💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread

[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

[Black_Elk]

Aces! Nice work!

Also back on the subject of how to model Japanese aggression on the Pacific side... I think Rabaul, Solomon Islands, and Midway could be higher value as a way to draw the Japanese that direction. I think on J1 it'd be cool if Japan could attack Wake, Guam, Philippines, Malaya and the Dutch territories simultaneously, and that on J2 they'd have a kind of natural way to set up on shop in Rabaul and try for Guadalcanal or Midway and such.

For Sumatra, Borneo, Celebes it'd be cool if these were relatively simple for Japan to take and hold on J1/2, so that the focus can go to the islands in the South and Central Pacific where major fighting occurred after 1941. I think the way to model that is to inflate the value of those TTs relative to the stuff that's right on top of Coastal China/India where Japan tends to want to concentrate and shuck. As it stands, for me an island worth 1 or 2 PUs with a starting bunker isn't really worth defending as Japan, since the value of the island would be less than the replacement cost of an infantry unit to hold it. Taking an enemy island worth 1-2 PUs that has a starting bunker on it is sort of a wash too. You get the +1 income, but at a likely loss of 4 or more TUV in the process of capturing, and then you are also freeing up 1 PU from the opponent's maintenance. If the island is occupied with a combat unit however, this calculus changes, because it's always desirable to destroy enemy TUV that might move against you later. But I think to really get the ball rolling, the PU values here need to be somewhat inflated as a bait. Any spot capable of production will be contested, so whatever that threshold is, if it's 3 say PU to build a Factory-Lgt at the floor, I'd consider raising spots to that value. Like if the desire is to have both sides fighting over those spot. Otherwise I think the player would just cede those spots to focus on the higher value TTs that are closer to their production core. I don't think they need a factory at the outset, but if one can be built, then that spot is going to shape the playpattern a lot more.

Rabaul, Guadalcanal, Batavia, Midway, Iwo Jima, Okinawa etc would then be able to compete with Sumatra/India/East Africa in drawing Japanese attention. Absent a pretty big carrot to head East across the Pacific, I think center convergence is just too compelling for the IJN to ignore and they'll go after India. Or they'll just shuck troops from Japan into China, since that's the most efficient use of transports and pretty solid bang for the buck.

Perhaps if more of those starting transports were further afield, Truk, Saipan, Marshall islands, with some starting units ready to roll (like what you did for the Iwo force) then they might be used for the J1/2 sprawl. But if they're concentrated by the home islands or coastal China, it's harder to justify putting them out of position, since that's kinda already where they want to be anyway. sz 19 A is the best position for the focused and consistent shuck.

With 10 transports together Japan can currently shuck 19 hitpoints per turn into Port Arthur or Shanghai and then launch m3 across China from that position, which is quite strong. I might consider reducing the production value of Hokkaido, Shikoku and Kyushu since these are true islands and much more vulnerable to the American press if the USN overtakes the IJN around the Japanese home islands. Like when Japan has to split their defense to cover all the high value tiles across 3 sea zones, unless they are pre-stacked, once one of those islands spots is taken and the Allies can spawn warships right on the doorstep, Japan is basically toast. The HardAI seems less inclined to camp with an armada or screen with aircraft than a player would, so they'd probably still buckle under pressure, but easier for them to hold the core connected Tiles than the hanging islands. Another option would be to shift one of those Industry Hvys or Med to Okinawa, Mukden or Shanghai so the IJN can place ships into sz 19 A, which would give a fall back if they're pressured out of sz 6 a/b/c. I think I'd go Okinawa, because then USA would want to target that spot before just slamming into Coastal China, or going after Hokkaido or Indochina. As the USA the goal is kinda always to shorten the logistics by establishing production somewhere closer to the Japanese heartland, basically to do the same sort of shucks that Japan likes to do, but in reverse heheh.

On the Europe side things feel pretty good. Like it's got the right vibe for the period there I think in terms of the lilly pads, but on the Pacific side I think Japan needs a way/incentive to go forward vs USA and Pacific Allies. Changing the turn order will likely help, but I'd also try to make it so that Japan can't be thwarted by British or Pacific Allies DD blockers on J1. Currently Pacific Allies starts pretty light, so that's why I think it will probably be fine if they go first. Like they won't be slamming Japan super hard anywhere. Long as they can't hamstring Japan on the opening turn with there ships.
Anyhow, just some ideas for the next out.

This was my last game at 10 rounds. Fun stuff! I had a blast

2023-5-2-1941-Global-Command-Decision vs AI Axis USSR round 10.tsvg

[Jason Green-Lowe]

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

Perhaps if more of those starting transports were further afield, Truk, Saipan, Marshall islands, with some starting units ready to roll

I think this is the key insight -- historically, Japan did invest the majority of its ground forces (~75%) in the Chinese theater, with most of the remainder going to Burma and India. However, if Japan starts with some units representing the Special Naval Landing Forces in the central or southern Pacific where they can more easily reach places like Midway and Rabaul than the Chinese coast, then that will probably encourage the AI to at least make some investment in island hopping.

I think it also makes sense to make sure that at least one Japanese island in the south/central Pacific has a factory and is closer to island targets than to the coast. Right, like if Truk has a factory then probably the units that get built on Truk can/will be shipped to New Guinea rather than Shanghai. Obviously Truk itself was not a zone of industrial production, but it was an incredibly important staging point from which Japanese offensive operations tended to be launched, so it's not unreasonable to call it a factory. You'd also have to check the total Japanese production slots and compare them to the total Japanese economy to make sure that the AI will feel pressured to use the Truk factory; if they can spend their whole treasury on the Japanese home islands, then it doesn't necessarily matter what you put in Truk. Just my two cents.

[wc_sumpton]

@TheDog, @Black_Elk

Update on further testing: Using version 2.5 I was unable to find any errors. I let the game play out until round 15 and neither 'select casualties' or 'air battle' messages showed. Using 2.6 the 'select casualties' message show. once minimized, not closed, it no longer interfered with the game. Reveiwing the triplea.log showed that the error was still being produced but was being ignored. Also, there was no entry for the 'air battle' message.

Inconclusion, 2.5 ran very well. 2.6, once the message screen was minimized, also ran very well.

Congrats gentlemen. Your map seems well on its way to publication!

Cheers...