WaW Revised Version R Available

[explorer2]

This was a mistake in my coding that, thanks to Lunaticus, will be fixed in version S.
What happened is there is a random chance where the Italian fleet comes in now, instead of just in Taranto.
BUT, I didn't understand the command properly, which resulted in a chance that it doesn't come in at all.
My apologies.

Version S is currently being checked for errors before I release it.

ORIGINAL: DRommels

hey, i am playing vers R now against AI++, and me on axis side.

juli 1940; Italy comes to war but where is the ital fleet??????
There is no main fleet in homeland Italy or elswhere.

[bwheatley]

I think you need to increase supply usage for artillery as well. It will require more and more supply to have such uber stacks of artillery. It takes alot of beans and bullets to keep arty firing so long.

[bwheatley]

Explorer if you need play testers we're waiting on S to start our 2nd game. Ara and I

[bwheatley]

Also i was thinkgin you need to give partisans more internal supply. Them running out of supplies doesn't do much good.

[explorer2]

@bwheatley
I think more supply for partisans is probably good idea.
Not sure about artillery supply though. Yes, they used a lot, but I haven't heard anyone yet complaining that overall artillery is too easy/strong/unbalanced. I'd like more thought/discussion on this.
I'll try hard to get version S to you soon, realizing that they haven't been real game tested yet, just "fake" game tested to see that crashes don't occur.
More soon I hope.

[bwheatley]

also i'd like to have a way to when you build a ship have it build after 12 turns regardless. I've got one cv that wasnt build for almost 2 years. random luck is fun and all until you have to wait so long. And yes historically it took a long time to build ships but this is a game.

[Appren]

If you want to increase partisan supply, I would consider reducing the number of spawns slightly to compensate. They spawn in huge numbers, and if they become more capable (as improved supply would make them), their threat could become a bit too big, IMO.

I would not change supply use for artillery, some of the nations struggle enough with feeding their armies as it is

[bwheatley]

The partisan % is only 4% even when all cities are taken. It is a 4% chance per hex so sometimes you get alot sometimes you get alittle. They start with full supply but only for a turn. So its not like they will become that much more compotent if you give them say 4 turns of supply. 90% of them are killed before the player gets to do anything with them. At least in the past several games aganist my opponents. Their attacks are worthless but they are just good at cutting supply routes.

I know it's frustrating but historically it was frustrating for the axis forces too

[bwheatley]

Also omsk i would like to be able to produce PP. Now germans have pushed me back into the urals and it would be nice if i could dedicate that base to making PP. It just seems silly that it can't.

[bwheatley]

Also would like to see when each batch of us cities comes online give the western allies a boost of 1500 manpower or something. Us allies shouldn't be running out of manpower in 1943 (late). But we're goign to try playing with western bonus to see if that helps balance out. Western allies dont even get conscripts that they can spam with like the soviets.

[bwheatley]

Also i am curious do partisans count aganist manpower for a country?

[bwheatley]

another thing ara and i were talking about was a winter preperation research item. Every level takes X % off your readiness penalty. And give russia the first 2 levels of it or something
so they have a winter advantage that is not artificially imposed.

[abulbulian]

Well here's my 2cts:

- I think manpower is fine, WA didn't have endless manpower and in fact UK had manpower issues which forced them to be more conservative with planning.

- partisan strong enough already IMO, in fact think groups a bit too large. Would like to see partisans in Russia at groups of 3-6. They can accomplish what they did historically, by forcing Germany to keep troops back to protect supply lines. In my game with Bill, I've killed like 2500 partisans by 44, maybe more! They are very strong (yes they get weaker with supply depletion, but accomplish task when cut supply routes)and almost impossible to move in winter unless you have uni(s)t large as corp and experienced. Historically, partisans forced Germans to keep back like 20-40 divisions (equivalence) to keep control of supply better, of course this varied each year. I'd also like to see a card to play where Germans can pay to treat locals better and not pillage/murder locals as they did. Maybe a 50pp card and that would reduce partisans by 1/3?

- is there a way to limit the basing of aircraft on cities and AF? maybe a city can base 30 and AF 40?

- Would like to suggest a new research project: Winter Preparation. It would reduce the % readiness lost per level. Not sure exact reduction be maybe have it cost 150 per level. Thus. 150pp to research lvl1 and 300pp to research lvl 2, and so on. Once again not sure of the numbers but it needs to be a project. It could also be a house rule or in game that Euro Axis can't research winter prep until after winter 41-42.

yeah, forgot to mention the Finns and Russians should start with Winter Prep 1 (maybe Finns have prep 2 as they were some of the best winter warriors).

Otherwise great mod and I look forward to version S. So get that out to use ASAP please!! [&o]

[bwheatley]

heh Ya the manpower stuff i said my just be me being overly aggressive with my manpower. Can we put in our monthly status report
current manpower?? It would be nie to see it every turn so you can keep a quick eye on it.

With me once the us got in i started sending hundreds of rifles and mg and mortars down to secure austraila
which depleted me pretty quickly> not with kills but just because i was building so fast i didn't see. But i still think manpower should either be lower for WA at start and then a spike on each entrance of new US cities.

[HamburgerHill]

ORIGINAL: bwheatley

heh Ya the manpower stuff i said my just be me being overly aggressive with my manpower. Can we put in our monthly status report
current manpower?? It would be nie to see it every turn so you can keep a quick eye on it.

With me once the us got in i started sending hundreds of rifles and mg and mortars down to secure austraila
which depleted me pretty quickly> not with kills but just because i was building so fast i didn't see. But i still think manpower should either be lower for WA at start and then a spike on each entrance of new US cities.

Hmm. I have to agree with wheat on this one. Britian may of had manpower issues but U.S. had plenty of warm bodies. Once the U.S. enters the West manpower hits the deck pretty fast. Historically the Allies benifited just as must from all the fresh soldiers the U.S. had to offer as they did from the huge industrial boost.

[bwheatley]

yay glad someone agrees with me But having it put on the turn report would be awesome too. Then i can be aware of it. I accidently went -300 on the US because i build a ton of soldiers to reinforce port moseby and new guinea

[abulbulian]

Well not to be rude but get your darn facts straight Hamburglar before posting some garbage about US manpower in WWII. Bill will be the first person to agree that he 'threw away' and posted(garrisoned) tons WA men to distant spots in a defensive posture in the PTO in our most recent game. He started to have manpower issues in 44. In reality the US did mostly island hopping with a small core of Marine divisions in the PTO.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/usarmy/manpower.aspx

Manpower, IMO, is fine in this game and the WA once again had far from endless manpower.

Our last game showed this fact. Japan went very heavy into China and thus had manpower issues in 44. Russia lost tons and build tons and had manpower issues in 44. German threw all but kitchen sink at Russia while defend modestly elsewhere and had manpower issues in 44. WA(UK)fought heavy in France and lost lots of troops in France falling. WA early failed invasion of Norway in 41 with many men surrendered/lost (none got out). WA invaded France and Italy in 42 and Balkans in 43. Both Italian and Balkan campaigns failed with all trapped lost/surrendered by 44. Now WA do have hoards of troops in France and should take Paris in summer 44. But because of all the troops lost/surrendered of course they now have manpower issues. Oh, and US has many garrison troops in PTO as well. So let's end this silly topic of manpower changes to the current WaW version. It's fine and I challenge somebody to give me 'real' proof that it is broken. The WaW scenario should not cater to WA play of just throwing troops away because they have large production. The production is mainly to represent the EQUIPMENT and SHIPS that were built.

[bwheatley]

http://www.fpri.org/footnotes/1415.2009 ... ywwii.html That was USARMY

the manpower in the game is for everything..airforce pilots etc. we had 8.5 million army soldiers and a total of 16 million in all branches other then the army. So If we want to cut the manpower of the allies a bit before the us enters i'm fine with that as long as we give 2 big boosts for every us city that comes online.

I wouldnt say i threw away anything As the allies i did very few risky things. And my manpower crunch was in late 1943. Maybe i just play shitty but it wasnt like a meat grinder like russia i shouldnt have manpower issues after puting a few hundred rifleman into new guinea.

[bwheatley]

let me inventory my units and see what i have deployed as allies maybe i'm missing something big.

[bwheatley]

So i'm pretty sure putting manpower on daily report, and cutting back WA at start and then giving them manpower chunks when the 2 groups of us cities join is a good alternative and keep it more historical.