Iron War: Europe - Official Thread

  • Admin


    I have taken Black_Elks suggestions into consideration about a smaller version / theater version of Iron War. Maybe it could also be a bit simpler and faster to play. So I have begun making Iron War: Europe! ☺ I know that Iron War is probably not all done, but maybe parallel work on them both would benefit both maps. I am not that far in the process, only the relief and the basic map is done, no XML or file structure yet.



    Here are my first thought on this map:

    1. I have tried to make a map that could be used as a WW1 map also. So the territories/borders are drawn to be WW1 compatible. Maybe the only thing needed will to be to change some territory names, like Stalingrad and Leningrad.
    2. Maybe have rounds be like “Spring 1940”, “Summer 1940”, etc. Or since it would take the Germans more than two rounds to invade all of France, maybe 1 round = 1 month?
    3. Use the same unit cost and stats.
    4. Still have unit need fuel and Steel.
    5. 3+3 major players: USA, Britain, USSR, Germany, Italy, Finland.
    6. Maybe have France be a passive AI player. If France was not on the allied team, morocco could be capturable, and the French territories in Europe could be factory placement ready for the Allies when captured.
    7. Maybe just have neutrals fill out the rest, or maybe have a bunch of small Pro-Axis and Pro-Allies AI minor players in the Balkans like Greece, Yugoslavia as well as the Pro-Axis small states from Iron War. They could all be “occupied” by neutrals, until “liberated” by Germans or Allies.
    8. Maybe let territories produce both PUs and an equal amount of Navy PUs (NPUs?) that was the currency for ships. This could “force” all players to build fleets and fight on sea.
    9. Implement Airfields and Harbors with +1 (or 2) movement to units. USA could invade a European territory in two rounds. If USA or England wanted to go to Morocco, then it would take 2 rounds from England/Wales.
    10. Have PU producing sea buoys to protect / capture.

    What are peoples first thoughts about this? Even if people don’t know iron War, ideas would be welcome. Also, I got some questions:
    • Can players use allied harbors to receive +1 move?
    • Is a harbor in game terms a sea unit or a land unit?
    • How do airfields work? Gives + movement to air units?
    • Can Harbors and Airfield also function as factories?
    • Can a territory produce both PUs and another resource like NPUs?

    ALL above text is outdated. The map development is done. The outcome is a bit different than first envisioned, but it has only changed for the better 😛

    BETA version to release v1.0.0:
    • Added missing sea connections that form Strait of Messina.
    • British Colonial-Infantry now looks different and is now more distinguishable from the normal British Colonies Infantry.
    • Tank-Destroyers are now listed in purchase screen before the Light, Medium and Heavy Tanks, not after.
    • The Anti-Air unit now costs 9 PUs, not 7.
    • The map uses the resource option “isDisplayedFor” to keep nation specific resources only visible to certain players.
    • Fuel system has been changed. Now ships and land vehicles use 1 fuel to move one territory, and planes pay half of their full potential movement in fuel when moved.
    • More PUs have been added to many map territories.
    • Other minor changes.

  • Moderators Admin

    sounds exciting

    1. i think it only functioned for owner in global

    2. I always thought it a land unit (not sure)

    3. yes they didn't doesn't mean you cant make them that way.

    1. Sure like you did with iron and oil?

  • Admin

    @prastle But that is not territory attachments, fuel and steel are made by units in Iron War. I am hopeing that maybe territories could produce other types of resources than PUs. 🤔

  • Moderators Admin

    @Frostion ahh nidea thats a cernel or hepps ? 🙂

  • Moderators

    I think this is a great idea.

    You can cause resources to be created from a territory. PoS2 explains it pretty simple, here is a sample line.
    <attatchment name="territoryAttatchment" attatchTo="West Balkans" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.TerritoryAttachment" type="territory">
    <option name="resources" value="1:Steel"/>

    I don't see any reason you couldn't make a naval production resource using this feature.
    Of course that goes to the owner of the territory, so if you wanted something like steel from Sweden going to germany you still need to do it via units

  • Moderators

    @Frostion Yah as CG pointed out above... a territory can produce any number of resources... those can also be augmented by using a unit which produces them as well.

    As well you wouldn't necessarily have to have a unit producing steel in Sweden... the same result could be achieved using a National Objective.

  • Admin

    Looks cool and definitely think its a good idea.

    Regarding 'other-than-PU' resources, I am interested in improving support for them from both an engine and AI perspective. I would like all resources to be treated more 'equal' so anything you can do with PUs, you can do with other resources. I may eventually start a thread to collect ideas and what folks see as the main 'other-than-PU' resource limitations currently.

  • Moderators

    @Frostion I can't speak for anyone else... and this is purely a cartographers bias... but if you are going to make a detailed European game and certainly if you are going to implement SZ income striving to create interest for the battle of the Atlantic. I would recommend reconsidering the; size, significance and placement of North America. Just my personal feeling.

  • Moderators

    As a first step could we do something about this uninformative end turn screen?
    0_1496194241971_Screenshot (10).png

  • Admin

    @CrazyG Thoughts on how you'd like it to look? Just a single line for each type of resource?

    The main reason it is very long is due to how @Frostion implemented 'other' resources with units rather than production. When units produce resources I believe they each get their own line in the report.

  • Moderators


    I would say the top lines should show all the end results, thats what I care about. So something like

    Collect 10 PUs, end with 10 total
    Collect 5 fuel, end with 6 total

    Also I might be the only person who feels this way, but I would like the option to not have the top box say "end of turn report", as I'm part way through designing a map and wanted the income to happen at the beginning

  • Moderators Admin

    @CrazyG said in Iron War: Europe - Official Thread:

    Also I might be the only person who feels this way, but I would like the option to not have the top box say "end of turn report", as I'm part way through designing a map and wanted the income to happen at the beginning

    Same for me.
    I also believe collecting at start turn makes the only sense, otherwise, if 1 territory gets traded, it produces 2 times in a round (or maybe more if it is a 3+ sides map!), and it is just silly that war increases the output per round of a conquered territory twofold or more. With collection start turn, a territory that gets swapped twice or more each turn would never produce, which makes more sense.

  • Moderators Admin


    I much suggest never using the term Nation in anything hardcoded.

    Nation is an oft incorrectly used term, and, in its correct meaning, sometimes vague, that I would be very cautious at using. Beside the fact, that, of course, TripleA is meant to also have maps for which the term Nation would just not make sense or be very anachronistic, the USSR is not 1 nation and it is disputable if Great Britain was a nation (which would imply Scotland was not a nation), let alone the conglomerate that in game is defined as British.

    I'd rather have just:
    Income Report for Germany
    Income Summary for Germany

    (I think "report" sounds a little better)

  • Admin

    Let's move the resource discussion to a new thread so poor Frostion can develop his map 🙂

  • Admin

    I have a hard time figuring out how to have USA in the map while also not having it make the map x2 bigger. Also, as you maybe also think, it can be hard to have a lot of navy warfare opportunities on the first attempt of the map. Too few sea zone and maybe too cramped. I have tried to alter the map a bit, and here is a new map.


    It is still pretty distorted, but it makes room for more sea zones, makes room for a British base in America/Canada, has Greenland and Iceland represented. I have not drawn the borders, but here is a preview. Does this seem more reasonable?

    When looking at real WW1 and 2 convoy routes to Europe, they all seem to go north and to Scotland, so the map would still depict this in a reasonable way.



  • Admin

    After looking at the WW1 convoy map I posted I think I will return to the drawingboard. Maybe try to make something similar.

  • Admin

    @Frostion Yeah, while it will make the map probably twice as big, I agree with @Hepps around better placement of NA. I think NWO actually does it fairly well and I'd vote for doing a similar style.

  • Admin

    @Hepps @redrum and all.
    Here is a new map. I have not drawn the borders for the Atlantic yet, but does this look reasonable? I took a look at NOW, some old maps and even google maps 😛 I think it looks like there could be both room for naval warfare and still not be too large.


  • Moderators

    @Frostion It is certainly much improved over the first draft.

  • Sounds rad man!

    I do like the idea of that extra space in the Atlantic. One of the things I enjoy about Iron War, is the simplicity of unit movement. In G40 and other A&A games post v3, the submarine and transport don't create hostile sea zones. In Iron War its more like Classic or Revised, where those units have pretty familiar basic combat interactions (in v3 and later they can't be used block, and while that's not all that difficult to understand, it does create some weirdness for the AI developing proper choke points or pickets on the water.) I prefer the Iron War approach, but I do think it's helpful under those conditions that there's a bit more room to maneuver, which the extra Atlantic space (and the extra SZ generally across the map) should help to provide. Especially if trying to simulate the Air Gap, which is where the majority of sub/convoy raiding occurred. Ideally you'd have some space for Germany to position subs so they can't always be attacked from one heavily stacked SZ by the opponents fleet. I think the larger world map already works pretty well in that regard, so it's nice that the second draft for the Europe map follows a similar model, with a larger swath of the Atlantic to play in.

    I think the NPU idea is pretty novel too, though I think if introducing more types of production or more resource types, it would be good to have these consistent across both maps. I'm not really sure what other kinds of resources beyond Steel and Fuel, might be explored, perhaps rubber? Though I've just been kind of including that under the fuel umbrella when I imagine it. I suppose another possibility might be something like "manpower" kind of like ss or colonial, but for regular units like infantry or pilots for aircraft. Though I have to admit, I kind of like the way it works right now, so I'm a little reluctant to change to much about the purchase screen. It has a nice balance right now, that sort of favors airpower (since those units aren't restricted by resources) which I think fits for the period, where ascendence in air power really defined the conflict both on land and at sea.

    I don't have a whole ton of suggestions at the moment, but am definitely excited by the idea and can't wait to play!

    I think bases could be interesting, but they are also extremely powerful if conceived the way they are in G40. Anything that produces a movement advantage is huge in a Turn based game. I know when we were messing around with a G40 house rules package, Beelee included an option where the types of units one could produce out of a given factory, was dependent on having operational bases. So for example to build a ship you'd need a naval base, or to build a plane you'd need an air base. Again though, I think there is something elegant in the current scheme where the production is capped at 5 units, and factories are relatively cheap and can be destroyed, so not sure how much I'd want to mess with that dynamic.

    Again, excellent work so far dude. Iron War has certainly been keeping me busy haha

Log in to reply