💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread

[wc_sumpton]

@TheDog, @Black_Elk

Question about order of battle. On the European side Germany goes first, as the major aggressor, this is good. Which is followed by USSR, and the British, with Italy stuck between them as support for Germany.

On the Pacific side, China goes first, forcing Japan, which should be the Pacific's side major aggressor, to defending and countering. Japan should go first. China can do very little to aid USA or the Pacific-Allies. So even if it looks lopsided, 3 allied players going together, I think it plays out fairer for the Japanese.

Sometime, while testing and playing as the 'British', I receive the notice: "Britain and their allies are close to victory what shall we do?" on the first turn.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

OK so I threw this together for the territories that have a terrain effect going on. I reduced the icons to 36px so they would display around the size of the VC star. Just tried to keep them all sorta near the top of the tiles, trying to dance around the current place and pu_place where I could. It's not prescriptive, I just put down what was already there so it would be easier to parse at a glance. I did these on a separate layer so it would be easier to make adjustments or substitutions.

Here they are isolated on a transparency layer at the same dimensions as the map, but just by themselves...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xqab13jcimkuf0y/terrain_icon36px_layer.png?dl=0

Here they are added to the relief...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/x4doyrbu047y0mx/relief_map_sz_bw_with_terrain_icons.png?dl=0

Looks like this...

To move em around you can just cut/paste and drag, then merge the layer with the relief image. For a visual, this would probably be cool to have as toggle where the player can option them on/off via a skin. Probably would make sense to display the pu_place directly below them or something along those lines, but just wanted to get stuff laid down.

Couple thoughts suggestions... Right now there are some gaps (Eastern Front, Coastal France, North Africa, Central Asia etc) where there are only a couple TTs that have terrain effect, and other regions (Central Europe, the Americas, West Africa, Southeast Asia etc) where there are many terrain effect TTs concentrated together. Might make sense to add a few more to kinda fill out those areas. Some effects like Marsh and Desert have only a few active tiles, others like Forest, Urban have many tiles. I think you could add some desert spots for the Gobi and many tiles in the Mid-East or North Africa. Marsh is more complicated cause the effect is very extreme, but probably anywhere at a low elevation with a river mouth flood plane could work maybe? Perhaps some of the jungle/forest spots you have might get switched out for marsh for variety. Urban is probably the most abstract, and there are quite a few, so that might be another way to mix it up. Right now they seem to be pretty much everywhere that starts with an Industry-Hvy, though I did spot a couple exceptions. For neutral TTs there are some regions that have a quite a few, but I think these tiles would be mostly inactive so might be worth considering how they are distributed. I think for a neutral TT to enter play, that'd be fine, but there's not much incentive if the TTs have no or low values. I don't know how the terrain effects play with just the bunkers (no standing army to complement them), but if there's a malus to the attacker that's a pretty strong disincentive. With large enough armies during the endgame even 9 bunkers could probably be overcome, like if players are cruising around with 20 tanks or whatever hehe. I'd say for neutrals, if we want them in play, might make sense to fiddle with the forces/PU values or some areas. I've seen the AI go after them on occasion, though pretty rarely, which seems fine, but some spots are much more attractive. like Konduz, since they can open up a front. So might make sense to add something there. Another option might be to just give every tile a terrain effect, though in that case I'd maybe consider dialing down the effect to be less pronounced. I still think movement restrictions have a much greater impact than att/def adjustments by unit type. As I recall, Forest was the default initially, so there might be some holdovers there? Many of the pacific islands have forest in the current. I wasn't sure, so just put down everything I saw that was there. I figure it'd be easier to swap or delete where needed once you got a visual going.

Oh and here are the icons shrunk down to 36.

I agree about the Japanese turn order. I would say switching the position of Pacific Allies and China in the turn order sequence would probably be the best approach. Even if it messes up the current balance. Having USSR control Pacific Allies and USA control China I think would be largely similar. It would probably be more entertaining for the USSR player as well, since then they could have a little naval play going on during their turn block. Pacific Allies would present a different challenge for the team, but they would be more useful in a can opening role with that sort of sequence.

Oh one last thing I caught, there is a land connection between Corregidor and Manila-Luzon in the current which probably should be removed for consistency with other spots in the neighborhood.

Anyhow, hopefully it helps. Let me know if I missed anything, or if you want to make a tweak somewhere.

Catch ya next round!

[wc_sumpton]

@TheDog, @Black_Elk

This is a static Anti-Aircraft gun:

But the code indicates that it can move 2 spaces, and be used on offence. Saying that a crew can pack-up, carry farther then they can move unburden, set it up and fire!! Give every infantry crew one to carry!! LoL

Just some laughter!!

Cheers...

[TheDog]

@wc_sumpton
That took longer than expected, 8 hours plus to convert the tech, have conscripts etc.
Seriously though its my ideal form of tech advancement.

Now for testing.

Also changed the nation turn order, swapped China and Pacific-Allies.

wc_sumpton said
I receive the notice: "Britain and their allies are close to victory what shall we do?" on the first turn.
You probably took Benghazi, this notification is because we have starting VCs of
19 Allied VC
10 Axis VC
with warnings of impending victory at 20 VC and
Total Victory at 21 VC

Its a known issue, because I wanted to keep the Total Victory the same for both sides and as low as possible. Ideally we should remove 1 Allied VC ?

.
Territory Terrain @Black_Elk
Yes the starting default terrain was forest, it should have been blank/none.

Defining a territories terrain is difficult as it should be 51%+ of that TT terrain or have a significant feature like a capital/Industrial area/Built up Area making it Urban, in short it is very subjective, so I'm happy to make changes, especially if you are from/visited that country.

I will add your terrain reliefTile.png as a Map skin then players can swap between the current and the new one with a mouse click, in the next release. So if you want to change it, do it soon.

Connection between Corregidor and Manila-Luzon removed.

[TheDog]

@wc_sumpton
Re AA gun, for an American your humour is very British.

The AA move 2, was before I decided to have Railways, move 3, linked to Industry. My thinking was that AA requires a prime mover so 2 seems fair, once placed they rarely move and it was also an attempt to the AI to buy them, as they have to 5pu+ so they are not classed as fodder by the AI. Even so, the AI still does not buy them.

[wc_sumpton]

@thedog

With 1940 Europe/Pacific rules, allowing factories to have AA capabilities, the unit becomes worthless. A towed of self-propelled version would not be able to hit high flying targets. And with almost every unit here having AA capabilities to hit those low flying targets, they seem even more worthless.

So... hemm...

Cheers...

[TheDog]

@wc_sumpton @Black_Elk
Im happy to remove the AA gun?

• It will also make the Purchase screen one less.
• Every Factory has AA.

It is a counter to Bombers, but Fighter is an even better counter, but dearer ...

[wc_sumpton]

@thedog

Bomber do not attack Base-Camp or Bunkers, their attack value is "0", their airAttack value is 0, they have no AA attack against other air units. The only thing they can do is SBR a factory and factories have their own AA. So it counters a bomber doing what? Shooting spit-wads...

LoL AA and Bomber who need them.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

Yeah I wouldn't mind if you wanted to ditch the AAgun. In my view it is the least compelling unit in the roster and kinda more trouble than it's worth. In the standard games it's a very cumbersome and also a very swingy unit. I think a more interesting design might have been an AAgun that is more reliable, but which prevents the SBR damage rather than destroying the bomber. Sadly if they're good enough to reliably destroy the aircraft, they tend to just shut down bombing altogether, which isn't really what we want I don't think hehe. Currently the graphics show German 88s for everyone, since that was the default AAgun image, but it's a little wonk to see everyone rocking German flak (even if the designs are largely similar.) I think the only way to make an AAgun useful in A&A games is if they are "always on" during the Combat move phase, meaning that the player must face a shot if trying to fly over a TT that houses an AAgun. Done that way they can at least block certain air transits, since nobody wants to face AAfire if they can avoid it, but otherwise it's a hard sell during purchase. I think a more nuanced air-superiority/dogfight phase preceding normal combat would be more engaging than rolling for Flak, so if anything I might just build something like that into standard air battles.

Right on. Kinda what I figured regarding the terrain. I can give it a once over tomorrow. I think what you got going is pretty good, so I'd probably just add a few more rather than remove.

For VCs I'd lean in the direction of adding more rather than subtracting, since that gives more opportunities for a hail Mary save hehe. But if looking to remove one from Allies I guess I'd just ditch whichever is least likely to be contested in normal play, which would probably be Ottawa or Washington DC. As a game resolution mechanism, VCs work well in PvP games where the spread is narrow, but I think the VC win is somewhat less satisfying in a Solo game where the TKO can often feel premature. Even if the AI can be made to target the VCs, they still wouldn't go for the all-in 'do or die' approach that the human player would, since it really doesn't understand the win/loss in those terms. I think the endgame in Solo play is often quite enjoyable, since you get to do things you wouldn't normally get to do, like a late game Sea Lion or Invading the USA as Axis, or the satisfaction of stomping Berlin or Tokyo as Allies, but once the game is called by VC that sorta loses it's luster.

I think this might recommend different VC Win conditions for Solo play, perhaps with a different split by sides. For example under the current with 29 VCs, total victory at 25 for Axis would mean taking London or one of the North American VCs, which could be pretty challenging, even after Russia is destroyed. An Allied total victory at 28 would mean taking Berlin or Tokyo. Even then though, I think it would be cool to find victory system that allows the underdog to pull out a win from behind somehow. Like where an 'honorable victory' can be achieved, even if that side is objectively toast, which you can't really get from the VC or Economic Victory. Like once the underdog falls below a certain threshold, recovery there is probably impossible, especially absent a cash/capture thing going on. I think this one is more likely to progress a bit like the actual war, where the ultimate Victory is pretty much a foregone conclusion well in advance of the actual unconditional surrenders, but that doesn't mean we can't find a way to hang the laurels a little differently. I think for Axis, a plausible Victory could be achieved by just foot dragging and forcing a stalemate. Like to me that's a bit easier to imagine from a realism standpoint than Jackboots marching up the Potomac, or the Sun Rising over San Francisco. In either case, Axis are unlikely to get into that sort of position if they've already lost control of 19 or 20 VCs heheh. So again sorta like waiting for the other shoe to drop once you're into the midgame, if it's already basically in the bag. The tech advance or unlocks like conscripts could be cool for that, to forestall the sense of inevitability, or like WC mentioned mainly as a way to give the underdog a leg up. But even with crazy weapons like the Nuke, it'd still be pretty hard to mount a late game turn around and convert that into a route. Even though I said before that it was cool to have a flexible timeline so the player can control the narrative, another option might be sudden death in round 20, where as long as you can stay alive you might still have a chance to prevail (obviously with a better chance if you're already winning at that point, but still a chance even if your backs against the wall). But I'm not really sure what that might look like in practical terms.

[wc_sumpton]

@TheDog, @Black_Elk

Very insightful, @Black_Elk. To continue the discussion on Bombers vs Factories. The factories AA is limited to 2 shots, so if more then 2 bombers attack, it's more or less going to get hit (-1 on 3 means all could miss). AAguns can't help, their SBR defense value is false. And even though factories can fire their AA for multiple rounds, SBR is only one round, and factory AA can't be used for normal combat (that is set to false on factories). I watched the British AI player pound on Germany's factories. Between upkeep cost, and repair cost Germany was being hurt bad.

So there is a strange play dynamic. Question is, is that what is wanted?

Losing is not losing? I'm don't like "stalemate" rules (I also don't like to lose either). When your losing, you don't have the funds to fight back. So I like the idea of introducing cheaper units. Here you have the Inf-Conscripts, there is also the Armor-Lgt, and Fighter-Early. There could be introduced Destroyer-Lgt, Mini-Submarine, and even a Transport-Lgt (3 TransportCapacity instead of 5). The problem leis in trying to figure out when a player would benefit from such options. PUs can't be checked. Factories could be count to gauge production. That was why I was talking about rolling a player's borders back to 1939, then you could get a better feeling about where a player stands.

Ah well... More food for thought.

Cheers...

P.S. Beginning to feel like @Black_Elk!! ;}

[wc_sumpton]

@TheDog, @Black_Elk

I'm trying to find the reason why '41 GCD will not run in 2.6+. I think the problem centers around 'Bomber-Lgt'. In trying to correct this, I've been going through all the unit attachments, and how they interact with each other.

Artillery 2/2/1 7PUs 1:6 vs Bunker & Base-Camp 1:1 all infantry
Anti-Tank 1/1/1 4PUs 1:6 vs movement 2 units n/a
Anti-Air 0/0/2 1 5PUs 1:6 vs all air units n/a

All unit can move during combatMovement, and all units should be considered towed (isInfantry).

The question here is should these units be treated as Inf-Trained plus 1/2/1 7PUs, and receive all buffs as Inf-Trained? They would receive +1 attack from artillery, +1 attack/defense from HQ-Army and +1 defense from some territory effects (the same one that give the defense bonus to All-Infantry). Territory effects do not hamper a unit's special ability (AA attacks), maybe they should, so there should be no -1 attack. Support can buff AA attacks, so HQ-Army could increase these units special abilities on both offence/defense.

If these unit are to be considered support with no Inf-Trained, then they should be 0/0/1 3PUs and only receive HQ-Army's AA buffs.

The Anti-Air unit can still be treated as static unit, cannot move during combat movement, but can still be treated like the other towed units.

These are just some thoughts.

Cheers...

[wc_sumpton]

@TheDog, @Black_Elk

Something to check out:
1941_global_command_decision.xml
Check unitAttachment and unitSupportAttachment. This will also run on 2.6+ (Bomber-Lgt).

Cheers...

[TheDog]

Interesting.
So Im getting an error but its not crashing on 2.6.14330 & v 2.6+14264

These are the two versions of 2.6 currently on my PC, did you get the same error?
What version did you test with?

I take it the rest of the code are your ideas for your version of this map?
(If so subtle as a brick to the head, made me smile.)

Although the supportAttachment is commented out, combined with the unitAttachment it looks as if you have covered what I was trying to do. I will have to have a closer inspection.

[wc_sumpton]

@thedog

A lot of them I know, the error that is. Did get them on 2.5, but now not as much. Still get the one about Air battle. It going to take some tracking down.

Sorry about doing so much, but as I covered one problem, I then went for the next, etc... etc... Still digging!!

As you can see, the Bomber_Lgt uses the Dog Fight AA. It normal stats start at 2/2/4 can receive a buff form HQ-Air to 3/3/4 plus another buff form Armor or Fighters to 4/3/4 max so I think it's a good compromise until someone figures out why Air AA attacks cannot target land or sea units.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

Hehe it's catching

That would be awesome if we somehow got to the bottom of the 2.6 mystery! I had noticed in 2.5 a few errors that might have been from the Bomber-lgt maybe. I remembered it saying something about preceding air battles but didn't seem to crash out just kinda clicked into the next battle, usually on the HardAIs turn if there was a scramble option I think. All the code is a big mystery to me, thankfully you guys are around! But I dig the ideas and general thrust, which I'm sure I could get behind from the player's perspective once the nuts and bolts are in place. I'm just kinda riding shotgun for most of the unit stuff, with theDog on point for the big calls, but I get a kick out of diving in on each iteration. I enjoyed the last build as Axis which felt pretty epic. I tried setting the Total VC win for Axis to 25 and it got pretty intense. I did London and then Panama for the clincher, kept it going till the nukes started flying. They sank our first expeditionary force by lighting up the Bermuda triangle with Atomic power. My German armada blipped out of existence like the Philadelphia experiment, but Italy came through in the clutch hehe.

[TheDog]

With wc_sumpton fab detective work I have decided to make this map 2.6 compatible.

This will take me sometime for a release, but it will play faster than 2.5 so I think its worth it.

Bomber-Lgt, Artillery and Anti-Tank need to be reworked and then a rebalance.

[Black_Elk]

Right on!

One thought I had, since it was mentioned how the base camp is currently impervious to bombing. If base camps were the only way that infantry units could be mobilized in the game, then these could be a method for controlling the overall number of inf units in play, but also ensuring that there is always at least some way to spawn infantry. If the base camp was capturable infrastructure perhaps it could be given a very high TUV value and used to draw the HardAI towards defending/attacking certain tiles that house them? Or the VC could be handled like that representing major population centers. They could be removed from the purchase menu and just placed in a more controlled way. Anyway idea being that you could have both a Factory and a Base Camp/VC/Inf spawn. The factory can be completely destroyed, but not the Inf spawn points which are more permanent. I think you'd still have a strong incentive to bomb in that case, to remove the movement rail bonus or prevent the mobilization of more advanced units like tanks or aircraft or warships, but the flow of regular infantry would be kinda more constant/controlled. That way when a player unlocks something like a cheaper conscript, the impact could be more pronounced, by allowing those units to go over whatever the regular placement caps might be. Bit different from what we got going now, which I do enjoy, but I always thought that'd be a cool way to do VCs, so I can see a way it might work here. I really like the concept of tying the VC to money/production or unit spawning somehow, so that controlling more of them has a real gameplay consequence beyond just TKO. I think this would reinforce the idea of a win by VC, not as a technicality but more like, just by the numbers, that controlling X number of VCs would make the Win sorta obvious. Basically the same way capital capture works in Vanilla A&A as a resolution mechanism, but scaled down. Another thought, not involving bases but along those lines would be something like a bonus infusion of cash when a VC threshold is crossed. If the goal is to resolve the game, that bonus might go to the side controlling the VC count, if the goal is to extend the game or do a sudden death type win, perhaps the bonus goes to the side that's losing? like as their last ditch? Could work either way maybe. I don't know but just something I was kicking around., so thought I'd float it. I just started a new game as Allies since I know the next version will probably take a minute. Having fun so far!

Nice work!

[TheDog]

I can fix Base Camps.

[wc_sumpton]

@TheDog, @Black_Elk

Cracked it!! Deals with "canNotTarget" and land units. "isSea" and "isAir" are false. Created error in GitHub Error with "canNotTarget" #11617

Cheers...

[TheDog]

Excellent news !!!

So its just a warning error.

2.5 also has warning errors, so I will continue to convert this map for both 2.5 and 2.6