Lend-Lease (in singleplayer, not multiplayer games)



  • Hallo! I like the TripleA game very much and I am very grateful to the game designers, to the map makers and to all members of the community.

    I beg your pardon for what I write in this topic and I do not want to underestimate the efforts of the AI designers, map makers and all other contributors of our TripleA community.

    But please explain several things to me. I don't have much experience in the game, but after I had started the creation of my first global mod I came to the conclusion that I don't understand well the idea of the main TripleA WW2-maps in terms of the geographic scale.

    1.1.) Lend-lease routes.
    TripleA WW2-map makers spent at least 1/3 of the map area for squares never used in the game.
    The southern half of the Atlantic ocean + the continent of South America + the Sub-Saharan Africa + the south-western half of the Indian ocean for what game purpose?

    To organize huge route from US/UK through the Cape of Good Hope to Egypt (to fight against Afrikakorps) and to India (to support USSR through the Persian Corridor)?

    No, because the AI don't transport goods on such long distances.
    Moreover the map makers themselves do not rely on the AI and place industrial facilities in Egypt/India.

    O.K., the map makers have found the solution: battleships "Made in Egypt" and tanks "Made in India".

    I don't speak whether the industrial factories in Egypt/India should charge additional transportation costs as "the goods are already delivered through German subs from US/UK factories" or whether even infantry from these areas had been recruited in real history to serve outside India in any substantial volumes (e.g. Wiki-data about India population 1939: 378 mln., served all years: 2,5 mln., all military casualties on all fronts: only 87 thsd.! 1 average day on the Eastern front is like all Indian military casualties on all fronts for all 6 years of the WW2.).

    But what the point then in spending so much game squares for the South-African lend-lease route?

    1.2.) The same applies to the Pacific lend-lease route.
    Pacific route is 50% of the total lend-lease volume to the USSR, whereas Arctic convoys and Persian Corridor are 25% each.

    Because of the very complicated political situation between USSR-Japan-US it is very difficult to represent the Pacific route on the TripleA maps:

    • USSR had been neutral almost all the WW2 with Japan. "Pacific lend-lease from US in exchange for neutrality" Both USSR and Japan benefited from this political neutrality: Soviet and Japanese troops are used on other fronts, US spends resources not against Japan (Always funny to see how USSR is in war against Japan on TripleA WW2 maps).;
    • Allied troops and planes were not allowed to enter and to fly through the Soviet Far East;
    • American lend-lease ships cruised through Japan waters to Soviet ports within "neutral corridors" all the WW2 years!
    • Part of the Pacific lend-lease went through USSR to Chinese troops in war against Japan.
    • Siberia has only the Trans-Siberian Railway and all other area north of it is a deep forest (almost impassable) and all other area south of it is the Mongol steppe (almost impassable);

    In my TripleA game I failed to represent all this dirty politics between USSR-Japan-US and created neutral to all and impassable Soviet Far East faction.

    Moreover the map makers themselves do not rely on the AI and place industrial facilities somewhere in the deep siberian forest. "M4 Sherman made by bears" is even more cool than "BB King George V made in Egypt".

    The solution is found. But what the point then for the map makers to spend so much game squares on the Soviet Siberia, the Soviet Far East, the North Pacific and the northern part of the North America?

    2.) Naval warfare
    Lend-lease naval routes mean naval warfare to sunk Allied convoys (Bismarck raid, subs' wolfpacks etc.)

    Most of the TripleA maps give 2 squares movement for all sea units. It gives some interesting opportunities in the game. But also most of the TripleA maps give 4 squares movement to naval air units (2 squares to the target and 2 squares to come back to the carrier).

    I am not a military expert but it seems obvious that naval air units are the fleet's long arm. In the real life WW2 CVs/CVLs had the same speed like BBs, BCs, CAs, CLs, DDs, SSs. So CVs/CVLs and could always keep distance while sending their air units to attack "ships with guns".

    I think naval air units should always have at least 2 more squares to move (additional 1 square to the target and additional 1 square back to carrier) to be able to be used like the real fleet's long arm.

    In my current mod I give 1 square movement to all naval units and 4 squares movement (2 there and 2 back) to the naval air units.

    But then I face the problem:
    1.) 1 square movement of naval units cancels any opportunity to have such engagements like Bismarck raid and hunt for subs' wolfpacks;

    2.) If I leave 2 squares movement of the naval units and give my naval air units 6 squares movement (additional 1 square to the target and additional 1 square back to carrier) I should also give at least 6 squares movement to the land based air units.

    But 6 squares movement seems to be more than a lot for the most Eastern Front engagements.
    Most of the TripleA WW2 maps have 4 squares between Baltic and Black sea. 4 squares represent on these maps 1500 km., in real life 1500 km. distance is like from French Marseille to Polish Warsaw or like from the Omaha Beach to the Southern Italy.

    The problem is because of the misrepresentative geographical scale of the Eastern Front on the most TripleA WW2-maps: they have for each 150 thsd. sq. km. 2+ squares in Western Europe for 1 square on the Eastern Front. But it should be vice versa. Good logistics and mild weather in the Western Europe vs. awful logistics and severe weather on the Eastern Front.

    I do not want to say something bad about the TripleA maps. I appreciate very much all the efforts made by the AI designers and by the map makers.

    My point is:
    the map makers efforts spent onto the 1/2 of the map (unused ares in South American-Atlantic-African map corner and Siberian-Pacific-Alaska map corner) could have been spent more wisely to increase the geographical representation of the Eastern Front and Atlantic/Pacific.

    My question for the experienced mod-makers:
    what files should I edit to change the borders of the regions already existing on the map?

    For example, I want to divide by 2 all the squares of the Eastern Front and to divide by 4 all the squares of Atlantic/Pacific war theaters of the WaW map while deleting unimportant squares from the game.

    Are there any limitations of how many squares could there be on the map? For example, not more than 200 squares on the whole map in order the AI works properly.

    Dear community,
    thanks in advance for your feedback!
    And once again I beg your pardon if I misunderstand something and somehow hurt your feelings.



  • A&A offers an abstract light strategy game model hence somethings are purposely left to the imagination of players because the whole point is not making all aspects realistic as much possible with complicated rules, instead giving the most depht and WWII feelings with simplictic rules and abstract logics.

    But it does not make them immune to be critized. For example could someone create a WWII scenario and makes Italy stronger than Germany? Yes but with what kind of excuse and could it be still considered a WWII game? "It cannot be realistic because Axis would always lose a realistic game bla bla..." is of course not acceptable. Because there would be absolutely zero reason to make Italy stronger than Germany.

    The Japanese tank drive to Moscow has the same issue. It is not just unrealistic also unneeded, uninteresting, and very railroaded. Japan does not only march Moscow via Central Asia, also outproduces both Germany and USA which is absolutely unacceptable and too much fantastic for even an abstract game.

    TripleA WW2-map makers spent at least 1/3 of the map area for squares never used in the game.

    The solution is distortion of the areas. Merge territories that rarely see action as much as possible to make them more valuable. For example Southeastern Pacific is obviosly giant area but should there be really too many sea zones in the area just sake of realism? I can say adding too many sea zones in the area would just decrease the strategic options. Its better to draw every land and sea zones for a purpose rather than considering geoghraphy.

    O.K., the map makers have found the solution: battleships "Made in Egypt" and tanks "Made in India".

    Factories in games might represent logistic centers rather than real factories. Its no way to send British armies to Egypt without using Mediterranean without using complicated rules. Or you could just shorten the route between Egypt-Australia to give another reinforcement way.

    In my TripleA game I failed to represent all this dirty politics between USSR-Japan-US and created neutral to all and impassable Soviet Far East faction.

    But what if they violated the neutrality pact and attacked each other? The charm of A&A games is mostly "what could have happened?" instead "it should be impossible because it didn't/couldn't happen in WWII". A strict non-aggression pact between these nations would be just as bad as Japanese Moscow tank drive. But on the other hand if Japan is given a choice to attack Russia, it would always attack since the benefits of leaving Russia two-fornt war from Axis perspective is massively outweight to attack bunch of Pacific islands.

    You could want to check Aggression 1941 in the experimental category. Russia and Japan at war from the beginning but Japan has no capacity to advance West of Mongolia and its not even a must thing, Japan could choose not to attack Russia and its just another good choice.

    But what the point then for the map makers to spend so much game squares on the Soviet Siberia, the Soviet Far East, the North Pacific and the northern part of the North America?

    The idea of adding more territory in Asian Russia in AA50 is somewhat representing the diffiulties to advance in these areas. But its failed and didn't achieve what they intended. Japan was still capable of marching Moscow.

    Having more than 2 Canadian territories is absolutely unnecessary. Probably there is an idea behind "more territory is always better". But no, more Canadian territories will not make games automatically better or more interesting, it won't add more dimensions and strategic options to games. The same applies to mainland USA. The fate of games is obviously not decided if Axis successfully invades the USA or not.

    what files should I edit to change the borders of the regions already existing on the map?

    Centers, Place, Polygons files. new baseTiles and XML editing are must.

    Are there any limitations of how many squares could there be on the map? For example, not more than 200 squares on the whole map in order the AI works properly.

    As far as I know all map makers will be able to build their specific AI to perform better in their maps hence map size will not be issue at all. But probably it will be harder to create good AI if maps get bigger and more complicated rules are added.


  • Moderators

    @Unternehmer Lots of good points here.

    As far as maps go... I really think it depends on what map you are playing when comes to territories and sea zones that get used during the course of a game. Many certainly have "dead zones".

    Lend & Lease is a fairly limited thing in most games. I would tell you to check out Total World War as I feel it is the one game that exemplifies L&L in a truly historical way. However, the AI cannot play the game at all.

    The Russian issue is really a question of game design and balance. The issue really comes down to fun & play-ability.

    Often times a map relies on Japan and Russia to be at odds simply because without it the game is relatively uninteresting when you are forced to have only one strategy as Japan.

    The second factor is economics... either the game is designed for Russia to earn enough to fight a one front war or a two front war. And if you design it as a one front war then you end up having to force Russia - Japan to stay neutral... and again... it kind of limits players from having game play options.

    We flirted with the idea of creating a neutrality rule while designing Total World War... but found creating a balanced game without a hard coded neutrality rule ... fraught with challenges. In short it felt very heavy handed and ultimately took away from the game experience.

    The other thing was that while historically Russia and Japan remained neutral throughout the war... that could have changed at any point... the outcomes of things like the Battles of Battle of Lake Khasan 1938 and Khalkhin Gol in 1939 could have changed the face of the war had things played out differently. And if other things had gone differently for the Japanese in other areas as well as the other Axis powers half a world away... who can say if that neutrality pact would have even been worth the paper it was written on. Stalin certainly didn't hesitate to tear it up when he saw the writting on the wall in 1945.



  • @Unternehmer If you don't like how current maps represent the areas you specified, you can make your own. There is no limitation that I'm aware of as max number of spaces. I may be wrong on that, but there are large maps like "Ultimate World" that have a lot.

    I would think you could create what you want with the current triplea setup.



  • @Unternehmer Most TripleA scenarios follow the practice of the Axis & Allies series of boardgames by having areas in Europe represent much smaller land areas than other parts of the world. In a boardgame this is forced by the physical constraints of the board. In a computer game you don't really need to do it this way. I don't think increasing distortion will make it a better a computer game.

    From a point of view of realism, the range of airplanes in the Pacific theatre is too long. Airstrikes were limited to around 200nm, which is small than the typical areas. It would be more realistic to have same area combat only, with aircraft having the first strike. Games such as Pacific Victory do it this way.

    Slowing down fleets to 1 space greatly restricts their mobility. Ships can travel long distances quickly, the real limiting factors for naval movement are the need for bases and the presence of enemy aircraft, subs & minefields.

    I suggest you try your ideas separately on Europe & Pacific maps.



  • @Schulz said in Lend-Lease (in singleplayer, not multiplayer games):

    A&A offers an abstract light strategy game model hence somethings are purposely left to the imagination of players because the whole point is not making all aspects realistic as much possible with complicated rules, instead giving the most depht and WWII feelings with simplictic rules and abstract logics.

    But it does not make them immune to be critized. For example could someone create a WWII scenario and makes Italy stronger than Germany? Yes but with what kind of excuse and could it be still considered a WWII game? "It cannot be realistic because Axis would always lose a realistic game bla bla..." is of course not acceptable. Because there would be absolutely zero reason to make Italy stronger than Germany.

    The Japanese tank drive to Moscow has the same issue. It is not just unrealistic also unneeded, uninteresting, and very railroaded. Japan does not only march Moscow via Central Asia, also outproduces both Germany and USA which is absolutely unacceptable and too much fantastic for even an abstract game.

    TripleA WW2-map makers spent at least 1/3 of the map area for squares never used in the game.

    The solution is distortion of the areas. Merge territories that rarely see action as much as possible to make them more valuable. For example Southeastern Pacific is obviosly giant area but should there be really too many sea zones in the area just sake of realism? I can say adding too many sea zones in the area would just decrease the strategic options. Its better to draw every land and sea zones for a purpose rather than considering geoghraphy.

    O.K., the map makers have found the solution: battleships "Made in Egypt" and tanks "Made in India".

    Factories in games might represent logistic centers rather than real factories. Its no way to send British armies to Egypt without using Mediterranean without using complicated rules. Or you could just shorten the route between Egypt-Australia to give another reinforcement way.

    In my TripleA game I failed to represent all this dirty politics between USSR-Japan-US and created neutral to all and impassable Soviet Far East faction.

    But what if they violated the neutrality pact and attacked each other? The charm of A&A games is mostly "what could have happened?" instead "it should be impossible because it didn't/couldn't happen in WWII". A strict non-aggression pact between these nations would be just as bad as Japanese Moscow tank drive. But on the other hand if Japan is given a choice to attack Russia, it would always attack since the benefits of leaving Russia two-fornt war from Axis perspective is massively outweight to attack bunch of Pacific islands.

    You could want to check Aggression 1941 in the experimental category. Russia and Japan at war from the beginning but Japan has no capacity to advance West of Mongolia and its not even a must thing, Japan could choose not to attack Russia and its just another good choice.

    But what the point then for the map makers to spend so much game squares on the Soviet Siberia, the Soviet Far East, the North Pacific and the northern part of the North America?

    The idea of adding more territory in Asian Russia in AA50 is somewhat representing the diffiulties to advance in these areas. But its failed and didn't achieve what they intended. Japan was still capable of marching Moscow.

    Having more than 2 Canadian territories is absolutely unnecessary. Probably there is an idea behind "more territory is always better". But no, more Canadian territories will not make games automatically better or more interesting, it won't add more dimensions and strategic options to games. The same applies to mainland USA. The fate of games is obviously not decided if Axis successfully invades the USA or not.

    what files should I edit to change the borders of the regions already existing on the map?

    Centers, Place, Polygons files. new baseTiles and XML editing are must.

    Are there any limitations of how many squares could there be on the map? For example, not more than 200 squares on the whole map in order the AI works properly.

    As far as I know all map makers will be able to build their specific AI to perform better in their maps hence map size will not be issue at all. But probably it will be harder to create good AI if maps get bigger and more complicated rules are added.

    Dear @Schulz,
    thank you very much for your feedback.

    Centers, Place, Polygons files. new baseTiles and XML editing are must.
    Thank you. If I change these files, should I also change the reliefTiles? Or could I keep the original reliefTiles while having new baseTiles?

    As far as I know all map makers will be able to build their specific AI to perform better in their maps hence map size will not be issue at all. But probably it will be harder to create good AI if maps get bigger and more complicated rules are added.
    Do you know whether the Hard AI (the best AI currently in the TripleA game) is able to evaluate the unit position on the other side of the map far away from its own units?
    For example, whether the Hard AI playing US/Canada can evaluate the current situation in Europe if Europe is 10 squares away from North America?
    I am afraid that the Hard AI stops its calculations like it stops sending lend-lease convoys through the South-African route.



  • @Hepps said in Lend-Lease (in singleplayer, not multiplayer games):

    @Unternehmer Lots of good points here.

    As far as maps go... I really think it depends on what map you are playing when comes to territories and sea zones that get used during the course of a game. Many certainly have "dead zones".

    Lend & Lease is a fairly limited thing in most games. I would tell you to check out Total World War as I feel it is the one game that exemplifies L&L in a truly historical way. However, the AI cannot play the game at all.

    The Russian issue is really a question of game design and balance. The issue really comes down to fun & play-ability.

    Often times a map relies on Japan and Russia to be at odds simply because without it the game is relatively uninteresting when you are forced to have only one strategy as Japan.

    The second factor is economics... either the game is designed for Russia to earn enough to fight a one front war or a two front war. And if you design it as a one front war then you end up having to force Russia - Japan to stay neutral... and again... it kind of limits players from having game play options.

    We flirted with the idea of creating a neutrality rule while designing Total World War... but found creating a balanced game without a hard coded neutrality rule ... fraught with challenges. In short it felt very heavy handed and ultimately took away from the game experience.

    The other thing was that while historically Russia and Japan remained neutral throughout the war... that could have changed at any point... the outcomes of things like the Battles of Battle of Lake Khasan 1938 and Khalkhin Gol in 1939 could have changed the face of the war had things played out differently. And if other things had gone differently for the Japanese in other areas as well as the other Axis powers half a world away... who can say if that neutrality pact would have even been worth the paper it was written on. Stalin certainly didn't hesitate to tear it up when he saw the writting on the wall in 1945.

    Dear @Hepps,
    thank you very much for your feedback.

    I would tell you to check out Total World War as I feel it is the one game that exemplifies L&L in a truly historical way. However, the AI cannot play the game at all.
    The Total World War mod is one of the greatest mods currently in the game and I have learned many new mechanics from there. And unfortunately I fully agree with you that the AI cannot play this mod at all.

    the game is relatively uninteresting when you are forced to have only one strategy as Japan.
    In my games I make the USSR-faction a normal member of "Entente" while keep the Soviet Far East-faction neutral to every faction with the rule "neutrals are impassable". If I want USSR to enter the war against Japan, I manually (through the editor) change the Soviet Far East-faction from neutrality into the "Entente"-member and then ally allied troops can use the Soviet Far East territories in their actions against Japan.

    So in my games this Soviet Far East-faction neutrality helps the Soviet AI to concentrate on the Eastern Front and Japan AI to concentrate on non-Soviet fronts.

    The second factor is economics... either the game is designed for Russia to earn enough to fight a one front war or a two front war.
    I don't like the principle of "eat and grow" like in all TripleA maps. I usually give every nation a fixed amount of bonus income every round (according to the WW2 Wiki data on countries' GDP) and use the territory values only to separate production opportunities of different territories. The result is that, for example, Germany cannot eat USSR and then have 2 times more income every round or Japan cannot eat USA and then have 5 times more income every round.

    Dear @Hepps,
    Do you know whether the Hard AI (the best AI currently in the TripleA game) is able to evaluate the unit position on the other side of the map far away from its own units?
    For example, whether the Hard AI playing US/Canada can evaluate the current situation in Europe if Europe is 10 squares away from North America?
    I am afraid that the Hard AI stops its calculations like it stops sending lend-lease convoys through the South-African route.



  • Dear @beelee,
    thank you very much for your feedback!



  • @RogerCooper said in Lend-Lease (in singleplayer, not multiplayer games):

    @Unternehmer Most TripleA scenarios follow the practice of the Axis & Allies series of boardgames by having areas in Europe represent much smaller land areas than other parts of the world. In a boardgame this is forced by the physical constraints of the board. In a computer game you don't really need to do it this way. I don't think increasing distortion will make it a better a computer game.

    From a point of view of realism, the range of airplanes in the Pacific theatre is too long. Airstrikes were limited to around 200nm, which is small than the typical areas. It would be more realistic to have same area combat only, with aircraft having the first strike. Games such as Pacific Victory do it this way.

    Slowing down fleets to 1 space greatly restricts their mobility. Ships can travel long distances quickly, the real limiting factors for naval movement are the need for bases and the presence of enemy aircraft, subs & minefields.

    I suggest you try your ideas separately on Europe & Pacific maps.

    Dear @RogerCooper,
    thank you very much for your feedback.

    Do you know whether the Hard AI (the best AI currently in the TripleA game) is able to evaluate the unit position on the other side of the map far away from its own units?
    For example, whether the Hard AI playing US/Canada can evaluate the current situation in Europe if Europe is 10 squares away from North America?
    I am afraid that the Hard AI stops its calculations like it stops sending lend-lease convoys through the South-African route.



  • @Unternehmer Relief tiles should be changed as well if you want to play with it.

    I have not much knowledge about AI behaviours but you could test Great War's USA AI its almost in the same position.


  • Moderators

    @Unternehmer said in Lend-Lease (in singleplayer, not multiplayer games):

    @Hepps said in Lend-Lease (in singleplayer, not multiplayer games):

    Dear @Hepps,
    thank you very much for your feedback.

    I would tell you to check out Total World War as I feel it is the one game that exemplifies L&L in a truly historical way. However, the AI cannot play the game at all.
    The Total World War mod is one of the greatest mods currently in the game and I have learned many new mechanics from there. And unfortunately I fully agree with you that the AI cannot play this mod at all.

    the game is relatively uninteresting when you are forced to have only one strategy as Japan.
    In my games I make the USSR-faction a normal member of "Entente" while keep the Soviet Far East-faction neutral to every faction with the rule "neutrals are impassable". If I want USSR to enter the war against Japan, I manually (through the editor) change the Soviet Far East-faction from neutrality into the "Entente"-member and then ally allied troops can use the Soviet Far East territories in their actions against Japan.

    A viable work around for dealing with the regional situation. However, it does not initially address the L&L issue while Japan and Russia are neutral.

    So in my games this Soviet Far East-faction neutrality helps the Soviet AI to concentrate on the Eastern Front and Japan AI to concentrate on non-Soviet fronts.

    Yes I can see where this would be an effective way to keep the AI focused on its immediate priorities.

    The second factor is economics... either the game is designed for Russia to earn enough to fight a one front war or a two front war.
    I don't like the principle of "eat and grow" like in all TripleA maps. I usually give every nation a fixed amount of bonus income every round (according to the WW2 Wiki data on countries' GDP) and use the territory values only to separate production opportunities of different territories. The result is that, for example, Germany cannot eat USSR and then have 2 times more income every round or Japan cannot eat USA and then have 5 times more income every round.

    An interesting approach and certainly along the lines of what I had planned for Global Domination. The only flaw I see in your approach is that what incentive is there to expand? If you earn what you earn... why invade anything ever?

    I agree that occupying a foreign land should not be as fruitful for you as it may have been for the original nation... but being worth nothing?!? Seems counter intuitive to the philosophy of taking foreign territories in the first place.

    Dear @Hepps,
    Do you know whether the Hard AI (the best AI currently in the TripleA game) is able to evaluate the unit position on the other side of the map far away from its own units?
    For example, whether the Hard AI playing US/Canada can evaluate the current situation in Europe if Europe is 10 squares away from North America?
    I am afraid that the Hard AI stops its calculations like it stops sending lend-lease convoys through the South-African route.

    I am the least qualified individual to answer ANY question about the AI.



  • Dear @Hepps,

    I am the least qualified individual to answer ANY question about the AI.
    You are one of the most experienced veterans of TripleA. No wonder that such rookies like me need your clever advice.

    However, it does not initially address the L&L issue while Japan and Russia are neutral.
    In my mod I have cancelled any opportunity for the Pacific lend-lease route by creating "neutral to all" Soviet Far East-faction and have tried to focus the AI on the 2 lend-lease routes:

    • long and less-risky lend-lease route through Persia;
    • or short and risky lend-lease route through Arkhangelsk;

    I thought the Hard AI will chose which route to go concerning current position of German subs on its way.
    But unfortunately the Hard AI sends troops only directly. If I were the Hard AI, I personally would choose the Persia lend-lease route even if it takes more game rounds.

    The only flaw I see in your approach is that what incentive is there to expand? If you earn what you earn... why invade anything ever?
    I place victoryCities on the map for the squares I think historically important for the game to go historical way.

    For example,
    the Germans have spent so much time on Stalingrad.
    Before the WW2 the Stalingrad was one of the biggest production centers of the USSR. But after the battle of Stalingrad the entire area, even hundreds kilometers from the city, laid in ruins and ashes.

    If I give some important number of PUs to the Stalingrad area, then in the game after Germany eats the Stalingrad area, it will add extra income to the Germany. But it should be no benefit to Germany as the only thing the Germans get are ruins and ashes - no additional manpower and no additional PUs' income.
    The Germany is not an amoeba that can "eat => grow => eat => grow => eat ..." Production facilities of conquered areas are completely destroyed, basic infrastructure is destroyed, everywhere there is famine and devastation, population sabotages the invaders, etc.

    Also if the Soviets reconquer their land (and the Allies reconquer the Western Europe) they can also not increase their PUs' income and manpower resources due to the same reasons.

    So I mod it the following way:
    I give Germany the fixed income 600 PUs every round and the manpower resources (the manpower resources are given only once at the start and cannot be supplied any more during the game. So if the faction runs out its initial manpower resources, the game is over like it is historically.)
    And each territory receives only 0-5 PUs' value. This difference I need to have the minimum requirement to be able to place different production facilities. For example, the square with the 2 PUs' value allows me to place only small infantry barracks whereas the square with 5 PUs' value allows me to produce heavy tank-destroyers and battleships.

    Therefore if the Germany conquers all Europe from London to Moscow, the Germany will be able to place the production facilities on all these squares according to the PUs' values of the correspondent territories. But the total production output will still not be more than fixed 600 PUs (the Germany gets every round) + small number of PUs from the conquered territories - PUs spent on upkeep - PUs spent on fuel (in my mod Japan and Germany are charged PUs every movement in order to represent their oil shortage of WW2).

    but being worth nothing?!? Seems counter intuitive to the philosophy of taking foreign territories in the first place.
    Colonies are worth occupation and exploitation, major powers are not. Major industrial powers are worth stopped and defeated but not occupied.

    Im my current mod I add to the fixed German income the income of Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Scandinavia and some eastern European minor countries (based on their GDP values). But not the income of France.
    Why? Because French contribution to the Germany during WW2 was only nominal. Maybe 1% of what France could have given to Germany or even less. "De Gaulle saved French honor and Petain saved French purses."

    Also I do not boost the PUs' fixed income of any other factions if they conquer or reconquer any territories.

    If any faction is losing territories I also do not change the fixed income the faction receives every turn. Because with the reduced number of territories the remaining production facilities get more limited. And the fixed income helps the losing faction to start production of small numbers of high-tier units. And therefore to boost the resistance of the losing faction.

    For example, if Germany expands it focuses on huge numbers of cheap infantry and PzIV-tanks whereas if Germany has only Berlin left it focuses on Jagdtigers and 128mm-Pak44 guns with huge defensive stats.

    Also I should say I don't like Axis and Allies to be equalized like in the most TripleA games. Historically Allies have been multiple times superior to Axis in all terms (GDP, manpower, oil).
    I try to use historical GDP and manpower ratios and additionally charge Germany and Japan with fuel costs.
    And it makes me so much fun to play for Axis and to be under steady growing pressure.


  • Moderators

    @Unternehmer said in Lend-Lease (in singleplayer, not multiplayer games):

    Dear @Hepps,

    I am the least qualified individual to answer ANY question about the AI.
    You are one of the most experienced veterans of TripleA. No wonder that such rookies like me need your clever advice.

    While I may be a Triple A veteran... I have little to no knowledge of the AI. My experience with it might as well be what a new born could make of an abacus.

    However, it does not initially address the L&L issue while Japan and Russia are neutral.
    In my mod I have cancelled any opportunity for the Pacific lend-lease route by creating "neutral to all" Soviet Far East-faction and have tried to focus the AI on the 2 lend-lease routes:

    • long and less-risky lend-lease route through Persia;
    • or short and risky lend-lease route through Arkhangelsk;

    An obvious down side to this approach.

    I thought the Hard AI will chose which route to go concerning current position of German subs on its way.
    But unfortunately the Hard AI sends troops only directly. If I were the Hard AI, I personally would choose the Persia lend-lease route even if it takes more game rounds.

    The day the AI can see long term goals over immediate ones... is the day Skynet is born. I'll take a dumb AI any day! šŸ˜‰

    The only flaw I see in your approach is that what incentive is there to expand? If you earn what you earn... why invade anything ever?
    I place victoryCities on the map for the squares I think historically important for the game to go historical way.

    For example,
    the Germans have spent so much time on Stalingrad.
    Before the WW2 the Stalingrad was one of the biggest production centers of the USSR. But after the battle of Stalingrad the entire area, even hundreds kilometers from the city, laid in ruins and ashes.

    If I give some important number of PUs to the Stalingrad area, then in the game after Germany eats the Stalingrad area, it will add extra income to the Germany. But it should be no benefit to Germany as the only thing the Germans get are ruins and ashes - no additional manpower and no additional PUs' income.
    The Germany is not an amoeba that can "eat => grow => eat => grow => eat ..." Production facilities of conquered areas are completely destroyed, basic infrastructure is destroyed, everywhere there is famine and devastation, population sabotages the invaders, etc.

    Good concept. I'd be interested in how you are executing such a goal. For it would need to be implemented on a grand scale to be viable.

    Also if the Soviets reconquer their land (and the Allies reconquer the Western Europe) they can also not increase their PUs' income and manpower resources due to the same reasons.

    This is a bigger question for me. A liberated state would inherently benefit a liberator more than it had the occupier.

    So I mod it the following way:
    I give Germany the fixed income 600 PUs every round and the manpower resources (the manpower resources are given only once at the start and cannot be supplied any more during the game. So if the faction runs out its initial manpower resources, the game is over like it is historically.)
    And each territory receives only 0-5 PUs' value. This difference I need to have the minimum requirement to be able to place different production facilities. For example, the square with the 2 PUs' value allows me to place only small infantry barracks whereas the square with 5 PUs' value allows me to produce heavy tank-destroyers and battleships.

    Seems reasonable.

    Therefore if the Germany conquers all Europe from London to Moscow, the Germany will be able to place the production facilities on all these squares according to the PUs' values of the correspondent territories. But the total production output will still not be more than fixed 600 PUs (the Germany gets every round) + small number of PUs from the conquered territories - PUs spent on upkeep - PUs spent on fuel (in my mod Japan and Germany are charged PUs every movement in order to represent their oil shortage of WW2).

    Seems like a steep penatly if you are also trying to represent a more historical economic structure.

    but being worth nothing?!? Seems counter intuitive to the philosophy of taking foreign territories in the first place.
    Colonies are worth occupation and exploitation, major powers are not. Major industrial powers are worth stopped and defeated but not occupied.

    Im my current mod I add to the fixed German income the income of Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Scandinavia and some eastern European minor countries (based on their GDP values). But not the income of France.
    Why? Because French contribution to the Germany during WW2 was only nominal. Maybe 1% of what France could have given to Germany or even less. "De Gaulle saved French honor and Petain saved French purses."

    Also I do not boost the PUs' fixed income of any other factions if they conquer or reconquer any territories.

    If any faction is losing territories I also do not change the fixed income the faction receives every turn. Because with the reduced number of territories the remaining production facilities get more limited. And the fixed income helps the losing faction to start production of small numbers of high-tier units. And therefore to boost the resistance of the losing faction.

    For example, if Germany expands it focuses on huge numbers of cheap infantry and PzIV-tanks whereas if Germany has only Berlin left it focuses on Jagdtigers and 128mm-Pak44 guns with huge defensive stats.

    Also I should say I don't like Axis and Allies to be equalized like in the most TripleA games. Historically Allies have been multiple times superior to Axis in all terms (GDP, manpower, oil).
    I try to use historical GDP and manpower ratios and additionally charge Germany and Japan with fuel costs.
    And it makes me so much fun to play for Axis and to be under steady growing pressure.

    All I can say is that if you are making a game where expansion is less rewarding... and the Axis are getting "taxed" for being under supplied... I fear the playability of this game might be so daunting that none but the most ardent facist would never want a match as the Axis.



  • You could use negative national objectives to prevent collecting income from captured areas, but still losing income when your home areas fall. This could also be done with subtlety as some captured areas (Ukraine, Dutch East Indies) could be of use to invaders because the locals were hostile to the original owner or because the value was mostly natural resources which could be used without the cooperation of the locals. In some cases the value was mostly logistical, as with the Pacific islands.



  • It would be more realistic to represent Western Allies manpower lower than it actually was since they couldn't tolerate very high casualties as other nation could. Some might argue "but they could tolerate and continued in WW1?" But they weren't demanding unconditional surrender of all Central Powers. In WWII Western Allies felt only comfortable to demand it after they won in Stalingrad, El Almein, Midway and Guadalcanal.

    Its true Germany benefitted little from the occupied France compared to productive capacity of France. But Germany had already an inefficiency issue in its home as well until mid-late 1943, just I mean capping the benefits of occupied France would be unrealistic as well.



  • Dear @Hepps,

    The day the AI can see long term goals over immediate ones... is the day Skynet is born. I'll take a dumb AI any day! šŸ˜‰
    In some PC-games the AI scans the whole map and then takes decisions. In other PC-games the AI scans only squares close to him (not adjacent but several squares away) and then takes decisions.
    That's why I am interested to know how far the AI scans the map before I create the map with "to much" squares for the AI brains.

    This is a bigger question for me. A liberated state would inherently benefit a liberator more than it had the occupier.
    If something remains after 4-6 years of consecutive "occupations" and "liberations" multiple times a day, then it is true. But in most cases it seems that only ruins and starving not-young population are left.

    I don't know the situation well in other countries, but speaking about the USSR it took decades to increase the living standard of people to the pre-WW2 years. Meanwhile the demographic catastrophe of the WW2 has never been overcome.

    I fear the playability of this game might be so daunting that none but the most ardent facist would never want a match as the Axis.
    If I had been one of the Axis politicians, I would have never started the WW1/WW2 concerning GDP, manpower and oil ratios between the Axis and Allies.

    But if we speak about singleplayer maps of our TripleA-game, I think some more or less challenge is what the player needs.

    Also it is always possible in the TripleA to cut away some mechanics from the mod (complicated for the AI) or play some "what if" scenarios like, e.g. USA+France against British Empire+Germany+USSR+Japan.

    Now I am testing how the AI can or can not handle the mechanics of the repair facilities required for multi-hit units. I don't like e.g. battleships to be repaired in the middle of the ocean. So I try to force the AI to bring its multi-hit units to its homeland production facilities for repair.



  • @RogerCooper said in Lend-Lease (in singleplayer, not multiplayer games):

    You could use negative national objectives to prevent collecting income from captured areas, but still losing income when your home areas fall. This could also be done with subtlety as some captured areas (Ukraine, Dutch East Indies) could be of use to invaders because the locals were hostile to the original owner or because the value was mostly natural resources which could be used without the cooperation of the locals. In some cases the value was mostly logistical, as with the Pacific islands.

    Dear @RogerCooper,
    thank you very much for this advice.

    In some cases the value was mostly logistical, as with the Pacific islands.
    Fully agree with you. These mechanics with national objectives is not very well-known to me yet, but I hope I will do my best.



  • Dear @Schulz,

    It would be more realistic to represent Western Allies manpower lower than it actually was since they couldn't tolerate very high casualties as other nation could.
    Could be possible. I also use manpower resources for new constructions and facilities' repair to represent population losses due to Allied bombing raids.

    But they weren't demanding unconditional surrender of all Central Powers.
    I don't know yet whether my approach for WW2 is suitable for WW1 maps, but in my WW2-maps the game lasts until either the enemy is completely occupied or its' manpower resources are completely destroyed.

    Its true Germany benefitted little from the occupied France compared to productive capacity of France. But Germany had already an inefficiency issue in its home as well until mid-late 1943, just I mean capping the benefits of occupied France would be unrealistic as well.

    If I go so far then I should also consider many other things like:

    • whether USSR was really economically successful or whether it was a complete deception with socialistic statistics since 1917 till nowadays when children of socialistic bosses are now top-managers of state-owned entreprises;
    • whether British Empire during WW1 and WW2 was really economically successful or whether it got very severe problems due to German subs and lost of British holdings in Asia;
    • whether Japan during WW2 was really able to fight with almost no oil production all the WW2-years;
    • whether US companies have put 1000% margin on the governmental military orders during or not;


  • Games mostly ends way before the victory conditions achieved even if you make expanding less rewarding. It is anti-climatic if one side surrenders way before they lost almost all lands. I believe there should be some good reasons for loser side to continue even if somethings went really badly. It could be giving a change to the loser side turning the tide of war or pursuind draw hence possibility of to achieve total victory gone.

    For example German military production peaked in 1944 due to Speer's intervention of the military armament after losing in the Stalingrad and their main hope was achieving good bargaining chips to force either W.Allies or the Soviets separate peaces. I understand its very hard and probably not possible to represent but my point is they have rational reasons to continue the war and would be realistic even if it was represented in abstract way.



  • Dear @Schulz,

    we are speaking about the singleplayer and not about the multiplier and don't have enough game experience to say how well the AI can try to achieve the victory conditions. So I try to make the AI to continue until all its lands are lost or until all its manpower resources are lost.

    Games mostly ends way before the victory conditions achieved even if you make expanding less rewarding. It is anti-climatic if one side surrenders way before they lost almost all lands. I believe there should be some good reasons for loser side to continue even if somethings went really badly. It could be giving a change to the loser side turning the tide of war or pursuind draw hence possibility of to achieve total victory gone.

    I beg your pardon but I don't understand well what kind of victory conditions are you speaking about in your case. What is your idea how the victory conditions you are speaking about could be implemented in any TripleA mod?

    they have rational reasons to continue the war

    Do you mean the Axis side? I think all factions had reasons to continue the war.

    E.g. so many lifes from both sides were destroyed during the Battle of Berlin even though the war had already been almost ended.