Bug: Post 1.06 Patch Bug List

[Uncle_Joe]

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.

[spillblood]

Man, if improved, WS would be a fine modern day version of A&A.

[spillblood]

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.

[spillblood]

Originally Posted by Uncle_Joe

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.

Where can I find a demo for World at War: A World Divided? Can't find a demo on the Matrix Games Product page, and on other pages you only find demos of the first game.

[Tim Brooks]

NEW BETA Patch v1.08:

This patch is available on the World Supremacy Product page here.

Or download it here.

Please Lets us know what you find.

[spillblood]

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.

[spillblood]

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?

[JCrowe]

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.

[JCrowe]

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.

[JCrowe]

Originally Posted by spillblood

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?

'Spill - they got it covered, they just don't advertise all the features & functions. When you first open WS and it hits you with that pop-up box for "PLAY GAME" and etc., pick the one marked "HISTORY". That will read off the patches and the fixes they were targeting.

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.