💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread

[wc_sumpton]

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

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 ?

Yes, every infantry squad includes machine guns, that's why they defend at 2. When attacking the machine guns need to be pickup and moved, even on halftracks/mechanized/motorized when attacking, the unit bounces, and is moving, making it much harder to acquire targets, thus attack 1. Also, many armor units carried machine guns, it's just baked into their attack/defense.

Just my thought.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

Sounds fun! I'm sure I'll immediately miss kicking ass across the Eastern front with the Moto, but I think those specs sound good! To me the 5 spot is great. It's one over Inf fodder meaning the most likely candiate for a remainder buy, so some tension there between a couple key units is all to the good. Cause you probably want that bunker too or a destroyer to run interference, so you get a little pull in a few directions. I think just having the tow for armor light will make tanks sorta everyone's favorite, but that also is to the good, cause with the tow they bring everyone along for the ride ya know. I think it should be fun.

I'm digging the new dynamics on the Eastern front a lot. The new one is my fav so far. I just enjoy how there's a good choice between North Center South for both sides there. And how HP production from the backfield pairs off vs constant desire for heavy hitters up front. Also the scramble I think plays off well vs the m3 rail there and the terrain element. It's pretty cool how you set that up. Lot of ways you can wheel around or do shifty stuff with the armor and fighters to try and cover multiple TTs off the rail. I feel like I always want to mess with England in some fashion but the Conscripts can make that pretty tricky, which I also enjoy! I think AI Brits just needs a bit more coverage for their early move outs/landings which hopefully the elites may get going. They definitely know how to get transports on the move, but do the floater thing a bit when the German air goes nuts or the fleet plays forward. Still doing that kinda invites a grind elsewhere. I just think its fun how gunning after Britian has a payoff. Or same deal vs Italy as Allies. If you get there and snap up a line hehe. Anyhow, good stuff!

Nice work

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk

Russia did use artillery during WWII, so I could see adding the Katyusha as a special unit for Russia 1x3/2/2. It looks like it launched small rockets, about the size of mortar rounds, not the big shell that artillery uses. More quantity then quality, that's why 3 dice on attack. Also, its a wheeled truck, so it may have more TT where its movement is reduced. The three shots could be very disruptive to emplaced defenders, -1 to units defending.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

@wc_sumpton that sounds like a cool take!

I will say that for me, when a single unit fires multiple shots (ala Heavy Bombers in Classic rolling x2, or the AAgun post v5 x3) I find that this can be pretty hard to ballpark on the fly for the mental calc. In this scenario, where the order of battle may be less intuitive to the new player, and aslo where many casualty selections are automated (via targeting) and where the player is encouraged to camp their space bar for while just to confirm to progress the fight, I worry a little bit about multi-shot units. Like just cause the combat/dice rolling part of the phase already goes pretty quickly with a lot flashing in on the player at once. It took me a long to to figure out when the artillery were actually firing vs the anti-tank etc heheh.

That said I'm not really opposed. The way it works currently, at least in a solo, the variability and unpredictability is almost part of the charm to me now. So I guess in that sense, if you already got a different order of battle and some units doing it, an artillery special pushing a bit for the1x3 for the shot seems like it could work, and I probably wouldn't notice. It'd just be one of those battles where it's like, "wow another big clap, it must have been the Katyushas!" hehe. Part of what obscures what is happening for me comes a little bit from the way the AI assigns casualty to/from bunker hits. I think it's because of the TUV and defense values of the bunker, but you know how sometimes the AI will start trading out Inf before the bunkers, like in that second wave sometimes as defender. Anyhow, a lot of that stuff passes me by, so a lot of the way I play is sorta raw power vs hitpoints, in terms of what goes on in my head for planning. Then often I'll get surprised with a result and wonder if I brought a different combination of units whether I'd have done better/worse in any given fight. I'm just I'd still sorta default to the Inf/Art push with most factions cause that's so ingrained, but it can be tricky to tell which units are firing when for me, even after playing many many games now hehehe.

For the latest build v 100, my main suggestion right now, when doing the switches mentioned in posts above for the armor etc/ would be to give the USSR a bit more reach for a first turn counter attack against Tula, or second turn counter attack vs Ryazan. This is because the new rail hubs in the Ukraine/Belarus regions makes it faster to shift units from the backfield onto Ryazan as Axis.

Axis also get the 1/2 punch with Italy/Germany in sequence before USSR is back up. Means Axis can stack a lot of their starting HP into Tula on G1, and many more hp into Ryazan on G2/I2 with support bringing up the rear and fighters landing adjacent. Whatever the ceiling on the units caps, I think that's one to keep an eye on. Currently I see a pretty reliable G3 kill on Moscow. It's because of the map/production design. I think with the current Production spread Ryazan would be analogous to W. Russia in a lot of A&A maps. As Axis if you can stack in, splits the Allied defense across multiple tiles, so this works the same way. Except rather than a choice between say Moscow/Stalingrad via W. Russia, the split there is Moscow/Kuyby/Stalingrad via Ryazan with 3 enemy factory spots pressured from that location. Germany alone can pull this off right now I think, but if you factor in Italy I think the HP swarm is more than Russia can handle.

In order to dampen the effect I think a USSR counter attack option to thin out the advance and make it a bit harder for Axis to stack in along that line. Like if they could be hit by a strafe, so the play has more risk for Axis. I think you need to have a pretty strong Axis line on Moscow in these sort of games, like in order for the game to have any tension, but right now with the added rail hubs I think it might be too easy for Axis to swoop in quick-style immediately, like G3. I wouldn't remove the rail there, cause I like the new factories a lot, but I'd perhaps give Russia an edge a bit closer to the frontline, just so they have more of a first turn response if Axis go murder mode vs them.

Similarly, if both Germany and Italy, commit 100% of their effort to USSR, it would be hard for Allies to stop this, so it's kind of up to Germany to set the tone there. How much they elect to send vs Britain/Africa basically, with Axis having the initiative/choice there. If they throw their full weight East (sorta traditional, least from A&A experience) if that's reliable for the kill, I think it becomes the default. What I like about this particular map is that there's actually a fairly decent payoff for going vs Britain though, and an option for the fleet to play forward if Germany plans for that from G1. In a Solo I think the player might be led by greed to try some balsey stuff and edge it. But you know what I mean, like standard Kill Russia first, send everything to the middle type strat. Where G balls up and Germany and Italy move in tandem for the B-Line on the Moscow pocket.

Another related thing would be the Black Sea edge that Axis can build up on the water, though I think this is a trade off, cause it's pretty expensive for Italy to build a pocket fleet in the black sea. Still, if they do, this would be hard for Russia to counter. USSR has a lot of Aircraft to wipe a newly minted Axis fleet on Turn 2, but they gotta get their air in range first, and Axis might contest the whole coastline and have many fighters of their own in round 2.

To offset this, I would give the USSR a mini fleet with a transport in the Caspian. This way they have an option to reinforce the Caucasus from the Caspian side, if Axis take over the black sea and start funneling units with transports. They could shuck 9 hp per turn that way I think, like vs Baku/Baghdad via Georgia, and it'd be pretty hard to answer with USSR. But the Caspian rout if there was a transport there, would at least allow Allies to cover that Baku VC and Uzbek/China. Caspian sz cash currently could not be contested, since there is no production there along the coast.

I think you could do the Caspian Flotilla basically...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Flotilla

With a transport and some destroyers, just so it isn't insta-wiped by the Italian Air-HQ. Axis would still have to advance their line by 1 tile to reach the Caspian with reg fighters, and Russia at least would have a turn to answer that.

The headquarters for the Caspian Flotilla was at Baku at the time I think, which might be made an Industry-Medium rather than a base-camp situation. It would help the Caucasus to pair off vs Axis in Rostov/Ukraine in the early game. Like if you wanted to reduce the Lend-Lease at Baku and have a little more of the cash coming like direct income from an Industry-Med on the USSR side, Baku prob would make sense. Essentially having some of the 'lend lease' represented by that production/naval units along the Caspian route. Astrakhan I think would be the next best option if Baku seems to already have enough going on. Either of those tiles at 7 though, perhaps with no factory initially might work. Just thinking of a way to make it so that the Caspian sea zone is actually in play and not quite as isolated, since it'd be in a sort of push/pull contest with the Black Sea there, with a couple of VCs on the line.

Anyhow, just some thoughts. Again, enjoying this one quite a lot! Good times!

[TheDog]

Latest version 105 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)

• To help the AI, each Allied Air & Sea unit type limited to 10 per TT/SZ. Each Land unit type limited to 20 per per TT, was 20/40 (the sweet spot for AI & player might be 15/30)
• Armor-Inf 3/3/1 2HP 12pu (new unit)
• Armor-Hvy 4/4/2 2HP 17pu (new stat line)
• Inf-Elite 1/2/1 5pu (new stat line)
• Inf-Motorized 1/2/2 5pu, (new stat line) also lost its carry/tow capability (not powerful/heavy enough to pull/tow) (Thanks both for the discussion)
• Armor-Lgt gains carry/tow capability (just powerful/heavy enough to pull/tow) & helps balances out that China/Japan/Pacific-Allies dont have Inf-Motorized) (Thanks both for the discussion)
• Updated Game_Notes, Prologue, Start_Nations & tooltips to match recent changes
  .
• supportAttachment, heavily based off WC Sumpton post, thanks again
• V1-Rocket Raid damage d2-1, was d2
• V2-Rocket Raid damage d2,...was d2+1, cost 6pu, was 4
• Fixed Lend-Lease amounts for the donor nations
• These nations can purchase Conscripts ANZAC, Britain, Germany, Japan ONLY if their homeland is invaded, removed maxBuilt=30 as the Conscripts are conditional on being invaded

WEST

• USA Theme reinforcements 2x Destroyers /turn (as AI under buys)
• USSR Archangelsk Lend-Lease doubled to 8pu

EAST

• USSR Vladivostok Lend-Lease doubled to 16pu
• Pacfic-Allies Darwin-Northern Territory & Melbourne-Victoria Base-Camp

TODO

• Balance
• USSR code Armor-Hvy Tech T9 = tech of T8+
• New icons Armor-Hvy_hit
• New USSR Armor-Inf (KV-1) Icon & _hit (Yellow man?)
• New Britain Armor-Inf_hit Icon (Yellow man?)
• Bomber-Tac support Tech

.
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 said in 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread:

TODO

Balance
USSR code Armor-Hvy Tech T9 = tech of T8+
New icons Armor-Hvy_hit
New USSR Armor-Inf (KV-1) Icon & _hit (Yellow man?)
New Britain Armor-Inf_hit Icon (Yellow man?)
Bomber-Tac support Tech

For the "_hit", I used:
Also add it to the Armor-Med.

Trying something different for the techs, using Japan's "Long-Lance", for "Armor-Hvy" I added the tech "HV-Armor":

<technologies>
	<techname name="Land-Transport" tech="mechanizedInfantry"/>	<!-- Note the name change for display -->
	<techname name="Air-Transport" 	tech="paratroopers"/>
	<techname name="Long-Lance"/>
	<techname name="HV-Armor"/>
</technologies>
<playerTech player="Germany">
	<category name="Technology Advances">
		<tech name="Land-Transport"/>
		<tech name="Air-Transport"/>
		<tech name="HV-Armor"/> <!-- can also be add to USA and British -->
	</category>
</playerTech>

And the new triggers:

<!-- ======================================= Tech Germany Armor-Adv ======================================= -->
<!-- Germany Armor-Adv T1+ & remove Tankette -->
<attachment name="conditionAttachment_Germany_Research_Armor-Adv_Success" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
        <!-- Removed -->
        <!-- <option name="switch" value="false"/> -->
        <!-- Replace with -->
	<option name="techs" value="HV-Armor" count="1"/>
</attachment>
<attachment name="conditionAttachment_Germany_Research_Armor-Adv_Invert" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Germany_Research_Armor-Adv_Success"/>
	<option name="invert" value="true"/>
</attachment>

<attachment name="triggerAttachment_Germany_Research_Armor-Adv_Chance" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Germany_Research_Armor-Adv_Invert"/>	<!-- note Invert on end as starts T1, as rounds not used -->
	<option name="chance" value="1:3"/>		<!-- more chance -->
        <!-- Removed -->
	<!-- <option name="playerAttachmentName" value="RulesAttachment" count="conditionAttachment_Germany_Research_Armor-Adv_Success"/> -->
	<!-- <option name="playerProperty" value="switch" count="true"/> -->
        <!-- Replaced with -->
	<option name="tech" value="HV-Armor"/>
	<option name="chanceIncrementOnFailure" value="1"/>
	<!-- Changed to after end turn -->
        <!-- <option name="when" value="before:GermanyPurchase"/> -->
	<option name="when" value="after:Germany0EndTurn"/>
</attachment>
<attachment name="triggerAttachment_Germany_Research_Armor-Adv" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Germany_Research_Armor-Adv_Success"/>
	<option name="productionRule" value="production_Germany:buyArmor-Adv"/>
	<option name="notification" value="Notify_Germany_Research_Armor-Adv"/>
	<option name="players" value="$All-Players$"/>
	<option name="uses" value ="1"/>
	<option name="when" value="before:GermanyPurchase"/>
</attachment>

Also add tech and tech_activation before purchase for each player. Doing this allows players to check which techs each player has.

Thoughts.

Cheers...

[TheDog]

Another Masterclass thanks!

I have it working for Armor-Hvy for 3 nations

[wc_sumpton]

@thedog

Glad you like it! I've used it for **Fighter-Jet, P51 Mustang, Adv-Sub, V rockets, etc... Make's it nice to see who's got what.

Now onto support. First I placed on the early units: When these units are used they don't require offensive support. Except for China and for a limited time Pacific-Allies.

<variable name="All-HQ-Air-Command">		<!-- 5  -->
	<element name="Fighter"/>
	<element name="Fighter-Jet"/>
	<element name="P51-Mustang"/>
	<element name="Bomber-Tac"/>
	<element name="Bomber"/>
	<!-- <element name="HQ-Air"/>		Not self
	<element name="Fighter-Early"/>		Only has Def
	<element name="Kamikaze-Plane"/>	Special
	<element name="Air-Transport"/>		0/0
	<element name="Nuclear-Bomber"/>	Special
	<element name="V1-Rocket"/>			Unmanned & Only has Atk
	<element name="V2-Rocket"/>			Unmanned & Only has Atk
	-->
</variable>
<!-- HQ-Air can add 10 support -->
<!-- Offensive air w/o China and Pacific Allies -->
<attachment name="supportAttachmentHQ-Air_Dog_Fight_Offence" attachTo="HQ-Air" javaClass="UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
	<option name="faction" value="allied"/>
	<option name="unitType" value="$All-HQ-Air-Command$"/> <!-- Does not include Early-Fighter -->
	<option name="side" value="offence"/>
	<option name="dice" value="AAstrength"/><!-- Dog Fight support, not Strength in this case is ground support only -->
	<option name="bonus" value="1"/>		<!-- + for allied or - for enemy -->
	<option name="number" value="5"/>		<!-- apply this many times -->
	<option name="bonusType" value="Command"/>
	<option name="players" value="$All-Axis$:USSR:Britain:USA"/> <!-- Add Pacific-Allies on turn 11 -->
	<option name="impArtTech" value="false"/>
</attachment>

<!-- Offensive air for China and Pacific Allies -->
<attachment name="supportAttachmentHQ-Air_Dog_Fight_Offence_China" attachTo="HQ-Air" javaClass="UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
	<option name="faction" value="allied"/>
	<option name="unitType" value="$All-HQ-Air-Command$:Early-Fighter"/>
	<option name="side" value="offence"/>
	<option name="dice" value="AAstrength"/><!-- Dog Fight support, not Strength in this case is ground support only -->
	<option name="bonus" value="1"/>		<!-- + for allied or - for enemy -->
	<option name="number" value="5"/>		<!-- apply this many times -->
	<option name="bonusType" value="Command"/>
	<option name="players" value="China:Pacific-Allies"/> <!-- Remove Pacific-Allies on turn 11 -->
	<option name="impArtTech" value="false"/>
</attachment>

<!-- Defensive air for all supportable units for all players -->
<attachment name="supportAttachmentHQ-Air_Dog_Fight_Defense" attachTo="HQ-Air" javaClass="UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
	<option name="faction" value="allied"/>
	<option name="unitType" value="$All-HQ-Air-Command$:Early-Fighter"/>
	<option name="side" value="defence"/>
	<option name="dice" value="AAstrength"/><!-- Dog Fight support, not Strength in this case is ground support only -->
	<option name="bonus" value="1"/>		<!-- + for allied or - for enemy -->
	<option name="number" value="5"/>		<!-- apply this many times -->
	<option name="bonusType" value="Command"/>
	<option name="players" value="$All-Players$"/>
	<option name="impArtTech" value="false"/>
</attachment>

<!-- Offensive gnd w/o China and Pacific Allies -->
<attachment name="supportAttachmentHQ-Air_Offence" attachTo="HQ-Air" javaClass="UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
	<option name="faction" value="allied"/>
	<option name="unitType" value="$All-HQ-Air-Command$"/>
	<option name="side" value="offence"/>
	<option name="dice" value="Strength"/>	<!--  ground support only -->
	<option name="bonus" value="1"/>		<!-- + for allied or - for enemy -->
	<option name="number" value="5"/>		<!-- apply this many times -->
	<option name="bonusType" value="Command"/>
	<option name="players" value="$All-Axis$:USSR:Britain:USA"/>
	<option name="impArtTech" value="false"/>
</attachment>

<!-- Offensive gnd for China and Pacific Allies -->
<attachment name="supportAttachmentHQ-Air_Offence_China" attachTo="HQ-Air" javaClass="UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
	<option name="faction" value="allied"/>
	<option name="unitType" value="$All-HQ-Air-Command$:Early-Fighter"/>
	<option name="side" value="offence"/>
	<option name="dice" value="Strength"/>	<!--  ground support only -->
	<option name="bonus" value="1"/>		<!-- + for allied or - for enemy -->
	<option name="number" value="5"/>		<!-- apply this many times -->
	<option name="bonusType" value="Command"/>
	<option name="players" value="China:Pacific-Allies"/>
	<option name="impArtTech" value="false"/>
</attachment>

<!-- Defensive gnd for all supportable units for all players -->
<attachment name="supportAttachmentHQ-Air_Defense" attachTo="HQ-Air" javaClass="UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
	<option name="faction" value="allied"/>
	<option name="unitType" value="$All-HQ-Air-Command$"/>
	<option name="side" value="defence"/>
	<option name="dice" value="Strength"/>	<!--  ground support only -->
	<option name="bonus" value="1"/>		<!-- + for allied or - for enemy -->
	<option name="number" value="5"/>		<!-- apply this many times -->
	<option name="bonusType" value="Command"/>
	<option name="players" value="$All-Players$"/>
	<option name="impArtTech" value="false"/>
</attachment>

I've used this 6 bracket setup for all HQ units.

Thoughts

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

Looking good!

Couple quick thoughts from my last game v105...

I saw USSR attacking into neutral Konduz (Afghanistan) pretty consistently. Mechanically this isn't a bad move for the computer, especially since the NAP blocks Japanese movement into Soviet tiles, and in general it's easy enough for me to imagine random neutral spots entering the fray, but this is something I'd try to avoid happening in the turn 1 script. Some other neutral TTs may be similar, like Aragon-Catalonia for Germany or the spots in South America for USA.

I would suggest creating a separate set of units for the neutrals where all those units have a TUV of zero. Right now a neutral TT with 2 bunkers on it is worth 10 TUV destroyed, and a TT with 9 bunkers would have a TUV of 45. I believe the AI takes potential TUV destroyed into account, meaning it may be less likely to make such attacks if those same bunker units had a listed value of 0 for neutrals rather 5 PUs. Bunkers might not work as well for that, if they're more generic infrastructure (outside the national unit folder), but you could do it with infantry and regular combat units I think. Since no player has access to that neutral roster and those units are not entering play beyond what's down at the start, I'd make them all at zero TUV. Like the neutral infantry and tanks and whatnot, cause then you could explore other ways to scale their forces for the deterrence factor, beyond just multiples of the bunkers. Like we could go around the map in edit mode and scale those neutral forces without having to worry about how much the TUV might be drawing the AI's attention away from their 'live' opponent hehe.

Second thing I wanted to mention, I think we might to use the zombies rules for our Carriers. In A&AZ carriers can't host friendly fighters from other nations on their team. So for example, you can't send USA fighters to land on British carrier decks or vice versa like in the older games. Here I'd suggest it especially for the solo game, where the AI will attempt to land fighters on it's teammates carrier decks to support them or just to move out further than they'd be able to otherwise. This could be potentially frustrating for the player, since until the AI flies off on their next turn, that carrier slot is locked up. Like you might have 3 fighters that could otherwise be in an attack on your next turn, and planning on that, only to find that you can't cause a friendly decided to camp out on your deck hehe. AAZ carrier rules are somewhat less dynamic than say v3, but also simpler to follow. It's easier I think for the player to track.

Otherwise feeling pretty solid to me! I'm playing as the Brits right now. Pretty entertaining
Nice work!

ps. oh and my last thought real quick. I would remove the strict separation between combat and non-combat movement phases. I find that enforcing the distinction between movement phases just increases the likelihood of error for me in tripleA. I think it's unnecessary for the digital version, where tripleA will track individually whether a unit has moved, or how far, unlike sitting around the table top. Anything that interrupts the decision making during movement, or which makes the transportation/transit process more tedious I think kinda hurts the flow. Also if a unit has moved during combat but still has movement remaining it will freeze out in the non com phase right now, like for ships at m2/m3. Currently if a TT is contested, empty of enemy units but occupied by your own troops (often happens clearing bunkers in the stalemate) you can't move the units out of the TT during the combat move phase except via transport. But then if the phase separation wasn't as strict, even if we couldn't exit the tile via an attack during the com phase into an adjacent tile, we could non com into a friendly tile if there was one. Anyhow that would be my suggestion, basically to allow non-combat movement during the combat phase generally without added penalties. It's already better for the player to separate phases, than to collapse all into their com movement, since then you'd see the results before committing, so really it's a trade off there for speed. But many would make it, and I think it's sorta the default in tripleA for me hehe. I get the intent forcing movement phase separation, but I think it isn't really needed and just sorta slows things down here.

On the physical board this is harder to achieve, but in tripleA basically what we can do is streamline it from a combat movement/combat/non-combat phase, into something more like a movement/combat/'land aircraft' phase, which is a fair bit faster. To me this is a draw in tripleA, since it keeps the gameplay moving at a steady clip. Similar to combat before purchase which we've already got going. I think when the player is the the movement mindset, they will issue those command during the com phase just as easily a lot of the time. And then you only have to hold back in reserve if there's a question hanging in the air, or if like the results of a battle would change what/where you wanted to move, but otherwise if you can handle a non-com move during combat movement, I'd say go for it. Only a few unit types currently would need to be tweaked for that, mostly just the transports I think right? Works for the other air/fleet/ground units. It's just the ones that do the load/unload I think right? Cause it works for the land transport tow currently.

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk

Good thoughts on the Neutrals, I'll let you and @TheDog hammer out that idea.

Aircraft landing on allied carriers, can see where that is enforced. Maybe @TheDog has more ideas about that.

Very confused about the last part. If you have attacking units stuck in a territory with a bunker, then during the follow-up attack, the bunker, with a movement of zero, cannot retreat. The defending, old attacking units, cannot retreat. If its combat units lock in a stalemate, then move 2 units may move out of the TT during combat move, as long as they finished their move into another combat TT (not enforced by TripleA). There is always the undocumented "canRetreatOnStalemate".

You can noncombat move during combat movement. If you are talking about making a partial move during combat movement, and then finishing the move during noncombat movement. That would be a "board" house rule, not supported by TripleA.

Cheers...

[TheDog]

Bunker TUV
A good idea about Bunker TUV beling less than 5.

Below its set to Bunker_ & TUV=1 (note the underscore this is a Neutral Bunker)

Only one test and it does not appear to work, see below.

I will leave the code in so you can test it. (it might have a small effect)

.
Allied Air on own Carriers
Does the property below control the above? As per the text you can still land, but will not fight

<!-- if true, allied air on your carriers will participate in an attack -->
   <property name="Allied Air Independent" value="true" editable="false">

In the next release it will be false, so you can test it.

Is there another property?

.
One Movement phase
TripleA does not support 100% Non-Combat move in the Combat Move phase, it would be nice if it did.

[wc_sumpton]

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

One Movement phase
TripleA does not support 100% Non-Combat move in the Combat Move phase, it would be nice if it did.

What types of Non-Combat are not supported? The only one's I can think of would be "canMoveIntoDuringCombatMove" which is not used and "canNotMoveDuringCombatMove".

At a loss here. But that's not uncommon!

Cheers...

[TheDog]

Not a property but...

Units on Transport cannot unload into friendly TT in the Combat Move.

[wc_sumpton]

@thedog

You're right!
Thinking about Conscription purchase, my thoughts are something like:

<!-- Britain Conscripts -->
<!-- Does Britian own London -->
<attachment name="conditionAttachment_Britain_OwnHome" attachTo="Britain" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="alliedOwnershipTerritories" value="London-S.England" count="1"/>
	<option name="invert" value="true"/>
</attachment>
<!-- Have the British Isles been invaded, but London still stands -->
<attachment name="conditionAttachment_Britain_OwnHomeTT" attachTo="Britain" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="alliedOwnershipTerritories" value="N.England:N.Ireland:Scotland:Wales" count="4"/>
	<option name="invert" value="true"/>
</attachment>
<!-- Is Britian getting kicked off the map but London and the British Isles still stand originalNoWater=137 TT -->
<attachment name="conditionAttachment_Britain_TTOwnership" attachTo="Britain" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="alliedOwnershipTerritories" value="originalNoWater" count="45"/>
	<option name="invert" value="true"/>
</attachment>

<attachment name="triggerAttachment_Britain_Conscript" attachTo="Britain" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Britain_OwnHome:conditionAttachment_Britain_OwnHomeTT:conditionAttachment_Britain_TTOwnership"/>
	<option name="conditionType" value="OR"/>
	<option name="productionRule" value="production_Britain:buyInf-Conscript"/>
	<option name="productionRule" value="production_Britain:buyArmor-Lgt"/>
	<option name="productionRule" value="production_Britain:buyFighter-Early"/>
	<option name="notification" value="Notify_Britain_Research_Conscript"/>
	<option name="players" value="$All-Players$"/>
	<option name="when" value="before:BritainPurchase"/>
</attachment>

<!-- Remove buy Conscript -->
<attachment name="triggerAttachment_Britain_Remove_Conscript" attachTo="Britain" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Always_True"/>
	<option name="productionRule" value="production_Britain:-buyInf-Conscript"/>
	<option name="productionRule" value="production_Britain:-buyArmor-Lgt"/>
	<option name="productionRule" value="production_Britain:-buyFighter-Early"/>
	<option name="when" value="after:BritainPurchase"/>
</attachment>

My check, capital, homeland total of original territories.

Thoughts

Cheers...

[TheDog]

@wc_sumpton
Thanks, I have all the unit tech working (top of the table) and individual component tech working (Air-Transport etc at the bottom)

Now the tech table looks very good

On the TODO is add Britain P51 X to the table at the same time as US develops it.

.

.
HQ Command refining
I like the current simplicity of the Commands, a nation has the HQ commands or they dont. Thanks for helping me get to the current version. :folded_hands:

.
Conscription refining
I like the idea of using the number of territories left to determine the 'junk' available, so duly assimilated

.
ps. added Japan Submarine-Adv X to the table.

[wc_sumpton]

@thedog

I changed the location of "tech" and "tech-activation" to after 0EndTurn:

<step name="Germany0EndTurn" 	delegate="endTurn" player="Germany"/>
<step name="GermanyTech" 			delegate="tech" 			player="Germany"/>
<step name="GermanyTechActivation" delegate="tech_activation" player="Germany"/>

Then for Japan and USA I did:

<attachment name="triggerAttachment_Japan_Techs" attachTo="Japan" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Always_True"/>
	<option name="tech" value="Ln-Lance"/>
	<option name="tech" value="Sub-Adv"/>
	<option name="tech" value="Carrier-Flt"/>
	<option name="uses" value="1"/>
	<option name="when" value="after:Germany0EndTurn"/> <!-- Tech will be granted w/o special delegates -->
</attachment>
<attachment name="triggerAttachment_USA_Techs" attachTo="USA" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Always_True"/>
	<option name="tech" value="Carrier-Flt"/>
	<option name="uses" value="1"/>
	<option name="when" value="after:Germany0EndTurn"/> <!-- Tech will be granted w/o special delegates -->
</attachment>

It's works!!

For Britian, just tie it into USA success:

<attachment name="triggerAttachment_Britian_Research_LnRg-Fighter_Check" attachTo="Britain" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_USA_Research_LnRg-Fighter_Success"/>
	<option name="tech" value="LnRg-Fighter"/>
	<option name="when" value="before:Britain0EndTurn"/>
</attachment>

The notice can also be attached.

Cheers...

[TheDog]

@wc_sumpton
Thanks for the tie it into USA success code,

FYI, I have this
This is the one and only occurrence of tech & tech_activation

<step name="JapanTech" 			delegate="tech" 			player="Japan" maxRunCount="1"/>
<step name="JapanTechActivation" delegate="tech_activation" player="Japan" maxRunCount="1"/>

.
As I forgot to add the usual steps for each nation.

<step name="USSR0EndTurn"	 	delegate="endTurn" player="USSR"/>
<step name="USSRCombatMove" 	delegate="move" player="USSR"/>
<step name="USSRBattle" 		delegate="battle" player="USSR"/>
<step name="USSRNonCombatMove" 	delegate="move" player="USSR" display="Non Combat Move"/>
<step name="USSRPurchase" 		delegate="purchase" player="USSR"/>
<step name="USSRPlace" 			delegate="place" player="USSR"/>
<step name="USSR1EndTurn"		delegate="endTurnNoPU" player="USSR"/>
<step name="USSRPolitics" 		delegate="politics" player="USSR"/>

The above also works.
I guess its because the xml is only putting the X in the tech box.

[wc_sumpton]

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

HQ Command refining
I like the current simplicity of the Commands, a nation has the HQ commands or they dont. Thanks for helping me get to the current version

I can dig it!:beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes:

But what about the 0 based attack units? Bunker/Base-Camp HQ-Army and Transport/Carrier/Carrier-Fleet HQ-Fleet

Any who--- I've been playing around with a Upgrade process for Base-Camp/Industries:

<attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="Upgrade-Hvy" javaClass="UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
	<option name="isConstruction" value="true"/>
	<option name="isInfrastructure" value="true"/>
	<option name="constructionType" value="Factory"/>
	<option name="maxConstructionsPerTypePerTerr" value="1"/>		<!-- max constructions of this type may be in a territory  -->
	<option name="constructionsPerTerrPerTypePerTurn" value="1"/>	<!-- how many units of this type you can place in a territory every turn  -->
	<option name="canOnlyBePlacedInTerritoryValuedAtX" value="9"/>
	<option name="consumesUnits" value="1:Industry-Med"/> 
	<option name="createsUnitsList" value="1:Industry-Hvy"/> <!-- Creat Industry-Hvy -->
</attachment>

<attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="Upgrade-Med" javaClass="UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
	<option name="isConstruction" value="true"/>
	<option name="isInfrastructure" value="true"/>
	<option name="constructionType" value="Factory"/>
	<option name="maxConstructionsPerTypePerTerr" value="1"/>
	<option name="constructionsPerTerrPerTypePerTurn" value="1"/>
	<option name="canOnlyBePlacedInTerritoryValuedAtX" value="7"/>
	<option name="consumesUnits" value="1:Industry-Lgt"/>
	<option name="createsUnitsList" value="1:Industry-Med"/> <!-- Creat Industry-Ned -->
</attachment>

<attachment name="unitAttachment" attachTo="Upgrade-Lgt" javaClass="UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
	<option name="isConstruction" value="true"/>
	<option name="isInfrastructure" value="true"/>
	<option name="constructionType" value="Factory"/>
	<option name="maxConstructionsPerTypePerTerr" value="1"/>
	<option name="constructionsPerTerrPerTypePerTurn" value="1"/>
	<option name="canOnlyBePlacedInTerritoryValuedAtX" value="5"/>
	<option name="consumesUnits" value="1:Base-Camp"/>
	<option name="createsUnitsList" value="1:Industry-Lgt"/> <!-- Creat Industry-Lgt -->
</attachment>

With a clean-up trigger hocked into 1EndTurn

<attachment foreach="$All-Players$" name="triggerAttachmentCleanUp_@All-Players@"  attachTo="@All-Players@" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Always_True"/>
	<option name="removeUnits" value="All:Upgrade-Hvy" count="99"/>
	<option name="removeUnits" value="All:Upgrade-Med" count="99"/>
	<option name="removeUnits" value="All:Upgrade-Lgt" count="99"/>
	<option name="when" value="after:@All-Players@1EndTurn"/>
</attachment>

The AI does not buy but will place them if given.

Thoughts---

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

Sounds exciting!

That's a bummer for the zero TUV neutral bunker, I'd rather hoped it might have been that easy, like just ditching the TUV value on the neutral units. I'll admit though, it can be a little hard to figure out why the AI is moving where it does in a given instance, so something else entirely I guess. Like perhaps for USSR to Afghanistan, it's trying to close the distance on what it sees as a more important area for production/vcs/capitals, like the regions controlled by Japan (even though they can't reach?) Although you'd think they'd just camp Uzbekistan or something for the VC if it was that. Other times the AI will seem to move away from their production to an interior tile, like it tries to do in Fezzan, or with Germany pinballing around in central Europe.

Defender advantage seems pretty strong generally, as I mentioned before, though there are times when the attacker can really mop the floor, like if attacker HQs are involved. It can be challenging sometimes for me to know for sure how I'll measure up as the defender, so perhaps the AI is doing the same thing? You know like always trying to be in counter attack position, rather than trying to mount an actual defense.

The majority of my own sizing up goofs happen as the attacker, like during amphibious assaults, where I didn't hedge my bets and get wiped say, though it sometimes happens stacking forward on defense, where I'll think, " oh yeah that look's solid for defense", only to get just absolutely murdered and putting up no hits in response, or fewer than I thought I would hehe. I've had that go down on the Eastern front and North Africa once or twice, occasionally with a fleet engagement or airblitz vs a fleet. Often it'll be some unit I missed at M3 that ends up reaching, but even when I know what's coming, sometimes can still be tough to know if my defense is really strong enough, and sometimes I'll do the same sorta thing pulling back from the front, though usually that's to get back on a rail factory for more reach on the subsequent turn. Anyway, AI behavior remains a bit of a mystery there.

I think for Neutrals there has to be a bit of a payoff for even having them exist, like some interest there in a neutral crush gameplan, otherwise if it's always a bad idea and never really worth the cost in attrition, then might as well make them impassible so the AI doesn't screw itself. I mean that's the easiest probably. But I think I like it where there's some potential for Neutral fronts to open and to add that flavor/twist, just not where it happens all the time or right away. Seems a hard thing to control where the AI will want to gun though. It'd also be kinda nice if the was some completionism element to it. You know like if the player or one of the AI nations is going to attack into say Turkey or Spain, that they'd do it with some sense of purpose and kinda finish the job, rather than piecemeal. In other words if you take Catalonia that this might have some effect on then wanting to knock out Madrid too, sooner rather than later, as opposed to just violating Spanish neutrality and then walking away as the AI sometimes does after losing a couple dozen hitpoints in the initial effort hehe. I was hoping having the floor at 1 PU would help with that, and I think it will, but probably requires rescaling the Neutral forces beyond simply multiples of bunkers.

Currently we have neutrals with zero, 2, or 9 bunkers on them (also Switz with 19) but I figured this was just a placeholder cause it was easier/less tedious to do that than to go around and build out neutral forces in say infantry for each tile individually, but I think the latter would be better since you'd have more variety, and it would probably look more compelling visually like that. Then you could also scale some regions more than others based on whether there is terrain there, or some higher intrinsic value to the spot as a transit or a higher PU value. Or like if the TT is an island that could only be reached via amphib, vs a TT that could be hit overland, might recommend a different scale for defensive forces right. Just thinking of Spain for example, perhaps the mountain passes in the Pyrenees are tougher nuts to crack, but then once you cross the mountains things open up a bit. Or going the opposite direction Gibraltar to Andalusia say. Andalusia might have a stronger defense as a deterrent, but then things open up at the interior a bit, so once the ball is rolling in continues to roll. As opposed to just all the Spanish spots having 9 bunkers and being basically the same in that way. I think we can find a better method than bunkers, since that unit is novel and potentially confusing when over-stacked to the heights.

For the attack 0 thing, I'd be wary of attack zero units, or of having a malus that brings a units power down to zero situationally. For 2-hit units like the carrier in particular, attack value zero can lead to some weirdness in the auto/AI casualty selection during the combat phase. I get that carriers and transports are attack zero units in A&A, but I'm curious if the 1/1 might be better than 0/1 here?

For bunkers attack zero creates those situations during the stalemate where the player is notified about 'units will die/keep moving?' when the defender position reverses to attacker on the follow up turn. Frequently the AI will not move units into that TT to support their 'attacking bunkers' so you end up with weird lopsided battles that are a bit of a time sink. Like if the attacker can just survive those first 7 waves till battle round limit is reached and the units reverse, then AI will just let them keep the tile without making an effort. More likely as stack sizes go up and the attacker can bring lots of hitpoints. The lone bunker on attack, feels like a situation that just shouldn't occur to me hehe. It would be easier to have the bunker units automatically die or something rather than stalemating into a follow-up battle that is sorta just going through the motions. That said they have grown on me quite a bit, and now feel very much ingrained in what's going, so I'd be reluctant to change them too much. I just don't know that I'd lean on them this hard as the way to stack defense power for the neutrals.

That tech table is looking pretty sweet!!!
Nice work!

ps. for Conscription, currently the player has to hold the relevant TT through opponent's turn for the opponent to get the conscripts right? So for example you'd have to take and hold London through the British players turn for Britain to be considered 'invaded.' As Germany if you get ejected from London during the British player's combat move, then nothing happens. I think I'd do it at the beginning of the turn rather than the end, otherwise you could have a delay of multiple rounds. London might be traded several times before Germany manages to hold it vs British counter attack.

For Italy, I'd do the same deal you did for Japan and make Sardinia/Sicily part of the Italian homelands so they influence the conscription thing. I think Sardinia might be worth 5 like Sicily. It was more industrialized and also where the King's palaces were at, with those ties to Savoy/Piedmont and such, so I'd have the prestige value baked in for that. Might make that tile a bit more interesting for both sides, potentially subject to bombing and such. Right now a lot of times you can drop in on Sardinia unopposed, but that feels a bit weird. I'd stick a tactical bomber there too in the starting unit set up, since it was used for airbases to raid across the Med, and then Allies trying to shut that down. Might be fun

[wc_sumpton]

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

FYI, I have this
This is the one and only occurrence of tech & tech_activation

Sorry missed this somehow. Yea I removed that. Added tech & tech_activation to each player (even China and Pacific-Allies (might want them later)). To get Japan's and USA's beginning techs to activate and show, I just tied them to Germany's 0EndTurn. They are the first player, and their tech/tech_activation did the trick.

Cheers...