💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread

Black_Elk

Yeah I think perhaps a cost reduction for fighter aircraft would be comparable to an attack power increase. They have a pretty high attrition rate. I think if they need to be grouped then it might make sense if they were a little cheaper, but flying hitpoints you don't really want too cheap either. I've noticed also because of the air combat thing, or just the way scrambling works perhaps, that sometimes you can kill a bunch of enemy air by taking a TT with ground forces. Or similarly sometimes AAfire from a naval battle can just wipe like half the air in a single round of combat. To me this is all fine, provided the units can be replaced as we go along. Or if more just sorta roll off the line, in the case of USSR bonus fighter or whatever hehe.

Oh also, just to elaborate on the stack limit thing. So what would happen is that, when you got a stack limit going, once a unit moves into that TT and the limit is reached then this locks out other units. So it means that the order in which the moves are made becomes consequential. Moving a tank from 1 spot, might lock another tank off, or with aircraft especially. As a player you could kinda puzzle this out, and figure out which order of movement would allow the most units to reach the most spots, but the computer would just start making moves lock itself up and then fail to move units during combat which might otherwise have been in battles. Then the same thing would repeat on Non Com, with many units just failing to move. As a player I found it hard to parse, but in part this was probably from the scale of the forces. I like the idea of a universal ceiling say 50 units or 25 or whatever, but then you deadlock over the core tiles if the player can't stack they have to just start making a secondary stack spot, so it sorta just spreads the issue around. Not sure, there might be a better solution than what we tried at first, but my impression was that it wasn't quite doing what we wanted. Ultimately the stack is still limited by maintenance. Like for USSR you can bloat out with conscripts till you're in the red, but then the units are not as effective for the maintenance. German trained infantry start eating them up on the counter attacks, so at a certain point it makes sense to go more big ticket. I just think from the start everyone is likely to spam up as many hitpoints as they can, cause that's how you usually play it safe in A&A games.

Agree I think the Baltic fleet was in the first draft. I think it kept getting smoked by German air on G1, so sorta refigured. I kinda like the idea of the Leningrad pocket with a pocket fleet. Though it probably does just get wiped all the time by Germany. I guess it'd be nice for turn 1 flavor. siege of Leningrad seems kinda tricky to model, I tend to abstract it into Germans just getting stalled after they take the TT. Maybe with USSR doing bomber hits or something to kinda demonstrate that the fighting is still going on. But I think in practical terms Leningrad gets abandoned for Arch, the way this production spread is set up and just the way the play pattern tends to go. I didn't really design the starting unit distribution, but have been giving feedback on it as a player. It's kind of fun, the push and pull has basically been I'm sorta A&A backgrounded and theDog's got this different angle, so we sorta meet in the middle somewhere, but the game is pretty fun so far. I like the suggestions you've made! I think we could get a lot going with some of the concepts the map has in place. The idea of reinforcements by theme I think is cool on the per turn basis, or every couple rounds. Adds some flare, even if like my purchasing habits are kinda settled from experience playing other tripleA games. It's fun when you get something as freebie and then gotta figure out how to make the best use of it.

ps. One thought I had, so if the idea was to have Germany sort of bypass Lengingrad, I think to pull that off you'd have to change the values of the TTs in that neighborhood. The starting factory for example makes the TT a target. If it was low value, had bunkers on it and no dude, the German player might just say, 'well not worth taking', and then you basically would have an isolated Soviet tile that the players could say was representing that stuff. I was thinking of it because of how Estonia is set up currently, where I might just bypass that tile. The bunkers cost USSR -2 PU per turn, so taking the tile isn't necessarily hurting them worse than leaving it. So basically you could do Leningrad like that maybe? Like just tweaking the production spread. Anyhow, just a thought.

Black_Elk

Also quick follow up, but my thinking regarding the starting units... since it's been pretty iterative I was looking at it more like a template that would give a likely set of turn 2 positions for the HardAI. Basically where the moves it makes set it up to do reasonably well, given the way it plays, then sorta build more historical flavor on top of that once the play pattern is producing the right sort overall push and pull.

I think for the USSR Baltic fleet basically you could do it like Kriegsmarine sz 113, Soviet Baltic Fleet sz 115, with a Russian destroyer in sz 114 to block. This gives G a consequential choice. Use the aircraft to sink the Soviet fleet or use it to pad the attack vs Lendingrad (or whatever big push attack you want to model with that.) Or pair that choice vs one where the Luftwaffe is messing with England. Right now I'd say the playpattern is a bit more A&A post revised, where G camps on Leningrad from the first turn and builds tanks there. Which is sorta not a siege, though without the springboard G would be kinda stuck up there I'd think, since the game often turns on that pocket. Probably especially here cause of where it's situated vis a vis the other factories nearby. Like it's pretty much the spot to nab for G.

This is a riff... just editing the sea zones, but something like that would probably work if the idea was to have the 2 fleets sorta pin each other, at least for the opening round. Leningrad factory could be removed as a way to weaken the German springboard. I'd probably buy the factory as G anyway, just cause it generates income, but it wouldn't be as impactful of a loss on the first turn for USSR. Might be a more likely deadzone in the early turns.

I like the idea of USA, Britain, Germany and Japan with fighters at 2, that works for me. Since there is already asymmetry in the national rosters for other stuff, like which ships they can build, to me that makes sense. I really was thinking that the fighter would just be a more versatile and entertaining unit if it could have a slight imbalance between att and def. So like where a fighter might attack at 1 but defend at 2, or a tactical bomber the inverse, so there would be more of a niche for each there. An endgame fighter maybe defends at a 3, or bomber that attacks at a 3, just to give em more room to operate solo. I think for the carrier contest as well, it would be nice to have the att/def tilt there even if at lower values like a 2. But starting at 1 seems fine to me, for the entry level air. I think probably air transports need to have that 1 too, because if the ai is buying and using them like fighter aircraft it would be nice if they were somewhat effective in that role.

I really like the idea of a starting Soviet air transport in the backfield. I feel like that unit could somehow make a clutch save if the Axis aren't careful, like flying in a blocker. Axis have the Italian can opener, but Russia doesn't have the US/UK counter, so it's sorta like Russia could use that unit probably more than anyone else. Plus it's thematic. I doubt more would get bought and the ai would just use it as attack air like it does, but for the player it'd be fun to have 1 or even 2 in case of aaguns. I like the idea that each unit that can be bought on the first turn would be represented on the board somewhere, and for Germany it's cool the new base in Smolensk. I think that will help because once you see it (even if I'm second guessing the graphic hehe) you can get a feel for what those are about. Placing an elite or mech or just the reg inf dude.

There are other spots where I think we could inject a bit of historical flavor too, on top of what's already going on.

Oh one last thought regarding the fighter costs

I would say
Fighter attack 1, defend 2, cost 10
Tactical bomber attack 2, defend 1 cost 11

The reason for the cost would because that's the cost of those units in the A&A games, so it'd be familiar. Since the bomber has the advantage on attack it's slightly more expensive, because attacker has the initiative. Makes sense that it would cost slightly more to get the edge on attack. Having the fighter defend on a 2 would also capture spirit of the classic fighter unit, which was strong on defense.

I think it would be easier for the player coming to this from that to say, "oh ok, so it's basically the fighter/tac B I know, at the cost I'm familiar with, but it's like a weaker version of that, cause hits at the 2 instead of 3 or 4." Since fighters can scramble, the defense bonus makes them more useful there, where they can at least match a cruiser even though they cost 2 PU more. With AAfire in every round of combat, the fighters will have a fair bit of attrition so the def 2 would make them more attractive to purchase I think. Or same deal for the tac on screening or deadzoning vs ground. I think the hit 1 defend 1 should go to the air transport, or the strat B, because the AI is trying to use them as attack aircraft. Or even using the d12 thing, for an ASW spotter role vs subs or something along those lines, just so it makes sense for the AI's gameplay.

Oh and the last reason I think to do fighters at 2. So currently, with default casualty selection by attack power, fighters will often be selected first even though their TUV is high and the player probably wants to conserve these units. If the player simply spacebars their casualty selection (likely because there are many confirmations per combat) they may lose a lot of fighters that way. Attack 2 would put them on the level with most m2 ground, so the casualty selection wouldn't favor the lower TUV units over the higher TUV air automatically. Least up to the att2 ground units. It'd still choose a medium tank over a fighter, but so would I, cause those units hit at 3 and can tow, so they're intrinsically way more valuable. But for like Artillery or Mech, least there the fighters wouldn't die first if their defense power was at 2 rather than a 1. Same deal with tactical bombers on attack at 2, on attacker casualty selection. Since the player probably wants to conserve the more expensive mobile units that can bomb and strike bunkers, over infantry and such, least by default. Airblitz might be different but that's more niche. I mean just for the regular combat auto casualty if hitting space.

My ideal would be actually be

Fighter attack 2, defend 3
Tactical bomber attack 3, defend 2

cause then they'd be last casualty or near last in most battles, which would match their cost/versatility. Also because that's very close to the 3/4, 3/3 split of A&A, just scaled down, so the player wouldn't have to relearn how to use their aircraft as much. It'd still be a weaker overall air unit than the traditional A&A fighter or tactical bomber, and it would face more aafire from dd/cruisers. But since there at att/def 1 currently, I'd go for a 2 for either if it's on offer, cause that's still better than a 1 heheh.

You do get a similar thing going on with Carrier decks, the low attack power will have them default to first casualty in a lot of instances, where a player might probably choose a dd or cruiser first, especially if the aircraft wouldn't otherwise have somewhere to land. Increasing the fighter to defend 2 would make carriers more useful, but it might be worth raising the carrier itself to attack/def 2, so that it doesn't fall before the dd/cruiser in the auto casualty select with the spacebar thing.

For the Armor, I think the Med and Hvy types are a lot of fun. The tow ability is quite strong, which easily makes them an attractive purchase. Lgt Armor feels rather different, perhaps also because it's transport capacity is different. I think perhaps all armor should tow (the HQ also has a tow ability), so the player can understand that as basically the units main role. This is similar to how I've seen mech used in other scenarios, but I like the ability the way you have it, since tanks are sorta the big badass ground unit. The ability to haul an extra unit would certainly make it's cost at 7 seem worthwhile. The artillery at 7 can feel pricey, but it does boost an infantry unit, and it also can be towed. Towing is powerful though. It might recommend more expensive armor. Perhaps with a tow Armor Lgt could cost 8, Medium 10, Hvy 12? Then light armor would outclass most of the other ground units that aren't themselves better versions of armor, which would probably make sense. Also since some nations only have the lgt version for most of the game.

For remainder/impulse spending current has

3 Pus: Conscript (if available)
4 Trained-Inf, Anti-Tank (baseline ground fodder)
5 Destroyer, Elite, Bunker, aaGun
6 Inf-Motorized (entry lvl m2 ground), Air transport (cheap for a transport)
7 Artillery, Lgt-Armor
8 Cruiser, Submarine
9 Base Camp, Med-Armor (big jump in power/ability over the 7 pu lgt version)
10 Transport, Bomber-Lgt
11 Fighter, HQ-fleet/sub
12 HQ-army
13 Bomber-Hvy (if available)
14 Carrier (if available)
16 Industry-Lgt
18 Battleship, HQ-air
21 Industry-Med
27 Industry-Hvy

Might try something like

3 Pus: Conscript (if available)
4 Trained-Inf, Anti-Tank, AAgun
5 Destroyer, Elite
6 Submarine (can be hit by air at some % shot?), Inf-Motorized
7 Artillery, Bunker
8 Armor-Lgt (with tow), Cruiser
9 Base Camp
10 Transport (might raise att/def, since AI often sends them solo), Fighter (D2), Armor-Med
11 Bomber-Lgt (A2), HQ-fleet/sub
12 Armor Hvy, HQ-army, Air-transport (A1/D1, since their sp transport ability is very useful, avoids AI spam)
13 Bomber-Hvy
14 Carrier (increase power to 2)
16 Industry-Lgt
18 Battleship, HQ-air (I think BB cost/value depends on production constraints. Number of air already in play for HQ)
21 Industry-Med
27 Industry-Hvy

The cost for the last few entries is sorta up in the air for me. I think because of the map design, and production income, the factories cost is offset. For battleships, since it's the only hit 4 unit and because sometimes the naval production slots are at a premium. Otherwise kinda pricey relative to the DD spam. Like 2 dds and 1 cruiser for the price of a single battleship, I'd rarely go battleship (if it was available) but sometimes the production constraints might factor there. For AirHQ the unit is only really effective with it can boost up a bunch of air, so it's like I'd buy one after I had a dozen fighters, but probably a hard buy for the player to make at 18. Especially if it gets picked off by AA fire. Part of why I think having more than 1 as a purchase option might be cool, or just having 1 at the start.

For Industry-Med I'd consider allowing the fighter and sub to be built from these spots, and then using a few more around the map. Since the medium factory is the one that builds ships I think it has a theme sorta like a naval base. Could go at Truk or Hawaii, in India, Egypt etc. Few more 5 spots would be cool. Not being able to train more advanced units from the small factory makes sense, but the Mediums I think aren't quite pulling their weight. Like I think there could probably more of those and fewer Factory-Hvys. If the Mediums could build more of the stuff like med armor and air or a stronger warship than the DD, then maybe just increase the money some other way whether through production value of the TTs themselves or just a cash generating mechanism that's more independent from the production like you did with the oil rigs or lend lease. Right now I think they're sorta built into the economy of each nation, the factories, so changing them around would change that too, but I like the idea of more spots that could build factories and perhaps fewer at the start. Like with the really big factories being more reserved for the core main spots for whatever region and the Mediums sorta fill in the gap between that and the smaller ones. Mostly in the areas that see a lot of back and forth, or which might. Like say the central Pacific or India. Pretty much anywhere becomes pretty interesting at a value of 3 pus right now, cause that spot can develop the production front. But 5 is sorta the real deal, cause that's what you need to build a ship.

wc_sumpton

@TheDog, @Black_Elk

According to the notes, "Upkeep/Maintenace, most units cost 1PU to maintain per turn." This is incorrect, and should read "Upkeep/Maintenace, most units cost 1PU which is charged during "Resources" and "Turn Complete" phases resulting in a 2PU maintenance cost per turn."

Cheers...

TheDog

Well as Winne the Pooh would say
"Oh Bother"

I said something quite different.

Err thanks, not intended, but I will change the notes.

If a unit dies in that turn from combat then it will only cost 1pu from Resources, yes?

So endTurnNoPU still charges pu from createsResourcesList ?

wc_sumpton

@thedog

Yes, thought that was understood. Part of the cleanup process. Maybe try removing endTurnNoPUs?

Cheers...

wc_sumpton

@thedog

To keep Maintenace to the beginning the upkeep charge will need to be turn on/off:

	<attachment name="conditionAttachment_Always_True" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
		<option name="switch" value="true"/>
	</attachment>

    <attachment name="triggerAttachment_Reset_PUs" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
        <option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Always_True"/>
			<option name="unitAttachmentName" value="UnitAttachment" count="unitAttachment"/>
			<option name="unitType" value="$All-Air$:$All-Sea$:$All-Move1Land$:$All-Move2Land$:Bunker"/>
<!-- "-reset-" is used to empty the list -->
<!-- the is no space between "-reset--1" -->
			<option name="unitProperty" value="createsResourcesList" count="-reset--1:PUs"/>
			<option name="when" value="before:Germany0EndTurn"/>
			<option name="when" value="before:USSR0EndTurn"/>
			<option name="when" value="before:China0EndTurn"/>
			<option name="when" value="before:Italy0EndTurn"/>
			<option name="when" value="before:Britain0EndTurn"/>
			<option name="when" value="before:Japan0EndTurn"/>
			<option name="when" value="before:USA0EndTurn"/>
			<option name="when" value="before:Pacific-Allies0EndTurn"/>
	</attachment>

    <attachment name="triggerAttachment_Set_PUs" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
        <option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Always_True"/>
			<option name="unitAttachmentName" value="UnitAttachment" count="unitAttachment"/>
			<option name="unitType" value="$All-Air$:$All-Sea$:$All-Move1Land$:$All-Move2Land$:Bunker"/>
			<option name="unitProperty" value="createsResourcesList" count="-reset-0:PUs"/>
<!-- setting to 0 after the endTurn lets the AI player know that maintenance has been paid -->
			<option name="when" value="after:Germany0EndTurn"/>
			<option name="when" value="after:USSR0EndTurn"/>
			<option name="when" value="after:China0EndTurn"/>
			<option name="when" value="after:Italy0EndTurn"/>
			<option name="when" value="after:Britain0EndTurn"/>
			<option name="when" value="after:Japan0EndTurn"/>
			<option name="when" value="after:USA0EndTurn"/>
			<option name="when" value="after:Pacific-Allies0EndTurn"/>
	</attachment>

The same will need to be done for factories, oil-rigs, and any other unit which generates a positive PU value.

Cheers...

TheDog

Very interesting and thanks for the detailed working code, double plus good
Complex but I understood it and the Biggy, catering for the AI with "-reset-0:PUs

To test what you wrote, I turned off all nations bar China gave them 500pu/turn and played as a human. Yes as you said, all charged x2 even then 500pu bonus income from the start screen.

As long as all pu is spent in the purchase/repair phase its not a problem.

However, if a player typically USA or Britain wants to not buy any units for a big spend the following turn their PU saved will be wiped out or partially used, so doing nothing is not an option.

I have two choices

Cater for charging x2 as you have detailed, including the bonus income. This is complicated to test to ensure I have covered everything.
Revert to the traditional single EndTurn per player.

For now Im going to cop out and revert to a single EndTurn per player. Which might fix the Unexpected 2.6 error.

Thanks again for the heads up.

wc_sumpton

@thedog

Here you go:

<attachment name="conditionAttachment_Always_True" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="switch" value="true"/>
</attachment>

<attachment name="triggerAttachment_Reset_PUs-1" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Always_True"/>
		<option name="unitAttachmentName" value="UnitAttachment" count="unitAttachment"/>
		<option name="unitType" value="$All-Air$:$All-Sea$:$All-Move1Land$:$All-Move2Land$:Bunker"/>
		<option name="unitProperty" value="createsResourcesList" count="-reset--1:PUs"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Germany0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:USSR0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:China0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Italy0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Britain0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Japan0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:USA0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Pacific-Allies0EndTurn"/>
</attachment>

<attachment name="triggerAttachment_Reset_PUs7" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Always_True"/>
		<option name="unitAttachmentName" value="UnitAttachment" count="unitAttachment"/>
		<option name="unitType" value="Industry-Hvy"/>
		<option name="unitProperty" value="createsResourcesList" count="-reset-7:PUs"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Germany0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:USSR0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:China0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Italy0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Britain0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Japan0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:USA0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Pacific-Allies0EndTurn"/>
</attachment>

<attachment name="triggerAttachment_Reset_PUs5" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Always_True"/>
		<option name="unitAttachmentName" value="UnitAttachment" count="unitAttachment"/>
		<option name="unitType" value="Industry-Med"/>
		<option name="unitProperty" value="createsResourcesList" count="-reset-5:PUs"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Germany0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:USSR0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:China0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Italy0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Britain0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Japan0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:USA0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Pacific-Allies0EndTurn"/>
</attachment>

<attachment name="triggerAttachment_Reset_PUs3" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Always_True"/>
		<option name="unitAttachmentName" value="UnitAttachment" count="unitAttachment"/>
		<option name="unitType" value="Industry-Lgt"/>
		<option name="unitProperty" value="createsResourcesList" count="-reset-3:PUs"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Germany0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:USSR0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:China0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Italy0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Britain0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Japan0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:USA0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Pacific-Allies0EndTurn"/>
</attachment>

<!-- Added while chasing problems can be removed -->
<attachment name="triggerAttachment_Reset_PUs2" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Always_True"/>
		<option name="unitAttachmentName" value="UnitAttachment" count="unitAttachment"/>
		<option name="unitType" value="Base-Camp"/>
		<option name="unitProperty" value="createsResourcesList" count="-reset-2:PUs"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Germany0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:USSR0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:China0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Italy0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Britain0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Japan0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:USA0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Pacific-Allies0EndTurn"/>
</attachment>

<attachment name="triggerAttachment_Reset_PUs1" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Always_True"/>
		<option name="unitAttachmentName" value="UnitAttachment" count="unitAttachment"/>
		<option name="unitType" value="Oil-Field:Lend-Lease-Depot"/>
		<option name="unitProperty" value="createsResourcesList" count="-reset-1:PUs"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Germany0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:USSR0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:China0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Italy0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Britain0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Japan0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:USA0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Pacific-Allies0EndTurn"/>
</attachment>

<!-- Only 1 trigger is needed to set to 0 -->
<attachment name="triggerAttachment_Set_PUs0" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Always_True"/>
		<option name="unitAttachmentName" value="UnitAttachment" count="unitAttachment"/>
		<option name="unitType" value="$All-Air$:$All-Sea$:$All-Move1Land$:$All-Move2Land$:Bunker:Industry-Hvy:Industry-Med:Industry-Lgt:Base-Camp:Oil-Field:Lend-Lease-Depot"/>
		<option name="unitProperty" value="createsResourcesList" count="-reset-0:PUs"/>
		<option name="when" value="after:Germany0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="after:USSR0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="after:China0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="after:Italy0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="after:Britain0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="after:Japan0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="after:USA0EndTurn"/>
		<option name="when" value="after:Pacific-Allies0EndTurn"/>
</attachment>

Watch the 'Resources' tab when testing. The number in the brackets is the expected income and should read '(+0)'.

Cheers...

TheDog

As you have done the work for me, it would be rude not to use your code.

However, do you know how to cancel the Bonus Income?

wc_sumpton

@thedog

Sorry, I don't understand your question, what do you mean by 'Bonus Income'?

Cheers...

TheDog

'Bonus Income'
This one, the right hand column. When I put 500pu against say China, it doubled, once for Resources and once endturn/Turn complete.

So how to turn one of them off. Its not a biggy because as long as the player knows, they can halve it.

wc_sumpton

@thedog

Sorry, I don't think there is anything that can be done about the double dip on 'Bonus Income'.

Cheers...

TheDog

Had a look at Pact of Steel, so I didnt think so.
Thanks for looking.

I have your code working in game, thanks again.

wc_sumpton

@thedog

How happy are you with:

   <option name="frontier" value="production_Britain_1944_2Q"/>

could be replaced by with:

   <option name="productionRule" value="production_Britain:buyCarrier-Fleet"/>

Cheers...

TheDog

It could be replaced.

At design stage I did not have a clear idea of what tech/benefits were going to fit into a year so plumbed for quarters in a year to help build the list of tech.

However using quarters in year implies 4 turns to year, initially that was the idea.

Black Elk and I were throwing ideas around that would break the historic timeline, so what were you thinking?

Using meaningful labels/prompts?

Black_Elk

That's wild, probably my fault for messing with all those income bonus ideas for the HardAI challenge hehe.

I'll admit the practical effect of maintenance cost for me, is to make it pretty hard for me to guess at the production/income totals in a given round. Like I might never even have noticed if WC didn't mention lol, cause it muddies the waters for me and just makes it kinda not worth the effort trying to figure out how much I'm going to collect or end up doling out in maintenance, until the game tells me what's what, and I see the purchase screen back up haha.

I did that quick PU place just to get the numbers somewhere more visible (out from under the bunkers and whatnot) having done so, when I see the numbers displayed I have some thoughts on the production spread...

So for me PUs are best as an abstraction, meaning I wouldn't fret overmuch about trying to make the numbers here fit any sort of real world production to scale (million man hours or whatever for a given spot, cause it never quite works anyway.) That said, I think, ballpark, we might consider some PU adjustments to provide a kinda relative weight for some TTs over others. Or simply to provide more variability in the PU numbers, not just for the play balance but the visual as well. First point would be the relative value of TTs vs the replacement cost of the cheapest fodder unit. If the entry level fodder unit for most nations is 4 PUs (Infantry-Trained) then this basically establishes your foundation. Any TT worth less than 4 PUs and you're dealing with fractions of the Infantry baseline. When the player is determining whether its worth taking a territory or not, and at what cost in TUV risked vs the potential payoff, a TT worth less than the replacement cost of a single unit is only really worth taking if you can destroy enemy TUV in the process, or not lose/expose your own TUV. Basically so that it's at least a wash, and you're not trading at disadvantage. Unless the TT is along a path you want to move anyway, the player may forego an attack to claim low value TTs, and simply bypass or wait for a juicier/lower risk target to present itself. In one sense any TT that has a value, even 1, is worth taking if you can do so at no/low cost in TUV, or no TUV exposed in the process, but I mean more like when the player is trying to decide how to allocate their hitpoints in battle to the greatest effect. How income is collected has an impact here, because if income is collected only for TTs that can be held for a full round, this makes the replacement cost thing even more pronounced. One thing to lose a 4 PU unit to take a 1 PU TT, but another if you don't even get to collect that 1 PU hehe.

I would consider the following...

Raise the production requirements for building Industry-Lgt from 3 to 5, and then raise the value of those starting factory TTs to match. This will allow you a lot more flexibility at the low end of the production spread to have many more spots worth 1-4 before you have to worry about factory spams.

Raise the production requirements for Industry-Med from 5 to 9 PUs.

At the high end consider raising the value of Industry-Hvy TTs from 9-10 PUs (which is the current ceiling) to something like 13+ PUs. This would be for highest value prestige targets, say a Washington DC, Berlin or a Tokyo. Basically so the TT values in terms of replacement cost in fodder units can go more like this...

Industry-Lgt = 1 PU over the replacement cost of x1 trained inf
Industry-Med= 1 PU over the replacement cost of x2 trained inf
Industry-Hvy= 1 pu of the replacement cost of x3 trained inf

The goal here is to get you a bit more of a spread between values, by going up in increments of 4 before you get to the next level-up in terms of production expansion capability.

Since we have many ways to adjust income independent of the production spread itself (the TT values on the map) I think this would give you more flexibility. Also, since the factories generate money over time (this is novel and I like it a lot) having those higher PU requirements to build them get's you a somewhat more even split.

When assigning the values, I'd consider having the Factory type always match the TT value. So right now there are places, particularly in central Europe, where the TT value is high enough to support an Industry-Hvy, but where we see a Industry-Med on the tile. As a player this means there is less incentive to bomb or destroy those factories, because if you do, the opponent can replace them with a more powerful version which generates more income. Sure this still comes at a cost of having to buy it in the purchase, but since the production is relatively low (only 2, 3 or 4 units placed per factory tile) that extra slot can make a big difference when mustering hitpoints. Same deal for a spot like Hawaii, which has an Industry-Lgt in the current, but where the PU value of the TT could support an Industry-Med. Basically just trying to get it so the Factory images displayed on the map at the start are a shorthand for the PU value of the TTs they're sitting on top of.

I think two things which are best when they're left highly abstract/flexible are the money and the sense of progression of time. In general I'm a little wary of timelines, or trying to break the game into years or seasons.

If you establish a timeline, then the player will expect certain things to happen in game-time, according to when they occurred in the historical war. Not just for the start date, but throughout. This can be hard to nail down, like to hit the right 'story' beats in the playpattern. I prefer it when the player can create this narrative sense for themselves, just based on what's happening on the actual board. Example, if the USA is landing in North Africa, you can say 'OK basically 1942 now" without really needing the game to tap you on the shoulder an remind you of the date. Similarly for tech, as long as it follows a kind of progression/sequence that makes sense, I'd avoid attaching a timeline to it. Since we need a way to tell the player that such and such will happen as a scripted event/unlock, I definitely prefer terminology that's as vague/adaptive as possible. The idea here is that you can always consider your endgame to be 1945, whether that end comes in round 8 or round 12 or round whatever. The player I think should have a bit of freedom to play a long game, without necessarily feeling like they're playing into the 1950s if that makes sense.

Instead, we're pretty good at playing with time and filling in the gaps, or imagining that a given year has been expanded into multiple rounds, or contracted into a single round, just depending on what's happening with the playpattern.

Anyhow, just my thoughts on that. If you can keep it kinda stretchy and loose, I think this is just more satisfying as the player. As opposed to something like round 8 = June 1944 and "why haven't you done your D-Day yet?" heheh You know what I mean. If you keep it like Las Vegas with no clock, then the player can suspend disbelief however they see fit.

Black_Elk

ps. Couple more thoughts on bunkers. So I've kind of accepted these as an abstract feature of basically every TT worth fighting over. The fact that they're so ubiquitous and easy to spawn makes me not really think of them thematically. I mean I guess fortifications cropped up all over the place and probably there were a bunch bunkers and dugouts that never actually got used. But just the way that the bunkers are scaled for the neutral TTs too, makes me think of them, not as bunkers per se, but just a sorta gameplay tool I can use to pull one over on hardAI skynet hehe. Like they're pretty good as cheap blockers, and if defended with even a couple units they can slice and dice the attacker pretty hardcore. When totally empty they're a bit easier to clear, or if you can build enough tactical bombers I guess, but bunker clearing seems to be one of the better uses for artillery and tanks. It made me think that if you had a 2 hit unit on the ground to serve as a bunker clearer, that might be kinda cool. Giving the attacker a way to scale up, and absorb the bunkers hits, might make it more feasible to use a higher than x2 bunkers per TT scheme more generally. Like I could see that as a standard use for armor. I like the tow though. A x2 hit and a tow is pretty powerful. Like they'd have to go up in cost a fair bit. Even right now Armor-Medium is quite good bang for the buck just from the tow. I think the Tank-lgt with a tow might also be fun, if it was more expensive. I don't know where exactly a 2 hit ground unit might fall for a price point, but that might be a way to get more mileage out of the bunker concept. It'd be cool if some sports might have say x3 bunkers (not just from overstacking at the start) but like to give the Atlantic Wall more of a vibe, relative to all the other places.

I think just to follow on from the above, that if the Industry-Med was capable of spawning more unit types, and pegged at that higher value, that you could get away with just having many more Mediums than Hvys, but still get a similar sort of income from production thing going. Could still save the Industry-Hvy for the most advanced heaviest hitting units to sort control their entry into play, but basically I think you could use Mediums for a lot of spots, and it might even help with the placement/fodder spam. Right now I think having a low placement works, because the factory rail and just the number of factories on the board makes it fairly easy to spawn from multiple spots and then consolidate on the following turn, with some flexibility there. I like how this makes landings a bit more challenging, like particularly for Italy or France, where Axis can clap back. Or how the USSR can muster a bunch of units together pretty quickly from the backfield. Still I think perhaps at 3 place, you could scale down the overall numbers, and still have something pretty similar going on.

I still worry that being able to nix a factory from the air is too OP. I think it does have some satisfaction in the solo play though. Like it provides some fun trying to decide whether to blast the factory to try and prevent a counter attack across m3. Or just the satisfaction of blasting a factory into the dirt. Or the choice between doing that or trying to take it over, which is always better, though also kinda OP hehe. I don't know, I'm sorta 50/50 there, cause I kinda dig it the way it works, but I can see potential issues when the bombers just go nuts and scale up. I think the idea to give the HardAI factories as freebies so they replace would be a decent work around. Like still allows some of the same satisfaction and purpose to the bombing (even if aa fire attrition can be ugly) the mobility thing or being able to shut that down is so major, or to deny a place for a turn. Anyway, thought would be that if more spots were Medium capable, you could probably have a spawn for Industry-Med or Industry-Lgt as well as the Hvy, basically so they're always trying to build out their production fronts whenever they take over and hold a spot that meets the requirements. Sometimes I've seen the AI buy a base, and then I think they might lock themselves out of the production for a factory, which could sometimes be a problem, but probably if they had say a light factory they'd place that first maybe before dropping a base camp. Anyhow just, a few more thoughts.

Overall I dig those last adjustments. Eastern front felt a lot more entertaining to me, and China. I like the play in Africa and the Med as well, which feels pretty fun. I like how it's challenging for the Allies to get enough production going to make a push on Italy, and that a whiffed amphibious can sorta stall that front. Going 100% vs Italy, I think USA and UK can probably crush Italy reliably, but that seems thematic so it's ok for me. A lot comes down to Gibraltar and Suez control, which the AI struggles a bit to master. I think Italy if anything could probably use some sort of spawn that supports the Regia Marina to keep them a credible threat, but they are pretty effective when they spawn heavy ground too. I kinda like how the factories are clustered, like I'd keep the same thing going, but maybe just with a few more mediums rather than hvys as sorta the default standard.

Last though would be on sz 46. I was going to split but I hesitated, first cause I was lazy, but also cause I knew it would mean reworking a lot of sea zone connections there (since the sz borders 9 other tiles.) Right now I think it probably is a bit OP, and perhaps a bit too easy for Japan to get the edge. I can't recall I think we had drafts with many more spots in the pacific and that might have been one. The upside I can see though, would be that it makes the spot more attractive for Japan to go that route. Like whereas, if Japan doesn't have a sorta gamey way to get on New Guinea or Australia early, I think default would have them just always going Sumatra/India center convergence. So the ability to camp off New Guinea or feed into it from Truk does give a little reason for Japan to play forward. Maybe try to actually take out Australia and then double back for the mop up, or play vs USA for keeps (like more in an AI game probably.) Anyhow, I definitely see the rationale to wanting more room there. Perhaps a bit of that flavor could also be handled with the production spread though. I don't know perhaps two competing Industry lgts. I think the scale/size of the likely USN and IJN armadas gives some charm to having a couple kind OP larger-than-life sea zones for the coral sea face off. I don't know, but I do enjoy it having a little production going down in the central Pacific. Something we don't usually get, but an idea I always thought would be fun. These would be some of the TTs that I'd highball like making them in that 1-4 range, I think you do more 3s and 4s for the island chains, just to give the extra incentive to clear some places. Say an Iwo or a Saipan or a Guadalcanal. Like those spots could be 3 or 4 and I wouldn't bat an eye really, provided it gives Japan and USA/Pacific Allies a reason to contest them hehe.

OK probably enough rambles for the week. Been having fun though! I got an Axis game going right now that I'm enjoying quite a lot. It's fun to paint the map with marching armies! Good times

Catch you guys next round

oh also, this is the Axis opener I was trying for in the combat move (non-coms already committed just to show the idea). Thought was to Strafe Tula, take everywhere else, esp Kursk to block to the rail counter. Then just kinda stack up Bryansk with bunkers, and bunker block to hold the soviet armor from punching through Ukraine. Idea for the Western Desert was to give Italy a hit on Cairo for their first turn, to try and trap the fleet. Kinda low cost high reward, could send a second mech but I just htought keep it dicey, bunker up in Libya hehe. For the Western fighters and Kriegsmarine basically calling the subs home and throwing a dd picket forward. Try to set up an exchange and then kill the USSR or British fleet with aircraft. Seemed like an alright plan. We'll have to see how it pans out.
2023-4-24-1941-Global-Command-Decision G1 Tula strafe.tsvg

2023-4-24-1941-Global-Command-Decision G1 Tula strafe place.tsvg

TheDog

@Jason-Green-Lowe
Tooltips
Check the tool tips of each unit that you are unsure of what its function is, my tip/help is preceded with a dash. eg.

Medium Industrial Complex can produce 3 units per turn
Produces 5pu/turn
has own Anti-Air defence
Rail links to move units 3 territories
When captured suffers 2 Raid Damage
Can produce Destroyer, Transport, Fighter-Early
Can produce Inf-Conscript, Inf-Trained, Inf-Motorized, Armor-Lgt, Artillery, Bunker

As the 'Factory' capabilities are listed and what the 'targeted' attacks will attack.

.
Conscript spamming for the USSR and China are valid tactics, it is what the game is designed to do.

Bunker as they cost 1pu/turn for upkeep, they are a drain on your PU resources if the TT is not under threat. Again a valid tactic for the USSR and China and to a lesser extent other nations.
Bunkers are dug in infantry/garrison infantry, see Tooltips.

Armour. Can also tow/carry slower units (I have expanded the next release tooltips, thanks)

Submarines
Currently Air cannot target submarines, but in the next release Bomber-Lgt will be able to target subs.
Currently only Transport (they are Convoys & include Frigates & Corvettes) & Destroyers can attack Submarines. Again see tooltips

Territories
"..., and that the $7 territory should probably be New South Wales, not Brisbane"
Black Elk has also suggested the same. My original problem was the SZ cut just in the wrong place for the West coast Heavy industry and ship building was nearer to Brisbane TT.
So as you both say the same and the SZ is a bit iffy, I will switch the PU values in the next release.

Setup
After your comments re Bunkers, a lot of the maps major nations 2x Bunkers are now 1x Bunkers, to give the players more PU to spend.

Thanks for the feedback.

wc_sumpton

@thedog @Black_Elk

Some thoughts:
Map:
The war started in mid '39 (Sept. 1), while '41 GCD begins in mid, to late '41. I was thinking that borders, 'territoryOwner' under initialize or 'originalOwner' under attachments, should be rolled back to '39, with the captured territories belonging to "Neturals".
This would allow for a more flexible timeline for 'cheap' Kamikaze, Conscript type units. i.e. If Japan is wining, why introduce Kamikaze planes, but if they are getting kicked hard, why should they be made to wait. Same for USSR if they are winning, they shouldn't be able to purchase cheap fodder units. Also allow Germany and Italy to purchase conscripts if they are being beaten up.
Units:
Speaking of 'Inf-Conscript', all offensive support should be removed (Tank, Artillery). These unit are un-trained, cheap defensive units, so should maintain their defense support.
Remove 'Flak' from 'Inf-Trained'. Shoulder fired Anti-Air weapons was not very common. Could be replaced with 'Precision' mortar type attack. Also 'Inf-Elite' could be given some type of 'Anti-Tank' attack. Or create 'Inf-Mortat', 'Inf-Anti-Tank'.
Speaking of new units 'Inf-Gunner', 1-3-1 which gives 1:1 defensive support to Infantry units. (Machine Gun nest were very hard to remove)

wc_sumpton

@thedog, @Black_Elk

Unit Support:
I would use a commonality to support. i.e. Instead of 'Command-Air', 'Command-Fleet', just use 'Command', this way when two HQ units are together, their support is more spread out, unless of course the idea is for some unit to receive compounded support while other may receive none.

Also breakdown offensive/defensive support. Artillery should just give offensive support. Armor units on the other hand should only give defensive support. When attacking, armor units are in front or infantry, clearing the way, not behind.
There should be two types of fighters, air superiority (Fighter, P 51 Mustang, Fighter Jet) and ground support (bomber-lgt). The bomber-lgt should be able to support attacking tanks at 1:1, but its 'Dog Fight' airAttack, airDefense should be at the very weakest, 1s across the board.
Bombers (Bomber, Nuclear-Bomber) should have some type of airAttack. This is the value used during SBR, when the units is intercepted, and no airDefense (I would never use a bomber to intercept). And maybe even some offensive 'Dog Fight' capabilities, or AAstrength, offensive support 1:1 to air superiority units.