• RE: Connected Empire: Contiguous Landgrab vs Can Opener Criss-Cross?

    @Cernel I don't see the current patchwork is a problem (it rewards the minor allies for participating). But you could easily create an event that triggers in the current version of the engine, changing ownership to reflect the assigned sphere of influence.

    Here is the reference from POS2

    changeOwnership						values: This will change the ownership of the territory, either directly or by conquering the territory (there is a difference). Format is "territoryName:oldOwner:newOwner:booleanCaptured?".  territoryName can be "all", and oldOwner can be "any". Can have multiple instances.
    														examples: <option name="changeOwnership" value="South France:Germans:VichyFrench:false"/> or <option name="changeOwnership" value="all:Mongolians:Russians:true"/> or <option name="changeOwnership" value="Danzig:any:Germans:false"/>
    			
    
    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: Connected Empire: Contiguous Landgrab vs Can Opener Criss-Cross?

    Yeah I think you're right, it was kind of reaching and probably belongs in another section since I'm struggling to contextualize in reference to a specific map. Though its such a ubiquitous issue across many maps, I guess just wanted to hear what some designers might think about a way to address that checkerboarding effect. I feel like there are probably mutliple ways at it, was just trying to think of something simple that might be workable across otherwise pretty wide ranging scenarios. And also just curious what the engine can handle in terms of counting stuff based on whether its adjacent to other owned territories on existing maps, or if its the sort of thing that really needs to be built in from the getgo? I like the second solution offered with the 'attacked from' concept, but don't know the practical particulars of how that might be set up. Like if it could grafted on top of an existing map/mod or if it has to be reworked at the foundation to pull something like that off?

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • Connected Empire: Contiguous Landgrab vs Can Opener Criss-Cross?

    I guess this is an idea for a mod, maybe for some WW2 map?

    The thought is to create a slight offset to the power of the can opener in a lot of these games with a slight bonus for holding larger blocks of adjacent land. On the one hand you have this hugely potent strategic advantage of having friendlies all blitzing around at the front to create those patchwork checkerboard expansion patterns, but set against the kind of silly but nevertheless innately powerful desire to have your powers all expanding in shapely ways, with like defined spheres of influence hehe. So wondering if a small PU bonus awarded for controlling adjacent territories as a connected mass would counterbalance the canopener somehow? or at least give some pause, if a player is trying to instead cash out a small amount for the connected empire.

    I recall it among the options for RiskII, but seems like something that might work for A&A style games. Similar to other objectives that tie territories together, but just as like a generalized bonus for having connected TTs. Think something like that might work v3 or G40 or games at that scale and up? Not sure what numbers would make sense there in each case, but seems like something that might work in a few games. Basically a set boost based on how many adjacent territories are under the nation's control.
    Trying to break up a contiguous empire of the enemy is a draw I think on any map based game hehe, but it would be easy to recognize and could perhaps be adapted into a more generalized thing.

    Thought for v3 it might be interesting starting at like 5 territories? Something that might be achievable for the little guys like Italy and China, but also more reliable for the big dogs, because Allies still have the USA's relative safety in North America, while Eurasia and Africa are still pretty large for the contests between everyone else. As players try to carve out bigger contiguous blocks I think you might see some swings between the majors trying to take the 10th TT for an extra PU or two. Could encourage attrition while still being simpler to track than specific objectives.

    What do you guys think?

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: Best game for AI

    I dig the AI, its pretty fun in the current state. Even if it doesn't really play to nuances and specialized rules, as a blunt intrument it usually cobles something reasonably effective together for a landgrab, if you can just find that threshold were a boost in income overcomes its other deficits. Sometimes that can go by side, its land/air game is usually a lot stronger than its naval game, so for maps where the balance really hinges on the water its easier to exploit the AI there. Sometimes one side is more dependant on that kind of thing than the other. A lot of times for second world war games that's the Allies, though I think in Iron War its a little inverted from the norm, since the Europe Axis side and mainly W. Germany can fall apart pretty quickly when Allies get the upperhand around the channel, whereas Japan is a little better at managing a land war even after the IJN is pushed around. I think AI Allies have the edge there probably, and its more entertaining to play as Axis because of the way the opener is set up. Not sure how the world map compares to the Europe one, but might be a fun change if you wanted to try one where AI Allies seem a bit stronger than AI Axis under vanilla conditions. But in general I think a lot of maps could probably support an AI challenge, its just a matter finding the right number for a handicap. So for WaW if the AI is doing well as Axis maybe the vanilla challenge is good for the one side, but Allies might need something extra. Usually I'd go for a modest increase (probably percentage increase for PUs at the lower end 10-20% and see if it makes a difference for their ability to trade more effectively, then just see how high you can go before its ridiculous hehe.) The spread you end up with there probably tells you a rough ballpark of how dependant the map is on specialized rules, higher level purchasing strategies and such, compared to the basic WW2 maps where the AI does pretty well for itself. So for the difference in complexity between say v2 and v3, or v5 and Global, there is probably a number for the later where the HardAI will become competative again, even if its not prioritizing added things like objectives or VCs or tech.

    I have noticed more recently that the Hard AI will now bomb semi regularly, if it has enough bombers, but whether they buy them or not seems to depend more on the production frontier, like low production but high cash scenarios. Not sure a map that's overly dependant on consistent SBR for balance would work well at this point. The AI also struggles with things like intercept or scrambling where those dynamics are utilized heavily or with bases that use stuff like dynamic movement boosts. So G40 type solos really fall apart there. Objectives you can probably overcome with an income bonus but the AIs handicap in not managing an Air/Naval bounce from bases is something you can't really compensate for as well. Probably every map would have exploits when the combat mechanics rely on map position (any kind of terrain effect reducing or improving movement.) The AI will do what it can do from the current position (if it ends up on those kind of tiles) but won't build like a competant strategy around the map. Its pretty good at projecting power with air and cheap fodder though, so if bombers are cheap they will spam them pretty well for dark skies, when the income outpaces production capacity. Happens in Iron war when the AI gets backed off the front, or is knocked down to just a lone factory. Otherwise I see them mainly bought for the AI air umbrellas around island territories. The AI is actually surprisingly good at projecting air power vs enemy naval under those circumstances. They will make some clutch strikes to sink fleets, but then often don't follow up with re-establishing fleets or transport capacity of their own. See it happen to Japan at the home island or like with USA out of England which is kind of cool, but once the AI is boxed in it becomes a lot more conservative with its TUV, so its more likely to withdraw than trade TUV at disadvantage, even if a human definitely would to try and turn a game around. When the chips are down HardAI goes for like the slow bleed instead of going out with a bang hehe. But sometimes that can make for entertaining attrition endgames that last way longer than you might see otherwise.

    Anyhow, yeah I like Frostion's maps for the AI, since many were built out with the idea that the AI control some stuff already. I think it works on probably any map, but definitely better where the income/production or basic victory conditions are set up more along classic economic domination lines rather than the TKO victory conditions of v2 and later. Right now the AI doesnt understand VCs, so what matters to it is really the income/production and distance to nearest enemy capital. It will knock off TUV when it has the advantage or to take over territory along the way, but won't airblitz to take a capital or secure a specific VC for the win or things like that. I think for the naval game one place where it struggles on most maps is with blocking, and also stacking (like around carrier groups for example) to cover key zones like canals or straights. It spams transports pretty wild over time and launches more than you'd think to pretty good effect, but that only gets you so far, if a particular zone is do or die for naval balance due to map dynamic movement features that the AI doesn't get. But even still, I had a good time messing around with Iron War.

    posted in Help & Questions
  • RE: Best game for AI

    @forthebirds I would think @Black_Elk might shed some light on this... as historically he has provided a great deal of input on games specifically designed with AI opponents in mind.

    posted in Help & Questions
  • RE: Revised Tournament of Champions (ToC 14) -- St. Nazaire Raiders !!

    bayder (Allies) defeats panpal (Axis +8) in round 8 of a pbem game. Allies sealed Africa and the Med early with some first round luck and sacrificing the UK bomber. Germany could never quite recover from the lost income. Japan harassed USA's coastline all game, but was not able to advance far into Asia. Germany became isolated, and Allies surrounded Berlin, making its fall inevitable when panpal surrendered. Panpal, as always, was a gracious, fun, and fast opponent. Thanks for the game!

    posted in Revised Tournament Of Champions
  • RE: Revised Tournament of Champions (ToC 14) -- St. Nazaire Raiders !!

    Blasherke defeats Oppositeof (Axis, +10) in a challenging 12 - rounder. The axis built a stronghold in Egypt, and succeeded in both taking control of Africa and combining the pacific with the Med - fleet. The allies reacted by an all-out attack on the southern belly of Europe, securing Southern Europe as a bridgehead by round 6. The Japanese attempt to counter the Allied buildup was running out of time and by round 12 the combined taskforce was finally ready to successfully invade Germany. Thanks Oppositeof for this very fine game!

    posted in Revised Tournament Of Champions
  • RE: Total World War: December 1941 3.0.0.6

    @ubernaut Post saves

    posted in Maps & Mods