💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread

[TheDog]

@black_elk
Im aiming for another update this weekend, so any graphic updates try and get them to me for Thursday/Friday.

Hold off on more testing for my benefit, as you have fed me enough to be going on with, Im full

I have a lot to reread.

[Black_Elk]

Sounds good

This was as far as I pressed tonight. Till round 9...

2023-1-15-1941-Global-Command-Decision USA 9 combat move.tsvg

ps. I just finished up one more turn to see how the battle in Naples would shake down. Looks like USA has a shot to take it after all! In the Pacific, because there weren't many other spots to go, I just B lined into the middle of Japan to try and get a factory. Soviets fought the German stack almost to a man, so the front there has stabilized a bit. China is basically just turtling and waiting for a rescue. I guess if I can hold Southern Italy, then maybe send the Med fleet east to relieve India maybe. Anyway, I think Allies have maybe rounded the corner, despite a pretty good press from Axis. I think the Anzac bunker thing kinda threw them, after that the IJN just kind scattered and their island campaign fell apart hehe.

2023-1-15-1941-Global-Command-Decision UK 9 combat move.tsvg

Anyhow, will look forward to the next one.

For Graphics I still saw a line off New Jersey that needs a fix, so I'll do that and clean up anything else that stands out to me.

I like that German color if you do, it feels more menacing and slightly easier to distinguish with blends on. Italy and UK are still a bit close, esp with blends on though I prefer blends off myself. I might play with that and see if I can find something that looks more distinct, since they're both brown. I figured to maybe make Italy just a bit more sienna in the raw, with some more red/less yellow. Otherwise though I like the way it looks. I dig the aesthetic. Map feels clean to me! Nice work!

[TheDog]

For Germany use 3f3f3f ?

Yes a better distinction between Britain and Italy would be good.

Yes I prefer blends off too.

The map will look even better when the TT labels & PU are turned off.

What do you think of using the SPG/Tank Destroyer as Heavy Artillery ?
Otherwise how do we easily distinguish between Hvy and Med Artillery?
Maybe we could remove Artillery-Hvy ? (It does have First Strike, but is it different enough to Artillery-Med?
We could just merge both abilities into one unit/stat? (Also one less unit on the purchase screen)

[Black_Elk]

Yeah I think so, I mean if you like it. Both colors work for me honestly, but I was vibing on the darker shade earlier hehe.

All sounds good to me! I'm with it!

I wrapped that game just now I think by holding Chubu for the full round. Now that I got a spot to build out of should be easier to start breaking Japan apart, so seemed like a good place to call it.

2023-1-15-1941-Global-Command-Decision USA 10 non combat move.tsvg

[TheDog]

3f3f3f it is.

I realize the whole graphic look is a set, so it is OK to keep changing these values. I dont see the beauty in graphics & colour like you do, my beauty is in numbers, and patterns, so a good partnership.

I will remove Artillery-Hvy. One less synergy to worry about.

Thanks for the tsvg will check it later.

[TheDog]

Round 10, impressive and with so few HQ commands, the green rash is spreading.

Are the US too strong?

[Black_Elk]

I don't think USA is too strong per se, cause I only just eeked that one out really. I think it's more a matter of the overall regional production spread. Cause with only a few factory capable TT targets, the best play in my view is always to bypass everything non essential and only gun for the spots with production threats. It took me 9 rounds here to start rushing, which is a fair bit of time I'd say. I think I could have been more effective concentrating in just one direction though. Like both USA and Britain focusing on Italy, but I think UK's antics also helped Russia to hold the line, so I don't know. Overall seemed to work out ok for team Allies there, but I think by including more high value TTs in intermediate locations that would help the pace of play.

You can see how I basically ignored everything that was neutral, because the neutrals don't pose a direct threat, but it also leaves a lot of the board inactive which might otherwise be contested. I would consider lighter defenses for neutrals along the historical/thematic paths. Similar to how you handled Iraq and Syria, though I didn't really notice those were mostly empty till the game was almost over. Probably the same with N. Africa and Iran would be helpful, giving more places for Allies to push. I suppose you could weaken USA too, but I think first I would give ANZAC more to work with, and perhaps India/China as well. Especially since I expect many will play Axis first, and it's good to have a fun challenge for Japan in the Pacific. I think it just needs those couple extra stepping stones to act like production nodes along the way. The smallest factory, being unable to produce really much beyond inf and art types makes it's utility kinda limited. More of the Medium factories that can do a ship or a fighter in those stop along spots. Saving the heavy industry for the sensible spots sure, but giving the player a bit more for the frontline build options. Particularly where they need to push hard like into France, or up the Boot in Italy. I think I got pretty lucky there, as the margins were narrow. Germany also screwed themselves over by moving a giant army to Toulouse where it was less mobile. The factory bonus to movement is an interesting dynamic. I kind of dig how you can get stranded by moving out into a tile with no factory. Like a bullet train to nowhere hehe. I got caught up a few times doing that. I think for Russia next time I would be more cautious and try to keep more stuff just parked in the main factory tiles, since units based out of those spots can move so much further. Definitely takes some getting used to, but I'm a little more familiar now I think hehe

[Black_Elk]

For the graphics, the only thing I can really think of is just to fix that little line near New Jersey. I think it's in the base rather than the relief. Like I must have made the correction but didn't post the update or something, cause my master base already has the correction and I can't find the older one anymore lol. Anyhow this is the base I've been using...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xnvwl23sf092dia/Domination_1941_baseline.png?dl=0

There are some minor things I'm not exactly in love with, but changing those things now would mean reworking the base, and not sure if we really want to do that step again, since this one is already up and running and looks pretty good to me.

Sure there's some wonk, like with the shape of that New York tile, but it still works I think. Originally I had "new york" as just a little circle, like if you look on the old Dom maps, so it was really just meant for the City basically, but Hepps ballooned that TT out a bit to include more stuff. I don't mind really since they're more abstract regional shapes that don't necessarily need to follow the state lines exactly. Also where the two sides of the map meet further west, I read that as allowing for a bit of distortion in the imagination as well. Like I'd prefer to have Texas and Colorado be their perfect shapes, and have all the connections hit all seamlessly across the map divide, but it might not really be worth the effort. Like I can't think of a great way to do it with the relief disguise, that wouldn't still show weirdness when TTs were changing colors. Anyway there are other TTs elsewhere that are abstracted in shape already, so it kinda works with parity to have the blob effect spread around. If Texas has to take the hit for the team, I can live with it heheh.

Just on the subject of New York though, I noticed the tile has no production in the current Command Decision which struck me as a little strange. I'd probably give it a factory, or maybe shift one of the existing factories to that location, just cause it was major mobilization hub. I'd probably make this the highest value TT for the US too over Washington DC Metro, being the financial capital and largest city and such, to me that would make sense. It might also be cool, in the unlikely event of "Invasion Canada," to have a tile coming between the Allied factory in Halifax and the next nearest American factory. So like shifting the factory from New England to New York would achieve that, with buffer spot between the two hubs. You know in case the region becomes contested, like during the way way end game, so there's a chance for Axis to gain a toehold before being roundly ejected lol. Sure it's not the likeliest outcome, but still fun to have that option just in case it's a real all-nighter of a game haha

Anyhow just a thought! Catch ya in a few dude

[TheDog]

You have been very busy testing on my behalf, which I appreciate very much, so my offer, one time only, is for you to redo the base and relief if you wish? :face_with_tongue:

Yes it will mean extra work for me, but this is for your map toolset for both map versions G40 & detailed/Command Decision.

I assume its just stuff around the edges of the baseTiles TT, so the centres stay the same? Also no new TT or SZ ?

So take your time find all the niggles that bug you and I will rework it, into this map.

Thanks again for the help.

ps. Dont rush for this coming weekend, I dont have the time to incorporate it.

[TheDog]

New York et al, on the eastern sea board have high PUs that have no Industry, the intention was the US player can choose to invest in Industry now and reap the rewards later or invest in Units now.

Buying Industry-Med to put on these 7 TT or buy the units instead is the players choice. As the Industry-Med generate 5pu per turn, in 5 turns they will have paid for themselves. If all 7 TT have a Industry-Med thats 35pu per turn extra just for building factories for ever.

This is my way of increasing PU/GDP and attempting to show the industrial might of the US.

Feel free to tell me your changes for the position of the Industries and the values of the TT PU for the US.

[Black_Elk]

Haha right on! Well in that case I'll give it the finer-toothed comb.

Yeah that would be my preference as well, not to change the dimensions or the location of the map break, no changes to the centers, but simply to redraw a couple lines. These lines specifically...

To my American school kid eyes that just looks a lot more sensible. Like that way the TT called New York-New Jersey looks like the states and the TT called "Hudson-Delaware" is essentially Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware. New England including Connecticut etc. In the South I'd just made South Carolina look more like South Carolina and same deal deal with Chicago. It's just a few lines shifted, but I think it'd make it look better, less blobby.

Out West, I would add two tiles. One called W. Texas that can connect to Chihuahua, New Mexico and Texas, and another one called E. Colorado or maybe Continental Divide or "Cont. Divide" since that's basically the spot where the rivers change directions. This avoids having too many 4 points while still looking fairly sensible, and just gives an overall shape to the region that looks less like the map wrap edge broke my brain lol. I'm probably just nitpicking cause it's kinda home turf, but those were the only spots that kinda bugged me, so I'd probably limit myself to just that. As you say, round the edges hehe

ps. for the map package, when I get everything together, I'd also like to add some images like this just to have them...

These could be used with the lighthouse/beacon to add additional straits, or to use as simple visuals for whatever. I think the 3 px square dot is pretty good. I could just add a collection or ready to go lines and boxes that map makers could add in for different stuff.

Perhaps the same done in Red could indicate a closure, in the case of a canal/strait that is contested? Or maybe like a red-team/blue-team type thing, done by sides. Not sure, but might be cool to have in the big bag of tricks.

I suppose adding more of them would be easier then removing the ones I drew in place hehe, which always a bit of a dilemma with a relief, but what I could do is just make it so that the lighthouses or the dots don't actually cross over any white lines or transparency/land areas, but just remain within the blue of the sz tiles. So maybe more like what I drew the first time for Danish with a smaller section of line/box to avoid crossing into the white. If that makes sense.

Done that way they could be adjusted more easily. When I make the next relief I'll try to get a design going like that so it's a little easier to reproduce. I feel like each time I take a stab at it, it gets a little cleaner, but I'll try to make this the final pass. Dial the base and call it ready to roll heheh.

[Black_Elk]

Oh one last thought before I jet, but this has more to do with the Unit set up/TT ownership.

For 1941 I think what we have going is basically this on G1

But then this by the time you get to J1...

Meaning that the first round of gameplay basically takes us from March to December, Spring into the dead of Winter hehe. I guess the idea being that, as you cycle through the nations in the turn order sequence, the clock is still advancing as we're going round the board.

The areas underwent a major change in the intervening months between March and Dec 1941, are basically the Eastern Front, East Africa and the Near East.

I would treat each separately, with the following ideas in mind... First to have the Vichy territory controlled by Germany at the outset. Axis aligned rather than neutral, but weakly defended so that Britain can take much of it over on their first turn clap back.

For the Near East, I'd have it set up so that Axis have maybe a unit or two in Syria that they can use to conquer Iraq, and where Iran can be gobbled up by the Soviets or the Brits out of India. For Ethiopia/Italian Somaliland, I would have the area designed to basically fold on UK1 to British attacks. The idea being that this is happening sort of simultaneously with Barbarossa, even the Germany goes first (and technically this would have happened already) Italy can still get a turn out of East Africa and that income boost for the starter, before getting smashed.

The big one for me though is the German line vs the Soviets along the Eastern front. Cause if J1 is December and G2 comes after that into the following season, then Germany should be a bit deeper into the USSR by that point right?

This would probably be desirable anyway in the current scenario, because the TTs further into the Soviet interior are somewhat larger, and if we started with a more Dec 1941 position, this would probably make it a lot easier to see the starting units in that region without overlap cluttering the visual on G1. Like the view when the map is first opened I mean.

Not sure if it makes sense to you. But I would go with something like this...

That way on G1, Germany can attack right up to the position corresponding to the Dec line, where Japan and USA will also be at the end of the first round. So that it all kinda syncs up at the close of the first gameround. Instead of a situation where the Soviet line is getting steamrolled, this would be more like Enemy at the Gates I guess heheh. USSR trying to hold, and relieve the siege of Leningrad, while Axis are basically all up into Stalingrad and Rostov. I'd think it would be easier to design a balance around that kind of start too, as opposed to the one where Soviets are sorta slowly withdrawing over the first 3 turns to achieve a more defensible line. I don't know if this may recommend a few differences to how the starting factories are set distributed, but to me it would look more in keeping with 1941 that way.

In the West it would be cool to have a factory, or factory capable TTs in Brittany, Bordeaux or Marseille, so that Germany has a way to get into the water that isn't controlled by SZ 112. You mentioned earlier having the sub spawn pegged to coastal factories. To me this would recommend Brittany, theme: The Lorient Submarine command...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorient_Submarine_Base

So basically the place where Dönitz is setting up shop. To me this would be good, because it also gives Germany a potential way to break out of Baltic, eventually, and gives the Allies something to fret over with the Atlantic wall. Gives Germany a reason to stay forward too, whereas otherwise they might just turtle inland. This would also present them with a challenge regarding Normandy, since they'd want to cover the Brittany factory for the subs, this makes it hard to defend Normandy, Calais or the Low Countries all at the same time. So some tension there, and an anchor.

In general I am a pro factory player hehe. It's my favorite unit. The movement dynamic off the factory tiles is one of the things I found that I enjoyed about this one. Although I admit it often feels a bit backwards to me, because the larger tank types which I am used to associating with mobility often can advance as far as the regular infantry and artillery and such. It's almost like the inverse of what I would expect. Where I struggle to move the tanks and mech units around, but Inf stacks can launch the distance across 3 tiles hehe. It's quite a lot of movement, and changes the dynamic of the groundgame quite a lot. I almost feel like it might be cool to have represented graphically with a rail cross road or something to help clue the player in. I'd say bunkers and movement from a factory TT are the dominant features of the gameplay. The one defines the combat, the other the movement across the board. I know you said bunkers were supposed to cap at 2x, but even there, they are decisive. It took me a while to realize what was happening, so I think maybe it could be highlighted more in some way, along with more unit specs in the notes maybe hehe.

Right then, all I got for a monday, but I'll tool around with the base and make those fixes. Then sit with it for a few days and see if I catch anything else haha. Catch ya next round dude

[Black_Elk]

Here is the updated baseline...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xnvwl23sf092dia/Domination_1941_baseline.png?dl=0

Looks a lot better in North American to me now. Like sure some of the rectangles may have some compression, but nothing to raise any major eyebrows I don't think hehe.

I only made one other adjustment outside the Americas, which was to split the TT in North Africa called Timbuktu-W. Sahara in two.

I would label these "W. Algerian Sahara" and "E. Algerian Sahara" or something similar.

Timbuktu was actually a mislabeling on the current map, which I only just now noticed. It might have been me or might have been Hepps. Thing is, conceived as an impassible (like when I was doing mountain ranges and such) then a skinny long tile is ok. But when it's open for movement, I think it's too long for a tile in that region. Done this way there is still a buffer between Morocco and Libya, so the skip around isn't too quick, and there's a bit more room to maneuver. I actually like the name Timbuktu, cause it reminds me of random stories my grandpa told me when I was a kid, but I put it in the wrong spot lol.

The Mali TT, immediately below these, that one should be called "Timbuktu-Mali" and then all should be right with the world again. Fingers crossed! hehe

If that one works for you, I will make the final relief from that baseline, so everything should display properly with no stray lines.

ps. few more quick ideas, first in support of doing the Vichy stuff as German rather than Neutral, and also for attackable neutrals over "move through" neutrals I guess. So I think part of the reason that team Axis is often more fun to play in these games, is because they have obvious targets and clear places to expand. But as Allies, people freeze up, like "well, what do I do with all this?" By having clear spots to gun for (the spaces that can support factory buys) it gives the Allies an idea for where to push. You know, like I'll just try to go to Africa and get something started, as opposed to a multi-round plan in advanced for how to do D-Day starting on round 1 for a payoff that doesn't happen till round 5 or 6 launching transports as floaters heheh. That's tough to get the head around, whereas "Kill Morocco" or "take Guadalcanal" is more straightforward. When you got the lily pads, the player can take it more step by step, and build as they go. Having more original owner Axis TTs accross the map, gives the Allies real targets to go after, but also having neutrals be attackable you can get routes going in a similar way. Like Greenland and Iceland for the USA, or activating Brazil or Mexico (if they aren't just under US Aegis to start already.) I found that one curious, cause there's that one American dude in Brazil but then the rest are neutral. Anyhow, I would just make em all the same, all attackable neutral standard, with larger defending forces on the spots you don't really want to see contested (True Neutrals like Switz, Turkery etc) vs stuff that you want to see trade hands routinely, which should have small forces or no forces like just walk-ins. But I still like doing the French stuff under German occupation at the outset, cause you get better parity by sides that way I think, and more for the British player to do in the early rounds. Anyway, main gist is that more factory capable spots just make for a more dynamic game overall, as the players puzzle out how best to use them or prevent the other dude from using them, and I think the French TTs in N. Africa under G control you could definitely get something going like that heheh

I didn't catch that about the factories producing income over time. That's another interesting feature to highlight in unit notes, similar to the movement bonus. The ability to invest in infrastructure that generates income over time would be a very powerful gameplay driver.

I'll admit the maintenance thing throws me a bit still, but I think unit caps gave me more hangups. Like when I would be moving my fleets and transports around, trying to shuffle the units to get the transports to unload. It did force me to break my fleets apart, but it felt like I was being strongarmed a bit, when I'd rather have kept all my stuff together hehe. I noticed it with fighter landings as well, though it didn't irk so much with the air, whereas with ships it felt like an inconvenience. Anything that slows down the transport or makes it hard to load/unload transports, since that stuff is already fairly tedious in tripleA. I'm guilty of often making non com moves during the combat phase, and here that's not allowed for transports, which I understand, but it also stalls me up.

Oh and one final final thing, on the purchase screen. When you attempt to purchase elites, but can't cause you're at your max, the purchase screen will zero out entirely. That can be a little frustrating, if you'd spent a while thinking about it but then one marine undoes your purchase. Another thing that I found was I'd buy stuff but then couldn't place it, in which case I'd reload, but it's almost like I wish I could time warp. Reverting to Purchase from the place phase would be cool, but I don't know if that can be done. I guess just edit mode it, but I did find that tricky, like just remember how much of the big stuff I could actually place. Eventually I got tired of messing up and just spammed inf/art since that felt reliable, but I might have gone crazier with esoteric builds if I'd had more place options.

Just to make sure I understand the maximum number of units that can be placed into a given tile is 4 correct?

The small factory can produce 2 units, on a tile worth 3 or more.
The medium factory can produce 3 units
The big one 4?

To me this feels like it may be bit a bit low. I also wonder if it might be simpler to have the unit production match the tile values, so it's easy to read? You know 2 units on a tile worth 2. Or 3 on a tile worth 3. Iron War also had a fairly low production cap per tile. It was 5 units there on tiles worth 5. I didn't mind, but also felt that when doing that the production has to really pair off properly by sides, without too much concentration of production or too little, otherwise the map design can overwhelm some spots with hitpoints on the double team or triple team. Or you end up where the one side just stalls out cause they can never produce enough hitpoints to overwhelm the opponent and grab a toehold. In Iron War this was a prob for USA, cause the closest places they could grab to build a factory for that 5 hitpoints was Libya or Scandinavia, or on the Pacific side other than Truk they had to basically go all the way to China before they could expand production to shore up the frontline hehe. I gather some may enjoy the gameplay that has USA playing really long logistics lines, but it helps if the terminus spot has a build as well. Even if its just a support, fewer numbers. Especially here where we can control by the Small/Medium/Large what sort of stuff gets built where. Just an idea, but more mediums near the likely fronts I'd say. Right then, off to bed! lol

[TheDog]

@black_elk
I have not read the last 3 posts in detail, but in principle advancing the game turn clock to late 41, lets do it, I had already destroyed the soviet air force and Baltic Fleet, so yes lets invaded a few TTs.

Again in principle, yes to converting some of the neutral French/Vichy French to Axis.
As I came to the same conclusion in N. Africa, gave them to Italy.

I will read your posts properly at the weekend after the release.

Also I will not be using your recent baseline file for this release, so you have a chance to update it for the next.

Regarding the purchase panel, for one reason or another two Devs have fixed it, but it never made it to final leased version.

I have a custom built working TripleA version, that I use for testing, see the zeros against the HQ and Inf-Elite Germany cannot buy more.

Here is how to get it
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/2798/achievable-improvements-to-the-triplea-user-interface/49?page=3

This thread was 1st pass
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/2798/achievable-improvements-to-the-triplea-user-interface/78?page=4

2nd pass, that got away and closed
https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/pull/11273

As can be seen Im on both of them, its my #1 fix
It really spoils the TripleA player experience.

[TheDog]

For this coming release
Neutrals

• Still only one Neutral type
• Axis can still attack Neutrals, but most Neutrals will have Bunkers/no infantry for defence, so a bit harder to attack. Switzerland has Bunkers, Infantry and Artillery for defence. In one test the Germans committed a ton of stuff and got heavily defeated.
• Allies cannot enter Neutral space, this is new and the complete opposite of the current release (They have to play nice in the war playground)

But, can the Allies move through Neutral canals like Turkish Straits, so into 129 SZ ?

[Black_Elk]

hehe right on!

To the Qs in that last post, in general I prefer a scheme where the two sides are not treated differently in terms of how they can move/where they can go. Otherwise I think it creates confusion and makes it difficult to tell what's going on with the map at a glance.

I feel the same way about canals as I do with the neutrals. I just think it's easier to set up a clear rule for both sides, that doesn't have any exceptions. So everyone can see what's what, and the treatment is universal.

Regarding the Turkish straits, allowing one side to pass through them while the other cannot, seems to defeat the purpose of having a strait there in the first place. Like I understand the rationale, which is to give the Allies an edge, but I don't think this is the way to achieve it. What will happen, in terms of the gameplay, is that Allies will prioritize taking the med, and then funnel units into Southern Russia via the Black Sea. I predict this would happen in every game if you allow Allies to pass the Bosporus unhindered while preventing Axis from doing so. It's better to have it closed for both sides I think.

For North Africa, although I understand the desire to give Italy more territory (since they are the smaller of the two European Axis) assigning control of the French stuff to Italy doesn't make a ton of sense to me. Either from a historical perspective, or a gameplay one really. Italy will already have sufficient production and be in a position to reinforce N. Africa, whereas Germany is basically locked out of the theater, since they don't have a viable way to support the Afrika units. What we want, I think, is a situation where Germany can be a factor in the Med. Otherwise it's a double team with UK/US vs Italy, and Italy is going to get smoked out of Africa immediately hehe.

I'd try to make it consistent, so the territories aren't being assigned arbitrarily, but according to the political situation at the time. After the Fall of Paris, France surrendered to Germany in June. In practical terms the French territory in N. Africa (and really across the globe) became Axis aligned at that point. A situation where half of the French TT are German while other stuff is just treated as neutral to me would seem odd. Though I'd say the same on the Allied side with Brazil. Even understood abstractly as spheres of influence or whatever, I still think it's better for a consistent read to have regional control assigned to the major power that makes most sense for the spot (or if they entered the conflict later, on one side or the other) so like Brazil and most of the Western Hempisphere under USA aegis, French stuff in Africa under Germany's aegis. Even if the TTs don't house effective combat forces and are just empty at the start, like walk-ins. In general my impression is that the Neutrals should not be such a major consideration for the gameplay, or give rise to a situation where exploiting the neutrality dynamic can overshadow the more normal push-pull contest between the main belligerents.

Plus, I think it's worth considering what will produce the highest entertainment value for both sides, and to me this recommends control of French Africa to Germany. They'll be able to do more with whatever they're given than Italy would, since they have more money to burn. Germany almost certainly wants to have transports and a pocket fleet in the Med, or a factory somewhere that can place into the Med directly. Like this is always the goal hehe. If you don't allow Germany to support Italy in Africa, then this responsibility will fall to Japan (which sadly is what happens in virtually every A&A game that's ever been, despite being pretty unrealistic and out of step with the history lol.) It's better for Allies as well if this stuff goes to G, at least from an entertainment perspective, since Germany has enough production to present a credible threat there, whereas Italy will always be hamstrung by a lack of cash hehe. In short, you'll have a more lively campaign in N. Africa, if you give Germany more to work with there, whereas if you just give more to Italy the underlying dynamic remains largely the same. Anyhow, just my thoughts on that stuff, for what it's worth.

OK Sounds good! I'll keep the map rework on the back burner for now and give it a week or whatever hehe.

[TheDog]

Agree French N.Africa to Germany.
What about giving E.Tripolitania also to Germany upgrade to 3pu and a Industry-Lgt/Supply/Forward depot?
This gives them a reinforceable presence in N.Africa.

[Black_Elk]

Yeah I like that too! I mean it's easy enough to imagine and seems sensible to me.

I will say, the balance around Africa is always a bit of a sticking point in A&A. It stands out to me how the gameplay seems to hinge on Egypt and control of Suez, in pretty much all the standard A&A games that have ever been lol. You know where whichever side controls Egypt basically controls the whole game, and where because of this, Axis tend to expand somewhat unrealistically in Africa. This happens because there's usually no production (or production potential) in N. Africa outside of Egypt proper. So Egypt becomes do or die for team Axis. Either they take it right away or just give up on Africa entirely, leaving it as Japan's problem hehe. But by providing Axis with more anchor spots (TTs with starting factories that they don't want to abandon if it can be avoided) the playbalance on that shifts quite a bit. Suddenly its about Allies taking over Axis production, as much as vice versa, and both sides have more skin in the game.

I think this also helps prevent the situation, which often happens otherwise, where one team or the other will just see a blowout at the canal, and then the theater becomes innactive for the duration afterwards - the game being dominated from there on, by whoever won in that singular engagement for control of Egypt early on. So yeah, for sure! Having that other spot could only improve the situation and the gameplay, from my perspective. Sounds aces!

One more thing about the Turkish strait. If you allow Allies to pass through, then what will happen is that Axis will take Istanbul to close that route, and attacking Turkey will become part of the script. Like it would happen every game, because allowing Allies to run amuck in the Black Sea is just too dangerous. An American fleet parked there with a dozen transports, could blow out the entire line along the coast. Stuff like that can be fun in the endgame, but I wouldn't want to make it too easy. At least if the player has to conquer Turkey and deal with a large standing neutral army first, there is a viable deterrent. Most A&A games leave the canal open (at player discretion) but it always results in gamey weirdness.

Also, since I suggested earlier that we redo the Eastern Front. Any TT that is Axis controlled (original owner Axis) is very desirable for the Western Allies to take, especially if production capable. So often you may see the British or Americans targeting tiles on the Eastern Front that were original owner Germany, and taking them over from the Soviets to hold for themselves. This can be both fun, and gamey, it might be something you do/don't want to see happen. For me I like simplicity, so I think tiles where original owner = starting control is helpful. Otherwise the player wouldn't know which spots would revert to say USSR or someone else. Alternatively having all TTs as original owner Neutral, is another option. This means no Liberation for a teammate's TTs but taking everything over directly. This can be weird or not, depending on which team has starting control and where the spot is. I'm not sure which approach is best, but reflexively I prefer it when more TTs are original owner Axis, if only because it allows for more dynamism when the TTs change hands.

This is why I want to see more of the French neutral stuff as German, cause then it's original owner Axis and likely to be contested. Particularly if you wanted to pursue a game where Allies cannot occupy neutrals (although I think that's not the best plan hehe). What would happen in that case, is that large areas of the map would become uncontested. Allies would have no way to occupy the tile and Axis would have no incentive to occupy the tile. Since Axis occupying a neutral would be the only way for Allies to claim such a space, Axis would simply avoid taking those spots in the first place, to ensure they remained inactive for the opponent. This would close off large areas of the board, that might otherwise see some action, and which historically did see some action.

Especially in spots like Africa or the Near East where there are many neutrals on the current map. I would consider that, if a neutral is given an army, then the player is likely to avoid taking that space. They will bypass it in most cases, unless there is some movement/logistics advantage to taking the tile. So anywhere that starts off as neutrals, but which you would like to see contested during the game, I would leave those spots with only light forces, or no forces.

The other spots, like say Spain or Turkey, or Switz, where a movement advantage is more obvious, I would plan that these spots will likely be attacked routinely, unless the neutral forces there are large enough to offset the movement advantage of opening the tile. AI behavior here can help to highlight which spots are likely to get fought over. I would expect that, if all neutrals were attackable, and you have bunch in the Americas, that the USA AI would be preoccupied with taking this over. Like shooting troops there instead of towards the Axis. Perhaps this is why they are the way they are, all neutral? Though I'd just give it all to USA, and make that part of the income. It's the convention adopted since Classic pretty much. Even though Mexico and Brazil and Cuba and such didn't enter the war till a bit later. Or similarly with TTs like Greenland or Iceland, which were occupied pretty much as soon as the USA entered the war. Even where Neutrality was concerned, if there was a need, they found a reason to lend or lease that base, in pretty much all instances heheh. So to me it makes sense, to have these spots as either already under US control or easy walk-ins. Like we don't want the computer puzzling out how much stuff they need to send to South America to activate the income or whatever, and getting distracted. But I think this can be achieved by simply making some neutrals have large Armies and others empty, or already under control. Anachronistic sure, but still following the eventual entry onto team Allies. I think that's a good way to handle it

ps. More thoughts on the Japan-Soviet Non Aggression Pact. Current has no movement between USSR and Japanese territory right? And this is pegged to control of Poland? I would say this might not be the most intuitive, and could be surprising to the player. Taking Poland with team Allies somewhat earlier than might be expected, seems not too terribly unlikely a thing to have happen. Also if the player knows that all they have to do to avoid activating that giant front vs Japan is to bypass Poland, I'm not sure why they'd ever take the TT.

Even if I was winning with Allies, like why run the risk? It would always be better avoid activating the USSR/Japan front from the Allied perspective. If the controlling TT was Berlin, probably meaning European Axis are dead I guess, that would make more sense, but you might still see Allies trying to exploit this by just delaying the kill. By then the game is almost over already right? hehe. I think the general idea is that this front just stays closed for a long time, and if it opens that this only happens right towards the end of the match. Like you could almost just say, 'after round X Japan and USSR are at war', but by pegging it to game round it loses some dynamism too, so that's not entirely desirable either really. This is like one of the big puzzles in A&A. How best to do a NAP hehe. But then for the Non Aggression Pact there are quite a few things we might try that could still produce the desired effect, while seeming less strict I bet. I'll have to think on it some more.

I worry a bit that having the game decided almost entirely on the Eastern Front Germany vs USSR, while very realistic, maybe not the most compelling for the gameplay. The way it's set up currently, USSR has a buffer just about everywhere, and they know Japan can't threaten them. Even if Japan gets all the way across China, they can't pose a threat to the core, so USSR can just ignore what's happening there. Same deal with having Persia as a buffer between India and the Caucasus. It has the effect that the Russian's really only need to concentrate on one thing, and by extension team Allies really only has to do one thing, and that's to make sure they hold the line on the Eastern Front and Suez, because doing that they can lock Japan out of Europe.

I wonder if a better solution might be to create an actual physical buffer? Like special tiles that are not controlled by Russia but which are red, and which cover the border with Japan and the coastal spots? But otherwise to have the rules regarding Japan and Russia the same as everyone else. Basically Japan can attack through China or the Near East, but not along the Pacific coastal route. Or to have the TT that controls whether the coast can be attacked or not, something that Japan can target/influence? Tying this to a tile in China or India maybe, rather than one in the German sphere? I feel like the endgame just loses something when Japan can't really influence the contest in Europe vs USSR somehow. Again, it's not that having the game focus principally on the contest in Europe is unrealistic, cause that is pretty realistic (the actual War was entirely decided by what happened in the USSR probably, and Japan/Pacific was more of a sideshow right hehe), but for the gameplay I mean, I think it needs to connect up more side to side somehow.

For the time being, I do definitely enjoy the dynamic here that has Japan and the USSR not battling it out immediately (which is a frustration of all A&A games) but I think there still needs to be a way for what Japan is doing in China and India to screw the Russians. Like maybe make it a money thing, so Russia wants to send those units into China to help prop up that theater, instead of sending them to the Eastern Front? I'd still say the contest for the Eastern Front is so critical that all forces/attention must be directed there. It's a tough nut to crack for sure haha.

Anyhow, I definitely like how Japan reorients a lot towards where it should be focused, when the war with Russia isn't the main event in the Pacific. But then the whole Axis convergence at the middle of the board may also get wild, as eventually Japan (without an option to attack directly) will still show up in Russia somehow I bet, just creeping into German/Italian tiles probably lol.

[Black_Elk]

Here is a list of suggestions for additional spots that could host a starting factory, or be factory capable...

Greenland
Iceland
Brittany
Normandy
Belgium
Bordeaux
Marseille
Athens
Belgrade
Morocco
Algiers
Benghazi
Damascus
Tehran
Calcutta
Dakar
Gabon
Madagascar
Singapore
Hong Kong
Shanghai
Manila
Java
Port Moresby
Rabaul
Gaudalcanal
New Zealand
Rio De Janeiro
Panama

I think that would be enough to get something going, like for the push-pull on production, and at locations that basically cover the board. This doesn't really change the essential production dynamic out of the national/industrial cores, but it allows that to be supported by the regional bases. Factory TTs that both sides might have a reasonable expectation of contesting. Well ok sure, maybe Brazil or Panama is pretty far afield for Axis, but you know, if the Axis payer actually gets there, then at least there'd be a payoff for it hehe. But for the rest of the map, I think having those locations with some Small/Medium factories, or at least be viable for them, would help a lot. It will make the tit for tat a bit more global in scope and give both sides plenty of targets to keep on the radar hehe.

For the Pacific islands, or really any TT that is similar, I think there needs to be more of a reason to go after them than the 1 PU. Like right now I'm not sure I'd ever try to take Iwo Jima or a spot like Midway. It just doesn't make sense. The cost in unit attrition is a lot higher than the TT value to take, especially with bunkers factored in, and if it doesn't pose a threat, can't build production, there would be no real reason to ever attack them I wouldn't think. Like other than just showboating I guess lol. I mean if I was just playing vs the AI I'm sure I'd kill some spots I didn't really have to, just to be a completionist, but if we were playing for keeps here, the gameplay would recommend bypassing all those spots, since the incentive to conquer isn't really there. This is a problem in the standard games as well. There's almost nothing that one can do to persuade the player to break a sweat over Wake Island I guess hehe. I suspect that maybe if more stuff was worth 2 PUs, it could be tempting, but the bunkers would be the decisive thing for me. No bunker and I'd hit, bunker and I'd bypass, unless it was a build capable spot that is. So I don't know, maybe they should all be worth 3? lol

For me a tile that is worth 1 PU, if it has no bunker but 1 infantry unit, then I would probably hit the island to kill the infantry (just to keep it from transporting off later). 1 PU + 1 inf destroyed is a trade of 5 TUV, so even if I take a hit doing it that's still a wash. But stick a bunker on that same TT and my calculus goes out the window. Now the TT feels like it's worth -4, cause I know I'm going to take at least 1 hit trying to get through that bunker right? hehe So it's like the TT value needs to come up to allow for these units, otherwise the attacker is always trading at a disadvantage and my incentive to conquer is eclipsed by my incentive not to hemorrhage hitpoints lol. Not sure, but that's sorta where my head's at with it, assuming the current bunker and island TT values.

For the factories that are on the board currently, I'd maybe up those all to Mediums or even Large. Or I don't know is the idea that one could build small and upgrade to a medium? If so maybe have the TT values higher to support an upgrade but start them out with the smaller one for the further flung places. It would definitely be cool if we could upgrade India or Anzac to a major. I feel like ANZAC especially is a faction that already struggles to have a purpose for existing, so having a full roster for them might help hehe. But in general, yeah, more production capability. Even if the player has to invest to expand it. To me it would be an easy way to see what's going on, if the factory tiles could upgrade as the game progressed, sort of like you mentioned with New York hehe. But where it's very easy for the player to spot. Like they could see the small factory and then think aha, I will build it into a medium. But for me when I tried that, it didn't work and the purchase was kinda wasted haha.

Anyhow, off to game for a few. See you on the next one!

[TheDog]

@black_elk
If the game starts late 41 as per your proposed post invasion map, do the the newly taken USSR TT stay as Original Owner=USSR or are they Germany?

Im off to be bed, so no rush.