I had overflow and crash too, and I didn't undertand why, I thought it was my graphics mods, I removed them. I am expecting the bug again, now.
Bad news...I found a new bug: when I build heavy bomber in germany (and Italy), few turns later, I had CV instead heavy bombers...it's a funny bug, now, I have a carrier ship at Berlin, near Unter den linden Allee, and I am sure tourist like that, but it is not very usefull, in Berlin, a CV, to make war.
So, I will build a lot of heavy bomber and a lot of carrier aircraft in Germany, and later I will invade Great britain [:D]
I think that Bomber bug is caused by the wrong number pointed in the ItemType pool too. Fix them, you will enjoy the game!
Update:
I Found the damned shiphull bug. The longRng transporter was deleted from the ItemType pool, and its original number is 110 .So CA becomes 116, BB is 117, and CV is 118 in the ItemType pool now.When you change the those values in the shiphull event, the shiphull will work! So have fun with your CV fleet!
A little mistake, that's SFTypes pool but not ItemType pool. You wont find the longRng transporter in the SFTypes pool. So the shiphull dont build CV. And when you upgrade Bombers, CVhulls will work and become heavy bomber.
So I suggest that anyone who want to create your own scenarios or update scenarios do not delete the SFType in the SFType pool. Just change the value, disable them!
In fact, I think I will try to make my own version, when I'll understand the engine (it's not the case actually [:D]).
This one (explorer tweak) is very good, especially the strategic cards about barbarossa and the major jap offensive in China, but main ships are too cheaps.
I did some research (not a lot, I just found wiki in fact[8|]) to verify the italian navy, and I found that italian spend two years and many ressource to transform a liner (Roma) in CV (aquila), between 1941 and 1943, and it was the only CV they build during the war. Actually, we could have in the game a CV in three month at Roma or Venice, or Hambourg. It is too fast, and the price is too low. There is the same for the BB. In an other hand, I don't uderstand why carrier aircraft are less expensive than fighter. It is not so easy to build a carrier aircraft group and put some young pilot inside these aircrafts. And a aicraft group is more expensive, in the real life, than fighters, because in a carrier aircraft group, we have some carrier fighter, and some carrier bomber, and some carrier torpedo, and there are not the same engine.
I wonder if CV in the game must be a single CV, or a task force around a big CV. But, anyway, the version doesn't authorize a différence between big CV like the enterprise, for instance, and the smaller CV escort.
In my game, now, in 1942, Germany can make 50 carrier aircraft II/turn [X(] and a lot of supply and political point. And they have some magic heavy bomber in Hambourg Harbour, which will become CV! [:D]
May be the time scale is not the right scale, may be a round would be figure 2 month but not one month. Actually I am thinking about that.
Anyway, the explorertweak version would be actually the best if some bug would be fixed [&o]
@A900: Thanks for the suggestion about not deleting an SFType, just nullifying its values. That mistake was mine. This is my first attempt at modding anything so I'm learning . . . . slowly.
@ Bebert re: carrier air, and values, etc...
IMHO it seems like one of the things you have to do in deciding production values and combat values is not just its historical accuracy, but how it compares to other values in the game and how it affects overall gameplay. I'm an expert at none of this and attempt to not make major changes unless pretty well justified for all 3 of those reasons, since I know Tom, who created the scenario, I would consider to be an expert.
My "guess" has been that carrier air was created at half the cost of regular fighters because in the game as a whole they have less value, and because, in their original combat values, it takes a whole bunch of them to sink pretty much anything. You've got a really good point about they were really 3 types of planes and training for carrier combat is longer than for ground fighters.
In my next version, carrier air comat values will be much higher. Rationale: the best BB in existence at the time, the Bismark, was sunk by just 2 raids of obsolete biplanes (9 on raid 1, 15 on raid 2) with just 2 torpedo hits, and none of the planes were hit by the AA fire of the Bismark. Air warfare changed everything.
I also think carriers should be able to carry more carrier air.
So to sum, the goal of the settings IMHO should be to get the final result to be reflective of the type of engagements that occurred, not just historical accuracy of any one factor. With this in mind, the set of all values ideally would have it so that carriers, not BB/cruisers, are king and should be greatly feared. They should not be as rare to create as BB, though still not easy, and carrier air should be pretty deadly if they get to ships undefended by other air.
Quantifying carrier air versus land based is very difficult because the two are distinctly different.
First of all, a CV has only so much room, so only so many planes can be put aboard. Because the ship is at sea, it only has a finite amount of parts available for repairing aircraft. In fact, stripping an aircraft to the bone to keep others flying is a common practise, when necessary.
Another limiting factor on CVs is that they can't launch aircraft "en masse" and thus, you have a launch window to get off as many aircraft as possible before the mission must set out.
So there are all kinds of limitations on Carrier Air Wings which ground based aircraft do not have.
At the Battle of Midway, Bombing Squadron 6 (VB-6), had 19 Douglas SBD-2 and SBD-3 (Dauntless) assigned, but only 15 took part in the attack on the Japanese CVs.
Another limitation on Carrier Air is doctrine, especially in CV vs CV battles. Normally, the first to find the enemy and attack is the one that wins. The Fleet Commander will want to engage the enemy at maximum range so as to reduce his vulnerability to counter strike and thus, the aircraft themselves cannot be loaded with the maximum amount of ordnance they are capable of. Fuel is the most important factor, getting there, attack and then getting back and having enough fuel to wait in line to land.
There are lots of limiting factors on Carrier based Air Wings which reduce their effectiveness that land based air just doesn't have to take into account.
So yes, an equivalent amount of land based aircraft will have far more punch than an equal amount of carrier based aircraft.
In my next version, carrier air comat values will be much higher. Rationale: the best BB in existence at the time, the Bismark, was sunk by just 2 raids of obsolete biplanes (9 on raid 1, 15 on raid 2) with just 2 torpedo hits, and none of the planes were hit by the AA fire of the Bismark.
Not to be anal here... but that is a really poor characterization of the sinking of the Bismark.
The Brits did hit the Bismark with a torpedo from a Swordfish which damaged the aft steering area of the ship. The Swordfish, however, did not sink the ship. After disabling the Bismark's steering, she was pretty much a target and the British pummeled her with guns to the point of almost completely destroying her superstructure. Destroyers also launched torpedoes into the vessel, however, it took an enormous amount of damage before it was scuttled by its crew.
The Japanese BB Yamato also took a huge amount of damage from over 400 aircraft before being sunk. She was pummeled with bombs and torpedoes until one of her magazines exploded and she sank.
Carriers, on the other hand, were far more susceptible to air attack because penetration of bombs through their flight decks or exploding on their flight decks ignited aviation fuel and ordnance that was not protected by armor plating. Japanese CVs did not have armored flight decks unlike their American and I believe British counterparts.
Update:
Good News: When I disabled building shiphulls in the "Factory" and the "Military Base" only could produced supply, the overflow problem didnt happened before July in 1941. So I think the bug is fixed! So West,Su and China AI worked!
Update:
Good News: When I disabled building shiphulls in the "Factory" and the "Military Base" only could produced supply, the overflow problem didnt happened before July in 1941. So I think the bug is fixed! So West,Su and China AI worked!
That's a great find A900.
Just to clarify, do you mean for location type factory and military base, you made the "can build item group" for ships false? Or did you make it so location types factory and military base could produce ONLY supplies?
And could you tell me which version you're playing on?
About carrier aircraft, I think for the balancing that they might have a cost beetween fighters and dive bombers - 1500 pp - but with the same combat value as actually. Actually, a player can make a lot of carrier and no other aircraft to overwhelming the adverse airpower. Even carrier aircrafts are not as good as fighters, they have a very low cost, half the cost of a fighter, and a player can use them instead fighter: when you are 30 carrier aircaft against 15 fighters, I am not sure the 15 fighters survive, even 20 aircraft die. They are also efficient against ground troops in plain. It's a good way, and a low cost way, actually for germany to build a lot of carrier in the beginning to plan a "see lion operation" instead try to build enough fighter, dive bomber and level bomber to overwhelming RAF.
If the cost of carrier aircraft were a little higher, higher than fighters, players (and IA) could build carrier aircraft only for their carrier, and build other aircraft for the job they have to do.
Update:
Good News: When I disabled building shiphulls in the "Factory" and the "Military Base" only could produced supply, the overflow problem didnt happened before July in 1941. So I think the bug is fixed! So West,Su and China AI worked!
That's a great find A900.
Just to clarify, do you mean for location type factory and military base, you made the "can build item group" for ships false? Or did you make it so location types factory and military base could produce ONLY supplies?
And could you tell me which version you're playing on?
Thanks.
Both WAW V3.4 and 3.2c have overflow bugs. So just make the "can build item group" for "ships=false" in factory and only "Non-combat=ture" in military base. And then everything is OK! By the way, I had passed Nov in1941 and no problems.
[&o]And I need some helps! In the "people's" option, how to add "people group"? Now I want to create a scenario about Vietnam War, but I met some problems, that is the first one!
ORIGINAL: A900
[&o]And I need some helps! In the "people's" option, how to add "people group"? Now I want to create a scenario about Vietnam War, but I met some problems, that is the first one!
I've got real life things I have to do today A900, so can't send screenshots at the moment, but I'll try to give you the tips.
In the Peoples menu, at the bottom click on Add a People, then click the People that was just added in order to make settings for it.
THEN, essential, (I learned the very hard and very slow way), you need to go to Settings/Group Names, scrolll a ways down to where it says PeopleGroup, and add the group there as well.
There's a difference between Peoples and PeopleGroup, and when you're doing various settings and events, you have to watch that carefully.
If I had known/understood that, my current WaW version would have been out several weeks ago. By not knowing that, all kinds of things went wrong and I couldn't understand why in play testing.
Good luck. A Vietnam scenario would be a great addition! Sounds very difficult to model jungle & guerrila warfare, insurgency, land mines that one side knows where they are and the other doesn't, etc... Hope you have fun.
I can't help you.
But I have just finished my own version of WaW, in my own desire. I have not still improve the scen, but there are my change:
WaW v35a - Bebert's mod:
Map Change: There is a small Garrison at Malta Island (rifle, flack, coastal artillery and 1 or 2 fighters). Units change There are no longer shiphull. Players can build directly capital ship. But they are very expensive: cruiser's cost is 20'000, battleship and carrier's cost is 40'000 At the beginning, germany and Italy have some BB and CA, and US has some CV and BB, instead CV hull and BB hull. There is a new fleet at newcastle, instead BB and CA hull. Tank Destroyer has less hitpoint. It is always dangerous against others tanks, but now, it is less difficult to kill a TD, as it was in the reality. Aircraft's cost change: Carrier aircraft: 2000
Level Bomber and Dive Bomber: 3000 Research: Cost of research steps is higher than before for the third and the forth level. Now, it will cost a lot of PP to reach level 3 and level 4. Germany had basic infantry 2 and armor 2 in the begginning, but still normal troops (they haven't still produce rifle II and tank II at the beginning). I notice that it would be easy to have a high level in a lot of main tech (armor, fighters, basic and heavy infantery for germany, carriers and ship for Japan) in 1942, but that seems irrealistic. Cost of the action card " France prepared to war" is now 120 pp and "British commitement" is now 150. Allies must now make a choice: leave the France alone, or spend 270pp. And some others small things...
I will test that...[8D]
But I must tell that the work of Tom Weber, Altair and Explorer was very good work! [:)]
I'll be interested to see people's responses to these changes.
I've never gotten to Level 3 or 4 Tech, so I didn't know that was an issue. I may add that to my upcoming version.
I've also not used TD's much before and hadn't heard of complaints, so I'll have to consider adding that change as well.
I think if you go without ship hulls, very high cost to CV and BB is a good thing, but why not also CA's? They took nearly as long to build as well.
Regarding higher cost of the 2 cards: it seems pretty steep to me. I know there's no way, early in the war, I would spend 270PP knowing I'm still going to get beaten by a superior German force.
I don't know if you've posted it yet, but when I just checked the scenario bank, I didn't see it.
I am still testing germany japan and against AI++ with bonuses, and I prefer continue my test before post the scénar. You are right for the cruiser, and the cost in my version will be 20000.
About tech, In my former party (this with the CV at Berlin [:D]) west AI reached Rifle IV at the beginning of 1942. At the same time, Germany had rifle III, heavy rifle III, armor III, fighter III, bomber III. I think that at the beginning, everybody has just sufficiant ressource: Germany has not yet the ressource from Oslo, Copenhague, Paris, Lille, Bruxelles and so on. West has not the ressource from USA, Japan has not taken Singapore, or Manille. But, at the end of 1941, germany has probably conquered a lot of ressource, Japan has launche this offensive in china, USA may be is not still in war, but the lend lease has began. If the cost of research is too low, it is possible that everybody reache the high level in 1942 or 1943.
In PBEM, I think that could depend of the player. I have done several PBEM with Gary Grisby WaW a worl divided. It is not the same game, I know it. But, I observe if one player made a lot of unit, the other players made the same, and research don't become the main way to win. But, if a player reach a tech superiority instead produce guns and tanks, the other players made the same. I Think it would be the same with advanced tactic. But if everybody (except perhaps Japan and China) can reach the highest level in the main tech in 1942 or 1943, I think it is too early.
For the tank destroyer, the fisrt one german build was the marderI, a not to bad gun with some steel around. After that, they build marder II and marder III, but they didn't offer a very good protection to the screw. The best one was later the Jagdpanther, but it was in 1944 I believe. USSr made good tank destroyer in 1944 with SU 122, but the earlier SU76 were a little weak. Allies made TD4, in 1943 and just before the end TD 10, but it was simply a good gun with a small armour around. At the begininng, allies (France and Great Britain) had just some antitank gun and didn't know how to build a tank destroyer. USA didn't know how to build a tank in 1939, they had just a navy in 1939.
In the game, TD have almost the same hit point than Tank Medium, I think it is too high. May be I will change the prerequis for the tank destroyer: to build a good tank destroyer, you need a good AT gun, so gun II would be reach first. And TD would have a lot of hit point with armor IV, the same amount as medium tank IV.
I am thinking too about another change for the heavy tank. At the beginning, nobody had really heavy tank except USSR with the KV1. The heaviest tank in germany was the earlier Panzer IV, which was in fact a medium tank. First heavy german tank was Tiger I, which was used at the end of 1942. Allies made a heavy tank just before the end of the war. May be I will change the prerequis for the heavy tank, or create a special weapon for the USSR (KV1, KV2 et JS2) and germany (Tiger I and Tiger II) and removed the generic heavy tank. The prerequis would be gun II, flack II (the two prerequis for the flack 88, which was the gun of the tiger) and armor III for the german, but USSR just need to have armor II for the KV1 (and armor III for the KV2, armor IV for the JSII). May be USSR would have armor II at the beginning, ready for barbarossa. In june 1941, they had not a lot of T34, but they had some, and the earlier T34 were simply the best tank of the world, in june 1941.
Last thing, I am thinking about nuclear weapons at the end of the war. USA won the war with 2 nuclear bomb, didn't they? [;)]
I have to test this change, and I will back in a few days.[:)]
I had finished WAW V3.4 already! German troops met Jp Army at the border of China. There is no overflow bugs! But one more bug was found, the longRng transporter was still in the building list . So fix it (just disable it, donot delete) before you play WAW V3.4.
[&o]By the way, how to turn on the rastergrid when I drawed maps?
A900-
In the System Options screen, there is a check box for Raster Grid. Uncheck it. Hope that's what you meant.
And thanks for reporting the bugs you find.
there is a hotfix just for this scenario that helps it play a lot better
find it here
http://www.advancedtactics.org/index.php
scroll down a little and its called a small hotfix for version 1.2
this helps the ship building and the overflow crash
trust me youll have a lot fewer problems once you use this hotfix
Thanks 82nd trooper for the link.
In my next version I'll say something about downloading that and add the link.
Also, by reading Vic's comments, I think I can make my version so that it doesn't suffer that problem.
Thanks again.
Bebert
while I understand your desire to make things realistic I think you need to remember this is a game and that it has a AI. if you limit the ship building like you have the west (england ) will be so crippled that it will be useless to play since most of the victory objectives are all land based and it has to build a fleet able to protect itself from land based aircraft long enough to be able to mount an invasion.
ship building is already limited by the number of production centers. raising the cost of your ships that high will make it very very hard for the west to do anything. while i agree raising the cost of ships and removeing the ship hulls is good I feel that taking 10 turns for 1 production center to make one cv is too much.
I think the ship hull concept is a good one for the game though if it can be made to work properly, it adds a sort of luck to things that make the game realistic and interesting.
all in all i think your on the right track but you have just raised the cost a little too high.
I am going testing now with allies versus german AI. So, I think the real balancing problem is with Japan more than Allies. With a high cost for main ships, It will be very difficult for Japan building more CV than they have at the beginning, except after they take south asian ressources. But, beetween the wake up (after fall of Paris and Vichy established) and major offensive in china, they have about ten or twelve tours, and a lot of things to build if they want overwhelming Chinese's mass army.
But I will check allies' ressource, especially US ressources, after 1941.
