Few other thoughts, not specifically to do with production, but more general.

If a 1940 scenario, Declaration of War (politics) and Objectives can be problematic, esp if trying to design with the computer behavior in mind. Computer will do quite random things there, say trying to Neutral crush, Japan deciding to invade Russia immediately that sort of thing. In part I think A&A services the 'what if' fantasy of Japan and Russia tending to end up at war, and the whole center crush Axis convergence plan. I think better to not be over-reliant on the computer triggering the Declare War stuff for a map set in 40 to still function though. Instead, unit pre-positioning and things like distance to that particular front could be used instead as the delay. This works say for setting up a G1 press vs France rather than USSR, or to allow Japan to do a big J1 burst that doesn't involve sacking into Soviet Far east insta style, but I think it would be harder in a 41 or 42 to create a satisfying play pattern there without at least some form of Non Aggression Pact. I mean a lot can be done with China as a counterweight for Japan, but sorta need something there for a NAP, a bit more than the Mongolia approach, or way more of a Mongolia approach maybe, or just something that would keep Japan and USSR honest vs one another haha.

Second dilemma would be how to handle the center of the gameboard and USSR itself. In most games they are designed to be relatively weak and propped up by defensive air from their teammates. So the standard has Allies like bouncing air between say Soviet Capital or the India VC depending on where Axis are pressing harder. But I think in a game which features higher cash/higher economy, the whole defensive fighters for teammate's fronts, becomes a bit over pronounced. I mean we typically think of USA and Britain working together in tandem, or German and Italy, or All 3 allies trying to work together to keep Russia/India alive, but it also works this way for say Japan or really any nation that can shoot fighters over to a teammates front. It's just a very powerful move, and the same will happen on the water with carrier decks.

One approach might be to borrow from A&AO's early implementation which restricts fighters landing on friendly decks. The computer will frequently try to land on a friendly's carrier deck, so it creates a dynamic where everyone had their carriers with their teammate's fighters on them. Those A&AO rules sorta kept things more on the player's own deck only.

Potentially something similar, which prevents fighters or other units from ending their turn in Soviets starting TTs, or vice versa. Japan and Germany/Italy have a similar thing going on with their air, in typical boards I mean. Some slightly more simplistic handling for that, may prevent the situation where tiles become overstacked with multinational forces, requiring another placement queue spot and all the rest. I think to work and meet expectations, USA and UK need to be able to co-locate. But I'm not sure USA and UK, need to be able to co-locate with USSR. For Axis it's tougher because not allowing Japan a way to prop up Germany or Italy, severely limits the ways they can impact the broader war. Also I think there is a sort of fantasy one could indulge of maybe pilots and such being trained or experimental aircraft exchanges or whatever. The joint Axis what ifs, if they'd managed to meet in the middle for real. But I think for USSR and the other Allies it might come a bit more naturally. Reason being that the Soviet Union will have a lot more operating cash here, so the need to peg them to defensive only, or requiring USA/UK to send fighters so they don't get flattened, will be much less pronounced here. Or one would hope at least, we added many tiles at 1 PU to bolster what's happening and many more zones on the Eastern Front between them to trade back and forth. I think if the theme is to have USA/UK or Japans units operating in the USSR backfield, that would be sorta traditional, but I think it is not the most satisfying handling. Like it requires a lot of the player suspending disbelief and making the USA/UK units into like a lend lease analogy, but I think it would be easier to just limit the ability of USA or UK to operate within the USSR, or least within USSR starting 'home' territories. This would be a departure from the norm, but I think to support stuff like that it helps if other things are somewhat more familiar. So still trying to determine how much I want to bite off, before chewing it I guess haha.

Anyhow, just some quick thoughts there. NAP handling will change whether we need USSR starting TUV to actually defend the far east, or just be more of a delay on arrival at the Eastern Front, so sort of a factor there for starting TUV position. Similarly, the distance for air transits if including USSR flyovers vs if we dont for team Allies. Alternatively we might restrict the colocation thing in USSR home territories to only ground, but that still encourages allies to send as many fighters as possible to their teammates at the middle, so sorta same dilemma there. There's also the question mark on whether the computer can really understand the limitations on their actual movements, or if they will just get stuck trying to make moves that have become say illegal or against the politics/rules or the like. I think if we build around the idea of multi-nation defense/attack the Computer also will struggle a fair bit with that. It just can't plan out as far as the regular player would or max the defense or attack power over the whole round instead of just the current turn. I think would be nice if we can get the basic framework to still play to the computer's strengths where possible, and to sorta build around it's deficiencies for the starting TUV, or opening turn attacks at least.

I'm all for the self taught! Some autodidact wizardry, might be just what the doctor ordered here.

I had forgotten LaFayette was on that big trek. Would be cool to have some redundancy in the chain of command, though I'm of zero use in figuring that all out. WC's got my vote though for sure!

To the Q about whether to split USA, I'm a little reluctant, because while I think approach could be very easy to parse on a physical board, here the map wrap can be a little strange since the board meets at the Rockies there. I think also, I have a little frustration from the vanilla handling of Britain, as having more to do with fact that G40 is built by combining two games meant to function independently of each other (though honestly I think most combine the two theaters and just play global if they're going to go through the effort that is hehe.) On the one hand I'd like to simplify the global game and only bring over what we really need, on the other hand I think it's helpful if whatever is the expectation from G40, that this one would sorta meet the player where they're at, and crib the basic flavor/structure.

For this game, just to further explain some of the rationale here, what I'd like to do is sorta invert the standard approach taken in A&A, for how to deal with production, specifically when adding new territories/polygons to the map. I mean the approach that we inherited from Revised, AA50, G40 etc when compared to the first board Classic. There the approach taken was basically keep the total production values fixed (whether by individual game tile, or by some larger region) and so most of the TTs added will either split up an existing tile and shift it's production values around to keep the same overall totals, or (often) adding/changing the value of designated tile at Zero PUs. Larrry very reluctant to add production under the million man hours scheme, so there we have these ceilings on Production, and instead the starting Units TUV is treated very flexibly in the A&A as a way to balance that. Examples would be like Tourney rules adding unit/TUV as a standard bid. What you don't see much is a dramatic rework of the production spread at the base.

Basically that approach, it will create a larger board, but with many more low/no value territories, and lower PU value generally (all the things designed to keep the set up, and the number of sculpts required at a bare minimum). Then to balance the board by side, Objectives are introduced as a way of adding money back into that spread in a somewhat asymmetrical way under that methodology.

Here I want to basically do the mirror image, or the opposite of that approach. Essentially I want to add new territories or polygons at a base 1 PU value, and raise the ceilings from there.

The challenge of course is that this board is very very subdivided, hence pretty high Production totals overall and the desire to mitigate that in some way so it's not just an ultra stackfest map. In the GCD situation was different, because there we get a sort of equilibrium between unit count, maintenance, PU generating infrastructure and other things to keep the pot of gold from running away from us, like to lift/lower the thresholds by individual nation/team. For this version I'm trying to get at what I suppose would be a bare minimum for the production spread to justify this sort of sub-dividing to begin with.

I think we can get there though. There will be a little bit of a balancing act for sure, since I moved the goal post for the production spread. Down from 9 PUs to 6 PUs at the high end for the most productive spots, but then still higher at the low end which is now 1 rather than 0. To me this an abstraction of course, PUs become something more like a generic strategy point. In the vanilla IPCs have the connection to 'industry' but here I'm pursuing something more catch-all and a bit more flexible. Values may vary depending on the locale, so that 1 PU in one region of the map might be weighted slightly differently than some other region. Example a 1 PU territory in a highly industrialized region of Europe, compared to 1 PU for some central Pacific island atoll or whatever. Meaning there's no real parity for example between Japan's production and USA's, or Italy's and Britain's, but instead these may be artificially inflated or lowered, to match the playscale of the board.

It's a fair bit of work to puzzle out, but I think I'm getting a closer with each iteration here. For me the starting idea would be to just graft the core of the G40 ruleset onto the larger board, key up the production spread at the base to work a bit more readily at that scale, then tinker using some of the familiar solutions, though I'm trying to hold off on using Objectives as the primary mechanism for balancing, because I want to first see what I can achieve with the production spread by itself.

The reason for all this is in part, to get around the problem which the computer has, and which you noted in that other thread, of not being able to transport effectively or efficiently.

I think there are a couple kinds of A&A players, there are players who like to build out infrastructure on front line production, and then there are players who delight at playing the game with a very long but efficient logistics line, say moving units from the core to the front as USA via transports. Something very satisfying in the latter about using the transports just so, to max the efficiency, but it's something that the computer in particular struggles with mightily. The computer is basically the first sort of A&A player. Meaning I think it plays better under those conditions buys and moves well when it has a frontline production pocket to build from, but it's being asked to play more like the second sort of player in most cases. Just comparing say, what USA will do vs what Japan will do generally to push their fronts. If USA can get a toehold going in Africa or some production capacity in the Central Pacific then they reorient a bit and we see less floaters and such. But then on the normal board production along those paths isn't really an option. Here I'd like it to be, but in a way that's more limited like scaled at the level of the minors basically.

For the computer, it tends to work much better if they can lily pad their placement hubs in some way, or resupply more front line and be less transport dependent if that makes sense. This can work, but it also requires that the map's production spread be handled somewhat differently to allow for more Production=Placement capacity type stuff. G40 also uses a different scheme for Major/Minor where the placement is decoupled from Production as some fixed amount on the high end, so there's that too. Say Majors producing 10 units, on a starting TT worth 3 PUs, whereas in the smaller boards almost always you got the Placement limit reflected by the TT value at the cap. I tend to prefer the simpler system from say Revised or v5, but I think either could work, though it does have an effect on the necessary values at the high end cap per tile.

As I get my head around it hopefully, I can find some form of happy medium here. That's the aim at least, still early days though

@cernel said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

@rogercooper said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

The lack of any kind upkeep costs results in huge stacks

I think that this game has truly dramatic stack numbers issues which really ruin it for PvP. I would add that this is particularly bad for a FFA because in such games you tend to try to conserve your forces a lot more than in the usual two-sides ones.

I wonder if this is the worst game of TripleA in this regard?

I have seen worse mods in this regard, but I don't recall the exact mod off the top of my head.

There is lot of potential in this mod, but is has issues that need to be resolved. Any mod covering pre-industrial conflicts needs to have some method of limiting army sizes, such as upkeep costs, stacking limits or build caps.

@rogercooper said in Roger's Scenario Thread:

The lack of any kind upkeep costs results in huge stacks

I think that this game has truly dramatic stack numbers issues which really ruin it for PvP. I would add that this is particularly bad for a FFA because in such games you tend to try to conserve your forces a lot more than in the usual two-sides ones.

I wonder if this is the worst game of TripleA in this regard?