💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread

Schulz

Shouldn't French Equatorial Africa be part of the British? Also I think Cameroon should not be named as "French Equitorial Africa"
Belgian Congo and Namibia should be part of the British IMHO.
Dodecanese was Italian.
Britain had took all Syria-Lebanon and Iraq also partitioned Iran with the Soviets in 1941.
Dutch and French Guianas should be swapped.
The British took Comoros only in late 1942.
The Italians actually controlled more Greek territory than the Germans.

Cernel

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

The Italians actually controlled more Greek territory than the Germans.

But most of the productivity of Greece went to the Germans.

Black_Elk

Thanks Schulz and Cernel! Those goofs almost certainly on me, probably from one of those earlier label keys I did at 3am. Definitely the backwards Guinanas my bad hehe.

Few others I wanted to mention but forgot.
TT called San Juan-Puerto Rico to USA control (that top islands in the Leeward chain could go to USA as well, as the US Virgin Islands.)

Cuba I think should be assigned to USA, as they declared war on Axis in Dec 1941. I would consider treating the rest of the West Indies, Brazil and Mexico the same way, although they didn't declare till 1942. That's one of those neutral anachronisms I mentioned, where we could wind the clock forward a few months to capture the trajectory of belligerents that entered on team Allies. Another option would be to have those TTs as walk-ins so the USA can activate them on their first or second turn just by sending a unit down without having to run battles in the process (removing bunkers and standing armies). I think there was another I remembered somewhere but it's escaping me right now. Anyhow thanks for the reminders!

Ps. Oh just remembered another one. So Liberia wasn't officially official till 44, but the US occupied it in 42, for the rubber. I think 'neutral' spots like that, which ended up on team Allies a little down the line, just being empty with no bunkers? So they're easier to snap up as USA would prob be a good way to swing it.

Black_Elk

ps. Oh also here is that list of VCs from G40...

Europe board:
Ottawa
Washington (capital USA)
London (capital UK Europe)
Paris (capital France)
Berlin (capital Germany)
Rome (capital Italy)
Cairo
Warsaw
Leningrad
Moscow (capital Russia)
Stalingrad
Pacific board:
Calcutta (capital UK Pacific)
Shanghai
Hong Kong
Manila
Sydney (capital ANZAC)
Tokyo (capital Japan)
Honolulu
San Francisco

I know you mentioned in the current map that the VCs are using the capital code to get the AI to target them. I think this is quite cool! There is no capital cash-capture dynamic in the current build, though we might introduce some kind of added boost if we need something a bit more decisive for resolution towards the endgame. Like perhaps instead of just winning, the team is awarded a large cash bonus if they hit a certain threshold of VCs controlled? That might be interesting.

Here they are framed as Victory Centers rather than 'cities' to be more abstract/flexible, which I also like. There is some overlap with those G40 VCs listed above, and the stuff currently on the board, but I think as long as all the usual suspects are there, players would probably be amenable to some new additions. Just given the scale of the board, I'd shoot for like 40 total maybe? Ideally distributed across both theaters, so the map isn't weighted too heavily towards one side or the other, though I'd probably put them in regions that are are more easily contested where possible to help round stuff out.

So for example, in addition to Paris, we might add Normandy or Antwerp as a way to get the HardAI Allies to do the D-Day thing. Or in addition to Rome we might add Sicily or Naples to get them driving up the boot hehe. Oslo might make Scandinavia more attractive to the AI etc. Or for the other straits at Denmark and Gibraltar, similar to the way you have Suez and Panama, just to make them seem juicer to the AI. Especially since it works both ways, the AI defender would maybe stand and fight, and try to hold these tiles for a bit longer, rather than withdrawing when things get hot.

The VCs could be used the same way in the central Pacific, to draw the AI towards some notable spots, for more historical flavor to the playpattern. Esp for stuff that might otherwise get bypassed. Say Guadalcanal or Iwo and the like. I'd probably highball it on the first pass, just to see how we can push the AI controlled player-nations to do the things we want them too.

Speaking of that last, I wonder if there's a way to do a Sea Zone VC/Modified Capital code as a way to get the AI to concentrate their fleets in certain tiles? At first I was thinking just having some Sea Zones worth more, like in spots where we want the AI to focus their navies, but perhaps we can get them targeting those zones in other ways too somehow.

Oh and one final thought on the terrain feature. I'm trying to think of a graphic that we could use for that, similar to the gold star for VCs, just to help the player spot them at a glance. I'm not sure what would be best, but perhaps just a simple shape would work for that? Like a small red triangle similar in size to the star? I think bung's Current VC graphic is 48px . I could make a larger one if we want and punch up the V a bit maybe. I'll give that a look next time I'm tooling around in GIMP.

I really dig the cleaned up look! Again, great work!

Ps. Trying to mess around with rail hub ideas. You mentioned wanting one for the Soviets so I snapped an image of a period locomotive off the wiki and added one of Hepster's crates with a simplified crossing pole. I think it reads pretty well, so thought something with that vibe might be cool. Let me know if it works for ya

TheDog

Victory Center/Cities next release will have 31, currently 20. Now it includes all the G40s as well. As can be seen below, their display has been split by world region to aid players finding them.

.
This is a draft

As you suggest we can add/remove VC to aid the AI.

Tested VCs for SZ, the AI attacks/defends them as well, so if we wanted to ...

VC icon
The currently used VC is from here;
C:\Program Files\TripleA-2.5.22294\assets\misc
It is 36x35px, but if you could make it 48x48ish that would be fab. For me just a yellow star works and you could drop the V as that would look cleaner, but you choose, yes Im passing the buck.

Terrain symbols
If you could do stylised terrain symbols for;
desert, forest, marsh, mountains, tundra

I think the best way to implement them is as a 48x48px png in the misc folder and I use the decorations.txt to place them on the map, top/top left of the TT. This way the reliefTiles are not 'damaged' and your reliefTiles map can be reused by another mapmaker without terrain symbols.

Ebbe's Oil & Snow uses stylised terrain, but on the relief Tiles. Careful with forest as Im using it to represent forest & jungle.

.
Thanks for the train icon, that will do nicely!

Black_Elk

Sounds good!

If you just want something basic to use for now I did a quick 2 tone star shape in GIMP to get this...

31 seems pretty cool. Look forward to seeing how it'll push the AI!

I'll look into the terrain stuff. I was playing Oil and Snow earlier tonight actually! Fun stuff! hahah

ps. I'll admit I'm struggling on the terrain thing. Trying to come up with something novel that isn't just clip art looking is kinda tough. I've seen some 48px images in other maps, but not sure how busy you want the visuals. Like if it's 5 different images, might get a bit cluttered. My default is thinking a single icon that simply indicates that there is a terrain effect going down, and then the player can cursor to get the deets on it. Or maybe to have them all within the same shape, black diamond maybe or red caution style triangle... Basically sticking a black icon for whatever terrain thing inside this maybe? Least you can use it as placeholder till I figure out how to do it.

TheDog

What do think of coloured circles?
With a white border?
desert - sand light brown
forest - dark green
marsh - semi circle of blue & semi circle of green (mix of water and shrubbery)
mountains - grey
tundra -mossy green/yellow

Abstract but still convey a meaning?

ps. Red/white bordered triangle also works, but red might get lost in USSR.

Black_Elk

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

What do think of coloured circles?
With a white border?
desert - sand light brown
forest - dark green
marsh - semi circle of blue & semi circle of green (mix of water and shrubbery)
mountains - grey
tundra -mossy green/yellow

Abstract but still convey a meaning?

ps. Red/white bordered triangle also works, but red might get lost in USSR.

OK how about something like this? It's not particularly abstract but I think it kinda fits the bill. Marsh was a little tricky, I thought something more like silhouette for that. Just picked a kinda marshy blue-green color for the background. The others I used details of images from the wiki scaled way down. For forest/jungle I thought that kinda worked for either. Not sure if it does the trick for ya, but you can use em for now if you just need to slot something in.

TheDog

Honestly Im not sure, but once the image & coordinates are set in decorations.txt its very easy to swap out the 5 images.

The real test is to see them in game and judge for ourselves.

.
Size matters
Currently the unit size is .875 of 54x54px, equals about 48x48px.

So even with our monster map, some TT are small and have an overflow, especially G1 in the east. Elsewhere in the world everything looks OK to a bit small. So...

So I was thinking of going back to 100% 54x54px and make do with G1 in the east, moving aircraft and tanks, as they move 2+, west/back one TT, so the overflow is less?

The units will be 12%ish bigger and will look slightly better on any screen, especially on a 4K screen.

So should I do it?

TheDog

Black_Elk replied 'yes' in chat. So hopefully it will be in the next release later this week.

TheDog

Black_Elk
"Oh bother" and other expletives.

I forgot one more terrain type, urban

Please could you do the honours.
Tanks!

Black_Elk

Yeah I can bang one out tomorrow, since I'll have some time free. Happy to knock together the graphics, that's simple enough, though I'll admit I'm still on the fence with the actual gameplay mechanic here hehe.

With the exception of a handful of tiles, I'd think it would be hard to categorize a given spot, since the geographical areas represented are quite large. Even tiles I might think of as more Urban, like New York say, are probably still mostly forests and such. I guess I just shorthand to an abstraction where what is being contested within a given tile is basically all the stuff that's been developed, the cities or infrastructure or whatever has value to the nation. I'm not sure it's really worth modelling much more nuance into it than that though, even on a board that's a lot more carved up like this one is. It'd be different if it was a map on a more tactical scale, like the battle of France or Normandy or whatever, where players could muse over how to deal with the hedge groves and swamps and forests, but here it's basically the whole world right, so I don't know, feels like the terrain stuff wouldn't quite match the overall scale of abstraction in my mind. I worry that it will make the map just that much harder to navigate, esp for the newcomer, and may distract from the basics of the unit interactions, which are already fairly complex even before terrain is added into the mix.

I also noticed that most of the terrain types include a malus for the attacker and a bonus to the defender, further exacerbating the defender's overall advantage over the attacker's, which to me already feels too pronounced coming out of A&A. Just with the inclusion of bunkers on top of the A&A inf fodder foundation that already favors defense etc. I think I would be more inclined to remove all the terrain features as extraneous, but that might be too extreme hehe. I mean with the work is already basically in place, so probably want to make use of it. In general though I'm wary of rules that make it harder for the player to understand what the combat effectiveness of an entire force might be in any potential engagement. Like to have the power values fluctuating too much, just based on where the force happens to be located on the gameboard. I have a similar feeling about the HQ general/admiral type units, like if an opponent's Commander is going to suddenly show up and throw all the numbers out of whack on me hehe.

Units that boost other units, or provide a malus that applies widely, as opposed to just 1:1 on a per unit basis (like say artillery to infantry) always give me pause. The AAgun (to 3x air) and Destroyer (to all air/sub interactions per force) were both like that in more recent A&A boards, a single unit punching above its weight in the hitpoint exchange vs the opponent, and I think both those units are problematic and rather confusing in A&A.

I guess as long as it can be modelled in the battle calc, I'm cool to try whatever, but my headmath definitely goes out the window if there are too many variables, and it's kind of a guessing game at that point. Trying to be open minded about it though, so those would be my main concerns. Movement nerfs are more significant than nerfs to either attack or defense, I'd take that M2 units restriction under advisement, or consider confining it to just the combat move (but keeping stuff as normal during non com) which would be less extreme. I think I'd still prefer it only effecting the Attack/Defense values though rather than messing with the Movement. I found it frustrating anytime I tried to buy a tank from a factory listed as Urban, and regretting it over infantry or artillery or air which didn't seem to be hindered in the way that tanks or mech would be. Anyhow just some food for thought. I'll get you the Urban circle in a few.

Definitely agree on the unit resizing and repositioning of mobile units to free up the space on the Eastern Front. Sounds aces!

Catch ya in a few!

ps. There ya go...

Other ideas tossing around in my head earlier...

Having the CommandHQ generals negate the terrain effect in battles where they are present?

Terrain effects conceived purely as a bonus. So +1 to defender say, rather than -1 to attacker and +1 defender. Or to focus on air units rather than inf or ground maybe?

Mobile ground movement restrictions only active during Combat move, not the Non-Com move.

Or if keeping the movement restriction as is, to have this only effect movement out of the tile, not into the tile. Currently if a unit could otherwise move 2 or 3, but that final move is to enter a terrain tile with the movement malus, they would get stalled. But done that way you could still effect passage through the tile, they just wouldn't rockblock at the terminus. Not sure if that's possible though.

Having any combat bonus or power adjustment to units from the terrain restricted to just a single round of combat, instead of the entire combat.

TheDog

@All

I admit I blow hot and cold on terrain effects with its advantages/disadvantages.

Part of me says terrain effects played a big part in the battles(tactics)/campaigns(strategy) of ww2, another part of me says but not at this scale its still too strategic as TT can be thousands of square miles/kilometers and no one terrain type dominates the battlefield.

As Im sticking with d6, a +1/-1 is about 17% change in the odds of a certain battle.

No terrain modifiers?
Some terrain modifiers? If some what should they be?

Unusually Im still on the fence on this subject at this scale.

Black_Elk

I agree, thinking of the big set piece battles or notable campaigns will often conjure up images of the terrain in my mind. So you know, the jungles Burma, or the deserts of north Africa, the Ardennes forest, strapping ski's in frigid Finland or the like, being as much a part of the picture as anything else. That's all fun and plays into the spirit or the mood of the thing I suppose, but then you have the question of overall parity too. Like do all territories get a terrain effect, or if some do but others don't, then how to rationalize when the terrain thing is extreme enough or notable enough to warrant the separate designation?

In terms of the modifiers, I'd be most concerned about stuff that affects how units can move, as mentioned above, since I think that's a more extreme form of modifier than stuff that affects the attack or defense power of certain unit types. For the combat stuff, I guess first I'd ask whether the territory is being regularly contested. If not, say for a spot that is well removed from the front, or unlikely to see much action in regular play, then the combat bonus wouldn't have much of an impact right, which returns it to the movement restriction Q. If it's basically just a logistical thing there, to throw a wrench in the movement across that tile, then I'd really sit with it and ask whether a movement kink of that sort in the backfield actually makes the game more entertaining to engage with for the players, or if they're just going to present an added level of complexity with a more limited payoff in terms of the joy hehe.

I also feel like this terrain stuff blurs a bit into seasonal/weather considerations too, but since the game doesn't model the changing seasons or weather, it'd be more of a zero sum thing for a given tile. There'd be no praying for snow or a "better wait till the spring thaw" and hold off till next round, cause the effect is always going to be in place. I've only played a few games that tried to pull off the seasonal weather thing in tripleA, but haven't really seen that executed in a way that convinces me it's worth including here. Or at least, not in a game where the sense of scale and sense of time is already highly abstracted, as it is coming from the A&A foundation. I think I may have a bias though, since I find that I dislike movement restrictions generally in the rules. They might add some depth to the strategic movement of mobile ground, but it comes at the expense of a lot of tracking, or assuming a prior familiarity with the board. The potential of purchasing snafu's, where the nuisance outweighs fun, just gives me pause. Like when you buy that M2 tank or mech unit, but the M2 really has an asterisk * on it, and you discover only lately that you can't move the way you thought you might when making the initial purchase haha. Not sure how others feel though.

I think if the terrain influence on the gameplay could be somehow more limited, more for flare or flavor I guess, I'd probably be more amenable to the concept, but the initial framing had me thinking it was too dominant and kinda stealing the spotlight a bit, if that makes sense.

TheDog

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

Major Changes

Unit Icon size gone back to 100%, was 87%, so bigger by 13%ish (it looks bad with unit overflow on the German eastern front but its only for 1 turn) rest of the time it looks better
New reliefTiles black border now off white border, we think it looks better, but do you? The Find territory is a bit faint but still useable?
Terrain effects for Forest & Urban TTs - removed move 1 restriction, so move 2 units move 2 through an extra 225 TTs.
o still affects Mountains 67 TT and Tundra 17 TT
o Scotland & Wales have a new mountains icon, London has a new urban icon all at the top of the TT
Allies can now strong-arm/Lend-Lease/invade Neutrals just like Axis. However now the AI for Allies does silly things like parking 30+ Bomber-Lgt in Brazil (Might go back to Allies cannot attack Neutrals for the sake of the AI)
o Mexico removed bunkers, USA must 'invade' to get them on side and their pu

.
Ownership

Dutch and French Guianas positions swapped
Dodecanese to Italy
Britain Syria-Lebanon and Iraq also partitioned Iran with the Soviets in mid 1941
Equitorial Africa renamed Cameroon
Cameroon to Britain
Belgian Congo and Windhoek/Namibia to Britain
Cuba to USA
Liberia removed Garrison/Bunker
Comoros to Germany

.
VC added 12 more
Ottawa-Montreal
Warsaw-Cen.Poland
Leningrad
Stalingrad-Volga
Paris-Cen.France
Calcutta
Shanghai-Kiangsu
Hong Kong-Kwangtung
Manila-Luzon
Sydney Canberra-New South Wales
Honolulu-Pearl Harbor
San Francisco-Cen.California
Victory is now 24 out of 31 VCs

.
WEST

USSR Kuybysev gets a new army corp, +25 units - to slow the German onslaught
Persian Corridor Lend-Lease-Depot in Baku gives 9pu to USSR removes 9pu from Britain, while it lives
S.America now has 0pu and 99 Bunkers
Iberia, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey 99 Bunkers

.
EAST

added missing SZ 045 B & Sansapor-Vogelkop Pen. (thanks Black Elk)

.
TODO

Sea Zones remove top left unit placement, redo as the placement got reset will the unit size change to 100%
Germany G1 TT overflows left, redo as the placement got reset will the unit size change to 100%
Terrain effects IN or OUT, if in how to display
Forest & Urban maybe -1A Air v Ground

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

Black_Elk

Sounds cool, just downloaded to have a look.

For the TT ownership stuff...

The TT called "Kurdistan" is the northwestern-most province of Iran. I'd give it to control of the USSR.

Gabon, Ubangi Sheri, and Chad should all be British (if doing Free France under British aegis.) Those TT's together with the spot renamed Cameroon comprise the territory called 'French Equatorial Africa' in G40.

Leopoldville-Kinshasa and Katanga, as well as Southwest Africa should also be British.

I'd give Hong Kong to the British as well, rather than the Pacific Allies. Just to follow the handling in G40.

For Brazil I would give all of Brazil to the USA, or else remove the American Bahia-Norde Este thing and have them all neutral, so it's consistent. I think the latter option is better for 1941. I'd handle that whole region of Brazil the same way you did Mexico, empty of units so USA can just do the walk-in thing. The only reason I can see for anachronistically giving control of Mexico and Brazil to USA a year or two early, is if you want to avoid those spots potentially being taken over by the British or Pacific Allies rather than just always going to the USA.

Spots with 99 bunkers, I'm assuming that's a just placeholder, but maybe just meant to be 9.

For the Terrain graphics I only saw a few displaying, the ones in the UK. Feels pretty good with the new distribution of terrain tiles though. I did notice that in some TTs the terrain info graphic will push the TT name/PU value over out of view on my display, making it hard to tell the PU value by mousing over with the cursor.

Otherwise looking aces! I'll fire it up when I get a few hours to tool around!
Nice work!

TheDog

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

Major Changes

Forest & Urban -1Atk Air v Ground (Ground units get a bit of protection from Air)
Britain, Pacific-Allies & USA back to Closed-Borders so will NOT invade a Neutral (Not too many Neutrals left to invade)
Bunker 99 replaced with 9 as not needed because of above
Win conditions are a bit easier 23 VCs, was 24

.
WEST

Turn 2 all of Brazil declare for USA/Allies
Turn 3 all of Mexico declare for USA/Allies
Turn 4 all of Gulf of Mexico states declare for USA/Allies
Gabon, Ubangi Sheri, and Chad to Britain
Leopoldville-Kinshasa and Katanga to Britain
USSR removed Kuybysev army corp (removed for balance)
Kurdistan to USSR

.
EAST

Truk-Coraline new VC
Surabaya-E.Java removed as a VC, the AI will still target this as it is a 'Capital', VCs still 31
Hong Kong to Britain
Mongolia to USSR

.
TODO

Balance the map
Cosmetic
Sea Zones remove top left unit placement, redo as the placement got reset will the unit size change to 100%
Germany G1 TT overflows left, redo as the placement got reset will the unit size change to 100%
Terrain effects icons for each TT

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

Black_Elk

Some thoughts on the unit roster/interactions from my last couple games.

HQ command units:
I think we could raise the attack/defense power of these units to be best in class, with a commensurate increase in cost. I see a couple advantages of doing this, but mainly cause it will make it easier for the player to recognize the importance of these units and use/protect them accordingly, also for the HardAI to do the same. At least to an attack value greater then 0, so the AI doesn't treat them as fodder for pickets/blocks while deadzoning (the way the AI will use aaGuns in v5) though I like the hit 4s for these I think. For the cost, if the player/AI is protecting them, then the replacement purchasing of HQs is less of an issue, so the cost could probably go up a fair bit. If the AI is not purchasing enough for the desired playpattern, then the AI could simply be given more of these units at the outset than the player receives. Or they could trigger in over time for players controlled by the AI. Since the Command HQ units are pretty critical to the mechanics of combat (a major boost to force effectiveness for whoever has them) this would be a simple way to increase the challenge rating too. Basically just giving the AI more admirals and generals on the board than the human. Like it could be part of a difficulty setting if desired, where easy= fewer computer commanders, hard= more computer commanders, or something simple along those lines.

Bunkers:
Like the above, I think triggers or an AI bonus might be a better solution than counting on AI purchasing behavior to shore em up. Even if the computer just got a pair a turn (similar to what you did for Japan) they'd add up quick. The prob with making bunkers relatively cheap for all (so AI will purchase more of them) is that the unit then takes on a primary fodder role. Also, if they're too cheap, the human player can simply match the AI bunker for bunker. In terms of purchasing, and it ends up being kind of a wash. These units are pretty decisive in battle though. They allow the defender to wall up without breaking the bank (and since they can place pretty much anywhere they're inherently a pretty solid buy). Overcoming a defended x2 bunker TT basically requires 6 more fodder hitpoints as the attacker to clear reliably, before you're getting into the defender's actual units. So attackers must bring a much larger force, or a superior force, before they can really contest the bunkers. Empty tiles which house bunkers are mechanically a lot simpler to clear, but I find under the current that this is easier to do by provoking a stalemate and then clearing the tile on defense, where bunkers are ineffective. (As the player, when this is done to you, you'll get that notice, "units will die" because the bunkers are stationary and can't hold territory alone.) Learning how these units work took me the longest I think, but now that I have a feel for the dynamic my impression is that they are a bit too OP for the relatively cheap cost at 5.

Bombers SBR to Factories:
I think allowing the player to destroy factories from the air may be problematic. Against the HardAI, the player can nix the computer's ability to place units simply by massing TacBs or StratBs (for the UK or USA) and then sending them after the enemy factories. I'm not sure the computer really has a way to overcome this. The human player might be able to respond to such a strategy more effectively, either by building more production or bases. Or maybe trying to mount an air defense with aaguns if the opponents is going all nutso with SBR, but the computer just kinda gets nerfed out of play. I like the pricing on repair cost though, which certainly makes bombing more attractive. Allowing SBR to damage over max placement (disabled) would still be pretty crippling in itself I think, even the factory can't be busted entirely from the air.

Factory Rail, ground M3: I really enjoy this aspect of the gameplay. I think it's a novel mechanic for a map on this scale, and I like they provide choke points and push the playpattern. With the SBR thing in mind, damaging the rail movement through bombing I think would be sufficient to draw the SBR, even if the factories themselves could not be completely destroyed this way. Repairing the rail for the movement advantage would compete with the actual production for me, meaning I'd probably repair just to ensure the movement bonus, even if I didn't need the unit placement, cause the movement thing is very potent.

Ships and Sea Zone Cash/Convoys:
I like how these have the AI fanning out with their ships to snap up the income, especially with their DDs. Japan in particular can run the board pretty quickly and take over a lot of income if unopposed. I think because of the defender advantage, it's somewhat easier to blitz around the opponent and trade SZ income that way, than it is to actually kill their naval M3 units. For the main fleets though, like with the carriers/battleships/transports, I've noticed that it's relatively simple to pin the opponent if they land themselves in a coastal sz where DDs can be placed (any sz that borders a medium factory), so this could be a bit of an exploit vs the machine. I was thinking that perhaps more variability in the value of sea zones might also encourage the HardAI to move in ways that might make for a more effective naval game. So for example, increasing the value of more important transits from 1 to 2, might make the HardAI focus its fleets in different ways. Perhaps concentrating more on canal sea zones, or trying to picket the main transits from their production cores to the likely fronts. Perhaps 1, 2, 3 PUs at sea would be sufficient, adding maybe 20-30 PUs overall to the ocean but distributed to the more contested areas around the coastal production centers where ships can be placed especially.

Fighters:
Geting used to this unit Attack 1/Defend 1 was a bit of a challenge for me. I think for the cost it makes a certain sense, since the mobility advantage is massive, but it's also so different from A&A that it sort of break my brain for d6 combat heheh. I'm used to thinking of these things in terms of the 3s and 4s for power, so going from that down to the 1 is a big shift. The dogfight aspect I like, but I just feel like they aren't effective enough on attack/defense, I find myself thinking of them as just flying hitpoints, rather than for their attack/defense power. I think perhaps a boost up to 2 would make them a bit more entertaining. I'd still prefer attacks 3's I think for a higher cost, but that might be asking too much lol. I did notice that the AI seems fond of purchasing early fighters, despite those units being a lot less effective than their m4 counterparts for a cost of only 2 more PUs. The tactical bombers with the added bombing role and strike feels like a better all around buy to me than the fighter, although if the fighter had more power I think it'd be more of a tossup.
Tanks:I dig the tanks! They feel pretty goldilocks to me right now, not sure I'd really change anything there. I'm enjoying how they work and think the attack power and cost feels about right to encourage their purchase.

Mech Infantry:
Main advantage for this unit is that they can be built from the Base-Camp. As soon as I realized that I started buying a lot more of them haha. Like the light tank they can also be built from the small factory, which makes them an attractive buy there too, though I think they are outclassed by artillery with the rail advantage. Still just being able to drop that unit at the base is enough for me, and they're pretty good on the blitz for the cost.

Infantry:
Right now trained Infantry are attack 1/ defend 2/ move 1/ cost 4. Conscripts are attack 1/ defend 1 cost 3. Elites are attack 2/ defend 2/ cost 5 (transport advantage). To me the cost of Elites feels right for the power, but conscripts/trained inf not as much. Thematically it makes sense for the player to spam weaker conscripts if they can, since that's sort of the essence of conscription, but mechanically this only comes into play for the USSR and China, since they're the only factions that have access to conscript infantry in their purchase roster. I guess the implication is that these nations couldn't field properly trained or supplied soldiers, or at least not in the same numbers as their opponents, but I'm not sure I really dig that for a vibe. I think if the idea is to model that some nations had a superior officer corps, or just more effective better equipped soldiers, that that should be reflected in the number of elites, rather than the quality of their basic entry level fodder unit. I don't know, but to me it just feels kind of inaccurate, sort of like that old adage that 'one of ours is worth 2 of theirs' even though that's generally not the case when they actually get in the thick of it haha. Also the idea that say Germany or Japan didn't use conscription, particularly as the war was dragging on, just doesn't quite fit the mold for me. I think a better idea might be to just allow a more limited number of these cheaper conscript units, but with a cap. Basically putting a ceiling on how many cheap hitpoints a player can spam that way. For me the ideal cost is 3, since that is immediately familiar from A&A, but if the floor is 4, that's fine, I just think it needs to work the same for everyone. So if we have a cheaper unit at 3 (with a reduction in defense power) I'd have the limit on those. Basically so China and the USSR can spam up to a certain point, but then they also behave similar to everyone else. I just think this makes it easier for the player to parse the forces on the board and ballpark the TUVs or what they'll need to overcome a given stack.

Air transport:
I think this unit has a lot of promise but I haven't really been purchasing them, mainly cause I know the AI can't use them as intended. Basically they'll treat it like a weak fighter fodder hitpoint in the air. I'm not sure if there's some way to get the AI to actually use the paratrooper tech, but perhaps the unit could be reimagined somehow to get this working? Air transporting isn't something I've had much chance to explore but perhaps treating them the way the airbase unit works in G40? Basically a fixed position unit that allows some limited number of infantry to launch a certain distance (across the water). Basically a movement bonus extended to the inf rather than a proper transportation perhaps. I'm not sure really what could be done for them honestly, but right now I feel like air transports are pretty much a PvP exclusive, since the AI is kinda hamstrung by them.

Submarines:
I'm still a little unclear on how the subs are meant to work exactly. The unit help says 'can't be targeted by some units', but I think these need to be listed and the interactions with destroyers clarified, like whether aircraft can target subs if a destroyer is present (if not, big difference, needs to be noted I think.) Generally they feel more badass than the A&A subs, on both attack and defense, so I like that! haha But how to properly counter them is a bit of a mystery for me still. I had alright success spamming destroyers in large numbers for the task of clearing, but with the other naval units I feel less certain how they'll perform in engagements with the subs. Also submarines being one of the trickier units in A&A I think it'd be helpful to note all the particulars for them here. Including how they auto spawn in the case of Germany. Like within the Unit notation for quick ref.

Those were my main thoughts for the units. I still get a little puzzled by the order of battle sometimes, like what's hitting when, or who just caused the casualties I'm selecting haha, but I do think I've gotten a bit better the more I sit with it. I do a lot of trial and error to try and figure out what sort of forces as the attacker are necessary to overcome the defender. Or how tall is tall enough for the defensive wall haha. Also enjoying the new VCs! They seem to get things cooking for the AI, which I definitely enjoy. Nice work!

Fun stuff all in all! I'll probably try another out as Axis for the next one, since I was trying Allies for the last few. Catch you on the next up

TheDog

HQ command units:
Yes good idea, in the next release will be;

HQ-Air also gets stats for a Fighter, costs 18pu
HQ-Army also gets stats for a Armor-Med, costs 11pu
HQ-Fleet also gets stats for a Cruiser, costs 11pu
HQ-Submarine also gets stats for a Submarine, costs 11pu

.
Bunker

Bunker could cost 6 or 7pu, was 5pu and/or
could apply Upkeep of 1pu/turn to reducing spamming
Bunkers could be Placed In Territory Valued At 2, currently is 1

I favour Upkeep of 1pu/turn, as this affects the player, as the AI does not account for upkeep. However it might break the current balance as China, Germany and USSR have lots of Bunkers

.
Bombers SBR to Factories
As only USA & Britain can produce Bombers Im easy on this.

Could buy more AA guns to defend the Factories
Could turn Scramble on, its coded but blocked out for now
Could limit the number of Bombers to a Stack
Could increase the Industry-Hvy maxDamage from Raids to say 14, currently 7

.
Fighters
Fighter could use the Scramble rules? As I understand it Scramble slows down PvP play, so in the future could have two xmls?

Solo - has Scramble
PvP - no Scramble

.
Factory Rail, ground M3
Its not a perfect solution, but it reduces unit icons(ie. no rail icons) I too think it works well.

.
Ships and Sea Zone Cash/Convoys:
PU for a SZ makes the naval game more interesting and does feel like the Battle for the Atlantic as Britain will lose lots of pu if the uBoats are allowed to roam free unchecked.

Sometimes it feels frustrating that you cannot pin down a uBoat, but that was how it was, flood the seas with Destroyers and try and cordon/corral the uBoats.

I will put a some 2pu SZ in, Britains 109 & 119, Gibraltars two, Suez 2, Japans 2, Panamas two. strategic SZ with a lot of shipping, will make the sea battles more interesting, good call.

.
Production of ships directly into an enemy SZ
Black Elf mentioned in chat about production of ships directly into an enemy SZ, In xml
Unit Placement In Enemy Seas" value="true"
Making this "false" truly blockades ship production
There is pro/cons for each so what's it too be?

.
Infantry
Ideally a dev would fix the purchase panel so you are not allowed to over buy units that are at their max, currently its very frustrating if you over buy.
Its not going to fixed anytime soon, as I would use this function a lot more.
USSR is the only nation that has all 3 types of Infantry, they are forced to buy 2 Inf-Trained(simulates Guard/Trained infantry) per round
We could do similar for the other nations and force buy 2 Inf-Conscript/turn?
This method does not add another unit to the already crowded roster ... ?

.
Fighters:
As this map is intended mainly for solo play should I turn Scramble on, its coded but blocked out?
This would breath more life back into Fighters.
Is a Scramble distance of 2, too much as that's what I have currently for Fighter-Jet?

.
Air transport

I have never seen the AI use them as intended

.
Submarines
Submarines are the wonder weapons the Germans thought they were & have all these property bonuses

Can submerge/evade before combat if attacked
Air Attack Sub Restricted
Submarines Prevent Unescorted Amphibious Assaults
Ignore Sub In Movement
Defending Subs Sneak Attack
Sub Retreat Before Battle
Submarines Defending May Submerge Or Retreat
Submersible Subs
Sub Control Sea Zone Restricted=false = So can capture SZ
Subs Can End NonCombat Move With Enemies

Submarines can only be properly targeted by Destroyers & Transport as Submarines can submerge so can sometimes escape.

Black_Elk

All sounding good me to me!

Bunker upkeep makes sense, need to replenish the ammo right hehe. I think for China, USSR, if they need a boost maybe they have some kind of separate lend lease stream of income that could be added in the way you did the Persian corridor. Burma road, and Northern Trace, which awards what they need to cover the bunkers. Germany probably doesn't need as much help, since they can expand pretty easily to up their income. I might be a bit more worried that Japan might not have enough, especially as they get 2 per on the trigger. I guess it's thematic they'd be slowly squeezed for income/resources. I can't imagine not placing free units on the board if given them, but might add up over a dozen rounds. I think if the maintenance cost is the kink, we could probably come up with a boost for any nation that needs it. Maybe Germany gets a bonus for holding Narvik for the Swedish ore. Or ANZAC for holding New Zealand. Italy/Romania could get a bonus for just holding the oil fields in Ploesti. Whatever the ultimate income requirements are, thematically they can be dealt with as either a form of lend lease, or Axis co-prosperity sphere or whatever.

I like bombers at double damage to the factory, least then the opponent would have to bring a pretty large force to nix a tile. Though any amount of damage if it results in a straight kill to the factory, could probably be overcome by the dedicated attacker, since UK/USA would get the one two punch on that. I was able to kill Hamburg with the 10 bombers from UK alone like best out of 3 attempts. So if USA had another 10 to follow it up it'd probably still be toast even at 14. That also climbs pretty high in cost to repair, for 4 production with the income bonus from the factory itself in the case of a major. To me the attacker should have to conquer the TT to kill the factory, and perhaps this should always happen whenever a factory tile is taken? That way a newly conquered TT must be activated with a new factory build, and a 1 turn delay, before all those factory workers switch teams and start producing the tanks for the conqueror.

For me I'm 50/50 on the scramble, its one of those things can be a little tricky I think. With everything else going on I'd probably have to see it in action here to make a shot call. Usually the slowdown in PvP is more to do with PBEM/PBF exchanges, where the players need to communicate every time a scramble is possible, or have some kind of prior understanding about what will go down, like an order of loss, do you scramble if/then? that sort of situation. If it's a live PvP match the delay is not so bad, though if someone is distracted AFK it can cause things to drag slightly I guess, with a chat interlude to confirm before the attacker can continue with their turn. It would certainly be advantageous for Germany's naval ambitions though, since they don't get to build the Graf Zeppelin carrier here (I was curious if it might unlock towards the endgame as an option hehe), or any additional battleships over the long haul. They do get the better subs though. So if they had a scramble option it would make it easier for them to defend their coastal sea zones when the fleet is near home. That could be cool.

OK here's a crazy idea, going in the exact opposite direction...

What if Coastal Factories could produce ships not only into an adjacent sea zone but to any sea zone within 2 moves of the coastal production? This would provide considerable variability in how a player might drop their ships. Instead of just 1 or maybe 2 sea zones, a ship might place in any of 3 or 4 spots or maybe half a dozen spots. This would increase the blockade zone a bit, but it could be interesting on a map like this with more sea zones in total, and where it's fairly easy to position blockers with the m3 destroyers to disrupt the naval transits out of the build centers. This wouldn't really do anything about the pin issue, but perhaps by leaning into the pin as a feature, we can overcome the downside by just giving players a lot more flexibility all around in how they manage their naval placement. Bit of a trade off but it could be cool. I just imagine that say ANZAC, which only has one Coastal Factory in a single SZ, could still find a way onto the water, even if Japan is bearing down.

Perhaps instead of a hostile sea zone being created at placement, a newly placed ship would have to "run the blockade" where there's a chance it either escapes, or gets intercepted. Similar to how AAgun fire worked in Classic or Revised, but just on the water. That might be kinda rad. It would be a bit of a re-imagining, but might end up fun, similar to how rail keeps things lively on the ground.

Another crazy idea would be requiring more than 1 naval unit to create a hostile sea zone. I guess we could say that 1 naval unit is not quite enough to fully lock down such a vast expanse of water. Like maybe they just pass, ships in the night if it's a lone ship lol. That might be a stretch, not sure if it's even possible, but lets say it took 2 naval units instead of 1 to create a hostile sea zone. Now the cost to pin starts going up. If it was a choice between pinning or trying to escape by running the blockade, the player might think the latter a better option. Trying to sneak one by basically. This would have knock-ons all across the board, but might shape an novel navel dynamic.

Perhaps only the largest capital ships can actually create a hostile sea zone by themselves, and for everything else like the smaller m3 DDs, you'd need to group in 2s to form an effective block. This would sort of match the actual strategic cost that the enemy incurs to their movement when facing a block for more parity in the tradeoff. Instead of having their entire giant armada held up by a single cheap destroyer, at least then it would take 2 destroyers hehe.

Not sure if that seems interesting at all. I can see a lot of ways the naval game might be reshaped along those lines though. In post v3 transports can't create a hostile sea zone by themselves, and similar with subs when no enemy dd is present. The evade option could be extended to other ships though, if the idea is not so much to throw up pickets, but rather to kinda hunt back and forth. Cat and mouse style, or doing the grasshopper yo yo around the coastal production areas, till a large fleet engagement can be forced. I'd really have to think on it more, cause those ideas are all left field. But something of that sort might work out to be entertaining.