💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread

Captain Crunch

Is he gonna use anything you say smh rofl

I won't give you more Thumb Downs but you are back to more usual questionable quality posting no surprise *sigh

@black_elk said in 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread:

"> Ok cool, that's a pretty key consideration, because if PvP is not really a priority here it may recommend different things in how the starting unit set up or overall challenge scale is conceived."

wow no kidding captain obvious

"> In such a case balance by sides is less relevant,"

roffl muhahahhaah classic

"> I will likely end up creating a PvP scenario using this map eventually anyway lol. Probably with a more norm core g40 style unit roster, since that's something I'm interested in as well, but I won't push it too hard here. I think that would be a project for the future"

holding my breath for that one *sarcasm

"> I'll keep kicking around the ideas, as they come to me, for ways to light it up as a solo SP focused game."

ya in your 5000 suggestions in literally probably 100 pages of spam per topic I'm sure they used 1 or 2 of your suggestions ...

"> I did my undergraduate work in Classics and Philosophy. I took a double major."

rofl philosophy it all makes sense. Do you love the weed or booze. I almost always would guess booze with my experience belieeeveee me

"> In Classics I was a Hellenist, or Homericist more specifically, meaning I read a lot of Homer hehe, and focusing on the Ionian Greek for the most part."

Ya we all know how good you are at geography but come on ... you sound so pretentious and I have been wary for so long if you are really that nerd on one of your names that freaked out and spent hours with a troll post literally because I used the word "ergonomic" roofffll.

The Greeks are the top suspicious history exaggerators/ deceivers duh the say Alexander white-washed everything duh

">My Latin blows by comparison"

Wow so overrated although I do like etymology but let me guess this nerd prolly even loved Shakespeare amiright (was upper class snob agenda so overrated)

"> In philosophy my focus was on the Pre-Socratics and the Continental tradition."

Looked up Continental Tradition and Aesthetics and not surprised you are into some neo-liberal garbage since you admit being into mythology/astrology/metaphysics smh but I prefer more academic pursuits like mathematics and science. I do like the Socratic method but I find the Pathagoreans fascinating and my ideology would be a "Scientific Realist" that believes everything must be proven except god. That would more fall under "Deist" that believes in a suprarational god but not a real physical god.

"> So even if I enjoy Wittgenstein and such, I lean more towards thinkers who took Heraclitus and Nietzsche"

Nietzsche an elitist just like Ayn Rand and sooooooo overated

"> My emphasis in Philosophy was "Aesthetics," which has a meaning in Ancient Greek (and up till about Kant) that is basically 'sensory perception' "

ya man must be great weed

"> In Phil you have Ontology/Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics/Axiology, Logic... "

if only I could find actual logic amiright

">and then the one I liked most - Aesthetics! It's right there at the foundation, and used to be considered a major philosophical pursuit in it's own right, but it's usually ignored or derided these days, as one of the lesser branches."

sooo surprised *HUGE sarcasm

"> Poiesis used to be a much bigger deal, and most of the ancients I enjoy thought it was important"

You like metaphysics although I do believe in a soul (it's size is 1 Place Value in Pi or any other irrational number - thats one of the many things other authors and news media know me for like I'm the guy known for saying that "TIme is the number of Place Values in pi or any other irrational number - I got lots ;p) but a soul is the only metaphysics I believe in unless god/karma counts!

Ya wow youre into the ancients with their sacrifices to the gods on solstices and funky ceramic idols and costumes rofl dude Harry Potter isn't real - do you know what year it is rofl I'm serious ...

Black_Elk

Wow, damn. Tell me what you really think why don't ya? lol

I don't know what you're after here. I guess you got pretense out of it, but I was just sharing a bit of what I'm into and what I studied way back in school, since the dude asked. I'm not here to debate philosophy or change your mind. I think you've formed some negative judgements about me, that I find kinda nonsensical. Admitted to astrology? What the fuck does that even mean? lol I don't believe in Astrology. I'm not like some new agey neo-liberal mysticist or whatever you've got conjured up in your head. I just like the visuals. It sounds like you dislike me for whatever reason, and think I'm a windbag. That's fine, but come off it man. You're obviously just trying to get a rise out of me here. Like you don't seem to value my contributions, or my way of communicating, but you don't have to be a prick about it. Just ignore me if you want. It's totally within your power. You keep saying that I post spam, and nothing I say is topical, but this a thread to create a tripleA game and I'm basically on subject here. I may digress and make asides, but least I'm trying to lend a hand and post some material. You're just in here griefin'

Captain Crunch

@black_elk wow put up some kind of retort wow that was ez. You made another post on changing the color of another unit that we all know no one cares about on top of suggesting adding a canal spam commentary and then threw in your biography yet again rofl

I'm glad you grasped the "long windedness" and he just asked about the word "Prognosticating" so wow thanks for that tldr biography of yourself where it was a revelation to learn where your education and logic foundation is at SMH

When someone says you spam when everyone in the world knows you do it doesn't mean spam even more lmao I know its pointless

Black_Elk

Yeah, again, really no need to call me names and deride my educational attainment like a proper bully lol. I went to a State school, and I got the most I could out of it while I had the chance. I've spent the rest of my adult life working, so perhaps I didn't get to take it far as you might have liked. Sorry if whatever I said wasn't knocking your socks off, or if you find my ideas inane, or pedantic, or whatever the hell the problem is that you seem to have with me. I feel like I've been pretty civil here considering the shit you keep flinging at me. Maybe go shake your head somewhere else for a few man

Captain Crunch

@black_elk cool no wall of text or added biography!

worth

TheDog

@captain-crunch
Please dont post like you have been doing, you are not being kind or constructive.

TheDog

The Base_Camp
As you say "a bit too tiny"

I would ditch the hanger, too big and the chances of air units being "built" at the Base-Camp are very low, although tempting.

Then rearrange to make it a little bigger, but still 54px high and close to 54px wide.

beelee

I suggest Everyone Block crunch.

Black_Elk

@thedog said in 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread:

The Base_Camp
As you say "a bit too tiny"

I would ditch the hanger, too big and the chances of air units being "built" at the Base-Camp are very low, although tempting.

Then rearrange to make it a little bigger, but still 54px high and close to 54px wide.

OK I tried to see if I could make something that wasn't as wide and still have it register with the more basic quonset shapes. But 54px might be a little tight. I tried this at 64 wide, not sure if it's still too beefy? Basically around the same width as the tanks I guess.

I liked the elements in Frostion's AB but it was a little hard to break em it apart and move stuff around, without eliminating some stuff, cause of the drop shadows mostly and just the flux in opacity. The AB was also fairly isometric with the fencing, so it was just kinda hard. I just ditched that third tent and the stuff that was crowding around it. I wound up with this one as a stripped down version, but not sure if it'll do the trick or not.

TheDog

Thanks, that works for me, its got all the elements of a base or camp and its smaller than the placeholder.

How's the updated map going, base and relief?
Its got at least one new TT, yes?

Black_Elk

Yeah base is corrected
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xnvwl23sf092dia/Domination_1941_baseline.png?dl=0

New added tiles are E. Colorado and W. Texas. The New York-New Jersey tile was reshaped, so the connection between Boston and Delaware needs to get nixed. I think it makes sense to rename the 'Hudson-Delaware' tile, to Philadelphia or Pennsylvania given the new shape

Relief should be good to go. Shows the new lines and has the opening for the flash highlight. Canals are the same as previous version.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wmgkjixvbvawvn0/Domination 1941 relief 2 tone borders canals straits.png?dl=0

TheDog

I think you wanted to split a desert, is this included, if so what to call them?

Black_Elk

Oh yeah, I did make that change as well. Good call haha. They're both in the base and such, just forgot to mention.

So I would rename the TT currently called Mali to Timbuktu-Mali. Then have the split desert tile called. W. Algerian Sahara and E. Algerian Sahara. I think that'd work

TheDog

Thanks, yes I thought you had already posted that, its so long ago like a few days, I was just too lazy and go and check.

Currently Im busy setting up USSR defence for the German onslaught, Im hoping to have a release done in the next couple of hours, so time for sleep.

Although, it will not contain your new map, those fixes take a little longer, so in the following release.

TheDog

Latest version ready for download from 1st page 1st post

Major changes

Late 41 game start, game moved on 1 round, so preprogramed Tech is 1 round nearer
Over 200 Forest TT changed to no terrain, easier to Blitz/move & take, took a couple of hours to fix, template should of been clear terrain
SZ Flags reduced to 32px high was 54px
Base-Camp new production unit, can be placed in 1pu TT, can produce 1 Infantry type per turn
Renamed Artillery-Med to Artillery
Most Air units PU cost increased

.
WEST

USSR Stalingrad-Volga Industries moved east, factory shells reinforced for defence
USSR get lots of Siberian reinforcements
Germany removed Battleship & Carrier production
Germany Bordeaux-Gascony new Industry-Hvy so Submarines can access the Atlantic directly

.
EAST

Pacific-Allies Brisbane-Queensland on turn 11 1944-2Q, gets a Industry-Hvy & access to new British units including HQs
USSR & Japan NAP back in force, it gets canceled randomly around T13 with warnings

.
Link to 1st post that has the download link
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/3326/1941-global-command-decision-official-thread

TheDog

@Black_Elk
In chat you mentioned that you were concerned about the speed of the German 1st turn, G1, you said HardAI takes about 5mins and FastAI about 2mins.

When playing Germany I admit I go and make and drink, but as you are doing loads of testing try this;

(It increase the Java cache to reduce hard disk paging)

Our game needs more java RAM allocating to it …

So to play it you need to make a one off change to TripleA.vmoptions to use 3 or 4GB
Currently it uses 2GB, but this is not enough, if you have ever played Cernels 270BC Wars or Frostions Warcraft this is one reason why they play so slow.

Download the zip, it contains 3 folders,
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EAEd2OPxZO0EkvCFFiH23PPtjeoufcSm/view?usp=sharing
zTripleA.vmoptions2G – to return your file as shipped
zTripleA.vmoptions3G – use if you have 8GB of RAM
zTripleA.vmoptions4G – use if you have 9GB+ of RAM

Open your chosen folder, copy theTripleA.vmoptions file to your installed TripleA folder and overwrite the original.

Typically it's installed here for Windows 64bit users;

C:\ProgramFiles\TripleA

You will need to authorise the overwrite.

Run TripleA and enjoy the new speed for maps like;

270BC Wars by Cernel
Warcraft by Frostion
The Shogun by Ebbe & TheDog
1941 Global Command Decision by Black Elk & TheDog

Quicker alternative for default Windows 64bit users using batch files to ease the overwrite;
Right click on the batch file
Select Run as administrator
Select Yes to allow the app to make changes
Press spacebar to close the black dos window

TheDog

Here are some thoughts for Germany.

Germany Objectives

Besides continuing the Russian invasion, do you commit to?

Battle of Britain (Air War) attempting to destroy their Industry
Battle of the Atlantic, reinforcing the uBoats via Bordeaux or the Baltic factories, as each Sea Zone with a German flag denies the enemy of 1pu and grant you 1pu per turn.
North Africa and attempt to taking Cario (Victory Centre & PUs) and then drive on to take Baghdad area Oil-Fields (2x Victory Centre & PUs)
Invest in a Industry-Lgt in Algiers to reinforce North Africa
Syria and stir up trouble by droping two Base-Camps (infantry production), forcing Britain to counter
Africa and stir up trouble by droping one or two Base-Camps (infantry production), again forcing Britain to counter

Committing to any of the above detracts from your primary object of crushing the USSR.

Destroy

Barents Sea Fleet - as they Blockade your coastal PUs and reduce your PU by 8 per turn
Black Sea Fleet - as they Blockade your coastal PUs and reduce your PU by 7 per turn

Occupy

Leningrad (Industry-Hvy) to join up with your Finland Army Group
Moscow (Industry-Hvy) - forward production centre
Baku area Oil-Fields (Victory Centre & PUs)
Uzbekistan area Oil-Fields (Victory Centre & PUs)

Any more strategies?

Black_Elk

I've been meaning to reply but kept getting caught up in RL stuff. Quick note from earlier

So as Axis I'd probably crash whichever Factory TT was the greater threat from that position at Leningrad, and it seems like that'd probably be Arch, since Moscow is another round for the Allied fighter transits. Tough call though. Moscow falling is a big psych blow to the USSR player, but I think Arch is better positioned to receive direct support from the West. I'd prob stack there and try to contest the middle as Allies. South is very hard to reinforce. I'd consider splitting Iran, putting the north under Soviet Control and the south under British control. Just so team Allies has another way to reach the USSR. Historically this route was called the Persian Corridor and it was the most important route for western aid to the Soviets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Corridor

TheDog

I didn't know about the Persian Corridor, and that is awful lot of materiel shipped to the USSR, almost half went through Iran! (That's almost the equivalent of 200,000 Shermans).

.
But how best to represent this?

we could as you suggest convert 4 TT, north under Soviet Control and the south under British control. Currently this would give 3pu to USSR and 6pu Britain
Leave Iran neutral and put a Railhead/Supply Depot in Baku, producing say 9pu per turn until captured then it is destroyed?

A&A wise the 1st option fits with the world at war?
2nd option is probably more historical?

.
Balance

How does the current game feel balance wise for each nation?
Is the PU generated for each faction feel about right?
Germanys forces are probably at their limit (pu output to unit upkeep ratio)
Does the USSR need a lift, like the Persian Corridor. But this benefit will be short lived as it will be closed in 4-5 turns by German occupation. Or more units arriving from the east?

Black_Elk

I'd do both honestly hehe, but if it's a choice between the two, I think the first option would produce a more dynamic play pattern, since it presents team Allies with a more consequential strategic choice.

Like which warfront to prop up first... prioritizing India defense vs Japan, or Soviet defense vs the European Axis? With some tension there about how best to position their starting units near the middle, and a way to reverse direction if conditions suddenly change. Similar to how Allies would bounce between India/Persia/Caucasus in Classic. I think the real value of the TTs in the region would be more in opening that lane for movement and convergence rather than the money per se. If the passage is inactive (like having Iran as a neutral buffer region, defended with bunkers and such) I'm not sure the British player would choose to go that route, even if they were able to. You know, if they had to grind through neutrals, with Japan snapping at their heels. Unless it was a fairly simple walk-in, India has a lot of tiles to cover already vs Japan. Absent another factory spot in India I'd want to buy some bases there for sure, but I think any inf units spawned there would likely be needed just to hold India vs Japan, rather than racing up to save the Russians.

Right now "Neutrals - can only be attacked by Germany, Italy & Japan" so it's not really a command decision for team Allies to make I guess, but to me this feels a bit odd. I mean the Allies were just as capable of invading neutrals when it was deemed critical to their war aims right? Iran and Iraq seem like good examples. Neutral Portugal also had it's overseas territories occupied by the Allies where it was expedient. Bases being "leased" with a strongarm, like at Azores https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Alacrity or occupied preemptively like with Portuguese Timor. Here's another earlier plan the Allies cooked up regarding neutral Sweden... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_R_4 It was called off since the interim-peace between the USSR and Finland in 1940 removed the pretext to cover the British invasion. But again, not inconceivable as something that might have gone down. I still think it's simpler to treat all neutrals the same, and if sensible to somewhat anachronistically align them to one team or the other.

Of course the start date of "late" 1941 is going to be somewhat murky here. Barbarossa cracked off in June 1941, and the British had already landed troops in Basra by then. They were in Baghdad by the middle of June. The campaign to take Syria and Lebanon was concurrent like June-July. The Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran began in August. If J1 is December, that means you have a few months between G1 and J1 for things to shape up. To me this is fine, since the turn order allows some wiggle room for the suspension of disbelief. But I'd aim for a situation that basically has Britain taking over most of the middle East on their opening turn. That way when Japan/USA are up, the rest of the board sorta syncs up.

I think it'd be fun to do the rail thing such that the terminus or next rail hub isn't always at the max distance away. So like if the movement bonus is 3, but the hub location are set at 2 tiles apart rather than 3, this creates a layer of space between them that can be contested. I think doing that would create a bit more depth in the region for the push and pull. So for example if doing the Trans-Iranian Railway, you could have a rail hub at Fars, then Tehran, but from there you could split either towards the Volga via Azerbaijan or transports in the Caspian, or going the back way round Turkmenistan if that fails. Capturing factories/rail is a bit of a gameplay conceit, but I like the way it works for a map on this scale, allowing either team to get a movement bonus. I like that they can be used to stitch the the map together in a way that makes the playscale feel more manageable, despite having many more TTs.

Thus far I haven't really had any issues with maintenance for German units, although I did feel that pressure with the USSR. I couldn't find any viable counter-attacks on USSR1 since the Soviet units in Kazan and Aktobe can't reach, and the stuff that survives down south is usually trapped. Before giving them a big boost, I'd consider whether we really want Western Units operating in the Soviet backfield? I mean it'd be pretty familiar to most A&A players, since that's how things work there, but it's also pretty abstract. Basically asking the player to think of Western Units in the USSR as a form of lend-lease type aid, but in practical terms it means the USA/UK armies are doing a lot of the heavy lifting in battles vs Axis within the USSR itself. This always struck me as weirdly jingoistic, and also a bit complicated when it happens in A&A. I think if Western Allies can co-locate within the USSR, then the playpattern/starting unit set up has to assume this will occur (since the move is just too strong for players to ignore). Team Axis then has to get more units as an offset, whereas if the USSR is closed to Western units, then you can pair down the Axis starting units a bit. Or strengthen the USSR directly without, having to worry about how Western fighter transits or funneling units into the backfield might upend things for either team.

Earlier I framed that initial question about the German/Axis strategy in terms of Allied counter play, but that's cause I'm used to thinking about this mainly from a PvP perspective. Player-nation's controlled by the computer won't reliably stand up their teammates in the same way that two human opponents facing off might against each other, (why the AI needs some kinda boost to stay competitive), but the AI is still pretty capable of launching fighters and trying to get units towards the center of the gameboard, so it's still a useful frame.

I think the AI builds on the same fundamentals and uses the same shorthands that the human player would, just cause of how Redrum set it up, and these tend to favor defense over attack in a lot of ways. Just how the infantry fodder units are designed, that's sorta baked in, but even more than that, it's the ability of teammates to co-locate and mount a joint defense. When Axis can converge at the center of the gameboard things can get pretty brutal, so in most A&A games that means Allies spend much of the early game just trying to funnel units towards the middle (USSR, India) where they can all join together and try to form a wedge between Germany and Japan. But often you'll see a flipside version on team Axis, where Japan/German will transit fighters and explout the turn order sequence to prop up their teammate on defense. Currently Japan can't attack into the USSR's TTs directly cause of the hard NAP, but this wouldn't prevent them from still sending units into German occupied Soviet TTs to prop up team Axis on defense right? I mean if Germany or Italy can get far enough to open a lane for Japan along the border.

This would probably be the main reason to concentrate on driving towards the South as G, as opposed to the North/Middle (which would be simpler logistically under the current set up) since if Germany can get to Tblisi or Baku, and Japan guns for the the center through India/Iran, they can start pushing units into the already Axis occupied Soviet TTs to support the German/Italian advance. Sure they wouldn't be able to attack Russia directly, for the classic JTDTM or hammer/anvil move, but they don't really need to. Provided they can launch enough fighter aircraft or shoot enough tanks or inf to make any Soviet counter attacks vs G near impossible, they can still put the Allies on ice that way. So convergence is still pretty potent for Axis I'd think. Again this dynamic would be very familiar to A&A players, but it's also a bit strange, where you like have 5-6 nations all stacking into the same tiles on the eastern front, just to try and swing the contest at the center in their team's favor hehe.

That'd be a farily radical revamp compared to the current build if changing to No Western-Soviet or Germany-Japan co-location (on land), but if doing a big rework it's probably simpler to iterate those set up changes early on, as it gets harder to change the big stuff down the line. Like if people get used to the set up, and it starts gathering momentum, then a big tweak is a little harder to pull off. So far I like the production spread. I'm not sure if bases are bit too easy to spam for the cost right now, but if so we could raise the cost or the production requirements (to tiles worth 2 or whatever.) I think it might be nice to see a few as starting units too, like maybe one for each nation or something. Overall though I think the production spread feels pretty cool, with many options for both sides that I've wanted to see in a game like this.

So far I am enjoying the rail movement bonus concept a lot. I don't get the same sense of joy from terrain movement restrictions though, so I'd do another counterpoint there. It's just such a potent nerf to all the mobile ground units, especially when a factory tiles has the terrain thing going on. When it comes to how units can move, I guess I find that the carrot is a lot of fun, but the stick not so much hehe. Confining the terrain malus to the attack/defense power rather than a movement I think I could get into a bit more. This latest build was definitely more enjoyable for me than the previous for sure, but I still felt like my tanks weren't pulling their weight and constantly falling behind. Or I don't know, maybe just make em an M3 unit or something, so it's not as rough. Like where they could at least always move 2? Not sure, just some random thoughts.

Still having a ton of fun with it! Nice work dude!