💥 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?
-
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.
-
@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.
-
@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=0Relief
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1nep8g4awecief7/1941_relief_map.png?dl=0 -
@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=0Now 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...
-
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
-
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.
-
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-threadhttps://forums.triplea-game.org/tags/thedog
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/3741/curated-best-top-maps-triplea-guides -
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.
-
@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...
-
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...
-
@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
-
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.
-
@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.
https://forums.triplea-game.org/tags/thedog
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/3741/curated-best-top-maps-triplea-guides -
@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?
-
<productionRule name="buyBomber"> <cost resource="PUs" quantity="13"/> <result resourceOrUnit="Bomber" quantity="1"/> </productionRule> <productionRule name="buyBomber-LongR"> <cost resource="PUs" quantity="15"/> <result resourceOrUnit="Bomber" quantity="1"/> </productionRule>The same could be done for Japan's Cruiser-LongL and Destroyer-LongL to increase their cost by 1PUs.
Cheers...
-
Speaking about the Infantry Armor icon, what about the USSR Artillery
? There is a nice icon on @Black_Elk stickers: 
(I put a artillery shell inside the gold square to designate all artillery pieces.) There is also the Mobile Artillery 
, and the Tank Destroyer 
.Just some thoughts---
Cheers...
P.S. The Mobile Artillery attack should be 1, since artillery buff infantry, thus it cannot self buff. But be allowed to buff 2 infantry.
Cheers...
-
I dig it! Looks cool!
For the KV-1/Churchill I wasn't totally sure how big, but I figured we could always downscale so I started a bit larger. Usually they need a second pass to dial the contours and make sure they got a nice edge when viewed against the map/background, but I was pretty happy with the first pass. Kinda matches what someone would catch if they googled the hardware, except tiny and with the tint hehe.
I like that idea to create a quick icon that easily differentiates the artillery (esp from the Inf-motorized, which might be confused in the soviet case with the Katyusha's since they both got that truck/halftrack sorta look). Nice work!
Here's a quick pass for that Tank Destroyer with the drop shadowed dialed back...
-
Some thoughts on icons and naming. There is Armor-Hvy, Carrier-Fleet, Fighter-LongR and Submarine-Adv. These are researched/advanced units and all called "-Adv", with the gold star. The Bomber, USA/Britian and Cruiser/Destroyer for Japan are advantages that cannot be researched, thus the gold star. So Armor-Adv, Carrier-Adv and Fighter-Adv.
There is also Fighter-Early and Armor-Lgt both with gold diamonds, so "-Early" or "-Lgt" for both?
Talking about these "-Early" units; USA, Britian, USSR, Japan and Italy, should have these unit on the board at the start, with their production showing the purchase of the regular units, Fighter and Armor replacing them. Britian and USSR could have some Armor-Inf starting out, and be allowed to purchase both Armor-Inf and Armor. Germany should have a mixture of Armor-Early and Armor. Production of the Panzer III was slow. And maybe moving Armor-Adv to about turn 4.
Regular units should replace "-Early", with these unit only being produced during times of need and removed when not needed. The exception here being China and to some extent USSR, both can only produce Conscripts and Elites (I think Inf-Elite should have the gold star also).
"-Adv" units are additions to production with regular. This gives a player a choice between the heavy-hitters and nots. The one exception would be Fighter-Jet which would replace Fighter-Adv and also have a gold star.
In this case all regular units would be called Fighter, Armor, Carrier and Submarine and would have no icons.
Also infantry could be called Conscript, Infantry and Elite.
These are just my thoughts---
Cheers...
-
One of the reasons for naming the units as they are is the Unit Help being in alphabetically order keeps all the Armor and Inf etc close to each other.
As I dont come from an A&A background I dont feel the need to name the units as such, I tend to name from history.
Having said that maybe they do need a little realization.
On the theme above should Transport be renamed Convoy as it includes Corvettes and Frigates?
https://forums.triplea-game.org/tags/thedog
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/3741/curated-best-top-maps-triplea-guides
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login