💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread

[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).

[Black_Elk]

@alexei-svitkine

Good catches!

Any TT name spelling/map issues would be on me. When I typed out the initial key I was mainly following Hepp's 1914 version of my domination map but I did 'em all at a go over the course of like 12 hours so wouldn't surprise if I missed a couple. It also had many abstracted tiles that were removed or folded into neighboring tiles. Manitoba Nunavut almost certainly my goofs on the spelling. GIMP didn't have the checker, I think theDog probably just followed what I typed out for the big list. I also had to shift the map edge in North America in that area, so might have got caught up there in the location haha.

Re-labelling would probably be an easier solution that redrawing boundaries at this point. Like just hyphenating it or whatever. Production spread was almost entirely theDogs though I agree would make sense to have more production spread around in the interior and near the national capital higher relative to the more peripheral tiles. Like to produce fighters out of Ontario and such, or build ships into sz120, 116 etc, which would be thematic.

[TheDog]

Latest version 125 ready for download from 1st page 1st post

Latest version of TripleA 2.6.14441, the AI will now purchase sea units, for us this is a biggy, as now the AI has just got harder, get it here;
https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/releases/tag/2.6.14441
Thank you @Alexei-Svitkine

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

• Transport Cost of 4 for Armor-Inf, Armor-Hvy, HQ-Army, was 5+. This is to make it easier for the player to load Convoy/Transports. shorthand, "Convoy/Transports can carry 1 Inf-Trained + 1 other ground unit or 3x Inf-Elite."

.
WEST

• USSR - Fixed Armor-Hvy research now from T8, was T1 (thanks Black Elk)

Thanks to alexei-svitkine for these 8 Canadian fixes

• Toronto-S.Ontario renamed to Toronto-C.Ontario
• New Brunswick renamed to S.Quebec
• Nanavut renamed Nunavut
• Manatoba renamed to W.Nunavut
• Toronto-C.Ontario gets Industry-Hvy 9pu, was 2pu
• Ottawa-Montreal gets Industry-Med 7pu, was 2pu
• Halifax-Nova Scotia gets Industry-Med 7pu, was Industry-Hvy 9pu
• New Connection Ottawa-Montreal to S.Ontario

.
EAST

• New SZ, split SZ46 into SZ46A & SZ46B (thanks Black Elk)
• 026 B & 033 A both 2pu to guide the AI

.
TODO

• Balance

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

[Alexei Svitkine]

Another thing I noticed:

If Britain recaptures territory owned by USSR, it reverts to USSR control. But, Britain is not allowed to enter USSR territory normally - so you get in this awkward situation where your British units are now in USSR territory, but you can't move more units in there, or pass through it after.

[Black_Elk]

An interesting option might be to keep the no co-location thing, but to change all the Soviet TTs that aren't VCs to original owner neutral. That way if the territory is liberated from Axis it will go to whoever the conqueror is, while still avoiding the issue of Allies stacking to the ceiling at Moscow for an insurmountable joint defense. If the Soviet/Japan NAP dissolves, then the same might happen in the soviet far East. Allows for some novel endgame stuff where Soviets and Western Allies could compete for the same TTs. Most of the globe could probably be handled that way, outside of the VC territories.

I think a fun endgame surprise would be to have the Alliances break down among the victor nations. Similar to the current NAP, but for one of the victorious teammates. So maybe USSR breaks off onto its own team if Allies prevail and the fight just keeps going vs the Western Allies. Or same deal with Germany and Japan if the Axis win. Like in round 25 perhaps

Another thought I had was that when the homelands are invaded and conscription is activated, this might also spawn a small force at all the VCs still controlled by that nation. Like some medium armor and artillery, maybe a couple aircraft for a pocket force on the Capital and such. Once the enemy is knocking at the door things can tip quickly. For Japan spawning in a force of Kamis and maybe some subs might be fun too, just to make it harder to get the drop on the Japanese home islands. Italy I didn't see spawn any conscripts so wasn't sure about them, but probably it could activate if Sicily or Sardinia are taken, as well Milan and Naples and such, to make that a bit more of a double edged sword for team Allies. Currently Germany can mount a pretty solid defense on Italy's behalf which is fun, but Italy could probably use some cheap fodder like conscripts once Allies start marching up the boot.

[Black_Elk]

Few more thoughts...

So if you allow Western and Soviet units to move freely through each other's territories and to co-locate for joint defense, then the game will become a race to the middle of the board like most A&A maps. The same will happen with Japan and Germany on the Axis side. Outside of A&A Zombies, with the no fighters on friendly carriers rule, or G40 with movement curtailed by the DoW (declaration of war) rule, there are really no restrictions in world war II v1-6. To be on the same side/team there means joint defense and freedom of movement through tiles your teammates control. Also on the A&A maps (excepting AA50 which has 2 start dates) the original owner is always the nation that controls the TT at the start of play (the painted color of the territory on the physical boards OOB.)

So for example in v5 the territory called "West Russia" is under German control at the outset. If taken by Britain or USA, the territory does not revert to Soviet control, since its treated as original owner Germany there. The game doesn't reference earlier start dates or the 1939 or 1940 political boundaries, but rather who is controlling at the start date (in that case 1942.) There is an exception for nations which have been destroyed (ie. no longer in control of their own capital) when that happens and the original owner has been vanquished, then control of the territory will be assigned to the conquering teammate. At least until the relevant national capital is liberated, at which point all controlled territories revert to their ownership.

Here there are no capital rules, and in the case of Germany/USSR the original owner of all those TTs on the eastern front refers to the 1940 pre-Barbarossa boundaries. When you first load the game you can see the original owner assignments changing from USSR to Germany and Italy/Romania all along the eastern front. If you enter a bid, you can interrupt that step to see the original owners. I'm not sure this is desirable though, unless the idea is to have an earlier standard start date for the map which supersedes the 1941 versions and which 1941 sort of keys off. Otherwise it would be hard for the player to tell who is the original owner vs current owner. Unlike the OOB physical board where you can go off painted color vs flag roundel, in tripleA original owner is harder to determine at a glance.

I suppose it could be a thing listed in the territory tab?

So basically when you cursor over a tile, perhaps in addition to showing units and production values in the status bar, there might be a column that lists "Original Owner/Current Owner" showing either the name of the nation or the associated flag, to make this clear?

That might be nice to have. Currently though, the only way for the player to determine who is the original owner of a given territory is to reference the board on turn 1 to see who controlled it then, so I'd probably keep that pegged to the current start date. I think for our purposes we want a situation where Britain and the USA can coordinate, and where the European Axis Germany and Italy can do the same, but also where the Western Allies and the Soviets are effectively part of different Alliances. Still on the same team vs Axis but with different rules for co-locating within their starting territories. I'd treat the European Axis and Japan the same way to avoid a situation where Japan just sends aircraft to Europe to prop up Germany/Italy, or exploits the turn order vs Britain/USA for fleet screening in the Atlantic. The hard NAP prevents a Japanese tank drive to Moscow through China for a while, but you still end up with a similar incentive for convergence at the center of the board by both teams, along that big swath of the map between Suez, the Mid East, Persia and the Caucasus, the spots where all the factions can start running into each other.

In general I think the game is more compelling when the liberation rules allow multiple teammates to compete over the same enemy tiles, so for team Allies this means TTs that are original owner Axis, since those could conceivably go to anyone on the team. (Well except USSR vs Japan cause of the NAP, but otherwise they'll go to the conqueror for income/production.) An example would be the handling of the Dutch East Indies in 1941 v3 compared to 1942 v5. In the former those territories are original owner Britain, in the latter original owner Japan. It means that in v5 the USA can conquer and take control of say Borneo or Sumatra directly, whereas in v3 they can only be liberated for the Brits (unless London has already fallen, which is unlikely). Or similarly in G40, liberating France for the French, vs keeping Normandy for USA/UK production, that sort of thing. Just changes how team Allies can lily pad off captured Axis production. On the Eastern front, for TTs that are original owner Germany, say Baltic States, those spots might get taken over by USA or Britain, which was common in Revised A&A and still fairly common in v5.

Depends I guess if you want Western Allies running around in the backfield of the USSR, because that would dramatically change the play balance there. Right now the USSR is set up to stand on it's own, pretty much by itself, so allowing the Brits or USA to stack in for defense as well, would have them way overpowered probably. You can see in v3 and v5, USSR is relatively weak there, lowest income, fewest starting units etc, because the assumption is that USA and UK will be sending almost all their TUV in range to prop up Moscow vs Germany. Or you might get something similar with USSR taking over responsibility for India or the Middle East from Britain vs Japan. Here Japan isn't an issue for the first dozen rounds, so it'd be Germany and Italy vs USSR, Britain, USA and maybe China or Pacific Allies too all trying to all stack together. Could be that the overall unit caps would dampen the effect, but I think if trying to do normal co-location it would skew pretty heavily in favor of team Allies. Not sure what approach is best.

Doing the original owner neutral thing could work though, because you can do that while preserving the no co-location thing generally in original starting territories. Like perhaps the co-location thing only applies in peripheral regions? Using the examples above, something like this maybe...?

Like for the original ownership I mean, basically where any territory under occupation at the start (not part of the homelands) is treated as original owner neutral for determining who controls it after liberating from the enemy and for joint defense. That'd give some buffers. Perhaps the Dutch territories of Pacific Allies might change hands if liberated in a similar way. Perhaps Italy might end up controlling portions of Greece or France (rather than giving them back to Germany). Stuff like that. I think there is potential for confusion though if original owner isn't easy to parse from turn 1. Like if trying something different I'd try to find a way that's sorta of universal in how it's applied or easy to tell at a glance. Like with VCs or core territories retaining the original owner assignment by starting faction. Basically the regions that constitute the homelands for the conscription event when the nation gets invaded. I think WC mentioned a few pages back the idea to peg it the 1939 boundaries. I think that could work too, though if doing that it'd be nice to have a 1939 scenario that players could refer too hehe.

[TheDog]

@alexei-svitkine said in 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread:

Another thing I noticed:

If Britain recaptures territory owned by USSR, it reverts to USSR control. But, Britain is not allowed to enter USSR territory normally - so you get in this awkward situation where your British units are now in USSR territory, but you can't move more units in there, or pass through it after.

Yes it is awkward, been chatting behind the scenes and decided to keep the current version, although not ideal, it does represent Stalin intent of no allied units on USSR soil, but the allies can help out on the periphery of the USSR like at Baku.

I will add some notes to the Prologue panel like;
USSR has special border controls, the allies cannot enter USSR territory, as Stalin refused allied units on USSR soil. However as the allies can retake USSR territory and give it back to the USSR, it is possible to have allied units unable to move or be reinforced if surrounded by USSR territories, so be aware of advancing too far into USSR territory. Best to stay on the edge, like at Baku and not advancing deeper.

[Black_Elk]

After my last couple games, I think we might consider reducing the Rail movement bonus to only +1 instead of M3. The reason would be to mainly to make the AI more effective. I believe the map works pretty well at the M3 distance on the ground, but the AI doesn't understand how the movement bonus is being granted, so it will launch units via rail at M3, but this happens only accidentally. It's not holding position or attacking/bombing tiles with the M3 rail movement in mind.

M+1 would preserve the M3 distance for Tanks and mobile ground at M2 +1 off the factory tiles (or for other M1 ground units being towed by the tanks). Trained infantry, artillery etc would still have a standard movement bonus from the rail at M2, but this would be a lot less extreme than M3. The player/AI couldn't just launch say conscripts or trained infantry all day at M3 that way, since to go the full distance they'd need armor to tow, or mobile units like Infantry-Motorized to get that far.

Another option might be to handle the rail like this...

Industry Lgt = M1 units +1 bonus to movement (for M2)
Industry Med = M1 units +1 bonus to movement, M2 units +1 bonus to movement (for M3)
Industry Hvy = M1 units + 2 to movement (for M3), M2 units +1 to movement (M3)

Basically where the bonus to movement matches the number of stacks on the factory unit graphic in some way, the bonus increasing with heavier industry.

Or perhaps the movement bonus is consistent at m3, but only applies to a certain number of units? Like pegged to the factory size? Perhaps Industry lgt can move 2 units by rail, medium 3, or heavy 4, to match the placement value of the Industry units.

Or maybe we could just make all the Armor units M3 standard? Like with a cost increase so the AI has a way to maintain even if their factories are dropping left and right hehe. Just trying to think of ways to make it so the AI is less reliant on the factories for the M3, while still preserving something of that flavor, since I think it's a fun feature of the gameplay here. Currently terrain reduces the effective range of Armored units, so tanks and HQs can get left behind at M2, while infantry race ahead at M3 across the same spots. The no blitz terrain feature would come into play on combat, but on non-com I mean, you'd still have the M3 dynamic on the ground with Armor. Not sure what would be best, but the basic idea is to make it easier for the AI with a movement bonus that's less pronounced. Basically making it a bit harder for the player to exploit a bonus that the AI isn't really grasping.

Also I think the Rail movement from Factories thing needs to be highlighted as one of the top lines in the initial Launch Notes message.

This screen right here...

I think it needs to say something like "Industry-Lgt, Industry-Med, Industry-Hvy grant a movement bonus to ground units" since that is a defining feature of the gameplay here. Also because the factories can be destroyed, I think that should also be highlighted, since it's pretty novel.

Probably should also say something like "This map uses terrain effects, which can alter the mobility and combat effectiveness of certain unit types" with a quick primer on that, or an example image, so the player understands what's up there. Just cause those things are pretty key to the gameplay. They're mentioned in the notes under the unit descriptions table and in the territory terrain table, but I think they should be toplined.

Bunkers are another big one, just for highlighting an infrastructure unit type that would be less familiar. I think the player would learn the phase order through playing, but it might make sense to lay that out too, highlighting when income is collected and such.

ps. here's an image of the board sans units in case you want for a downloader pic. This is the full scale so, so like 80mb lol. I'll probably print it out at some point once the production values are set, I think it might work for units at like 1:96, extra micro sculpts hehe. Or maybe upscaled to fit on a giant table. But anyway you could rescale it down the tinier size pic that pops up in the menu similar to the mini for a survey view.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yrupjpmzlccuo3w/gameboard 1941.png?dl=0

I have a similar template for G40, before the national color paintjob is added on top. I reshaped a few contours there to match the connections of the OOB game, but the overall projection is pretty much the same. Just to show how they key off one another.

[Ondis]

@black_elk

Anyone playing this in the lobby at all? Would love to try a multi some day, probably a good way to introduce players.

[Alexei Svitkine]

Is it normal that a damaged Base-Camp can't be repaired (or rebuilt)?

[Black_Elk]

Not sure on the lobby there, but that'd certainly be fun! Mostly I've just been teasing stuff out vs the AI in Solos while theDog iterates the starting unit set up. I think each nation works pretty well for that, and the challenge is decent with the checkbox unticked for the themed bonus as a player, like if taking over just a single nation, to untick their box in the launch options. For Pacific-Allies and China, I tried a game with them paired up together and it worked pretty well, for a quicker turn that's not quite as involved as say USA's. I think China just needs fighters in their purchase roster to cinch it up there, but it was entertaining for a more focused turn block. Puts them roughly on the scale of Italy for team Axis, when Pacific-Allies and China block up to that way.

Last build I switched over to playing vs FastAI, which seems to do somewhat better on this one. HardAI was being overly cautious with it's TUV, and I think might have been goofing the calc for a couple things which is maybe why it would withdraw instead of going agro hehe. In any case, I had fun under those conditions. I've kind of reconsidered the m3 tanks idea of the last post, or messing with the rail too much, since I started playing it with the FastAI, the computer manages it's warfronts off the rail somewhat more effectively than the HardAI was. I don't see it marooning itself as much for example, and FastAI plays more forward in the TUV trade which seems to help the challenge. For a PvP I'd maybe try it sans battle round limits and with a bid if needed, though I haven't quite gotten that far yet. There are some features in the order of battle and the unit targeting, bunkers etc which can make the battles a bit more variable and unpredictable, unless there is a real clear advantage in hitpoints or a disparity in power, which I think works well in solo for the surprise factor, but could get a bit wild in the multi or 1v1 match up controlling the whole team. I think it would make sense though to help puzzle it out and get it fully dialed like for the SBR and overall balance. I'd be game.

Oh speaking of, I saw that as well with the Base-Camps last game. It happened to me where FastAI Japan bombed out one of my Chinese Base-Camps and then I saw the version of the graphic that I had lit on fire hehe. But I'm not sure if it was working as intended? I kinda thought they might have auto'd, the repair like bunkers or battleships do, though that would sort of defeat the purpose of damaging them with bombers. For Base-Camps I also think it would work well with that unit having a hitpoint, so it can block the blitz and such. Probably for the Industry units as well, since otherwise the opponent can take those over on the walk-in. Sometimes the AI will place them naked with no defense, and it would help to make the starting Base-Camps a bit more valuable. Anyhow, think it could be a glitch there, so might need to have a look on that one.