💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread

Black_Elk

Sounds good to me

Yeah I think to 21 VCs usually before round 10 for me. Here's an example of the Allied position from my last game at the close of the 9th round. I was playing to 25 VCs which is a bit longer.

2023-6-5-1941-Global-Command-Decision v95 Elk vs HardAI Axis round 9 USA.tsvg

Increasing the combat rounds would likely prevent some of the stalemate weirdness. You can see from the save above, how the Brits were able to hold out in Formosa for a few turns, then build bunkers and a dude from the base camp to cling to life hehe. Did the same thing in the last round at Hamburg. I see stuff like that on occasion where the combat is prolonged a fair bit cause the TTs remains contested when the round limit is hit.

I'd imagine in a game where most players are controlled by the AI that the VC win would take a few rounds longer and provide a different sort of challenge, but I like controlling the entire team just cause it makes the game round feel a bit more engaging to me with less downtime between turns.

wc_sumpton

@black_elk

When trying to attack a territory with multiple bunkers, bring in artillery and bombers-tac, their support stacks, nullifying bunker defenses.

I added "transportCapacity" 2 and "isCombatTransport" to capital ship and subs. Also added "isAirTransportable" to all land units, plus "canInvadeOnlyFrom". For conscripts, trained and towed I made transport and all move 2 land units. For all armor and halftracks left at transport only. Elite is still all.

Just some different dynamics.

Cheers...

Black_Elk

Sounds good to me! I'll definitely try that on the next out for sure!

Oh also, I just noticed that Vyborg was missing a terrain icon. Should be Forest.
Okinawa as well.

Here is a relief with those graphics added...

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qaizzsaaiykebui/1941_relief_vyborg_okinawa_fix.png?dl=0

wc_sumpton

@black_elk, @TheDog

More Information on 2.5 Air Battle error/warning message. It seems that Hard AI is not selecting defensive units to participate. This is OK, the air battle will not happen, and all units will join in on the regular battle. In 2.6 there seems to be an error in the engine which does not allow defensive units to be selected for an air battle, thus all units participate in the regular battle.

Will keep all informed.

Cheers...

Black_Elk

Right on. I was curious about that because on occasion I did see a dogfight/intercept option but not consistently. It happened to me once in a naval battle as well and kinda threw me for a loop. It'd be hard for me to say when maxing into an air battles as the defender would be advantageous without having a greater number of fighters, since the potential instant loss of the TUV can be kinda steep. Also there's that sort of psych effect of risking your air up front, vs foot dragging it into reg combat. Attrition for aircraft feels pretty high, though the cheaper cost and somewhat weaker ability of fighters compared to A&A or relative to other units in the roster mitigates that a bit. Aircraft in v95 are still pretty powerful especially for fleet screening.

I've seen the AI airblitz on land as well or during amphibious, but the casualty selection/targeting means you can't airblitz in quite the same way as you might in A&A. For example, you can't choose to hold a tank as the last casualty, cause the hits are assigned by type. Same deal on the water, like you couldn't take the hit on a fighter before a destroyer to clear a zone or ensure a block or whatever. On the whole I like this, because the vanilla A&A airblitz is pretty OP and there's no capital capture dynamic here that would make a proper airblitz more essential. Still gunning with all air attacks can be pretty effective, since the units are harder to eliminate via flak than they would be in reg A&A style combat. What I see the computer do often is mount an invasion or amphib assault, then continue to press the fight after the ground units are killed rather than immediately withdrawing, often wiping the remaining defender units with their aircraft, but failing to take the TT. As the player you can do this pretty effectively. I think an overall unit cap may help, like the 100 per tile idea.

A number that's sufficiently large for the scale, but still a ceiling at the very high end. For aircraft an overall cap might also work, though I'd highball it, cause the earlier cap was frustrating. I think it was 20 initially right? To me that was way too low for the number of starting aircraft in play, like I'd do at least 30 or 40 there if trying it again. Also because air caps create logistics and phase separation issues (between com and non com), since the cap presents a hard restriction against entering a tile during movement once that cap is reached. This means that the order of movement becomes significant, e.g. which units moved first during combat movement is actually consequential and may determine which aircraft can still move afterwards on Non Com, which can be a real headache if the cap is too small and units are being trapped by caps. I think the cap should be treated as just that, like an ultimate limit for the totals per tile, but have that number be pretty high. Basically so it's not a constant impediment to the flow, but a feature that only comes into play for the Godzilla game towards the end. Once a stack hits 100 hp, that is sufficient room I think for the player to still manage their mixed forces and not be edging it constantly or all stuck trying avoid hitting the invisible cap/wall during their movement phases. I might do the same for sea zone tiles. Or perhaps capping the total for air or naval units at 50 per tiles or something like that. Though the AI don't seem to have much problem spreading with their fleets, it's more the air/ground that the AI likes to consolidate.

My main concern with an overall cap on units per tile, is that this will make it hard for the defender once the cap is reached. For example, how to defend Moscow when both teams are fielding forces at the cap. Usually the attacker has the initiative to bring greater numbers, to overcome the defenders advantage in power, but a ceiling could complicate that. Just imagining 2 or 3 stacks at 100 HP dancing around each other at the center, cause nobody can press a numbers advantage to come out ahead on the attack or the counter-attack. This would be hard to see in advance, but I can imagine it being an issue towards the endgame. Managing a cap is going to be tedium at any scale once it's reached, cause then the player has to try to cycle hitpoints around to try and max their power/reach at whatever limit. Anyhow, just something to keep an eye on if going that route. I'd definitely start on the high end if capping.

Last pair of Solos I managed 21 VCs inside of 12 rounds, but that was playing as Germany and then USSR. I think for the big 6 it'd probably be between 12-16 rounds as you said. Just sorta depends how many VCs the faction can target. USSR and Japan are a bit restricted since they can't go after each other till later rounds on account of the NAP, which puts a lot of the focus on the map and faction starting location. Japan has many more targets and directions they can press, since they have like a dozen VCs in their neighborhood that they can contest, from SF to Cairo. USSR is sort of more 1 dimensional. The movement restriction on team Allies regarding USSR means that USA and Britain can't really support any of the Soviet VCs if they're being contested. This is a big change from A&A, where pretty much the entire game revolves around pushing hitpoints to support Russia directly. I think this feels better honestly, though there are some kinks, particularly in the middle east were convergence is more likely. I've accidentally trapped a large British/USA army in Finland or in the Caucasus with no way to move the units out after the TT was liberated for the USSR. Basically if you advance more than 1 tile into original owner Soviet territory you can be easily cut off, since you'd need Axis to come right up to your border to escape a prohibited interior TT. I think this would mostly come into play with Britain and USSR, since they're operating in closer proximity initially.

For the small fries, China and Pacific-Allies, I couldn't really see playing them as an independent faction in a Solo, cause there's not enough action there really to hold my interest, but for the big 6 I think it works fine. Italy seems like it could be pretty fun as well in a solo. After playing the first round which takes a while, things moved at a steadier clip, so I had fun!

Looking forward to the next out

Black_Elk

ps. Another method for achieving an overall unit cap (per tile) might be to increase the cost of maintenance over a certain threshold, rather than a hard limit on how many units can enter a tile at any given point. So for example, perhaps every unit over the TT cap costs double in maintenance or something?

Say at 100 units they all cost 1, but if you go to 101 units in a tile, then you start hemorrhaging cash in maintenance, cause you're fielding over the limit. Not sure what the AI would do with that, but you could always just give the AI more money to compensate if it makes sense for the challenge. This would allow the player/AI to go over the cap if needed, but with a trade off in the ultimate cost of camping with a massive force. Just trying to think of a way to pull this off without messing up the movement thing too hard, since the effect would come into play during the income/maintenance phase rather than the movement phases. I'd just like to avoid a situation where the player is constantly trying to manage the overall unit cap at the extremes, and switching out units or trying to attrite units jus to make room for placement, where I can imagine it become a nuisance or shifting pieces on the board around a chore. But I do think it would help the AI to have sort of max, since it likes to stack to the ceiling and conserve TUV by default hehe.

Just some more thoughts to chew on. Still digging it quite a lot. Nice work!

TheDog

Up and coming in the next release probably is; (Im still testing but the AI (and player) is forced to de-stack)

Trying another stack limit variant to help the AI, each Allied Air & Sea unit type limited to 20 of each unit type, each Land unit type limited to 40 per per TT/SZ

So in English only 20 Tac Bombers & 40 Inf-Conscript allowed per TT etc.
Also 20 Transport & 20 Destroyers & 20 Cruisers & 20 Tac Bombers per SZ etc.

We tried total stack limits per TT/SZ last time and it was too messy/hard for the player, maybe this time with a different method ...

.
Also in other news, Southern Ukraine gets a refresh, this benefits Italy and later USSR if they manage a counter offensive.

TheDog

Latest version 100 ready for download from 1st page 1st post

If using faster 2.6 remember to minimize the error box to the taskbar, to stop it it reappearing (this is only a warning error please ignore it)

Trying another stack limit variant to help the AI, each Allied Air & Sea unit type limited to 20 of each unit type, each Land unit type limited to 40 per per TT/SZ (thanks Black Elk for the reminder)
Combat rounds now 7, was 5, to reduce draws/contested, as was too many draws, still want to limit rounds to encourage over-kill, as a draw is bad for the attacker
territoryEffect supports having reevaluated in the light of WC Sumption post on this, I have adopted most of his work (except Desert land values). and updated terrain modifiers on the tool bar (thanks WC Sumpton)
.
Fixed 4 Lend-Lease-Depot logic (thanks WC Sumpton) - changed 0ENDTURN code for Lend-Lease-Depot
rename Bomber-Lgt to Bomber-Tac
Updated pu_place, reliefTiles (thanks Black Elk)
P51 Mustang move 6, was 8, 9pu, was 11pu
Anti-Tank get Flak 1 in 12
Base-Camp defence=1, removed in error
Industry-Med & Industry-Lgt gets "attackAA" to 2, same as Industry-Hvy (thanks WC Sumpton)
Britain, Germany, Japan, Pacific-Allies get additional free Armor-Lgt & Fighter-Early when they get Conscripts

.
WEST

Italy/USSR Odesa gains Industry-Hvy & 9pu (Black Sea shipbuilding)
Italy/USSR Kherson now 7pu was 4pu................(built Transport so can build Industry-Med)
Italy/USSR Mariupol 5pu, was 4..............................(magic 5 for Light Industry)
USSR Tula 5pu, was 3..................................................(magic 5 for Light Industry)
USSR Omsk gets Industry-Hvy ...............................(As 2 Tank Factories relocated here)

.
EAST

Removed 045 A Sea Zone to Hollandia-Dutch New Guinea (thanks Black Elk)
Fixed JapanPolitics (thanks WC Sumpton)
Japan Long Lance Tech (thanks WC Sumpton)
Japan Advanced (yellow stars) Destroyer, Cruiser, HQ-Fleet - for Long Lance Torpedoes
Pacific-Allies removed Industry-Lgt in Medam W.Sumatra (in my testing the AI does buy/place Industry-Lgt)
Pacific-Allies get Industry-Hvy turn 9, was 11 (this simulates US Lend-Lease equipment to Australia & then their Industry-Hvy upgrade)

.
TODO

Conscripts only when occupied, code like Kamikaze
supportAttachment supports
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

Nice update. Digging some of the new settings.

For your "TODO cannot stop Air from landing as want them fly over it." for "marsh" territoryEffect. Handle this the same way as PUs reset:

<!-- Allow air units to enter marsh during combat -->
<attachment name="triggerAttachment_Marsh_Allow_Air" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Always_True"/>
		<option name="territoryEffectAttachmentName" value="TerritoryEffectAttachment" count="territoryEffectAttachment"/>
		<option name="territoryEffects" value="marsh"/>
		<option name="territoryEffectProperty" value="unitsNotAllowed" count="-reset-$All-Move2Land$:Artillery:Anti-Tank"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:GermanyCombatMove"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:USSRCombatMove"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:ChinaCombatMove"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:ItalyCombatMove"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:BritainCombatMove"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:JapanCombatMove"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:USACombatMove"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Pacific-AlliesCombatMove"/>
</attachment>

<!-- Reset marsh to prevent Air Units from landing -->
<attachment name="triggerAttachment_Marsh_Reset" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Always_True"/>
		<option name="territoryEffectAttachmentName" value="TerritoryEffectAttachment" count="territoryEffectAttachment"/>
		<option name="territoryEffects" value="marsh"/>
		<option name="territoryEffectProperty" value="unitsNotAllowed" count="-reset-$All-Air$:$All-Move2Land$:Artillery:Anti-Tank"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:GermanyNonCombatMove"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:USSRNonCombatMove"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:ChinaNonCombatMove"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:ItalyNonCombatMove"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:BritainNonCombatMove"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:JapanNonCombatMove"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:USANonCombatMove"/>
		<option name="when" value="before:Pacific-AlliesNonCombatMove"/>
</attachment>

For bunkers, base-camp, and industries use "unitPlacementRestrictions", in their "unitAttachment", with a list of territories. This way "Florida" and "New Orleans-Louisiana" could be left off the list, to allow some construction.

Cheers...

TheDog

Your such a time saver, thanks!

wc_sumpton

@thedog, @Black_Elk

Some basic information:

                 O/V   P      H/M/L/B
Germany         91/4  211     11/7/3
USSR            88/5  318     7/1/3/1
Pacific-Allies  46/3  135     0/1/2
Italy           27/3  136     6/2/2
Britain        134/4  343     5/3/5
Japan           40/4  211     6/2/4/4
USA             61/5  300     9/0/2
China           19/1   63     0/1/1/4

Allies         348/18  1159   21/6/13/5
Axis           158/11   721   23/11/9/4
Neutrals       100/0   146

Japan cannot produce the Inf-Motorized. Germany and Italy cannot produce Carriers. Germany may produce Armor-Hvy, but that's only after research, British and USSR start with it and USA can do the research.

The Inf-Motorized is 2/2/2, 6PUs, can carry, and may blitz when stacked with armor. This is a very powerful unit, and not letting all players produce it sets them at a disadvantage. The inability for Germany and Italy to produce Carriers in the Atlantic Gives the Allies the advantage in the west. Also allowing Allies Armor-Hvy IMO is another imbalance.

Just some thoughts.

Cheers...

TheDog

As you have gathered the sides are deliberately asymmetric. I am trying to be as historical as possible.

However, as I dont play A&A games, (I have only played it 3 times a long time ago) I am open to suggestions, as to what players want, especially Black Elk and you WC Sumpton as you have made this map possible.

All nations could build all 'tech' but that's not really what I'm after.

In 1945 most nations were war weary.

Black Elk has suggested going non-historic/fantasy whatever you want to call it, I think that's for another variant, maybe of this map.

What are the the O/V columns?

wc_sumpton

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

What are the the O/V columns?

Number of territories Owned/Victory

Cheers...

Black_Elk

I think I kinda laid out most of my views on the units/balance earlier in the thread, but just to reiterate, I think some asymmetry for flavor is fine, provided there is an overall parity by sides, though I think that's a bit of an open question with some nations/units currently for reasons WC mentioned. I'm very much an A&A player though, so I lean towards the familiar in that regard. On the one hand I can see how it makes sense from a realism standpoint, that say Germany or Italy wouldn't have a carrier... They both had plans to build one sure, but the Graf Zep and Aquila were never completed during the course of the war, so I get that... on the other hand, I don't really think of the carriers and battleships as a 'carriers and battleships' per se, but rather as abstract game pieces that might stand in for other stuff. I have the same attitude towards the production spread.

Basically I think it's sometimes a choice between realism or consistency for the constituent elements vs an overall playpattern that feels 'realistic' (realistic meaning something like, 'feels like the WW2 movies you got in your head' hehe), or where the right story beats are hitting at the right time. But while still being entertaining and dynamic in terms of the actual gameplay. I also rather like the idea of a WW2 game that explores the what if element, as opposed to just a simulation of what went down historically. I think for that, perhaps something similar to what that dude Kurt floated initially for progressive technology. So just for example, take the Graf Zeppelin. Rather than treating it like a run of the mill unit purchase, perhaps the German or Italian player has an option to invest in this as an unlock?

I don't know, maybe it costs 100 PUs or something, and so the player may be less likely to go that route, cause it's more unconventional, but just having the option might be cool. Or another way might be to do a sort of Flagship, where each nation has a themed badass naval unit, though not necessarily the same visual design. The current carrier has a very important but also niche role, basically because it's related to the aircraft in play and how players can spawn/transit or just generally make use of their fighters. Another approach might be to have the fighters built into the carrier directly or something. Conversely, you might have a unit with the abilities of a battleship, but which looks like a carrier, like for the vibe. Something like that could work I think, to give a similar visual flavor like you want, but where the actual unit might have abilities that make them more even that way.

For the Inf-Motorized, I think I mentioned earlier, but I feel their attack power should be at 1, in line with other infantry units. The tow is extremely powerful, I would have that be a feature exclusively of the armor. Elites I'd drop to 1 as well except if on amhib or air transport, and probably rework the trained-inf amphib malus so it's not as hardcore (AI seems to struggle there.) I think the Armor-lgt should have the tow ability rather than the Inf-Motorized though, which would make the pricing seem more sensible to me. I think Infantry Motorized should be just infantry that moves 2 and is supported by artillery or whatever the reg infantry abilities are. It's main advantage being that it can spawn wherever infantry can be built and at m2 reach. Terrain makes all the m2 units somewhat harder to use, so armor and inf-motorized can both hit the snags that way, or when moving off rail, but I think they'd both still be useful.

To me Inf-Motorized is analogous to Mech and uses similar graphics like trucks or half-tracks, jeeps whatever, so I think the unit could be available to all factions. Rail movement supersedes the m2 for regular inf types and artillery currently, so the trade off I think is just in managing the terrain. I don't know that a Mech drive from Japan would be all that common anyway when they can push inf/elites/art at m3 more effectively from factory tiles. To me the Armor-lgt right now is sort of a novelty purchase. At 7 with the current abilities the Elite seems a more attractive buy, so sometimes I find the AI kinda curious building so many light tanks the way it does. If the light tank had the tow it would be much more useful, especially for the transport capacity. I think I'd buy more tanks. Anti-Tank is another tough one, because it's restricted to the Heavy-Industry locations for placement. Probably would open that one up to Industry-Med or something, so there are more placement options for those. Or perhaps giving them a transport capacity more like the infantry. Since a lot of the terrain types affect those units like with a defense bonus and such, I think they'd be attractive, just sorta tricky to get em out into the field for some factions that need to transport from the main industry hubs. The factions like Germany and USSR they're a bit better buys I think than for say USA. Or at least until they take an Industry hvy from Axis. Though I feel like once you do that, you'd be wanting to build tanks or battleships and such with those slots rather than Anti-Tank units hehe.

I also like the idea that the heavy tanks would stage in giving the Mediums more time to be a factor. Even though there is an incentive to purchase them from Industry-Med, I think they could be at the top of the pile for a while, which would make the hit 4 heavies feel a bit more intense when they arrive. Though I do kinda dig how the Tank slog is a feature of the Eastern Front sooner than it becomes a factor elsewhere. The timing on how they enter play for each I think could be staggered like you have. Overall as a single player experience I've been able to find ways to get each faction to do more or less what needs doing, and don't mind how the rosters are a bit different. In PvP I think exploits or handicaps based on what's available in the unit roster would be more pronounced and may weigh more heavily on the balance by sides.

Hahah yeah I still think something WW2 aftermath with Aliens would be amusing!

TheDog

@black_elk
Some interesting points & observations. As the map is focused on solo play and I dont play PvP I will leave that to others.

@All
Overall I think that in 2.6 the AI buys less Inf-Elite then 2.5, so in the next release they will be cheaper 6pu, was 7pu. Still overpriced unless used in their specialist role of marine/paratrooper.

@wc_sumpton
Interesting table, below is my additions

It shows that Pacific Allies need a few more Base-Camps from turn 1.

Black_Elk

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

@black_elk
Some interesting points & observations. As the map is focused on solo play and I dont play PvP I will leave that to others.

@All
Overall I think that in 2.6 the AI buys less Inf-Elite then 2.5, so in the next release they will be cheaper 6pu, was 7pu. Still overpriced unless used in their specialist role of marine/paratrooper.

@wc_sumpton
Interesting table, below is my additions

It shows that Pacific Allies need a few more Base-Camps from turn 1.

6pu seems sensible for an Elite. Though to me the current elite is perhaps a bit too elite hehe. I really think their attack power is pretty high at 2, and that at 6 PUs this makes them harder to differentiate from artillery. Like from the purchasing perspective. They attack in different ways, I but I mean for the quick calc at Att 2 when building out a force and choosing whether to buy one over the other.

6 pus would put the Elite, Inf-Motorized, and Artillery at the some price point. So sort of in the same class, in direct competition, like for a remainder purchase. To me that's fine because there is potentially an interesting choice to be had there, between raw attack power (artillery) versatility (elite) or mobility (Inf-motorized) all at the same cost in PUs.

Though I think that only really works if Inf-Moto attacks at 1 (not 2) and also is not a land-transport. Those two abilities make the unit significantly more powerful at the price point of 6 PUs relative to the other candidates in the ground game, and esp to light armor, which is more expensive at 7. Elites attacking at 2 have better transport capacity and better mobility on terrain via the rail thing, which I think makes them a rather better buy all around than even artillery for the same cost currently, since you have more placement options for elites. Especially if you have transports that need filling. Elites also sorta eclipse trained infantry for most factions in my view since they're so much better on attack and are subject to all the terrain boosts on defense, as well as not having the malus for amphib. They're much more versatile than tanks in most regards, other than the tow thing which sets the armor apart provided the Terrain isn't thwarting them. I think the current elite is possibly underpriced at 7 for how useful they are, but a big part of that is their raw attack power at 2. If their attack power was 1 outside of special combat I think 6 PUs makes a lot of sense. I think the main use for Inf-Trained, Inf-Motorized and Elites should be their hitpoint and defense power, not so much their attack power. For the Inf-Moto the entry level hitpoint at m2. For armor the higher cost would be justified by their higher attack power and the land transport aspect unique to armor as sort of their theme. I think Anti-tank is potentially a stronger unit at 5 Pus, but the placement and transport limitations there don't really have the unit in the same class. To me that one is almost exclusively a remainder purchase. Like if I have 5 to burn, don't want a bunker or destroyer (which often feels a bit better investment for the cost to me) and also have that ready slot at an Industry-Hvy. But that feels pretty situational. Since Artillery, Anti-tank and the bunkers have a different form of attack than the standard units it can be a little harder to parse how they'll perform in actual combat at scale. Like when the unit is stacked together with others in a magnified way. A dozen Anti-tanks can be pretty intense or artillery the same, or those spots with 9 bunkers, like once you cross a certain threshold they work similar to aircraft, and more useful when massed.

I was curious if the Transport loading defaults to Infantry-trained over Infantry-Elite. Like I noticed as a player that if I hit max load from a TT, the transports will fill with the regular trained Infantry or units like artillery and tanks before loading the Elites. This requires a bit of micro-management to get the most out of the transport capacity. Like when moving say 1 Inf-trained and 2 Elites together, or 3 elites etc or any combination that has 3 hitpoints per transport instead of just the normal 2. I'm curious though if this may be affecting what the AI brings into the fight? I think the lower purchasing price at 6 PUs would hopefully make the AI more likely to purchase them and to use in amphib just cause there'd be more on the board in general. The elites I mean. Then perhaps the Machine would be a bitter better at managing their landings.

For the Tanks though, I think having the "is a land-transport" for all armor types would be good. The earlier A&A rulesets had towing as a tech advance that allowed armor to do this, like pairing with infantry for a movement bonus, so to me that's a natural fit. The ability is potent, but the price of armor is higher, so makes sense to me there. Infantry-Motorized I would have the m2 be the thing that makes it special, but relative cheaper, so having it's uses if you need movement (often the case if building from a base rather than a factory.) That alone makes the unit an attractive buy, but the tow is a bit much there. In A&A games after the introduction of Mech-Infantry there were also techs or special options to allow them to tow/blitz, but the standard is more bare bone. Basically just an infantry unit that's more flexible, particularly for non com. To me towing as a non-com exclusive might also work. Cause that's an interesting trade off between using your armor to punch ahead in the vanguard on attack, or be used for versatility to help infantry play catch up. But with a trade off like that, combat vs non com. Might be interesting.

I gotta game going as Germany now. Pretty entertaining so far. I think the caps could go a bit lower and the effect wouldn't be too noticeable. As the a player in the solo, I didn't feel the caps. But I haven't tried Germany or USSR for v100 yet, and that's sorta the main stackfest. Will let ya know how it rolls.

wc_sumpton

@black_elk, @TheDog

Global Command Decision starts mid to late '41. Most countries are just starting to change their production from WWI designs to more modern units. With this in mind, most deployed unit should be Early Fighters and Tankettes (Armor-Lgt), but production should represent Fighter and Armor (Armor-Med) with the production of WWI type units halted.
Germany, on the other hand, should already be fielding some modern units, but Panzers I and II (Tankettes/Armor-Lgt) were still being used during its 'Blitz' of Poland and France. These units, including Panzers III and IV (Armor) were not much better than their Allied counterparts. What the Germans had were better tactics. The use of Tactical Bombers (Bomber-Tac) with Tankettes/Armor, follow by Mobile Infantry (Halftrack/Inf-Motorized). To represent this advantage the Tactical Bomber should only be used/produced by Germany, with Armor supporting them, and they should support Mobile Infantry. Armor units by other countries should still follow WWI tactics, so removal of the Tactical Bomber, and making it a Advance Tech would give Germany their missing advantage.

Most countries at the start of the war had some type of Strategic Bomber, which could be represented with a Early Bomber having a range of 6. USA did have the B-17, so a couple of Bombers could be deployed, with their production showing the Bomber as purchasable and the Early Bomber removed. Britian should be allowed to research this unit after about 4 or 5 turns. Like Carriers and Battleships the Bomber should be a heavy PUs investment for other countries, before research could be started and the unit produced.

Halftracks (Inf-Motorized), I agree with @Black_Elk as 1/2/2 unit, were mainly produced by USA, Germany, British and Japan. USSR did not produce Halftracks, but received the units from Britian/Canada through Lend-Lease. So Japan should produce Halftracks and USSR should not. They could receive one through Lend-Lease maybe every 3rd or 4th turn as long as the British/USA Lend-Lease is still active.

The KV-1 USSR Armor-Hvy gives the unit to much fire power. To better represent this unit it should stay as Early Armor (Tankette/Armor-Lgt) with 2 attack/defense but it movement should be reduced to 1, the unit was very slow and not very maneuverable, but it should also have 2 hit points to represent it heavy armor. USSR also had T-27's/early T-34's fielded but these units were of WWI pre WWII designs and production had been halted and replaced by moder T-34's/T-40's/T-60's and T-70's (Armor/Armor-Med). IS-2/3's (Armor-Hvy) should be a Advanced Tech starting at about '43, right around turn 9 or 10.

Some of my thoughts. :grinning_face_with_sweat:

Cheers...

TheDog

@wc_sumpton @Black_Elk
Putting aside A&A units for now.
Lets take 1/2/1 Trained Infantry as a given.
Proposed 1/2/2 Motorised Infantry

So on the attack they are both equal, ignoring other units for now.

You are both saying that a brigade, a combined arms fighting force, of mainly mechanised/motorised infantry, with its extra manoeuvrability/armor and extra firepower from more machine guns/equipment/etc is still only 1/2/2 ?

Black_Elk

Hehe more or less, though I am of course thinking about the unit as an abstract game piece with the player providing the narrative on what exactly it represents in any given instance during the gameplay. Very hard for me to set A&A aside, cause it's so ingrained hehe, but yeah I guess. To my way of thinking not everything really needs to be or even can be modelled at this scale or in d6, or at least not in the same way one might with an RTS tactical type game where there's a bit more opportunity to flesh things out, so sometimes something gets left on the chopping block I suppose. To me whatever extra maneuverability or firepower and the like, that advantage is just sorta already all folded into the m2 of the Inf-Moto unit. For heavier hitting attack power units like artillery or armor, effectively the infantry moto would be at attack power 1, so you could keep the others at 2 or 3 without creating too much redundancy. The movement being the thing that makes that purchase worthwhile. Other options might be to keep the increased power, or retain the tow, but also increase the cost in a commensurate way. I would keep in mind here that the hitpoint alone is very powerful, regardless of the specific attack value (especially with that extra movement), but when you pair the units vs the standard infantry fodder I think the cost needs to scale in a particular way or you'll get some kinks here.

So right now we got a 1/2/1 Infantry-trained unit that costs 4 PUs...

Two of them cost 8 PUs, with a cumulative attack power of 2 and 2 hitpoints. This is the threshold really, what I mean when I'm talking about remainder spending. It's like what else you can buy, still getting that second hitpoint but boosting the power or mobility of the force, if you have say 9 or 10 PUs to burn rather than 8. Inf-Motorized, Artillery and the proposed Elites all cost 6, with superior power, mobility, or versatility, but they still only have that single hitpoint. The big breakpoint would be 12 PUs spent. Where the player has to make that tough choice, is it better to have a 3rd hitpoint for the same cost (all trained inf), or 2 units but with something extra (trading out for artillery, or inf-moto, or elite). How much more valuable is power/mobility/versatility over sheer quantity in HP, like if one just spammed infantry fodder to the heights. Depends on the spot right and how close you are to the maintenance limit. Also acknowledging that if a unit competes with infantry fodder too directly at the same/similar price point when you scale up, then that unit will simply become the primary fodder unit, or replace infantry in importance generally. Becoming the go-to buy as it were. Fodder is typically the cheapest unit, but more importantly also the best/cheapest hitpoint you can get, for the money. Typically in A&A this is infantry, but that's also a design choice.

If the best hitpoint you can buy is slightly more expensive but clearly a better unit at scale, then that unit will predominate, with the rest of the roster sorta keying around it instead of the reg Infantry. Currently I'd say the Elite and Inf-Moto are in this position, despite being at 7/6 PUs in the current v 100 (compared to Inf-trained at 4). This is because they have much better attack power, and in the case of the Elite better transport capacity, and no real downside from terrain. So sorta like you start by seeing how many Elites, or Inf-Moto you can divide out from your pile of cash. Then maybe boost up in reg Infantry once you've got what you need for power, to ensure you're building enough HP per turn to cushion them and keep stuff alive, but keying off the elites as the baseline. USSR roster might be making this a little bit more pronounced, since they are more reliant on their Elites and Artillery and such. Russia is working off 3s and 5s for fodder (Inf Conscripts/Anti-tank) or else the 6/7 price point, since their Inf-trained are not accessible in the same way and they might not be able to build conscripts depending on their cap, or place Anti-tanks depending on the build location, so the elite/inf-moto end up filling that slot for them.

Also thinking about this in terms of the land-transport/tow feature, I'd think about it like trying to slot in the most combat effective force with the most mobility you can from a limited number of placements. Here the land-transport (Tank) can encourage mixed forces from the factories, since you can get more mobility out of the same production for a somewhat cheaper cost. Taking the Industry-Med as an example. You got 3 slots, how to fill em? Could buy 3 Armor-Medium for a cost of 27, gets you the most attack power, but then each of those Armor units individually is not being used to it's maximum effect, cause that wouldn't utilize the armor's tow capability. A better purchase (if immediate power/terrain isn't a factor) might be something like 1 Armor Medium, 1 Artillery and 1 Inf Motorized, because now the artillery piece picks up the movement bonus from the armor, and boosts the Inf-Moto (which can move the same distance as the tank) and so the purchase has the units working in concert. Wherever it lands it's got that m2 going for itself at least, but you also got a little cover from the inf-moto unit as fodder/defense. Only costs 21 PUs. Now you got 6 PUs left over for a 4th hitpoint of artillery/elite/inf-moto somewhere else. Getting a bit more bang out of your limited production on the cheap. Not that it will always work out that way, sometimes you just need the 3 tanks you know. Max power. But often it's trying to split that difference which makes the choice interesting.

The terrain or amphib malus for M2 units could also factor into the situation in a big way. Where buying 3 tanks would make a lot less sense if you know that they will be rendered ineffective by terrain. In that case you might not want to buy armor at all, and the combo called for might be something more like 3 artillery vs 3 elites or whatever.

I think a second hitpoint is another interesting approach for Tank types, or heavy variants, though I would pick one (tow or 2 hit) and make that the units theme. Mobility/M2 with tow is a bit more familiar I think than the 2-hit land unit, but both have some precedent for people to give a nod. I'd worry about doing an M1 tank, cause I think people might find that a little confusing though I get the concept there. Doing both works too, like 2-hit plus the tow, but then that has to be factored into the cost a bit more I'd say. That's a lot of versatility to complement the raw power where tanks already outclass the other ground units by a fairly wide margin, since the hit 3s/4s are harder to come by here.

That said, I'm pretty game for whatever. Like I'm having a lot of fun with each of these builds. The current Inf-Moto are pretty fun. OP but fun! So I think I can get behind a lot of things for this one, even if it's a little less familiar.

wc_sumpton

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

I am of course thinking about the unit as an abstract game piece with the player providing the narrative

Agree with you 100%. That is why I disagree with the USSR being able to purchase Armor-Hvy at the start of the game. The only reason given, in the xml, is USSR had the KV-1. The KV-1 was developed in the interim, between WWI and WWII. Their firepower was very limited, but they were very well armored. At the time Germany invaded Russia, there may have been 700 of the units left, and they were no longer in production. To call them Armor-Hvy, game terms, at 4/4/2 is a real stretch. The reason they were called Heavy Armor was their weight, at almost 3x the weight of Germany's Panzer. But the design of their turrets restricted the ability to add a bigger gun on the unit, thus their production was terminated.

Next would be the Bombers with their movement of 8, means these were long range aircraft. Because of their range, Germany, Italy and Japan cannot build them. Basically, the Americans with the production of the B-17, would be the only ones fielding such a unit. Otherwise, there was the medium range Bombers which most countries (Russia's Petlyakov Pe-2 production stated late '41 early '42) had and were producing, but is not represented, thus cannot be purchased. This gives the Allies (USA and Britian) a big tactical advantage. Thus, give everyone, with the exception of Russia, China and Pacific-Allies, medium range bombers at 6 movement.

When a country can produce Armor-Med, Armor-Lgt should be removed from production. The choice should not be Lgt vs Med, the choice should be Infantry vs Armor. The same can be said about Fighter-Early vs Fighter vs P-51 Mustang. When the Fighter is being produced, Early-Fighter should not. And when the Americans produce the P-51 Mustang (long range fighter), the Fighter should be removed. Also Bomber (long range) for America and British should replace their Medium Bomber.

Advance Units (Armor-Hvy, Nuclear-Bomber, V-1 and V-2 rockets) could be added to production, and not replacing another unit, during early mid to mid game.

Again these are just my opinions.

Cheers...