💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread

[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!

[TheDog]

Latest version 52 ready for download from 1st page 1st post

Major Changes

• Tool tips added P-51-Mustang "cannot use carriers" the under carriage was not strong enough
• Now there is a Politics phase, so that givesBackOriginalTerritories works, but the players do NOT interact with it.

.
WEST

• Britain & USA DDs moved away from Atlantic centre
• Germany has 29 less units on the eastern front, removed for balance
• Germany added a Transport in SZ 114
• Germany 5 Inf-Elite removed & added to Konigsberg, this allows them to move 3 by rail or be used as Marines on Transport in SZ 114
• Germany added Anti-Air in Hamburg & Meckleburg to defend against Raid Bombers
• Germany now owns SZ 108 & 117
• USSR Rostov 5pu was, was 2pu, added Industry-Med, can now have ships in Black Sea
• USSR Moscow gets one Fighter, Bomber-Lgt & Anti-Air for defence

.
EAST

• Connection 005 B Sea Zone" to N.Korea-Chosen removed, thanks Black Elk
• Connection 031 B Sea Zone" to Honolulu-Pearl Harbor removed, thanks Black Elk
• Japan has 2 units less on mainland China
• China has themed Inf-Conscript in Yunnan if the Lend-Lease-Depot exists every turn
• China gets 3x HQ-Army

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

[Ondis]

This map looks pretty cool.

Dunno if you guys should have +1 def on desert though, historically but also for gameplay purposes it would be cool to almost have the opposite, -1 for defense.

Overall the desert was all about maneuver warfare and static defenses failed in almost all cases for all sides unless supported by big reserves or in mountain terrain like Kesserine Pass.

It would be interesting to have an arena of the war like that. Heck id love it to be subdivided into even more territories but thats not a must. Overall though you should be able to push in the desert pretty hard and fast, whether its to secure a victory for the axis in Egypt or the allies by landings.

If not -1 then at least 0. Its just a small thing I noticed but its fine if you dont want to change this.

Consider also the no blitz option on it even though some of the fastest advances of the war happened there both by Rommel and by the counter attacking allied forces. Moving through the desert is relatively easy, just horribly unpleasant.

One cool thing would be to have a heavily fortified area in terms of say Tobruk but with enveloping territories that make it possible to completely outflank it.

This would mean stacking it early on is probably a good idea but stacking it late game could be devastating, not giving you a chance to retreat. This would in a case of -1 defense make it a kind of momentum changing territory: knowing when to move from it/around it would be the key issue.

Maybe a similar territory on the old French forts in Tunisia to give the Axis one last chance to stabilize the front?

[Black_Elk]

I actually kinda love that idea! To have a few lanes across the board where the attacker gets the punch haha! Sounds like it could be fun.

I think the terrain thing has a lot of potential, and I like the idea of asymmetries going on there. Although I enjoy that more for attack/defense than movement. Particularly for mobile units interacting with factory rail across the terrain tiles. I think for me something like ground move +1 off the Factory spots would perhaps be more dynamic than M3 (where in the current mobile units can have that dropped by a -1 to movement from the terrain effects). Like cause then the tanks/mech could be your M3 on the ground, and Infantry off the rail tile gets an M2 (still pretty exciting over vanilla A&A hehe). What happens in the current though is that you get Infantry and Artillery that are more mobile off those factory tiles than the tanks where terrain is involved, so kind of an inversion of what I'd expect. I'd think of a situation where the tanks are hauling ass and the inf units are on the catch up. It doesn't happen everywhere, but there are enough terrain tiles that have that -1 to mobile ground that I notice quite a lot. Still, I was finding ways to adapt my playstyle, and I guess it makes a certain sense (since everything's abstract anyway) that maybe it's simpler to move infantry than their support equipment by rail, but it makes me kinda prioritize the inf/artillery out of those factories over tanks. Some sorta thing in the dessert with mech or light tanks, where I find myself not wanting to buy tanks/mech if I know they get hit with a -1 on movement. For bases I'll buy mech for the attack bonus, but usually cause they're more frontline or I just need more punch on attack, or to spend a remainder over the cost of just another infantry unit hehe.

I think for a malus to attack or defense, it's important that the unit not hit 0, where they just become pure fodder hitpoints and don't participate. So like if an infantry unit that defends at a 2, has a malus -1, that's different than if an attacking Inf that usually at attacks at 1 drops down to zero. I like the idea of just bonuses myself, the +1s instead of the -1s, but I think if terrain drops the combat effectiveness, it helps if the starting point has units that can hit on at least a 2 or more usually, so they can drop down to 1 but not get pushed out of play entirely.

Fighter aircraft attack/defend at 2 would be cool too. Even if it would probably tip the balance a bit, I think they would feel more effective for the cost. In regular combat I mean. I've noticed with scrambling on (which I kind of dig for the flavor) that some weirdness with the AI still occurs. Like where they'll scramble, but then not participate in the regular combat, or sometimes a scramble/followed by intercept which gives the dogfight but I've seen it less often there. Strat bombers on defense I've noticed some stuff as well, where it will prolong the stalemate, or might prevent taking the TT indefinitely if it's present. Anyhow just some stuff I noticed in the last game.

I dig that idea for Tobruk, and the Tunisian stronghold. I wish the AI could use air transports properly cause that'd be cool, but perhaps a transport in the Med would give some flavor there, like to reinforce N. Africa and draw down some attention from the Brits. I had a lot of fun playing as Italy, and Britain in North Africa trying to get something going and figure out what's needed to break the other team. Obviously the computer is a bit daft as some stuff more than another opponent would be, but it was pretty enjoyable over what I'm used to from A&A where it's kinda over in a flash. Italy I think could probably use a boost the Regia Marina just to stay competitive with the Brits and USA. The computer still isn't great at recognizing how key Gibraltar is to the play, so that's sort of lifeline vs the AI to manage those fronts, but I think the balance would tip pretty hard over it in PvP. Like whoever gets there and holds, kinda wins that contest hehe. Might make sense to give it something that makes the computer think it's worth a lot of TUV. Like at first I thought just raise the value to 10 or whatever, so the machine gets the picture, but I can imagine that not being great cause then you gotta a factory which might gum up the works. I wonder if an infrastructure type unit that doesn't participate in combat abd can't be destroyed, but it's worth like 10-20 PUs in TUV? Or I was thinking basically an invisible VC-type thing worth some amount in TUV to draw the computer where we want it go. Feels like anything we can do to nudge the comp to make a solid opening round would be cool. Just and idea

Look forward to checking out the new one!
Nice work!

[beelee]

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

wonder if an infrastructure type unit that doesn't participate in combat abd can't be destroyed, but it's worth like 10-20 PUs in TUV? Or I was thinking basically an invisible VC-type thing worth some amount in TUV to draw the computer where we want it go.

Idk if you can have certain units only kill/capture certain others. But if so, you could have the Air Trprt be the only unit to do so for certain invisible units.

Might encourage the AI to use them more.

[Black_Elk]

Quick thoughts on Armor. Current has

Lgt Armor: A2 D1 M2 C6
Med Armor: A3 D2 M2 C8
Hvy Armor: A4 D4 M2 C11
Mech Infantry: A2 D2 M2 C6

Med Armor is basically the familiar A&A tank from Classic, and Lgt Armor is similar in that they are both better on attack than defense.

This will create a dynamic similar to Classic A&A, where the player is somewhat discouraged from racing forward with their armor, but instead incentivized to use it mainly for pushing the deadzones behind inf/art wall.

Mech is cheaper than Med Armor here, but just as good on defense, so that unit becomes kinda the default blitz unit under the current scheme with that cost. In Revised A&A the defense of Armor was raised to A3 D3, which is the more familiar these days I think for a tank archetype. Perhaps something like this would be cool...

Lgt Armor: A3 D2 M2 C8 (the early period starter tank, classic style)
Med Armor: A3 D3 M2 C9 (the workhorse tank for the midgame)
Heavy Armor: A4 D4 M2 C10 (the endgame tank for the big moves)

Then you could also do

Fighter: A2 D3 M4 C12
Tactical Bomber: A3 D2 M4 C11

And the gameplay would pretty much capture the spirit of familiar A&A style dynamics to help players get oriented while still being pretty unique. I think raising the attack values for those units would create a somewhat more satisfying experience when rolling the dice too, especially if terrain effects retain that malus for the attacker. Least then the armored and air units would be able to absorb a -1 without becoming ineffective in certain terrain TTs.

Inf/Anti-Tank 4
Elite/Bunker/AAgun 5
Mech 6
Art 7
Lgt Arm 8
Med Arm 9
Hvy Arm 10
Tac B 11
Fgt 12

Armor has to be pretty good to compete with infantry if its going to be double the cost. Otherwise it's hard to justify the tank buy when you can get 2 hitpoints purchasing infantry instead of 1 for the same amount of PUs, which is why I think raising the A/D values there makes sense for the armor. With a higher attack/defense value Lgt/Med armor becomes a lot more attractive, and Med/Hvy Armor will be a go to towards the endgame for sure, since they're very useful at carving up bunkers and such. The mobility advantage is already pretty strong from the rail, so to keep pace it would be nice if the tanks hit a little harder.

I think Fighters could use the boost to A/D as well, just to make up the cost there, otherwise they're pretty pricy and kinda outclassed by the mobile ground. Destroyers are pretty cheap here, so I'd be less worried about fighter umbrellas screening vs fleets. I think it would help here actually, especially if one side gets wiped and locked off the water early on, cause then the coastal fighter aircraft can pick up the slack if the navy drops the ball haha. There's no hit 4 in the air here like A&A strat Bs, so you've got a little bit harder situation to manage the naval approaches without a fleet to guard the coast. I think that's where the tactical bombers at A3 would come in handy.

For advanced aircraft like jets you could do the 3/4, 4/4, or introduce a 5 maybe. Rosters rarely show the 5 much love hehe. It might be fun for the battleship or super carrier type unit. But anyway, priced that way at 12 the reg fighter is basically the same cost as the OG fighter from 1984 at the high end of the initial roster. The attack/defense values are lower than classic there which had A3/D4 fighters, here it'd be A2/D3 but still kinda fits with asymmetry and advantage to the defender so I think that would be kinda easy to get into. Tactical Bomber unit was basically carved out as the inverse, better on attack but slightly weaker on defense A3/D2, so they'd each have a niche.

That way for the roster you won't have too many competing prices for the ground game combat units, and spending a remainder can be a bit more intuitive. Since your base fodder is cost 4 PUs for most players (Trained Inf), means that a remainder of 1-3 is sorta the novelty impulse buy. Like when you can't divide your purse neatly into infantry and have a bit left over to burn.

Anyhow just an idea. Otherwise I've been enjoying the latest revisions. Feels pretty entertaining with adjustment to China and India, and the Eastern front a bit closer. The AI still struggles a bit I think with the Italian can openers and moving off the rail factories when they could have more reach holding position, but they still put up a pretty good fight if they can hold out a few turns. Fun stuff!

[TheDog]

Latest version 60 ready for download from 1st page 1st post

Major Changes

• HQ-Army now 3D was 2, now 12pu was 11
• Armor-Lgt now 2D was 1, now 7pu was 6
• Armor-Med now 3D was 2, now 9pu was 8
• Terrain Effects changed, no more 0 Atk, now less withdraw warnings
• All Combat Rounds increased to 5, was 3, now less Air Battle warning (Can be changed in Map Option)

.
TODO

• Balance
• Terrain effects icons for each TT
• Germany mix TT forces so not the same

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

[jkprince]

Have a little bit of nostalgia for the year I wasted a while back trying to mod this game, so I've been playing it a bit

There's something wrong with the download- the install name supposed to be "1941_global_command_decision" with no version number, or "1941_global_command_decision_60" with the number? I tried both and it's gives me errors both times because something in it wants the other name. I even tried making 2 installs to cover both names at the same time and it opened (i.e showed the nations, rule menu setup etc) but couldn't start. Halp!

I'm playing on 2.5, so it's not that which is the issue

[TheDog]

Hi try this
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/3327/pvp-scenario-review-thread/26

Ask again if is does not work.

[Black_Elk]

Hey Joe! How's it going dude! What I was doing was to unzip and extract the contents, so basically moving just the folder called "1941_global_command_decision" (it's nested inside a folder with the version number when I first extract) and then put that one to my downloaded maps. I wasn't sure if it was just cause I was using 7zip, but I had the same thing going on initially, till I realized the version number was just for organizing downloads.

Oh also I have that folder of the 48px monochromes you made that Beelee sent me a little while back. I wanted to include it in the UHD global package for mods and such, since there's a ton of stuff there and all nicely labelled. I used a couple upscales from that too as the basis for 54px stuff I didn't have from Frostions, but the stuff I have there is all un-tinted I think so I was just kinda riffing after the upscale. Just to get ideas and inspiration. The ANZAC dude made a cameo appearance in the last build haha. Tried to do him up in a two tone, I'm still learning how to do that. I finally got BIMP working to do batch colorizing though, so I was thinking about going to town there at some point for the 48pxs. I was curious, probably a long shot, but if you got anything fun for units might be cool to do a massive grab bag on that one.

Anyhow good to catch ya!

ps. here's a relief with the white lines
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jewayj6tcr2u3qj/relief_1941_global_command_decision_x.png?dl=0

[TheDog]

Latest version 65 ready for download from 1st page 1st post

Major Changes

• New reliefTiles show flashing Find better, also show the nation TT in a pastel version of their hex colors in map.properties
• New Changed some nation TT colors to match new reliefTiles
• New polygons.txt file, many islands refreshed should look better, thanks Black Elk
• Inf-Trained & Inf-Motorized & Armor get Flak 1:d12 attack v all air
• Most nations can only produce Fighter and not Fighter-Early. (Aid the AI carriers as Fighters move 4.)

.
WEST

• Germany & Italy removed 4 HQ-Army & 6 Artillery (for balance)
• Germany theme for HQ-Army changed to get a HQ-Army every 4th turn
• 6 SZ connections removed
• Britain Themed reinforcements for 20 turns are 2x Destroyers (Aid the AI to counter German subs)
• USA theme on turns 4,8,12,16,20 gets a Carrier fleet (Aid the AI counter attack Japan)
• USSR themed reinforcements are now free, was -19pu/turn (for balance and to offset Germany free subs in the Atlantic)
• Britain & USSR both have a new placeholder introduction panel, giving more detail on that nation.

.
EAST

• Connection 030 Sea Zone" to Honolulu-Pearl Harbor removed, thanks Black Elk
• Also removed connections 013 & 025A SZ to Honolulu-Pearl Harbor
• Pacific-Allies get 1x HQ-Army & 1x HQ-Fleet
• Japan has a new fleet in SZ 006A
• USA has ship reinforcements

.
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

[TheDog]

Latest version 70 ready for download from 1st page 1st post

Major Changes

• New Placeholder Prologue panel
• New Placeholder introduction panel, for all nations, giving more game detail on that nation.
• Game Notes now has Game Notes + Prologue + Axis & Allies national panels to help overall game play
• Destroyer AA now 1 in 12, to hit air units, was 1 in 6 (for reference Cruiser AA is 1 in 6)
• 2 more wrong connections removed, thanks Black Elk

.
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

[TheDog]

Im trying a few things to help the AI play better, here is one variant.

But it requires the player(s) to deselect/untick options on the Map Options panel.
(As I cannot automatically test for AI players within the xml.)
However if you forget its currently not a big problem.

So if your playing Axis, open Map Options and untick Germany, Italy & Japan.
This will stop the purchase of themed reinforcement, like the Japanese Bunkers, that maybe you dont want.
Also, now again to help the AI, as it is reluctant to buy Bunkers and Factory's these are also bought on turn 4:8:12.

If playing Allies, do the same untick the Allies.
This will stop the the purchase of themed reinforcement, like the British Destroyers every turn and the USA Carrier Battle fleet every 4 turns, that maybe you dont want. Also the Factories and Bunkers.

Here is the current build 73 with updated National Introduction panels.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16HvmZYH0tVpBOU5ZJzmnd0oJ30A-_0c3/view?usp=sharing

Thoughts?

[Jason Green-Lowe]

So, kudos for developing a new map on an epic scale, obviously an enormous amount of love and work has gone into this project, and I'm really glad you are adding it to the collection!

I tried out the current build (70) playing all of the Allies against an Axis Fast AI through Germany's second turn, just to get a feel for the map and what's going on. I am not quite your target audience; I tend to prefer much smaller and simpler maps, but I've at least played World at War before and I didn't see a ton of commentary on this thread so far from anyone other than TheDog and BlackElk, so I thought maybe you would want to hear from me anyway.

Unit Roster:
With conscripts at $3 and the primary offensive units (artillery and light armor) at $7, I'm very tempted to buy almost all conscripts, or at least up to the maximum number I can place with my various types of factories. A pair of conscripts will attack with 2 pips and have 2 hit points, whereas the light armor also attacks with 2 pips and only has 1 hit point and costs more money. I realize the armor and artillery have various bonuses that can boost infantry, but it's not obvious to me that these bonuses are worth paying an extra $1 and giving up a full hit point. As Black Elk points out, the tanks often aren't even any faster because of the advantage the infantry have on railroads, and the tanks often don't actually fight at 2 because of the various terrain penalties. Yes, building a pair of infantry means I'll be losing an extra $1 per turn to upkeep compared to a single tank...but that's only while they are alive, and in this game units tend to die pretty quickly.

On defense, it seems crazy not to immediately boost every front line territory up to 2 bunkers. $5 for 2 defense and 2 renewable hitpoints with only $1 of upkeep is the by far the best defensive package in the game. It also seems crazy to build bunkers anywhere other than what you expect to be your front line. Because you can immediately lay down 2 bunkers in an empty territory, there's no reason to start construction any earlier than the turn before you expect to be invaded. Finally (on this topic), because every territory holds a max of 2 bunkers (right?) it's not possible to add extra-deep fortifications anywhere. I'm not entirely sure what the bunkers are supposed to represent or how they add to gameplay or create interesting decisions. In west/central Africa in particular, it seems like they just mean that everybody keeps the territory they start the game with; if I can only build 1 infantry per turn at a base camp, and I need something like 6 infantry to knock out 2 bunkers, then it will take me the whole game just to conquer two $1 territories, so why bother investing in a campaign there?

I like the idea of having fighters only provide 1 strength in ground combats, but I am worried that your overall design of the sea & air units means that there is no reasonable counter to submarines. It looks like light bombers can't target submarines -- I'm not sure if that means they need a destroyer present to help, or if they just can't target submarines at all. If they need a destroyer to help, that's still pretty expensive; 1 DD + 2 light bombers cost $25 and roll a total of 7 pips on offense, only some of which are first strike; 3 submarines cost $24 and roll a total of 6 pips on offense, all of which are first strike. If the DD + light bomber combo is what you're supposed to use to keep submarines in check, then there ought to be a kind of rock-paper-scissor advantage where I built the right unit so I have a relatively easy time in the battle, but instead it seems like the anti-sub units are barely keeping pace with the subs. Presumably a pack of German subs up against cruisers & transports will clean the Allies' clocks; that means that a dedicated Allied anti-sub fleet needs to be able to clean the submarines' clocks in return, or at least that's how I see it.

Territories and Sea Zones:
Mostly the map makes sense and I see what you're going for. I appreciated having the extra room to maneuver in Egypt/Libya and in Southeast Asia.

I disliked the Tibesti territory in the eastern Sahara; I think it penetrates way too far into British Sudan and gives the Axis unrealistic opportunities to strike into east Africa without first taking Egypt. Nobody had any ability to support an invasion across the Sahara that way. The Tibesti territory seems to roughly line up with the Qattara Depression, which was essentially impassible on a strategic scale. My philosophy is that it's fine if there's a couple of places to cross the Sahara somewhere between Spanish Morocco and eastern Egypt, but those places need to be carefully tailored so that they don't provide major tactical advantages. It was barely possible to get an army across the desert; there's no way the army could cross the desert and then immediately strike against five or six different enemy territories.

I was also really surprised that Sea Zone 46 (eastern New Guinea) was all connected; as I understood it, half the point of the Kokoda Trail campaign that was fought in the New Guinea mountains in 1942 was that it wasn't possible to just sail all the way around the enormous island without ruining your supply lines and hitting stiff enemy naval resistance. I would split Sea Zone 46 into a northern area and a southern area. This would also make it a bit harder for Japan to just sail right into the sea zones that contain most of Australia's money. On that note, I think New Zealand should have a $3 territory, and that the $7 territory should probably be New South Wales, not Brisbane. Sydney had something like 5 times the population of Brisbane, and it's better if Japan can't easily seize Australia's most valuable territory.

Starting Setup:
It appears to me that the setup reflects something like November 1941 -- you've got the Finns back in Vyborg, the Germans in Lithuania and Sevastopol (which technically didn't fall until June 1942, although the Axis had most of Crimea sewn up by Dec '41), the Italians in Tobruk, and the Japanese in Thailand (which was not annexed until December 1941). Meanwhile, the Soviets still hold Kursk, Smolensk, and Karelia, so we're not quite all the way to the high-water mark of the Germans' advance to the gates of Moscow.

This is all fine and I appreciate the extra novelty afforded by the way you've picked a slightly non-standard time to begin the game, but I was irritated to discover that as Russia I started the game without Leningrad -- it seems relatively easy (and correct) for the Germans to occupy it on the first turn, before Russia even moves. After Leningrad falls, I see no way for the Allies to stop the Germans from mopping up the rest of the Karelian peninsula and most likely moving on to Archangel -- the Russians can't afford to send significant forces up north because they're quickly needed for the defense of Moscow. The Russian economy is crippled by their large number of Siberian bunkers and starting infantry that have to march into position -- on turn 2, I got $0 net for the Russians to spend on new units, so pretty much the only units the Russians have available to defend are the ones they start with, I guess. Meanwhile, the Baltic Sea is a German lake, and the Germans aren't too worried about the North Sea, either -- you can see that in my saved game I stacked most of the British Navy and Royal Air Force right off the coast of England, in Sea Zone 110B, and the Germans just casually sank it on turn 2. That means Germans can easily build transports and ship in new troops directly to Leningrad, as well as building a factory there on turn 2 (do they even need to, or is it captured?) for additional reinforcements. I don't see how the entire north doesn't rapidly become German in a human vs. human game.

Another concern I had was that almost every territory that can support a factory already has one at the start of the game, which limits opportunities for industrial development and for players to make interesting decisions about where to focus their efforts. I built one light factory for the British, and the only territory I could find that would accept it was Singapore. This actually worked out OK against the AI, because they're slow to strike and have trouble prioritizing factories as targets, but against a human Japanese player, the factory would have been wasted.

The Japanese failed to take Manila on their initial strike, which meant that I was able to build new bunkers and infantry there. I'm not sure if this was a freak accident, or if it's bad planning on the AI's part, or if the Japanese need a couple more starting transports.

The Pacific Allies had literally no combat targets on their first turn, which is a little boring. I also noticed that the Dutch start with literally zero units, which seems a little too stingy to me. I realize that the ABDA command was starved for resources, but the Dutch East Indies navy should have at least one boat, and there should be a couple of infantry, at least, and maybe an early fighter at start, spread out across Indonesia.

I also thought British / Free French Africa needed a lot more in the way of starting units. They weren't all shipped in from South Africa; there were local armies being raised in Nigeria, Kenya, Congo, Sudan, and so on, plus significant forces left over in the region from the liberation of Ethiopia. It's fine if you want to weaken those forces relative to history to give the Axis a fighting chance, but there shouldn't be literally zero units between Capetown and Cairo.

Strategic Bombing:
It looks like bombing runs are most effective when you concentrate against a single target, because you then have the chance of rendering it non-operational or maybe even killing it. Even then, bombing seems relatively inefficient in terms of money -- the heavy industry costs $27 to replace, but the bombers cost $13, plus the bombers also cost $1 per turn in upkeep. If I have a stack of 8 bombers and attack your totally unguarded factory, I expect to lose a bomber to built-in flak, plus pay upkeep, so I'm down $21 and you're only down $27, and that's if I get average or above-average rolls and actually deal the 7 damage required to kill the factory. If I only damage the factory for $6 (which is a totally plausible outcome) then I'm down $21 and you're down $6.

It probably is more cost-effective to go after the lighter factories, since they take many fewer hits to kill but are only slightly less expensive. A light factory costs $16 to replace but only needs 3 hits to kill, meaning my stack of, e.g., 4 bombers is quite likely to kill it at a profit.

Interface and Graphic Design:
I like the way you've used both different symbols and different silhouettes to help distinguish the units. I had no trouble telling, e.g., artillery apart from tank destroyers, which was a pleasant surprise. The graphics in general are both functional and attractive. One exception is the base camp image, which I find to be a little too crowded. It has so many buildings on it that it doesn't visually register as "less important" than a light factory.

I really need some easier way of telling which units I can build at which factories. This could be a chart on the Notes page, or some kind of symbol that goes on the units, or maybe you could even break up the production option into different tabs on the purchase window, if TripleA will support that, e.g., instead of "All/Land/Sea/Air/Construction" you would have "All/Base Camp/Light/Medium/Heavy," something along those lines.

I also want more guidance about what the hell is the difference between precision strike, first strike, targeted strike, and so on. The battle reports are so complicated and have so many different layers that I really have no idea who shoots first or who shoots at what or why it matters. At a minimum, I would work on developing names for these different kinds of strikes that more clearly indicate what they do. "Anti-tank strike" is clear; "targeted strike" is not. Targeted against what? When? In how many rounds of combat? Ideally, I would try to combine a few of these attacks if possible. Nothing wrong with having 2 or even 3 different types of dice in the game, but ~7 seems excessive to me; whatever added value you can get from precisely specifying how the units are supposed to work is mostly lost by confusing the players about what is happening during a battle.

As far as the unit overflow you mentioned in Eastern Europe, I also see that as a problem, but I don't think you need more resolution -- I just think you need better unit placement locations. Try out the manual unit placement picker in the XML Tools on the map creation utility, and I think you'll be able to clean it up without too much trouble. Make sure to specify a reasonable zoom (e.g. 75%) when choosing placement locations.

Unit Stacking Limits & Terrain:
I think Britain probably needs the ability to build a 3rd Fleet HQ -- one for the Atlantic / North Sea, one for the Med, and one for the Indian Ocean.

Not sure what if any HQs the Pacific Allies get, but probably they should be able to build 1 Army HQ and 1 Fleet HQ.

I like that you have stacking limits per territory for various unit types, and in general I would prefer that these limits be much stricter. I think there is still too much of a tendency to form "stacks of doom" where I just ball up all my available armies into a single stack for the region and then dance that stack around your stack waiting for the right moment to strike. Rather than have to count up limits by the exact unit type, I might say something like no more than 30 land units, 20 sea units, and/or 10 air units per territory at a time at the end of a turn -- you can gather more than that as part of a battle, but then afterward anything in excess of those limits is lost or at least returned to your capital or your placement stack or something like that.

You could also consider having terrain limit how many units of which kinds can be brought into a territory. I like the idea of having terrain, even at this scale, because it makes the map much more interesting than just a series of abstractly connected numbers, but most of your terrain effects right now are a bit redundant. The difference between "no blitz" and "only move 1" is relatively minor, and 5 out of your 6 terrains are giving the same +1 defense bonus to infantry and anti-tank units. It looks like forest and urban terrain have literally identical behavior. To shake things up a bit, why not say that, e.g., air units have trouble stacking in forests, or that tanks have trouble stacking in mountains? A stricter stacking limit can also be a subtler tool than a +1 or -1 on a six-sided die, which often doubles or halves a unit's combat potential.

Disclaimer:
I realize this long post is full of complaints and criticisms, but it's meant as constructive criticism; I want to help you take a cool project as far as it can go. I only bother to comment in this much detail on a game when I like what the designer is doing. I like what you're doing, and I wish you the best of luck with it!

[Jason Green-Lowe]

2023-4-14-1941-Global-Command-Decision.tsvg

[wc_sumpton]

@thedog

On a side note. there is a 'isAI()' method, but there is no call to it. I have designed a 'checkAIPlayer()' option to call this method. It seem to work fine in my testing, but I never submitted it.

Cheers...

[TheDog]

Thanks for engaging and even better for the 'essay'

Dont worry, all your comments are taken with good intentions.

It will take awhile to digest everything and look at it as a whole, so back some time later.

Thanks again!

[TheDog]

@wc_sumpton
Does that mean currently I cant access it in 2.5?

Even if you put it in 2.6, 2.6 crashes for this map and I dont know why, as the error message is poor. if you take a look why is crashes that would be very helpful.

It crashes on G1 using FastAI, before the end of the turn.

[wc_sumpton]

@thedog
isAI() is a internal method within the TripleA engine, which cannot be accessed without a call from the xml, and no such call exist. For my own personal use I created option 'checkAIPlayer', which I use for testing and has never been submitted to upload to the engine.

If you want, I could put in the pull request, but this close to releasing 2.6, will mean that it will probably not be uploaded.

I am sorry.

Cheers...