|
Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
This thread is meant to be a catch-all depository for bug reporting. If after the latest patch (1.06 as of the time of this writing) you have experienced difficulties please post a report here.
|
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
OK, there's plenty of stuff to mention, but not all bugs.
- AI can't use nukes. It builds them, but never uses them. So you can easily capture them and use them against the AI - AI always builds fleets of 1 destroyer, 1 attack sub, 1 battleship etc and doesn't expand them - AI doesn't expand very fast, usually it attacks one territory per turn, but with maximum power, doesn't seem to regard defenses in that territory - AI doesn't use Anti-Sub choppers properly - AI doesn't use neutral territories as protection against player attacks, rather uses all its forces to capture them (and since they're usually TOO well defended, lose most of their troops in attacks on neutral territories) - TCP/IP multiplayer doesn't work apparently Please add everything you have noticed, guys! |
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
- nuclear missiles can't be fired on sea territories, they work only inside a continent, can't be fired to other continents (sea territories are impassable for nuclear missiles, so they are basically land units in the current version).
|
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Just a little detail on the AI.
With units like planes and tanks,....units that are able to move more than 1 teritory, its very common to fight in more than one territory. For example with a tank I will move into an enemy territory with my first move,...fight, and after I win, move it its second movent point into another enemy controlled territory and fight there as well. Planes are able to do this 4 times in a turn. BUT the AI will never fight in more than one territory no matter how many movement points its units have remaining. This is HUGE issue for he AI since it allows players to expand at more than twice the rate of the AI players. The AI is horrible at overall strategy. It consistently leaves territories underdefended, it never accounts for the neutral territories to use their position on the map as a buffer/border againts other players. It seem completley clueless when naval forces are concerned. Basically the AI needs work at every level. |
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Quote:
|
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Hi All,
Sorry for my MIA status. Please post any bugs in this thread. I hope to start work on a new patch next week (using a public beta). More details on multiplayer not functioning would be appreciated. You can post a synopsis here, or email a complete description to ws@malfador.com. Machine specs and DSL details would be appreciated. This short list can't be all that you've run into... Aaron |
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Thanks again for posting. Hmm, I can't help with the multiplayer stuff (cause I've no one to play this game with in TCP/IP at the moment), but I'll try to post other stuff.
|
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
One thing I've noticed a few times:
The "start battle" button that appears when you enter an enemy or neutral territory with your troops sometimes isn't clickable. But it sometimes becomes clickable again when you first solve another combat (My machine specs: AMD Athlon 2400+ (single core), 1GB RAM, Radeon HD 3450 graphics card, Windows XP). |
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
I already feared that the game was abandoned and therefore I am glad to hear a new patch is under construction.
I only played the demo so far but there are two critical bugs/problems that prevented me to buy the game until now: 1.) The AI is so weak I win every game within the 20 turn limit! Needed improvements: A) Expand more rapidly. B) Focus attacks on strongest player. C) Attack neutrals only with lowest priority. D) If enemy is stronger avoid his main forces. Attack weaker territories using see and air transports if necessary. 2.) The combat system is completely flawed: If you wait and let the enemy move in your firing range you win against rather superior forces. If you can't have real time combats (like in SEV) I suggest that you let player A move, then player B move, then player A select the targets, then player B select the target and only then apply the damage simultaneously to the units of both players A and B. That may lead to mutual destruction of both armies, which I would count as failed attack. |
Re: "Manifesto" Submissions
As per the other WS issues thread, manifesto file loaded & launched - but sent to "info@malfador...etc.", not the "ws@" address cited above in this thread. Let me know if that poses an issue and if I should re-send.
Others seem interested in reviewing a copy. Unfortunately, the Board only supports the attachment of .doc files up to 19.5K in size, and we're looking at ... 96K. I suppose I could post the script into the thread itself directly - or into an independent thread - but that might also prove "excessive". One can only imagine the conversion rate between 'letter' and 'thread page'. |
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
You could upload it at a filehoster, if you have an account, for example megaupload or rapidshare.
|
Re: "Manifesto" Submissions
Quote:
|
Re: Manifestos
Never used a filehoster or any of that jazz. Also discovered that your basic doc file starts off with baseline of nearly 20K, even if it's blank. Thus, I can't chop it up into multiple installments.
Well, I COULD, but there would be about forty or fifty of the things. I might be a loon, but I'm not that nuts. On the other point, well, one could ASSUME that all roads lead to Rome, but you'd be surprised at how often that path leads to Syracuse instead. Or Bangladesh. What at first seems so near can instead be so far. Of course, I could click the selector to 'auto' and spam the whole set of available addresses ... but the intent is to be friendly, not fanatic. Or insane. |
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Hehe, OK. I think he got it.
|
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Quote:
Very little participation the last time, I think. Seems Aaron's posts didn't reactivate many former participants of the forum. |
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
OK, silence of the grave again. Hope there'll be any updates soon. This forum is ****ing dead, I'd say, only 4 or 5 participants, and weeks of silence.
|
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Quote:
It is over,you (we) are dreaming. |
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Man, the current situation is: Only a few people are supposed to beta-test this half finished game. There simply can't be more bug reports than ours, 'cause no one is reading this forum except us, and no one cares about the game anymore. Sorry, can't put this any other way.
|
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Quote:
I mean I bought the game at the beginning of january and I have not enjoyed it for 5 minutes. Let the truth be told,this game stinks. And as you point out, only 5 people care. |
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Im still watching, hoping something comes out of this.
I am starting to consider just giving up on PC wargaming. It seems almost every game is either a game of mobile rock/paper/scissors, or so complicated to the point of choosing what brand of toothpaste the troops use. Wargames that require planning, combined arms, and dont require you to quit your job to play just dont seem to be getting made any longer. The last three wargames I have bought have been disappointments. -Empires of Steel----Actually a VERY good game. But it has two real issues. Only the player has to deal with fog of war and sight range,...the AI sees everything through fog of war even beyond the sight range of the units in the game,..the AI knows if you have a sub across the map from it. The second problem is the developer has taken a 'real' job, and has said he will not be making any more updates for the game barring any real big bugs. If he would fix the AI cheating issues it would not be a problem as the game is damn good every where else. But as it stands,...just another game where the developer took the money and ran without finishing the product they sold. -Advanced Tactics Gold---- Again another really good game that really gets snakebit by one issue. The games AI cant use some of the units that are in the game. What?????? You make a wargame,...with all the usual units and somehow think its ok that the AI for the game cant use some of the units in the game,....particularly aircraft carriers. One of my favorite aspects of a game of this type is naval warfare. And this is an UPGRADE??????Maybe fixing the BIGGEST problem would have been a good idea. -And this game,....which I dont need to really repeat the issues with. It seems todays developers are really lacking in their ability to code a decent AI. |
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
If you want a playable WW2 Grand Strategy game, try Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided. This is the 2nd game, not the original. To me, it has almost the perfect blend of detail and playability. The AI isnt bad (certainly will teach you things for a while), but once you're experienced you have to start giving it handicaps.
The 'final' patch for it just came out a few weeks ago and I believe it hammers out the last of the real issues with the game over the years. Support for the game was quite good and I believe it's in a very good place now. If you try it, lemme know what you think! :) As far as World Supremacy goes, I'm still in 'watch and see' mode too. I check the forum to see if anything happens, but I'm not holding my breath. If something does, great! If not, well it wont be the first time I've wasted money on a poor PC game and I'm sure it wont be the last. I realize that is a lousy attitude in some ways, but I think it's just being realistic and in fact, I have many board games in the same category...we play them once or twice and then not really much again. |
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Hey, I read about this before (about Grigsby's World at War). I should try it out, 'cause I really like Axis & Allies (although I haven't played the boardgame before, it's only available via Import in Germany, never got a German release). TripleA is a fine freeware version of A&A. I think it works way better than World Supremacy at its current state (although the AI isn't perfect, but it's a better opponent than the AI in WS anyway).
|
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Man, if improved, WS would be a fine modern day version of A&A.
|
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
And I bought it because I wanted a relatively simple modern day Grand Strategy game, a modern version of for example Empire Deluxe. But it simply doesn't deliver enough at present. And the low support means you won't get much mods for it, like they advertise. It's great they emphasize the moddability on the product page, and there are only 2 or 3 mods. Anyone who looks into this forum will immediately decide not to buy the game, I think.
|
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
|
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Will try the patch.
|
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Yeah, me too.
|
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Haven't played enough yet, but I noticed the AI seems to expand faster now, and takes unoccupied territories first, which is good. Have to play more to give bug reports.
|
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Didn't notice any bugs yet. AI seems to expand faster, and nukes can be fired to sea territories now. But I don't know if this "AI only makes one attack" problem is solved. I saw the AI make two attacks per round, but that were one land attack where just massed its troops (regardless of defenders) and one sea attack. Haven't been nuked yet, so I don't know if the inability of the AI to fire nukes has been fixed. I also saw AI troops retreating from border territories like it used to do in some older versions (and it couldn't set up a proper defense after that). I've to play more to really judge the fixes this patch made, I think. I haven't finished the game I started yet.
Would be nice to know the changelog of the beta patch. |
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Quote:
|
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
|
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Anyone tried the patches (I've tried 1.07)? The game seems to progress again. I'll test 1.08! Some problems have already been fixed.
|
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
That goes to Shrapnel: Changelogs would be nice to know what's been fixed in each new patch. Will they only be part of the final patch?
|
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Version 1.08??
Dang it, I only just got started on v1.07!! Well, when it rains it pours. Below's what I've got on that ancient wreck, v1.07. I'll start fiddling with v1.08 as soon as time allows. Initial Impressions of v1.07 I haven’t had the time to run too many scenarios with the new update, but from what I’ve seen so far, there are both points of promise and delight intermixed with the foibles and faults of the old. We’ve been told that WS is still a work-in-progress IN BRIEF .... GOOD STUFF - Unit Balance is much improved, and it shows - AI is far quicker to seize territory & earn big victory bucks - AI is much more flexible with its naval units - Nukes are less restricted (Go Atoms!) WORKS-IN-PROGRESS - Unit balances still need tweaking *Beware the All-Mighty Supercruiser * Wherefore Art Thou, ‘Chopper’? - Advanced tech costs the same as old tech (?) - AI is Tech-Obsessed (to a fault) - AI responds poorly to local threats AS YET UNDETERMINED ... - Is the AI still limiting itself to one attack per turn? DETAIL IN DEPTH Air power still predominates, but not nearly to the unrestrained degree it once enjoyed. And if AAA is present, the equation shifts notably to the advantage of ground forces. Tanks and rocket artillery units suddenly have value beyond being mere grabbers of turf, scurrying behind in the wake of your airborne fury. The rebalance was strong enough that I find myself unable to simply steamroll over all the neutral armies I encounter with whatever fragmentary forces of mine happen to reach them first. Instead, I’ve been forced to ‘sit’ and build combined assault forces to pound some of the larger redoubts into the ground. A slow process in a neutral-happy world. I found myself pushed to ‘hopscotch’ around many of the neutrals to seize unoccupied territory in order to earn direly-needed “beginner’s cash” for rapid construction of my hellforesaken Nixon-esque military-industrial complex. It’s also been an eye-opener to see some of the AI competitors not only match my acquisition of land, but to see them exceed it as well, and by fair margins at times. It goes without saying that a players in a game like WS never ever want to be behind the old eight-ball on resource exploitation. A long stay there is a sure path to irrelevancy - and brutal extermination. The AI is also clearly putting more thought into the development of its naval forces and their deployment. Not always making good choices, but certainly better ones than it was once wont to do. So ... ‘yay’! Still, there are areas as yet incomplete. To my mind, cruisers remain wholly unchallenged in terms of naval dominance, and god help the poor fool who wagers otherwise with his men and hard-earned steel. Choppers are cute (aww – lookit the chain gun animation!!), but I still fail to perceive any value argument for their use. Sure, cheaper dollar-wise than a Fighter Jet, but more vulnerable to AAA and less adept at stomping all the dirt-draggers swarming beneath their heavenly feet. Meh. Again, this is just my initial impression, based on limited scenario plays, and it may evolve with time and experience. Another area needing attention is the AI – as Aaron himself has noted. It’s more assertive and spicy, but weaknesses abound. For example, I’m impressed at its newfound ability to rapidly acquire territory, even in the face of neutral obstacles. But I’m perplexed by how it appears to leverage this advantage. The new AI seems pretty obsessed with tech development. It pushes new tech with urgency – so much so, that it sacrifices the demands of the present for the needs of the future. Level 3 Stealth Fighter tech is way cool, but it’s not that useful if you can’t build any jets because you’re plowing cash into tech investments. I often end up way ‘behind’ on tech, but with a military so powerful with the basic units that it doesn’t matter. Tech toys only have value if you can build the things, not just stare at them and grope at their brochures as your mind races with prurient dreams of bloodsome conquest. Speaking of tech, I begin to wonder if it makes sense that more advanced units should continue costing the same as their older incarnations. Basic Regular Bomber - $36 million. Fancy Super-Techno Level 3 “Lord of Flying Death” Stealth Ultra-Bomber .... $36 million. (!) You don’t even have to pay shipping or sales tax! Sure, you have to pay for the scientific research, but at $50 million a pop for a 75% chance of return ... that’s hardly much of a barrier to development. One last point of note – despite the improvements, the AI does not seem to respond well to local threats. It expands, but doesn’t seem to plan for contingencies, such as ‘what do I do if I bump into another player in the west?’ One good ‘hit’ to a ‘mustering’ area, and its local defense usually falls apart – completely. It has trouble deciding where to draw a new line, what sacrifices it will have to accept and to what extent, and where and how it will construct a defense or launch a counter-attack. I seem to hit these guys and roll them up like yesterday’s news. The AI seems to prefer building reinforcements way, waaay behind the front lines and deploying them piecemeal to the front. And for all its tech investments, when my air fleets of auto-death start sailing in from the periphery, the AIs never mass-build AAA or fighters as a counter. PS. I’d also note that for all the cash the AI will invest in Tech, it will not invest the same in capital. That is to say, it doesn’t build cities, even on 12-point resource territories that practically scream for real-estate development. |
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
NOW we're talkin' gravy!
v1.08 Field Tested Tonight, and what a difference it is. AI is significantly improved. It expands very well, does a decent job of slapping neutrals, and builds defensive forces that require more than a sneeze to knock over. Even counterattacks on occasion. Still relatively easy to beat, but you need to be cautious - and watch out for marauding fleets off your coast. And buggers! The AI is leveraging its tech! (I started tonight's scenario with gigantic map, neutral, maximum computer players, lowest starting tech, resources, etc. - great way to stress-test the AI.) It invests in anti-air almost immediately, and you wouldn't believe how rapidly AAA starts to blossom. S.O.B. even built AAA emplacements to guard a city that gave me hell. And there's another point - I'd swear that the AI is investing in cities. Caught one empire with its metaphorical pants down and stormed his mid-section hard. Found a bunch of 11- and 12-point territories (lucky sod) that all had double-cities. I've never seen that randomly generate. AI was evaluating the strength of respective territories and must have been deliberating picking the best for improvement. Oh, and let's not forget CHOPPERS! They mean something now! Slow and less versatile than jets, but they now pack a mean anti-surface wallop that the cloud-chasers can't match (until strategic air gets called-in). At $16 mil a pop, I'm buying in bulk. Total ELF-WRANGLERS. WEAK POINT IN THE NEW AI This one can go right out to Aaron - the AI is investing deeply in cities, tech, ground units that matter, and the best the navy has to offer. HOWEVER ... note the absence of an aerial component. Very few bombers, fewer fighters, and chopper one-offs. Major avoidance. Great that it will build AAA and use it appropriately, but jets are still super dangerous. AI needs to rebalance its priorities and recognize the authority of air power. You are NOT going to win this on the ground alone. The AI also still needs to do a better job of planning its response to attack or the threat of invasion. I saw them, they saw me, now see my death fleet a-massing to come and stomp thee ... and what are you doing - macrame? Time to rebalance and reprioritize. Put down the tech guys, sideline the tanks, and turn up the budget on jets and AAA, baby, 'cause Step-Daddy's comin' home with Jackie D in one and a baseball bat in the other. |
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Quote:
Another feature that I had missed was the bar in the tactical screen - very top, with the unit icons. I originally thought it was wallpapering. Did not realize it was a scroll for initiative. Reads from left-to-right in order of play. Easy to miss; again, bad advertising. |
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Hey, thanks for these detailed first impressions of the new patches, JCrowe. I played one game with big detailed map so far. I started it in V 1.07 and about midway installed 1.08. I immediately noticed differences between the two versions. The game had one big continent in the east in two smaller ones in the west. I managed to conquer most of the big continent in the first session, installed V 1.08 and conquered the rest of the world. With 1.08 one of the AIs was able to mount an invasion of the big continent that was already under my control and used a captured factory to build some more troops. Never saw that in the previous versions. I also saw one of the AI players bombard a neutral territory with a nuke and take it. The AI also knows how to use carriers now. They loaded a bunch of planes on a carrier one time and attacked one my fleets with them. In previous versions the AI never attacked fleets with planes. Planes now seem to be more effective against ships, but pretty useless against subs.
I was nuked occasionally, but never to such an extent than my own nuclear attacks. My favourite tactic is to build around 20 or 30 nukes and wipe everything in reach clean to take it easily. There really should be some anti-nuke system to prevent such a tactic 'cause the AI simply can't defend against a massive nuclear assault. Another option would be to increase buying costs or better, maintenance costs of nukes to prevent players from buying massive nuclear arsenals. It also still tends to go against weaker players or neutrals instead of mounting successful counter offensives. It was pretty easy to conquer the remaining two continents in the west. The AI needs to employ more tactics, effectively prepare attacks with nuclear or cruiser fire and it should try to counter offensives with the appropriate troops. That would make the game more challenging. I'll play another game to how I fare in a game that was started in 1.08. Hehe, by the way, I also wondered what this iniative bar was for earlier, but someone in the forum told me that it's showing the turn order of units in combat. |
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Anyway, congrats to Aaron. The game is definitely moving in the right direction.
|
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Some visual glitches I noticed: Helicopter fire sometimes disappears and seems to be coming from the opposite side of the enemy. For example, when I have a helicopter to the left of an enemy and attack, the effect suddenly disappears and seems to be coming from the right edge of the screen, with the same angle as before (and it still goes in the direction of the enemy). Looks strange. Another thing: (Nuclear) Missiles sometimes take strange, looping paths shaped like the number 8 to their targets, and explosions often appear before missiles have hit their targets. Sometimes the game hangs shortly (mostly when a rocket artillery fires), the missiles disappear and suddenly appear before the enemy and hit him. Other kind of battle effects appear normal, there are only problems with artillery missiles and nuclear missiles.
|
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Quote:
|
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Played another medium sized map. I still haven't lost a single game. The difficulty is a bit higher than before, but the AI is still pretty easy to beat, mainly because it can't organize a proper defense. It should give more priority to protecting factories and cities. You can often take those territories without a fight because it simply fails to concentrate troops on these territories to defend it. When it's occupied with fighting another AI player it almost doesn't react to your attacks (only takes single territories, but focuses its attacks on the AI it was fighting with before). It should be able to recognize strengths of the attackers and focus the defense on the stronger attacker instead of attacking a weaker enemy. Hehe, when I attack an AI enemy, I often see some other player ruthlessly backstabbing him. But most of the time it's easy to destroy this AI after you've beat the one that had to wage a two-front war.
The AI really needs to be able to use its troops more efficiently instead of malpositioning them or wasting them on a weaker enemy. |
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
The patches did fix the AI's expansion rate, but it still doesn't know how to use its troops efficiently.
|
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
I also seems that the AI still just moves its troops toward you and fires in tactical combat. If you wait and fire first, you can destroy many enemy units pretty easily.
The AI seems to throw troops at you regardless of unit capabilities so that you're can actually destroy some attacking armies although they have more troops than you (because the AI uses the wrong units for the job). |
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
It should somehow calculate the strength of player units based on their unit capabilities instead of just attacking with a bigger number of units that are inferior to yours.
|
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Quote:
In The Great Manifesto, Chapters 3 and 9, subsections 7 and 49, I brought up the need to nerf the nukes in some way. In verses 24-38 of the Great Book, I outlined two possible suggestions for blunting the nuclear impact without actually turning them into watered-down CHEESE SAUCE. 1.) "Star Wars" Option. Or think "Patriot Missile". Basically, give AAA units the capacity to intercept inbound ballistic missiles. AA emplacements, for example, might have a 10% chance of shooting down any nuke targeting their territory OR AN ADJACENT TERRITORY. The ability would be cumulative, with two emplacements granting a 20% chance, 3 emplacements = 30%, etc. up to some pre-determined cap. Maybe 60 or 70%. That way, there's a decent probability of dodging a couple hits, but never so much that nukes become effectively impotent. Missile defense could extend to cover against ballistic strikes from subs and mobile launchers, too. Mobile AA units, just like the fixed emplacements, might also possess an intercept capability - although far less in scope. Maybe they can only cover the territory in which they are located (minimal umbrella) and only provide a 5% chance of intercept per unit, up to a lower [pre-determined maximum limit. 2.) "International Opprobium" Basically, using nukes makes the player a "bad guy", which is to say that it paints a huge bulls-eye on your backside. There are a couple layers to this, but in simple terms ... DETECTION - If the AI detects the presence of nukes, it automatically arms up with missiles and spreads them out, so that it will not be caught flat-footed by a nuclear attack - nor will it potentially lose its own entire store of nukes in a single strike. MAD don't work when only one side's got The Bomb. Everyone needs a little atomic love to play, so when the nukes start to spring forth on one side, the other teams need to arm up or they're just sitting ducks. CASTIGATION - If someone actually uses a nuke, that fact is broadcast to all players in the game, and the first-strike user becomes a "marked man". Basically, we know EXACTLY what 'you did last summer', and we expect nothing but the same next time around. So ... we aren't waiting for the encore; we're going to beat you to the punch. If Red Team nuked Blue, then Green Team (who has not yet encountered Red) arms up with nukes, and when Green eventually meets Red, Green gets prejudicial with the plutonium. This way, using nukes carries real repercussions. You immediately become a target for nuclear attack, and other parties will be much less reticent to open fire than they would have been otherwise. So while bombing a beachhead or wiping the slate clean on an unfriendly continent might be a great first move, the player now has to deal with the fact that everyone and his PLAID CHAIR granny will be tossing A-bombs in his backyard, too. And it ain't nearly so much fun to be on the receiving end as it is to be on the delivering. |
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Yes, that are both good ways to make nukes less overpowered. But maybe new kinds of units especially for nuke defense could be introduced instead of using the existing anti-aircraft units. The second option would require some kind of diplomacy system, I think (which would be nice).
|
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
One more thing I've noticed in the last games: When an AI player is defeated and still has fleets left (on some sea territories), they don't move. They just remain in the territory where they were left when the AI lost all its territories. Would be cooler when they'd do some last kamikaze attacks.
|
Re: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List
Anything new? There've been no news about the game the last days. Have you noticed more bugs or stuff like that?
|
Banzai!!
IL Manifesto II – Viva la Deuce!
It’s baack! Another impressively unshortened vision of things that may or never be. This edition covers the workings of World Supremacy version 1.08, and is not comprehensive by any stretch of the imagination, but it does comprehense plenty for the time being. Be forewarned, some of these suggestions are fairly radical, and are based on what I think might work. Hard to say, because the ‘AI’ has not proven strong enough yet to test some of the issues that birthed the fears to which I’m responding, so I’m making projections on what MIGHT be and how best to ‘fix’. Summary to start, then detailed explanations to follow (where necessary). SUGGESTED UPGRADES IN BRIEF: DESTROYERS - Nerf the enhanced AA capability - Able to kill subs in a single shot SUBS - Attack Subs able to bombard (range = 1) - Cannot be ‘seen’ or attacked except by ASW - ASW = Destroyers, ASW Choppers, other Subs - Sub launching an attack is visible (though number and type is not) - Able to kill a destroyer or transport with a single shot - When in the presence of ASW, sub initiative is lowered - When not in the presence of ASW, sub initiative is high (normal) - No ASW around? Enemy sub can occupy the same sea territory as enemy forces (battle not compelled; by option of sub owner only) BOMBARD!! - Attack Subs & Cruisers can surgical-strike; click on target, blow it up (not random) - Player’s cursor ought to change to a pulsing red gunsight (or something) when ‘bombardment’ option is selected. (Helps prevent confusion w/movement. ROCKET ARTILLERY – OPEN QUESTION - Increase range to 8 squares in tactical if (as I think) tank initiative is so high that they can move three times for every one move by Rocket Artillery TACTICAL MAP - If a unit passes on a turn, it remains ‘at ready’ and will auto-shoot any enemy force entering range while it ‘rests’ - Units stack by type, regardless of tech; when the group is attacked, the lowest tech units in the stack absorb the damage first and so on FORTIFICATIONS - Mitigates the damage done by bombardments - More forts or higher tech forts = more protection from bombardment - (bombardment includes nuke strikes) - Protection against bombardment has a fixed ceiling - Higher tech installations increase the ceiling, but a limit remains (No invincibility allowed) - In tactical combat, forts mitigate damage to GROUND UNITS located in the first three columns of squares on the defender’s side of the map - Ditch the enhancement forts presently give to defender’s initiative TRANSPORTS (JET OR SHIP) - Loss of movement points during load is proportional to the load (ie. load up 50% of your capacity in Turn 1, you only lose 50% of the unit’s movement points in Turn 1) CARRIERS (all) - No penalty to ship or aircraft for flight operations; carrier acts the same as ‘land’ to all air units TECH - Why stop at Level 3; why not add a fourth to most tech trees? - More Advanced stuff should cost more; Level 2 should cost more than Level 1 - Stealth aircraft should be more expensive than conventional jets, even when tech level is the same ie. Bomber 1 = $36M; Stealth Bomber 1 = $40M …. FIGHTERS AND BOMBERS - Limit to ONE ATTACK per turn SPECIALIZATION – Option for GAME SETUP - If chosen, each player can pick one unit for ‘specialization’. For example, pick “attack helicopter” and you have Level 2 attack helicopters, even though your beginning tech level is “one”. Upgrade to Level 2, and your attack helicopters go to Level 3, while other ‘chopper types only move up to Level 2. NEW UNITS – AUGMENTED INFANTRY - Infantry to come in three flavors: - Standard - Mechanized - Air Cav - Standard infantry unchanged from current - Mechanized infantry - costs more - represented by an APC icon - moves 2 on strategic map - moves 3 on tactical map - attack strength is higher than standard infantry - attack range is still 2 squares - has higher initiative than standard infantry - “Air Cav” infantry - costs more than mechanized - represented by a Bell Huey or Mi-17 icon? - moves 3 on strategic map & can cross water - moves 3 on tactical map - attack strength is higher than mechanized infantry - attack range is 3 squares - has higher initiative than mechanized infantry ICONIC OPTIONS Just a thought, but it would be cool if, at Game Setup, you can choose from different ‘families’ of unit icons. Currently, everyone shows up using good ol’ USA / NATO / Western pact iconography – M1 tanks, Apache helicopters, 688 attack subs … only exception seems to be the boomers; old Soviet Typhoon-class, not the Washingtons. Go fig. (Well, they do look way more cool.) But why not let users chose a different family of icons / pics? Eastern bloc / Soviet Empire, for example. Bored with those Apaches? Why not try a Mi-24 Hind instead? Or a Havoc? And the F-117 was so yesterday. F-22s perhaps? |
That's Me in the Corner, Squawking the Details
DETAILS, DETAILS, DETAILS
DESTROYERS Why do I want to nerf the ability of destroyers to shoot down jets? For one, because Destroyers in v1.08 make Carriers next to irrelevant. A couple destroyers are enough to protect a fleet against air attack, so who needs carriers? Where’s the value argument for adding them to your fleet? There isn’t one, especially when fighter jet range is usually enough to strike across continental divides. The enhanced range you get from using a carrier as a platform doesn’t do much good in WS – unless you have a really massive ocean in your game. Secondly, in real life, destroyers ARE used as air defense, but – they suck. Think “Pacific Theater” in WW2. Destroyers are nice, but they mean $#!^ against air power. Any fleet that’s gone to sea since 1942 without the benefit of air cover and has been attacked by air power has lost. (Well, the Sharnhorst, Gneisneau, & Prinz Eugen made it, but that was pure luck.) Basically, destroyers are meant to act as a cheap shield for the ships that really matter. They can shoot planes, but their primary function is hitting subs or ‘getting in the way’. THAT’s where they ought to be ‘enhanced’ for naval pleasure – in the detecting and sinking of subs. SUBS Value argument all over again. What’s the point of the Attack Sub in WS? As it stands: target practice. High initiative is cute, but you need more than cute to win fights or establish a role in the game. Computer loves ‘em. I sink ‘em with jets. From shore. As an afterthought. The strength of a sub comes from its ability to surprise, to attack without warning. T’ain’t no good if you can see the thing waltzing in from a country mile off. They’ve got to be hidden from prying eyes, or they’re useless. And so are ASW units. Who needs ‘em if you can ‘see’ the subs with non-ASW forces and kill them with … just about anything else in range. ASW has a real point, a real value, when they’re the only game in town for spotting these underwater bushwhackers and putting them in their place. Finally, in the real world, attack subs are often used to attack targets on land. And if our cruisers can bombard, why not subs? And this is how it all comes together: Sneaky sub steals up to the enemy coastline. He targets a squadron of enemy bombers and prepares to shoot. Team Blue is just one click away from invasion! But wait – Team Blue has ASW choppers based nearby. One runs a patrol and picks up Mr. Unfriendly from the deep blue sea – and says “hello”, with anti-sub torpedoes as he calls in support from a nearby attack sub... And only after writing this did I realize that, like, this is right out of “Red Storm Rising”. And this is what creates a real game dynamic. If you don’t have ASW, you risk having attack subs (or boomers) surfing your coasts and picking off your best units on land, or surprising unguarded transports. Put up a ‘net’, and you might catch them first. Or not. Cat & Mouse. ROCKET ARTILLERY Statistically, they seem useful / relevant. Operationally, they seem near useless for the $10 mil they cost. It seems like tanks can move three times for every one move the artillery gets. I might be wrong, because it’s hard to tell, but it seems like artillery either dies before it can shoot, or gets to shoot once if other units are dying slower than normal. If a tank unit in one-on-one combat can frag an artillery without even taking a hit, the artillery is way too weak. Boosting range might be the easiest fix. TACTICAL MAP Units have to stack by type, even if those units have different tech. Having Level 1 Fighters and Level 2 Fighters as different units on the Tac Map is too much of an advantage, and in a game between humans (or with a good AI), will inevitably lead to an overkill of unit proliferation or ‘sacrificial lambs’. So, I suggest stacking them, even if the tech level is different. Stacking won’t affect their attack strength, and damage, when received, can be applied to the lower-tech units in the stack first. I also think that a unit who chooses to pass up its turn (no move, no attack) ought to have that initiative held in ‘reserve’. So if an enemy unit moves into range after the ‘pass’ is made, the passing unit can immediately (automatically) shoot. Adds dimension to the game, and makes it harder for some units to exploit their overwhelming advantages without cost. Basically, instead of moving, the unit has chosen to hold back at the ready to spring the moment the enemy comes into view. FORTIFICATIONS Currently, they only confer a very modest benefit to the defender’s initiative. But it seems to make more ‘sense’ if they can offer protection from Bombardments and mitigate damage received in the Tactical Map. That is, so long as they stick to the defender’s side of the board. Seems wrong / odd that a unit that moves out into the attacker’s zone or the middle ground is covered by fortifications built waay back over yonder. TRANSPORTS Again, just seems ‘wrong’ that a transport loses all movement points, whether loading just one unit or a dozen. Cargo jet moves four per turn; why not let it fly one, load one unit, and fly one more space? Why penalize it all four points to load one unit when it has the capacity to load two? CARRIERS Should ‘Unfriend’ the cargo button entirely. Launch and / or recovery of jets is a triviality. Having to manage jet fuel capacity AND the carrier’s ‘load status’ is a bear and a short step to tragedy. I’d skip the load / launch penalties entirely and make carriers the equivalent of ‘floating land’ for jets. The limited range of fighters is a penalty enough – your carrier can’t move very far out of the area without risking the whole squadron. TECH Seems odd that the only penalty you pay for fancier toys is the investment in research. Production stays the same, whether we’re talking about Level 2, 3, or 4. Makes more sense (and adds to the game’s dynamic) if all those fancy, high-tech toys cost more. When the pressure’s on, players might find themselves opting for lower tech as a cheaper option to fill the gaps. In fact, it would be really clever (a la “Master of Orion”) if obtaining high tech made lower tech LESS expensive. Develop Level 2 jet tech, and level 1 bombers drop from $36 mil to $32. Level 2 bombers cost $36M. Develop Level 3 jet tech, and Level 1 bombers drop to $28 mil; Level 2 bombers drop to $32 mil; Level 3 sits at $36M... etc. It’s also “totally wrong” that a Level 1 Stealth Bomber or Stealth Jet costs the same as its conventional counterpart. FIGHTERS & BOMBERS Yes, maybe they should be limited to one combat mission per turn. Even with the rebalancing, they are a devastatingly powerful tool. You can have a squadron of fighters sitting on the edge of enemy turf, and when the ‘bell’ rings, that one squadron can be an active participant in up to FOUR battles. Which means you can stomp defending forces in four territories – WITH bomber support – and let the ground guys walk in to hold it ... and still have fuel left in the bombers to nail one or two more targets. The presence of AA units might be enough to mitigate this strength. Hard to say, since the AI is not forceful enough in deploying these units or in leveraging its own fighters. And the presence of AA units tends to stop all but the most powerful air groups cold. But still. Damn. Maybe a one-mission limit is enough and would make battles more ground-unit intensive. About time the ground-pounders fought a few of their own battles already. AUGMENTED INFANTRY Again, the value argument. Infantry is better than it used to be, but they still end up becoming targets in a shooting gallery. Not a credible threat, unless packed into groups of 20 or so, which is expensive. I also find the APCs problematic – they don’t contribute much of anything to the infantry in terms of firepower or survivability, and usually end up being a unit that needs to BE protected from attack. So they have no real battlefield purpose beyond moving troops quicker on the strategic map – for a relatively high price. (Cargo jets are faster / much better.) So I wonder if it might not be better to just “merge” the APCs with the infantry and have three “infantry” units available for play. Standard infantry would be the guys we’ve got now – move one on the strategic map, 2 in battle, range of 2. Cannon fodder or a distraction – unless protected by those new forts, in which case, dislodging them might be a small process. But for A Few Dollars More ... you can buy yourself “mechanized” infantry. Guys in APCs represented by an APC icon. More firepower, more speed, and a higher initiative. And if you really want to get fancy, drop $6 or $8 mil to get “Air Cav”. Ground troops who can move on the strategic map like chopper units and have better initiative, range, and hitting power in battle than even the mechanized infantry. Just a suggestion, but it seems as if they would plug a ‘void’ in the current setup and add exponentially to the dynamics of the game, without becoming too complicated, burdensome, or overly redundant. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2024, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.