💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread

TheDog

Currently doing boring testing, fortunately the Fast AI can do that for me, whilst I keep adding in units to balance the game.

Turn 9, so that's late 43, the USA & Britain decided to do this

Yes its missing Flags.

There is also a lot of Destroyers in the Atlantic because of random appearing German subs.

TheDog

I have a problem with the island of Shikoku, its invisible to placing units

However the island Kysuhu works as it should.

.
Also, you can take units from Shikoku island, as below, but not place them.

So how can I fix this?

beelee

@thedog hmm ... those are the starting units then ? That can be moved from Shikoku ?

Can you place with edit ?

TheDog

@beelee

hmm ... those are the starting units then ? That can be moved from Shikoku ?

Yes starting units, Yes can be moved.

No cannot place with Edit.

Add units, wants to add to SZ 006 C when I click on the island, it says 006 C

beelee

@thedog I guess some sorta connection problem ? maybe ? maybe try going through the xml SZ006 line by line and Shikoku too

TheDog

The connections are there, as below.

<connection t1="006 C" t2="Kyushu"/>
<connection t1="006 C" t2="S.Korea-Chosen"/>
<connection t1="006 C" t2="Shikoku"/>

beelee

@thedog hmm ... yea idk brother. Do you think it's anything with Elk's Map ?

Maybe ask @cernel or @wc_sumpton

Cernel

@thedog Use the latest pre-release.

TheDog

@cernel
Thanks I will try that tomorrow. I have been using 2.5

Black_Elk

Curious, I scanned Shikoku in the base just now and didn't see anything there, but I did notice a rogue pair of pixels on Awaji next door. It wasn't a floater or a line break, just extra pixels hanging jutting out on either side black border. Not sure if that might be the issue, or if the update to pre-release thing works? I updated the base just now to scrub the Awaji borders

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

Anyhow, ace work thus far! Hope the holidays and end of year festivities are finding ya well!
Catch you in a few

TheDog

@black_elk
Thanks, as expected it made no difference.

@Cernel

Use the latest pre-release.

Well that was a surprise it works &

.
@All
However with latest TripleA-2.6+14246 now I get this error;

My triplea.log file with a txt extension
triplea.log.txt

In the log it mentions
329975 08:39:44.852 [Thread-12] ERROR o.t.game.client.HeadedGameRunner - null

Is this related to a networked/lobby game?

beelee

@thedog a little off topic but since you're on the latest prerelease, does the objectives tab disappear after you open History ?

TheDog

@beelee
1941 Global Command Decision does not have Objectives, by design, as the AI does not understand them.

However tested The Shogun, and yes they do disappear after you open History.

beelee

@thedog Thanks for checking. I made a git issue when i noticed it. Just thought I'd see if others had it and wasn't Map specific.

Hopefully the Guys jump back in after the Hollidays

TheDog

I am working on stacking limitations, but it is getting in the way of game play, that is, when the Germans pile into Russia, the player has to faff about with adding and removing units, to maximise their attack values, so slowing the game.

The detail, 3xTT worth of units(40+ units) attack one Russian TT, the German has to remove certain units and add others in and leave some behind.

Currently I'm thinking let the ground units over stack, but limit Air units and Destroyers and Submarines?

What are peoples thoughts?

Black_Elk

Sounds intriguing. I'll admit to being pretty unfamiliar with the capping dynamic as I really haven't played many maps which work that way, like with a hard limit beyond the purchasing phase. I gather the idea is just to reduce the size of the forces in play overall? I'd guess a stack limit would basically force attrition over time, or to prompt players to spread forces across multiple tiles, whereas typical A&A gameplay favors the consolidated massive stacks in just a few spots. I feel like AA50s approach to China was like that (though restricted to just a couple unit types owing to the nature of that faction in AA50), but I just mean that limit on placement at 3 inf per tile. I wasn't a huge fan, cause it made it so easy for Japan to steamroll them lol.

I think production values and unit costs or first strike/aagun type mechanics can be used to mitigate some of that stuff, but clearly not all of it. Even with artillery, and maintenance or build limits on certain unit types, the fundamentals still kinda lean towards deep stackfast probably, just by the nature of the beast lol. I know it's a perennial concern for big maps with big stacks, though I suppose I don't mind so much if everything else is humming. It's hard for me to visualize, but I can see what you mean if it adds a lot of tedium with the click click or makes it so that it's hard to parse what sort of forces that the opponent can muster for a given fight.

Not sure what approach is best. Guess it kinda depends how the limitation is framed for the conceptual buy-in. Like with Aircraft you could probably rationalize it based on airfields allowing for a certain capacity per tile, sort of like a fixed aircraft carrier but which can accommodate more air units than a carrier does. Doing it like that it'd be more of a soft build cap I guess, like where the ceiling could be raised if the player purchases more infrastructure maybe? Like using the bases as the limit there, but allowing them to be improved over time for the associated unit types. I think as long as it doesn't devolve to a slogfest with the player incentivized to overproduce ground hitpoints, but where they don't have a way to make breakthroughs without enough heavy hitters to crack the fodder walls hehe. Of the standard boards, the familiar prob from Classic boards or like v6 without artillery, where the play-pace is super slow.

TheDog

@black_elk
My concerns are player super stacks of Bombers and Subs and the AI over producing Destroyers, so those are the ones I have gone for.

I have picked an arbitrary round 10 as the limit for Bombers, as 1000 Bomber raid = 10 Bomber units, yes I know its impossible to link to real world numbers, but you need a start point.

You can limit say Bombers and their Fighter escort and then limit the total number of air units in a TT.

Here is the current Air only code to help you visualise it.

	<option name="movementLimit"  value="allied:$All-Fighters$" count="10"/>
	<option name="attackingLimit" value="allied:$All-Fighters$" count="10"/>
	<option name="movementLimit"  value="allied:Bomber-Lgt" count="10"/>
	<option name="attackingLimit" value="allied:Bomber-Lgt" count="10"/>
	<option name="movementLimit"  value="allied:Bomber" count="10"/>
	<option name="attackingLimit" value="allied:Bomber" count="10"/>

	<option name="movementLimit"  value="allied:$All-Air$" count="20"/>
	<option name="attackingLimit" value="allied:$All-Air$" count="20"/>
	<option name="placementLimit" value="allied:$All-Air$" count="20"/>

beelee

Well one nice thing with "The Elk Mega Map"is there's plenty of room for superstacks

TheDog

@Black_Elk

"I feel like AA50s approach to China was like that"

All nations including China obey the same rules, but different have a different unit list, the xml calls them Frontiers. Also each unit on the map costing 1pu for maintenance helps reduce the over stacking.

The unit cap could be temporary we will have to see what the play testers think.

TheDog

Deleted.
.