💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread
-
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...
-
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.
-
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!! ;}
-
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 0/0/21 5PUs 1:6 vs all air units n/aAll 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...
-
Something to check out:
1941_global_command_decision.xml
Check unitAttachment and unitSupportAttachment. This will also run on 2.6+ (Bomber-Lgt).Cheers...
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
I can fix Base Camps.
-
Cracked it!! Deals with "canNotTarget" and land units. "isSea" and "isAir" are false. Created error in GitHub Error with "canNotTarget" #11617
Cheers...
-
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
-
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
-
@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.
-
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...
-
That's so rad! Fantastic! Thanks man
Also for the Truk stuff, I agree that's how I tend to think of PU value, where the 'production unit' is more like production being expended or committed to a region, as opposed to like production being extracted from it, if that makes sense. But I also think it's cool to have a balance between what happened and 'what if' flexibility, that acknowledges some spots being populous or industrialized and just having a base value a bit higher for those cores, but for the peripheral spots I think if those get juiced up it allows for more action around the named spots that ring a bell in popular history (mostly from movies probably hehe.) Another abstraction that I like, is the idea that combat units might also represent different things depending on what narrative might make sense. So like maybe early forays by British units landing in France or the Low Countries could be seen as supporting resistance movements. Maybe the infantry unit is an OSS agent, and the artillery piece is their handler, or you know stuff like that. Basically so the player can justify some of things that are happening on the gameboard in different ways. For the timeline from the players perspective, I like that idea that the opening turn is the start date, and the first 3 or 4 turns catch you up to 1942, Axis sprawl. The midgame is when that initial drive sorta stalls, Axis shift from giving pressure to receiving it, Allies recover position and start their push back so maybe rounds 5-8 the timeline starts to stretch and get fuzzy but you're basically at 1943/4-ish without really needing the timeline the techs and the way the playpattern is going just sorta marks this out as another phase where a lot of big moves are happening. 1944 to 45 is the endgame and I think that can stretch out for however long. Basically like a zeno's paradox thing. Closer you get to the end, time expands and game rounds make go from seasons or months, to weeks. Basically doing the stretch armstrong for the finale. So maybe one way to do it is to have the dates and scripted events, unlocks etc be more vague in the descriptions the closer you get to the end. I think a game that basically lasts 10 rounds in PvP, 18 rounds in Solo, with round 19-20 and beyond as sorta the anticlimax, post war mop up, which might be fun for the single player, but not as necessary in PvP. That'd give a way to set up the Victory Conditions and suggested handicaps/difficulty scale a bit differently for either style of play. Going head to head a narrower VC win would be fun, and probably just a large starting bid of some kind at whatever amount to level the playing field. In Solo it could just go to the Machine, scaled up to whatever suggested challenge level. Say Standard, Hard, Very Hard, Iron Man, whatever. It'd be fun if the player got little notifications like newsreels for making certain achievements, or medals awarded in a medal box. Some kind of round by round graph at the end to plot the stats would be too cool. I still don't how that might be done, but for a visual or final save I think that would be kinda the ultimate. For sounds/music we could just use the Pact of Steel tunes I think, or Ebbe said we could riff on some of the oil and snow stuff. I like the Frostion Anthems too, though for some reason I get some audio hang ups with that one sometimes. I think from the length of the sound file, sometimes it overlaps or continues playing after closing out the game. I usually have to kill tripleA to kill the sound if it's a longer one. I have a little soundtrack I like to turn on, but it'd also be fun to have a bit of a soundscape, less air raid siren and more just kinda ambient ya know heheh. Anyhow, still blasting,
I noticed I had left off N. Ontario, Balikpapan, Dutch Harbor, Hollandia and Iwo Jima from the icons so I added those.
I also made the following additions to try and get a few more of the terrain types that felt under-represented...
Desert: in South Asia I added Gujarat and Rajputana (for salt flats and Thar). In central Asia I added Hailar, Cen.Mongolia, and Siuyuyan (for the Gobi). In North Africa I added Grand Erg, Ouargla, Fezzan, and Al Kufra. In the Middle East I added Jordan, Haditha and Kuwait.
Marsh: In Southeast Asia I added Calcutta, Cambodia and Saigon. In Australia I added Broome (for Fortescue). In Europe I added Netherlands (thought was that Polders are prone to flood, especially with bombs dropping, but mostly just to have another one in Europe.) Even though Marsh is a pretty extreme effect, I thought it might be fun for Calcutta since that VC would then be somewhat harder for Japan to mow over, which could be interesting. Marsh is tricky though you can't land defensive aircraft there, though the scramble to adjacent tile makes that somewhat less important. I think it could probably work.
I also added Darwin and Brisbane as Forest, just to bring that region in line with the rest of the board and give those spots some flare. Here they are listed, the one that were added to the relief graphics, if you want.
Al Kufra
Brisbane
Broome
Calcutta
Cambodia
Cen.Mongolia
Darwin
Fezzan
Grand Erg
Gujarat
Haditha
Hailar
Jordan
Kuwait
Netherlands
Ouargla
Rajputana
Saigon
SiuyuyanLet me know if that makes sense, or if there's something you want to add/change/nix. Obviously some abstractions there, but was just trying to round stuff out a little based on what you had down already.
Here's the Relief with those terrain icons drawn on...
ps. also I couldn't remember, but if it's better for the skin to have a lower filesize I did a desaturated relief example too.
This one has only the current Terrain Icons in version 80 (with the fixes for the stuff I forgot like N. Ontario and Iwo, but not the new ones in case you want to scrap any of those suggestions.) It's around 52mb compared to around 70mb for the one with partial color for the land terrain. Otherwise looks pretty similar. If you just want one that works with the current build.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4lj7u808564n27g/relief_map_with_icons_BW_5-4-23.png?dl=0
Looks like this...
Oh also just one other thought, cause the 1939 idea was mentioned. I think the map could probably support a 1939 variant. Some borders might not be totally exact, but they're pretty close since we were pinballing back and forth on that for the Balkans and Italy and such. Maybe a variant that included France, and kicks off on the eve of the invasion of Poland. I think the phony war would be pretty easy to model in a single turn on G1, and then G2 is essentially a G40 style opener where Axis are focused on France and the West. Perhaps you could use a similar thing like you have going for now the NAP, to do a German/Soviet scripted NAP breaking event. At first it's Germany that has the NAP going with USSR, and Japan and the USSR can skirmish, then it inverts and Japan has the NAP and Germany/Italy go to war with USSR. Or USA same deal where they just do a few turns of neutrality and reinforce Britain and Pacific Allies before the war kicks off in earnest.
If pursuing that concept, perhaps the Pearl Harbor attack could be scripted. Like both sides spawn a force in the same sea zone in the same round, randomly and that battle could have some variability.
Midway might be handled in a similar way I guess, in the current game, or anywhere where you wanted a flashpoint, but I was kinda thinking more like a one off specifically for a game that starts in 1939. Because the Pearl event is the hardest, like to cajole the players into creating those conditions right? This would be more like a random event, but I think it might be fun since otherwise it's hard to get a Pearl Harbor happening with any sense of 'surprise. But like what if suddenly, in round three or four, some units appear and clash and that's like your 1941 special. Lets the player know they've entered Midgame with the total war conditions. Or maybe there are two possibilities. In one version Japan attacks the USA and brings on the global conflict with both theaters joined. In another perhaps USSR joins the Tripartite pact, but the Western Allies get some sort of insane bonus to compensate, like where the Free French and Dutch and Polish resistance get a big boost up to make it more balanced by sides. Or perhaps Japan just invades the USSR, the Axis might splinter somehow, or USA bows out of one theater. Whatever one might want to imagine for a 39-41 start that branches, but basically you roll back to 39 and take a more 'what if' approach. I could see that being pretty entertaining for a riff on it.
For a randomizer you could push back even further, like have a zero round where the Spanish Civil War, East Africa, and China somehow set off some initial dominoes. Thinking more for the AI type game. That could be cool. Maybe some of the neutrals get brought into the fray, if the war breaks a certain way. So you might have a game where Turkey joins one side or the other, or something happens in China to throw a curveball. Maybe the countries in the Mid East or South America split for either team depending on what happens in some sort of midgame randomizer. Some stuff probably easier to pull off than others in a what if hehe. Might be fun to just try the pearl thing first, and see if that kinda works for a 1939 that follows the expected historical story beats. Could be a fun project
-
Just added +2pu to lots of the land territories.
Increased the requirements for Industries to 5,7,9pu was 3,5,7Now
1-2pu for Sea Zones (no change)
1-12 for land territories
1-4pu for territories with no Industry allowed, was 1-2This hopefully will allow the USSR to have PU on turns 2-3.
In the Pacific hopefully the AI can now 'see' land territories because the land can now be more than the the surrounding Sea Zones.
This will probably break the balance of the game
but I think its worth it.@Black_Elk
I will match your terrain changes in the xml.Im a little unsure of some of the Marshes, as it was specifically for the Prypriat Marshes because only walking infantry can enter, but I will go with your list.
Re the new relief with terrain png I would go for quality over smaller file size, as players might use this version as standard.
-
Right on! Sounds good
Yeah I really wasn't sure about the Marshes. I tend to be a little suspicious of one-off rules though. Like if there's only one example on the board, to me that'd be giving too much weight to a single spot, whereas if there's a couple other spots that have the same thing going on I'm a little more amenable to the concept. Having certain tiles where only infantry can go seems novel, like it creates a different sort of choke point that's kinda fun and forces you to sorta work around them. Of the current terrain effects I think it's the most interesting, cause it has a very clear and unique effect. I like the idea that, if terrain is going to be a thing, that the player can shorthand it like that. Like "ok marsh = only infantry" that's simple. I think the most common tile 'forest' should probably be the least impactful effect, whereas the stuff that's less common has more dramatic effects. I think if there are 6 terrain types, that each one should have a distinct riff, or perhaps a specific bonus by unit type. The narrower the focus the better I think. Like maybe it only effects air, or tanks, or whatever for a given terrain type. I like the idea mentioned earlier of inverting some terrain types so that they give advantage to the attacker. Currently most benefit the defender, which mean the player is incentivized to camp on those tiles. You want to take them if they're empty and then stack that spot, but if some provided a bonus to player attacking into the tile that would mix it up a little.
For the HardAI I noticed that it really likes to withdraw from the coast to an inland tile (especially tiles that cover many zones). This is sound play when facing down a threat from amphibious assault, but I think it might recommend having more of those spots with an m3 option from the Industry Lgt or something. Here's an example. In this game I played pretty sloppy, like I just totally botched my G2 drive to Arch, so I ended up doing a sort of awkward rebound that had me going after Britain. Eventually I got to invasion Canada in like round 20. You can see how the USA had a pretty large force, pulled off their coastal production and stacked into Kentucky and Ohio (I guess since those spots cover many coastal tiles) but then they get marooned at M1 instead of M3, like if they'd just parked it instead of withdrawing to counter attack position. They kinda did the same thing in Fezzan, Al Kufra etc, like pulling back from the coast. They basically had North Africa on lock, but then then would pull off the coast. Maybe you could give the inland tiles a movement bonus or attack from the terrain that helps those spots spring more or something, to make the HardAI a bit more effective? Not sure what would be best, but I still had fun checking out the endgame. 25 VCs was pretty satisfying as Axis in the solo hehehe.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/x0mkw3mhgsjh5v2/2023-5-5-1941-Global-Command-Decision G22.tsvg?dl=0
Oh also, for extraneous connections, there is a connect currently between New Brunswick and either Ohio or Philadelphia (maybe both?)
I noticed cause the Americans magically showed up there with some tanks right after we landed, which stalled the initial Invasion USA plan a bit hehe. Thought I had 'em blocked at New York, but then they did a sneaky river boat move or something to skip a tile up there.
Another thing I noticed (not sure if it's part of the 2.5/6 stuff?) but when I go to look at the Game History, sometimes I get errors. It'll say say something like "expecting player named X" or it's trying to show units like elites or something, but can't show the game state. Here I'll grab a couple screens
I guess no one was expecting Italy hehe.
They just didn't see it coming! lol
When I try to see the game history for round 1 I get this one...
I can get back to round 15
but I think something in round 13 locked it up, cause once I click on that one it will stall out and just show the round 13 state for whatever round I click.
Each round will show a different notification that reads sorta like that, where it's trying to add/remove units. Depends where I click, but it'll show a map change like where it got stuck here somehow, when it must have got fried I guess hehe
Anyhow, not sure if it's from the other stuff mentioned, like with the border roll back from the earlier start date? Just though that I'd let ya know.
Catch ya on the next up
-
@black_elk
Good catch on New Brunswick
removed Philadelphia-Pennsylvania to New Brunswickwhilst I was checking, noticed a missing connection
added New York-New Jersey to New BrunswickI also get similar errors to your screen grabs.
I surmise (cannot confirm) that these errors are due the game running and also trying to look back in the history, it gets confused and errors.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login