💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread

wc_sumpton

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?

wc_sumpton

@thedog

<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...

wc_sumpton

@thedog, @Black_Elk

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...

Black_Elk

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...

wc_sumpton

@TheDog, @Black_Elk

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...

TheDog

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?

Black_Elk

Sounds pretty good to me.

OK special request here. This is left field, but we have a lot of tanks and little dudes. I think it would be cool to have a specialist unit that looks like this...

Allies

Axis

Call her ops, espionage, cryptography, radio, command support, resistance, whatever, but I think it would be fun to have something like this. Even if it was like the Air HQ and each nation only had one or two or whatever. I have no idea mechanically what would be fun, but it's at least as iconic as a tank right?

Perhaps the unit might give a bonus to defense, or reduce maintenance, or something situationally useful like improved scramble defense, or can conduct some form of economic damage? Could be transported on the air transport like an elite, that would be thematic for USSR especially, but basically in a versatility type role I think would be cool. Perhaps they can target other units of the same type or something to get some dynamism there. Or maybe a high power unit that you want to hold in reserve or guard at the Homefront. An espionage/sabotage role would be cool if front lined. All purpose agent?

TheDog

I think she is for the advanced or PvP version

But joining in the brainstorm, in Britains terms

M16 operative, acts like a resistance unit -1 Def/Atk to 3 enemy units
MI5 finds and attempts to kill a foreign agent on home soil.
007 femme fatale attempts to kill an enemy HQ command, see The Shogun Ninja code for this.

Black_Elk

Yeah that's pretty much what I had in mind. I think it'd be fun!

For the KV-1 I punched up the contour and increased the contrast a little bit just to give it some more edge, think it might register a bit cleaner against the map that that way when scaling.

Let me know if that feels better

wc_sumpton

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

On the theme above should Transport be renamed Convoy as it includes Corvettes and Frigates?

It's a design decision. It's takes away the power of the sub. Now the player doesn't have to escort because the escort is built in. It could also be said that Carriers, Battleships and Cruisers had their own entourage, so they all could be isDestroyer units.

Giving every unit AA capabilities is also a design decision. If the attacker has 12 units and 2 aircrafts vs 12 units. The aircraft don't help much as all 12 unit get a separate chance to attack them. With an attack power of 1/6 it almost better so not buy them. Maybe some Bomber-Tacs, but still have to get through that overwhelming AA fire.

But these are design decisions. I may not care for them, so I edit them out. But that just me.

Cheers...

wc_sumpton

@TheDog, @Black_Elk

You want Dog Fights:

<property name="Air Battle Defenders Can Retreat" value="false" editable="true">
	<boolean/>
</property>

By switching this property, the defender is forced to enter air battles prior to normal combat. Try it, place a couple of air units in Pskov and Vitebsk:

<unitPlacement territory="Pskov" unitType="Fighter-Early" quantity="2" owner="USSR"/>
<unitPlacement territory="Vitebsk" unitType="Fighter-Early" quantity="2" owner="USSR"/>

Even if both Germany and USSR are set at 'HardAI' if Germany attack one or both, USSR must engage in the air battle prior to the land battle.

Really changes the dynamics!!

Cheers...

TheDog

Yes it does, quite savage air battles! :angry_face_with_horns:

A good suggestion, its under test, thanks!

wc_sumpton

@thedog

Went digging under the hood again and discovered that "Hay!! There's a check to AirBattles!" So I dug a little deeper and Properties.getAirBattleDefendersCanRetreat.

Bingo---

Cheers...

wc_sumpton

@thedog

My suggestion, create a condition/trigger that reads that setting. If its not checked/false/default then set "offensiveAttackAA/attackAA" to 0 for all units except industries/Cruiser/Anti-Air. Allow Cruiser/Anti-Air to buff one unit with AA and reset "canNotTarget" except on Subs. Also all 'Dog Fight' supportAttachments would need to have the "players" reset.

Also include some type of explanation about the different modes "Air Battle Dog Fights" vs "AA Dog Fights" in the game notes.

Thoughts---

Cheers...

wc_sumpton

@Black_Elk, @TheDog

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

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.

To continue with this thought. Germany's 'blitz' of Poland used mostly Panzer II, so the eastern front would have more Early Armor unit, compared with a few regular Armor. The 'blitz' of France was more the reverse, so the western front would have more regular Armor compared to early units.

Conflict is about advancement/logistic. Many of the units at the end of WWII were quite different than their counterparts at the beginning. Britian, USA and Germany show good advances. Japan and Italy not so much. For logistic I think there are way to many Industries, especially Heavy Industry, at the start.

There is also doctrine, USSR "Red Wave", with their use of conscript infantry throughout the whole conflict, reflex. Also, Germany's "Blitz/Combined Arms". The French armor was equal to or maybe even superior to Germany's, and they may have had more. So, what happened? Tactics! The French kept the armor behind the front to use defensively. Germany used air superiority, fighter covering ground support bombers. ground support bomber acting like flying artillery. Before defenders could recover from this shock, fast moving tanks were upon them, and then quickly the infantry was there to mop up.

To help show this, the fighter support for tac-bombers at 1:1 should be German only. Also armor support at 1:1. Germany's tac-bomber should support infantry, like artillery, 1:2, they cannot self-buff, including suppression of bunkers/base-camps at 1:1. Also receive an attack bonus, at 1:1, with the presence of enemy armor/vehicles. This combined arms tactic could be 'learned' by USA and Britian, and also shared with Italy.

The use of the tac-bomber, as a torpedo-bomber, against navel units should also receive the attack bonus, at 1:1, but all players should receive this.

USA was able to out produce everyone and should have a heavy industry on the east and west coast, to help with the production of their advanced carrier and bomber. The rest should be mediums, with an AI ("_USA AI, Untick if a player") player given free upgrades. Also the "free" halftrack/armor/air given to USSR should be paid for by USA 75% and Britian 30% (5% overcharge as a loss) and contingent to USSR ownership of at least 1 lend-lease unit. The same for China but here it would be USA 80% and USSR 25%. Conscript should be paid for by the owning player, USSR and China respectively. Any "free" unit given to Britian. the USA player should pay 50%, the remaining 55% covered by Britian. And any "free" unit given to Pacific-Allies would have Britian's help at 45%, with Pacific-Allies covering the remaining 60%.

I also think that most of the "free" industries given should be mediums, with some upgrades and tie in the tech-advancement into the presence of heavy industry. Germany should start with mostly medium industries, with a reduced number, with only a couple heavy industries along the coast (to help with free sub, which Germany should pay for at maybe 55%). They would need at least one heavy industry along the coast to begin research of the advance submarine. And maintain that heavy industry to continue the research, when the chance roll is failed. This should hold true for all players. Heavy industry should be required before research can begin, and also through the research process (Britian, like Germany would need a coastal heavy industry to research the advanced carrier. Britian starts off owning over 130 territories, and every territory of the British Isle has a heavy. One heavy on London, with another medium. A heavy and medium on Canada's east coast. And a few more mediums spread out within its vast empire.)

Wow, again my @Black_Elk came out! :winking_face:

Cheers...

Black_Elk

For the Panzer II here's one based on the Frostion iron war model. I stretched out the turret for a wider look, so it wouldn't appear quite so offset (I think for the og it may have been firing at an angle or something). To make it a little easier to see the barrel of the main gun I gave it a punched up contour.

Here's something similar with an alt orientation. In v3 there was only the one tank type so the III seemed cool for that with the timeline. Hence the black, like the plastic tanks in the box, just with the IIIs instead of Tigers for that hehe. But we got this one as well, in case you wanted to do something with it...

Let me know if that works