia. The only difference between it and Deep Sea is that with Deep Sea supply costs 50AP, with Australian supply, it cost 1 AP. Should be no other differences.
I"m not talented at graphics, so the appearance isn't always indicative of the type of hex if it's Big Sea, Deep Sea, or Australian Supply Sea.
For ships, there is no difference at all between the 3.
For supply, they're all 3 different. Australian 1AP, Big Sea 12 AP, Deep Sea 50AP.
For air, Australian and Deep Sea have extra penalty for Level Bombers only, since the Pacific map's scale is grossly inaccurate compared to European/Atlantic.

Hope that clarification helps.
User avatar
82ndtrooper
Posts: 1083
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:13 am
Location: tennessee

RE: WaW Revised Status & Version History

Post by 82ndtrooper »

changes are looking good 
HHC 302nd Engineer Battalion
82nd Airborne Division
Honorably Discharged Jul/80
User avatar
kondor
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:20 am
Location: Croatia
Contact:

RE: WaW Revised Status & Version History

Post by kondor »

Changes in U3 and U4 versions are right on the spot. Looks fine now but still I would wait for a few games to see is it now balanced...
Great work and thank you explorer2[&o]
User avatar
kondor
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:20 am
Location: Croatia
Contact:

RE: WaW Revised Status & Version History

Post by kondor »

I was browsing through all the changes here and have a question.
I know that Japs get CV III tech later on and I was wondering do they get additional tech boost (besides CV III)?
FT II? Arty II maybe?

I am starting a new game as Jap. so I must decide where should I invest PP...

Thx in advance.
User avatar
82ndtrooper
Posts: 1083
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:13 am
Location: tennessee

RE: WaW Revised Status & Version History

Post by 82ndtrooper »

I believe they just get CV-II and battleship and cruiser III, the rest you have to upgrade yourself.
HHC 302nd Engineer Battalion
82nd Airborne Division
Honorably Discharged Jul/80
explorer2
Posts: 465
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:45 pm

RE: WaW Revised Status & Version History

Post by explorer2 »

82nd is correct.
User avatar
kondor
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 5:20 am
Location: Croatia
Contact:

RE: WaW Revised Status & Version History

Post by kondor »

IIRC Japs get CV III, not II... But thx for clearing that up for me.
User avatar
82ndtrooper
Posts: 1083
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:13 am
Location: tennessee

RE: WaW Revised Status & Version History

Post by 82ndtrooper »

aye I ment CV-III

HHC 302nd Engineer Battalion
82nd Airborne Division
Honorably Discharged Jul/80
SMK-at-work
Posts: 3396
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: New Zealand

RE: WaW Revised Status & Version History

Post by SMK-at-work »

Playing a few games of this, and IMO landing craft needs its own tech too - it is far too easy for Germany to invade the UK (yeah I'm getting done over by early Sealion in Scotland!! :))

The allies made a massive effort to be able to land troops safely on hostile beaches - but in WaW you get it for freee...well apart from having to build it.

IMO:

Lvl 1 - improvised landing vessels such as the British used at Gallipoli.  Can only carry infantry SFT's. 

Has "normal" movement because they are essentially just cargo ships that unload troops into small boats off shore.

Ideally troops coming off these craft would take a readiness penalty or perhaps lose all their supplies when they board them, and/or it costs a lot of action points to off load?  I don't know what is possible in the engine.

Level 2 - early attempts to make specialised craft such as Germany built for Sealion.  Each landing craft SFT should be able to carry just a single medium tank SFT - 35.  Germany had about 260 tanks ready by August 1940 - a mix of wading Mk III's and Mk IV's, and about 60 floating Mk II's - a division's worth, but it was going to be spread out among the first landing wave of 8 divisions.

A moderate development cost - 50 or so, to reflect the cost of removing them from the civilian economy - Rhine traffic was  affected up to a year after Sealion was abandoned.

Has low movement to reflect the problems associated with slow clumsy craft and towed barges.

Lvl 3 - the first dedicated successful landing craf.  A moderate PP cost to develop - 100 perhaps.  Has "normal" movement, big enough to carry tanks & infantry - essentially the current long range craft.
Meum est propisitum in taberna mori
SMK-at-work
Posts: 3396
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2000 8:00 am
Location: New Zealand

RE: WaW Revised Status & Version History

Post by SMK-at-work »

Alternatively add some fortifications to the British coastal cities! :)

But I'd prefer it costs to develop credible amphibious capability - because it did.
Meum est propisitum in taberna mori
Post Reply

Return to “Mods and Scenarios”