World at War v32a2 released

[von altair]

There are some main bugs in v32 version. They are now fixed in this patch with some
added modifications. This patch contains some balance fixes, which will make the
game better in human vs. human games. AI won't give too much fight anyway.

Feel free to try it and please give constructive feedback about these things. I will
modify it, if needed.

http://www.yourfilehost.com/media.php?c ... _v32a2.pt2

NOTE: This only contains .pt file, so you need an original zip file with graphics installed

Patch WaW v32a1 - Von Altair
- Japan supply (from USA) now works correctly, earlier it just gave message, no supply.
- Soviet Aid card will be now redealt after the use. SU also get a message about it.
- China was getting supply from USA, but didin't get a message. Now they do.
- USA HQ with cargoships moved from inland to beach.
- Added some roads and bridges to Japan
- Soviets got 15 trains more, divided to 3 fronts.
- Added some heavy forest to Finland, to make that area more historical.
- SMG got 20% defense bonus in fortification, fortress, urban and heavy forest, +10 cost too.
- Transport plane cost 2000 -> 1000.
- Long range transport plane 2000 -> 1500
- Elite Infantry tech req. 4 -> 3.
- Added Paratroop II-IV (uses Basic Rifle techs). They are like infantry but weaker anti-tank cabability.
- Carrier Air supply cost -> 40
- Increased Flak off/def values slightly, Flak IV got +1 AA range
- Fighters & Dive bombers got 1 rangestep more (according to tests, this is the best one)
- Germany got Submarine tech lvl 2, subs are not upgraded though
- German color is now dark grey with better flag
- German minor color is now light grey with the same flag as Germany
- Reduced Cruiser AA ability slightly
- Increased Carrier AA ability (it now has the same off/def values than Flak), Carrier IV got +1 AA range like Flak IV
- Soviets can now build Conscripts
- German and Japan uses own Carrier Air graphics, not Allied one!
- Optional: Special Rules - Allied anti-blitz card and France prepared card comes to play with this

Patch WaW v32a2
- Fixed winter environment battlemodifiers (they were not set at all)
* This is actually major bug in very good scenario. It has been there at the beginning.
* For example: Fighters and Divebombers have 50% penalty, when attacking against
* urban hex. When winter weather kicks in, they didin't have that penalty at all.
* Mostly all units had the same problem. So basically units were totally unbalanced
* at winter
- Max. 6 HQ's can now be chained (earlier it was 4). This is very important for Allies.
- Tweaked AI a bit, to make it give more challenge.

[Barthheart]

ORIGINAL: von altair

...
- German color is now dark grey with better flag
...
- German and Japan uses own Carrier Air graphics, not Allied one!

von altair, unless you include these new graphics with the scenario file, people will get an error that they can't find the graphic.

Otherwise this looks interesting......

[von altair]

ORIGINAL: Barthheart

ORIGINAL: von altair

...
- German color is now dark grey with better flag
...
- German and Japan uses own Carrier Air graphics, not Allied one!

von altair, unless you include these new graphics with the scenario file, people will get an error that they can't find the graphic.

Otherwise this looks interesting......

You are right, but all those graphics are in default game and/or included in original waw.
So everything works fine, when a player installs original waw first.

[IRONCROM]

I like those changes.
 
Since this is a player mod. Maybe we should play with this version Barthheart. I could give it a good test run then.
 
Nice work von.[:D]

[Barthheart]

ORIGINAL: IRONCROM

I like those changes.

Since this is a player mod. Maybe we should play with this version Barthheart. I could give it a good test run then.

Nice work von.[:D]

Sure, fire it up!

[IRONCROM]

I'll get my turn to you this morning.

[Barthheart]

ORIGINAL: von altair

ORIGINAL: Barthheart

ORIGINAL: von altair

...
- German color is now dark grey with better flag
...
- German and Japan uses own Carrier Air graphics, not Allied one!

von altair, unless you include these new graphics with the scenario file, people will get an error that they can't find the graphic.

Otherwise this looks interesting......

You are right, but all those graphics are in default game and/or included in original waw.
So everything works fine, when a player installs original waw first.

Yep your right.... I should really have checked this out before my comment....[:-]

[Delyn Locksmiths]

I get an unhandled exception error with it. Not sure why/

[von altair]

Everyone should stop playing old waw versions right away and read first message
in this thread once again

[Barthheart]

Good find von!

I also found some more slight errors in the build costs etc for landscape types:

LocType AutoRebuild EPCost SupplyCost PPCost

Fortification 150 250 200 4
Fortification LF 200 200* 200 4
Fortification HF 250 250 300* 3*

Fortress 150* 500 500 10
Fortress LF 200* 200* 200* 4*
Fortress HF 200* 250* 300* 3*

Airfield 150 100 300 3
Port 100 200 500 3
Military Base 125* 400 800 6 - both a port and airfield

City(16) 1600
City(8) 800
City(4) 600*
SpecialCity(4) 600*
City(2) 200
City(0) 200
Resource 200
Factory 250

Stars mark inconsistant numbers.

Anyone want to suggest correct values?

Maybe you can fix and add these to your mod?


EDIT: ARRGH! Can't do tables......[:@]

[JAMiAM]

Hi Vance,

Those building costs, and auto repair costs were changes that I had made in my unreleased mod that Tom had used as a basis for the scenario. They are intended to be that way, as building certain types of fieldworks in differing terrains can be either more or less expensive. Likewise, for the auto repair, since the terrain would dictate the ease of repair, once damaged. I was trying to get *away* from cookie-cutter costs.[;)]

The auto repair boost for the 4000 cities was to raise that up a bit since strat bombing of them was reducing them too quickly in some of the games that I was playing.

[Barthheart]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Hi Vance,

Those building costs, and auto repair costs were changes that I had made in my unreleased mod that Tom had used as a basis for the scenario. They are intended to be that way, as building certain types of fieldworks in differing terrains can be either more or less expensive. Likewise, for the auto repair, since the terrain would dictate the ease of repair, once damaged. I was trying to get *away* from cookie-cutter costs.[;)]

The auto repair boost for the 4000 cities was to raise that up a bit since strat bombing of them was reducing them too quickly in some of the games that I was playing.

Ahhhh...hmmmm..... I'll have to think about the build costs.... I was thinking that building in more difficult terrain should cost more/be harder to do. I know what you mean by cookie-cutter stuff but I personally like some kind of progression... but I'm an engineer so that kinda comes with the personallity...[;)]

I was also thinking that Factories shouls have a very low rebuild and be completely destroyable. Would make Engineers more valuabale, shameless plug [:D]. Maybe Ports, Airfields, Mil. Bases as well. Would also make people invest in air defence....

Would really like to here from others playing this scenario, then maybe we can come to some kind of consensous and not have 13 versions of WAW as IRONCROM suggested in another thread...

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: Barthheart

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Hi Vance,

Those building costs, and auto repair costs were changes that I had made in my unreleased mod that Tom had used as a basis for the scenario. They are intended to be that way, as building certain types of fieldworks in differing terrains can be either more or less expensive. Likewise, for the auto repair, since the terrain would dictate the ease of repair, once damaged. I was trying to get *away* from cookie-cutter costs.[;)]

The auto repair boost for the 4000 cities was to raise that up a bit since strat bombing of them was reducing them too quickly in some of the games that I was playing.

Ahhhh...hmmmm..... I'll have to think about the build costs.... I was thinking that building in more difficult terrain should cost more/be harder to do. I know what you mean by cookie-cutter stuff but I personally like some kind of progression... but I'm an engineer so that kinda comes with the personallity...[;)]

I was also thinking that Factories shouls have a very low rebuild and be completely destroyable. Would make Engineers more valuabale, shameless plug [:D]. Maybe Ports, Airfields, Mil. Bases as well. Would also make people invest in air defence....

Would really like to here from others playing this scenario, then maybe we can come to some kind of consensous and not have 13 versions of WAW as IRONCROM suggested in another thread...

Well...I certainly wouldn't argue with an engineer, but the reasoning behind my decisions is roughly as follows. There are three types of "currency" with which to "purchase" the fortifications, and fortresses. EP's, which obviously represent the local engineering assets necessary to construct the level of fortification. This takes into account the nature of the terrain, and effective change in deployment/protection status that improvement offers over the base terrain. In forests, it is relatively easier to get untrained (non-engineer) troops to knock down a few trees, clear a few fire zones, etc. Supplies, representing enough "extra" goods, concrete, etc., within the chain of command (supply) that is available. Obviously, troops that aren't getting bullets and food should be unable to construct fieldworks more extensive than the normal spadework that the autoentrenching allows. Finally, PP's which represent an amalgamated Political and Industrial cost to the changing of the hex's characteristics. For open terrain, the amount of construction necessary to provide the protection level delta that is afforded by improvement is higher for fortresses, as I envision them requiring a more substantial outlay in terms of bunkers, concrete, extensive entrenchments, etc., in order to reach the same level of protection that is obtained within a more restricted terrain. Fewer people generally live in forests compared to open areas, so there is less political upheaval in relocating people from the built-up areas. Also, there is generally easier access to building materials, wood, stonework, etc., so that the costs of obtaining and transporting them to the area are lower, as well.

[Delyn Locksmiths]

for some reason this wont download for me now. Though the other file did fine. Can you put it on the community site?

[Delyn Locksmiths]

working now, strange.

[von altair]

ORIGINAL: Delyn Locksmiths

for some reason this wont download for me now. Though the other file did fine. Can you put it on the community site?

Its on the community site too. Please, let me know what do you like about modifications.

[von altair]

Counter artillery effect is good in waw32, but, I am wondering why range have been reduced to 1. What do you guys think, should artillery still have range 2 with counter
artillery effect?

[IRONCROM]

I think Tom shortened the range cause of the size of the map. Each hex is probably a eighty kilometers(just guessing).
Range 1 arty doesn't bother me. I'm not sure he should of shortened aircraft range though. I some people complained about fighter III's being able to reach Berlin or something. Thing is the Allies did bomb Berlin from bombers based in England. I don't remember for sure but I'm guessing some of the later versions of allied escort fighters were able to reach Berlin also. P51's maybe. I think the default range for aircraft in WAW would actually be the most historically accurate range.
 Probabaly range 1 arty would be the most accurate also.

[seille]

For me range 1 is always a problem since you have to place the artillery direct in the frontline
and can´t move it back after firing (long time ago i suggested a adjustable AP reserve for moving after
firing/attacking). This together with the high stacking value makes the artillery hexes very vulnerable to
enemy ground attacks. That´s why artillery should have always range 2.
Realism aspect: In a one month turn it´s easily possible to bring the artillery in a range for firing,
fire and move them back. That´s why these 80KM are no problem.
For range 1 i wish at least a high reduction in stacking points for the artillery.

I prefer artillery range 2 myself´to keep the artillery balanced and behind the main line.
Making them rear area is here not enough because of the high stack value. You simply can´t place enough protection
in the same hex without penalty. Imho a big advantage for the attacking player.

edit: Counter artillery is ok with me.

[IRONCROM]

That's a valid point from seille. Sold me.