💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread

[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...

[TheDog]

My Suggestions for Fixes

Iceland, pre game I will add a USA Base-Camp

Transports M3 & USA distance to Europe
If Transports move 3, then all the other M2 should M3, this will increase their PU cost by 1. I am not a fan of this, I really like the current moves for ships.
We could remove a SZ or two in the Atlantic eg merge 102A & 102B ? (This will make the transit to a coast 2 turns not 3.
In the Pacific ... (Im not so sure which one(s)

Bordeaux
Bordeaux could be a Forest TT as 1/4ish of it was forest especially near the coast, this will increase its defence.
Regarding Industry-Med, this fits with what South Africa, Sydney, Kherson, Crimea could produce, so I do not wish to add Submarines as I view them as the domain of Industry-Hvy.

0Atk
isMarine is the xml code that controls Amphibious changes to Atk
For Inf-Elite change it to 1, currently 0, (Inf-Elite with be 2Atk, currently 1Atk)
Rest of the units are 0, currently -1, (Inf-Trained with be 1Atk, currently 0Atk)
This will also help reduce the amount of 0 attacks.

Neutral Bunkers
Bunkers can be limited in a TT, by a fixed number eg=2 or limited upto the value of the PUs in the TT.
The AI does not understand the Mongolia rules of G40, and its consequences if it attacks a neutral, so we should not try to use it.

• 19 Bunker Switzerland, remove 17 Bunkers, either remove its movement links or with movementCostModifier, this will make it impossible to move into
• 9 Bunker Neutrals, remove 7 of them and add 14ish HP of Inf-Trained, Artillery etc (this will make it look crowded)

Thoughts?

[Black_Elk]

Yeah pretty much that exactly!

I think it would work pretty well as a USA exclusive.

To return to the point about D-Day and that Bordeaux/Hamburg magnet real quick... So to my thinking what we need is a little counterweight along that stretch of the Atlantic wall. The invasion could have occurred somewhere other than Normandy or Calais sure, so I like that we have different ways to hit the beach here, but I think the heavier production capable spots would be the natural winners there in the decision making process. Since if Allies can take a spot with those factories still intact they can build immediately, and have stolen that much more from Germany's income/placement capacity. I think it would be better to have a couple Industry-Meds split across 2 tiles, rather than a single Industry-Hvy in one spot. So like Hamburg and Schelswig-Holstein or Brittany and Bordeaux all getting the Industry-Meds.

That way you've got a split going and some tension between multiple production capable spots. Less of a 1 hit kill that way. The production capacity would be less from the single tile with fewer heavy units available sure, but you'd get 2 more HP slotted into each of those critical sea zones in total. 2 Industry-Meds = 6 hp rather than 1 Industry-Hvy= 4 hp (like from the Axis perspective.) That way they couldn't spam the more effective cruisers, but if Industry-Med produced subs, you'd have that spread with the entry lvl naval units (transports, destroyers and subs, HQ fleet) making the sub breakouts for battle of the Atlantic stuff a bit more likely probably. I just think that would give a more interesting dilemma for Axis defense too, or for Allies when selecting their invasion route. For Normandy and Calais, I'd have the same sort of PU values probably or higher (Industry-Hvy capable), but sans starting factory, just so there's a draw there as well.

Perhaps Industry Lgt and Med should be automatically destroyed if captured? Leaving only the Industry Heavies as capturable? Then the income/placement swings would be less dramatic. Not sure if that would nix the incentive to bomb though.

For Brittany specifically, I think that spot is also mechanically better than say Normandy or Calais. This is because Britain could take that spot, and then USA follows up at Poitou/Normandy for the block to ensure that Germany can't counter assault. Could feed into 2 sea zones instead of just the one. So I was thinking you might lean into that and make the TT more explicitly powerful like if it was Industry-Med capable, because then the Germans have more reason to defend it. Similar to how they should be trying to hold Bordeaux and Hamburg (even if the AI sometimes fails at that.) For Allies the choice would be something like, risk the major engagements in direct assault on the starting German Industry-Med tiles, or try to stage in at Normandy/Calais/Belgium and then attack the more heavily defended starting German factory tiles overland? Like once the Brits/USA are stacked-together for defense, and have established a production foothold on the Continent. Right now I think it's more like Brits taking pock-shots all over the place, and Germany can sorta pull away, only really worrying about the tiles that have the Industry-Hvys to control the field. They don't have to split their defense as much, whereas a couple more Industry-Med tiles exposed along the coast would be more like a double edged sword or Achille's heel type thing.

Something sorta similar to the Brittany situation can go down in Italy currently, like where Brits take Naples and then USA takes Rome for the block, before Axis are back up to respond. But I actually like how it works there, since Germany can also blast back down from Milan or Austria etc which is cool when it happens, cause that matches the history for flare. Sometimes I think it can be a bit too easy for Allies to stomp into Milan, but then Italy is also meant to sorta be the weak link right? I think because it also includes Romania and has a somewhat outsized role on the Eastern front in that respect, that it's fine if it's a bit easier for Allies to hammer Italy early on, cause the 'Italian' faction can still be a factor elsewhere on the board. Also because that matches the theme of the timeline with Italy getting knocked off sooner. I think it makes a lot of sense mechanically for USA to establish a production foothold in Italy as a way to help Allies ultimately break into France. Like pulling Germany in two directions a bit sooner along that route. Right now I think Allies can do both simultaneously though, like France and Italy at once, and Britain is probably a little OP in that respect. Like they can basically do early D-Day stuff all by themselves here, provided Germany hasn't pushed them out of range with Fleet/Air pressure. For that I think having those extra HP into the channel and off Atlantic France from the Industry-Meds, and especially into sz 112 at Hamburg/Schleswig would be advantageous for overall game balance, and for the timing on Overlord.

Just another one to kick around.

[Black_Elk]

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

My Suggestions for Fixes

Iceland, pre game I will add a USA Base-Camp

Transports M3 & USA distance to Europe
If Transports move 3, then all the other M2 should M3, this will increase their PU cost by 1. I am not a fan of this, I really like the current moves for ships.
We could remove a SZ or two in the Atlantic eg merge 102A & 102B ? (This will make the transit to a coast 2 turns not 3.
In the Pacific ... (Im not so sure which one(s)

Right on sounds good.

Changing sea zones isn't too hard if you want a different geometry there. Just let me know. I can nix that line. Sounds simpler hehe

ps. just for a heads up, with that change sz103 becomes the obvious transit, and sz90 probably more irrelevant as a transit. The only reason to go to a different tile than 103 from sz 101 A would be like trying to stay out of reach of Axis subs, or if you were starting 1 tile off, like from Texas. Since sz103 threatens the same spots as sz 90 at m2, but also reaches coastal France and into the Med, I think it would be the main/optimal transit lane.

I think that would probably work well though, since this would make transporting from sz 101 B, Texas also more viable (like if 102 A and 102 B are merged) which would get to Morocco in 2 moves that way. It also gives Axis a bit of focus for their Atlantic Sub campaign. Like if the idea is to force Allies to float their loaded transports for at least 1 turn, so that they face that danger from Axis Submarines, then the Axis player sorta knows that the prime targeting will be in sz 103, sz 102, and sz 90 to hunt. I think that could be cool, since those sea zones would be like part of the Atlantic Gap thematically.

[Black_Elk]

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

My Suggestions for Fixes

Iceland, pre game I will add a USA Base-Camp

Transports M3 & USA distance to Europe
If Transports move 3, then all the other M2 should M3, this will increase their PU cost by 1. I am not a fan of this, I really like the current moves for ships.
We could remove a SZ or two in the Atlantic eg merge 102A & 102B ? (This will make the transit to a coast 2 turns not 3.
In the Pacific ... (Im not so sure which one(s)

Bordeaux
Bordeaux could be a Forest TT as 1/4ish of it was forest especially near the coast, this will increase its defence.
Regarding Industry-Med, this fits with what South Africa, Sydney, Kherson, Crimea could produce, so I do not wish to add Submarines as I view them as the domain of Industry-Hvy.

0Atk
isMarine is the xml code that controls Amphibious changes to Atk
For Inf-Elite change it to 1, currently 0, (Inf-Elite with be 2Atk, currently 1Atk)
Rest of the units are 0, currently -1, (Inf-Trained with be 1Atk, currently 0Atk)
This will also help reduce the amount of 0 attacks.

Neutral Bunkers
Bunkers can be limited in a TT, by a fixed number eg=2 or limited upto the value of the PUs in the TT.
The AI does not understand the Mongolia rules of G40, and its consequences if it attacks a neutral, so we should not try to use it.

• 19 Bunker Switzerland, remove 17 Bunkers, either remove its movement links or with movementCostModifier, this will make it impossible to move into
• 9 Bunker Neutrals, remove 7 of them and add 14ish HP of Inf-Trained, Artillery etc (this will make it look crowded)

Thoughts?

Here is a copy the baseline and relief with that adjustment made (sz 102 A and sz 102 B collapsed back into a single zone.) Just needs an update to Polys, convoy cash, and connects.

Baseline
https://www.dropbox.com/s/c8kav6ok4k4za7p/1941_baseline_map.png?dl=0

Relief
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1nep8g4awecief7/1941_relief_map.png?dl=0

[wc_sumpton]

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

Here is a copy the baseline and relief with that adjustment made (sz 102 A and sz 102 B collapsed back into a single zone.) Just needs an update to Polys, convoy cash, and connects.

Baseline
https://www.dropbox.com/s/c8kav6ok4k4za7p/1941_baseline_map.png?dl=0
Relief
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1nep8g4awecief7/1941_relief_map.png?dl=0

Now the centers.txt, polygons.txt, place.txt not to mention all the xml changes. I still think the easiest way to accomplish this, IMAO (:winking_face:), is with the tech advantage just for USA. There would be no new unit designation, just like Japan's 'Long-Lance', done with at most 10 lines of code and a star on USA transport.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

@wc_sumpton

Haha yeah, well I suppose it's not exactly 'simpler' to adjust the map over adding a tech/unit, though in terms of the work on my end wasn't too tough. But I'm not the one who has to tango with the xml heheh.

I get it though, cause if theDog wasn't feeling the USA m3 for transport movement, this would accomplish something similar for the Atlantic crossing, if a bit more focused. Fewer knock on effects elsewhere. Basically by collapsing 102 A/B into a single tile, the optimal transit/float tile shifts from sz 90 to sz 103 as the prime spot. Sz 102 becomes the secondary spot I think, for transports spawned at Texas. I think it could work well though. Whatever's clever hehe

[TheDog]

Im a bit of veteran with adding and removing TT/SZ having done it a few times in The Shogun, so I dont shy away from it.

[TheDog]

Latest version 110 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)

MAJOR CHANGES

• 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)
• New unit Bomber-Med 1/1/6 11pu for Germany, Italy, Japan, USSR, and later Pacific-Allies (thanks WC Sumpton)
• Tech table on the Players tab now shows the tech as they are research (thanks WC Sumpton)
• Neutral Bunkers have a tuv of 1 to make them unattractive to the AI, needs testing (thanks Black Elk)
• Neutrals have new defence units and a maximum of 2 Bunkers (thanks Black Elk)

.
WEST

• SZ 102 A & B merged into one, Transports now take 2 turns not 3 (thanks Black Elk)
• Britain, Gilan TT now Britain, was USSR, allows Britain to take back Baku, so can fight over the VC (thanks Black Elk)
• USSR Baku gets Industry-Med and 7pu (thanks Black Elk)
• USSR Caspian Sea get a Flotilla (1 Transport & 2 Destroyer) (thanks Black Elk)
• USSR reasearch Armor-Hvy Tech T8+ (thanks WC Sumpton)
• Switzerland is now impassable
• Bordeaux-Gascony gets a forest icon on reliefTiles
• Brittany & Calais-Picardy & Provence-Marseille get Industry
• renamed P51-Mustang to Fighter-LongR & Britain can also produce Fighter-LongR when the USA developes it.

.
TODO - The Dog

• Balance

TODO - Black Elk

• New icons Armor-Hvy_hit
• New USSR Armor-Inf (KV-1) Icon & _hit (Yellow man?)
• New Britain Armor-Inf_hit Icon (Yellow man?)
• Britain shading for Fighter-LongR (US built 2500+ for Britain)
• Neutral Fighter-Early remove roundel & shadow

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

[Black_Elk]

OK here are the fighters

I used the hit WC provided, but downscaled 75% since some of the digi sculpts are kindy beefy, and played with the levels a bit. Tried to make it look like they just sorta got pinned as opposed to a kill shot hehe.

For the Japanese armor medium a noticed a hanging dropshadow and also for the reg british fighter near the prop, so I nixed those.

Here's the hit/flip in case you want it for the meds

I'll have to cook something up for the KV-1 and the icon you mentioned. Tiny Gold man might be kinda tricky unless it's like very stick figure-ish, but I'll see what I can do.

Just downloaded 110, about to try a German solo

ps, for the gold man I was thinking maybe something that uses the generic tripleA dude. I can almost get it to register, but probably needs a gradient to make it look right. Maybe just a slightly larger. I'll play around with it

here's a neutral dude with the chroma dialed back to sorta look like the others in that set.

[wc_sumpton]

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

New unit Bomber-Med 1/1/6 11pu for Germany, Italy, Japan, USSR, and later Pacific-Allies

USA and Britian start with Bomber +2 to movement, it shouldn't be another unit/unit definition:

<!-- ======================================= GO TECH =======================================  -->

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

<!-- USA/Britian Long Range Bomber Tech -->
<attachment name="techAbilityAttachment" attachTo="Bomber-LongR" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TechAbilityAttachment" type="technology">
	<option name="movementBonus" value="2:Bomber"/>
</attachment>

Then add the tech to USA and Britian, add to USA Carrier-Fleet Start at turn one. Create Britian Start at turn 1 with Bomber-LongR. Put a star on USA and Britian "Bomber" image. Remove Bomber-Med.

'Long-Lance' and 'Bomber-LongR' are technical advantages, no other player can research to obtain them. 'Carrier-Fleet' is an advantage for USA and Japan, but Britian can research them. Also USA and Japan can still purchase Carrier, while Britian cannot after research. Armor-Inf has to be a separate unit because techAbility cannot do "bonusHitpoints", also 1 has a square the other a diamond.

Starting to get a little confusing. :anguished_face:

Cheers...

[wc_sumpton]

@thedog

From PoS2: Side: ...The side the attached-to unit is on when giving this support.

When the attachTo unit is on offence/defense, x number of allied/enemy units receive x dice bonus.

<!-- Bomber-Tac v Bunker (Suppress ENEMY Bunker) -->
<attachment name="supportAttachmentBomber-Tac" attachTo="Bomber-Tac" javaClass="UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
	<option name="faction" value="enemy"/>
	<option name="unitType" value="Bunker"/>
	<option name="side" value="defence"/>				<!-- reduces enemy strength Def -->
	<option name="dice" value="strength"/>
	<option name="bonus" value="-1"/>
	<option name="number" value="1"/>
	<option name="bonusType" value="Bomb-Bunker"/>
	<option name="players" value="$All-Players$"/>
	<option name="impArtTech" value="false"/>
</attachment>

Reads as: When Bomber-Tac is on defence, 1 enemy Bunker receives -1 strength bonus. (The Bunker must attack the TT with the Bomber-Tac.)

I know it's confusing, I had to remove all territoryEffects and analyze the battles to get a handle on how supportAttachment work.

Cheers...

[TheDog]

@wc_sumpton
Thanks for checking my code, you are correct. I will change the defence to offence.

Luckily the other two suppressions work only because they had both offence:defence

[Black_Elk]

Some quick thoughts/questions about this concept for an Armor-Inf unit...

So currently, for Germany, the entry level tank is the Panzer III. I know since I made that one on the fly hehe. Chiefly because Cernel requested something with an earlier design than the Panzer IV (which had those extra armor plates/shielding over the tracks.) So I threw a Panzer III together for v3, since that game begins in 1941 and anyway Panzer II didn't make sense there to me. Either the Panzer IV that Frostion had (it's a little hard to see, but we figured it was that just with turret kinda wonky) or the Panther III I made would properly be considered Medium armor, but I'm pretty sure the convention Frostion used in his labelling "Light, Medium, Heavy" was adopted pretty interchangeably with Early, Middle, Later period armor. It also appears as though his Armor units there were scaled for emphasis over accuracy, i.e. the better/later model tanks are always larger, the earlier/weaker tanks are always smaller. It was a little tricky for me to parse, hence that initial labelling Armor I, Armor II, Armor III cause I wasn't 100%.

For the USSR, it's a bit harder for me to tell (especially since all these tanks are in forced perspective with a top down view, making them somewhat harder to identify) but it certainly looks like it's meant to be a T-26 right? If it's not a T-26, then perhaps it's a KV-1 already? I honestly can't tell what it would be otherwise. T-26 definitely fits the bill for a light tank.

But then if keeping the scale for emphasis convention, an Armor unit that's meant to be sorta worse/weaker than Armor-Lgt should probably be smaller? But then I don't know, if it has 2-hits that's still a pretty badass unit. At M1 the tow and terrain wouldn't be a factor for movement, but it'd still be like a land battleship/roving bunker, so not sure there. I guess the Q would be how large to make it? And also if you think that little golden infantry dude registers as distinct enough? Also raises another Q more generally I guess, if the unit is exclusive to only two nations USSR/Britain, if the unit would be mistaken by players playing one of the other nations, that can't see those specs at a glance via their own purchase screen.

Anyhow, until I can make something better, here is a KV-1

And here's a KV-2 just for kicks

They don't match the orientation of the other Frostion armor types, both just taken from the Wiki, but they'd work for placeholders. Perhaps if this unit is meant to be easily distinguishable from other armor variants the change in orientation might actually be fine? I think I need to crank the brightness like 5%, but got the tint pretty close.

This is what I came up with for an icon... Trying to match the colors used for the various chevrons and such. Still trying to get the gradient right, but here it is at 36px and then 24px, which I think is about the size you'd want if trying to pull this off.

For something that ends up looking sorta like this...

But not really sure if it carries. Is that the sort of thing you had in mind here? Perhaps it is unnecessary to have an icon? In other words that the armor units sans chevron would just be understood to be this one, and when you get your stripes that's like m2? Might be simpler.

ps. Here I think I got the tint a little closer. And with the battle damage hehe

Here's a quickie Churchill done the same way, from the wiki

also the US/China Fighters-Early and Tactical Bomber cleaned up some artifacts leftover from the shadows. Should look a little tighter if people hit the 200% zoom in 2.6 which is how I'm catching some of this stuff now.

[TheDog]

@Black_Elk
Icons in game.

I think we need a mini icon for the infantry tank, the other tanks (lgt, med, hvy) have stripes and players can easily id the infantry man as a move 1 unit.

Whatever icon we go for it needs to be 16-18px to be in keeping with the other mini icons.

If you are unhappy with the aspect of the tank images, search for isometric KV-1 or top down isometric KV-1 or similar.

[TheDog]

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

USA and Britain start with Bomber +2 to movement, it shouldn't be another unit/unit definition:

I changed the xml for Britain & USA to have a tech upgrade, then realized that the PU cost of +2 movement is free. Looked in the PoS2 I could not find a way to increase the PU cost by 2, so do you know how I can do that?