I was just playing Middle Earth on the latest AAA version. It seemed like the hard Evil AI wasn't quite aggressive enough. Other than that, they seemed to play very well, so thanks for all the hard work!
@LaFayette Thanks for the feedback and showing no mercy to the AI with the full map paint! Here are some responses:
Round 1: Yeah, this is a tough one. I actually usually make that move with the tank myself and see a decent number of good players do it. While you probably lose a little bit of TUV initially you force Russia to use units/planes in another place. Another way to think about this as well is if you make Archangel worth 3 or 4 instead of 2 then it would probably be a no brainer to capture with a tank which I think shows how close this type of move is. I prefer the AI be a bit over aggressive rather than not take enough territories and this is difficult to perfectly balance across maps given different territory and unit values.
Round 2: Yeah, that's really bad and geez you had quite some luck round 1/2. I think most Axis players would rage quit if they had the openings that germany and japan did This has to do with the AI trying to attack too many territories and ends up aborting 1 of the attacks and in this case it was Manchuria (not a good choice). I'll take a closer look at this.
Round 3: Agree. This one has to do with the AI wanting to attack Western Europe and Algeria so it deprioritizes other attacks. Then it decides it can't get quite enough units to attack Algeria and aborts that attack. Some of this behavior is caused by dice rather than LL which causes more randomness in the AI. But this is a good turn to train the AI on as there are lots of places it can attack.
Round 5: The AA gun logic is pretty poor. It tends to be overly conservative and in this case sees the UK fighter in Caucasus as a potential threat where it could lose say Sinkiang or another territory within landing range of bombing Kwangtung. This could be improved a bit but not as high priority IMO compared to your examples in Round 2/3.
@Hepps I recall that, back then during early development, I reiterately tried to have Imbaked making the gas into a tech, like tanks. Instead, he insisted that he wanted gas available since start game, but I don't recall what was his reason for it. The problem with techs that unlock units is that they have a fixed cost for unlocking, thus they induce spam, by making the unit relatively less expensive the more you buy it (as the research cost will be divided amongst more TUV, lowering the markup). So, basically, the risk is that either the tech is not good to get or once you get it you need to spam it a lot to make it worthwhile. This is likely the root of the problem of the current NML Mustard Gas and Working Women tech combo.
With this said, unless the map goes a bit the way of Civil War, and you have manpower vs manufacture, so that, for example, you cannot spend all your income in spamming infantry (hence the gas would be alternative to other materials, not much to infantry, reducing the need of having a quite strict mathematical comparison between the TUV cost of the gas and the TUV cost of the infantries it is going to grind down), I would rather suggest gas being limited by the number of targets, that would represent the fact that is not a weapon of annihilation. Regular gas may hit at 1 and mustard gas at 2 (and possibly another level of gas that hits at 3), and only infantry or infantry-like units, with possible maximum rolls limited to the number of targets (as said). However, the problem with this is that, then, you may end up just sending exactly a number of gas equal to the maximum hits you can roll, each time, that would be some dumb management. The best would be that gas has a sort of mechanics that becomes less and less effective the more you use it on a same target, and the more effective the bigger the target.
i think to remove randomness in this game is like poker with an ordered deck. Sure the hands will be very orderly but by taking the randomness out of it you are really taking a fundamental aspect of game out of the picture. Part of your strategy should be to allow for things to go against you imo.
That being said i do understand why people like LL and a version of it the effect of it were always even would be interesting to try at least.
also, this over rolling of 1's and 2's, this is the first ive heard of that. here is 14 round 6 sided game stats as well as a 28 round 12 sider stats they look pretty good to me.
@redrum right well the attacker never gets to choose the casualties so i was just using that as a comparison. if the defender should always be able to choose the best scramble returns it really wouldn't be any worse than that.
@CrazyIvan I have not played Classic in so long I kinda forget how the engine works but you might want to try World War II V3 1941. (Anniversary Edition Map) Shared fleets work better in V3/Global rules.