💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread
-
Ok cool I'll work with that concept then. I think what's needed is a combination of a slightly thicker relief line, but also a blend for the one that shows through from the base. So instead of seeing just the 1px black line, you'd have another pixel (a 50% gray-ish pixel) coming between the black and the white-ish line. This would be on the relief itself. Basically so we can put some anti-aliasing or blur on that 1px black line. Otherwise it's a bit choppy. But that should be relatively easy to do, now that I know how it's working.
We'd have the 1 px hole in the relief to display the baseline at 100% opacity, then another 3 px hole where the opacity is at 25% or 50% or whatever looks nicest. This should produce a line that I can blend with the gaussian blur so it looks smooth. So a soft edge rather than hard edge, and less pixel-y lookin. To make it work the white/gray relief just needs to expand by like 1 or 2 px on either side, so fairly similar. I'll cook it up tomorrow night
-
yea Base Camp seems a good name. That's where reinforcements would show up
-
Ok here's another relief to test...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pvyu2jj544jcxo5/Domination 1941 relief 2 tone borders.png?dl=0
I beefed up the white lines, then did a blend near the center to soften that 1px black line. It's a little tricky to get a good blend going across just 2 pixels, usually it takes 5 values to get a decent gradient going from White to Black, but we want more Tint than Shade I think for the read at a glance, so I tried get the out of what I had to work with, without making the borders too gigantic lol.
The idea was to get the whites to still pop when zoomed out, but where the black line wouldn't be too choppy when zoomed in, also where the overall register wouldn't appear too midtone. My solution for this last was to dial down the color value on the ocean blue, basically to play up the contrast there lightly, but without changing the overall hue too much. It's a little steelier, but doesn't upend the general sweep of the palette hopefully. I think it works.
Let me know how that feels for you, and if it seems good I'll start detailing in the canal stuff.
ps. I noticed just now that edit mode is also disabled here in the 1941 command decision. Not having Edit Mode definitely removes some critical tripleA functionality. I'd say not having it would basically make the map unplayable in a PvP context, since players would have no way to get around mistakes or errors short of loading an autosave. This isn't always practical, especially where a quick edit could fix something on the fly. I'd suggest including it here and in the Shogun map as well, for PvP. But even if the intention is only to allow play vs a Hard AI (like as a purely single player experience) the Edit Mode can still very useful. It allows users to adjust stuff quickly without having to close tripleA to go under the hood in a txt editor, and you can alter and save out the game state quickly, which would probably be helpful at this stage. Like where we're still iterating. Really it's useful at every point along the way, just as a QoL convenience, but as a design tool it can be used in cool ways too. Like to activate certain options in-game via the edit tech menu, rather than just from the launch screen. Anyhow, just a thought. Hopefully the new relief does the trick hehe. I can keep noodling it if not
Oh also here's the baseline, with the correct blue and those tweaks.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xnvwl23sf092dia/Domination_1941_baseline.png?dl=0
The additional tiles are West Texas and E. Colorado. The connection between Boston and Hudson-Delaware would also need to get nixed, because now New York comes between them. I'd also rename that tile from Hudson-Delaware to just Pennsylvania or Philadelphia-Delaware, or something like that, since the TT no longer includes the Hudson river really, that one is in the New York-New Jersey tile now, since I got rid of the blob and the weirdness in favor of a more state-lines look. Otherwise it should be the same across the rest of the board.
I'll work on the Base-Camp unit graphic when get a chance. Base-Camp works for me as a name, since you could abbreviate BC. The way Industrial Complex (factory) can be abbreviated IC. So it has a sort of parity. I like Army Base, but then we already got AB for Air Base in G40, so I like the BC shorthand. Also as a name that's sufficiently generic enough that if you wanted to spawn other units besides just infantry in a limited way, you could still have that idea that it's like a forward base of ops. Sounds cool to me
See ya next round!
-
SZ 099 B caught on a flash at 100%
caught on a flash at 50%, 4K screen would see this
Its working, hopefully this helps?
.
On my TripleA 2.5.22294 Edit Mode is fine, I have 3 versions installed and Edit Mode works on these three fine. AFAIK you cannot disable it
https://forums.triplea-game.org/tags/thedog
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/3741/curated-best-top-maps-triplea-guides -
Nice! Well that's good to hear!
I can always tweak the gradient a bit for the black line, I went pretty dark gray for that one, so I might lighten it up just slightly for the blend off the black, but as long as the flash is visible when it's actually flashing, we should be gravy.
Strange, I'm not sure why I was having issues with the Edit Mode earlier. I just tried again and now it works. Weird. I was messing around some stuff and had a few instances open, with multiple games, so perhaps it just caught a weird snag. Anyhow, that's good. If it's just me duncing out, that's not to worry, long as it's in there for the rest of the gang, I'm sure I can figure out what's up on my end eventually lol.
Seeing the little screens I think I actually prefer that blue, so that's some serendipity!
Oh, different topic, but similarly regarding colors. I wasn thinking we might want to re-tint the ANZACships a bit. I find it can be pretty easy to mix them up with the USA. Unit flags might help for that, but not sure if many even use the option, or if it would even look good with our square flags. It's too bad the small flag has to do double duty. If we could set a separate flag graphic for the units we could probably come up with something nicer probably that was specific to the units. But absent that, I was thinking they might just need a little more vibrancy or a slight shift in hue, so they aren't so easily confused with USA warships. Like where the player might not realize and think the USA had more stuff to attack with, but it's actually ANZAC stuff. Anyhow I might have a look at that as I delve back into the units to do that base camp.
Also speaking of flags, I like that look! Size feels good to me!
Nice work! -
Today, my Windows Snipping Tool was working then it wasn't, a first, so a restart fixed it, wyrd sh1t.
So for the next release, released hopefully before next weekend, I would like;
- Base-Camp icon
- ANZAC retouched, (they have a tech upgrade that uses most of the units, not just the current sub set)
- Find TT, flashing border problem fix
.
If they are ready the new base & relief Tiles, but Im not expecting them, so dont rush, as you are adding at least one new TT, as I need time and patience to add it in.Yeah I prefer the smaller flags.
-
I have been busy working out how a Japan & USSR Non Aggression Pact (NAP) could work.
Currently in game
Turns 1-12 NAP is in force, they will not attack each other
Turn 13 (1944-4Q) each nation gets a skirmish popup sayingSkirmish popup
Turns 14+ there is a 1 in 3 chance of changing NAP to War
War popup
.
If there is no War/War popup (both sides can attack each other) then the Skirmishing popup appears.In my test on Turn 16 War was declared.
There is always 1 turns notice, maybe more before war is declared
Will it or a variant do?
-
Right on, I can get it all handled tomorrow. For now I'm just basking in the warm afterglow of a 49ers win over the Cowboys hehe.
Regarding the NAP, I shot you some messages the other day with some ideas I like, but then I probably buried it under some other random ramblings lol.
I think the primary question is whether you want to frame this as something that the player has some control over, or which they can influence in some way, or if it's just a random event type situation? Also probably depends on how much you value the Multiplayer or PvP aspect of the game, as opposed to just trying create an entertaining experience for the single player vs an AI. This may recommend different approaches depending on the goals there, as there are things which may fly in a solo, but which may be a bit frustrating in PvP. Like if it doesn't involve enough player agency or isn't deftly handled in a way that at least makes the player feel like they're still participating somehow. I will lay out a quick example using the above.
So a trigger/prompt which has a 1 in 3 chance of activating after a set number of rounds... In a solo vs the AI, the player may be content to have this happen under the hood with the result being automated as a time saving expedient. But in PvP especially I think the player wants to roll the dice.
33% chance of a trigger firing, is basically the same as having Japan and USSR both roll 1d6 (hitting on a 1) during their actual turn. Of the two approaches, I think the latter is going to be a more satisfying, because a big part of the appeal of A&A (or the A&A framework that tripleA is built on) is it's transparency. There are a lot of other grand strategy computer games, map games, which are a lot of fun, but where the player is kept largely in the dark on why such and such is happening at any given point in the campaign. You know where rolls are happening, but happening under the hood (invisible, behind the GM screen, however you want to frame it) basically where the player is sort of clueless and in a constant state of surprise or trepidation about which results the computer is going to throw at them. This is basically the approach used in the Total War series, or a lot of 4X type games built around the scrub reload principle, all of which I enjoy don't get me wrong hehe, but the reason I'm drawn to A&A (and it's admittedly simplistic systems) is that everything here happens way out in the open. If something random is going to go down, we at least get to see some dice rolling on that. I felt the same way about the sub spawning thing for Germany. Even if the results are largely similar/identical, I think it would be more fun for the German player to actually roll the dice during some kind of special sub spawn gamephase. Basically to be an actor rather than a spectator. Rolling a dozen dice, is just always going to be more exciting than clicking a dozen prompts. For me anyway hehe. I did turn off the notification thing, so I'm not clicking prompts anymore, but you know what I mean. Rolling vs an autospawn basically.
I think the same could be said of combat systems generally, where what I really want as a player is to be able to parse and prognosticate and understand how forces measure up, or what's actually happening with the rolls, so I don't feel like I'm too at the whims of fate in the middle of a given fight hehe. Basically swingy combats aren't a huge deal for me in a game meant mainly to be played primarily vs an AI and conceived as a single player experience. In such games a rogue surprise or stunning upset can be pretty entertaining, but in PvP they'd probably have me banging my head on against the wall lol. If stuff is too variable or where I just don't understand what's actually happening because so many dice are rolling simultaneously, I start to tune out. The impression I get is that watching rolls and hits that are happening so fast, they become nearly incomprehensible, I'd almost rather just click some kind of auto-resolve button (like as if this was a total war game), even though that's sort of anathema to my whole A&A vibe heheh. At this point I'm really still trying to learn the unit interactions, so I don't want to get too ahead of myself here, but I do find myself wishing I could sort of slow down everything about the battle phases, to really understand what's going on. Here's a screen just to use for an example....
So that is like midway through Germany attacking USSR in Lithuania, but looking at the screen, I really don't know which of those battle phases I'm currently in, or like which units just fired those shots that are displaying. What the dice I'm seeing actually mean, in terms of the step by step process. I'm used to a situation where the Attacker fires, then the Defender fires, then casualties are allocated and cleared. I'm familiar enough with AAfire and First strike, but again, where it shows which units are firing, and where there are pauses between these battle-phases, so the player can take stock and get a sense for how it works. In the current game however, these knock into each other, it cycles through like 8 different battle-phases, and the only pause you get is at the end where I'm basically confirming the casualties that have been auto selected for me. The sense I have is that I'm just an observer of the battle, more than a participant, since the rolls blast by so fast and the input I'm providing during this process as a player is sorta redundant in terms of casualty selection. So really the only real choice to be made is whether to continue or retreat, when we get to that part. So I don't know, a lot of times I'm bemused by it, but still confused it, if that makes sense hehe.
I worry a little bit about the AA shot mechanic as the backbone of a general combat scheme, since the AAgun shot is the most swingy of all the combat schemes in A&A. What I mean is a situation where a single unit can fire multiple targeted shots (as the standard aaAgun does in A&A) but where those shots are all at lower values, like say 1d6 or 2d6. Even where the odds might be roughly similar in terms of how many hits might be scored on average, there's just so much more that can crack off when multiple shots are being fired that way, and it becomes almost impossible to predict the likely attrition rate.
Thus far I have only played the game using regular dice, but I might try LL next time, just to see what that looks like here. Anyhow, that's a bit of a digression, but I wanted to mention it as well, because one of the things that adds to my sense of confusion (within the battle, when dice are rolling) is that the battle phase is spread across like 8 different units pairings. This all occurs pretty quickly, so it can be very hard to determine which units are actually firing at any given point, and casualties are being removed at many points in the process (owing to the targeting, first-strike, sneak attack stuff). So I just feel kinda lost. Not as lost as the first time few times I played, but still pretty uncharted territory for me.
Anyhow regarding the NAP again, I'm a bit torn, because while I do like the NAP for the historical play pattern, particularly in PvP, I think in a solo game this is probably something where I'd want to have a game setting/launch option on it. Basically because I think a USSR/Japan war could be fun in a solo, where the goals are pretty different than in a PvP match. I think in a Solo, the demands on the endgame change quite a bit, and the player is more likely to play past the point where a human opponent would already have thrown in the towel. You know like Invasion USA by Axis coup de grace, or in this case a crazy Japan vs USSR war. I think I'd prefer a scheme where the Japanese or Soviet player could initiate the War at their own discretion somehow, but with clear tradeoffs that make the decision more interesting/challenging and where it's not necessarily obvious what the best move would be. It's relatively simple to just do a hard restriction and just remove the choice altogether, but then I'm not sure if that really makes for the most engaging gameplay necessarily hehe.
Still, assuming a hard NAP, one that is basically in place for most of the game, and which can't be broken until the point where the game is likely almost over (13+ rounds), I think it's worth considering what else might need changing to support that. A really important one may be preventing the Western Allies co-locating in starting Soviet territories. If it's Axis' game's to lose, and Germany/Italy are the only powers capable of attacking into Russia, I'd consider not allowing Britain and the USA to operate in the Soviet backfield. If this is allowed to occur, and even if Japan and the USSR are not at War, then the way to win the game as Allies will always be sending hitpoints directly into Russia towards the center of the board. The best strategy for USA/Britain is to shoot as many fighter aircraft as they can to support Moscow, and then start funneling units to the center of the board. In PvP under the current set up, I would rate the board Allied advantage, because it's relatively easy for Britain to stack into the USSR.
It's basically two turns from UK to Archangel. So all they have to do is direct 100% of their energy/production towards propping up Arch, and I'm not sure Axis could ever overcome that on attack. So like on UK1, Britain sends 6 fighters to Svalbard to reach Arch on UK2. Then they starting launching transports along the Northern route to just wall the USSR. From Arch they can cover the whole northern front from Leningrad to Moscow, with the turn order advantage to ice it (Japan could not disrupt them, under NAP conditions). USA can do the same launching directly into Russia, with a 3 turn delay, if this is allowed. I expect the result would be much like A&A Revised (and most A&A boards since really) where it is just a better play to have the Western Allies support the Eastern Front directly with that center wedge, than it is to open a second front in France. In Revised/v5 etc, the push on Berlin leads through Baltic States over France, pretty much every time, for that reason. And the Allies really don't have a great incentive to open a second front in France, unless/until they've already secured Moscow and then Leningrad. Basically winning as Allies, not so much by killing Axis, but just by making it impossible for Axis to kill Russia, if that makes sense hehe.
Anyway, I'd consider not allowing the USA or Britain to move into the USSR's starting territories, especially if Japan isn't routinely invading the USSR the whole game. I'd consider the same restriction for Japan and the European Axis too. Basically trying to keep the co-location thing to a minimum, so it doesn't result in gamey (but very potent) strategies like sending Japanese units to prop up Italy/Germany. Also helps for those smaller TTs, where you'd otherwise see a lot of spillover from multinationals co-locating if it's allowed. By limiting that co-location, you can keep the board a bit tidier on the quick read.
I would have the original owner of the TTs match the starting owners, in all instances, for maximum clarity. So if Germany starts the game occupying Bryansk or whatever, that territory should be original owner Germany, not USSR. Otherwise the player doesn't have a ready way to tell how the liberation of the TT will work. Basically going by the ownership of the start date, and not some prior timeline like what was Soviet or Germany territory in 1939 or 1940. It's just easier to read that way I think across the board. This allows the Allies or Axis to co-locate in conquered lands, but not their home turf, so you can still have some points of convergence, just not on all the capitals and homeland regions and such.
Anyhow, just some ramblers before I dive in on this Base Camp unit. I think I got an idea, but still tooling about. I'll shoot you something tomorrow when I get my head around it.
-
@black_elk said in
1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread:For now I'm just basking in the warm afterglow of a 49ers win over the Cowboys hehe.
:beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes:
-
@beelee lol ya I only read the first line too
WOW DEJA VU FROM AXIS ALLIES . ORG 2015 and the thread link becomes the G40 redesign thread Black Elk just linked here that was 73 pages no wai so surprised:
"1942.2 New NAP, Soviet Japanese Non Aggression Pact House Rules
Black_Elk Black_Elk '22 '21 '19 '15 '14 Aug 22, 2015, 4:15 AM Edited based on feedback: I’d like to create a NAP that works for all World War 2 boards. New NAP: Japan and the Soviet Union begin play with a Non Agression Pact in effect. The relevant nations may not attack into or fly over the other’s territory. At any point, during either nation’s turn, before their purchase units phase, they may elect to “Break the Pact” with a simple declaration, for a cost in IPCs. These IPCs are immediately removed from the players treasury and returned to bank The exact amount is still under consideration, but I am suggesting 20 ipcs or half (50% rounded up) of the nation’s total cash on hand. Whichever is greater. If a Nation does not declare their intention, but attacks anyway during the combat phase, then this is considered a “sneak attack” they will incur the following penalty: The aggressor may not collect income for that turn. Seem reasonable? 😄" -
Relief is almost done
For the Base Camp, I feel like something with like a simple tent or cluster of tents that evokes M.A.S.H. more or less lol. Or like just sorta the classic visual familiar from any war, with the troops round their tents hehe. Here's a random postcard from WW1, but you could imagine that sort of a tent in olive drab or whatever. Perhaps with some ultra tiny dudes like ants and a tower. Not too dissimilar to what Frostion did, just more compact I think.
Also unrelated, but I was flipping through my grandpa's old war book to come up with ideas. There are about 500 pictures in there, many pretty small, like you can see the a lot of those 2x3s. Just random scenes and curious ephemera from the Pacific. My grandma is the babe who crops up occasionally lol. Anyway the images are all pretty unique. I feel certain that there must be millions of similar archives in the world, but this is the one I got handed down. So I don't know, but I was looking to see if there might be something cool I could yank for a misc graphic to just toss in randomly somewhere. Like that badass fighter from the leaflet drop. Maybe that very last one lol
Anyhow just for kicks, had to look at something else for an hour to get back in the groove! haha
Like if Hepps can have his rocker unit, I think I want that crate, to just be all chilling in the misc unit folder with no real explanation or reason to be there, other than my own amusement lol.
-
Oh also quick Q for the Anzac units tint
So in the boxed game they are basically gray I would say, like just basically a straight 50% gray. I tried to keep a bit of that vibe initially, but doing a fairly desaturated tint. In tripleA they're basically a muted Cyan, you know like a teal or sea foam I guess in bungs Global. I prefer the Cyan I think.
I thought I might punch that up and make the units a little more vibrant so they read more into the Cyan range than the Greens. For me it's mainly the ships, as the digi sculpts for the ground and the aircraft are fairly distinct, but because the ships are generic I think the color value is more important for them probably.
This is the current tint for Anzac and USA...
When I see them next to each other in isolation they seem pretty distinct to my eye, but when they're on the mapboard with the ocean blue, they end up looking very similar. Like if they're alone in a sz and not right next to other stuff.
Here it is with the vibrancy kicked up like 15%
Does that seem better to you?
If so I'll rework the unit set to use something like hex 4c9c9c for the ships.
I think the Anzac TT ownership color is fine, it's really just their naval units that get lost in the mix for me. -
@black_elk ya I can see the slight change but stuff like that doesnt bother me ... reminds me of a classic vid;
-
@black_elk said in
1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread:something like hex 4c9c9c for the ships
Agree that looks better for the ships, but shouldn't the rest be the same colour as it will look odd when the land units are being transported by sea units?
-
Right on
Yeah I was going to do all the Anzac units with that same basic tint color, the full Phil, as it were lol. You do get a fair bit of variety though even using the same color to colorize, just cause there's a lot of differences in color-value from unit type to unit type in the detailing. But since every nation uses the same model for the ships, that's where it was jumping out at me. Often the flag control will help, but if it's already occupied by a teammate it was a little tricky for me to tell at a glance who was who. Also cause it's easy to change the TT ownership color, but the tint still has to be done manually, just wanted to make sure it felt good.
-
This game is currently aimed at solo play as they are the silent majority.
However for the games I have produced this game far outstrips their combined interest based on the number of views.
So this thread is popular, but it's a TripleA ww2 game and definitely not a A&A ww2, maybe its popular because it's the only new map in development.
It would be good if the silent majority would chip in occasionally, a sign of approval would be to upvote the first post, link here
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/3326/1941-global-command-decision-official-threadIf players want a multi player version they need to make it clear they do.
.
Seeing Sub rolls
Black_Elk You mentioned about seeing the Sub rolls, they are listed in the History.Originally it was 6 SZ, each with a 1 in3 chance of a sub spawning, average 2 Subs per turn. Just random rolls not linked to anything.
Currently there are 44 Rolls in 11 SZ with a 1 in 16 of a sub spawning, these are linked to having 4x Industry-Hvy in the North of Germany.
For all the maths probabilities of the above it still gives about 2-3 Subs per turn
Below is an extract from History Turn 2, Germany Resources phase
AFAIK this is as good as it gets for TripleA to display these random rolls.
.
Prognosticating the combat results
foretell or prophesy a future event
First off a new word to me, did you major in English, as I've never heard/read it.
The only way this is going happen is with a redesigned combat panel, as Im guessing it was only designed with the original A&A in mind and has just been added to. So with so many targeted attacks it is almost impossible to work out which casualties were caused by which unit. Despite this limitation I still like the targeted attacks.
-
Ok cool, that's a pretty key consideration, because if PvP is not really a priority here it may recommend different things in how the starting unit set up or overall challenge scale is conceived. In such a case balance by sides is less relevant, and the more important factor is novelty and the challenge provided by facing down the AI.
I will likely end up creating a PvP scenario using this map eventually anyway lol. Probably with a more norm core g40 style unit roster, since that's something I'm interested in as well, but I won't push it too hard here. I think that would be a project for the future, as I still want to knock out the G40 update before going there. An AI solo-focused experience I think has a lot of potential as well, so I'll keep my eye on the prize, with that in mind for this one.
TripleA has largely been an A&A emulator, with many of those systems at it's foundation, so I still consider most tripleA games as A&A games basically. But there are definitely things that can be bent and tweaked in tripleA to produce a style of gameplay which is familiar, albeit unique, and ultimately rather different than A&A, which I think is the aim here. I'll keep kicking around the ideas, as they come to me, for ways to light it up as a solo SP focused game.
Haha not an English major exactly, but certainly keeping it in the humanities. I did my undergraduate work in Classics and Philosophy. I took a double major.
In Classics I was a Hellenist, or Homericist more specifically, meaning I read a lot of Homer hehe, and focusing on the Ionian Greek for the most part. My Latin blows by comparison, but of course I love the Romans too, especially for the popular histories. Mostly I sat with the Greeks though.
In philosophy my focus was on the Pre-Socratics and the Continental tradition. So even if I enjoy Wittgenstein and such, I lean more towards thinkers who took Heraclitus and Nietzsche seriously, and not so much the Anglo-American Analytical mainstays. My emphasis in Philosophy was "Aesthetics," which has a meaning in Ancient Greek (and up till about Kant) that is basically 'sensory perception' (see anesthesia, same root) but which has come to mean something more like 'the philosophy of Art' or the philosophy of beauty, in the modern parlance. In Phil you have Ontology/Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics/Axiology, Logic... and then the one I liked most - Aesthetics! It's right there at the foundation, and used to be considered a major philosophical pursuit in it's own right, but it's usually ignored or derided these days, as one of the lesser branches. Though I certainly take issue with that, I think it's the trunk! hehe. Poiesis used to be a much bigger deal, and most of the ancients I enjoy thought it was important, perhaps even the most important! lol. So I still vibe heheh
-
Quick Q, since I'm almost finished doing the canals and such again. Do you want to add a strait for the Singapore-Malacca TT?
It could control the passage between sz 37 and sz 38 A.
I think this could be cool for the Pacific dynamic with Japan vs India/Anzac. It would make it somewhat more challenging for Japan to just dead drop into India directly from Sz 37 without first handling Singapore, and it would make Kra-Buri and Malaya more significant, as adjacent spots which could contest control of Singapore-Malacca tile.
Another similar option would be the Sunda strait as well. Batavia W. Java controlling passage from sz 41 to sz 42 B. The tile could be contested from Suribaya-E. Java, making that tile more significant in the process too. Or it could be E. Sumatra for that, but I think Java would be more interesting mechanically, since Sumatra is likely to be contested for the production anyway, and sz 041 would be necessary as a transit to contest sz 37 (if Singapore controls passage between 37 and 38 A). Also because Batavia was one of the main Dutch strongholds at the time, so to me it'd make sense, just to spread the interest around the region a bit more that way. I think this could be interesting because, because a transport/fleet in sz 041 could still attack Singapore or Batavia, but it would mean transiting through an adjacent Sz with 1 more movement (to me this would represent basically having to sail around the Islands) so it creates a bit more dynamism around all the nearby sea zones and associated TTs. You know like Borneo sz 43, and Christmas Island sz 41 C both become more important to the gameplay when these straits are being contested. The practical effect is to keep either side from darting around too quickly, unless their team first controls the Straits.
I think these might be nice to have, because then there is some parity both sides of the board for this kind of map feature, the strait/canal I mean.
Basically it would look something like this...
That'd give us 1 in the Americas, 4 in Europe/Med, 2 on the Pacific of the board. So basically 7 Canals/Straits altogether, and spread around the map. Well 8 I guess if we want to keep a double for the Turkish straits, though I worry that one may be a little complex currently. Since the Sea of Marmara is the smallest SZ and can't really fit any ships without the spill, I could just eliminate one of the lines in the base if you want, so it's added either to sz 100 A or sz 99 A? I feel like Istanbul/Smyrna, or Istanbul alone, is probably sufficient for controlling the passage and might be a cleaner read at a glance.
I was curious in thinking about this, how Suez is typically controlled by both Egypt and Trans-Jordan (or Sinai in this case) but then I do sort of wonder on that one, like if it's really best method, even though that's how it's done in A&A. Cause Suez could just as easily be entirely within the Egypt TT. Since the Panama canal is controlled by Panama (single tile) but Suez is controlled by 2 tiles, it always felt a bit strange to me in A&A. Like it would probably be simpler to just have 1 tile controlling the passages everywhere, so it's consistent and a bit easier to grasp, and somewhat simpler to represent with visual. Splitting control across 2 tiles makes the canal much easier to disrupt, since all you need to do is contest Trans-Jordan in A&A, or Sinai in this case, to prevent the opponent's movement. Not sure what you'd like best. I'll probably do the Turkish straits last, and wait to hear back whether you like the idea of adding those 2 in the Pacific.
-
I dont think the current SZ borders above make it obvious where the two canals should be, ideally there should be as in this case of Gibraltar a SZ border between the two land masses at their closest points.
So unless the SZ were redesigned I would say no canals for above.
Regarding Panama (1 TT) and Suez (2 TT) I thought you wanted to use the map (Command Decision) within a map (G40 map)?
As Sinai was part of Egypt, yes merge the 2 TT into 1 and then it works just like Panama.
-
Yeah it's a bit of a bind with the G40 style sz divisions in that area. OK in that case basically same as the current. The only tweak I made was to have it so the blue dotted squares don't strike into the white borders, but just come up to the edges in case I need to adjust later. I tried to simplify for an L shape as well in most casees, to kinda indicate where the other controlling TT was at. Felt a little more efficient to me. I didn't change the Sinai thing, cause the G40 breaks would make it hard. On that board Sinai is shown as part of the Trans-Jordan TT, which has been the deal going back to Classic, like it always kinda shows the same, so I thought it might be a little awkward if I shifted the border there. Although I agree it would make sense, on further consideration I worried it might throw people a little if I hooked it round the other side lol. Probably everyone is so used to how Suez works in A&A by now that it's probably more straightforward to just keep it like we had, since my initial concern was probably misplaced hehe. People should recognize it as similar to what they're already use to I'd wager. I did extend the dotted line a bit though, so it would strike more of the Sinai. Hopefully it's good enough for people to get the gist of what's going on.
Also, here are your Pacific-Allies units retinted to be a little more vibrant
https://www.dropbox.com/s/quxf27oyzg8ek9l/Pacific-Allies.7z?dl=0
And here is that Artillery-Med piece for China, tinted to match the rest of their set. I had meant to shoot it over earlier.
Still trying to do a Base-Camp. For some reason it's a struggle. Like I keep returning to the many tents motif, but then trying to make it also generic and small enough is tricky and I haven't liked anything so far lol. I did this a placeholder, but I'll keep thinking.
Or I still like really Frostion's ABs that I supped up, as just a generic base looking sort of graphic hehe. Perhaps it could spawn a single fighter in addition to the Inf unit or something so the hanger makes sense lol. I don't know, but I shrank them to 54px tall for the factions you have just in case. It would make a lot of sense for many of the island territories, where the goal was to capture landings strips and such. I think a sort of all purpose forward base would be cool, like where it can only produce the weakest unit of a given type, Ground/Air/Naval. To me the abstraction would be, not that this is where that stuff is being produced, but where it's being mobilized or based. So like you could still have all the bombers rolling off the lines in Detroit, or the giant warships at the dry docks, but the Base-Camp, would be like just the basic hitpoint. Sorta the all in one base, instead of needing ABs and NBs and the Army Infantry base, just fold them all into one, and then maybe make the player choose which slot they want to fill, 1 ground=inf, or 1 air= entry level fighter, or 1 ship=destroyer. That creates a pretty interesting strategic choice and some versatility for the production unit, while still controlling the ceiling at 1 hitpoint. You could probably restrict their placement to spots worth 2 or more, if you wanted to prevent too many from cropping up around the board, but it'd be a fun way to handle it I think, making more tiles active in the production contest and giving players a way to shore up some hitpoints as they advance. The fact that they can be destroyed makes them more likely to jumpstart a back and forth, so I definitely like that idea. I don't know if this all bleeds too much into the 3 factory tier concept at the low end, but maybe we only need one or two factory types? And then the base camp can do triple duty, but only for the light stuff. Not sure what you think. I like the graphics though, they're kinda cool I thought. Reminds me of the larger sized plastic army men in the big old buckets with those little green tents hahah. But then Frostion's already got em in there so it'd work for me. Unless you're not feeling those.
ps. yeah I still think it's a cool idea, the map within a map concept. Although for G40 I would probably do the UHD intermediate step first, until the unit scaling beyond 125% thing is figured out. I have that base almost finished up. For a big map like this at 16000 4k with the many subdivisions, I might actually have fun trying to create a super stripped down game. Like doing a quicky type scenario, maybe only a handful of v5 units and G40 units. Inf, AAgun, Art, Mech, Tank, Fighter, Tactical Bomber, Strategic Bomber, AB, NB, G40 ships, Major and Minor Factory, the usual suspects. But definitely add in that rail dynamic like you have here for the Major Factory to liven it up. Cause I really love that idea! It's highly entertaining! I think I'd also make the minor factory a destroyable unit, like in Iron War, cause I thought that was also a fun dynamic there, but probably not for the Major Factory, just more the smaller support hubs. I think I'd do reg Inf spawning just pegged to the VC TTs directly as well, to save on unit space, like just let the little Star graphic do the heavy lifting for me lol. But that's cause I like the idea of a somewhat simplified game for a really big map, like one that could serve as a starter template. Maybe one that looks and feels a lot like Classic 1942 or v5, but huge, just as a prof of concept. I feel like if they could somehow go extra micro with the sculpts such a thing might be physically reproducible as well, which is something that intrigues me. Or if I ever find myself with a room large enough to print the thing out and lay it down on a couple 8 ft tables hahah
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login