💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread

wc_sumpton

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

TheDog

Re: 0pu
For reference: Sea Zones are worth 1-3pu, 2-3s are for those SZ that have high mercantile traffic usually outside a canal, the rest are 1pu.

Tundra with a large land mass is 0pu and very small islands are 1pu.

Lots of Neutral TT are 0pu, this was to deter the AI from attacking these TT, also to deter the AI by giving in the case of Switzerland 19 Bunkers s, sometimes the Fast-AI still invades Switzerland and Spain, but never Turkey.

@Black Elk & others, does the Hard-AI still do the same?

In the case of Tundra, Gibraltar, Spain, all the Neutrals with 0pu, I agree with Black Elk, there should be no 0PUs.

wc_sumpton

@thedog

Welcome back, as you can tell we've been sharing 'War Stories'!

Cheers...

TheDog

Oh my, you so have been sharing, there is a lot to get through!

Black_Elk

Haha right on!

I've seen the hardAI Axis attack Aragon, Switz, and Algerian Sahara, and Japan hitting Afghanistan. Haven't seen them hit Turkey or Arabia. HardAI USA will sometimes hit Columbia, Venezuela, or Ecuador, though they usually stalemate in the attempt, especially if it's amphib, which is usually the case. Creates some weirdness, since unlike the active player tiles there is no follow up for the Neutrals (i.e. USA won't clear those bunkers as a defender on the Neutral's turn) so they end up having to Non-Com out of the engagement the following round. This can be pretty disruptive for the HardAI USA's play pattern, as they end up wasting a lot of effort to mop up the Central and South America tiles, rather than moving their forces to the fronts vs Axis. Basically they have a delay of 3 or 4 rounds moving out from North America, which is a lot of breathing room for Axis.

I think the HardAI will take destroying 'enemy' TUV as an end in itself, and since forces here can get quite large, I'm not sure there's a reliable way to prevent this from happening short making those neutral's impassible. I think that's a perfectly fine solution for certain tiles perhaps Switz, though for others like Spain, Turkey, Sweden etc it seems more fun to have those be attackable-neutrals. Currently I think it's set so aircraft cannot enter/fly over neutrals. This dampens the effect a fair bit, since it means the HardAI/Player won't just airblitz the hell out of neutrals, or carve their bunkers to shreds with bomber-lgts. Perhaps you could use a similar method to make attacking Neutral more onerous. For example maybe neutral infantry hit like heavy tanks and have a TUV of zero, so they're more effective in combat but don't present a juicy target in TUV. Or perhaps neutrals are restricted like the marshes where the attacker can only bring infantry to make it more of a chore. Something along those lines to make the neutrals less attractive for the AI to stomp, while still leaving the option on the table for the player. Not sure which approach is best, though I do rather like how all neutrals are basically handled the same way, sans politics.

Or you could just let it ride, and call it a sphere of influence in the abstract when neutrals enter the fray. Like whether it really matters if some of those spots are in play. Many Neutrals could easily have ended up in the fight. In gameplay terms the most interesting would probably be Turkey, just to open those straits, though right now that's pretty tough to pull off. Easier for Axis to do I think, but either way probably needs a large amphib force to execute in a timely manner. The other is the Spanish landing pad, though for that probably advantage to Allies from the mechanics. I think Portugal could have gone either way, so that seems interesting thematically. Spain seems less likely, cause it had just finished a long war, but if it's brought into play probably a toss up, if Axis can stack into Gibraltar that way, but also opens up more coast to defend from Allied transports, so probably not a great use of their forces. Sweden is similar, more likely Allied stomp I'd think. Switzerland opens another lane for some of the rail movement, but once it's dropped the impact isn't too huge, could work to either sides advantage. But the player I think would be more conservative about it than the HardAI is.

I think if you can find a way to deter the AI from doing it, in PvP it probably wouldn't happen too often if the attrition was high and the value relatively low like 1 PU for most, cause you'd be better off sending those HP against the enemy directly rather than at the neutrals, but for a few spots I can see it for sure, like Kunduz especially. I would artificially inflate those spots to have larger standing forces if you want them to remain mostly inactive throughout. Although by round 10, probably anything goes, cause the armies get quite large.

ps. Oh also, before I forget, so for Bunkers, I think it would be fun if TTs worth a certain amount, say 5 PUs and up could support a 3rd bunker to differentiate those spots. Basically anywhere that can house a factory. The Atlantic wall for example might have 3 Bunkers from the start, or the national capitals. They don't all need to all be maxed from the start, but a few 3s here and there. So that there can be more depth to the defense in the high production areas, as opposed to the more out of the way spots which might have 1 or 2 bunkers. Just so there's some scale there and variety around the map. I like the idea that most key spots might have either a starting bunker or a base to make them feel more important, I like how you did that for Iwo.

pps. Another quick thought, but if bases could produce a fighter, then a base in Iceland would be cool. M3 is pretty restrictive, but at M4 there are a lot of spots that would make sense to spawn fighters for Allies. Labrador, Puerto Rico and the Guianas. Bases in West Africa could transit fighters towards Egypt from relative safety. Gives a way to reinforce India with air directly. Or they could funnel across the Central Pacific with the island hop from USA or Pacific Allies. This is similar to what happened in the actual war. To get aircraft to the further flung regions from where they were built. Thematically the base-camp could reflect that for the fighters, or be seen as refueling depots and such if used to support naval with a transport. If doing it I would allow the base to build the m4 fighter, cause I think it would be fun to play the fighter skip across the oceans and they're good on the scramble. If you don't want too many bases to form clusters everywhere, you could always restrict their total number or something. I don't know, perhaps everyone gets a handful, but then you hit a ceiling cap, just so they don't eclipse the factory in importance.

TheDog

Re: Oil-Field
Oil-Field does in effect add PU to a TT. As they are units 1x Oil-Field add 1pu per turn.

Rather than add the Oil-Field PU directly to TT PU, it deliberately means the TT will not support an Industry, on the negative side the AI does not see this additional PU.

As these TT were the WW2 objectives of the Axis, how should we represent Oil-Fields?

.
Re: Lend-Lease-Depot
I now realise all of them are not working as intended.

Archangelsk, the TT has to be over run to stop the PU bonus (Oops missing conditional xml code for Britain to give 4pu/turn, where did it go )
Persian Corridor through Iran(Fars, Lorestan, Tehran, Gilan) to Baku. Britain gives 9pu as long as 4x Iranian TT are owed (Only partially works, if one of the 4 is missing Britain does not get -9pu deducted, but USSR still gets 9pu)
Vladivostok, USA gives 8pu to the USSR per turn, whilst the Non-Aggression Pact holds. (Only partially works, after the NAP is over, USSR still gets PU and USA does not get deducted)
Burma Road from N.Burma to Yunnan. USA gives 20pu to China per turn, whilst it exists. (Only partially works as if N.Burma is occupied China still gets 20pu, but USA is not deducted)

So how best to have Lend-Lease-Depot, if at all ?

TheDog

Latest version 95 ready for download from 1st page 1st post

.
Germany can now move subs after random placement (turns 2+) they can now move & attack.

If 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)

.
Major Changes

Inf-Elite get Flak 1 in 12, stop lone Fighters from blocking occupation of a TT, mainly in the East (thanks Black Elk)
Fixed Artillery using AA re target Base-Camp & Bunker (did not make it crash) now using it for AA like other units
Artillery looses its support defence bonus and drops to 6pu, was 7
Reduced the number of Notification for USA alliances with Brazil, Mexico etc
HQs support fixed, now are NOT self supporting, self-supporting was a bit weird (thanks WC Sumpton)
Bombers can now be hit by targeted Flak from ground and sea surface units (thanks WC Sumpton)
Fixed Industry SBR AA (thanks WC Sumpton)
100ish 0pu TT changed to 1pu, was 0
Updated place.txt, pu_place.txt, reliefTiles (thanks Black Elk)
Updated Pacific-Allies HQ-Air & HQ-Fleet icons (thanks Black Elk)

.
WEST

Germany can now move subs after random placement (turns 2+) they can now move & attack.
USA fixed Tech advances as they were not working (thanks WC Sumpton)

.
EAST

China swapped Hong Kong VC for Chunking (Harder for Japan to get/hold Chunking)

.
TODO

Conscripts only when occupied, code like Kamikaze
supportAttachment and territoryEffect supports
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

Looking good!

Here's a pu_place for the neutrals and the spots that were zero before but now have a the 1up pu. Just tried to get the numbers out where they'd be more visible on the opening turn. I think I got em all. Figure we can fiddle with it once the starting units are set and that place is all handled, but least for G1 should be able to see em at a glance not clipped by the terrains or bunkers hopefully. If I gave it a pass I tried to pull the pu for the islands just outside which I think is sometimes easier to see. We can make it more consistent down the road, but this should service.

pu_place.txt

Nice work!

TheDog

Labels
Bomber-Lgt is a Tactical 1-2 engined, Dive/Torpedo Bomber

We should rename it?
Bomber-Tactical (long-ish but much better than Bomber-Lgt)
Bomber-Tac
Bomber-Tcl
or ...

Fighter-Early are Early war fighters, Im happy with this label, but ... ?

Any other label suggestions?

Black_Elk

I like something that indicates the shorter range, like Fighter-Patrol. Then maybe the m4 is called Fighter-Escort? Fighter-Early seems fine, though for Pacific-Allies this is their only fighter type for most of the game so I guess they're stuck in the past hehe. I buy them with Pacific-Allies cause it's the only choice on offer, but the range is pretty limiting. Fighter-Early seems like a decent buy for USSR though. For China they seem to work fine, though I'd probably buy a couple more to spend a remainder every now and again if they were a purchase option. I like tactical bomber or bomber-tactical, whatever works. Shorthand is Tac B for me. Strategic bombers I shorthand Strat B hehe. Or you could just call it bomber for everyone, and have the other one be Bomber-Heavy or Bomber-Long Range, since it's sort of a hybrid of those at M8 here. In my last game the German flak was pretty brutal, I think I'll try massing a larger air armada next time, so I don't get my wings clipped as hard.

wc_sumpton

@thedog

Like what you did to the Artillery, remove "Precision" and given "Flak". Maybe "Flak" could be given to Anti-Tank, besides Inf-Conscript this is the only other without "Flak".

Bomber-Tac seems more descriptive for the roll this units plays.

wc_sumpton

@black_elk

Lol, yea Bomber were added to the "Flak", they are not quite the "Super-Weapon" they were before! :face_with_tears_of_joy:

@TheDog
"Long-Lance" (+1 attack) is given to Japan Destroyer and Cruiser but not their HQ-Fleet which operates like a Cruiser. This advantage could also be given with a "Tech Advance". With a message give to all players about this advantage, and a mark, the gold "Diamond", used to distinguish these units.

As a thought I would give the Cruiser (also HQ-Fleet) the better "Flak" capabilities, not the Battleship, it has the "Radar" symbol. Then use this unit to buff another unit's "Flak". This could also be deter one pesky Bomber-Tac.

This same "Flak" buff could also be given by Anti-Air, if the unit were to be reinstated.

Cheers...

Black_Elk

For sure! I definitely prefer it this way even if bombing runs are nail biters now hehe. I think the attrition rate may be a bit high, but the ability to kill a factory outright is so potent I think its probably still worth the investment. Although the chance of getting cut to shreds with flak means the m8 bomber is best used 'strategically' like when its mission critical to shut down an opponent's rail link. Using them piecemeal seems ill advised, since the cost in TUV lost to flak is likely much higher than the damage you'll inflict. Probably best to save them for when it really matters hehe.

Few more thoughts on Aircraft... Currently you have m3, m4 and m8 air types. In A&A the standard is m4 for fighters and tac Bs, and m6 for strat Bs. That range can be enhanced with a tech advance or an air base in A&A, but those are the norm for the reg distances. I think m8 makes sense here for the big bombers, since there are so many more tiles on this map, and their use is somewhat limited to sbr, but we are missing an m6 type currently, which might make sense for the tactical bomber, since it can be quite tough to bomb effectively at m4. You have to be sort of right on top of the target at m4, with many spots out of range at that distance.

I bag on the m3 fighter a fair bit, although I'm pretty sure I invented it lol. Or at least first to stick em in a tripleA game, so I can be sorta overly harsh on em probably on account of that haha. At the time I wanted something that would reflect WW1 fighters, so figured reducing the range by 1 movement would distinguish them from their WW2 counterparts. For the bi-planes or a late game red Red Baron tri-plane, m3 seemed cool to me, but m3 and m5 (like G40 with the +1 from the AB) can be kinda wonky. It does create some interest for the attacker at the shorter distance, like trying to get the most coverage possible, and makes a few of the m3 transits more significant, although when I was setting the map divisions I figured m4 would be the standard, so there are fewer of those. Crossing the Atlantic with early fighters at m3 sans carriers can be a challenge. Right now for example USA needs their carriers to make use of their starting early fighters. I think a common exploit would be for Pacific-Allies to land their early fighters on USA carriers, or USA early fighters to land on British carriers at the receiving end. Not sure if that's desirable, as it's kinda gamey. I'm sorta used to zombies rules now, which restricts landing on friendly carriers, though for the m3 fighter that'd be pretty limiting here. Last game I bought a bunch with Russia just to see how they'd measure up, and they were pretty solid. M3 fighters still have their uses, esp for defensive scrambling. Even a fighter at m2 would be useful on attack though, since they can attack into a tile without having to occupy it in the aftermath. Fighters at any movement (2 and up), would still be handy for trading TTs and creating deadzones in that way, which is the primary use for fighters in A&A after defense, but m3 is definitely more awkward than m4. Any odd numbered movement would be awkward for aircraft, since it requires a different landing spot than the takeoff to achieve the max reach.

Anyhow, I think they're fine and make sense for some nations like China or USSR, though they wouldnt be my go to in the purchase roster for most. China currently can't buy any replacements if they lose their starting fighters to flak (pretty likely.) Same deal for Pacific-Allies and their pair of tactical bombers which can't be replaced. If the attrition rate is high with no way to replace, aafire can be pretty rough for the little guys.

I think the production restrictions are the most impactful though. Esp for Pacific-Allies, which have only have one coastal factory capable of producing aircraft/ships. Makes it pretty easy to throttle Australia with Japan, since if that lone factory/sz is shut down the Pacific Allies are kinda screwed on offense. I think it's that more than the m3 distance that makes it challenging for them to get in on the action, and pretty straightforward for Japan to contain.

A tactical bomber at m6 could be interesting, though that would likely recommend a price increase. If doing that I'd maybe keep the Fighter at m4, which would mean a little asymmetry between the reach of bombers vs their fighter escorts. The tactical-bomber could achieve further reach for SBR, but without fighter cover for the last mile if they're trying to push it. Having a little play there in the distance between m4 and m6 might open things up for some interesting counter-play between the Attack and Defender. Like how they transit those aircraft from the production centers to get them in position, or which aircraft they put on deck vs islands or coastal tiles. Since the tactical bomber is somewhat easier to differentiate, it makes sense to me, it's somewhat simpler to tell apart the m6 tac B from the m4 fighter from the unit graphics for most nations. Like a quick way to parse the range from the visual. Or could do an m6 strat bomber, like a lighter version of the current m8. Prob with m6 for fighter types is then you end up with pretty deep transits. Like the USA eastern seaboard to Britain in 1 move. That seems fine for strategic bombers that don't do much in combat, but for tactical types might be overkill. Not sure honestly, just seems like m6 3 out 3 back might be nice for a bomber type since that's pretty familiar.

Oh and one last thing, I'm still seeing some weirdness with defending USA Fighters in Philippines. Probably it's AI Japan not bringing air support into the attack, but the Japanese attacker still gets stuck not being able to hit the defending USA fighter, with the result that the TT remains contested. This allows USA to build at the factory in Manila or place bunkers into a contested TT on their first turn, even if Japan is parked there with a large force. I think if Fighters/Bunkers couldn't hold a TT by themselves the way regular ground units can, this would solve some of the current issues with stalemates. Or I guess we could raise the battle rounds beyond the cap, but I mean if you wanted to keep the battle rounds at 5, that might be a way to shore it up so aircraft and damaged bunkers couldn't be used to stall via stalemate that way. Currently it can be tricky to tell who actually controls a contested TT. Lone bunkers attacking can also be strange. The warning message says they will die automatically. Like when the stalemate carries over into that player's turn, since bunkers don't have an "attack" but it's still possible for everyone to dud, and then the TT remains contested, potentially into the next round. Although the stalemate has some charm, I think confusion about who controls the TT currently is a downside. Least if we could get the bunkers and defending aircraft by themselves out of the mix it would be more straightforward. Maybe the defending air could retreat to an adjacent tile or be auto-killed or something, but allowing it to remain and contest the TT seems a bit much hehe.

Anyhow, just some thoughts to kick around. Bout to fire up a rematch and try my hand at Allies again haha

wc_sumpton

@black_elk

This was the desired effect, I think, although Industry do defend against SBR at 2/6 (Like "Radar" tech is added). Maybe a reduction to 1/6. Still Industries could give "Flak Assist" to defending units, though "supportAttachment" cannot be used to assist SBR defense.

Movement wise, I think aircraft are OK (with the exception of P51 Mustang's movement of 8). Maybe give some air units the bonus movement for Industries (Railroad/?Airfield?).

Alot of units have "-1" Amphibious Assault capabilities, plus attacking into a forested area brings even more problems. It's not so much they can't hit a target, as they cannot attack, attack value reduced to 0. Still, very few units do not have AA capabilities (Inf-Conscript, Anti-Tank and Bunkers), so, an Amphibious Assault into a forested island should have no effect trying to hit defending air units. Would need to see the unit breakdown to understand this problem more.

@TheDog

I think @Black_Elk had a very good idea regarding Lend-Lease-Depot. If the unit is connected to a chain of territories, then each territory should have that unit. The notes could be used to describe each Lend-Lease-Depot chain effect. And a popup message when a chain is broken. Doing it this way would require all PUs transactions be handled through triggers. Lend-Lease-Depot are destroyed when captured, so once a chain is broken, it cannot be restored. The question is should they be destroyed? If so, could they be replaced? If so, then by whom, the player that receives the bonus or the player that pays?

@Black_Elk (again)

On turn 11 the Pacific-Allies gain the ability to produce Fighters. It may be a long wait with what they begin with. Maybe the USA player could purchase some fighters for China (Flying Tigers/Black Sheep), and placed in specific territories, to be later controlled by China. Besides that, from what I understand, the Chinese Airforce was very small, with outdated aircraft. If they were to be allowed to purchase air units, it should be very restricted.

Cheers...

Black_Elk

@wc_sumpton

Yeah it's definitely an improvement. After my first game I figured to mass the bombers into double digits before attempting SBR. Brits have 10 starting bombers, 6 of which are at the ready, though it seemed better to me to wait until the 4 arrived from Canada and whatever was built on the first turn. USA and UK have enough money to buy bombers at 13 PU, and currently I think it's worth the high cost in attrition to bomb, especially the Industry-Lgts which are easier to kill, like in north Africa, but that's only because the AI won't replace their lost factories.

12 Bombers at 13 PUs a pop = 156 TUV. Say things go rather poorly for the attacker and factory flak drops half of those to aa fire. The attacker loses 78 PU invested in units instantly and still might not kill the factory with the 6 bombers that remain. Sure not exactly the most likely outcome, but it would happen often enough that it might give the players pause. If you do kill the factory though, esp in a critical round, where it prevents the opponent from moving a large number of hitpoints, that might be a very good use of that 78 PUs. Really though only when you can do that sort of stuff at scale does it start to pay off. Bombing with just a couple bombers would be kinda pointless. To press the advantage you'd need a bunch, with Britain and USA working in concert, to make sure you actually get the kill on the target. The player has the initiative in purchasing though, so could be that it's better to just buy combat units and try to take the factory rather than destroy it, which is generally better anyway. Using the opponent's production against them without needing to rebuild the unit. 1/6 might be easier to stomach, though I kind of enjoyed the heart attack inducing 2/6 which has a fair bit of swing

For conscription, I like that there is a consequence for invading the various homelands. Currently for example if you attempt a Sea Lion invasion then the Brits get access to conscripts. Same deal for Japan or Germany, though by the time that happens it's probably too late to make a difference. It does create a nice endgame stall, but only if the AI has enough income to spam the conscripts once they're unlocked. Instead what I think is more likely to happen is that the AI will be so far in the red on maintenance that they won't be able to purchase anything at all really, even with the cheapo conscripts. I think some form of maintenance reduction is needed for this map to work properly in later rounds. I mean like some way for the player to invest/purchase more capacity, something that will make their maintenance more efficient. Perhaps factories and bases should reduce the overall maintenance cost rather than adding to it? Or maybe when the conscription thing happens, infantry cease to have a maintenance cost altogether. Something like that, which would allow the underdog to mount a comeback without being hamstrung by the maintenance drain. Otherwise I think what will happen is the AI will just stack hitpoints to the ceiling, until they reach that tipping point, and then blast so far into the red that they can't collect enough income to place units once they're on their heels. Especially since blockades and SBR are likely stripping them of ready cash at the same time.

Another thought on the "homeland invaded" conscript unlock. Since this is basically a malus to the aggressor faction (gives the opponent cheaper units) there's a pretty strong incentive to try and work around that, by scaling the invasion. Like trying to take over multiple spots at a go, or bomb several factories to the dirt at once, so they don't have a place to spawn the cheapos. Taking over UK can be fun, but then Brits get those conscripts for everywhere, so sort of a double edged sword. I like that hehe.

For Japan I think Okinawa and Iwo should both be worth like 5, and considered part of the Japanese homeland. That way USA would probably want to snap them up for the production, vs coastal China or Indo-China or just gunning strait at the main Japanese islands, since it would be a shorter path and along the natural stepping stones, but when they do that would trigger the Japanese conscript thing, so sort of a trade-off choice to make there. Truk, Rabaul, Guadalcanal etc I think could be draws at 5 as well, to pull Japan a few different directions and develop more of push/pull going on in the central pacific for Allies. Any starting spot for Japan is going to be a bit more interesting at higher values, since it could conceivably go to one of 3 Allies, Brits, USA, Pacific-Allies. They make for fun targets that way, as opposed to liberating the Allied factories. I think currently it's a bit too easy for Pacific-Allies to stall Japan from Sumatra and the Dutch spots with destroyer blocks and bunker spams. I don't mind that Pacific Allies and China are smaller factions with more limited rosters, but I think China needs some flying tiger support. I'd do it from the bonus like every couple rounds they get 1. For Pacific-Allies, if Japan could mount a proper invasion of the Borneo and Malaya and such on J1 I think that would help. Currently the Brits and Pacific-Allies can throw down a DD picket. If you pulled those DDs back then Japan would probably get on Sumatra and such a bit faster, and I think Pacific Allies it would make sense to have more in backfield like Solomon islands or whatever, or just trying to defend new guinea and Australia itself. That's more like starting unit location/map production spread thoughts though. To have some of those contested 5 spots be more in the central Pac and Japan a bit easier to get on the oil and rubber spots early. I could see New Zealand as the fall back for Pacific-Allies, perhaps at 7 with a Industry-Med. Basically to give Japan something to gun for that direction, but also a way for Pacific Allies to split their home defense. Not sure but I think more juice that way would be cool, and Japan having a clear lane through the South China Sea on J1, that way they can flatten the Dutch stuff, but Pacific Allies would still have a similar income coming in from the backfield TTs. The allied Destroyer block stalls the IJN pretty hard. In the current Allies have 2 chances to disrupt the Japanese transports along the Borneo/Malaya route with Pacific-Allies DD or Britain's DD both in range.

I can think of a few different ways to infuse cash towards the endgame. The simplest I think would be to award a cash bonus for controlling a certain number of VCs, or a bonus when the player's team falls below a certain VC threshold. Depending on whether you want the game to resolve or continue. I think in PvP the former is desirable, in Solo play I think the latter would be more fun. Either way, I think an income/maintenance adjustment would make sense when you move into 1944-5 territory, to rescale for the number of units likely in play at that point compared to the start. Right now I think the VC win comes a bit early and the tech unlock stuff a bit late, but I've also been playing it a lot hehe.

Yeah perhaps the Mustangs at m6 would be cool? M8 is pretty intense for fighter aircraft hehe.

I'm enjoying the latest tweaks a lot. I got my ass handed to me in a few games. Got a best 2 out of 3 going at the moment as Allies.

2023-6-2-1941-Global-Command-Decisionv95 Elkvs AI Axis best out of 3 round 7 USSR.tsvg

TheDog

Mustang is now m6 for 9pu

Lend-Lease-Depot
Are you familiar with my The Shogun map, it has Mon/Flag unit ownership flag always flying from a reliefTile flag pole.

This works because the Mon/Flag has

<option name="isAA" value="true"/> <!-- is always 1st unit slot in place.txt -->

In Lend-Lease-Depot terms we (thats you Black Elk ) can put a road or rail graphic on the reliefTiles and place/end it so that it butts up to an icon of the Lend-Lease-Depot .

eg. the Persian Corridor rail/road would start at the coast travel through 4 TTs and end in Baku. (One long snake like graphic on the reliefTiles).
Then by careful positioning of the 1st slot coordinates in the 5 TT and shuffling the rest of the TTs coordinates, a Lend-Lease-Depot icon can appear on the rail line and not be randomly placed.

The only downside is that when the Lend-Lease-Depot is destroyed the 1st slot over the rail/road would be occupied by a random unit.

.
Industry and Industry TTs
So Im happy with the restrictions of the 4 Factories production capabilities, so are you both?
Armor-xxx matches the Industry that produces it, currently by design. One reason that I wanted to change Bomber-Lgt.
Industry-Med came from looking at what Wales, South Africa and Australia could produce in the war. The British were mean to India (Industry-Lgt) and did not invest heavily in Industry, but invested in South Africa (Industry-Med)

As an aside Im thinking of removing Medan W.Sumatra Industry-Lgt, the AI spams Armor-Lgt, as not very historic. A player/AI can build a Industry-Lgt later, the TT Pu stays the same. To compensate put a Base-Camp in Palembang from the start.

.
Themed Reinforcements
If your are reasonable happy with the balance of the game we can add in 'themed' reinforcements;

China Fighters
Pacific-Allies have their Industry-Hvy earlier to simulate Lend-Lease from the US.
...

ps. Could add pu to a nation thats homeland has been invaded to simulate scrapping the barrel for equipment or gifting armor-lgt Fighter-Early etc?

wc_sumpton

@thedog

Re: Long-Lance, Japan's Destroyers and Cruisers. Adding "tech" and "tech_activation":

<delegate name="tech" 				javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.delegate.TechnologyDelegate" display="Research Technology"/>
<delegate name="tech_activation" 	javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.delegate.TechActivationDelegate" display="Technical advancements"/>

Then adding:

<step name="gameInitDelegate" delegate="initDelegate" maxRunCount="1"/>

<!-- Only needs to happen once at the beginning -->
<step name="JapanTech" delegate="tech" player="Japan" maxRunCount="1"/>
<step name="JapanTechActivation" delegate="tech_activation" player="Japan" maxRunCount="1"/>

Now the techs:

<technologies>
         <techname name="Land-Transport" tech="mechanizedInfantry"/> <!-- Note the name change for display -->
          <techname name="Air-Transport" tech="paratroopers"/> <!-- Note the name change for display -->
         <techname name="Long-Lance"/>
</technologies>
<playerTech player="Britain">
	<category name="Technology Advances">
		<tech name="Land-Transport"/> <!-- Name change is only used here for each player  -->
		<tech name="Air-Transport"/> <!-- Name change is only used here for each player! -->
	</category>
</playerTech>
...
...
...
<playerTech player="Japan">
	<category name="Technology Advances">
		<tech name="Land-Transport"/>
		<tech name="Air-Transport"/>
		<tech name="Long-Lance"/> <!-- New tech added here -->
	</category>
</playerTech>

Trigger add to Japan's Tech:

<!-- ======================================= Tech Japan Kamikaze Plane $KamikazeSZ$ $All-Surface$ 11 for 1 ======================================= -->
<attachment name="triggerAttachment_Long-Lance" attachTo="Japan" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player">
  <option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Always_True"/>
  <option name="tech" value="Long-Lance"/>
  <option name="uses" value="1"/>
</attachment>

Then the Technical Addvancement add at the bottom:

<attachment name="techAbilityAttachment" attachTo="Long-Lance" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TechAbilityAttachment" type="technology">
  <option name="attackBonus" value="1:Destroyer"/>
  <option name="attackBonus" value="1:Cruiser"/>
</attachment>

Note this does not change!

<attachment foreach="$All-Players$" name="techAttachment" attachTo="@All-Players@" javaClass="TechAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="mechanizedInfantry" value="true"/>
	<option name="paratroopers" value="true"/>
</attachment>

Now when one mouses over Japan's Destroyers and Cruisers the tool tip displays "2/1/3" and "3/2/3" respectively. I still think some sort of display, like on the Armor-Hvy, should be used.

Now on the "Players" tab under "Technologies" there are "Land-Transport", "Air-Transport" and "Long-Lance". I think it reads better than "mechanizedInfantry" and "paratroopers".

Cheers...

TheDog

@wc_sumpton

Now on the "Players" tab under "Technologies" there are "Land-Transport", "Air-Transport" and "Long-Lance". I think it reads better than "mechanizedInfantry" and "paratroopers".

It certainly does.

Worked first time.

Thank you for another Master Class

Black_Elk

All sounds good to me!

Oh I like that idea for the graphic keying off the first place. Seems like an interesting challenge. Lend-Lease is replaced by the bunker if destroyed I think, then infantry in the place order right? In general it doesn't matter if it's the infantry hopping around, cause they look pretty good wherever they land. Even if he was on a railroad track, probably would still look alright hehe, but factory and base units are a bit beefier and might look wonk if they jump position. Like when all the infrastructure is destroyed. HQ and Bomber units can also clip in a bit cause they're pretty large, fighters less so but they're still fairly wide.

To indicate a kind of objective (associated TTs on the map visually) probably something pretty subdued like a simple dotted line would look ok. Probably wouldn't want it too large/busy or might become visually distracting. I can tool around see what we come up with. Current relief doesn't have the dotted blue lines for the canals. I could add them back in, but was thinking it might make sense to go for 1 TT canal control. Basically so that Egypt alone controls Suez, Istanbul alone controls the Turkish straits. That way all the straits and canals are handled in the same way. Removing Sinai, Smyrna and Ankara from the requirements to pass through those waterways, pretty much all like Panama. I think that'd be more straightforward. For Suez in particular the counterplay around Sinai (like TransJordan in A&A) can be a bit gamey. Anyhow just a thought, could use a similar dotted line motif for the aid corridors instead. Though I'd have to tinker with it see if it looks cool.

For the production spread, I think the 5 PU value is the real entry level here, like for the spots that are going to be the most hotly contested by both sides. I think 5 PUs (Industry-lgt capable) would be analogous to a territory worth 2-3 PUs in A&A or the v3/5 games etc. Basically a spot that could support a factory hub. In v5 you can place them anywhere with value of 1 or more, but to get a decent return you basically need 2 PUs in production to make it a worthwhile investment. Often in the pacific the only spots that made sense are the East Indies, Philippines or Coastal China, which has the effect of putting the big magnet on that part of the map in A&A. Like that's where Allies want to get to shorten their lines, or where Japan wants to camp to secure theirs, which means the islands in the central Pacific sorta playing second fiddle to what's going on with India or East Africa or the Middle East vis a vis Japan. My thought in A&A was always to just raise the value of all the islands in the Pacific like Iwo and such to 2 PUs so they could function like that, to counterbalance the strong pull of the Axis center crush. This artificially inflates the value of those peripheral TTs, but I think mechanically it would work better, since you sorta need a production bait like that to persuade the player that getting drawn into the Pacific backfield isn't just a doomed play. Otherwise I think the default is to sort bypass everything and only gun for the spots that are a real production focus. Since Industry-Med is currently the entry level ship/air building factory, I think it might make sense to have a few more of these scattered around the map. I think N. Chosen might make sense for a Japanese Industry-lgt hub on the mainland, since the IJN can shuck there from home waters. Probably a bit easier to defend if sz 19A is being contested. I think having Iwo and Okinawa at higher values would be more about giving the USA a softer underbelly type target, as opposed to just dropping into Mainland China to try and take Mukden or Shanghai for USA production, while also giving Japan a reason to be on guard. Right now AI Japan seems to struggle a bit defending the home waters, why I was thinking maybe Iwo and Oki being higher might give em a more of a reason to hold position in those zones. I think a lot of spots could just be worth 5-7 and I'd be fine with seeing the players choose whether to build up in those spots or trade em for income, while the AI just gets a few freebies. With the new flak adjustments it's harder to just wipe factories off the map, so the AI does a bit better now, though it'd still be cool if they could bonus in the factories, since that would probably change the playpattern a bit and needing fewer production spots from the getgo. The Industry generating 3 or 5 bucks a pop is a nice way to boost income, so perhaps fewer on the board at the outset, but also few more spots available for the mid/endgame scale up would iron out the kinks, but not sure how to make that happen. If the HardAI would purchase factory replacements the way they drop bases we'd probably be pretty set haha. Speaking of which, I noticed the AI will leave bases undefended for enemy walk ins. Perhaps they should get a hitpoint so they can block?

I think this map is about as good as I've seen for a production spread. Like the elements are pretty much all in place. I dig it

Played a couple games as Axis to get back in the groove. Fun stuff! Nice work!

Anyhow, let me know what needs doing, like for added chevrons or tech stuff. I can make a list of stuff to try and tackle graphics-wise hehe

Catch ya in a few!

ps. one more thought on Factories... So comparing Industry-Hvy to Industry-Med, the availability of units in the national purchase rosters means that it is more advantageous to take some spots with certain nations as opposed to others. For example it's often better for Britain to take over Industry-Hvys from German/Italian TTs, because they can produce Armor-Hvy at those locations, while USA would be stuck spawning Armor-Medium. Pacific-Allies are stuck at Industry-Medium till later rounds, so if there's a risk of the factory being destroyed in the attack they wouldn't want to go after an Industry-Hvy. Similarly Germany can make better use of Russian Industry-Hvy TTs than Italy, since they can spawn Armor-Hvy. Stuff like that. Not necessarily a bad thing, but just something to note. I think typically any of the nations can make use of an Industry-Hvy capable spot, even if they can't build at the max level from there, but could shape the playpattern a fair bit when deciding who to lead with, or where to gun.
I think if most of the tech type unlocks were advance a round or 2, by the time you hit the endgame those sorts of issues would be less pronounced. I think the NAP between USSR and Japan might break a bit sooner as well, especially since AI USSR stacks a lot of units in the Far East and sorta holds them there. If they unleashed a bit sooner, could make things interesting on the Pacific side of the board. I think by like round 8 or 9 most of the tech type stuff should be in play, since that's when the big moves are happening. Rounds 5-7 feel 1943-44 ish to me just based on where USA can be at that point in the game, so I feel like the meat and potatoes is sorta right there and I kinda imagine the later rounds as just an expansion of the closing years of the war. Like the longer the game goes where 1945 just sorta stretches out indefinitely at that point heheh