💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread
-
hehe right on!
To the Qs in that last post, in general I prefer a scheme where the two sides are not treated differently in terms of how they can move/where they can go. Otherwise I think it creates confusion and makes it difficult to tell what's going on with the map at a glance.
I feel the same way about canals as I do with the neutrals. I just think it's easier to set up a clear rule for both sides, that doesn't have any exceptions. So everyone can see what's what, and the treatment is universal.
Regarding the Turkish straits, allowing one side to pass through them while the other cannot, seems to defeat the purpose of having a strait there in the first place. Like I understand the rationale, which is to give the Allies an edge, but I don't think this is the way to achieve it. What will happen, in terms of the gameplay, is that Allies will prioritize taking the med, and then funnel units into Southern Russia via the Black Sea. I predict this would happen in every game if you allow Allies to pass the Bosporus unhindered while preventing Axis from doing so. It's better to have it closed for both sides I think.
For North Africa, although I understand the desire to give Italy more territory (since they are the smaller of the two European Axis) assigning control of the French stuff to Italy doesn't make a ton of sense to me. Either from a historical perspective, or a gameplay one really. Italy will already have sufficient production and be in a position to reinforce N. Africa, whereas Germany is basically locked out of the theater, since they don't have a viable way to support the Afrika units. What we want, I think, is a situation where Germany can be a factor in the Med. Otherwise it's a double team with UK/US vs Italy, and Italy is going to get smoked out of Africa immediately hehe.
I'd try to make it consistent, so the territories aren't being assigned arbitrarily, but according to the political situation at the time. After the Fall of Paris, France surrendered to Germany in June. In practical terms the French territory in N. Africa (and really across the globe) became Axis aligned at that point. A situation where half of the French TT are German while other stuff is just treated as neutral to me would seem odd. Though I'd say the same on the Allied side with Brazil. Even understood abstractly as spheres of influence or whatever, I still think it's better for a consistent read to have regional control assigned to the major power that makes most sense for the spot (or if they entered the conflict later, on one side or the other) so like Brazil and most of the Western Hempisphere under USA aegis, French stuff in Africa under Germany's aegis. Even if the TTs don't house effective combat forces and are just empty at the start, like walk-ins. In general my impression is that the Neutrals should not be such a major consideration for the gameplay, or give rise to a situation where exploiting the neutrality dynamic can overshadow the more normal push-pull contest between the main belligerents.
Plus, I think it's worth considering what will produce the highest entertainment value for both sides, and to me this recommends control of French Africa to Germany. They'll be able to do more with whatever they're given than Italy would, since they have more money to burn. Germany almost certainly wants to have transports and a pocket fleet in the Med, or a factory somewhere that can place into the Med directly. Like this is always the goal hehe. If you don't allow Germany to support Italy in Africa, then this responsibility will fall to Japan (which sadly is what happens in virtually every A&A game that's ever been, despite being pretty unrealistic and out of step with the history lol.) It's better for Allies as well if this stuff goes to G, at least from an entertainment perspective, since Germany has enough production to present a credible threat there, whereas Italy will always be hamstrung by a lack of cash hehe. In short, you'll have a more lively campaign in N. Africa, if you give Germany more to work with there, whereas if you just give more to Italy the underlying dynamic remains largely the same. Anyhow, just my thoughts on that stuff, for what it's worth.
OK Sounds good! I'll keep the map rework on the back burner for now and give it a week or whatever hehe.
-
Agree French N.Africa to Germany.
What about giving E.Tripolitania also to Germany upgrade to 3pu and a Industry-Lgt/Supply/Forward depot?
This gives them a reinforceable presence in N.Africa. -
Yeah I like that too! I mean it's easy enough to imagine and seems sensible to me.
I will say, the balance around Africa is always a bit of a sticking point in A&A. It stands out to me how the gameplay seems to hinge on Egypt and control of Suez, in pretty much all the standard A&A games that have ever been lol. You know where whichever side controls Egypt basically controls the whole game, and where because of this, Axis tend to expand somewhat unrealistically in Africa. This happens because there's usually no production (or production potential) in N. Africa outside of Egypt proper. So Egypt becomes do or die for team Axis. Either they take it right away or just give up on Africa entirely, leaving it as Japan's problem hehe. But by providing Axis with more anchor spots (TTs with starting factories that they don't want to abandon if it can be avoided) the playbalance on that shifts quite a bit. Suddenly its about Allies taking over Axis production, as much as vice versa, and both sides have more skin in the game.
I think this also helps prevent the situation, which often happens otherwise, where one team or the other will just see a blowout at the canal, and then the theater becomes innactive for the duration afterwards - the game being dominated from there on, by whoever won in that singular engagement for control of Egypt early on. So yeah, for sure! Having that other spot could only improve the situation and the gameplay, from my perspective. Sounds aces!
One more thing about the Turkish strait. If you allow Allies to pass through, then what will happen is that Axis will take Istanbul to close that route, and attacking Turkey will become part of the script. Like it would happen every game, because allowing Allies to run amuck in the Black Sea is just too dangerous. An American fleet parked there with a dozen transports, could blow out the entire line along the coast. Stuff like that can be fun in the endgame, but I wouldn't want to make it too easy. At least if the player has to conquer Turkey and deal with a large standing neutral army first, there is a viable deterrent. Most A&A games leave the canal open (at player discretion) but it always results in gamey weirdness.
Also, since I suggested earlier that we redo the Eastern Front. Any TT that is Axis controlled (original owner Axis) is very desirable for the Western Allies to take, especially if production capable. So often you may see the British or Americans targeting tiles on the Eastern Front that were original owner Germany, and taking them over from the Soviets to hold for themselves. This can be both fun, and gamey, it might be something you do/don't want to see happen. For me I like simplicity, so I think tiles where original owner = starting control is helpful. Otherwise the player wouldn't know which spots would revert to say USSR or someone else. Alternatively having all TTs as original owner Neutral, is another option. This means no Liberation for a teammate's TTs but taking everything over directly. This can be weird or not, depending on which team has starting control and where the spot is. I'm not sure which approach is best, but reflexively I prefer it when more TTs are original owner Axis, if only because it allows for more dynamism when the TTs change hands.
This is why I want to see more of the French neutral stuff as German, cause then it's original owner Axis and likely to be contested. Particularly if you wanted to pursue a game where Allies cannot occupy neutrals (although I think that's not the best plan hehe). What would happen in that case, is that large areas of the map would become uncontested. Allies would have no way to occupy the tile and Axis would have no incentive to occupy the tile. Since Axis occupying a neutral would be the only way for Allies to claim such a space, Axis would simply avoid taking those spots in the first place, to ensure they remained inactive for the opponent. This would close off large areas of the board, that might otherwise see some action, and which historically did see some action.
Especially in spots like Africa or the Near East where there are many neutrals on the current map. I would consider that, if a neutral is given an army, then the player is likely to avoid taking that space. They will bypass it in most cases, unless there is some movement/logistics advantage to taking the tile. So anywhere that starts off as neutrals, but which you would like to see contested during the game, I would leave those spots with only light forces, or no forces.
The other spots, like say Spain or Turkey, or Switz, where a movement advantage is more obvious, I would plan that these spots will likely be attacked routinely, unless the neutral forces there are large enough to offset the movement advantage of opening the tile. AI behavior here can help to highlight which spots are likely to get fought over. I would expect that, if all neutrals were attackable, and you have bunch in the Americas, that the USA AI would be preoccupied with taking this over. Like shooting troops there instead of towards the Axis. Perhaps this is why they are the way they are, all neutral? Though I'd just give it all to USA, and make that part of the income. It's the convention adopted since Classic pretty much. Even though Mexico and Brazil and Cuba and such didn't enter the war till a bit later. Or similarly with TTs like Greenland or Iceland, which were occupied pretty much as soon as the USA entered the war. Even where Neutrality was concerned, if there was a need, they found a reason to lend or lease that base, in pretty much all instances heheh. So to me it makes sense, to have these spots as either already under US control or easy walk-ins. Like we don't want the computer puzzling out how much stuff they need to send to South America to activate the income or whatever, and getting distracted. But I think this can be achieved by simply making some neutrals have large Armies and others empty, or already under control. Anachronistic sure, but still following the eventual entry onto team Allies. I think that's a good way to handle it
ps. More thoughts on the Japan-Soviet Non Aggression Pact. Current has no movement between USSR and Japanese territory right? And this is pegged to control of Poland? I would say this might not be the most intuitive, and could be surprising to the player. Taking Poland with team Allies somewhat earlier than might be expected, seems not too terribly unlikely a thing to have happen. Also if the player knows that all they have to do to avoid activating that giant front vs Japan is to bypass Poland, I'm not sure why they'd ever take the TT.
Even if I was winning with Allies, like why run the risk? It would always be better avoid activating the USSR/Japan front from the Allied perspective. If the controlling TT was Berlin, probably meaning European Axis are dead I guess, that would make more sense, but you might still see Allies trying to exploit this by just delaying the kill. By then the game is almost over already right? hehe. I think the general idea is that this front just stays closed for a long time, and if it opens that this only happens right towards the end of the match. Like you could almost just say, 'after round X Japan and USSR are at war', but by pegging it to game round it loses some dynamism too, so that's not entirely desirable either really. This is like one of the big puzzles in A&A. How best to do a NAP hehe. But then for the Non Aggression Pact there are quite a few things we might try that could still produce the desired effect, while seeming less strict I bet. I'll have to think on it some more.
I worry a bit that having the game decided almost entirely on the Eastern Front Germany vs USSR, while very realistic, maybe not the most compelling for the gameplay. The way it's set up currently, USSR has a buffer just about everywhere, and they know Japan can't threaten them. Even if Japan gets all the way across China, they can't pose a threat to the core, so USSR can just ignore what's happening there. Same deal with having Persia as a buffer between India and the Caucasus. It has the effect that the Russian's really only need to concentrate on one thing, and by extension team Allies really only has to do one thing, and that's to make sure they hold the line on the Eastern Front and Suez, because doing that they can lock Japan out of Europe.
I wonder if a better solution might be to create an actual physical buffer? Like special tiles that are not controlled by Russia but which are red, and which cover the border with Japan and the coastal spots? But otherwise to have the rules regarding Japan and Russia the same as everyone else. Basically Japan can attack through China or the Near East, but not along the Pacific coastal route. Or to have the TT that controls whether the coast can be attacked or not, something that Japan can target/influence? Tying this to a tile in China or India maybe, rather than one in the German sphere? I feel like the endgame just loses something when Japan can't really influence the contest in Europe vs USSR somehow. Again, it's not that having the game focus principally on the contest in Europe is unrealistic, cause that is pretty realistic (the actual War was entirely decided by what happened in the USSR probably, and Japan/Pacific was more of a sideshow right hehe), but for the gameplay I mean, I think it needs to connect up more side to side somehow.
For the time being, I do definitely enjoy the dynamic here that has Japan and the USSR not battling it out immediately (which is a frustration of all A&A games) but I think there still needs to be a way for what Japan is doing in China and India to screw the Russians. Like maybe make it a money thing, so Russia wants to send those units into China to help prop up that theater, instead of sending them to the Eastern Front? I'd still say the contest for the Eastern Front is so critical that all forces/attention must be directed there. It's a tough nut to crack for sure haha.
Anyhow, I definitely like how Japan reorients a lot towards where it should be focused, when the war with Russia isn't the main event in the Pacific. But then the whole Axis convergence at the middle of the board may also get wild, as eventually Japan (without an option to attack directly) will still show up in Russia somehow I bet, just creeping into German/Italian tiles probably lol.
-
Here is a list of suggestions for additional spots that could host a starting factory, or be factory capable...
Greenland
Iceland
Brittany
Normandy
Belgium
Bordeaux
Marseille
Athens
Belgrade
Morocco
Algiers
Benghazi
Damascus
Tehran
Calcutta
Dakar
Gabon
Madagascar
Singapore
Hong Kong
Shanghai
Manila
Java
Port Moresby
Rabaul
Gaudalcanal
New Zealand
Rio De Janeiro
PanamaI think that would be enough to get something going, like for the push-pull on production, and at locations that basically cover the board. This doesn't really change the essential production dynamic out of the national/industrial cores, but it allows that to be supported by the regional bases. Factory TTs that both sides might have a reasonable expectation of contesting. Well ok sure, maybe Brazil or Panama is pretty far afield for Axis, but you know, if the Axis payer actually gets there, then at least there'd be a payoff for it hehe. But for the rest of the map, I think having those locations with some Small/Medium factories, or at least be viable for them, would help a lot. It will make the tit for tat a bit more global in scope and give both sides plenty of targets to keep on the radar hehe.
For the Pacific islands, or really any TT that is similar, I think there needs to be more of a reason to go after them than the 1 PU. Like right now I'm not sure I'd ever try to take Iwo Jima or a spot like Midway. It just doesn't make sense. The cost in unit attrition is a lot higher than the TT value to take, especially with bunkers factored in, and if it doesn't pose a threat, can't build production, there would be no real reason to ever attack them I wouldn't think. Like other than just showboating I guess lol. I mean if I was just playing vs the AI I'm sure I'd kill some spots I didn't really have to, just to be a completionist, but if we were playing for keeps here, the gameplay would recommend bypassing all those spots, since the incentive to conquer isn't really there. This is a problem in the standard games as well. There's almost nothing that one can do to persuade the player to break a sweat over Wake Island I guess hehe. I suspect that maybe if more stuff was worth 2 PUs, it could be tempting, but the bunkers would be the decisive thing for me. No bunker and I'd hit, bunker and I'd bypass, unless it was a build capable spot that is. So I don't know, maybe they should all be worth 3? lol
For me a tile that is worth 1 PU, if it has no bunker but 1 infantry unit, then I would probably hit the island to kill the infantry (just to keep it from transporting off later). 1 PU + 1 inf destroyed is a trade of 5 TUV, so even if I take a hit doing it that's still a wash. But stick a bunker on that same TT and my calculus goes out the window. Now the TT feels like it's worth -4, cause I know I'm going to take at least 1 hit trying to get through that bunker right? hehe So it's like the TT value needs to come up to allow for these units, otherwise the attacker is always trading at a disadvantage and my incentive to conquer is eclipsed by my incentive not to hemorrhage hitpoints lol. Not sure, but that's sorta where my head's at with it, assuming the current bunker and island TT values.
For the factories that are on the board currently, I'd maybe up those all to Mediums or even Large. Or I don't know is the idea that one could build small and upgrade to a medium? If so maybe have the TT values higher to support an upgrade but start them out with the smaller one for the further flung places. It would definitely be cool if we could upgrade India or Anzac to a major. I feel like ANZAC especially is a faction that already struggles to have a purpose for existing, so having a full roster for them might help hehe. But in general, yeah, more production capability. Even if the player has to invest to expand it. To me it would be an easy way to see what's going on, if the factory tiles could upgrade as the game progressed, sort of like you mentioned with New York hehe. But where it's very easy for the player to spot. Like they could see the small factory and then think aha, I will build it into a medium. But for me when I tried that, it didn't work and the purchase was kinda wasted haha.
Anyhow, off to game for a few. See you on the next one!
-
@black_elk
If the game starts late 41 as per your proposed post invasion map, do the the newly taken USSR TT stay as Original Owner=USSR or are they Germany?Im off to be bed, so no rush.
-
Latest version ready for download from 1st page post
Cavet, very little testing, as time was not on my side.Major changes
- Redone the Game Notes png at 12 point, was 11, hopefully that's more readable?
- Combat Rounds set to 3 for Land, Sea & Air and they are now editable in map options - I don't have time to assess the impact of this change
- Bunkers limited to 2 per TT by a new method, I think <option name="maxConstructionsPerTypePerTerr" value="2"/> has stopped working
- Victory symbols x20 top left of TT
- 3x Neutral Inf-Conscript swapped for 2x Bunkers
- Removed Artillery-Hvy
- Artillery-Med isFirstStrike & has Targeted attack v Bunker
- Allies cannot move through Neutrals
- Axis & Allies cannot move into 129 SZ, Turkish Straits
.
West- Expanded German U-Boat spawn points, now 11, was 6
- 3x Danish Bunkers
- Atantic Wall TT now 3pu was 2pu
- Axis N.Africa redesigned
- Neutral Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey all now 0pu and have reinforcements
- Greenland & Iceland to USA
- Germany gets the French empire TT
- Britain gets lots of Submarines to Blockade new Germany TT in Africa
.
East- Industry-Lgt in Manila-Luzon, Port Moresby-Papua also 3pu
- Pacific-Allies small mobile force in Australia
.
Link to 1st post that has the download link
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/3326/1941-global-command-decision-official-thread -
Love the new look!
Here's the G1 I ran with... (saves below)
My battle plan was to focus on army group south this time, so we're cooking with that in mind. This time I broke off half the Atlantic Uboats to head towards Gibraltar. So far so good!
I like the new factories and the option to set the combat rounds at launch! sweet! I'm rolling with the suggested defaults 3 rounds for all. Seeing the option made me think perhaps the Soviet Japan Non Aggression Pact, or Neutrals/Canal control might be handled that way as well, like with a launch setting. Might be a fun way to mix it up.
Quick thought on Tanks and M2. Right now the terrain feature that has 'Gound move-2 units, movement reduced to -1' is a significant nerf to all the M2 units. Tank types already have a transport nerf over Inf types. Their expense usually makes them less attractive to purchase compared to inf/artillery over the long haul in A&A. So really the only reason to buy tanks there is for the movement advantage hehe. Here though I think that too many of the Tiles have a terrain feature snagging their movement away. Even on the urban home turf haha. This has the knock on effect of making air more attractive probably, since they don't face the same kind of movement limitations as the ground. My first idea was to just remove most of those terrain tiles, but another option could be to have the movement penalty restricted to combat move phase. That way tank units could still move 2 during the non com phase. Or perhaps that could also be a way to differentiate the terrain types? Right now most seem to have the same effect which is the m2 penalty thing, but maybe one might restrict all m2 movement, another restriicts it only to non com, or whatever, so there's more variety? But again, I'd probably dial it back a bit so there are fewer spots in general. I'd probably save it for tiles that might otherwise be kinda boring, to make them more interesting hehe. You know like if a spot doesn't have a factory or isn't otherwise notable, then maybe it has some terrain aspect to spice it up. Right now there are quite a few listed as Forest or Urban, but like everywhere has a forest or an urban something pretty much hehe. I mean in reality too. So for me I'd just treat it as a bit of an abstraction. Like if a spot maybe doesn't have a factory, or a vc, isn't particularly special as a transit, then maybe give that spot a terrain aspect to differentiate it. Not sure, but anyhow, fun stuff!
I think I got my purchase figured out, going to drop a small factory in Algeria juice the front hahah. Should be entertaining. Nice work!
Ps. for Italy those British subs had me a little nervous to stay forward so I spammed some DDs for a pocket fleet at Genoa. I figured dropping some ships maybe I could persuade the Brits to back down in the Med. UK then went hard vs the German Atlantic subs. Nixed one of the commanders and trapped the other. Their moves felt pretty solid. Fighter transits felt more sensible and easier to spot this time compared to when they were flying through neutrals. Feels better to me, even if those fighters at Gibraltar have us sweating now heheh. I dig it. Here's the situation on J1...
2023-1-19-1941-Global-Command-Decision J1 Combat Move.tsvg
I haven't figured out the new J1 yet, but I'm definitely going to try for something that involves taking Philippines in this game, so thought I'd try that. I like the reset!
Aces!Here we are on J2...
2023-1-19-1941-Global-Command-Decision J2.tsvg
The Russians just attacked us in Jehol! The Japanese high command is incensed at this shameless incursion into our territory. I expect to launch a full scale invasion of the Soviet Far East in retaliation!!! hehe
Good times! It's probably better without a NAP honestly. Cause seeing that happen just scratched the itch for sure hahah
One thing I just noticed in this game is that there are no production tiles bordering the Black Sea. I think there probably needs at least one spot capable of producing ships there, so that part of the board isn't inactive. Perhaps a situation where the Axis can take over Odesa for a spot, or a situation where the Soviets could potentially produce a transport out of Rostov or something? Otherwise it's probably kinda static down there, since USSR can't support their fleet, Axis can just ignore it. A production spot that Axis could take, or the threat of transports would make the sz tiles there more important. With the canal closed it probably needs something to tip the scales there and keep the action alive hehe.
Round 4...
2023-1-19-1941-Global-Command-Decision J4.tsvg
AI Allies have landed in Africa! I thought D Day was immanent, but they pushed on Mauritania and Morocco instead hehe. Germany is riding into Russia pretty heavy. I tried to put a little juice into Africa with G, but didn't want to overcommit. Italy saved the day taking Gibraltar just in time, otherwise I think Algiers would have been toast, but that one bought Axis a little time. Japan meanwhile managed to jump up and drop some dudes into the Soviet Far East as payback for torching the treaties, but the Allies have a shorter transport line and they're up in the backfield over there, so not sure how far I can creep that direction before they start messing with our plan. Figured best to shuck and hold for now, till we can punch line on Irkutsk. I know my production can overtake it eventually, unless the Americans start causing a real ruckus hehe. I think ANZAC might be primed to make an inroad as well, since I abandoned the south Pacific for the Russians. Guess we'll have to see. China is still pretty forward, with that Russian assist to Mao, and cause I pulled so many Japanese units back once I saw the Soviets blast in heheh. Pretty entertaining so far!
The movement advantage (rail) from the factories creates an interesting dynamic that I rather enjoy. It's hard to describe, but basically the tension between holding position for the movement advantage vs when to move out with timing is a lot of fun.
Kept it going to G6, Axis about to take Moscow...
2023-1-19-1941-Global-Command-Decision G6.tsvg
Pretty entertaining, but with no NAP Japan's push can be pretty furious. Taking Irkutsk would probably be enough to break Russia even if Germany wasn't already getting the job done hehe.
One thought I had while playing was that the AI is very good at spamming transports and shooting them for end arounds. I suspect they are trying to dodge my aircraft, but the AI seems to prefer to drop a gang of them and then just funnel along the outside edge, wherever that happens to be. Like just outside the range of the air. Makes sense, but also had me thinking that the transport scheme could get an overhaul. I wonder if giving a more limited transport capacity to warships would encourage the AI to prioritize building them more? Like if cruisers and battleships could carry a dude?
I could also imagine a transport unit with more carrying capacity, or as a more combat effective unit, but also more expensive. Like a battleship perhaps in terms of the cost? I'm not entirely sure what would promote the purchase of more varied naval units beyond mostly the transport, but the AI certainly seems to love their transports hehe. I would think we could build to the AIs strengths perhaps with the price structure of the unit roster, but not sure exactly where it'd fall. Ultimately the transport spam isn't a half bad strategy for the machine considering some of the AI's weaknesses for other things, but it also allows the player to sorta push them around on the water, just by stacking air in coastal spots and forcing withdraws.
I'd guess that's why UK didn't come crashing into France when they had the chance, though I bet they regret not taking the shot now hehe. Anyhow, just an idea. I bought almost entirely infantry and artillery as usual, and it was quite effective.
The factory movement bonus is fun, and the AI also seems to use it pretty effectively. It's probably my favorite idea on this map actually, and I think it has applications in A&A generally. Basically attaching a movement bonus to factories, and giving ground units like infantry a springboard is something that seems very workable to me, and I like the gameplay that results. I could also imagine a dynamic where shutting down the movement bonus would be a major incentive to bomb factories.
To me the the Factory=Rail concept is solid! It's my favorite thing here, and that idea alone would probably be enough to justify the map hehe. I am already thinking of a way to build this out as a generic HR. I think it has a lot of promise. Not least because the factory damage/repair coming at purchase would allow for bombing to affect the opponent's next movement phase, which is very desirable, and makes for an interesting interplay between tactical/strat bombing and the rail bonus.
Particularly on this larger map, I find that the factory movement bonus is giving me a lot of interesting options to dart about with infantry. M3 rail is quite strong though. So I could see M2 working probably just was well, since even that is pretty potent I'd bet. But I'm having fun with it as is, so I don't know. Another option might be to restrict rail at a set max capacity, basically exactly like factory placement, but for movement bonus out of the TT. Meaning damaged rail could only move a number of units up to that value.
So say you do it where Major Factory rail moves 10 units, Minor Factory rail moves 3 units, or whatever. This might be desirable just to prevent the overstacking of infantry at rail hubs to get the super boost to movement for a giant stack. Basically like what I did with Germany in that game. Holding position with like 20+ infantry at the Factory rail spot, and then launching them all at once 3 spaces. If the total number of units that could get the rail movement bonus had a total cap at 10 that would tamp things down a bit, while still providing an interesting dynamic for the blitzes. I think such a scheme could also work in G40, albeit more simplified there, like less movement capacity, or only a feature of the Majors or something. But anyway, it's a cool concept. Like I say, probably my favorite thing about the map and definitely a novel change of pace.
Speaking of factories, I also like that the cost to repair ratio is relatively high, which makes bombing feel more worthwhile. Though I haven't attempted a consistent raiding campaign myself, it's possible it could be very potent, so at some point I'll have to try a strategy that focuses more on that to see how it works, but at least on the receiving end of AI bombs, it did feel like the cost to repair had a bit of an impact.
I will say though the terrain thing for tanks is still a real snag. The AI in particular seems to maroon their tanks in isolated spots with reckless abandon hehe. I think the AI would probably be a lot more effective were it not for that movement penalty in all the forests/urban tiles which is most of the tiles in Europe and on the Eastern Front. The places where tanks and mech can actually move 2 are few and far between, so they aren't really performing and I'd say inf/art is the better buy under the current scheme by far. Although I did buy a few light tanks for the small factories I dropped, I found them a lot less useful on the Eastern Front, where the air inf/art combo just seemed stronger.
I'm not sure there's much the Soviets could have done to stand me up though. Perhaps they could use another forward base at Minsk, or somewhere in Ukraine, to kinda stitch up the middle a bit? That might be fun for either side
One last thought was on maintenance, since I hit the cap with Italy about round 4. I wonder if it's really necessary? Like I get the idea to prevent just towering stacks, but I also think the player needs quite a few units to play effectively with such a large map. In my case the maintenance cap seemed to hit pretty hard. I found myself wishing I could just scrap the army I wasn't using on the Eastern front so I could build a few more units in Africa hehe. I'm not quite sure where I land on the maintenance, but one thing it definitely does is make it hard for me to sorta ballpark where I'm at up to the limit. Like I didn't really notice till too late, but at that point you're kinda stuck, unless you can just suicide into battle or something.
I think this might be another thing that I'd like an option to go On/Off, just to see what kinda numbers would really result if there was no cap imposed. Or to see what scale of forces the production/income spread would allow if the sky was the limit.
Right then, just some random reflections from the last outing. Good times!
I'll give Allies a shot tomorrow!
-
@black_elk
In the next release;
Dont test Germany/Italy too much as the next release will Round 1 +1, ie late 41 start of game, so enemy almost at the gates.I have just changed over 200 TT from forest to no terrain type, this will speed movement of Blitz-ers and make it easier to take said TTs. (My TT template should have been none not forest
)"The Russians just attacked us in Jehol!"
Dont get too excited, I changed the logic on alliances and forgot to change the NAP, so it will be back to NAP. Im just following history for now. Still thinking about your chat suggestions and other options.Black Sea Industry is on the TODO something/nothing list.
I dont think the xml can limit how many unit can move say 3, however we could limit Infantry stacks to say 10 ?
Bombers only one role is strategic Bombing only the Brits and US, can build these and they really need 10 Bombers (1000), so that's a lot of pu investment and commitment over time, only players can do this properly, luckily the AI will not.
Maintenance/Upkeep is one of my things, so is here to stay, sadly in TripleA the only way to retire a unit is to throw it at the enemy to get it killed. Maintenance/Upkeep is realistic(-ish), it stops turtling and building up of super stacks then launching them at the enemy.
-
Sounds good! Looking forward to checking out the next starter!
I think those TT terrain changes will have a big impact on the effectiveness of Armor, so it'll be fun to see how that livens things up.
Right on, maintenance it is hehe.
I will reframe then, and say that perhaps the total income for some nations may need a boost in order for them to remain effective through the midgame. Fortunately the solution is relatively simple, since we can always increase the production values of certain tiles if need be (we're not tied to anything specific for that, since it's an original map with an original production spread). Or we could also provide other ways to generate a reliable maintenance boost, whether attached either to factory upgrades as you have, or maybe via the the oil rigs (conceived as stockpiles/strategic reserve maybe?) or also things like generic income bonuses for controlling VCs. Basically simple stuff that can be easy to read at a glance. I think what one would want, is a situation where maintenance is a key factor in the gameplay dynamic, but also where, when the player hits their cap/max hitpoints, that they have some way to address this directly and in the now. Because it may not always be possible/sensible for the player to just throw away units to clear up more space. In that instance, an investment to expand their maintenance limit (effectively raising the cap, but in smaller increments so it's manageable) might be advisable.
To me this might recommend a resource other than the basic PU, so that the ceiling on it can be lifted over time without just giving the player a way to print endless money, which would make taking TTs for income redundant hehe. In Frostion's game, at various points, both Fuel and Steel were used in this way, as maintenance resources, although in that case the effect was restricted to Tanks, Ships and Aircraft. I think what you want here is probably the inverse, where the Infantry fodder unit is the one with the maintenance cap, since those are the units that players will spam in the race to achieve max hitpoints. For now using the PU basic income seems fine for setting the bar, but if the bar proves too low, that's how I would lift it. To me this makes thematic sense, and would increase the relative value of infantry in practical terms by making them harder to just spawn endlessly on the cheap.
For the cap at 10 inf per tile, that might work, but, I worry it may have unintended consequences. Since the infantry unit is the backbone of the gameplay, I fear it may result in strange situations where the map design itself might heavily favor some tiles over others, just based on the number of TT connections. Basically gang ups like 2 tiles vs 1 tile, where the defender cannot achieve the necessary numbers to hold the line vs an attack spread across 2 tiles. Or similarly if the attacker is capped, then you have a situation where there defender may have an insurmountable edge, just owing to the basic defender advantage. My instincts tell me to probably leave it be for now, till we have a better sense of how many hitpoints the endgame battles actually require for each nation, before messing with the fodder unit too much. The DD at 5 PUs has this fodder role on the water, since it's the cheapest hitpoint available there. I believe you have that one capped currently right? Or maybe it's all the ships. I didn't really encounter the issue in the last game with Axis, but I recall a few times in the previous games, where I was having some headaches switching out destroyers for transports, like when the sz would cap out with ships. The other instance where I noticed it was aircraft landings, which could be kind of laborious on non com. I think it's something like 10 aircraft per type, so basically a max of 20 hitpoints from aircraft into a given fight right? I found that this made the order or sequence of non combat moves a lot more important, to ensure that air with the fewest movements remaining could still land effectively (without planes that still have gas in the tank taking up all the runway.) In practical terms this was a lot of move/undo move situations during the non com phase for me.
I'm not a huge fan of the Naval stack limits thus far either, I have to say heheh. I just feel that they make the naval purchasing game too difficult to execute. I don't dislike the general principle that players should be encourage to separate their armadas instead of just stacking one giant fleet to the ceiling, but I feel like this limit is going to make it almost impossible to properly defend the main coastal factory tiles when the numbers start really climbing. Or alternatively, I fear we'll just have players maxing their coastal sz tiles to whatever the cap is, and then slowly lurching along, like one sz tile away from the main production hubs, just to build safely to their max. I'm not saying it couldn't be managed, I'm just not sure how fun it'll be to manage hehe. Cause then it really becomes about building to like half capacity, moving out to make room for more new stuff on the regular, doing that over and over. I don't know, it could be that I'm just having difficulty parsing where the cap is going to be a factor, but it's hard, cause nobody wants to move out at half strength right? lol I'm not sure exactly what to recommend. If anything, I think we'd want to encourage more ship building generally, but the naval cap sorta works against this I feel, so I don't know. Like it's just tough, like you'll want to drop a fleet carrier, only to discover that you're already capped out of the sea zone at the max haha.
Not exactly related, but sorta, is the placement cap for the Large Factories, where the relatively low production (4 hitpoints from the largest factories) makes the order of placement very important sometimes. Particularly with coastal factories, where multiple factory TTs may border a single Sea Zone. Like when you want to place your ships in the right sea zone, and choosing which factory comes first to get the most out the placement there. I noticed that in this map it isn't possible to land existing fighters on a newly built carrier deck, so especially with those, being able to place fighters on deck during the purchase phase can put more demands on that 4 slot coastal factory.
It may be worth allowing the small factory to build a destroyer, so those coastal factories can play a support role for the forward naval game. I would restrict it just the most basic entry level ship, so it's not too crazy, but often I feel the player needs a way to drop a hitpoint in the water to make those island TTs worthwhile. I think right now the Medium factory has this role, but I'm not sure there enough of them, or enough medium factory capable spots, so I might just shift that down to the small, or perhaps put a few medium capable spots at intermediate locations where we know the fleets will be operating. That might be easier actually. Basically a few more 5 spots scattered around the board, for the hurry up purchase. Otherwise it can be very hard to match the opponents air sweeps as the ships move out further from home. I like the dynamic that has only the biggest of factories able to produce stuff like Battleships and Carriers and such, but I'm thinking more for the base fodder ship, which to me is the DD since it's the cheapest hitpoint on the water.
Another thing which might be worth considering is the restriction on non combat movement during the combat phase. This comes into play with transports, where if the player moves the unit during the combat phase, it cannot move during the Non Com phase, even if there would be 1 move left. The player is still able to load into a transport that had been moved during combat, but not to continue the movement if it has 1 remaining. I made a lot of mistakes doing that. TripleA has never been particularly great at putting a hard division between combat and non combat movement. I think allowing non com movements during combat is probably expedient, since it allows the player to make their moves more quickly. Sure there's a downside that you might goof something, making a non com move during the combat phase that you end up regretting and unable to undo once the phase progresses, but I think it's probably worth the trade off. The alternative of hawking on the player and sternly forcing them to abide by the strict phase separation, may be tough for players who are used to TripleA allowing for a fuzzier understanding. The issue really is down to the transports loading/unloading thing, since the player could easily load/move then realize what they wanted to do was really a non com move lol. I find myself undoing a lot of moves, and having to be very careful about knowing which transports/ships not to move during the combat phase, which can wrack the brain a bit, if you're used to it working the way it does on all the World War II maps heheh.
Oh and one last thought, about the Philippines. The factory on Manila definitely made me want to take that spot, but I'm not sure I'd keep pressing to take the rest of the Philippines after that. Like if there was another at Mindanao I'd probably continue the campaign, but 2 PUs doesn't quite seem enough to make the target attractive. The danger of leaving it alone is that this leaves open the possibility of enemy fighter landings on the tiny islands, but I'm not sure the threat is enough to warrant Japan going all gangbusters, when they have so many other immediate priorities that also need to be dealt with. SInce you mentioned reworking the Germans/Italians on the Eastern front, I'll probably just run a bunch of J1s to see what I can come up with on the Pacific focus.
Something tell me that more island groups in the Pacific, or at least the islands that currently have starting bunkers on them, would probably need to be worth 3 PUs or more (eg small factory capable) to give the players enough motivation to actually contest them. Otherwise I just can't see a real reason why Japan would ever attack a spot like Wake or Midway or Corregidor, or where USA attacks a spot like Iwo Jima or Saipan or Okinawa at just 1 or 2 Pus etc. Simply having them as a place for aircraft to land, or for transported units to park it (in the event of a total fleet wipe) just isn't a strong enough motivation to clear those bunkers. For a very quick rule of thumb, I'd say any island territory on the board that isn't worth 3 is effectively out of play. Unless it's along a natural transit route where the player wants to go already, there's no strong reason to go out of the way to take over such spots. Even if they might otherwise add up over time for income, there's just always going to me a more important priority Tile or a contested production center that's overriding that detour for the 1 PU spot that's relatively well defended. So just something to consider. I think if you want to see fighting somewhere, like consistently every game, the easiest way to ensure that happens, is by making the TT at a value of 3 PUs, just given the current state of the board, and how production works here.
Otherwise, all in all, I was definitely enjoying the new one! Fun stuff!
Ace work!Catch ya on the next run
-
Whatever, I was going to say something there, but I'll just leave it alone. I don't want to get dispirited by a rogue downvote.
Instead here is a USA2...
2023-1-19-1941-Global-Command-Decision USA2.tsvg
So there's an example of me just going for the jugular and trying to break the set up hehe. I focused only on the USA this time just to see how it panned out.
My first principles out of A&A Classic say basically "go one direction with the USA" and don't split the difference. Meaning that it's almost always better for the USA player to pick a theater focus and send everything, to either break Japan or Germany. Often in the A&A games one direction was deemed more powerful, so you'd get a lot of KGF kill Germany first or KJF kill Japan first general strategies. Here I went with KJF.
In KJF usually the goal is just to kill the Japanese fleet and have USA go major on income/production, and you don't actually have to kill Japan to still pretty much kill Japan's game hehe. But ideally you'd want the kill, so the plan is to funnel as many units across the Pacific as quickly as possible to get the job done along whatever route is most disruptive to Japan's play.
Under the current map/production spread this seemed to recommend a 3 round set up. So 3 rounds for the US Atlantic fleet to move through Panama to San Diego. The shortest route across the Pacific would be Sea Zones 110 A/B to Sea Zone 008 Aleutian islands. And from there to Sea Zone 004 Kamchatka, where the USA can threaten Hokkaido, split the Japanese defense, and pull their attention away from whatever else they'd rather be doing. Like to defend Tokyo and the home islands from invasion. Under the current set up, Russia probably wouldn't be able to help all that much, since they'll have to deal with more pressure coming from the European Axis (who will be more forward if USA ignores them). They might spring for a bunker or two to help cover the landing pad, but mostly it'd be up to USA alone, since they're the only power with enough juice to realistically threaten Japan on their home turf.
The alternative route has USA pushing across the central Pacific from Hawaii. This route is slower, but has more targets and the potential for an Anzac assist. But going this way also telegraphs a bit more than the jump up to Aleutians. My thought would be to use the starting fleet to sort of feign south, but then when the Atlantic fleet arrives to spring north with it. Or perhaps just waiting for Japan to move out whichever direction before comitting to one route or the other.
You can see the rail funnel is basically Michigan to Texas, Texas to California. The units on the Eastern Seaboard and the Atlantic ships could also probably be used for a 1 time assist in Europe, and that might be equally effective just to kind of not show your hand too hard, but in this case I just wanted to go all out, and take the "one direction" thing to it's extreme.
I don't know that there's anything one can do really about the "All one way" dynamic for USA purchasing, but if you want the create at least the semblance of a two Theater war, I think the way to do that is to have the USA Atlantic fleet in a more forward position, with a couple transports. If the unit set up is such that the Atlantic fleet is more useful in the Atlantic (like with a couple transports that can drop into Greenland or Iceland or head towards Africa), then the player is likely to just use their fleet where it's already positioned.
I think a nice set up would have USA with 3 starting transports in the Atlantic (enough to cover the ground units that you have along on the eastern sea board). Because then the player could drop south, feint like they are heading towards Brazil or Africa, or threatening to cross panama just to keep Japan honest, but not having to commit to either until USA 2. Alternatively they might just launch North with those units. Either way if their is some kind of production target that the USA Atlantic fleet could snag either in Europe or Africa, I think it makes the player more inclined to at least use those units to stall the Axis in Europe while concentrating the bulk of their energy vs Japan via purchasing. Or basically vice a verse, if considered from the Pacific side, with those starting units.
I don't know if there's much you can do persuade the player to abandon the focus on one theater, at least in terms of their purchasing, but I think it's still possible to set up a starting unit distribution such that some of those forces will naturally commit to the theater where they begin. Atlantic to Atlantic, Pacific to Pacific. Basically making it more attractive to just press forward than to double around like I did in that game. But as you can see, it's quite potent if the USA is just throwing everything and the kitchen sink at Japan probably. The only hope for Axis under KJF type conditions is that Germany/Italy are able to somehow break Moscow or London before the USA can break Tokyo. So we'll have to see what cracks off haha
-
@black_elk for your curiosity why some people get downvotes well some posts are obvious fake troll questions that deserve downvotes but how you spam suggestions while arguing both sides as to why not do what you suggested is such nerd spam to keep in check (not falling for it)
-
@captain-crunch Alright, fair enough man.
I was certainly curious about that behavior with the downvotes. Clearly I don't agree with your characterization of what constitutes spam or "fake troll questions" on these boards. If anything I feel like you're the one trolling me here, by just silently knocking my posts without offering any thoughts or further elaboration. I try to be constructive here, and not get too bogged down or dragged off topic. I didn't have any reason to think we were on the outs, but whatever. This doesn't seem relevant to the topic, so I'll just let it go, and if I see a -1, I'll just assume you disagreed, or were having a bad day or something lol
-
*the more you know
@black_elk have you made any mods?
-
Not sure if you're being serious, but yes. I've been contributing to this project regularly since like 2004 lol.
I did work on the following tripleA games, mostly on the graphics end, but also on the gameplay design side for some of the tripleA custom scenarios.
World War II Revised with Sean
Pact of Steel with Beagle, Madmat and Necro
Big World with Wandering Head
Europe and Pacific 2001 and v3 with Zero Pilot
The Great War and Domination with Surtur
Global 1940 and Pact of Steel 2 with Veq and Bung
Iron War with FrostionSome other stuff as well, more on the casual player feedback side, but those are the ones I had the most direct involvement with. I contribute what I can usually in the form of maps or unit artwork, sometimes with xml grind, but I'm not as good at that part. Invariably it becomes a collaboration where motivated people step up and chip in.
I'm a big A&A enthusiast and this is one of my favorite hobbies. So yes, I am a nerd. Thanks -
@black_elk nerds > geeks!
Ok, so you do help with other mods people made and do graphics so you arent yanking our chains thanks
eased my suspicions -.-
-
@Black_Elk
Dont change your style of posts, I enjoy their balanced/both sides, points of view, it helps me as a non A&A come to an informed decision.
(or a cheeky translation is keep on rambling
)I noticed that in this map it isn't possible to land existing fighters on a newly built carrier deck
I thought I had fixed this by having LHTR set, have you tried it in your current release, because I have to admit I did not test it, I ran out of time?.
Unit caps
In not a fan of the unit caps, its the first time I have used, them, it was really to aid the AI in its over production, but it is getting in the way of the player experience.
.
Next release will have these caps removed
Destroyers, Subs, Transports, all individually set at 10 and a sea stack of 20 of all types of ships
Fighters, Bomber-Lgt, Bomber, all individually set at 10 and a air stack of 20 of all types of air.Your 3pu insight & Iwo Jima, Saipan & Okinawa
A thought provoking read..
Base
Thoughts on a new unit called Base (forward base/supply depot)
It can "produce" a limited set of units, similar to the Industry-Med, produce 1 unit / turn, can be destroyed, one hit unit. Unit icon looks like a mound of supplies.
Could be limited in number, maybe 3 or unlimited.
Its just the look of Industry-Lgt/chimney stacks sprouting up all over the place does not look right, where there is not the population/infrastructure to support it.
(Sometimes even Im bothered by what graphics look like and that bothers me )
Thoughts on yet another Production unit?.
Painting
Likening what we are doing for the game to a painting a picture, I'm still on the broad brush strokes getting the look and feel sorted, so if I don't fix the finer details its because I'm still looking at the bigger pictures broad brush strokes. -
Right on! Will do haha
I definitely struggle with brevity when typing. It's an issue I have, to just be all chain thinkin my way into something entirely too long winded. Doubtless I need an editor! lol I think I'm also low key dyslexic which can be a challenge, and for sure a confirmed rambler, so I sometimes fret over whether I'm really onto something, or just going off. I'm pretty comfortable thinking about the A&A gameplay and general playpatterns though, like sometimes I can just see it, even if I struggle to explain. Like with the production spread of the map design I mean, that in particular. Like I've just spent way too much time thinking about this stuff, for way too long, and random stuff will jump out at me like a bang.
Sometimes it's tricky to unspool for me though, and I dart around and digress a lot probably. I also always try to keep in mind what it's like to be a new player trying to figure stuff out, cause A&A was a tough game to learn. Often I'll find myself musing on ways to simplify some stuff while still keeping the same charm or same underlying systems, but just kinda riffing on it in a way that makes stuff more accessible. I mean accessible to players who are already into this sort of thing at the baseline, since I know it's niche, but like for Classic players like me, cause that was my era. Or the tail end of that era anyway hehe. My enthusiasm seems to come in waves for tripleA stuff, like twice a year usually. So I try to ride the lightning while I can. I think it's a seasonal holiday thing for me, or some kind of nostalgia that always hits in the lead up to midwinter. Go figure hahah. Anyway that's a ramble and a half, back to the topic at hand!
Yeah, I'm fully on board with the base/supply depot, I think that is the ideal way to do it. I understand the apprehension to introduce another production unit (especially where TT space for housing units is already at a premium) but that unit in particular is one I've been kicking around for a while. I think it has a lot of promise.
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/26089/g40-redesign-currently-taking-suggestions/2?page=1
The first page in that thread has some general ideas, but I think a limited type of "factory" which can spawn a smaller number of units (or units of a specific type, like say Inf) would be good as a forward production buy. Esp. for spots that may need something to jumpstart the action in a region.
Another similar concept was to produce infantry from the VC directly. So not as a unit per se, but just a feature of those territories. In A&A there are fewer of these, but because they're characterized as victory "Cities" this made sense to me. Like the player is just drawing on the key population centers to swell the ranks. This avoids the requirement of another unit on the gameboard, where space can also be at a premium.
I'm like you, I lean really hard into just having a nice aesthetic sweep. So my thought would be to reserve the factory as like an actual factory, where the tanks and such are built, but to treat the infantry fodder differently. Having those spawn either from bases or VCs or a combination of the two.
Sounds good to me, with the caps removed! I think we could probably do a more limited cap at some point, for units that are particularly potent. Like say fleet carriers, or handling some units the way you did with the elites. For the fleet carriers, if they were treated sort of like flag ships, only 1 to a tile, that might be another way to get the player to split fleets up, without making it like a hard limit. Provided the ship is badass enough and players can build a force around it, they'd be more likely to fan out perhaps. Not sure, but there's enough other cool stuff going on here that I really like, so if that one thing is causing it to drag a bit on non com, I'd like to try it without caps just to see how it goes. We can always bring it back, or tweak the concept if things get too hectic otherwise haha. I dig your direction for the broad strokes. Better to block in the major values and such, before hoping into the details too hard. Hopefully if we nail the foundation the rest will just sorta click into place as it grows.
Speaking of which, I was going to dive back in on the Relief if you're cool with how the baseline was looking in that last draft. There were a few SZ lines where I noticed what seemed like a rogue pixel or two, so I was going to clean it up and bang out a new relief from the base with all the correct Texas stuff and such.
Oh damn an LHTR toggle! I didn't even look hehehe. I had just been using the default settings unless you mentioned it like for the sub spawn prompts. I'll click that one next for sure.
Right then, off for the night! I gotta grab some shut eye
You guys take it easy, and I'll hit ya on the next one -
@black_elk
Most gamers/wargamers have varying degrees of aspergers so we all have that in common. Im also a little dyslexic, poor spelling & grammar, lucky for me spell & grammar checkers are everywhere..
Please do a Base/Supply depot icon..
reliefTiles
TT white borders, I noticed when using Tools> Find Territory that I have to turn off the reliefTiles to see the flashing white border I have just found, so what to do?The borders in grey? Can we test it, send me a grey border that you like for my current baseTile and I will see if the find TT flashing white can be seen.
.
base & relief Tiles
Yes redo both the the base & reliefs, split the desert into 2 TTs. If its tinkering at the border edges I dont need to know, but TT splitting I do and the new names..
SZ flags
The SZ flags are currently 58px high, we could swap them for 32px high? Which would look better? In places the current ones look too small and in others too big. -
Sounds good, I'll try to come up with something with a look that says "army base" hehe
My first thought was that Frostion's AB might work, but then I was also thinking something with a more compact visual might be good, especially if they end up on islands since those ABs are kinda beefy. I like the design though with the little tents and such. Something along those lines perhaps. I'll sit with it for a night.
Oh interesting, yeah I hadn't thought of it, but there's no way to invert the color of that highlight line, so probably a lighter grey, so the white highlight will show against it. But like not so midrange that we lose the overall light border motif. Fingers crossed, but if that doesn't look good we could always go back to black borders I suppose. Here let me hack something together right quick...
OK this one shows the borders with an amlost 20% grey (hex D6D6D6), so keeping with that lighter borders vibe, but off-white rather than white.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vndy8p710hm1yu6/Domination 1941 relief 25 opacity gray borders.png?dl=0
The borders don't pop quite as hard, but I can still see where they are, so I think that might be enough value to still show the flash of the highlight at 1 px white line. But we'd have to try it on for size to know for sure. In GIMP when I tried it the line still popped for me against that color, but probably would have to double check to see how it holds up when zoomed out a bit, like say 50% to make sure it still reads. It's also possible to play up the lines by changing the blue hue of the sea zones, since perception of color/value is relative, so that might be another option. Not sure if you like the look, or if there's a better way to do it, but just to test it out. It has the newer lines and no beacons yet, but should still display the same in Europe if you want to see what it feels like real quick to see if the highlight thing works. Or it might be an opacity thing, where I need to open the center line to let the base show through maybe? Not entirely sure, but we can play around with it.
Righ on, Flags at 32 px for the next one then. I'll bang that out tomorrow and put em together for the next package
-
Your supposed to be in bed
I refuse to comment on the map. (shakes head), but thanks.
I have the Flags already, so done.
