Gary Grigsby's World At War v1.033 Update Released!

[Erik Rutins]

New Update Adjusts Balance, Adds New Options, and Fixes Bugs

Matrix Games and 2by3 Games (www.2by3games.com) today announced the release of a new official update for the new World War II grand strategy game, Gary Grigsby’s World at War. The new version 1.033 is now available from the Matrix Games Website and has over 50 new improvements and fixes for the game.

The new update focuses on adjusting balance, specifically to make play more challenging, realistic and fair to all nations in the endgame. Additionally, several fixes were made to minor bug issues, such as heavy bombers using the wrong attack value and Carriers defending further than their speed would allow. The rule changes cover the majority of the patch and include many changes to Op Fire, Technologies, and Liberation of Allies. The User Interface also received some attention, making it easier to scroll around the map and allowing you to auto-assign all available remaining resources to produce supplies. Overall 52 changes were made to the game and the full version history is included in the patch, which is available from the Matrix Games website.

Gary Grigsby’s World at War takes place in the Second World War and places you at the helm of one of five possible powers: The Western Allies, China, Russia, Germany, or Japan. Command your army and coordinate your attacks. Gain supplies, resources, and factories to fuel your war machine. Manage your supply lines to ensure you have enough to capture territories and press your attacks. Gary Grigsby’s World at War has been hailed as an elegant and accessible game design with adjustable realism and detail; where the difficulty and realism can be tailored to your specific level. Your opponents can range from a challenging computer AI to up to four other human players.

The v1.033 update and more information about Gary Grigsby’s World at War is available from the Matrix Games website at www.matrixgames.com/games.

[Erik Rutins]

Here's the readme for v1.033 (click on the attachment).

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Thanks for info Erik !

Great work Matrix/2By3 !


Leo "Apollo11"

[Traveler]

Thanks for all the hard work!

I do wish that some of the unit type starting stats had been more carefully evaluated. For example: PLAYER_UN vs PLAYER_JAP CARRIER AIR units. In 1940-42 the Japanese carrier air was significantly superior to American in air to air capability (the US didn't really catch up untill the Japans training techniques started to bite them), yet the TD_EVADE and TD_AA starting values for both are the same 5 and 4.

[Drax Kramer]

I do wish that some of the unit type starting stats had been more carefully evaluated. For example: PLAYER_UN vs PLAYER_JAP CARRIER AIR units. In 1940-42 the Japanese carrier air was significantly superior to American in air to air capability (the US didn't really catch up untill the Japans training techniques started to bite them), yet the TD_EVADE and TD_AA starting values for both are the same 5 and 4.

Actually, US prewar aviators were very well trained and initial battles (Coral Sea and Midway) showed that Wildcats were equal to Zeros in air to air combat while US dive bombers were no less lethal than their Japanese counterparts.

Actually, I find funny how Japanese land based fighters have better range than Japanese carrier aircraft despite the fact that inspiration for game's long range Japanese fighters was Zero, a naval fighter.

Another thing that is funny is that as late as 1942, Japanese tanks are equal to Allied ones. I mean, can anyone imagine Japanese tincans fighting Grants and Matildas on equal terms?


Drax

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Drax Kramer
Another thing that is funny is that as late as 1942, Japanese tanks are equal to Allied ones. I mean, can anyone imagine Japanese tincans fighting Grants and Matildas on equal terms?

Actually, Japanese armor is given a permanent durability 1 point lower than the other major powers for that reason. The starting stats are the same as US armor but -1 point of durability, which makes a big difference for the duration of the war.

Regards,

- Erik

[Grotius]

Actually, US prewar aviators were very well trained and initial battles (Coral Sea and Midway) showed that Wildcats were equal to Zeros in air to air combat while US dive bombers were no less lethal than their Japanese counterparts.

Well, Coral Sea and Midway weren't "initial battles": they took place six months after Pearl Harbor. Before that, the Allies fought with Buffaloes, Swordfish, Martins etc. in the battle for Dutch East Indies. Even at the time of Coral Sea and Midway, the Allies were fielding Wirraways, P-39s, and other underwhelming aircraft.

Actually, I find funny how Japanese land based fighters have better range than Japanese carrier aircraft despite the fact that inspiration for game's long range Japanese fighters was Zero, a naval fighter.

Actually, it makes sense to me. First, the Zero often was used as a land-based fighter, even though it was a Navy aircraft. The IJN had many more Zeroes than it had carriers to base them on. Second, the best early IJA fighters (the Oscar) had longer range, initially, than their Allied counterparts.

[Drax Kramer]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Well, Coral Sea and Midway weren't "initial battles": they took place six months after Pearl Harbor. Before that, the Allies fought with Buffaloes, Swordfish, Martins etc. in the battle for Dutch East Indies. Even at the time of Coral Sea and Midway, the Allies were fielding Wirraways, P-39s, and other underwhelming aircraft.

But you weren't complaining about Allied fighters or ground support aircraft. You were writing about carrier aircraft and I say, Coral Sea and Midway were initial carrier battles between Japanese and Americans and any objective record of these battles fought between prewar aviators flying prewar machines shows Americans as equal to Japanese.

Actually, I find funny how Japanese land based fighters have better range than Japanese carrier aircraft despite the fact that inspiration for game's long range Japanese fighters was Zero, a naval fighter.

Actually, it makes sense to me. First, the Zero often was used as a land-based fighter, even though it was a Navy aircraft. The IJN had many more Zeroes than it had carriers to base them on. Second, the best early IJA fighters (the Oscar) had longer range, initially, than their Allied counterparts.
[/quote]

Zeros that was taking off from carriers were the same ones that were taking off from Formosa to fly to Luzon or those that taking off from New Britain to attack Guadalcanal. If Messerschmidts and Spitfires are limited to one, it seems logical to limit Zeros to two spaces and live Japanese player to research for more range.


Erik, thanks for the clarification. Apparently, I missed the durability feature.


Drax

[5cats]

Also the Carrier Air unit is more than just Zeros. Kates & Vals too IIRC. Where the land-based Fighter unit also includes other longer-range fighters (as someone already mentioned).

[nerod]

Link to patch is not working

[Uncle_Joe]

Turn off your firewall if you have one active. I can never download anything the Matrix site unless I first do so.

[nerod]

I don't have a firewall.

[Tac2i]

Try these links:

ftp://ftp.matrixgames.com/pub/GaryGrigs ... -v1033.zip
ftp://ftp.matrixgames.com/pub/GaryGrigs ... -v1033.zip

If left clicking on them doesn't work, try right clicking and choose "Save Target As." If that doesn't work try using another browser (Firefox, Mozilla, etc.) if you have one installed.

[nerod]

Thanks Webizen, your links seems to have worked.