💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread

[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.

[TheDog]

Latest version 90 ready for download from 1st page 1st post

Major Changes

• Less PU is available for all factions purchasing, as corrected end of turn PU calculation for Industry -9 -7 -5 was -7 -5 -3
• Transport costs increased by 1 eg Inf-Elite 2, other Infantry 3, rest 4+
• Sea Transport can carry 7, was 5 (now carry 3x Inf-Elite or 2 Inf-Trained) was 5x Inf-Elite
• Air-Transport can carry 4, was 2 (now carry 2x Inf-Elite or 1 Inf-Trained) no change
• Fixed Base-Camp now take 2 Raid damage
• All Fighter now cost 1pu less, the AI has more chance to buy, but is still reluctant
• Increased size of the Sea Zone flags

.
WEST

• Germany AI gets free V1 & V2 Rockets as the AI will not buy them
• Germany get Industry-Med in Minsk & Industry-Lgt in Vitebsk, to stop the AI building 5+ Base-Camp in the area and improve rail links
• removed Victoria to Vancouver-W.British Columbia (thanks Black Elk)
• USSR get its HQ-Army T3, was T4 & more units

.
EAST

• Japan AI gets free Kamikaze-Plane
• Japan gets a more Transport to account for transport cost increases
• Japan gets more units to the east of Philippines and less in mainland/China
• Japan gets Pelelui-Palau Is.
• USSR gets new Industry-Lgt in Amur & Omsk allows faster rail movement across USSR

.
TODO

• Balance

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

[wc_sumpton]

@TheDog, @Black_Elk

Question about "supportAttachment_Xxx". Should units be designed with support add to their "unitAttachment", or left to the "supportAttachment" to add the buff?

Artillery is an infantry unit with 1 attack and self-support added to make 2 attack and an additional 1 attack given to another infantry type unit. This self-support is built into the "unitAttachment".
Artillery is also giving an additional 1 defensive support to infantry type units but fails to include itself for that support.
Artillery at 2/3/1 and 1 offensive/defensive support to 1 infantry type unit.
Artillery at 1/2/1 and 1 offensive/defensive support to 2 infantry type units, including artillery, anti-tank and anti-air (if added back in)
Artillery at 2/2/1 and 1 offensive (no defensive) support to 1 infantry type unit.

This also includes HQ units, should they be designed with their buff added ("unitAttachment"), or allowed to self-buff ("supportAttachment")?

Confusing thoughts

Cheers...

[TheDog]

Question about "supportAttachment_Xxx". Should units be designed with support add to their "unitAttachment", or left to the "supportAttachment" to add the buff?

Is a good question, I had realized that currently the HQ gave a self-buff, so can be 5 to Atk/Def, which I feel is wrong, but what do you/others think? Im not that well read on WW2 tactics, so open to change.

[wc_sumpton]

@TheDog, @Black_Elk

I would say 'No' to self-buffing through "supportAttachment" and that units that give support are given those benefits through "unitAttachment". Thus;
HQ-Army (Armor-Med) 4/4/2 so that ground support is automatically added.
HQ-Air (Fighter) 2/2/4 with ground support and 4/4 with Dog Fight support.
Artillery 2/2/1 with offensive ground support only (defensive ground support should be removed from it "supportAttachment").
In A&A, Artillery is considered an offensive unit, so it's "special attack" (Precision) should be 2/1 when stacked with HQ-Army. Like wise, Anti-Tank (which had it's "special attack" (Anti-Tank) removed) and Anti-Air (unit removed), I think should be considered defensive units and had their attackAA increased by 1.
Lastly Inf-Conscripts 1/1/1 3pus receives all offensive bonuses that Inf-Trained does for 1pus less. I spam them too when I get the chance. So they should not receive these bonuses from Artillery, HQ-Army etc...

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

I'll roll with the punches hehe. It took me a while to figure out how artillery worked here, and to realize when those hits were getting put up in the order of battle, since it's a bit different than A&A. The way they clap tends to feel a bit more like artillery to me than the vanilla versions (when the volley goes up with the big kaboom, which I enjoy), but again can be a bit confusing for a first out. I'd probably avoid the self boost, if only so it's a bit easier to parse what's happening.

Another thing not mentioned yet, but which I definitely noticed last game... So currently Bombers are very effective at screening vs surface warships, which I think would become their primary role if left as is. Not sure if this is desirable. I don't mind so much, since it mirrors the dark skies from A&A, but it's quite potent owing to their reach. Also cause the Brits and Americans can build quite a few in a single turn, and it's a bit asymmetrical in that way, since they're the only nations with access.

I think the effectiveness of Bombers in naval combat is because they cannot be targeted by most units, and only hit by aa fire, which allows them to cut enemy transports and DDs to ribbons from high altitude, once you've got a dozen or so grouped together. A couple rounds of dedicated Strat Bomber buys, and this is pretty tough to counter by Axis fleets, who also have to manage coastal production limits and a more limited naval roster than the Allies (least for Germany/Italy). Similarly, on defense, bombers can be very hard to eliminate, which also allows for somewhat gamey plays when they're parked somewhere on D to force a stalemate. I'd say in the current that Bombers are the best 'warship' that the Anglo Americans can buy, which can feel a bit oddball, but I can see players defaulting to that, like using them to mop up destroyers/transports/subs etc, then bombing once the enemy fleets are wiped. For the bombing itself, they're still kinda OP in my view, since wiping a factory off the board before the opponent can respond is quite powerful, and Allies get 2 ups at that in the turn order sequence. I've yet to see the computer replace a bombed out factory with a freebie, which might dampen the overall effect of bombing a bit, but haven't seen em use those. In the case of Germany, I think by the time Conscripts arrive it may be too late, since by then their factories are getting dropped faster than they can be replaced, so less production potential to spam the cheap hitpoints, and they'll probably be in the red on income from the lost cash due to maintenance and not having the factory bonus there. Currently Italy is pretty easy to smoke on the water, like right out the gate using the British starting bombers. Anyhow, just something to look into maybe.

For submarines I notice something similar with the targeting. To screen vs enemy subs I use subs of my own, which feels counter intuitive, but in conjunction with DDs they're quite effective. Since the Submarine unit is relatively cheap, attacks harder than the DD by itself, and is capable of taking the hit from a defending sub, unlike say a bomber (which I also use for in this role, though again only in conjunction with DDs AND Subs). Anyway, to my thinking, under the current it's better to attack a single sub with 1 DD and 1 Sub, than it is to do the same with 2 dds, since you get that extra pip. Though you have to be careful with the spacebar, since default casualty selection will take the hit on the DD first (less TUV), though you'd want the first hit on the Sub instead if doing that move, since the Destroyer is what holds the enemy on the surface and prevents them from diving.

[TheDog]

Testing Japan today the US Hard-AI used its 19 Bombers to wipe my invasion fleet, I even had 7 Fighter CAP, to add insult the Bombers sunk my 4 Fleet Carriers and some DDs, so my Fighters had no carrier to land on, then 5 remaining Bombers flew to a US island, to refuel.

So what to do ?

• Remove the Bombers 1 Attack
• Reduce the air attack rounds
• Block Bombers from targeting sea units
• or ...

[Black_Elk]

Since the unit is m8 any combat role is going to be a bit problematic. The vanilla unit in A&A is the most OP in the roster, since it's so versatile and so heavy hitting on attack for the cost.

I would consider removing the hitpoint entirely, and giving them an attack/defense value at 0 (effectively taking the unit out of combat) so that the only use for this type of bomber is SBR. But that only works if the AI is going to use them in that way - strictly for bombing. If it has a hitpoint, the attack/defense almost doesn't matter, cause the hitpoint by itself combined with the reach at m8 will make it too useful in combat, even purely as fodder, to ignore using them that way. With no hitpoint defending a TT would have them auto-destroyed on the ground, so they can't be abused as a way to funnel defensive HP across such a distance. Or you could treat them basically the way rockets are handled, like a single use purchase, very niche but even then, if they can be used to nix an enemy factory at a go, they'd still probably be worth the cost. It's a tough call, everything has knock on effects, any tweak to unit abilities or cost will tip the weight of the rest of the roster, but since the unit is being treated as a US/UK special here, I'd go nerf over buff for sure. If the unit can target ships and retains it's hitpoint then it comes down to a production spread issue, so for example Britain's12 bomber hitpoints per turn vs Germany's 8 naval hitpoints in sz 114. Or similarly the combined US/UK bomber strength vs Italy's 20 naval hp in sz 97b (assuming they could afford to just spam ships all day), but it's just a lot to overcome across that m8 distance. Axis don't have as many options for surface ships (G doesn't have a 2-hit unit on the water for example) so it tilts pretty hard Allied advantage if the Bomber is a combat unit.

That said, I did have fun using them as murder machines, and I do enjoy snaking an enemy factory out from under the AI, so there's that as well hahah. Strategic Bombing and getting those dudes in range was a big deal during the actual war, so I like that they have an outsized role thematically, but I think in the current they're a bit too hardcore. Another option would be to just raise the cost so they're more prohibitively expensive I suppose.

ps. actually I might try this, basically fashion the "bomber" as principally and exclusively a factory killer. I'd keep the cost the same, but make the bomber unit into a rocket in terms of how it works, so you don't have to tango with all the added complexity of making it a dual use unit. USA and Britain can afford to build them and have a couple semi-awkward factory spots like N. Ireland, Halifax, Vancouver etc that would make sense for placement for dropping bombs at m8 after one move out. USA has the same deal from Michigan or Texas. Since you need to mass them in order to have a good shot at the factory kill outright, there's a trade off there with a bit of a time delay and telegraphing intentions. Conceived that way, Axis Germany gets a similar unit with it's tech unlocks and Japan with Kamis, so there's a bit of parity in terms of the roster. Still allows the Allies a way to do the fun ruthless bombing stuff to clear a lane or shut down the rail movement bonus. I found that they also made the islands in the Pacific like Saipan and such feel more useful at m8, so they could still work like that. You'd need to get them in range first, but once they're used up just call it the high attrition rate maybe? I don't know how the AI would use them, but perhaps they could just bonus in a pair a turn or whatever, if you want the AI to use them to bomb consistently instead of running after the ships or getting involved in the ground war.

[wc_sumpton]

@TheDog, @Black_Elk

I spoke about the Bomber vs Industry problem before.
"isAAforCombatOnly"="false" cannot be used during regular combat
"isAAforBombingThisUnitOnly"="true" can only be used during SBR attacks
"maxAAattacks"="2" can only shoot at 2 attacking units
"maxRoundsAA" value="-1" does not matter, SBR only happens once at the beginning of the round.

What that is saying is that an Industry may only shoot at 2 units as long as 2 or more units attack. maxAAattacks should be "-1". maxRoundsAA is useless, once the second round of combat starts, SBR Bombers have already retreated.
"mayOverStackAA"="true" does not matter since no other unit can counter SBR attacks, and the best you can get during SBR is 1 dice for each attack bomber (maxAAattacks="-1")

Allow "Flak" to hit bombers. Every unit has "canNotTarget" set to all air units, but "Flak", AA fire from ground and navel units, can only hit fighter type units. "Flak" is done every combat round, and "Flak" can outnumber attacking air units.

Cheers...

[wc_sumpton]

@TheDog, @Black_Elk

Think aloud here. Types of support:
Ground Support: All unit have "canNotTarget" equal to all ari units, so any buff that effect normal attack/defense is call Ground Support.
Dog Fight: AA attacks between air units is call Dog Fight support.
Special Support (not given): Special AA attack, Artillery (Precision), Anti-Tank (Anti-Tank (removed)) and Anit-Air (removed) (Anti-Air). HQ-Army should be able to give Command/Morale support to these units as Special Support.
Flak Support (not given): attackAA (defensive) support given by Cruiser (HQ-Air as Cruiser) (attackAA should be raised to "2") and Anti-Air (removed).

The following units should receive no "supportAttachment" buffs, offensively, defensively or morale:
Air-Transport is the only 0/0 unit and should stay that way.
V-1, V-2 rockets their mission is to destroy enemy infostructure.
Nuclear-Bomber nuff said.
The following may receive defensive, defensive morale "supportAttachment", but not offensive, offensive morale buffs:
Carrier, Carrier-Fleet and Transport are transport units, but they can defend.
Bunker and Base-Camp both are considered manned infantry defensive units.
Inf-Conscript 1 attack power, it takes training to understand how to attack with different type of units (combined arms) which this unit lacks. Should be able to receive morale defensive support but not any other type of defensive "supportAttachment".
I am unsure how Kamikaze-Plane should be handled.
Both Battleship and Armor-Hvy are 4/4 units and should only receive morale offensive/defensive support.

Support given by HQ units should be considered Command/Morale support at 1:5.
Support given by individual units should be considered Offensive/Defensive Support at 1:1.

HQ-Air Should give Ground Support, Offensive/Defensive to all air units (except as noted above) at 1:5 and Dog Fight, Offensive/Defensive to all air units (except as noted above) at 1:5. Total units supported: 10.
HQ-Army Should give Ground Support, Offensive/Defensive to all land units (except as noted above) at 1:5 and Special Support, Offensive (Artillery) at 1:3, Defensive (Anti-Tank (special attack removed), Anti-Air (unit removed)) at 1:3. Total units supported: 8 (Special Support is divided between Offense/Defense and cannot be given together).
HQ-Fleet Should give Ground Support, Offensive/Defensive to all sea (including submarines) units (except as noted above) at 1:5 and Dog Fight, Offensive/Defensive to all air units (except as noted above) at 1:5. Total units supported: 10.
HQ-Submarine Should give Ground Support, Offensive/Defensive to all sea (including surface) units (except as noted above) at 1:5. Total units supported: 5.

[wc_sumpton]

@TheDog, @Black_Elk

Still thinking aloud... When dealing with combat, both "supportAttachment" and "territoryEffect" need to be considered. Units with offensive and/or defensive values of "4" (Battleship and Armor-Hvy) should only receive HQ's positive buffs. And units with offensive and/or defensive values of "3" (HQ-Army, Armor-Med, and Submarine-Adv) should only receive HQ's positive buffs, and one positive "supportAttachment". Units with offensive and/or defensive values of "0" (all infantry units are "1" attack "-1" marine), or "1" (all air units) need to watch the negative buffs.

Desert lots of open terrane, Fighters and Bomber +1 attack. I don't see what benefit infantry have on defense. No blitzing.

Forest lots of cover, Infantry, including Anti-Tank, Bunkers and Base-Camp, receive +1 defense. Fighters and Bomber -1 attack (going to attack with these units bring the HQ-Air to buff). All armor (including HQ-Army) -1 attack. And again, no blitzing.
Notes: Artillery and Anti-Air should have their AA attack affected, also their ability to buff units should be removed (both can't be done in 2.5 or 2.6) should not receive the +1 defensive buff. Artillery if 2 attack, may have the -1 attack, but the unit's buff still remains.

Marsh difficult terrane to move through, but infantry should be able to find additional cover, +1 defense. All armor, inf-motorized, artillery, anti-tank, anti-air, bunkers and base-camp should not be allowed.

Mountains difficult to travel through, pass may be thin and winding. Land units with 2 movement (all Armor (including HQ-Army) and Inf-Motorized) reduced to 1. Lite infantry (Inf-Conscript, Inf-Trained, Inf-Elite and Anti-Tank) units should find ample cover +1 defense. Armor units (including HQ-Army, Bomber-Lgt and Artillery) should find targeting difficult -1 attack.
Notes: Bunkers and Base-Camp are already built up defensives so do not receive defensive bonus. Artillery and Anti-Air need open space to attack/defend so no defensive bonus. Air units (Bomber, Fighters and HQ-Air) have "canNotTarget" lite infantry, plus the absents of tree cover means there should be no negative attack/defense bonuses given. Inf-Motorized should have no attack/defense bonuses.

Urban more like manmade mountains then forest, but are designed for ease of movement, so no negative movement bonus. Also blitzing should be controlled by "Blitz Through Factories And AA Restricted" option. Otherwise everything else should be the same as Mountains.

Tundra frozen waste land or boggy mess, digging foxholes will be difficult, also not a lot of natural cover. Lite Infantry (including Anti-Tank) -1 defense. During the "frozen" time there should be no movement restrictions, but "boggy" is different, all Armor (including HQ-Army, Inf-Motorized) should not be allowed or have their movements reduced to "0". Fighter units (including HQ-Air, Bombers and Bomber-Lgt) on the other hand should have a field day, +1 to attack and defend!

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

I like the ideas mentioned above.

Also since terrain, bunkers and base camps were mentioned again... I would still try to avoid the situation where a TT has a value of zero and thus cannot build infrastructure, or where that TT is overstacked at the outset (has stuff on it that couldn't be replaced once destroyed.) I just think we went through the effort of making practically every tile worth 1 PU (including sea zones), such that anything still remaining that's worth zero feels pretty conspicuous on the map hehe. The whole top of the board currently and most neutrals, along with a few islands or random interior tiles. Since the totals for the economy are kinda arbitrary here (nothing tying us down/doesn't have to match any existing map/board), I don't see a strong reason to put the floor at zero when it could just as easily be at 1 PU. Then the player has a way to quickly parse what can be built where. We have a ready way to give every spot a value like that. Even if some tiles have intrinsic value as transits or landing spots or blocking spots, I just prefer the concept that everything starts at 1 and goes up from there.

I'd match the total number of infrastructure allowed to the PU value displayed on the map at the low end. So 1 PU = 1 structure, 2 PUs = 2 structures, 3 PUs and up = 3 structures... Then hold to that for the pre-placed stuff like bunkers or base camps so that nothing is over-stacked initially, which I think could lend itself to confusion once those tiles trade hands. Then I'd just go around the board and remove some of the bunkers which would be over that limit so it's consistent at a glance. So say a boggy marsh or harsh tundra/desert tile or a mostly empty island atoll, that spot might only be worth 1 PU, pretty limited. Just about everywhere else worth 2 PUs which gives an interesting strategic choice: stack 2 bunkers for defense, or 1 bunker 1 base for the build option? Spots worth 3 PUs (= 2 bunkers AND a base) become sort of the go to line for the more attractive conquests. Places that can be used to build a forward base and then defend it with the double bunker. Assuming you keep the max build for bunkers at 2 per tile, that means that just about any tile worth 3 PUs and up is going to be worth it in the TT trade. For neutrals, I'd replace the over-stacked bunkers with starting forces in infantry. I think seeing bunkers at 9 in those spots makes them feel less cool in places where there are only 1 or 2 bunkers, which would otherwise seem more formidable hehe. Also, even though they're an effective deterrent in early rounds, once the player stacks up I think the bunkers are too easy to cut through. I think with starting forces or higher PU values the AI may still go after Neutrals, but I think seeing some neutral inf forces on the board would look cool and give some flexibility to scale up with a tank or fighter or whatever if needed for the hotspots.

Another tweak, I think we could also consider removing some of the starting factories that are currently on the board, and replace them with starting cash for players to just buy factories in the opening turns. I'd keep the PU values of those TTs at that the same level, but allow the player to build up their production capacity via Factory buys instead of having them already as a given. Currently almost everywhere that could support a factory has one at the outset, but I think that's somewhat less entertaining than if the player just had a bunch of build options and could decide where to put the focus in that particular game. For example, maybe Germany has most of their heavy industry expansion in their interior tiles, where it's safer from bombing, but also somewhat awkward for movement to the front. So some tension between rebuilding forward production vs the risk of enemy bombing or building in the safer spots in the interior, but with a delay on moving out units. Then early rounds might be about making some tough decisions on where to build those factories, since the player would have that incentive to get production hubs going. For the USSR especially, since they get bonus factories placed automatically after a couple rounds I could see that as a way for them to scale up in the backfield. Or the USA, same deal. Currently there are only a couple frontline spots that can support a factory build that don't already have a factory at the outset. Most spots are in the USA which is pretty far off from the front (though a pretty good investment and thematic for the scale up), but I mean more the spots like Algiers, Bahia-Norde est in Brazil, Hong Kong, Singapore etc. Those spots are fun, and become nice targets. I think it'd be cool with like a couple dozen spots that could house a factory like that, but which don't necessarily start out with one, leaving it more at the player's discretion to connect some of those dots hehe.

I'm enjoying that last build v90 I tried a couple games as each side vs the HardAI and then FastAI. Both felt pretty entertaining. I think FastAI's wild antics were a nice change of pace actually, since they went for broke a few times in large engagements. Both struggle a bit to get their transports out and push their stacks early, but I saw some clutch air blitzes and some good back and forth in the ground game. AI seems to purchase base camps and bunkers pretty well (though sometimes they leave their bases undefended), factories they don't seem to build. It'd be cool if we could figure how to get em to buy those, cause otherwise it's harder not to have the stuff down at the outset. Maybe the AI could just ge them bonused in, whereas the player gets a pile of cash to pick and choose. I bought a lot of bombers and a lot of elites in the last game haha. Fun stuff! Nice work!

ps. one last thought, but I think it would be cool if the Industry-Lgt could produce transports, and if Industry-Med could produce cruisers and fighters for all nations. The latter I find a little confusing currently, since say USSR and Pacific-Allies can build 'Early' Fighters from their Industry-Mediums, but nobody else can, since they don't have access to early fighters. The regular fighters and bombers need an Industry-Hvy. But then some player-nations lose access to early fighters (if they had it to begin with), so it's a little tough to figure out Nation by Nation.

I think I would ditch the concept of "early" equipment honestly, and just frame that equipment as "Light" instead, which is a bit more vague/adaptive. That way you don't have to get rid of it after a couple turns. To me it's a little weird to have units that cease to be available in the roster but which are still hanging around on the board. The German armor-lgt for example, like by the time you get the notification that they're going out of style one might spam them, but it happens so soon and there might not be a ton of cash to throw around. Anyhow, makes the German Industry-Lgt rather less effective than the same spot occupied by Italy or one of the Allies, since they can't build their Armor-lgt from those spots in later rounds. Same deal for the M3 fighters and Industry-Meds. Perhaps the weaker M3 fighter might be something that an Industry-Lgt could build? That would then make the unit a lot more attractive as a buy, even though M3 is awkward, it has utility for the scramble and such, like I would definitely buy them more often if that was the case. And then you could push the reg fighters into Industry-Medium for everyone, just to have it feel consistent there. For Nations that have tougher placement restrictions like Pacific Allies or China that might help them to manage vs the Japanese onslaught or weather the aafire with less heartbreak. I think for China at least being able to build a fighter out of Urumchi might be helpful, or Pacific Allies being able to spawn them from a few more spots. Even for the bigger dogs like Britain, it would make some of their Industry-Med locations like in Wales or South Africa more useful, just being able to build reg fighters or cruisers from there as well.

[wc_sumpton]

@Black_Elk

Interesting, maybe all the over stacked, 0PUs territories, should have those bunkers removed. Bunkers can only be placed in territories with a PU value of 1, and replacing the bunkers with a standing militia while the value of the territory is 0, seams useless. May just make those territories impassable. Another thought would be to give those territories a valid PUs value, and discussing the role these neutrals (Spain, Turkey, Swiss, etc...) play.

Spain just finished with a civil war, but was indebted to Germany. So, while Madrid and the surrounding territories remain neutral a small PUs would be paid to Germany. If an axis player took control of Madrid, installing a "Puppet Government", then the surrounding territories, along with any standing militia/bunkers, would pass over to that player. Allied control, would cause a revolt, with the remaining militia being able to attack that player.

Just some thoughts on "0PUs neutral territories".

"Lend-Lease-Depot" is also listed as a "factory"/industrial unit. Its presence, over stacked, gives the owning player PUs, whether or not conditions are met for the PUs to be reduced from the paying player. So reclassify to "lending" remove its "1:PUs" resource and use the same conditions witch remove "PUs" to grant the "PUs":

<!-- Removes PUs from Britian -->
<attachment name="triggerAttachment_Britain_Lend-Lease-Depot" attachTo="Britain" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Britain_Lend-Lease-Depot"/>
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Persian_Corridor"/>
	<option name="resource" value="PUs"/>
	<option name="resourceCount" value="-9"/>
	<option name="when" value="before:BritainEndTurn"/>
</attachment>

<!-- Grants PUs to USSR -->
<attachment name="triggerAttachment_USSR_Lend-Lease-Depot" attachTo="USSR" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Britain_Lend-Lease-Depot"/>
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Persian_Corridor"/>
	<option name="resource" value="PUs"/>
	<option name="resourceCount" value="9"/>
       <!-- Still should happen before Britian end turn -->
	<option name="when" value="before:BritainEndTurn"/>
</attachment>

Reclassifying "Lend-Lease-Depot" would allow the building of one of the four "Production" units, even if the unit was destroyed.
"Base-Camp" can only construct 1 unit (Inf-Trained, Inf-Elite), and can be placed anywhere. I also think it should be able to produce a Transport. Also during times when the owning player is determined to be losing, Inf-Conscript, Early-Fighter (?Fighter-Lgt?) and Armor-Lgt. (Early-Fighter and Armor-Lgt should be considered old stock units, either over produced prior to the war, or given by an allied player, so these units should only be "purchasable" during times of need.) No matter how many different units Base-Camp can produce, it may only produce 1 unit at a time. Base-Camp main advantage is its ability to muster units produced at other locations, and have them be quickly moved into combat positions. This should also include the Transport. Other questions about the Base-Camp, should it be upgradable in territories with a PUs value equal to or greater than 5, or should its placement be restricted, and those territories require "Industrial" units.

[Black_Elk]

My preference would be to have all TTs on the board at a minimum value of 1 PU. I see two main advantages...

First, because it allows an easy way for us to differentiate discrete tiles. Each tile worth 1 PU or more will display on the map from the PU Place, wheras a TT worth zero won't show anything. Since the are no labels displayed, and control flags were nixed, I think this would be helpful particularly for islands where it might not be obvious if something is a separate tile at a glance. If everything has a value of 1 or more, then separate tiles are clearly indicated to the player. Even if they're not hovering over with their cursor, that info is quickly conveyed at glance by the PU graphics.

Second because the scale of the map here can pretty easily accommodates a floor at 1 PU rather than zero. Unlike a standard WW2 game where the player is maybe collecting 30 or 40 PUs per turn, the overall economy here is much higher. So if say Gibraltar or Malta is worth Zero normally, to me it makes sense that those spots be worth 1PU here, just given how many more subdivisions there and the values we're seeing elsewhere on the map. If Germany is usually what like 10 or 20 PUs, and here that same region is worth like 60 PUs, to me it just makes sense that everywhere would be worth 1. If it was worth drawing on the map, I think it's worth at least 1 hehe. The gulf between zero and 1 is lot wider than between 1 and 2, so I'd go for that as the foundation, 1 PU. Then if you want to hold the structure limit down, you could always say you need 1 over the displayed PU value to build a structure. 1 PU= 0 Structures, 2 PUs= 1 structure etc. Though to me it'd be easier to parse at a 1:1 where PU value = number of structures allowed. I think either could work, but I'd aim to have the TT value at 1 PU regardless hehe. I think many neutrals already have a value, so it's probably something like an added 50-100 PUs across the map, depending on what values are chosen and assuming most neutrals are worth only 1 or 2, just so a neutral crush isn't the go-to. Still just for parity with other regions of the board, I'd bump up a couple there. You know like Madrid could be worth 2 or 3 and I wouldn't bat an eye, if Majorca is worth 1, I'm sure that'd seem fine. Doesn't have to scale exactly the same way for the neutral tiles as it does for the the active player-nation tiles, but I think that would be sensible and make for a nice visual.

I'm intrigued also by the adapted Lend-Lease and Base mentioned above. Something I thought about earlier but forgot to mention, so right now there are those oil rigs in certain TTs. I believe they are meant as a way to hold down the production capacity on those tiles while still providing the higher income. Though to me they'd probably be more interesting as a destroyable/buildable type thing. As for the Lend Lease TTs, taking spots can be a little confusing after TTs trade hands. I think it's not totally clear whether control of say Yunnan/Burma will produce a bonus after the territory has been conquered but then liberated. Perhaps the player should be able to rebuild Lend-Lease but for some cost? I like the concept of a base-camp that is imagined more as a deployment center than a training center so I'm on board with that for sure. I had thought earlier about suggesting that transports might be built from a base-camp. This would make base camps on islands a lot more intriguing, since getting transports into position is a challenge. Allowing the base camp to spawn a fighter could also be cool. I think the key is to hold it to just a single unit, as you say, so they're not too OP. But I could see em doing triple duty like that, with an option for gound/sea/air, but where you'd have to choose just one, cause you can only place a single unit per turn. Since the AI buys a lot of base-camps, this might help them to play more effectively.

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk

I'm still puzzled about the Lend-Lease-Depot. In some regards it seems to operate like "objectives", with a list of territories connected, but only to withdraw PUs. The owning player only needs to maintain only the territory with the Depot to collect income. Also, they are destroyed when captured. So, if Baku-Azerbaijan were captured, all 9 Depot will be destroyed. If the USSR player recaptured Baku-Azerbaijan and placed 1 Lend-Lease-Depot there, while also maintaining control of Fars, Lorestan, Tehran and Gilan, Britian would be charged 9PUs, while USSR would only receive 1PUs. It just doesn't make sense.
The Oil-Field just increases the PUs of a territory and seems to be a ?Lend-Lease-Depot-Lgt?. Just confusing to me...

Basically we agree on Base-Camp. The Industry-Lgt, with its production capped at 5 units, should be able to produce Armor-Med, Fighter, Bomber-Lgt, Artillery, Anti-Tank, Anti-Air, Destroyer, Cruiser and Submarine plus all the units Base-Camp can produce. Basically everything that a growing army needs.

Industry-Med, seems like an odd unit, with its capacity top out at 7, is only 2 more then Industry-Lgt. I think it production should be Battleship, Carrier (capital ships), Bomber and all HQ units.

Industry-Hvy on the other hand, I think should be able to produce the number of units equal to the territory's PUs. Giving this unit superior production capabilities. And it should product advance units Submarine-Adv, Armor-Hvy, P51 Mustang, Fighter-Jet, Carrier-Fleet, and the V1/V2 Rockets.

Productive, production thoughts.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

I had a similar feeling re lend-lease. To me what makes it confusing is that the mechanic involves controlling or disrupting multiple TTs along the corridor, some of which aren't represented by a visual on the board. To me this also recalls National Objectives, which I disliked in vanilla v3 (where the NOs were introduced) exactly for that reason, because they are hard to track at a glance and require the player to go under the hood to get more info. We would have to ask theDog I think since my only contribution there was the graphics and floating the concept initially, though this is the first time I've seen Lend-Lease approached in this way, as like a unit. Typically I've seen it approached as some form of extra game-phase where the income transfer occurs if the player elects to send aid. The distinction here is that Lend-Lease is an automatic (provided the associated TTs are controlled) which might be advantageous to team Allies, or might not, depending on who can use the money more effectively, like based on what units are available in their roster and how much capacity they have for placement. I can imagine a situation where Britain or USA might be better off just keeping their money to direct it elsewhere, and maybe rooting for Japan to take Burma, or Italy to take Baku or whatever, since that frees their hand. If the income is simply redirected from another Nation's purse, it's not exactly a bonus per se cause the money doesn't go away if disrupted, it just returns to the 'lending' nation's purse again. So not as consequential as it might seem at first. Sure taking Yunnan would remove 20 PUs from China, but if USA can still place those 20 PUs somewhere else... ya know. Hehe

As a unit, to me it would make sense to distribute them more evenly. So for example, if it's 20 PUs to China say for controlling Yunnan and Burma, then perhaps 10 are in Yunnan and 10 are in Burma, so it's easier to see what's going on from the visual. Though again the mechanics are a bit of a puzzle to me as well. As for the factories...

Currently the production cap for the Factories is:
Industry-Lgt =2 units
Med = 3 units
Hvy= 4 units

To me this feels very much on the low end, despite having a pretty high economy, the placement restrictions here feel similar to v3 or Big World, or games where the primary limitation isn't the money in the coffers, but the placement cap allowing fewer hitpoints spawned from a given location per round. For the costs, this can be tricky, since the units also produce recurring income. (I like this, and think it's a novel feature, but also harder to pin down the concrete value, since they're worth more the longer they're in play/can be kept alive without being bombed.) For the extra cash vs cost...

Industry-Lgt = 3 PUs per turn, at a cost of 16 to build
Med = 5 PUs per turn, costs 21
Hvy = 9 PUs per turn, costs 26

The extra income somewhat offsets the higher cost of building factories, but if calculated in terms of trained-inf you might otherwise be purchasing, I can see how it might be better to just buy 4 inf units from an existing factory, rather than purchasing a new Industry-Lgt. The only reason I think to do the later, is because of the rail movement bonus, or to shorten the logistics in an area of the board that's otherwise hard to reach via transports and the like, or because you want to try to increase the income totals per turn. The choice is further complicated by the knowledge that a factory could be bombed into the dirt before you get much use out of it, or end up being a drain if you have to repair constantly, though I tend to find myself building them whenever I'm able to do so, just purely for the rail bonus, since that is so potent haha. Anyhow, broad agreement here I think. Good points/ideas!

ps. for the overall production levels, I think the current scale works well enough, meaning there's typically enough production to mass sufficient hitpoints per turn, even if you have to pull them from a lot of different spots, but I also worry a bit how quickly hitpoints scale up. The maintenance holds this down a bit, but still if the player is just spamming Trained-Inf to the ceiling for a couple rounds and then parking those hitpoints on the VCs, you can be into 60+ stacks pretty quickly. Attrition is up to the players to initiate right, but much favors consolidated defense, so if one side starts to stack it's hard for the opponent not to follow suit. Main thought being, if production caps are raised for individual factories, or the player has to put more into the investment (needing to front the cash to build em say), then fewer starting factories would probably be the way to go. You don't need as many on the board if they can produce more individually, though this would completely upend the current balance in spots where the production is tight. Say San Diego or Hamburg etc only able to put 4 hitpoints into the water, which makes fighters for the scramble much more important if trying to hold position from that coastal sea zone. You hit the placement cap in a lot of other sea zones that way, unless multiple factories feed into it, can be tough to mass enough hitpoints in a forward position. Having a transport spawned from a base-camp could dampen the effect somewhat though. For example G might purchase a few bases in Denmark or Norway for the transports and use the Hamburg slots for heavier hitting cruisers, stuff like that. I don't mind the 1-2-3-4 production scale, it does feel a bit tight at the high end, but it works provided enough factories can remain on the board. I think were it runs into the wall is that the player can disrupt the factory equilibrium pretty easily with bombers, and the AI won't really respond in kind. I see a similar issue with canal control. I think it may be more efficient to handle special waterways from a single controlling TT. Treating everything like a Panama or Gibraltar more or less, and at values that would encourage their defense/conquest by the AI. Control of the special waterways is pretty critical, so whatever it takes to get the AI to prioritize them would be cool, even if it bends from the usual. For example Gibraltar could be 4 PUs instead of zero, if that's what it takes for the AI to go after it consistently. It it requires 5 PUs sans starting factory or something more like 7 or 9 to make that happen, that'd be totally acceptable to me too. Like basically whatever it takes. Currently Copenhagen is worth 4, and I have seen the Brits/Germans go after it, but not with the kind of commanding attention the spot probably deserves. I'm not sure what it would take to get the AI to prioritize canal/strait control. Part of me thinks if we can't get the AI to gun for them, it might be better to leave them out altogether. Or have that feature be an option-on/off in the game settings for PvP. Least for the Straits, since Canals are a bit more established in the back-catalog. Classic players would recognize the canals, but straits are more recent. In most A&A games for example the Bosporus was just open by default, with an 'option' to close in later games (that most would ignore), and nothing special about Gibraltar or Kattegat till like G40 came along hehe. Anyhow, just another couple thoughts to kick around. I'm still having a lot of fun with this thing. I think it's got some charm for sure! About to start another game as Allies haha

couple gamesaves from the last outs using v90... To see the later rounds I upped the VC count from 21 to 25 in a few games, though some form of bid or resource bonus in the settings might be similar to increase the difficulty I was just using the VC count to see what that would look like. At 21 under the vanilla conditions I was taking the TKO by VC pretty quickly, like by round 10, it was pretty much in the bag, unless something really went awry in the opener. Even then usually just a delay of a round or two once the ball is rolling. 25 takes a fair bit longer, but usually from the position of already basically having won, dong more mop up, though that's enjoyable I found. I think a VC at Chunking might help on the Pacific side, since Japan can often contest the interior of the mainland more easily than some of the coastal spots at during the endgame if the IJN is on it's heels. Anyhow, gives a sense for what I was doing with what we're given. Each iteration I've tried to adapt to the changes, but the basic play for me is organized around factories and pushing mass hitpoints same way I'd play A&A, which seems to work reasonably well here now that I got a feel for it. Bunkers still throw me though. There will be times I'm thinking "sure shot! got it no prob" but then get stood up, usually on amphib hehe. Also a few AI airblitzes when the guard is down, that can swing things quite a bit. Fun stuff though!

2023-5-22-1941-Global-Command-Decision Elk vs HardAI Allies round 7 Germany.tsvg

2023-5-22-1941-Global-Command-Decision Elk vs HardAI Axis round 8 Britain.tsvg

2023-5-24-1941-Global-Command-Decision v90 Elk vs HardAI Axis round 12 USSR.tsvg

2023-5-25-1941-Global-Command-Decision v90 Elk vs AI Allies rematch round 10 Japan.tsvg

2023-5-27-1941-Global-Command-Decision v90 Elk vs FastAI Allies round 9 Germany.tsvg