💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread

wc_sumpton

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...

wc_sumpton

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

Thanks for the tie it into USA success code,

Another way to do this is the same way V2's are tied to V1's success:

<attachment name="conditionAttachment_Britain_Research_LR-Fighter_Success" attachTo="Britain" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="techs" value="LnRg-Fighter" count="1"/>
</attachment>
<attachment name="conditionAttachment_Britain_Research_LR-Fighter_Invert" attachTo="Britain" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Britain_Research_LR-Fighter_Success"/>
	<option name="invert" value="true"/>
</attachment>

<attachment name="triggerAttachment_Britain_Research_LR-Fighter_Chance" attachTo="Britain" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_USA_Research_P51-Mustang_Success"/> <!-- Tells when P51-Mustang completed -->
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Britain_Research_LR-Fighter_Invert"/>
	<option name="chance" value="1:3"/> <!-- more chance -->
	<option name="chanceIncrementOnFailure" value="1"/> <!-- Increasing chance on next turn -->
	<option name="tech" value="LnRg-Fighter"/>
	<option name="when" value="after:BritainEndTurn"/>
</attachment>

<attachment name="triggerAttachment_Britain_Research_LR-Fighter" attachTo="Britain" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Britain_Research_LR-Fighter_Success"/>
	<option name="productionRule" value="production_Britain:buyLR-Fighter"/>
	<option name="productionRule" value="production_Britain:-buyFighter"/>
	<option name="notification" value="Notify_Britain_Research_LR-Fighter"/>
	<option name="players" value="$All-Players$"/>
	<option name="uses" value ="1"/> <!-- only do this once -->
	<option name="when" value="before:BritainPurchase"/>
</attachment>

wc_sumpton

@black_elk

Yea, right now the conscription happens just before purchase, after all movement and battle. Could be move to the beginning of the turn.

<!-- 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>

<!-- Germany Conscripts -->
<attachment name="conditionAttachment_Germany_OwnHome" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="alliedOwnershipTerritories" value="Berlin-Cen.Germany" count="1"/>
	<option name="invert" value="true"/>
</attachment>
<attachment name="conditionAttachment_Germany_OwnHomeTT" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="alliedOwnershipTerritories" value="Baden-Wurttemburg:Bavaria:Frankfurt-Hesse:Hamburg-Lower Saxony:Meckleburg:Pomerania:Schleswig-Holstein:Silesia:Westphalia-Rhineland" count="9"/>
	<option name="invert" value="true"/>
</attachment>
<attachment name="conditionAttachment_Germany_TTOwnership" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="alliedOwnershipTerritories" value="originalNoWater" count="30"/>
	<option name="invert" value="true"/>
</attachment>

<!-- Italy Conscripts -->
<attachment name="conditionAttachment_Italy_OwnHome" attachTo="Italy" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="alliedOwnershipTerritories" value="Rome-Cen.Italy" count="1"/>
	<option name="invert" value="true"/>
</attachment>
<attachment name="conditionAttachment_Italy_OwnHomeTT" attachTo="Italy" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="alliedOwnershipTerritories" value="Naples-S.Italy:Sicily:Sardinia:Venice-Trieste:Milan-N.Italy" count="5"/>
	<option name="invert" value="true"/>
</attachment>
<attachment name="conditionAttachment_Italy_TTOwnership" attachTo="Italy" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="alliedOwnershipTerritories" value="originalNoWater" count="17"/>
	<option name="invert" value="true"/>
</attachment>

<!-- Japan Conscripts -->
<attachment name="conditionAttachment_Japan_OwnHome" attachTo="Japan" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="alliedOwnershipTerritories" value="Tokyo" count="1"/>
	<option name="invert" value="true"/>
</attachment>
<attachment name="conditionAttachment_Japan_OwnHomeTT" attachTo="Japan" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="alliedOwnershipTerritories" value="Chubu:Hiroshima:Hokkaido:Kyoto-Osaka:Kyushu:Okinawa-Ryukyu Is.:S.Sakhalin:Shikoku:Tohoku" count="9"/>
	<option name="invert" value="true"/>
</attachment>
<attachment name="conditionAttachment_Japan_TTOwnership" attachTo="Japan" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="alliedOwnershipTerritories" value="originalNoWater" count="19"/>
	<option name="invert" value="true"/>
</attachment>

<!-- Pacific-Allies Conscripts -->
 	<attachment name="conditionAttachment_Pacific-Allies_Research_Industry-Hvy" attachTo="Pacific-Allies" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
		<option name="rounds" value="9-+"/>		<!-- should be 11, but to simulate US Lend-Lease 9 -->
	</attachment>
   <attachment name="conditionAttachment_Pacific-Allies_OwnHome" attachTo="Pacific-Allies" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
		<option name="alliedOwnershipTerritories" value="Sydney Canberra-New South Wales" count="1"/>
		<option name="invert" value="true"/>
	</attachment>
    <attachment name="conditionAttachment_Pacific-Allies_OwnHomeTT" attachTo="Pacific-Allies" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
		<option name="alliedOwnershipTerritories" value="Adelaide-S.Australia:Auckland-N.New Zealand:Brisbane-Queensland:Broome-Exmouth:Christchurch-S.New Zealand:Darwin-Northern Territory:Melbourne-Victoria:Perth-W.Australia" count="8"/>
		<option name="invert" value="true"/>
    </attachment>
    <attachment name="conditionAttachment_Pacific-Allies_TTOwnership" attachTo="Pacific-Allies" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
		<option name="alliedOwnershipTerritories" value="originalNoWater" count="22"/>
		<option name="invert" value="true"/>
    </attachment>

<!-- USSR Conscripts -->
<attachment name="conditionAttachment_USSR_OwnHome" attachTo="USSR" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="alliedOwnershipTerritories" value="Moscow-Cen.Russia" count="1"/>
	<option name="invert" value="true"/>
</attachment>
<attachment name="conditionAttachment_USSR_OwnHome2" attachTo="USSR" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="alliedOwnershipTerritories" value="Moscow-Cen.Russia:Archangelsk:Stalingrad-Volga" count="2"/>
	<option name="invert" value="true"/>
</attachment>
<!-- <attachment name="conditionAttachment_USSR_OwnHomeTT" attachTo="USSR" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="alliedOwnershipTerritories" value="Naples-S.Italy:Sicily:Sardinia:Venice-Trieste:Milan-N.Italy" count="5"/>
	<option name="invert" value="true"/>
</attachment> -->
<attachment name="conditionAttachment_USSR_TTOwnership" attachTo="USSR" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="alliedOwnershipTerritories" value="originalNoWater" count="68"/>
	<option name="invert" value="true"/>
</attachment>

China and USA no conscription. USSR already has Inf-Conscript so only receives Armor-Lgt and Fighter-Early. Japan has Submarine-Adv, so Submarine is added, along with a transport with no sonar or AA and the Kamikaze-Plane.

Thoughts---

Cheers...

wc_sumpton

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

Defender advantage seems pretty strong generally

Have the same feeling. So, I changed the Bomber-Tac to work for Germany:

<!-- Bomber-Tac support Blitz-Tactics only -->
<attachment name="supportAttachmentBomber-Tac" attachTo="Bomber-Tac" javaClass="UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
	<option name="faction" value="allied"/>
	<option name="unitType" value="Infantry:Elite:Halftrack:Anti-Tank:Anti-Air"/>
	<option name="side" value="offence"/>
	<option name="dice" value="strength"/>
	<option name="bonus" value="1"/>
	<option name="number" value="1"/>
	<option name="bonusType" value="OffensiveSupport"/>
	<option name="players" value="Germany"/>
	<option name="impArtTech" value="false"/>
</attachment>

<!-- Bomber-Tac vs Move2Land Blitz-Tactics only -->
<attachment foreach="$All-Move2Land$" name="supportAttachmentBomber-Tac_@All-Move2Land@" attachTo="@All-Move2Land@" javaClass="UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
	<option name="faction" value="enemy"/>
	<option name="unitType" value="Bomber-Tac"/>
	<option name="side" value="offence"/>
	<option name="dice" value="strength"/>
	<option name="bonus" value="1"/>
	<option name="number" value="1"/>
	<option name="bonusType" value="OffensiveSupport"/>
	<option name="players" value="Germany"/>
	<option name="impArtTech" value="false"/>
</attachment>

<!-- Armor Support for all Bomber-Tac Blitz-Tactics only -->
<attachment foreach="$All-Armor$" name="supportAttachment@All-Armor@_Bomber-Tac" attachTo="@All-Armor@" javaClass="UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
	<option name="faction" value="allied"/>
	<option name="unitType" value="Bomber-Tac"/>
	<option name="side" value="offence"/>
	<option name="dice" value="strength"/>
	<option name="bonus" value="1"/>
	<option name="number" value="1"/>
	<option name="bonusType" value="OffensiveSupport"/> <!-- will not stack with Fighter support -->
	<option name="players" value="Germany"/>
	<option name="impArtTech" value="false"/>
</attachment>

<!-- Fighter Support for all Bomber-Tac Blitz-Tactics only -->
<attachment foreach="$All-Fighters$" name="supportAttachment@All-Fighters@_Bomber-Tac" attachTo="@All-Fighters@" javaClass="UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
	<option name="faction" value="allied"/>
	<option name="unitType" value="Bomber-Tac"/>
	<option name="side" value="offence"/>
	<option name="dice" value="strength"/>
	<option name="bonus" value="1"/>
	<option name="number" value="1"/>
	<option name="bonusType" value="OffensiveSupport"/> <!-- will not stack with Armor support -->
	<option name="players" value="Germany"/>
	<option name="impArtTech" value="false"/>
</attachment>
<!-- Bomber-Tac/Artillery v Bunker Blitz-Tactics only -->
<attachment name="supportAttachmentBunker_Artillery" attachTo="Bunker" javaClass="UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
	<option name="faction" value="enemy"/>
	<option name="unitType" value="Artillery:Mobile-Artillery:Katyusha:Bomber-Tac"/>
	<option name="side" value="offence"/>
	<option name="dice" value="strength"/>
	<option name="bonus" value="1"/>
	<option name="number" value="1"/>
	<option name="bonusType" value="OffensiveSupport"/>
	<option name="players" value="Germany"/>
	<option name="impArtTech" value="false"/>
</attachment>

<!-- Bomber-Tac/Artillery v Base-Camp Blitz-Tactics only -->
<attachment name="supportAttachmentBase-Camp_Artillery" attachTo="Base-Camp" javaClass="UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
	<option name="faction" value="enemy"/>
	<option name="unitType" value="Artillery:Mobile-Artillery:Bomber-Tac"/>
	<option name="side" value="offence"/>
	<option name="dice" value="strength"/>
	<option name="bonus" value="1"/>
	<option name="number" value="1"/>
	<option name="bonusType" value="OffensiveSupport"/>
	<option name="players" value="Germany"/>
	<option name="impArtTech" value="false"/>
</attachment>

and something for everyone:

<!-- Bomber-Tac vs All Sea -->
<attachment foreach="$All-Sea$" name="supportAttachmentBomber-Tac_@All-Sea@" attachTo="@All-Sea@" javaClass="UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
	<option name="faction" value="enemy"/>
	<option name="unitType" value="Bomber-Tac"/>
	<option name="side" value="offence"/>
	<option name="dice" value="strength"/>
	<option name="bonus" value="1"/>
	<option name="number" value="1"/>
	<option name="bonusType" value="OffensiveSupport"/>
	<option name="players" value="$All-Players$"/>
	<option name="impArtTech" value="false"/>
</attachment>

Makes things interesting---

Cheers...

TheDog

@Both
Having infinite rounds will solve a lot of the 0Atk problems, yes?

Neutrals
There a few ways to represent Neutrals;

Over stacked Bunkers that you know cannot move, but break the Bunker stack rule of 2.
Units that look like they can move, infantry tanks etc, but dont/cant move.
Cannot invade Neutrals (Currently only Axis and USSR can invade a Neutral)
or ...

Currently I prefer the 1st option...

wc_sumpton

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

Having infinite turns will solve a lot of the 0Atk problems, yes?

In regard to 0Atk, I'm talking about receiving attack support. IMOA they should not receive support but remain 0Atk. As to combat rounds; 7 ground, long enough, but stalemates are still possible. 5 sea, both side are constantly moving. 3 air, still not working correctly in 2.6+, and defender has a choice to not join.

Neutrals, might try to stack different area, and let the AI wonder them around within their borders. See where they stack and go from there.

Cheers...

Black_Elk

Looks cool!

Going infinite battle rounds might solve some issues, though I thought 7 felt pretty good honestly. To me 7 rounds felt fairly timely and sorta sweet spot territory. Like if the battle was going to drag on endlessly, say a hit zero attacker vs hit 1 defender, like bunker vs infantry sniping till sundown lol. But then the time saved on that which you'd gain from stalemating rather than just rolling till a conclusive result, you sorta lose on the backend during the subsequent turn when you gotta fight it again. So there's that part.

For neutrals I prefer option 2. I think for the attackable neutrals the no-movement thing would be just implicitly understood, since it works that way in a lot of tripleA games. The presence of an infantry unit would signal to me that the neutrals are not impassible, but attackable, and that the malus for violating neutrality is attrition in hitpoints. To me that is simplest, and a lot easier than the various neutrality schemes that have been used in A&A. I prefer it to the pro-side or Mongolia scheme of G40. The basic attackable neutral with immobile/static forces was a tripleA innovation I believe, showcased in big world and some other early tripleA games. I think if the concern is that the player might think those forces will shift or attack around, this is easily addressed with a topline in the notes, "neutral units are immobile/won't attack outside their borders" or something like that. I mean as long as there's just one kind of neutral, all the same color and such. If it was a situation where Spain and Turkey all had different faction colors or something of that sort then I could see the potential confusion. But if the units are labelled neutral and colored white/beige/salmon or one of the typical neutral colors in tripleA all uniform, I think people would see them and know they aren't meant to move. The neutral fighters and tanks and such just presenting a static defense force.

If you wanted to have violations of neutrality handled more like the Mongolia rules of G40 I could also see something like that. Where say if one power violates the neutrality of Spain, it might enter as a belligerent under the opponent's aegis, or just cave and join the fray. Might be subject to a roll. Imagining say Germany crosses the Pyrenees, and the remaining TTs in Spain immediately join the Allies under British control, or perhaps Portugal enters the fight or whatever. I don't know though, that might just encourage people to stomp around out of pure curiosity hehe. I'd just do em all attackable neutrals handled in a uniform albeit pretty basic way. Neutral naval units could be handled in a similar fashion as neutral ground forces if you wanted to create some sort of neutral bunker of the sea, just have actual neutral naval forces that are static. I've seen this in a few G40 type mods, like where they try to do Vichy fleet stuff say, though I'm not sure I'd go there for this one. I rather like having all the sea zones covered with those active cash markers with sz tiles in open contention the way it is currently.

I would allow the Western Allies to shamelessly violate neutrality the same way Axis and USSR can hehe.

ps. for the 0Atk I guess I'm of the same mind there that I am for the Production spread. Preferring to set the floor at 1 rather than 0 hehe. I think in a situation like an amphibious assault perhaps a defender bonus rather than an attacker malus? Or if keeping the attacker malus atk reduced to 1, rather than -1 modifier which might put them at zero. Like you could still have it effecting the big tanks that are hard to unload. But I mean just trying to get it so we don't have units attacking at zero but which have a hitpoint, since I think can get kinda wonky. Prolonged battles where the ultimate result is obvious, but takes a long time to roll out, and which the AI might goof, as it seems to currently. Like it doesn't quite realize those trained inf dudes are getting the -1. For me bonuses are better. Even if they end up more extreme like a +2 to defender. Or maybe just have it limited to a single round of battle or something? The malus I mean, so they might be at atk0 in the opening battle round but not all 7. Kinda same deal with bonuses maybe, so it's not too nuts. I'd do the same for terrain so it's not as wild probably.

Oh also one last thought, if you do decide on neutral forces I would include the fighter, it's not currently in the neutral set, like if I add neutral units via edit mode. Fighters might be cool cause then via the defensive scramble you could create a more impactful neutral defense with the air forces split across a couple tiles. I guess that would tweak the line about not ever attacking outside their borders, but might be cool for just their fighter aircraft. Just thinking how if Madrid had a couple fighters they might scramble to cover some of the Spanish coastal tiles, or how a few neutral tiles that are adjacent might support each other in that way. That could be a way to encourage the continued press, since once the air is killed, it would soften up those other spots they flew in from. With defensive air and flak, you could allow neutral fly overs that just come at that risk, like where you might get shot down in the process. Might work too. Not sure what approach is best, but I'd probably start with neutral infantry. So like if the current has 9 bunkers, maybe that changes to 2 bunkers and 7 infantry or something, just to see how that works for the AI as a deterrent.

Black_Elk

Follow up thoughts

On Bunkers. I still think these are distributed with too much uniformity across the board, like with every tile being able to build x2 bunkers.

Maybe something like all TTs can build 1 bunker per every 4 PUs in Territory production value?

So a TT worth 1-4 PUs could build only 1 bunker, but a TT worth 5 PUs could build x2 bunkers and a TT worth 9 PUs could build x3 bunkers. This would get a little more room to scale em up for the Atlantic wall and such.

Speaking of that one, I think the Industry-Hvys at Bordeaux and Hamburg makes those tiles sorta the natural best invasion routes into Western Europe over say Normandy or Calais. Neither have a terrain malus to the attacker, and the presence of the Industry-Hvy singles them out as optimal targets for the Allies. Especially for Bordeaux since USA can reach that one a bit faster. I don't know if it might make sense to have like Industry-Med level at Normandy as a counterweight?

For Bordeaux itself, you could stick an Italian sub in the adjacent sea zone for some BETASOM flavor. The Regia Marina had it's sub headquarters there.

Another option is to allow submarines to be produced from Industry-Med, cause then you could basically do Bordeaux and Brittany at that level and they could produce subs for the theme like Lorient and BETASOM, without needing to be at the Industry-Hvy lvl in production for that. I actually think it would be kinda nice if the production spread favored the more historical invasion route. Meaning that it would be somewhat more attractive for Allies to invade at Normandy/Calais, than say Bordeaux or Lower Saxony. Whereas currently I'd say they're better off mounting Overlord at one of the Tiles that has a German Industry-Hvy on it. I was thinking something like Bordeaux and Brittany at 7 pus with Industry-Med so Germany can push subs from those locations. Perhaps Normandy at 9 (no starting factory) but once the Allies get a foothold Industry-Hvy capable maybe, so it would be more desirable than say landings at Poitou or Bordeaux or Brittany which might be more attractive mechanically. The distances units can transport into attacks and such are sorta gamey here obviously, so the advantage of being much closer to the staging point in England is less relevant in tripleA. Also the USA has a transit across the Atlantic that favors North Africa as the shortest route. So it's very likely that the Normandy invasion might get staged from Morocco or something instead of England ya know. Like just how it would work from the map design.

To offset that I would increase the value of Iceland to 5 PUs and give the USA a starting Industry-Lgt there. This way USA has some skin in the game up north... a reason to camp near Britain with a transport to shuck from Iceland via sz 119. An Iceland factory could service a double shuck. So like 1 transport ferries the units to Scotland, a second transport shucks from Scotland to Norway say, perhaps a third transport shucks from England into France or the low countries. You get the idea. Even though the Iceland factory would only produces 2 hitpoint per turn, once you have the transport logistics set up, after 3 turns the player could be shifting say 6 hitpoints per round that way. Sorta naturally makes Britain a staging ground for USA, whereas right now I think for USA it's easier to cross the Atlantic and land directly in France from sz 91 A without the pitstop. Having the Iceland funnel would be an easy way simulate the staging of US forces in England in preparation for D-Day.

Related to the above, USA transports...

So when I drew the map I wasn't sure what sort of transport/naval movement mechanics we'd end up using. I thought perhaps we might have a Naval base granting a +1 movement. Under those conditions my thinking was that a Naval Base at Halifax would allow a movement from Eastern Canada to England/Scotland in 1 move via transport, but not all the way to France. You can see the interrupt tile there, it's at sz 104.

The thought being that Allies/USA would stage into Canada then non com over to England for Overlord via that route on the following turn. Or if transported directly from New York that they could reach Iceland, or North Africa. Here the transports remained at M2, so the transits are shorter.

In my view USA only has one viable transport route out of North America across the Atlantic currently, which is sz 90 vs N. Africa and the Med. I mean with the transports at m2. So there's no reason to stage into Canada first, or stop off in England and transport across the North Atlantic that direction, when sz 90 to Morocco/Algiers gets you more bang for the buck. Shorter distance and better coverage. I think that's fine, since it encourages USA to do the Torch thing and mess with Italy first, which I think we want, though it also makes Greenland/Iceland not really relevant to the Allies transport logistics.

What I'd do if keeping M2 transports is just make Greenland/Iceland more of a direct production point for USA. We can assume the dudes being spawned there are like the same as dudes spawning at New York, which would give some more weight to those transits, which otherwise wouldn't be as optimal for USA. An Iceland industry capability would also make it a viable target for Axis. Somewhat more so than currently, where it'd just be a bonus grab, but not really worth putting yourself out of position as Axis. Anyhow, just some ideas to kick around for that one.

Yet another option might be to just give the Americans an M3 Transport-Adv as a special unit exclusive to their roster. That would probably work pretty well, though it would accelerate the timing for USA landings, so might take that into account when determining the starting unit spread.

For the geometry of the map, I had initially assumed M3 for naval transits, M4+ for air, M2 for ground. M3 on the ground was a surprise, since I didn't know what the factory rail would look like, though I'm very pleased to see that M3 on the ground works pretty well here. It's my favorite aspect of the game I think. That one's a lot of fun! For Naval transits I think it works pretty well at M2/3 like what we got going right now, except what I just mentioned about the USA's Atlantic crossings. I think an M3 transport for them would work though. Like then they could move out from San Francisco to Hawaii in one turn as well, which was kinda what I figured initially, similar to Halifax, that it'd probably have a naval base for a +1 to movement. On the Pacific side the M3 transit would have been SF to Hawaii, LA/San Diego =1 tile further, like Midway/Johnston/Line Is. Or Similarly from Hawaii with the M3 springboard to many spots, since I figured that'd have an NB as well at Pearl. Basically I was thinking in G40 terms initially, where you'd maybe get the big boost moving out, but not necessarily have that M3 on the receiving end. This would be rather simpler at M3 standard for USA transports though, just with a special transport that's better hehe. I think as a USA exclusive it would be fine, but I would keep the other nations at M2 transports for sure, so it doesn't get too nuts hehe. Maybe give the USA transport a little gold star, like the Japanese super subs or the fleet carriers, so it's easy to spot? They might have more transport capacity perhaps as well, though the movement thing would be more beneficial I think. All the clutch lanes out of USA were sorta pegged to M3 in my head, but in the current they have to use the transport floaters with a 2 turn crossing via sz 90. Or maybe sz 102a or sz 89c if trying to play catch up with a transport out of Texas, but still a 2 turn crossing. M3 transport would be a 1 turn crossing if you non com the set up out of Canada the previous turn to shuck, but only if you're headed to England/Scotland. Otherwise you could do the direct launch from New York to North Africa/Iceland. Either way you got a place to unload the units on Non Com so they're not exposed, which is always best. Especially with German subs spawning and ready to pounce at a moments notice haha.

On the Pacific side an M3 transport for USA would also make Midway a flashpoint since it could threaten Japan/sz 6 A from that position. Same deal from Wake, though Midway would give a more potent stack-in for the USN, since you could reach it from sz10 B with an M3 transport as well. Gives Japan and USA more of a reason to contest Midway. It'd be a bit lopsided since Japan would not have the same reach with their transports, but that's kinda interesting in itself for an asymmetry, since it'd put the focus on different islands as the defender depending on whether it was Japan or USA who was trying to stage there.

Oh real quick one more example of how I think an m3 transit across the Atlantic would work for USA. So say you have built units/transports at sz 101A. The optimal transit would be to Morocco, and from that position to threaten France/Med, or else to Iceland to threaten Scandinavia, the Low Countries, Hamburg. But once those transports have unloaded, or if the units they were carrying died in amphib, then you'd want to send them home to pick up more dudes and remain useful beyond just naval fodder.

Similarly, any units that were placed in say New York or Boston, but which could not be transported that turn, could non com to Canada. Here they could be picked up by US transports returning from Europe/Africa, to set up a continuous shuck along that route straight to England. The idea being that you have an optimal route for the initial launches, and then that secondary route for the returning transports/reinforcements. This gives the player a reason to buy ground units in North America, even if they can't be transported immediately, since the non-com to Canada would give that extra reach by 1 tile the next turn, there's a strategic value to the delay to get a better position off the transport springboard. In the current m2 sending the USA transports anywhere other than sz90 from sz101A is just kinda putting yourself out of position. At M2 it's always going to be 3 moves into France, but at least along the southern lane you can threaten North Africa while getting into position. From there it's a choice of whether to crash the Med, or hold at Morocco to simultaneously threaten coastal France, but that initial choice is already decided, since sz90 is way stronger. Sz90 get's into the Med on the following turn at m2, whereas everywhere else has ya floating in the Mid-Atlantic gap with enemy subs on the prowl hehe. Anyhow, that'd be my thinking there. USA has a different thing going on than most factions and is the most reliant on their transports. Their whole game sorta keys off where they're able to transport from home, least until they can establish a foothold to shorten the lines, but even then, their whole angle is still transporting out the backfield, so M3 transports I think could make sense for them.

wc_sumpton

@black_elk, @TheDog

Just finished testing "canRetreatOnStalemate" and is does give the attacker on last chance to retreat, but there is no indication that the battle has reached its conclusion. So, with more than a few battle rounds, it may be hard to keep track of what's going on.

Just thoughts---

Cheers...

wc_sumpton

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

Yet another option might be to just give the Americans an M3 Transport-Adv

This could be done the same way as 'Long-Lance':

<!-- USA Transport Tech -->
<attachment name="techAbilityAttachment" attachTo="LnRg-Tspt" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TechAbilityAttachment" type="technology">
	<option name="movementBonus" value="1:Transport"/>
</attachment>

Just add the star to the USA transport.

Cheers...