💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread

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.

beelee

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

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.

I thought the ISU kids fixed this ? Just needs to be added. Sadly, the end of your quote is almost certainly true. Just have to wait for now

Yea I found SZs with a PU value to work well. Also have some that can be blockaded. Convoy zones too and theres lots of incentive to control the Atlantic

mattbarnes

Hey, just wondering what are the game setup recommendations? Eg do you prefer only 3 combat rounds? What win conditions should be adopted?

mattbarnes

Are the subs is SZ117 doomed to die, given they can only go to places in range of enemy destroyers?

mattbarnes

Can you show territory production numbers visually so the player doesn't need to hover over each in turn. And can the game notes explain more about convoys and blockades please?

Black_Elk

@mattbarnes hey how's it going Matt! Good to catch ya! And good questions!

I had the same feeling about those dudes in 117 haha. Like 'damn, how to get these guys somewhere they won't die on the counter attack' I wasn't able to find a great play for them so I just kinda sacked em against the either the transports by Canada or the ones by the England. Just kinda knowing they aren't long for this world I guess. For a lot of the set up stuff, I kinda figured it was broad strokes and subject to change. TheDog has been doing all the starting unit set ups thus far, so just kinda taking what he throws down and trying to see if there are any big breakers.

I noticed that it's also pretty hard to position the Italian Fleet so the Regia Marina isn't getting totally smoked on Britain's first turn. Even though Taranto attack is familiar from G40, it can be pretty tough on Italy, since Britain has so many subs on the prowl.

Another issue I saw was with the Japanese Soviet Nap, I shot some ideas on how to maybe fix it to theDog. Right now the Allies can exploit Russian TTs and Convoys to hide from the Japanese, operating from the safety of the redzone, so I'm sure that'll get a tweak. My thought was to do a special Soviet Far East faction that behaves as a neutral (with a distinct flag, like the neutral white for TT control, but the same color as the regular USSR.) I think that might be what the doctor ordered for Soviet/Japan treaty stuff.

For the battle rounds, I found that 3 was a little tough for me, cause draws/stalemates are a lot more likely when the battle round cap is lower. I was thinking 5 might work better, but haven't actually tried it yet. Just been rolling with the defaults for the most part. I'm still kinda learning the ropes. A lot of the unit interactions are pretty different from standard A&A, so it took me a bit to ease into it, but now I find I'm enjoying myself. There's a bit more variability/unpredictability in combat than I'm used to from A&A.

The impression I get is almost more like an early CA Total War type game, than a standard A&A game, so I had to adapt my brain a bit to think of the scenario more in those terms. It's not too bad, because the economy is pretty high and there are more units overall in play, so the combat swings are sort of offset by that boost in purchasing a bit. I just kinda figure that the dice gods will be capricious and roll with the punches on a lot of stuff, although I'm still frequently surprised by what's going down in battle hehe. My first several games I did a bunch of scrub reloads of the combat move phase just to try and get a feel.

I think a primer in the notes that sort of lays out in advance what all the various triggers are that will be happening, since a lot of things present as timeline type events. In my last game as Axis it took my 15 rounds to hit the VC conditions, so I think some VCs likely to get a tweak in the next one. TheDog has been iterating it a fair bit, so every out has been a little different, but I think it's getting closer. Fine tuning on the unit set up I'd imagine would take a while. Right now I see the stuff on the board as more of a placeholder, which eventually will get dialed into something like a spread where the starting forces are set to approximate the historical distribution for the historical start date. Like right now most of the stuff is prepositioned right at the front, and a lot of tiles have the exact same number of units. For those I interpreted it like just giving a ballpark for what a good mixed force would be to pair off against a given enemy force might be. For me it was easier to figure stuff out in smaller engagements, you know where just a handful of units are involved, instead of the titanic clashes we get on G1 on the eastern front hehe. The biggie for me was learning the Factory Rail thing, once I got that down, some playpatterns started to emerge and I was able to start getting the hang of the logistics.

All in all, I've been enjoying the gameplay, but still feeling like a bit of a newb with some stuff hehe, so not sure on the recommended settings I like best just yet, cause I've only done the test drive a few times. But I'm excited for the next update. I find myself looking forward to it on the weekends whenever a new one drops haha.

I also agree, I think the TT values should probably be displayed still. The TT names aren't as critical for me, but not seeing the numbers can be a bit like flying blind. I was able to remember most of the key spots from earlier iterations since there were labels initially, but a few times it gave me the slip. Also if SZs have variable values, might be nice to have that displayed so players can tell the 1s from the 2s with the sea zone money. I think you can just make a switch in the map.properties using notepad. Changing that line about TripleA drawing the labels from false to "true" on the user end, but for the default probably would make sense to keep the PU values on display.

mattbarnes

@black_elk Thanks for the comprehensive response. You call yourself a noob at this, but I have never attempted what you are, so credit to you.

On battle rounds, I'm used to these being infinite on other maps, or so high as to not matter. I'm not saying that's right, just what I've got accustomed to.

Your Taranto example got me thinking. And I've always been bothered by the Baltic and Med naval situations in other maps. The game is missing ports! Imagine each port being represented by a small sea territory with a 'canal' entry point, so only the defender can enter with ships. A Taranto is still possible, given enough air force, but the ships aren't in each other's faces.

The subs may just have to die in counter-attack. Perhaps represents the Battle of the Atlantic swinging towards the Allies. But here's another two novel thoughts: (a) transports should be more vulnerable to subs: can the game automate transports being taken as first losses under sub attack, not chosen at the defender's discretion? (b) can attacks against subs have a shorter number of battle rounds so if they survive the 1st (or 2nd) round, they can slink off, allowing them to be more survivable? I am yet to see a good A&A implementation of the Battle of the Atlantic, so this could be the first!

TheDog

@mattbarnes
Next release win conditions are changing in favour of Axis

SZ117 I scatter the German subs and hope for the best.

VC in the next release

VCs now 29, was 31, Dakota & Texas removed as Axis are so unlikely to own them
Victory now 21vc, was 23vc, less of a slog for Axis to achieve

.
In the next release the TT pu will shown but in the final version they will be turned off. Some players want them shown, some dont.
In map.properties this turns them on.
map.showResources=true

Convoys
There is no convoyRoute, each SZ generates 1-2pu, they are not linked

Blockades
is as A&A, except Subs Blockade 2pu, this is in the Game_Notes.

Ask if I did not answer your questions.

TheDog

Latest version 35 ready for download from 1st page 1st post

Major Changes

Scramble has been activated, to turn it off go to map option and untick Scramble rules in effect
USSR has a new relationship Allied-USSR this means that Allied units/Bombers cannot operate from USSR TTs
Bunkers now require Upkeep, so -1pu/turn, this is a biggy and has messed with the current balance, hopefully corrected
10 SZ are now 2pu Panama Canal, Britains west coast, Gibraltar_Straits, Suez Canal & Japans coasts
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
VCs now 29, was 31, Dakota & Texas removed as Axis are so unlikely to own these
Victory now 21vc, was 23vc, less of a slog for Axis to achieve

WEST

Copenhagen-Denmark & Gibraltar now 'Capitals', the AI will target/defend these as they are key TT, thanks Black Elk
Archangelsk has a new Lend-Lease-Depot

EAST

Burma Road in N.Burma-Yunnan has a new Lend-Lease-Depot
Vladivostok has a new Industry-Lgt for rail links and has a Lend-Lease-Depot

TODO

Balance
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%
Germany Atlantic Wall overflows left
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

Looking good! Nice work!

I'll fire up a new game as Axis!

Also I threw these together real quick. It's just the terrain effect images you had, but I added in the little graphic and shifted the kerning in a few spots, just to make it fit without needing the extended field.

By removing the repeated abbreviations "Atk." and "Def." in the descriptions I narrowed these graphics further, so they wouldn't push the names/PUs out of view at the bottom of the screen, when you cursor over those tiles.

I'm not sure what typeface is best. The issue with images displayed in tripleA's UI is affecting the text in these graphics the same way it does unit images in the purchase screen, or flag images in the stats bars and such. It's a bummer cause tripleA is degrading the quality of the graphics in every UI menu for some reason, anything not on the map itself. If we could fix that, then pretty much every tripleA game would immediately look way better heheh.

Anyhow just had a minute, so thought I'd save em here as a placeholder.

TheDog

They look so good, so cool

Did you use Inkscape's kerning?
I did not know it had kerning until I googled it now.

TripleA 2.6 does not have this problem as almost the whole width is used dynamically, not half like in 2.5.

TheDog

Please note this map can only run on 2.5 and crashes on 2.6

In the past 3 weeks/releases there have been 500+ views for each of the release first 3 days, making this a very popular map or of interest.

If any Dev could look at the crash and tell me what to fix, I will gladly do so, but the crash errors are no help in tracking the problem down.

Running on 2.6 it does not even complete German turn 1 (G1), before this crash occurs. (2.5 has very minors error, but otherwise give a good game)

With TripleA-2.6+14246 I get this error;

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

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

Is this related to a networked/lobby game?

beelee

@thedog

Can you take a look @RoiEX ?

TheDog

Latest version 40 ready for download from 1st page 1st post

Major Changes

Germany is now Human to speed up loading the map otherwise no game play/xml changes and the following are visual changes
Black Elk has removed hundreds of shadows from most units, making them look cleaner
Black Elk's new Relief Tiles should display the Find territory clearer
Redone the Terrain Effects banner help on the status bar, after Black Elk clued me about kerning
TT PUs are bigger and semi transparent, so less obvious, so I might keep them
Game Notes font back to Calibri

.
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%
Germany Atlantic Wall overflows left

.
TODO

Balance
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

Looking good! Somehow I forgot the shadows on these hehe. Just cleaned em up. Goal for me was to get a master unit set that I could flip either direction without the light source appearing to change.

Germany battleship/hit as well...

Here is a fighter for Italy. Its a greyhound

current has Japan's zero

I'll check to see if there are any other hidden shadows I missed, but I think I got most of them dialed back sufficiently. If the shadows are smaller or more underneath (like a toplit unit, rather than spotlit) it's not as noticeable to me if they flip to change orientation. I'm still hoping that a dynamic flipper might become a reality eventually, even if it doesn't yet exist, so just trying to get something that would work for that. Or if one wants the shadows back that they could be lit for both orientations using the same source/same sidelight, so it doesn't appear to invert but the lighting remains the same. Like basically you'd do the flip first, then add the shadows to everything, all in the same way. For me the no shadow look works well enough. Until we get a full on unit flipper or flag display, then could revisit that idea. I'm pretty sure the display could make the units look like the Frostion dudes with roundels and shadows, but have that be like a setting you could switch on the fly. Option unit>view "dropshadows" applies to all, unit view> flags on applies roundel pucks to all etc. and still have it look consistent that way. Right now doesn't really work though, so I think these will have to do, cause at least it would work manually.

For the relief, I see a few spots where the lakes kicked up a little choppy, but overall I think it's better than the heavy tint. I'll just have to give it another pass and blend back a few spots. Like around Egypt and in the Caucasus. Picked up a blue green and blew out those pixels I think, but otherwise it worked ok. I'll hit that one with the blur/sharpen next time. White gold lines almost work for the flash for me but I gotta zoom in for it. I don't know how to get it much more pronounced without going more midtone for the border color, but this off white seems to almost work. Like good enough for government work, at least for now haha. Next time I'll bring the lakes up from the topo so it blends better, for this one I just layered them on type and hit the edge with blur, but gets a bit closer to what I'd like.

TheDog

Latest version 45 ready for download from 1st page 1st post

Major Changes

reliefTiles improvements in Russia and 'canals'
8 units refreshed
Stopped Axis air units from landing in Neutral TTs, as sometimes the AI would suicide them.

Pacific zone gets more to fight over

Hawaii 5 pus, was 1 (correction)
Singapore-Malacca 3 pus, was 1 (option to build Industry-Lgt)
Shanghai-Kiangsu 3 pus, was 2
Hong Kong 3 pus, was 2
Guadalcanal-Solomon Is. 2 pus, was 1 (more attractive for AI to fight over)
Saipan-Mariana Is. 2 pus, was 1
Iwo Jima-Bonin Is. 2 pus, was 1

TODO

Balance
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

Had a random idea, not sure if it would look cool or not, but here are some extra flags with the shadows removed. Idea might be to have these graphics display initially for some color/variety, then change over once the TT changes hands. Units and initial ownership colors would remain the same, but the flag could give some national flare. Not sure if it's worth the effort, but I nixed the shadows just in case, figured I'd save em here.

Vichy France

Romania

Finland

Hungary

Bulgaria

Free France

India

Africa

Brazil

Dutch

Mongolia

British Empire and Dominions Blue/Red Ensigns

TheDog

Latest version 50 ready for download from 1st page 1st post

Perhaps the last release should of had a little more testing

Major Changes

India finally gets a defence force, to slow Japans expansionism
Calcutta 2pu was 1, and added Base-Camp
Karachi 2pu was 1, and added Base-Camp
Punjab 2pu was 1
India (Britain) also has a regular supply of Indian Infantry as long as the two Base-Camps exist, this represents India's large commitment to the war.

.
TODO

Balance
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 ideas for the Battle of the Atlantic...

Britain
sz 106 Halifax: change to 1 cruiser 1 transport, moving the destroyers to sz 120 Hudson bay/N/ Ontario.
sz 109 Irish sea: also to 1 cruiser 1 transport, moving the destroyers to sz 89 Caribbean/Jamaica
sz 91 A Gibraltar: move the destroyers to sz 87 Sierra Leone.
sz 111 A Scotland: move the destroyers to sz 126 Svalbard
sz 105 Brittany: remove the UK subs

USA
sz 101 A New York: move the destroyers to sz 101 B Florida

Doing this will create the Mid-Atlantic Gap during the opening round, represented by sz 108, which would be unreachable by UK/US destroyers on their first turn combat moves. Instead of having the German Uboats concentrated in sz 108 initially, they could be spread across the Atlantic 2 moves from sz 108, so basically ending G1 in their current start position, but with those Atlantic sz under German control after. Then the idea would be that if Germany goes after the vulnerable transport targets, this would be at the coast of exposing the subs to counter attack. Giving the player an option to forego those attacks and consolidate instead within the Mid-Atlantic gap, or split the difference running riskier attacks but with fewer subs exposed on counter. Opening round for Allies would be trying to get the destroyers in position to sweep across and start closing the gap. I think this change would help, because in the current Germany kinda has to run the attacks all-in, even knowing the units will be destroyed, just to kill those British transports and the destroyers which would otherwise clear the subs/HQs by themselves on immediate counter attack. For sz 105 and sz 112 and the coastal factories that are involved in the German sub spawn, a uboat in the sz and an AAgun on the factory tile, to help indicate the association with those starting unit placements.

Germany
sz 114 Konigsberg: add 1 transport to the Kriegsmarine. With 5 elites in E. Prussia, and some other mixed units in Danzig/Pomerania to showcase the transport capacity of various unit types. These could be moved over from somewhere on the Eastern front if you want to keep a similar number of starting units. Basically to tutorialize the transport dynamic, but also gives Germany a slightly more credible threat vs England, just to keep em honest on the first turn hehe.

Ideas for the Eastern Front...

Vary the composition of forces down the line, so that each tile has a different distribution of units, with some more asymmetry between the German armies and the USSR armies from tile to tile. Again could keep the same units, but just shift the locations. Moving some of these starting units to Factory tiles, would help to indicate the movement bonus from the rail in the opener. This could be a non com thing on the German side, though for USSR it would be cool to have some units pre-positioned on the rail, so they can run a counter attack or two if the Germans dud in an attack. Also a few defending soviet aircraft on a frontline TT, so players have a chance to see how they defend/scramble in the opener. In general just trying to mix it up, so the battles here showcase different compositions of forces at different scales, so the player gets to see the unit interactions more in isolation. 3 larger stacks with all the stuff could represent the big Army Groups North, South, and Center, but with the other forces in surrounding tiles more variable in terms of their unit spread. Any of Romania, Odesa, Crimea. Mariupol or Rostov could be worth 5 PUs, so there is a tile on the Black Sea capable of producing ships. Probably Rostov would make sense with a starting Medium factory, given where the line is at the outset, since it's more easily contested, but least gives Russia a way into the water there. Medium factories don't need to exist initially for Axis I don't think, but giving the option to build one would activate those sea zones, which otherwise are uncontested. Having a Russian transport in the Black Sea or the Caspian would also be cool to provide some movement flexibility for their units in the backfield. Axis have a ton of aircraft, so the Russian black sea fleet is likely to get smoked without some way to support it. I also think it could be fun in the endgame as an Axis lake, or as Allies to try and reclaim the zone to prevent that, or if they manage to blast into the Balkans from the other direction.

Anyhow, just spitballing. I had a lot of fun with the latest changes!
Nice work!