💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread

[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...

[Black_Elk]

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
Siuyuyan

Let 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...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/p3rt055r5ik8tv6/relief_map_sz_bw_with_terrain_icons_additions-5-4-23.png?dl=0

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

[TheDog]

Just added +2pu to lots of the land territories.
Increased the requirements for Industries to 5,7,9pu was 3,5,7

Now
1-2pu for Sea Zones (no change)
1-12 for land territories
1-4pu for territories with no Industry allowed, was 1-2

This 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.

[Black_Elk]

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

[TheDog]

@black_elk
Good catch on New Brunswick
removed Philadelphia-Pennsylvania to New Brunswick

whilst I was checking, noticed a missing connection
added New York-New Jersey to New Brunswick

I 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.

[wc_sumpton]

@thedog, @Black_Elk

The "History" problem is known in 2.5 and was discussed during the latest Toc and should have already been fixed in 2.6.

Territory Effects vs Unit Supports. I tend to think territoryEffectAttachment as defensive orientated. The player has had time to take advantage or the area's natural surroundings. territoryEffect's also only apply to normal combat strength, and have no effect on AA (special) abilities or Air Power. Have to be very careful when applying negative effects, there are a lot of units (aircraft especially) where their base attack power is "1", which would render the units useless.

supportAttachment on the other hand, I believe, should effect a unit's attacking abilities, as evident by the xml I posted. I left "Command" (Morale) as both because it represents a leader directing fields of fire. The support is mostly taken form '40 Europe/Pacific ruleset. There may be somethings I might do differently, tactical bombers (Bomber-Lgt) giving support to armor or artillery being disruptive, negative defensive support. supportAttachment can also effect AA (special) abilities, like artillery "Precision" and anti-tank "Anti-Tank".

Neither territoryEffectAttachment or supportAttachment have the ability to effect Air Power, like a bomber supporting their escorts during an "Air Battle".

Those are my thoughts.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

Yeah, I think the negative effect that throws me the most is on the amphibious assault, since you can bring a big wall of trained infantry and fighters and they'll just break on the beaches if there aren't other units to prop them up. That stood me up a few times, or if it's a terrain spot with the bunkers and such as well. In general I like that mass infantry are less reliable on the attack, since it gives a reason to buy other units, but the terrain and amphib malus to attacker feels pretty pronounced sometimes and its harder for me to ballpark what's going to go down there, especially with smaller forces. I tried to edge some attacks in the opening, to see what would draw a computer counter. On Italy's opener I was trying to draw an attack from the Brits at advantage, and trade fleets immediately, but not sure it was the best plan. In that game it kinda worked out, but probably not reliable. It's always fun to see what the AI will do with it's ships though, like when it will go for broke and battle rather than pull away hehe. As the attacker I find myself looking around for those terrain effect gaps for the m2s units on the ground like tanks, since those fights are more predictable. Then try to stack into or deadzone the terrain spots, focusing mainly on just contesting the production/factory capable tiles as the flashpoints. With smaller forces, it's still hard for me to say when bringing one unit type over another might be decisive. Like an anti tank over an infantry, or artillery or an elite over a another tank. Adding in the HQs can get pretty wild too on top of all that hehe. Sometimes I'm surprised and get clobbered when I thought I had it in the bag, but then that's sort of charming in its way too. I had fun with the cheaper subs, I think it made them more attractive. I also still enjoy the base camp unit, since it's fun to try and get a cluster going, especially if they're adjacent to a factory, I like how that works for China in the backfield. Looking forward to checking out the next one

[Black_Elk]

One other quick thought if considering starting unit adjustments.

I would suggest trying to avoid situations where units from different nations are co-located in the same territory at the very beginning of play. There are two examples right now, German forces in an Italian TT (Libya), and British bombers in an American TT (Iceland). I just think it's clearer when the starting forces match the ownership of the starting spot and the control flag. Especially for Infrastructure or the HQ units which don't share a tint color like other units, I think it helps to clarify who's who and who controls what at the outset.

I would put the Germans in Tunisia and just call it an abstraction. This would have them out of range for a G1 can opener attack vs Al Kufra, which if successful currently allows Italy to blitz Egypt before Britain has their first turn. I think that'd be better for the playbalance on Suez, and has the upside of making easier to tell who's who there, especially for the German/Italian Generals.

I'd just switch the British bombers in Iceland for USA bombers, or move them to Canada or something. Having a few ground units in Canada would be nice as well, since there'd be more pressure on Germany to overcommit in the transport attack there, if the transport had some units at the ready in Halifax or Labrador or somewhere.

The British Destroyers in sz 89 A can be a little tough to spot. I think just cause the place has them tucked over by Mexico. Might shift that one to be more by the Caribbean side of the tile just so it's more noticeable. The fighter in Cyprus as well might use a dude nearby to highlight it. Having a couple units in adjacent tiles might help the new player to spot stuff when they're grouped nearby. A ground force near the naval forces can help to make the region stand out just when doing the quick scan around the globe, especially for Britain since they're more spread out. Or like for stuff that's more near the bottom of the board. I think having more transports positioned with forces at the ready accelerates the play pace and makes the opener a bit more intuitive, so I like the idea of playing that up where possible. For balance by sides, I'd just use starting cash as the main balancing mechanism. It's the simplest and most entertaining, since it gives more options for the player to determine what will happen based on their initial buys. Otherwise I'd have to wait and see what the new turn order for Pacific Allies/China shakes down like, but I'd guess that might recommend a couple localized tweaks to the starting forces there. For the most part I enjoy the basic spread, probably would just tinker around the edges for stuff like transports and forward unit positions to shape the pattern of the first round, but I like the broad strokes a lot. Nice work!

ps. oh also I forgot Svalbard, which is Tundra. Here's the relief with that one added....

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4pc114xh98j16rd/relief_map_sz_bw_with_terrain_icons_additions-5-6-23.png?dl=0

I think I got em all now. Let me know if I missed anything, or if you want to switch the marshes or whatever else. Al Kufra changed to desert would mean the blitz move wouldn't be a prob, though I'd still put the Germans in Tunisia anyway, just for the tidiness hehe. Catch on the next round

Finally, thinking of skins and different looks, here is another version of the relief, same as the above, just with the black line motif instead of white. In case people need it for the highlight effect. Gives a different sort of vibe. For me the lines on this one hold down to about 20 percent, and if they break they just shift blue which isn't too bad. Anyhow, in case you want that one for an alt here it is. The vibrancy of the blue along the sea zones can be controlled from the baseTiles blue. I thought it had a nice pop, little different than the white line effect, but kinda cool too.

Here's a black line relief...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3mm0hzopv0070a3/relief_map_sz_bw_with_terrain_icons_additions-5-6-23 black line.png?dl=0

Looks like so with the current base undercolor for the ocean blue. Might dial the vibrancy there back a slight bit, but you get the idea. Like to change the sz border color you can adjust that in the base tiles by filling in whatever color, since it will show through there. The national hex colors have a bleed to show at about 6px along the land borders which is what gives that glow, but the color there is controlled by the hex, so it'll follow whatever you put down in the map.props

Here's the baseTiles with a slightly dialed back blue.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/q5u4fozwhr26dyf/1941_baseline_map_5-6-23.png?dl=0

Looks pretty similar, but you can see how it basically allows you to adjust the contrast, or vibrancy that way.

Or like here's the exact same, except changing the hue of the blue in the baseline to a gray tope to make it look like parchment.

By changing the value (lighter or darker), you can also beef up or narrow the lines at max zoom out, to suite your tastes, (darker basetiles color=thicker sz borders, lighter=more narrow sz lines when zoomed out) stuff like that. For hue basically whatever is going down in the the baseline image will control the sea zone color, so the user can just make it whatever color/hue they prefer by altering the color of the ocean tiles in the baseline image.

pps. random screen from a midgame, just to show some of the color shift

[Black_Elk]

Here are the terrain icons with the images at 48px which may look better when zoomed out. The overall visual is largely similar I think but, but the keyhole vignette is probably easier to see at that scale. Might play with the colors of those, like to differentiate mountain from tundra or whatever if they seem too close. I've been looking at them for a while so they seem sorta familiar now hehe. Anyhow, here they are more jumbo at 48px size...

White line relief:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ada5wlgi67ymkfn/1941_gcd_terrain_icons_48_white_lines.png?dl=0

Black line relief:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/i1c7pdz0eqspt3k/1941_gcd_terrain_icons_48_black_lines.png?dl=0

Here are some screens showing each at 50% and 30% map view, so you can see how the lines work when scaling out. Seemed pretty good to me.

White

Black

Here it is as layer with just the icons in their positions in case you want to substitute or change anything.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/96yfxmqgjsj4kj2/terrain icon 48px layer.png?dl=0

Pretty much whatever could fit. I don't know if abstract symbols might look cool for a more stripped down vibe, or different mood, or what would convey the concept without making the map look too frenetic, but this seems to at least convey to the play that something is going down, and then they can cursor over the spot for more info. But we can play around with different ideas when I get more time to tool around with it.

[TheDog]

Building on Black Elks work, the next release will have two alternative skins, making a total of three reliefTile sets;

• terrain icon black line skin (listed as Original, this is the new default)
• no terrain icon white line skin (old default)
• terrain icon white line skin

.

.
Sadly the above only works in 2.5 (and not in 2.6)

Whilst moving around, for some reason it fails to find random unit icons

My fix is to save the game at the first opportunity, then reload it and it finds the icons

Is there a better way?

[Black_Elk]

Sounds good, here is the template with the graphics centered on the tiles.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vtti3qvldzvk319/terrain_icons_48_centered_.png?dl=0

I think this will create a somewhat more pleasing visual, but means reworking the place a bit. I did it top of tile earlier just cause there were fewer units/graphics that way, but this gives a more even distribution.

Here's a relief showing the same add on top...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5km1a0kkpy2hn2e/1941_gcd_relief_draft_black_lines_icons_centered_5-9-23.png?dl=0

Current place.txt will have some stuff bunching into them, like bunkers or whatever the first place was, so I'd just shift that unit over when that happens.

You can preview it with unit view off just to see where they're landing. Looks like this...

Still needs some TLC. Gotta add back in the Beacons for the straits cause they clipped.
Ideally the PU would be nearby and the VC star, control flag etc, like in a A or Y shaped cluster probably. With the units tucked in around them. Having the inf or elite place into the terrain graphic I think looks kinda cool. Or units with a narrower profile, but mostly just was thinking to do it for the starting units so they won't clip into anything. Will probably take me a few days, I'd rock the earlier one if you want for now just to have something playable, till this one prime time heheh

[Black_Elk]

OK just about finished with the place. I'm sure we can keep improving on it, but just wanted to get some wheels going for that.

For the relief what I did was to open the ocean layer to show the base through in full. This should give the player the maximum amount of control over the ocean color/presentation. Effectively if you want to change that you can alter it on the base. Could add clouds or different effects that way as well if desired. Basically it's open ocean out there.

By doing this I was able to get the lines to hold down to 10% with no color changes or dance, which is quite nice I think.

Here's a quick screen at max zoom out

And then 50%

100%

so you can see it's pretty consistent with the line color there. Like it'll show black the whole way. Basically at 10% it'll shift slightly gray but pretty hard to notice, compared to the blue shift. Think it might be winner

[Black_Elk]

Ok I think this should be serviceable.

We can polish it up over the coming weeks, to clean up any tangents, but should show most the critical gameplay info on the first turn. I just did a quick wheel around the center for the unit place and tried to get the PUs somewhere they'd be easy to spot. For the overflows I just aimed to get it so those lines would be on different planes. Once we know what units are going to where I can fine tune a bit if there are starting unit adjustments, since there is some variability in unit size, and the tighter spots could probably noodle, but this just get us closer. I shifted a few of the sz centers just so the convoy flag wouldn't cross any lines. Hopefully does the trick for the new one.

Baseline:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ha5fdbpg7qcxqmz/baseline_map_1941_gcd.png?dl=0

Relief (black lines w/ icons centered):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/sp12e9bu0d0usz1/relief_map_1941_gcd.png?dl=0

place:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3ua86pcq7amgr8h/place.txt?dl=0

pu_place:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zas5jkz70blzxhp/pu_place.txt?dl=0

vc:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/fdgksjrwqinjtox/vc.txt?dl=0

centers:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/cz30zmcesdwa6g2/centers.txt?dl=0

Let me know if that's alright. Catch you on the next one

[TheDog]

Latest version 85 ready for download from 1st page 1st post

Major Changes
Using Faster 2.6 Remember to move the error box bottom right, to stop it it reappearing (this is only a warning error please ignore it)

Note map skins only work in 2.5, they do not work in 2.6 (for 2.5 users there are a choice of map skins, see here)
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/3326/1941-global-command-decision-official-thread/361?page=19

.

• 2.6 works, took 100s of lines of WC Sumpton code to fix 2.6 crash & Tech completes on random turns lots of little tweaks to improve the game
• Lots of territories have +2pu added, added 500pu+ to the map, also increased the requirements for Industries to 5,7,9pu was 3,5,7
• Massive rebalancing required because of the above
• 350 Terrain Icons added, but removed 600 land territory ownership flags, hopefully looks clearer/cleaner for no loss of recognition
• Increased the number of HQ-Army to 5 was 3, as the map can now maintain/upkeep another 500 units
• Transport 1/12 AA to help the AI logic, moving A to B, B to A when threatened by Air
• China & Pacific-Allies have swapped places, USSR should control Pacific-Allies, USA should control China, allowing Japan 1st strike
• These nations can have Conscripts ANZAC, Britain, Germany, Japan if their homeland is invaded, max=30 as the AI over buys
• Removed Anti-Air unit as the AI does not buy it and most units have an Anti-Air attack
• Changed Anti-Tank stat 1/2/1 + support for 5pu, was 1/1/1 + support for 4pu (AI will buy new version)
• Inf-Elite now cost 7pu, was 5, but can buy unlimited, was max=9
• Bomber can Raid/bomb Base-Camp
• New Desert: Gujarat, Rajputana, Hailar, Cen.Mongolia, Siuyuyan, Jordan, Haditha and Kuwait
• New Marsh: Calcutta, Cambodia, Saigon, Broome, Netherlands
• New Forest: Darwin and Brisbane

WEST

• Removed Ottawa as a VC
• Kyiv gets a Industry-Lgt also helps Germany/USSR with rail links
• Crimea gets a Industry-Med and 7pu
• removed Philadelphia-Pennsylvania to New Brunswick
• added New York-New Jersey to New Brunswick

EAST

• Removed connection Corregidor-Mindoro Is. to Manila-Luzon
• Added Bangkok-Siam as a VC

TODO

• Balance

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

[Black_Elk]

I'm enjoying the new one quite a lot! Had a blast in 2.6, which felt much faster. Play scale is pretty entertaining, I'm sure the balance can be sorted with starting cash, but I had a good time. Being able to purchase more elites makes transports a lot more effective for the cost, which was fun. I could anticipate some balance adjustments to starting units on UK just to make sure a G2 sea lion can't be mounted too easily with a transport spam, or central Pacific to make sure the USA and Japan will tango, but overall I enjoy this dynamic much more. Sub interactions felt better to me as well, and the scrambling prompt in 2.6 is pretty helpful. I bought many more aircraft.

I like the new look sans control flags for everywhere, that cleaned up the place as well. There are a couple that probably shifted first position, so I might noodle that. I spotted a few things I need to correct for the place/relief, but it's mostly polish. Just a few bunkers to shift, a couple things in the overflows for spots that can stack to the ceiling. Like Benghazi overflow to the left instead of the right maybe, so it doesn't strike into Egypt, which is also a heavy stack spot. But that should be pretty easy. Starting unit balance felt fun. I think the extra starting cash from the increased PU values helps as an equalizer. The new turn order also seemed to kinda increase the sense a pace to me. Like I dig the way those Pacific turns sorta follow on each other at the end/start of the gameround. Pacific Allies gives a sorta preview of the mapboard over there on the Pacific but without a huge outsized impact. Then the Japan, USA, China sequences follows on pretty quickly at the close of the round, and back to Pacific Allies after, G so I feel like there's a bit more action there, or sense of quickness, which I liked a lot. Good call on that

HardAI plays pretty quickly for me. The first turn openers still can take a minute or so, but after that it seems to streamline and I didn't see many delays. I found myself having to pay attention cause I was used to taking a coffee break. But now the AI moves at steady clip. Great work!

[Black_Elk]

Here are some flags at 96px tall with the aspects preserved, just to have em somewhere. For the higher resolution. You can reduce these using No Halo, Lo Halo or Cubic interpolation. I use No halo, when making them very small res since that seems to show a bit cleaner. Or enhance > sharpen once there at the desired scale. But depends on the size and the colors. Anyhow, at 96px or downscaled from there, should look pretty clean for the Notes.

And some naval ensigns I did for AA50. These were convoy graphics. Just taken from the wiki with the modification to Germany for their period ensign. Probably not needed here, but again just to have em somewhere.

They're done at the same height as the above, with the aspect preserved. To unify the aspect you can always do a crop/morph and rearrange the elements in the image, like if you want all the banners at 1:2 or 3:5 or whatever, but these just show what was down for the period 1939-45. I only had the v3 ones for the big 6.

Here is a quick morph in case you want them all the same aspect for downscales. For some of these graphics it's better to just transform the image, but for the banners with circles it's better to crop or extend the canvas so you can preserve that shape. Anyway, same deal 96px tall, but here the width is the same. I did two sets, one at 3:5 (160px wide) and another at 4:6 (144px wide). Not sure which might be useful, but figured for the UI and scaling to the very tiny might be good to have em just in case.

3:5

4:6

[TheDog]

Its turn 14, Im playing Japan, the rest is AI controlled.

Turn 8, Pacific-Allies sent from Australia 11x Marines and 12 Light Tanks in 8 Transport to join in the US and Brits invasion of Italy.

This convoy skirted/kited my screen of subs and escaped through the Suez canal.

That is what a human player would do but the AI did it. :zany_face:
Kudos to @redrum

[Black_Elk]

Badass!

Here that reminds me. So I really enjoy the new dynamic where the Elites aren't capped, but I do worry that they might be a little overpowered in terms of the raw attack power vs overall versatility. Since the increased transport capacity is such a massive boost to versatility, I would suggest we might lower the attack value of these units to 1, to put them in line with other inf types (1 when by unaided artillery I mean, cause that's fairly familiar). I believe it's 2 on both attack and defense currently right, but I'd bring it down to 1 for the reg attack and only have the bonus apply during amphibious assaults or if accompanied by other units that do enhancements for others like Art or HQs.

In my last couple games (version 85) the Elites outclasses most other units at purchase for me, and outclassed the other ground units at the same price point at 7pus for sure. This comes primarily from the transport capacity bonus though, which makes Elites significantly better than any other unit at the same price if you have to cross the water. It really doesn't make sense, to buy anything but elites for transporting cause you can stack so many more per transport hehe. Plus they can go by air with air-transport too. Unlike m2 tank type units their movement from the factory rail isn't disrupted by terrain. So there's a whole lot of reasons to buy Elites, even at the increased cost of 7. The cost at 7 puts them in direct competition with Artillery and Armor-Lgt at purchase.

So I might consider increasing their cost above 7 PUs, reducing their normal attack from 2 to 1, or reducing their transport capacity from 5 to 3 (or just 1 extra over the normal 2 slots) as a way to nerf the unit a little. I'm not sure which would be best, but I think lowering the attack power probably, since that would differentiate them from the armor-lgt and artillery a bit more.

Compare 1 transport and 5 elites for 45 PUs vs
2 transports, 2 trained infantry and 2 artillery for 42 PUs

From a placement standpoint these forces are similar, both requiring 6 slots from factories Industry-Med or higher, but if those units are unloading during a combat move (pretty likely), then the elites are going to clap a lot harder during amphib, and you'll have that extra hitpoint too with the 5th slot. The elite can bonus on top of most other units while transporting too, meaning in most cases you can add an extra unit per transport provided 1 of those units is an elite. Which just makes the whole calculus really favor those guys over say stuff like tanks or artillery or inf motorized owing to their versatility to basically jump on board with anyone etc.

Then there's the issue of magnifying the elite build over a series of rounds. Cause with trained infantry and artillery, or infantry and tanks, it'd take 10 transports to move 20 hitpoints across the water. But if it's elites, you can transport 50 hitpoints with that same number of transports. Or conversely you can ship 10 hitpoints of elites, with just the 2 transports, which is pretty powerful. A huge jump up in transport effectiveness over Inf-trained spam. It means that once the player has built up a sufficient number of Elites, they'd need only a comparatively small number of transports to mount a very effective large scale amphibious invasion.

This was my main Seal Lion concern mentioned above, because typically it's the transport threshold that makes that challenging and harder to execute without telegraphing intentions. The benefit goes to both teams though, so I don't see it as a balance by sides issue, so much as an issue of attacker's ease of transport capacity vs defenders coastal production capacity to match what they're likely to face. Once USA arrives everything changes cause UK/USA can match Germany in hitpoints, but that's a few rounds to set up. I mean more for like a G2 pounce. So might want to keep an eye there.

On the one hand I do like that Elites make this sort of stuff possible now, which wasn't really the case when they had a cap, but again I worry they might just be a bit out of scale for the cost there, and sorta outclassing the other stuff in the roster. So that's why I'd say reducing attack power would be the best. Cause they're super fun in terms of the versatility. Like that alone makes them worth buying at 7. Even if they're not in the inf fodder role, for Pacific-Allies, Italy, Britain, Japan and USA they're so much more useful than Infantry-Trained via the transport that they kinda become the default ground hitpoint to buy at purchase. Even for Germany, or USSR who might have a harder time fielding mass transports, the unit makes a lot of sense, cause it can dive into the action in a big way with just a lone transport able to move 5, or an air-transport swooping 2 hitpoints. Very convenient. USSR is also incentivized to buy elites, since they only have access to Inf-conscripts and Inf-elites at purchase.

Anyhow, I like the unit a lot. I wouldn't want to change the core dynamic there, but I think attack power at 1 they'd still be very attractive and a sound purchase even the cost was increased probably. Like it's just that useful to be able to transport more hitpoints per turn heheh.

Anyhow, just some quick thoughts on that guy

Oh one other thought, for China, I'd probably return the fighter as a purchase option, or maybe a periodic bonus where they get one every couple rounds or something. In my game as Allies I lost them all pretty early on to aa fire and was wishing I had at least a couple since they're good deadzoning, but I like that China has the Elites now. I bought those primarily when I could. Maybe a cost at 8 PUs would make sense? Like 2 for 1 compared Inf-Trained, or just shy of 3 conscripts for nations that have access. Seems easy enought to remember. That might work, cause the early fighter is 7pus as well right? This would have Elites more in competition with cruisers and aircraft and med armor, also the base camp, which probably brings their cost/TUV more in line with their general usefulness. They're a very useful unit, I'd still buy them a 8.

I also find that the AI is playing faster and stronger in the game I have going as Axis. I don't know if it's the cleaned code or 2.6 or both, but it's really starting to hum for me. I dig it!

Nice work!

ps. yeah, to the below, I kinda agree. I'd buy em still at 9 too hehe. Allowing Elites to transport on Battleships (in the role of Marine) or something like that would be a cool trade off if their transport capacity on the regular transport is reduced. Here the cost of Cruisers is lower than the cost of Transport (8 vs 10), so that might be problematic if done with the cruiser here, but I could see it working for Battleships or HQs, since those units are more expensive than reg transports. I was going to mention transports earlier, but kept forgetting to bring it up. They are a lot more effective vs submarines, which I don't mind, but they might also be more expensive and I'd still buy them. I think that idea of allowing Elites to transport via the more powerful warships would be cool. Carriers and Fleet carriers are already pretty useful. Germany doesn't have access to the Battleship, but they do have HQs as a sort of early Super Sub. If those could carry 1 elite that'd make them pretty attractive. Anyhow, I like that solution! Nice call

pps. here's a quick example of a G1 opener for a G2 Sea Lion set up...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kve1di4k8nu8o95/2023-5-14-1941-Global-Command-Decision G2 Sea Lion set up.tsvg?dl=0

Not that it's a sure shot or anything, there might be a stronger set up, but basically if you can hold sz 112 for a G1 transport buy, you can put a lot of pressure on Britain immediately by massing elites. The computer won't manage the full press as well as a human, so I'm thinking more about just an insta kill vs the Machine hehe.

Bordeaux is another possible option for a transport build, if trying to split the the Allies across a couple attacks as a stall, though not really necessary. Probably there are a few different ways to split the air too, like if you want to trade a few pips vs the USSR, for a few more aircraft in a sz 112 defensive scramble since Britain has a lot of bombers. Britain could sack the RAF, but even then, once the Brits are on their heels and have lost initiative, that by itself might be worth the cost of the lost TUV. You don't have to actually execute the sea lion, just presenting a credible threat can be enough, since then it's Axis in the drivers seat, and Britain playing catch up hehe. Thinking more of PvP there.

If you forego one of the eastern frontline battles (ex Smolensk/Tula), you can get most of the rest of the Eastern Front fights at 100% odds to the attacker. Or just strafe one and return to Bryansk with a couple bunkers to hold the line. Here I left a a few tanks in Latgale to blitz either to Novgorod or Smolensk depending on the results. Sz 111A is a little dicey, but good chance to prevail in the air blitz. Sz 109 Brits can scramble, and nail the subs now too, so that'd be optional I guess. But if doing it, I'd bring the fighters to clips the RAFs wings a little maybe. Likely to kill the transport either way which would be the main goal. I sent a DD to block the subs in 110 here just to keep em off me. To me this seems pretty potent of G2 Sea Lion if Allies are sloppy, G3 Sea Lion if they aren't. And in either case the German player has the initiative, so they could always break back towards USSR instead.

For Purchase, you could go cautious and builder a cruiser or two to back up the transports, or just go max transport buy. Depends how the battles go and how many fighters remain. For that save I just folded some of the Non-Coms into the combat move so you could see the thinking, but you'd obviously want to see how the battles shook down before comiting to anything on G1 Non Com/Purchase. In a G3 set up, almost all of the German air can be returned from the East to face London, which would be pretty hard to counter I'd think. Germany could also do a G3 set up with mass air-transports, though this requires getting a bit closer, like Belgium or Netherlands instead of Hamburg, but G has some flexibility. USA can't reach London to support them on G2 defense. To do so in the 3rd round they have to set that up on their first turn, but even there it'd be an air support mostly, since getting there with transports is a two-round set up. Basically USA 3 is the earliest they can get in range for counter attack if Germany goes after England. So I'd say G1-G2 is where the critical balance would be on that one. Anyhow, just something to chew on.

You can see here how HardAI Britain responded. basically allowing Axis to start taking shots and trading TTs on UK's home turf from the second turn at the German player's discretion.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/m4pisamgc3ejtll/2023-5-14-1941-Global-Command-Decision G2 Sea Lion set up J1.tsvg?dl=0

I'm having a lot of fun though. Feels like it's on right track, for sure!

[Jason Green-Lowe]

@black_elk Yup, great points. What makes marines "elite" isn't that you're able to pack them more densely into the same boat, but that a small division of marines is trained and equipped well enough to be able to assault and seize an island or a beachhead where a similarly-sized division of regular infantry would struggle to do so.

In Global Balanced Mod you see this represented by marines' ability to fit onto cruisers and battleships; the idea is that you are only talking about a few thousand extra people, so they don't even need a dedicated transport. But if you are just cramming the marines in five to a transport, then that's a little silly; at that point you're talking about a whole corps of marines (i.e., pretty much the entire American supply of marines for the whole globe), and they would need a regular transport, just like any infantry corps.

I think my instinct would be to just raise the price of elite infantry so that players are naturally incentivized to buy them only when they specifically need marines or air cavalry. Maybe $9 each? It's cool that they have a smaller transport 'footprint' than regular infantry because marines typically are deployed in smaller groups than regular infantry, but it's no fun if elitesare the only unit that anyone ever considers for overseas duties.

[TheDog]

Another option is to change the transport costs. Not thinking too much about it, maybe add +1 to the transport cost
eg
Inf-Elite 2
Inf-Trained 3
Tanks 4

Transport carry 7
Air-Transport carry 4 (although it looks like Tanks can be transported they will not have isAirTransportable, so cannot be)

Now only 3x Inf-Elite can be carried and not 5, so the PU costs can stay the same?

I know this breaks A&A transport costs, but they are getting in the way of the true PU costs.