• RE: Iron War - Official Thread

    Made a quick edit just to see what it would look like if every starting factory had a synth barrel like Germany does in the latest iteration. I think it could actually work quite well even if the fuel for purchase was capped at just one synth barrel per territory. Basically the destroy-able synth barrels could be interpreted as the reserve supply within a factory territory or the fuel logistics/distribution network (the tankers and pipelines or trains and planes, stuff that can be blown up), while the capture-able regular barrels would be like the actual oil fields and the stuff still in the ground... Thematically, the synth barrels could represent fuel that's already been refined and in use above ground, while the regular barrels are like what you're digging and drilling out of the earth. All goes to the same totals for gameplay movement purposes, but since you need a factory already in place to produce a synth barrel, there is that slight delay if a territory is trading hands, before the territory can be fully exploited.

    all starting factories with synth fuel.tsvg

    I think with a tight cap at 1, players would have an even stronger incentive than they already do to capture each other's factory locations (to destroy the enemy supply, and develop your own), contesting the various VC's and +5 spots in the process. Gold tile territories would be key to expanding the reserve beyond the starting threshold and to keep from running dry on the march down the road, since you'd need all the factories you can grab to place enough synth barrel units. If it was capped at 1 per territory (just like the factory unit), that would probably give room to keep the wheels turning into the endgame, but without risking a runaway oil bananza like might happen with unlimited placement. If 1 is too narrow, then could always go up to 2 or 3 per, but I think 1 might actually be enough.

    Basically it would be like the green fuel barrel is associated with the factories, but has to built/replaced separately if destroyed. Maybe could also be subject to bombing? That might be cool. But even if it just worked like it does now I think it might be fun to use the unit to push the fight around the map a bit, building off the various contested factory locations. Anyhow, I don't think they need to be in place from the getgo, just wanted to see what the totals might look like in that edit above, but I like the idea that they have to be placed at an existing factories and that they get destroyed when conquered. It gives the whole game a cool new spin, since now you can knock off the opponents fuel as well as building up your own. Makes the resource management feel much more gratifying. Nice work!

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: Iron War - Official Thread

    Any thoughts on a possible income bump or some more +5 spots for the land grab, to add to the pie over time?

    I still like Benelux for the North Atlantic.

    Buenos Aires for the South Atlantic.

    Algeria and Greece for the Med.

    Madagascar for the Indian Ocean.

    Kamchatka and Southern Alaska for the North Pacific.

    Okinawa and Midway for Central Pacific.

    Malaya and Papua New Guinea for the South Pacific.

    I think the addition of those spots at +5 would make for an interesting factory game in each of their respective theaters, with some interesting push and pull for the naval game. I think they pair off well against each other so the influx is fair to both teams. Probably most of the extra cash per round ends up going to more fuel barrels and such, but I think +5 territories add the most to the game overall for strategic depth and dynamism. The spots above would be adding around 45 PUs all in all to the map, but split over several nations/neutrals so I don't think it'd be too pronounced. All are contested regions allowing the income swing to either side depending on how people play it, so I think any of them could support a boost.

    ps. Just started my first game with the new fuel system vs HardAI Allies using the pre-release. Was curious to see if the AI would purchase any synthetic fuel on its own, so far haven't seen one drop but it's still early. Maybe they will eventually place some so I'll play a few rounds to see. But on the player's side I like it. The price point at 5 PUs per barrel feels pretty good for what you get, and considering the fact that they're destroyed on capture. I think 10 would probably feel a little high, and a cost of 5 is also nice for the remainder purchasing thing, since it gives players something worthwhile to buy under the entry level combat unit (AAgun at 9). Clearly the return is better the sooner you buy the synthetic fuel, but I think there is definitely still some tension in early rounds to get out early with combat units and not spend too heavily on fuel. Germany especially really needs to throw everything and the kitchen sink at Leningrad to have a good shot on it before the Russians start stacking to the ceiling, so I think they might hold off a few rounds with fuel buys to focus on getting that early edge over the Soviets. Italy and Japan need to make big moves in the second round though, with a lot of re-positioning, so they're probably smart to get some fuel going sooner rather than later, but in general I think a conservative player who buys a barrel every round, or maybe a couple every other round should be in a good position for the endgame. The Minor Axis powers are probably good to pick up a barrel or two when they can with a remainder, since they often have some pocket change left over and can use the fuel if they enter the fighter game later on. Iraq and Iran can probably use an extra barrel or two over time to try and get the most out of their oil exchange aid phase.

    On the Allied side the Brits might be smart to make a bigger fuel buy early on, so they can get the most out of it, since they get thirsty pretty quickly and have that safe spot in Canada to place the fuel. For most of the rest though I think they probably have the same tension that Germany does, having to choose between getting out early with combat units or building up fuel reserves for the big drives later on. I'm enjoying it and dig the new fuel concept a lot.

    I'm guessing for a solo challenge vs the AI probably an Edit of like 10 extra barrels to the Major enemy Capitals would be enough to keep them fairly competitive and still moving in later rounds. Clearly going against the computer still doesn't reflect a normal PvP situation, since a human player can get like half a dozen friendly fighters propping up Russia on the Eastern front and do various things to stall Japan in the south Pacific with naval blocking. But the machine still puts up a decent brawl when it has the juice to move its ships and fighters around, even if its a little chaotic.

    Anyhow, coming up on J2 now, with a few hours to kill hehe...
    Catch you in a bit

    Elk vs HardAI Allies synthetic fuel Japan round 2.tsvg

    Elk vs HardAI Allies synthetic fuel Japan round 4 combat.tsvg

    Went a dozen rounds per usual, till I started getting sleepy. The AI Soviets and Brits fought pretty hard, holding out till the end while Axis did the globe trot. We steam rolled out the gate (not having to face down any sort of bonus this time) and snatched India with a quickness as a result. Pretty flush with oil for the most part, but still started running dry in the endgame, which was good... Probably kept Siberia kicking a bit longer than expected since kept having to choose between ships, air, or tanks once the stacks started guzzling. Didn't see the AI drop any synth barrels, so I think next time I'll try giving them a few extra via edit at the outset to see how they fair, then determine what kind of income boost they need for an even fight. This one was fun for a stomp though. I enjoy the new system. It makes fuel feel like a more interesting part of the game now that we have more ways to influence the flow. Nice work!

    Only thing I can think of is that we might want to cap the total number of synth barrels per territory so players have to spread them out a bit across their various factory locations. Like maybe 2 per territory or something? That way the Minors don't stack too heavy, and the Majors have to put some of their synth fuel in contested locations if they want to continue expanding their reserves. Might also encourage more factory builds and an incentive for the more isolated Minors to try and take a second +5 spot, so that they can increase their total fuel capacity. With unlimited placement at a secure spot, it might be a little too easy for players to build up a large reserve and spam fighters. I think a cap at 2 or maybe 3 synth barrels per factory would keep things reasonable, while ensuring that the regular oil spots still remain critical and that the players still feels the thirst. Otherwise though I'm digging how it works.

    Elk vs HardAI Allies synthetic fuel Italy round 13.tsvg

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: Iron War - Official Thread

    Also forgot to mention but I think the introduction of this unit may also solve the issue of playbalancing the solo challenge vs the HardAI. Since they're destroyed on capture, adding synthetic barrels to the enemy capitals via edit mode would allow the AI to overcome some its fuel management deficiencies without giving the human player an advantage when they eventually start taking those VCs for themselves. Since the hardAI is pretty competent otherwise, this will probably reduce the need for a recurring bonus to even the odds for the machine. I like it.

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: Iron War - Official Thread

    Sounds rad! I dig that its destroyable too. I think that should probably be enough to solve most issues, since a player who builds them early on should be able to get enough juice flowing to handle the needs of later rounds. It also creates some strategic tension between gunning early and trying to max place combat units for conquest to seize the initiative vs developing fuel infrastructure early so you can press in the late game. Nice work!

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

    @AdamF
    @ubernaut
    @Jesse-Boulard
    @Wasp

    You are all registered, thanks for joining !

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

    @TangoRomeo - you are registered, thanks for participating !

    posted in Revised Tournament Of Champions
  • Have "isStrategicBomber" not have any hitpoints

    Have the option for "isStrategicBomber" not to have any hitpoints in non strategic bombing combat. It can still be shot down in "AirBattle" and count as a hitpoint then.

    And while were at it : ) have "AirBattle" die side be able to be different than their regular combat die side. So it would be kinda like AA. You could have a 12 sided die for "AirBattle" and a six sided for regular combat.

    Thanks

    posted in Feature Requests & Ideas
  • RE: Global 40 House Rules

    @redrum right on. i'll make a request a little later. was trying to get some more info on why it was doing it. Thanks

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: Global 40 House Rules

    I dug into this some more and have been getting inconsistent behaviour. When i turn off "isInfra" it works ok, but it seems as if I'm missing something as to why this started showing up, so I'm still doing some testing with "isInfra" turned on.

    Now i have a new error that i've never gotten. Idk if this is related or not but it says I'm out of memory

    Screenshot from 2019-05-22 22-06-03.png

    I click on the memory thingy and it says i have plenty. Anyone have any ideas on what's up with this error ?

    Thanks

    posted in Maps & Mods
  • RE: Iron War - Official Thread

    Been thinking also about dimensions of victory. In A&A style games its usually by total number of VCs controlled, and the economic balance usually has a more fantastical version of WW2 where Axis have a better shot at achieving rough parity through crazy world conquest. But I think for a game patterned more on historical realities like overwhelming Allied superiority in cash and resources like oil and such, it might make more sense for Axis victory to just be holding Berlin and Tokyo and their core territorial gains past 1945. More of a sudden death resolution, where Allies can still lose if Axis can prolong the fight into 46 or beyond?

    It would make sense thematically, since in reality, winning for the Axis would probably have meant just surviving long enough through some kind of stalemate at best. I think that would be a fun concept, since a managed defense like that can be just as interesting as a world steamroll to take 20 VCs on a mad dash. It also kind of inverts the usual scheme, where the clock is ticking against Axis and instead has it ticking against Allies, which might be cool for the gameplay and to keep both sides engaged till the final rounds.

    Then team Axis wouldn't need as much fuel in the endgame, since the dugout would be more baked in. Using tanks and fighters on defense, Kamikaze and such. Japan and Germany had what like 80% of their fuel disrupted or knocked off in the course of the war? I know it was mainly coal and synthetics anyway, but in that same time the Allied production of crude doubled like year after year, with more than 2/3rds of the world's supply. I think to model that in any way realistically it would make sense for the victory conditions to reflect something more achievable for Axis, like just not dying up to a certain point at the dawn of the nuclear era.

    Had a long convo with CWOMarc about it a while back, in a G40 context, but he raised some ideas more generally for WW2 victory conditions. Just going to quote a part I found interesting...

    "On the German side, the conceptual model of fighting a series of short, decisive campaigns initially went well. Germany achieved a quick and complete victory on the Eastern Front, conquering the eastern side of Poland, then got a long break (the Phony War) during which it was able to rest, reorganize, plan and train for the next campaign. It then achieved a quick and complete victory in Denmark and Norway, then another quick and complete victory against the Low Countries and France. Against Britain, however, the German campaign of May-June 1940 did not produce a victory, but rather a second-best result: what I call a “sustainable stalemate.” Germany knocked the BEF out of Continental Europe, forcing it to abandon all its equipment in order to evacuate its men, but it proved unable to invade and occupy Britain or to force it to capitulate. Britain survived and stayed in the war, but was in no immediate (or even medium-term) position to invade and liberate Western Europe or to force Germany to capitulate. Hence, the two sides were essentially deadlocked, and were reduced to fighting each other on the ground in fringe territories (like Africa), in the air (in reciprocal bomber offensives) and at sea (the Battle of the Atlantic), with the air and sea campaigns being the start of attritional warfare between the Britain and Germany. This went on for years, and did not change fundamentally until the mid-1944 D-Day landings in Normandy and Anvil-Dragoon landings in Southern France signaled the resumption of maneuver warfare in Western Europe, and the gradual driving back of the Germans out of France and into Germany.

    On the Eastern Front, in 1941, Germany initially tried to win a quick victory over the USSR through maneuver warfare. The Germans managed to push deeply into Soviet territory, but not deeply enough to achieve either a decisive victory. (“Deeply enough” would have meant the Urals, or possibly just the A-A line, but my feeling is that it was simply unrealistic for the Germans to get that far.) Instead, the Germans ran out of steam, then got pushed back part of the way by the Russians…who in turn ran out of steam. This scenario was repeated in 1942-1943, with the Germans pushing eastward towards Stalingrad and the Russians pushing them back. In other words, the two sides engaged in a combination of maneuver warfare and attrition warfare for about two years, with the maneuvering component mainly being a back-and-forth see-sawing of the front (similarly to what happened in North Africa) and the attrition component mainly being a huge consumption of manpower on both sides. The fundamental change on that front occurred in the period following Kursk, when the Russians were able to finally start pushing the Germans back without getting stopped.

    How could we define “winning conditions” for Germany in this context? Physically overrunning Britain proved impossible because of the Channel and physically overrunning Russia proved impossible because of its sheer size, so we can rule out physical conquest as an indicator of victory. The number two option then becomes getting Britain and Russia to quit. Germany did make some progress in that direction: Britain’s convoy situation got pretty grim on a couple of occasions, and the USSR supposedly put out some peace feelers to Germany at one point. All in all, however, Britain and the USSR weren't too strongly motivated to capitulate unless their resources were exhausted – and neither ever got to that point. The number three option then becomes achieving a sustainable stalemate on each front. To “win” in practical terms, Germany would have had to be able to defeat the 1944 Anglo-American landings in France (and any subsequent ones made in 1945 and thereafter) and would have had to be able to keep playing “push me, pull you” with the Soviets on the Eastern Front: falling back from Soviet advances in the winter, and driving forward into Soviet territory in the summer. So on that basis you could say: if the Germans can achieve this on the game board, and can sustain it for long enough, they can be considered to have won by default because they’re holding on to their gains no matter how hard the Allies try to defeat them. Conversely, if the Allies manage to regain and hold significant territorial space that the Germans have conquered, they can be considered to have won because the momentum is on their side. You could call this the “barometer” approach rather than the “thermometer” approach. With a thermometer, the single reading given at a single moment is meaningful; with a barometer, the meaningful information is the trend shown over time, i.e. whether the pressure is rising or falling.

    I’m not going to analyze Japan’s situation in much detail because, frankly, I don’t think Japan ever had much of a chance to win. It was already wearing itself down in China when it launched (with the bare-bones forces it could spare) its 1941 campaign of conquest in the Pacific and Southeast Asia, so right from the start it was biting off more than it could chew. In my opinion, Japan’s only realistic chance of achieving sustainable conquests in the Pacific and Southeast Asia would have been if it had done something that can’t be modeled into A&A (because it would distort the game too badly): attacking the British and Dutch colonial territories it wanted, but not going to war against the US. Japan’s vague strategic hope was that the Americans would get tired of fighting a losing war against Japan, and would eventually sit down to negotiate a treaty that would allow Japan to keep its gains. This hope would only have worked if Japan had left it up to the US to decide if it wanted to enter WWII, and thus if the US had gone to war without the powerful motivation and the sense of outrage that Pearl Harbor caused."

    posted in Maps & Mods