WW2: Shattered Europe
Overview
The year is 1939, Hitler has blitzed though Poland and is now preparing to do the same in France.
Map can be played in EU, NA and Korea. Published since 18/02/16.
Credits for models go to Solstice: http://www.sc2mapster.com/assets/solstices-custom-sc2-models/
Visit the wiki run by fans: http://ww2-shattered-europe-beta.wikia.com/wiki/WW2:_Shattered_Europe_Beta_Wikia
If you would like to donate, just head over to my Patreon page https://www.patreon.com/Anteep
Loving the game Anteep, keep up the great work!
Just ran into a bug today where upon capturing Moscow and London, the game did not end. I can only think of a couple things that could have caused this: 1.) Moscow was captured by a neutral (Greece I think) 2.) London had been nuked by Spain and was still on fire. Giving Moscow to Germany did not make a difference.
A couple suggestions:
1.) I would love if there was some kind of indicator of the strength of Axis vs. Allies to help neutrals decide where to join (They usually want to join the underdogs and save the day). A combined Axis/Allied GDP may suffice.
2.) Not married to this idea, but it might be nice to see the infantry support upgrade give the infantry AA a bit of splash. This would make them counter mass airforce that has become too powerful for vehicles to deal with because of their rockets.
I like the idea about showing overall faction strength, I think I'll implement that.
Better options for infantry to deal with air is worth looking into, so we'll see.
As for the bug, did it occur before or after the patch? I think I found the problem and it should have been fixed.
Recent patches are not so bad, BUTTTTT the AT-TANKGUN is still stronger and
AXIS is still overwhelmingly disadvantaged, especially since the USSR increases imports without any constraints for 12 minutes, unlike Germany, which is attacked by many countries.
So, as before, the Soviet Union needs INCOME nuffs.
PLZZZZZ upgrade AXIS.
P.S German infantry is too expensive to defeat the infantry fight.
P.S The winter war of the USSR is almost absent.
Sweet jesus, this patch was great. Navy is viable in this game now, not to an overpowering extend but still used. Heavy tanks are seen in action, so are artillery and medium tanks, nothing overpowering by their use. The slider bar for the economy was also great, love the ability to instantly control the amount of materials I can produce at a time. The nuclear bombs are strong enough to not be a waste of space but not too strong to destroy entire armies. Time to make some suggestions for new ideas instead of pure balance.
That's it for now, great patch once again Anteep.
Buffing heavy tanks and nerfing AT gun, buffing infantry and nerfing artillery has been one of the best balance patch of the game. Medium tanks, heavy tanks, AT gun, infantry, and artillery are now all commonly seen in games. Unit-wise the balance is near perfect, except that perhaps air is too weak when fighting vs mass flak cannon.
Few things to note again.
List of bugs/minor issues:
1.Kill neutrals has the same hotkey as transfer ownership(R)
2.It is possible to trigger the French surrender into the US using snipers. Proof: http://i.imgur.com/rd3DpDo.jpg Edit:Clarifying something,I mean early AS France. Basically means you get US and France at the same time.
3.Towed artillery can fire almost completely backwards(no issue with this,just looks stupid)
4.Towed artillery disappears while sieging. Proof: http://i.imgur.com/trLsj55.jpg
5.It is possible to get Iceland to surrender in nation building mode by flying over them with a settler.
Proof:http://i.imgur.com/xiYG539.jpg
6. It is possible to glitch into the United States. Gap 1:http://i.imgur.com/6hBQ0AZ.jpg Gap 2:(note it is a little bit of a squeeze) http://i.imgur.com/NypzNej.jpg Result:http://i.imgur.com/C5Exe40.jpg
7.Builders sink into the ground on coasts http://i.imgur.com/evn0omO.jpg
8.It is possible to get land units underwater by having the transport really close to the water and unloading it. http://i.imgur.com/6QqvNyw.jpg
And that's all I can be bothered to do while waiting for zombie mode.
Anteep can u udate korean server??
done
TX
You can now modify the structure of your economy with the new 'Allocate GDP' button in the policies selector.
The slider allows you to allocate industries to producing either materials or money.
Haven't played the update yet but it looks a lot better than the previous afk economy. What did you exactly do to buff heavy tanks, just said heavy tanks buffed. I like that you're including a starting Navy for Germany and France, good to integrate them into the game. Problem with navy is that there just isn't any good targets for navy other than attacking UK oil and convoys. I play a really navy based Sweden, which works out very well early to mid game but as the game goes on, I simply have a massive ball of ships that can't hit anything since there isn't much to actually attack.
Yeah navies have very limited use, after all this is the European theatre of war and not the Pacific. Here IRL they were used for convoy raiding and escorting, so what else can they be used for in the game? There's no cruise missiles yet for proper ship-to-land bombardment.
Maybe there should be more convoys appearing from sea regions.
Heavy tanks got an over-all buff, more health and damage and faster attack speed. Also the first heavy tank research itself costs very little, since medium tanks are required in the first place.
I saw your updates, it seems strong enough of a buff to the policy to make sure manpower. I haven't played enough games this patch to make a judgement but some old balance problems still exist, specifically, heavy tanks. Heavy tanks are just almost purely inferior to medium tanks. Heavy tanks are relegated to the role of countering rocket SPA and defense, only not being able to due to the fact their cost is too high and their science requirements too high as well. Their advantages to medium tanks is their superior armor and health and damage, but their crippling movement speed and attack speed is just too hard to deal with. The heavy tanks are just too weak, in my opinion, heavy tanks should be seen as an choice between medium tanks or at least incorporate heavy tanks in an army with medium tanks. Previously, a viable strategy involving heavy tanks was a combination of heavy tanks and heavy artillery, with the heavy tanks being a "tanky" frontline and heavy artillery dealing massive amounts of damage, although made in viable with the nerf to artillery. My suggestion is to buff the attack speed of all heavy tanks to be equal to or better than medium tanks, forcing players to outplay heavy tanks by outmaneuvering their speed and lower number. In addition to this, what are you focusing on in balance? History or gameplay? Let me know your thoughts on this suggestion.
I agree with you.
Heavy tanks have always been an issue since the beginning. I was thinking about them last night, making them more powerful - making them a real frontline unit able to take hits, compared to medium tanks which you'd use for flanking and doing damage. I agree on the science costs. Let's see how they are in the next update. AT guns and rocket artillery are due for a change too.
When it comes to balance, I tend to prefer going down the historical route, but that's not always practical. It's a mixture.
Ok I had 3 game tonight, some players when playing allies wins the game, but if you put them on axis they lose. It shouldn't be surprising as axis has some rather severe disadvantages and under powered as a whole.
1: Strategic depth-
UK is an island, nearly untouchable and easy to defend.
USSR has a vast land that he can afford to econ only half his cities in the back and still stay ahead in GDP.
USA...free tier 4 untouchable cities
Egermany is weak, in that its cities are tightly packed and if it is on the defensive, it is screwed. It is quite often to see USSR losing some land in the initial clash of Barbarossa but recovers, the same cannot be said for E germany.
Italy+Wgermany- not as bad as Egermany but again if they ever went on the defensive, they are finished.
To give an idea, if USSR had its army rekt in the field, it takes a LONG time to capture his cities. If axis failed in either east or west front, its econ is rekt and hard if not impossible to recover.
2: Economies-Axis on a whole is weaker, USA and USSR outclass Italy and Egermany easily. Wgermany is the king no doubt, but the problem is...he is fighting a two front war against UK and USSR, unless Wgermany is really pro, that economic/tech advantage cannot be translated into a win.
3: Air units- the only counter to Mass Jets are jets, ground AA just doesn't cut it unless you devote everything into it, then you got a worthless army of AA only suited for fighting air. If we take into considering the mobility of air...AA is nearly worthless in the jet age. Guess who has the luxury to tech into jet age with relative safety? USA and UK.
The flow of the game usually goes like this: if USSR is not taken out or severely crippled in the initial Barbarossa push, the game is pretty much over for axis. In order for this to happen, both germany has to push together, and Wgermany risking UK landing in France and crippling his econ. Italy is occupied with killing USA in africa, if he ever succeed he will have an army stuck in africa jerking off in the desert of take 5 minutes to go through Caucasus mountains. God forbid if italy ever fails, USA can land anywhere he wish and unless USSR is dead, its almost game over.
To conclude my rant, it is assumed the situations described involves players of equal skill. Axis got the short end of the stick with worse econ and terrible strategic depth with the only saving grace being Wgermany's better science output.
OK, after reading this I've come up with some ideas that can help this issue while still remaining true to both faction's situations in the war.
USA has too much influence far too early in the game, that's for sure.
I disagree that Axis has weaker economy.
SU at its best condition always has slightly less GDP than WG. The problem is, SU rarely gets to the best condition. On the other hand, WG defeats France and the Balkan nations without economic sacrifice.
EG and Italy's GDP corresponds to UK and US's GDP, respectably. If Italy does not harrass US enough, US's GDP will be a bit higher.
Of course, failing initial push would put you into disadvantageous position, like any other nation. But for Germany, you can always use the bridge to defend overwheming number of SU forces while re-building economy.
For a tall nation, chokepoints are near impossible to breakthrough, but once broken, many cities are lost. For a wide nation, there is no defensive chokepoints, but it is harder to lose many cities quickly.
Dear Anteep,
first of all, thank You very much for putting the effort and sacrifising your private time to create a game for us that we can play. I know that such work is not beeing paid by anyone and that you do it only to give us fun and something to spend our time on. Voluntary work so to say and it is much appreciated especialy by me because i know what factor "availabe time" in a life is.
I am playing SC2 as a "time waister" since around 3 months and ever since i started playing arcade i discovered your WW2 and immediately only played your game. No other games at all besides sometimes when it was impossible to get enough people for a decent WW2 round.
I know critiques are nothing anybody would like to hear but to be honest i really need to voice out some concerns about the latest changed. Not because i personaly dont like them but because i have noticed a big change in player participation in WW2. The changes of economy have demotivated a lot of old standing players and made them stop playing ww2 completely. The general idea of the lasting members was that the "unit bug" was prefered over the new economy system. A economy system is a big part of any good strategy player and the latest changes have take away a lot of the game. It changed the game i the way that it was less complicated and easier to play but to be honest, whoever likes to play your game is playing it solely because it is complicated and gives so many opportunities and options to variate someones gameplay. the complexity itself made it always worthwile playing because the possible outcomes vary so much. This change of economy has left the game without lasting members and ever since then it is very hard to get 12 people together to start a game.
I personaly prefer the "unit bug" over the new economy system.
Talking to a friend i made a suggestion and asked him to send it to you, since he has more contact with you than i do. The idea was as following:
Increase city production of materials and cash.
Create option for each city to either produce cash or materials (but not that cities produce both in same time)
this would have given back the opportunity to more effectively influence your countries economy and have certain strategies. It would have brought back the same system that we used to have with materials factories and industries but in same time removed the material factories and industries from the map.
Issue number two was already adresse: lack of menpower. since the newest patch it is impossible to sustain a war. even when you play as UK or Germany after 15-20 minutes you run out of menpower. A simple calculation example:
As uk (even with policy to maximize menpower) you recieve 34 menpower every minute. That is the equivalaent of 11 medium tanks. that is imply not enough to have a fun game. it reduces the army size by too much. As a second example is the issue of "choose what you build" you must chose before you engage your enemy what units you build (what you specialize on) once you did that and have a standing army you go into fight. but the issue is that if you chosed wrong (by guessing, since you must guess what units your opponent is going to use before war starts) and you lost your troops army (anti tank and infantry) to a army which consists of medium tanks and rocket thrower artillery- it is impossible for you to recover from that loss. once you spend all your menpower on the first army you do not have enough menpower anymore to build up a seond army which can counter your oponents army. this basicly makes it that the game is decided right in the beginning and a possible recovery is impossible.
but you adressed this already and that is a great idea to remove menpower from the game simply because it is not really connected to the true history of the real WW2.
For example: UK had colonies and with india on their side (people from india aswell fought on the european continent in WW2) and the populationf of back then 300 million people - UK had endless resources of menpower. Same goes for America (around 140 million at times of WW2) and USSR (over 200 million at times of WW2). The only countries that had menpower issues were smaller countries.
But the most important point. the point that made me personally stop playing the game a few days ago - was the addition of nuclear weapons to the game. there are many world war games around. i never play world war 3 simply because the nuclear weapons units. atomic bomb changes warfare completely. in ww2 the addon of nuclear warfare has made a lasting and interesting game impossible. even small nations can develop a nuclear bomb within 20 minutes and destroy your homeland economy completely leaving you unable to fight anywhere else or to recover. the game has been changed into a simple "run for the bomb" instead of tactics and strategies. The nation first to get the bomb has an advantage of destroying enemies economy and troops and it is impossible to counter unless you build your own bomb.
this introduction of the bomb is not only destroying the gameplay which so many people loved so much about this game but is also not historically correct. USA had the bomb before the war ended in europe but refused to use it on the european continent. Therefore in my opinion the bomb does not belong into this game at all. it destroys the game.
Anyway, i know i sound over critical but to be honest i have noticed a big decrease in players of ww2, and i myself stopped playing it because it became unplayable and "no fun" to play it at all with the current setup and the newest changes.
I understand the amount of work and effort you put in this project and as a "thank you" for the 3 months i played the game i would like to donate €50 to your project (around $55). and this €50 i donate no matter the outcome of your changes, wether you want to remove the bomb and change economy to create a greater game - or not. but i urge you to undo the changes you did in the past time and bring the game back to the latest stage where material factories and industries were still in the game. by the economy changes i proposed it would be the same like back then in the past but the "unit bug" would dissapear aswell. i urge you not because i spend €50 to your project but simply because i want future generations aswell to play this game which is so outstanding and remarkable good in the arcade world.
please send me your paypal information to [email protected] and i will send you the €50 immediately.
Thank You for your time and sincerely,
TURBONero
Yo Turbo, it's me Archangel/Lelouche, I agree with most of your points in your post, especially with the manpower and nuclear weapons, but I disagree with the unit limit and economy change. In the around fifty-ish games I played after the economy change, not a single time had I had a unit limit bug. I do agree that cities should be selected to produce either materials and money, but we should keep the new economy. There really hasn't been a big decrease in the amount of player honestly, although I do have less time to play due to the pressing demand from school work. I'm not really a fan of nuclear weapons, would prefer to relegate them to USA or Germany only, just not a fun unit to use or play against.
Thanks for the post TURBONero.
I want to make one thing absolutely clear: I don't want to dumb this game down and remove the complexity, but I do want to fix game-breaking bugs.
I introduced the economic change not to remove the game's complexity, but to fix a bug. It's still in its first stages, its certainly not perfect, and as a beta is definitely subject to change in the future. If I revert the economic change, games will get ruined over and over again, the moment the unit bug occurs people just leave the game.
I knew changing the economy would be controversial, but a little pain now while we work on making a good system is absolutely worth it, compared to a game breaking bug happening nearly every game.
As for manpower, yep, it's being addressed and subject to change
As for nukes, they are subject to change as well. Whatever happens to nukes, ultimately I can leave this as an option for the players to decide whether they want to enable/disable nukes. (Whether that's in-game or in the lobby).
I haven't noticed a drop in the playerbase, pre and post economic update, although this may vary on server, since there is a very large playerbase on the American server. Nevertheless, I want to make the game more enjoyable and will take your feedback into account. I like your idea of being able to designate cities as materials or cash cities - it works with the current economic system, and also allows you to change the structure of your economy like in the previous versions. I am pretty sure you will see this in the next update.
Don't worry about being critical. Without feedback, or critiques, nothing improves.
(Check your messages)