💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread

[Black_Elk]

I think we share similar concerns about the movement limit/move through.

One that I forgot to mention is the transport at x10. So mechanically this would make it significantly easier to attack into any coastal territory that can be approached along 2 or 3 amphibious assault vectors vs just the one. An example would be a TT like Brittany vs a TT like Normandy. Say Allies are attempting to invade France, with the current limits Brittany could be attacked with 10 transports from sz110A, and then another 10 transports from sz 105, whereas Normandy could only by attacked from the single sea zone 110A. Even though x10 per tile for everything feels clean, at the limit this changes which tiles are more attractive to capture/likely to see action during course of play, because some TTs would be much harder to defend under those conditions. In this case Germany would be able to stack defense more effectively in Normandy than Brittany cause the transport movementLimits means the same force as defender, might have to face down twice as many amphib hitpoints during the opponent's turn. Same deal trying to manage enemy units that can bombard along multiple vectors. It's pretty extreme, we're talking about double the number of units of a given type, or 3 times that, if the TT can be attacked from 3 directions. This not counting the piggy back from the turn order, like the double hit from UK/USA before Axis is back up. For the limit numbers themselves, probably x12 would make more sense than x10, just since its cleanly divisible by more numbers, but I think you'd still have the same issue at the limits, so not really sure what approach is best for that. I think a higher attackingLimit would definitely make sense for certain unit types though, transports and aircraft especially might be worth considering a higher ceiling.

I also have the same thought on USA, that they'd scale up with their main advantage being a higher production capacity as the game progresses. Kinda the same deal as USSR, where they pick up the pace on production as the game goes on.

[TheDog]

@wc_sumpton you have v110 with owner/player of stacking 10/20 (AIr & Sea=10 / Land=20)
@Black_Elk has v114 with with owner of stacking 10/20 & allied 15/30

NB. We have tried total and its a non starter as the player has to do to much shuffling of units when the max is reached.

Black Elk version allows movement through an allied stack, 5 at a time, not ideal but a good compromise.

The AI plays a much better game and is forced to de-stack, but this is opposite to the player who wants freedom of movement & attack.

So do we bother with stacking?
If so then where is the sweet spot for the player and a de-stacked AI?

.
USA production
Just finished coding the placement of 10x Industry-Med for the USA AI on turn 1, this gives an additional 70pu per turn but costs 210pu, so ROI is 3 turns, thereafter USA is in the money/PU. The US is now at full production.

[Black_Elk]

Oh yeah I should have mentioned that, since I was using the 114 where friendly units can overstack into the same tile to get the move through.

I think it's a bind, on the one hand the AI is playing a much stronger game when forced to de-stack and fan out. They play more forward generally and seem to position better along their main warfronts. But then the AI also fails to exploit the cap limits in the ways that a player almost certainly would.

Using the example from the previous post of Normandy compared to Brittany. As Axis what the player would do is immediately stack these forward coastal tiles with both German and Italian units for a joint defense at whatever limit. USA and Britain would do the same thing in reverse if they managed to take the beach somewhere. Mechanically this is much a stronger play than trading the TTs back and forth piecemeal. Right now the AI is still behaving as if income were being collected during the final phase of the turn, but here income is collected at the beginning of the turn. This is a pretty huge difference from say v3, where the goal is to trade TTs (and double dip as it were.) As the player we understand what has changed, and grasp that trading a territory which you or a teammate can't hold is less important here than destroying that initial enemy TUV, or eliminating the opponent's production while preserving your own. But the AI behavior is still keying off that earlier form of A&A style income collection at the end of the turn. So what the AI will do is basically trade TUV at a loss. Sometimes it stumbles into prime position and manages to stack into a tile effectively with a multinational force, but often it will casually trade the same tiles over and over to minimal gain. A player would try to just stack in at the limit the first time, or do blocking/SBR maneuvers to try and control how many Hitpoints the opponent can bring on the counter attack, to push the odds out of range.

I'm also trying to think of ways that the cap limits could be exploited, by bringing units in different combinations. Example might be something like Elite/Paratroopers. Say these reach the cap limit at 20 (ground unit)... When deciding how best to get them in position, 10 air-transports would be more effective than 10 fleet-transports at the cap limit. Since they could move all 20 elites at a go, and then the fleet transports can bring in Inf-trained+ ground units of another type to try and push the unit cap ceiling by type. Similarly the player would have an incentive to try and max any unit that supports other units of another type, or which can tow/transport/house more units of a given type in tandem. Like the fleet carrier with 3 air, compared to the reg carrier with 2 air. Basically any way that the player can come up with to bring more hitpoints at the stack limit to edge out what the opponent has defending, or can muster in the same tile from scrambles and such. I think there is potentially some gameplay interest there, in sort of privileging the player/team that takes the time to figure out how all that works at the extremes, but I don't know that the AI would ever be playing at that level. Perhaps whatever stack limit is imposed on the player, the AI might get to go a bit higher than the player, as a way to compensate for it's deficiencies? Basically still forcing them to de-stack but at a higher threshold than the player is subject too. But I'm not sure exactly what level that would be to pair off for vs the machine, or whether it would be hard for the player to parse. I guess nice round numbers there would help, so the player can shorthand it. Like 'oh I see, if can bring 10, then AI can bring 15' or whatever. Might work, but not sure how that would code up hehe.

[Black_Elk]

Idea for a naval bunker unit, fixed sea zone fortification.

Unit Name: Coast Guard
Theme: coastal defenses, smaller vessels, corvettes PT boats, mines, merchant marine etc.
Function: as an immobile blocker, hit absorption, buffer or interrupt type unit identical to the land bunker, just at sea. Disrupts bombardment until destroyed, something along those lines.

I think subs should be able to pass through them, but subject to some sort of AA fire depth charge perhaps, but otherwise treated sorta like a cruiser fixed-in place that doesn't move around. Again, sea bunker type concept.

Could be placed in any sz worth 2 or more PUs say. Then we just determine the likely spots for the desired play pattern. Use them to help model things like straits, or just to manage the approaches and maybe get the AI to position their ships for defense a bit more solidly.

Example spots might be...

Germany
Sz 112 Jutland
Sz 113B Kiel
Sz 114 Konigsberg
Sz 105 Lorient/BETASOM

USSR
Sz 115 Baltic fleet
Sz 100C Black Sea fleet
Sz 127A Murmansk

Pacific-Allies
Sz 54 Brisbane
Sz 62 Syndey
Sz 46 New Guinea

Italy
Sz 95A Leghorn Genoa etc
Sz 97A Taranto
sz 97B the Venetia/Istria fall back

Britain
Sz 110 B theme North Sea blockade of Germany, mine fields
Sz 119 or 111A theme Scapa Flow
Sz 106 Halifax
Sz 92 Gibraltar
Sz 98 Suez
Sz 37 Singapore

Japan
Sz 6A Tokyo
Sz 6B Hokkaido Sakhalin
Sz 6C Kyoto Kyushu
Sz 19A Ryuku Mukden
Sz 33A Truk

USA
Sz 26B Pearl
Sz 10A Los Angeles, San Diego
Sz 10B San Francisco, Seattle
Sz 101A New York Atlantic Seaboard
Sz 101B Gulf Coast

Harbor graphic could work for this maybe, since I got the battle damaged one already. Or for a placeholder till we make something cooler looking, in case you think the idea might have promise hehe. I'd float it out in the sea zone to make clear how it's functioning, basically as a combat/infrastructure type unit within the sea zone itself.

Maybe something like that but with an actual PT boat or whatever next to the buoy so it fits the part, or we could use the mini naval banners, not sure what looks good. Just trying to brainstorm hehe

Perhaps it might just look like a ship? The PT boat graphic already exists so might slap a hit graphic on that. Or do some kind of frigate/corvette, but there's something kinda iconic and charming about the little guy getting the highlight too, so I'll use him as an example. In Iron war it was an M1 unit, but might just as easily be fixed in place as an immobile sz infrastructure type unit. Like a mini battleship that can't move and doesn't hit as hard hehe, and you can have up to x2. Same deal as the bunker on land, just the naval version of that. Provided the sz tile meets the requirements of being worth 2 PUs or more. Then you got that parity between how stuff works on land and at sea, which might be kinda cool.

[Black_Elk]

We don't really need him here, since elites serve both the marine and paratrooper function, but I made a paratrooper guy just to have one...

Made the parachute icon from an old book cover... Thought it might be good to have an icon handy for the 54px set.

[TheDog]

@black_elk
The Coast Guard is in game, using the PT Boat icon. Sadly the AI does not seem to want to buy them or sea units in general. So only players will buy it, making it PvP only.

Check these out, if you have not seen them before.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunsell_Forts

[Black_Elk]

Those look boss! I'll see if I can get a graphic for that too. I think it'd be cool to start working up some unit graphics at like 100px in case we ever get to go larger. I have a few tanks and fighters saved out at that scale. We could make tripleA look pretty cool with a few more pixels.

Secret Agents hehe

Tiny tinted

ps. naval style fort

Here is another version of the Panzer III. Same image as the current just with a different tint.

Panzer II in the same sort of tint range.

[TheDog]

Latest version 115 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 'owned' Air & Sea unit type limited to 10 per TT/SZ. Each Land unit type limited to 20 per per TT
• To help the Player 'allied' Air & Sea unit type limited to 15 per TT/SZ. Each 'allied' Land unit type limited to 30 per per TT. This is to allow the Player to move through an allied stack
• Fixed ship to shore Bombardment for HQ-Fleet, Cruiser & Battleship, now a bit easier for an amphibious assault
• Removed Neutral Bunkers with tuv=1 as does not work
• Removed Carrier from Japan & USA Purchase panel as AI will only buy cheapest
• Fixed Lend-Lease-Depot isInfrastructure again (its non combat)
  .
• New icons Armor-Hvy_hit (thanks Black Elk & WC Sumpton)
• Britain shading for Fighter-LongR (thanks Black Elk)
• Neutral Fighter-Early remove roundel & shadow (thanks Black Elk)
• New USSR Armor-Inf (KV-1) Icon & _hit (thanks Black Elk)

.
WEST

• Blitzkrieg tech for Britain, Germany, Italy & USA, Fighters & Bomber-Tac, Armor & Bomber-Tac, Bomber-Tac & Infantry
• USSR get an extra free Inf-Trained & Artillery each turn as dont have Blitzkrieg
• Germany Provence-Marseille gets Industry-Med, so can build Transport to reinforce Tunis-Tunisia
• Germany Vichy-Rhone gets Industry-Lgt
• USA get lots of small PU increases & Industry-Lgt in Dakota & Kansas to simulate rail netork accross US
• USA AI get 11x Industry-Med built on turn 1, to simulate increased war production. Gives an additional 77pu per turn, costs 231pu, so ROI is 3 turns
• Neutral Sweden, Shahara & Himalayas given more defences

.
EAST

• Fixed connection 045A & 045B Sea Zone to Hollandia-Dutch New Guinea

.
TODO - The Dog
Balance

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

[Black_Elk]

Here are some options for battleship/cruiser bombard where the clip icon matches the attack. Also a transport that has the ASW sonar icon, in case you want to have advances for the transport to indicate an improvement for the convoy thing you mentioned vs subs, or to a weaker default version of the transport for earlier timelines or whatever.

I also fixed the canvas sizes for some ships, which for some nations was at 62px tall. They should all be 54 now so it won't clip at the top of the battle screen like for the little stars. I attached the relevant graphics here for each nation.

[TheDog]

@black_elk
Oh yeah, looking clean, sweet and petite!!!

[Black_Elk]

No prob

Here are the German Armor-Hvys retinted like the others to a blue-ish gray. I like Frostions black tanks as well, but these are more consistent with the rest of the set. Probably black types could be used for specials or tech advances, like if you wanted a duo tint there. I did hits too just in case, though they might not be needed for the lighter types. But anyway, just to have em all in the thread somewhere.

[Black_Elk]

I would suggest we add transport capacity x1 elite to cruisers and battleships. The idea was floated a while back in a few posts, but this would have 2 big benefits I think...

First there would be a natural incentive for the player to hold a detachment of elites on board, which means that more TUV is likely to be contested on the water. Rather than seeing Cruiser vs Cruiser TUV 8 in contention, it'd be more likely TUV 13 (since the ships would likely have an elite on board worth 5 TUV.) This is similar to what the AI is already doing anyway with it's transports where it will leave them stacked and floating, but if the capacity was extended to the larger ships (cruisers/battleships) you'd probably see more trading between the warships. With a better chance for the floating units to hold out.

Second the transport capacity being restricted to x1 elite would limit the overall impact per unit/stack to a level that's not too extreme, while still allowing a sufficient number of attacking hitpoints for the really large scale amphibious assaults. Like say a D-Day or Invading Italy.

x10 cruisers could bring x10 elites in extra hp over say 20-30 hp with just regular transports. At scale and given the way the AI kinda behaves, I think you'd be more likely to see smaller forces say a couple cruisers carrying a couple dudes around, but if they stack together, the overall limit would be in about the same range as the defenders likely ground stack limits. Meaning that if a player used the transports and cruisers together, you could bring a force to bear that's more like x20-30 hp. So in a PvP game where the player is more likely to stack towards to the ceiling, you'd still have a way to bring a sufficient number of hitpoints per coastal tile. Using cruisers, naval transports and air transports in conjunction the player could conceivably bring 20 elites and 20 other ground units, which is more like a D-Day in scale. If the x1 elite capacity is also given to battleships the tile limit for an attacker would be 40-50 ground units, per adjacent coastal sea zone.

That's assuming the current stack caps, but that is closer to what would be needed I think in a pvp type game where the defender is more likely to stack at the limit of the tile. I think the caps are high enough that it wouldn't affect most players, so only the AI is really de-stacking in that way. But anyhow, if extending transport capacity to cruisers and battleships the hope would be that the AI will purchase these, similar to the way it purchases regular transports for nations like Britain, Japan and USA, while also giving Germany and Italy a way to get their units out across the water too.

If that seems too extreme, then perhaps a Cruiser Adv, Fleet HQ, Battleship and Fleet Carrier might have a transport capacity of x1 elite. That would give each nation a few units to work with at least that functioned in this way. I'd be most curious though to see if it changes the AI purchasing behavior at all? Like whether the AI would then purchase more cruisers and battleships and such. Might be worth giving a shot just see.

Also I'd ditch the naval bunker idea. If the AI won't buy em, I don't think they're worth including.

I'd rather try something that gets the AI buying the cruisers and such hehe.

[TheDog]

Transport & Convoy
Past few days I have been testing the following and noticed;

.
Transport 0 0 2 for 7pu

• AI is slow to buidup an amphibious assualt, can be turn 8ish
• AI most times escort Transport
• AI buys a lot of Transport, almost never buys Destroyer, Cruiser etc (possibly the design of the map, Sea Zones with PUs)

.
Convoy 0 1 2 isDestroyer/Anti-Sub for 10pu

• AI quicker to mount an amphibious assualt, can be turn 4ish
• AI sometimes escort Transport (well it does have anti-sub built in)
• AI buys a lot of Transport, almost never buys Destroyer, Cruiser etc (possibly the design of the map, Sea Zones with PUs)

.
Adding Cruiser & Battleship with 'transportCapacity'

• Having Cruiser & Battleship with 'transportCapacity' does increase probability of purchasing Cruisers, especially for USA

.
Next release will have;

• Transport renamed to Convoy, this will allow an earlier version of the game to start in 1939 with Transport as 0 0 2 and a 'tech' upgrade to Convoy
• Cruiser & Battleship with 'transportCapacity' as the AI is buying Cruiser but for the wrong reason, that is for transport

[Black_Elk]

Sounds good to me

I was thinking about transports as well, or more specifically about the maximum force that a player could bring, given the current cap limits.

Right now the transport cost of the Armor-Lgt unit (transport cost 3) will allow a player to bring more hitpoints/unit types into a given amphibious fight, than a player/nation that doesn't have access to that unit type.

Armor-Hvy has a transport cost of 6, and HQ-Army has a transport cost of 7. The transport capacity of the naval transport is 7, which makes these units very unattractive to transport across the water. The player has few incentives to purchase these units in locations which will require that they be transported, and a very strong to spawn Armor-Hvy and HQ-Army in-place at frontline factory. I would consider lowering the transport cost down to 4 there, and treating basically all heavy equipment the same way. So no difference between say an Armor-Lgt, Armor-Med or Armor-Hvy or an HQ-Army in terms of their transport capacity cost.

Thinking about how to max the force and using the earlier example x10 transports, x10 air transport, x10 cruiser (with transport capacity) you can imagine something like...

x10 cruiser =10 Elite
x5 air transport =10 elites (since they can each carry 2)

Now we're already at the the cap for elites per tile, so maybe...

x5 air transport =5 trained infantry

And then you figure out what you want to put into 10 regular transports. With Armor-Lgt at transport cost 3, you can slot two of these into a single transport. This is a bit unfamiliar still to me.

For context the vanilla v3/G40 transport has a transport capacity of 5.
Infantry have a transport cost of 2, and all other ground units have a transport cost of 3.

What this means is you can shorthand it to "Transports can carry 1 inf + 1 other ground unit."

This is basically how the rules are framed OOB, so either x2 infantry, or x1 Infantry + 1 of something else. Assigning a number to the transport cost/capacity I believe was a tripleA innovation just to get that rule to work, so I'm not really used to thinking about it as a number/ratio really, but anyway, here the transport has a capacity of 7.

Currently you get a pretty strong malus if transporting Elites with anything other than more Elites or Elites and Trained infantry. x3 Elites (total transport cost 6), 2x Elites +1 Inf-Trained (total transport cost 7), or 2x Elites + 1 Armor-lgt (total transport cost also 7).

Since ground units are currently capped at 20 per tile by unit type, that last option becomes very powerful. But basically we'd have the elite coming out ahead in just about every combination there, and at the cap limit you might not be able to make use of every transport slot available before maxing out your elites per tile. An example of where it could go awry, transporting 1 elite or 1 artillery, since the transport cost numbers there are 2 and 4 =6 total. Bringing an Elite instead of Trained Inf in combination with Artillery and you gain nothing from the Elite's capacity bonus. Similarly bringing x2 Armor-Lgt together on the same transport, in order to free up room for an Inf-Trained/artillery combo etc. That sort of thing.

Also right now when the transport is automatically loaded, ie clicking the Tile and then 'move all' into the sz with transports, the way that UI selects the units to be loaded first doesn't seem to prioritize capacity. Meaning you might have a 3 elites that could load into a transport, but the machine will fill up those slots with Inf-Trained and Artillery first, fewer total hitpoints than if the player were to manually select transports 1 by 1, to make sure the Elites got loaded. This is a bit of a time sink, and adds somewhat to the tedium of managing transports here, since which specific units are loaded first can be consequential if the machine isn't picking up the capacity thing. I think this can become problematic when loading from multiple land territories into a single SZ, where units like Elites, Armor-Hvys and Army-HQs are involved, just because the capacities are different, and click all will load the heaviest stuff with the highest attack power first. Probably because it was designed around the vanilla transport scheme that only had like two options there, Infantry and Other hehe.

Not sure which solution is best, but if the capacity of the transport is 7, I probably would not exceed a transport cost of 4 for any unit. That way you can always bring 1 inf + 1 other unit for a total of 2 hitpoints, unless you're fielding Elites which can get you up to 3 hitpoints per transport, but where that's only mechanically useful in smaller engagements. Since at the scale of the caps, it starts becoming a trade off. One option might be just extending the transport capacity of those warships mentioned to 3, that way they could carry either x1 elite or x1 Inf-Trained. Probably most would prefer to use Elites, for the attack of opportunity amphib bonus, but if you're trying to work against the cap limits per tile in a large engagement, it might make sense to use the Trained-Inf instead. Also for the AI, which tends to spawn Inf or Elites sorta unpredictably, least that way they could still get both types out and to the front. Conscripts are sort of a wild card in all this, since they can't be transported via Air-transport. The same might hold for transporting on a Cruiser. Conscripts could become more advantageous in combination with the other units like Tanks or Artillery on the naval transports, allowing the elites and trained inf to slot in from the Air-transports or Cruisers and such.

Anyhow, just some thoughts

[TheDog]

Latest version 120 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

• HQ-Army has isDestroyer - nullify apposing artillery/anti-tank first strike capabilities (thanks WC Sumpton)
• Pacific-Allies moved to after USA (thanks WC Sumpton)
• Industry-Med can produce all Fighter types (thanks Black Elk & WC Sumpton)
• Technology research requires that a nation has at least 1 Industry-Hvy unit. (thanks WC Sumpton)
• Map Blends for a lighter map, Activate by ticking "View> Show Map Blends
• Removed Coast-Guard as the AI will not buy it
• Transport renamed to Convoy, so we can use the name Transport (without isDestroyer/Sonar) for 1939-41
• All nations have a few Bombers at the start (thanks Black Elk)
• All fleet units refreshed (thanks Black Elk)
• Cruiser transportCapacity 2 only 1x Inf-Elite
• Battleship transportCapacity 3 only 1x Inf-Elite or 1x Inf-Trained, both in an attempt to reduce AI buying too many Convoy/Transports
• Renamed Neutrals to Neutral (reduces extra units in the Unit Help panel)

.
WEST

• Germany can build Battleship and research Carrier-Fleet from T10+
• USA removed 2x Destroyers from the AI on turns 4,8,12,16,20 as they get them on turns 1-20 anyway. (thanks WC Sumpton)
• USA AI gets on Turn 5, 3x HQ-Fleet
• USSR can build Battleship
• German Armor-Hvy retinted (thanks Black Elk)
• Italy AI purchase 3x Destroyer in 100 C Sea Zone to clear the Black Sea
• Fixed link British Guiana to Dutch Guiana (thanks Black Elk)

.
EAST

• Truk now Industry-Med & 7pu simulate the massive miltary base of history and create conflict in the area (thanks Black Elk)
• Honolulu-Pearl Harbor & 7pu, Hawaii 2pu, simulate the massive miltary base of history and create conflict in the area (thanks Black Elk).

.
TODO

• Balance

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

[Black_Elk]

I'm enjoying this. Feels pretty solid to me. The production spread seems like it's getting the job done for the AI here and the flow for the timeline/start date seems pretty good for the WW2 story beats. Like WC I think it might be a bit on the heavy side in terms of overall production capacity distributed across the board at the start, but it's still a lot fun to tease out. I could easily imagine a 1939 scenario like prequel/sequel using a similar set up where the NAP is reversed and it's Germany and USSR that have the non-aggression treaty, while Japan might skirmish in the opening round or something. Just remove like half the factories and backload some of the earlier tech equipment etc. Might be fun.

For this one 1941 I like it. Probably would just let it ride and then focus on the playbalance. Only thing I might look into is that capacity thing I mentioned for the heavier armor types, just to make sure they don't get left in the lurch. Otherwise I'd just tinker around the edges, like for minor starting unit additions or starting cash, or any extra difficulty/challenge levels for the AI and such. Self imposed handicaps or higher VC wins etc. I think is pretty good for most factions to resolve in a timely fashion at 21 VCs for the TKO. A VC win at 24 is also pretty fun in the solo for doing endgame techs and sorta painting the whole globe your teams color, but I think about a dozen rounds or more to hit 21 so that's not bad. First round can take a bit for the AI to get cooking, but seems to pick up the pace after that.

I think probably for a new player coming from A&A the m3 stuff and terrain, order of battle with the targeting and bunkers probably takes some getting used to, but I think it feels a bit easier now to kinda ease into what's going on and parsing the how the units work/interact on the map. Last few games I was just controlling a single nation from the big 6, which was a bit more challenging than controlling the whole team. I had fun with both styles of play though. Controlling the whole team I think is pretty entertaining, but for a challenge rating there probably a higher VC win, or an income bonus to the AI on top of what they get for their themed reinforcements would probably make sense. Income is pretty high generally so even going up like 110% can get the AI pretty formidable there.

Anyhow, feels pretty good to me! Nice work!

Let me know if we need any other graphics stuff. Meantimes I'm just blasting as USA hehe
Catch you next round

[Black_Elk]

Had fun in my first out in v120 took me like 17 rounds to clinch it as USA solo. I went after Italy and Japan mostly, but Axis fought pretty hard, like tooth and nail for the boot hehe...

2023-7-5-1941-Global-Command-Decision v120 solo round 16 USA.tsvg

Germany clapped me back a few times there too in Northern Italy, especially where they got a pretty solid line on Istria. Trying to break through there was tough stuff haha. On the Pacific side the IJN seemed to do pretty well on the water too. They managed to stay credible right up until we broke Saipan and started to punch up towards Okinawa and such. Thought we had em dead to rights at Tokyo a couple times, but AI Japan snapped back with the Kamis hehe. Pretty entertaining! I like the latest set up adjustments. I'll switch and try Japan next.

Thinking a bit more about a potential 1939 scenario, I can see that as a fun way to stage in some of the more novel elements. Sort of a stripped down version, keeping most stuff the same, just with fewer starting units and factories, but maybe more starting cash. For 39 we could use the dark blue sculpts I made for G40, and put some of those TTs in Europe and North Africa under the French aegis, since I think that set is mostly complete. I'd probably do every TT outside of Metropolitan France (or possible every TT except Paris) as original owner neutral though. That way team Allies can still get those production footholds in Normandy and North Africa and such. I'd imagine it where the first few rounds are basically Germany vs France, with the Germans having the edge and they sorta chase them across the med into North Africa. The French TTs in central Africa being the main stronghold/holdout.

I'd add that faction to the USSR turn block, since if the soviets have a NAP with Germany, their first few rounds would be kinda limited, mostly attacking neutrals, or Finland, or perhaps skirmishing with Japan in Manchuria for some Khalkhin Gol flavor, but like only on the first turn right? hehe Anyway less to do for USSR in 1939 than in 1941, so it might make sense for Soviets to control the French faction too, just the game remains engaging for them. Basically we could create a situation where France is largely conquered by say round 4 or 5 and then the NAP between USSR and Germany breaks down. Managing USA would probably be the hardest, since it's difficult to create the conditions for a surprise attack. Probably a USA/Japan version of the NAP would be needed, like where they get some "skirmish warnings" that capture the embargo and breakdown of relations there. Another option would be to stage the Pearl Attack as an event. Like where both teams spawn units into an engagement near Hawaii in round 6 our whatever feels like 1941. Since China and Pacific Allies are in the USA turn block they'd still have a fair bit of action from that, if controlling all the nations of the entire turn block rather than just a single faction, which would probably be a bit more engaging in a 1939 scenario, where the build up is a little slower. Like most games with multiple start dates and any kind of tech progression, the earlier start date sorta ends up being the one where the what if element is more pronounced. Since with more player agency and greater control/efficiency over the playpattern in the early game, the player can sorta push the envelope a bit more. Anyhow just some ideas for that one.

For an expansion concept, I think something that includes some sort of Agent would be cool.

The reason I like it is twofold, first because I think it would be fun if the game included some sort of nod to the spy vs spy/intelligence gathering aspect of the war and it's a good way to get a gal sculpt in the game, second because I think it reinforces the abstraction that TT control is more like a sphere of influence. In A&A that idea is sort of baked in, where trading the same TT back and forth or creating deadzones, it's easy to imagine that if Britain is invading France with light forces in Infantry or Elites, that perhaps these come to represents stuff like the French Resistance or SIS operations or whatever. Like trying to soften things up, for when the big landings like D-Day happen.

By including an agent you get a little bit of that element going on, even though the game doesn't have politics/intelligence gathering per se you can still kind work that angle I think. British SIS, USA OSS, Soviet NKVD, vs like German Abwehr and Japanese Kempeitai, but done very abstract and sort gamey, like the Saturday morning cartoon version I guess. Similar to how I think the nuclear bomb works better if it's a bit campy and Dr. Strangelove style, I think I'd go the same route there for the spygame. Carmen San Diego ya know. Basically Ingrid Bergman/Diane Kruger. With the hat. I think the idea that they could knock off Commanders, or target specific combat units as well as each other, to do sabotage type actions vs industry, or provide a boon to defense/attack in tiles where they're operating. They might function mechanically more like aircraft, where they can attack into or raid adjacent tiles, but can't occupy them on attack. Perhaps subject to AAfire = Counter Intelligence via opposing enemy Agents or something along those lines.

Anyhow just another riff, otherwise I can't really think of much else to include. I think it's a pretty cool little game. I've been digging it

Nice work!

ps. another idea to go along with the Agent might be a Scientist as a capturable resource that promotes advanced/stolen technology. Then you could do a late war scenario that basically goes straight from 1945 into the Cold War/War of the Worlds Alien invasion X files Rosewell thing. Like basically you use Trinity and the White sands "event" to let the game go off the rails into a sci-fi, in doing it that way, sorta pulpy the atomic power element I think becomes a bit more gameful. Could fit very nicely with a Mad Max or Waterworld-esque catastrophe randomizer, like maybe the oceans dry up or everything goes perma winter frozen, zombies, village of the damned, whatever. Pretty much all the angles work pretty naturally if going from WW2 straight into Marvin the Martian lol. Command Decision 1945 X Top Secret, or whatever scenario, like way down the road. But I could see that too hehe

Oh also, here's the game I got going with Japan...

Went after Midway and New Guinea. Had a solid result so advanced to Hawaii. HardAI USA nailed me a couple times when I had my guard down, first at Guadalcanal to smoke my pocket fleet there. Then when I tried to go Empire strikes back into Alaska with an airblitz. Pretty fun so far, we focused mainly on China so they're hangingby a thread now at Urumchi, but the island hop has been entertaining too. Probably would have been better to stay on Anzac just for the VC kill, but the desire for revenge vs USA was pretty high lol. Also wanted to check out the angle there with Hawaii to reinforce, USN has retreated behind the panama canal, but the Americans are still pretty deadly from the air. We're sending over some bombers to try and put some cracks in their defenses for the Lower 48. Seems to be working alright, AI Italy is probably pretty stoked that they aren't facing any real pressure from the USA in the Med. I think we got their full attention, since they're keeping it close to home heheh

2023-7-6-1941-Global-Command-Decision v120 solo round 7 Japan.tsvg

[Black_Elk]

So once the remaining tech kinks are ironed out and the starting units/production distribution and the rest are set I think all it really needs is a difficulty setting, like in the notes or from the launch menu. Basically a suggested player handicap, but there are many methods there. I think bidding would work better for PvP, but an income bonus to AI opponents for SP. The AIs bid buy behavior is kinda static, as it tends to just buy bunkers and infantry no matter how high you set the bid amount, but income bonus is recurring and uses the normal purchasing behavior which is a bit more dynamic. I think it would be engaging if there was a way for tripleA to keep score, like awarding points and plaudits for achieving a certain number in TUV destroyed at game's end, or perhaps TUV lost might be interesting too, for getting bloodied, but I'm not sure how that might present.

I think the simplest would probably be just setting the goal posts in the notes. Perhaps something like...

Solo vs AI (Player controls a single Nation or turn block) player unticks the themed bonuses for the nation they control. VC win at 21 VC by round 25

Team vs AI (Player controls one side Allies or Axis) unticks all themed bonuses for that team. VC win at 25 VCs by round 25.

Hard: AI opponent receives an income bonus of 125%.
Very Hard: AI opponent receives an income bonus of 150%.
Catch 22: AI opponent receives an income bonus of 200%

Or something along those lines. The income increase there is pretty substantial, but this is applied after the maintenance so not quite as nuts as it sounds. Essentially aiming for something where your hardest difficulty setting has the AI doubling income over the standard difficulty. The idea being to push the number high enough there to overcome some of the AI's purchasing or positioning snafus, just in sheer numbers. I'm not sure on the exact percentages, I'll have to try it at a few different levels to see when the AI starts to really overwhelm, but for a ballpark something like that.

I think it makes sense to have a higher VC win if the players are controlling the full team, since then you can coordinate and work the turn order sequence more effectively. I don't know on the exact numbers there, but I think that would probably be pretty good. I think the thing is just to sort establish the ranges so there is a way to kinda level up the AI as the player gets more familiar with the map and how the AI behaves at the standard level. For PvP a standard bid by sides if one team is perceived to be at a disadvantage, but that would take longer to determine. Bonus for the AI is a bit simpler to tease out cause the AI is more predictable and near sighted. I'd just high ball it for the harder settings there, since the AI can overcome some of its kinks through brute force when they have enough cash, but the player still has ways to beat up on them using more advanced tactics like naval pickets, can openers, paratroopin' and the like. I think the player has more incentive to use all the tricks in the bag when the AI is bringing their A game, all flush with bonus cash.

For the themed bonuses themselves, I might rework this to something like...

"This Nation will receive a themed bonus in additional combat and industrial units awarded during their placement phase every other round." Then have the exact bonus there be randomized. Each nation having at least 2 possible bonuses in any given round. I think this would be more interesting than one big bonus awarded every 4th round, since the AI will do better with a steady drip I'd wager.

[Black_Elk]

So I tried a taste of my own medicine with income bonuses at various amounts for the AI, but found that it didn't quite deliver the jump up in difficulty that I was expecting. I think the solution there is somewhat inelegant. It works as a stopgap to make the computer somewhat more challenging to play against from a quick game settings, but runs into some familiar walls. The computer also won't really expand their production to keep pace, so you get a situation where the AI either blows past their maintenance limit or else might start hording cash which can make the percentage bonus climb since it applies to the pile. Similar to the specific Objective bonuses in other scenarios, the AI also doesn't seem to account for a generic bonus to income, so it wouldn't grasp that Berlin or London is worth say 200% of it's normal value. Like capturing a VC for the win (or to avoid a loss) the AI's performance there would be largely accidental.

I think a flat bonus actually worked somewhat better, since it applied regardless of maintenance and I didn't get errors there from the AI going negative on maintenance. I tried giving the AI 100 PUs for a flat bonus (50 PUs for the smaller Allied nation) just to experiment. This worked alright in establishing a floor for the AI, meaning that the AI could at least purchase say 20 hitpoints per turn, even if they're well into the red on maintenance or just getting hammered/beaten against the ropes, but the AI's purchasing/placement choices can still go wonky, and there's a similar issue with production once the AI starts losing their industry units. The tipping point there can be pretty quick, though not quite as quick with a flat bonus compared to a percentage one. Still, I think a better solution would be the themed bonuses where we can guide the AI's puchase/placement behavior by simply giving them the units they'd need to remain effective at various points in the game (earl/mid/end game).

I think for the AI a themed bonus with 2-3 possible branches depending on the size of the nation. Each with their own national flavor (weighted towards certain unit types for flare), but roughly the same in terms of TUV and atk power. The specific bonus awarded I think could be subject to a roll 1d6 to determine which class of units the AI gets that round, as a randomizer. Examples might be something like this...

Act 1 (Early game)

Germany
1 HQ-Army, 1 armor-med, 3 armor lgt, 2 anti-tank, 1 art (8 hp, TUV 66)
1 HQ-Fleet, 1 cruiser, 2 convoy transports, 3 subs (7 hp, TUV 66)
1 HQ-Air, 1 bomber-med, 2 tactical bombers, 2 fighters (6 hp, TUV 66)

USSR
3 KV-1 armor-inf, 1 armor-med, 1 armor-lgt (8 hp, TUV 66)
4 bomber-med, 1 tactical bomber, 2 fighters (7 hp, TUV 66)

Italy
1 HQ-Fleet, 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 sub, 2 convoy transports (7 hp, TUV 66)
1 HQ-Air, 1 bomber-med, 2 tactical bombers, 2 fighters (6 hp, TUV 66)

Britain
1 HQ-Fleet, 1 battleship, 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 1 fighter (8 hp, TUV 66)
1 HQ-Army, 1 Churchill armor-inf, 3 armor-med, 1 armor-lgt (7 hp, TUV 66)
1 HQ-Air, 1 bomber-med, 2 tactical bombers, 2 fighters (6 hp, TUV 66)

Japan
1 HQ Army, 1 armor med, 1 armor lgt, 3 artillery, 1 anti-tank (8 hp, TUV 66)
1 HQ-Fleet, 1 carrier-fleet, 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 1 fighter (7 hp, TUV 66)
1 HQ-Air, 1 bomber-med, 2 tactical bombers, 2 fighters (6 hp, TUV 66)

USA
1 carrier-fleet, 2 battleships, 1 destroyer, 1 fighter (8 hp, TUV 66)
2 bombers, 1 carrier, 1 cruiser, 1 destroyer, 1 sub, 1 fighter (8 hp, TUV 66)
2 carrier-fleet, 2 fighters, 2 tactical bombers (8 hp TUV 66)

So basically each of the big 6, with bonus at 66 TUV between 6-8 hp for parity. For the smaller factions on team Allies (Pacific Allies/China) might try something smaller for scale there? Maybe...

1 HQ-Army, 1 Armor-lgt, 1 fighter (3 hp, TUV 33)
3 fighters, 1 artillery (4 hp, TUV 24)

Pacific-Allies is limited by that single Industry-Med, but something similar that matches their playscale.

Those TUV values at 66 are arbitrary, I just picked a number as a way to give the forces a rough parity despite slightly different force compositions by nation, but the idea would be that as you enter the mid/end-game, perhaps those bonus TUV totals increase to TUV 77 or TUV 99 or whatever at that point for the themed units, with more advanced types added in as those come online via the tech rolls, Armor-Hvys or Rockets and the like. Then to increase the difficulty/challenge rating, rather than increasing the bonus amount, instead the bonus might just be awarded more frequently, so say every 3 rounds or every other round, instead of every 4th round. Stuff like that.

One other question I haven't really been able to determine is whether the AI actually uses the terrain and amphibious modifiers in the calc? As the player you can select the terrain type there and apply amphibious modifiers, to see how the units will actually perform, but not clicking those tick boxes can change the numbers substantially. Sometimes the AI seems to pull away from a core production tile, or it will abandon a coastal tile, as if it doesn't grasp the defensive bonus from terrain that would apply by remaining in position, or the malus the enemy attacker would incur from amphib if they just remained in-place to fight it out. So that's another one we're working against. I think the likely solution is just giving the AI more juice, so they'll have more hitpoints generally than the player as an offset for that stuff.

For things like VCs I think the simplest approach would be to make sure these are sort of the highest value/most productive tiles in the neighborhood. Basically so that all other considerations aside, the AI will target a VC over an adjacent non-VC tile, cause the former would just always be worth more PUs hehe. For the most part this holds across the map currently, but not everywhere. Examples would be Benghazi vs Tripoli, or Calcutta vs Madras, Konigsberg vs Warsaw, Uzbekistan vs Omsk or Urumchi, Balikpapan vs say New Guinea or Singapore.

Where possible I'd probably switch these around, either the VC locations or the production values there, to ensure that the VC tile is sort of the obvious target from a production/income standpoint cause we know the AI will recognize that. If the AI is already targeting the VC itself, then the production/income value on top of that I'd think would focus their energy a bit more to fight over what actually matters in game-mechanics terms.

For National Capitals, even though there are no specific purse stealing rules here, I think we need a way to differentiate those tiles so that say a Tokyo is more important mechanically and to the AI than a Chubu. Or similarly that Berlin or Paris would be more valuable than Pomerania or Bordeaux, or Rome to Naples etc. To build that prestige into the production level of those tiles. Right now most of those spots are worth 9-11, but I think you could go higher. A national capital might be worth 13 or 15 or 20, so the AI is less likely to pull away and more likely to hold position there, like we'd probably want from a play-pattern. Using Japan as an example, right now the AI will often pull away off Tokyo to defend at Chubu, even though it's only worth 9 to Tokyo's 11, just because it connects to 3 tiles and has better counter attack options probably. To overcome that, it might be necessary to increase the value of Tokyo a fair bit so the AI will prioritize the actual defense of that VC. Here again I think we need to abstract what Production means. So using Germany, perhaps in historical reality the Ruhr/Rhineland is more productive than Berlin maybe, but where the prestige of the VC is also factored into the equation here. Similar to how Washington is worth 11 and Detroit or New York is worth 9, but might need to go higher there than 11 I think. For the Capitals/VCs that are designed to be contested like Moscow and Rome and such, the higher PU amount would be more consequential, but I'd probably do it across the board so that the VCs are higher value and the national capitals are worth the most in the neighborhood.

With Canals/Straits the AI is doing much better at targeting these over the last couple iterations, so that was encouraging. AI Germany and AI Britain contested the Danish straits, and Allies did pretty well stacking into Gibraltar. Suez I think they manage rather less well, since the AI likes to pull off there rather than holding position. Could be the terrain/amphib thing, or just that they don't register the TUV value or PU bonus from the Industry units. In general AI likes to back away into counter attack position rather than staying forward to deadzone, or at least it seems to do this until the opponent shows up in force and there's more TUV at stake. Then the computer sort of reorients eventually, but often by that point it's too late, if they've already lost the income/production from the industry or have seen it destroyed, they're kinda playing behind the 8 ball at that point. Still even for all it's deficiencies a steady drip of cash/units will allow it to overcome a bit and present a challenge, it's just sort of figuring out what that needs to be for it play effectively, not just vs itself but vs the human player who will be much more efficient.

I think before going all ham with suggested bonuses we might also try maintenance reduction for the AI as a way to make it play effectively. Accomplishes something pretty similar to a regular infusion of cash/units to the AI. Might try something like AI = half maintenance? Probably pretty similar to giving it 100 TUV in units or bonus cash for the big dogs.

Anyhow, just some idea kicking around. v120 has been pretty fun. USSR and British armor advance had a kink, but otherwise it was humming. Nice work

[Alexei Svitkine]

Some things I noticed:

• As Britain, I had an attack vs. a bunker in Africa and combat ended inconclusively after several rounds. But then, on the enemy's turn, the bunker attacked me back and I immediately won since bunker has an attack of 0.

Bunch of issues with Canada map:

• Territories "Ottawa-Montreal" and "New Brunswick" should be connected.
• Technically, the territory labeled "New Brunswick" is more "S. Quebec" per the geography. (Actual "New Brunswick" is pretty squarely in the territory labeled "Halifax-Nova Scotia", a more accurate name for the latter would be "Maritimes" or "Maritime Provinces").
• "Manatoba" territory doesn't make sense. Correct spelling is Manitoba, but that's not where it is. Maybe just combine that territory with either NW Territories or Nunavut (also misspelled as "Nanavut" on the map). Or just rename to "W. Nunavut".
• Canada production values don't make much sense. (Vancouver=7 and Halifax-Nova Scotia = 9, while Toronto at 2 and Montreal-Ottawa at 2).