Silly Request

Gary Grigsby’s World at War is back with a whole new set of features. World at War: A World Divided still gives complete control over the production, research and military strategy for your side, but in this new updated version you’ll also be able to bring spies into the mix as well as neutral country diplomacy, variable political events and much more. Perhaps the largest item is the ability to play a special Soviet vs. Allies scenario that occurs after the end of World War II.

Moderator: MOD_GGWaW_2

Post Reply
Mojo Jojo
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 4:29 pm

Silly Request

Post by Mojo Jojo »

This is completely unrealistic, but I would think it wouldnt be too hard to arrange.

We have the option to continue the game after an Allied or Axis victory, which is outstanding. I usually use it to claim every last scrap of land for my side. Which is rather superfluous, but somehow its not satisfying othewise.

However, After either that side conquers the world, I am looking to continue still with the powers that have been built up.

Is is possible to add something to the code to allow for alliances to be broken and former allies given the option to fight it out after the opponent is defeated?

The US and UK vs. USSR after the defeat of both was not unthinkable.

And if I play Axis Blitz, when Japan and Germany have divided the world, I look at the border of where they split up Russia and the garrisons of 1 militia on each territory and think its a matter of time before they have a major disagreement.

Of course, this is something that only works with the continue game option on.

I hoping for something really, really simple and hopefully not difficult to arrange like this:

Either a scenario or a game options button saying something like "Allow War With Allies". To hopefully make it easy to program, put it totally in the player's hands to initiate it just like attacking a neutral country. While this is rather for the other country, its not controlled by the AI anyway. Maybe a warning then, like for a neutral country to avoid accidents. Then either allow the player to play both sides of the new conflict, or if the programmer was feeling generous, perhaps a dialog box asking if you want to play this side, that side, or both.

Of course it would be fun to add all kinds of conditions and meters measuring alliance temperment, but thats a whole other game.

I just hate giving up a big empire, when one worthy opponent yet is upon the field. In fact, in the Axis case, the opponent is quite formidable.

I just ended an Axis Blitz where Germany and Japan fairly evenly divided the world. Japan got half of Russia, all the way past the Urals, got a bit of Africa, got a bit of North America. It was a very grand campaign and the most evenly done. It all ended with 50 units on the US West Coast Japan to the North, Germany from the East and from Mexico. However, losses in the US were heavier than expected due to a trememdous amount of research done by them. I had a total of about 75 units and the German tank production was really slowing down.

And after all that, I didnt want to give up all that research and all the research I was still working on. There was still a worthy opponent on the field.

How feasible would that be?
WanderingHead
Posts: 2134
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:12 am
Location: GMT-8

RE: Silly Request

Post by WanderingHead »

Over all I think that this is actually quite tough to accomplish reliably and aesthetically. It seems to me to be a rather large job compared to the pay off.

IMO, the game mechanics don't really extend well to long term occupation and diplomacy. Things start getting quite unrealistic when you talk about one Player dominating the entire world.



Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided”