💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread
-
@thedog Awesome comments mate - so THANKS. And please be assured that I mean well and if I "criticize" I only intend to share my frustration so that either my attitude can be corrected and/or the game might benefit from some change.
For example, I have NO IDEA what a blitzkrieg is in this game and I have been playing it for a year. Could you please explain this?
Not only that, but OFTEN I will have troops that start at a factory and can more 3 only to witness them not being able to make that last move. I can move that unit to other terrain that is 3 away, but weirdly it will not move to the terrain that I need it be get to. Sometimes this route is over an allied territory but sometimes this is happening in all one country's territories. There are probably more than 1 rule going on here but I see no documentation on this.
Similarly my mates and I have had a wonderful time speculating on whether or not the airborne units can work. This thing is truly useless to us as we NEVER know when an airborne unit can work. Some times it can transport one inf to where we want 2 territories away, but never 3. But sometimes it cannot... This is so badly broken that I cannot even list the error here so all I can say is that these airborne units feel like they behave randomly to me. I would love to read the rules for airborne.
I'm guessing that this game needs more documentation and probably an entire page on airborne as it seems that one airborne unit can sometimes transport 2 inf... but mostly just 1... and apparently only a special inf and not the cheaper ones... so there are many details there.
More confusing stuff: Some country's cruisers and battle ships appear to be able to transport inf and EVEN TANKS. While others do not.
And you mentioned today "most units on the map consume -1 PU per turn." This is confusing and not intuitive and we often see a country that we think should get 300 PU instead suffer a penalty of -120 PUs.... Yet there seems to be no documentation on why this is. And through trial and error we have come to believe certain things but then we will find exceptions. So if you could explain this country PU limits thing I would greatly appreciate it. If indeed this is the case with Italy - and Italy can barely make much of an impact as it is, then I would suggest changing that or removing it completely.
Oh and I am suggesting this from a GAME PLAY perspective. I'm generally not too interested in "realism" as the point of these games, at least for me, is to have fun and play around what many "what if" scenarios. And as Eric or I have previously mentioned, we don't want to play a WW2 game where Germany always loses but the we all counts it as a win if German loses by turn X.
We'd rather just see a game loosely connected with reality in terms of the starting setup and maybe some perks that country was known for, but be more like a game of chess in that any side could win. And if these PU limits are what I now think that they are based on your comments, then the USA will never suffer from this and the European Axis elements will always suffer from this, and that is just silly to me. I'd rather have a switch to turn this off completely for game play reasons.
As I hope you can see, I love this game but am quite frustrated at the details - and not because it is too complex but rather because I simply cannot find meaningful docs when I need them. And I do see that there are many details in various tool tips or wherever but I suspect that they have more meaning to those that already know the rules and the details. I'm getting the feeling that this game could benefit from having some completely new players attempt to play it in front of the devs... Then you might be able to better see what things are not documented enough.
Oh and having to shut down the TripleA and then select "Select Game" to see what little documentation there is, is also baffling. Could you add some sort of HELP and/or RULE option during play?
Again you have my utmost respect and I fully realize that I might be too impatient to really see some details that "might" in fact be there. But I do suspect that many other people would have reactions similar to mine and those of my mates here in California
PS. Who of you lives out here? It might be nice to meet up for game some time
Johnny
-
@johnnycat
In game help, is in game.
Help> Game Notes
This works for most maps in TripleA
.
For Blitzkrieg open the PDF manual and search for Blitzkrieg as below
For Germany & Italy (so not Japan) they have a tech called Blitzkrieg
A Fighter gives +1 Atk if paired with a Bomber-Tac or
Armor gives +1 Atk if paired with a Bomber-TacIts 12:30 in the morning here in the UK, Im off to bed. I will answer more tomorrow.
-
@johnnycat
The Airborne rules should be the standard A&A rules for movementOne big difference the Air-Transport can carry 2x Inf-Elite or 1x Inf-Trained
I'm guessing that this game needs more documentation and probably an entire page on airborne as it seems that one airborne unit can sometimes transport 2 inf... but mostly just 1... and apparently only a special inf and not the cheaper ones... so there are many details there.
From Inf-Elite tool tip
From Inf-Trained tool tip
.
More confusing stuff: Some country's cruisers and battle ships appear to be able to transport inf and EVEN TANKS. While others do not.
All Battleships can transport 1 Inf-Trained or 1 Inf-Elite
All Cruisers can can transport 1 Inf-Elite
Currently Battleships can transport Armor-Lgt. Thanks this will be fixed next release..
And you mentioned today "most units on the map consume -1 PU per turn." This is confusing and not intuitive and we often see a country that we think should get 300 PU instead suffer a penalty of -120 PUs.... Yet there seems to be no documentation on why this is.
Page 6 of the manual
.
If indeed this is the case with Italy - and Italy can barely make much of an impact as it is, then I would suggest changing that or removing it completely.
Removing the upkeep/maintenance of -1pu/unit is not going to happen, as it is fundamental design of most of my maps.
Perhaps this map is not for you then?
-
@thedog Thanks again mate! As o said I’m sometimes too impatient to pickup everything right away. And maybe I was expecting a different kind of interface to the rules.
The limits on armies due to constraints/costs per territory held is fine. But with the USA and Russia (I.e. The Allies) never really experiencing such a thing we’ll probably just mod down their income to make the game “more fun, more balanced, more playable” for us.
This is very subjective and I respect your choices in designing this game - or do guys call these things “maps?” And the great thing about the way these “maps” are created it allows for a great amount of customization if desired.
I’ll continue looking for bugs m, inconsistencies and, of course, issues that have more to do with my impatience !!! lol
-
yea @Black_Elk said if you come in from a straight A&A background, it is going to take some time to get used to the differences between the two
Part of the fun in exploring something new
-
@beelee agree fully with that!!! And I’m having a great time with this.
Having said that, however, I’m at my limit when it comes to ww2 games that don’t offer a chess-like ability for each side to actually win. And not just decide a victory on how long it takes, or does not take, for the Axis to lose.
I certainly realize not everyone would prefer this. But I just want to have a fun time with friends, or play the AI. And while I love this game, of this “map” as you guys call it Lol, I get the feeling that the odds are far against the Axis.
Hence, I keep feeling I have to give the Axis more stuff lol.
But still loving this game so thanks again to you all for the assistance.
-
Another Bug?
Attached is one of the games I am using to find weird behavior. This game is deliberately one-sided but that's not relevant.
The issue is the Territory: Baku-Azerbaijan
It has a medium level factory there - 2 chimneys - and used to produce units but now it cannot. All other factories and those inf-producing things can so this appears to be a bug. Italy got this territory but then lost it to Russia, then got it back. Now it cannot produce anything.
I hope this helps - I see many such things and my guess is that I am doing things that the devs probably never foresaw but who knows...
-
Another question: Why does German Air power not allowed to attack neutrals? Is that intended?
This is one of those things that makes no sense to me even if there was some realistic precedent. But, hey, I dunno and just had to ask...
Cheers
-
More Bugs or am I missing something?
Something I see often of the past year of playing this game, units cannot move as expected.
For example:
In the attached game save Japan 13:
N Burma Japan wants to invade Calcutta, but only inf can attack. Not the artillery nor the commander unit.
Tanks in Sikang want to move to Chungking and have the movement to do so, but are not allowed in and there is nobody there so stacking limits are not an issue.
Again, I don't want to complain but I am hoping that I can help make sense of these types of things.
CheersJ13.tsvg
-
@johnnycat said in
1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread:N Burma Japan wants to invade Calcutta, but only inf can attack. Not the artillery nor the commander unit.
Calcutta is a marsh territory, as such only infantry can enter/invade from the land, and the command unit is treated as armor, so cannot enter. Also, Artillery and Anti-Tank cannot enter marsh territories.
@johnnycat said in
1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread:Tanks in Sikang want to move to Chungking and have the movement to do so, but are not allowed in and there is nobody there so stacking limits are not an issue.
To do this, these armor unit would need to move through Chengdu-Szechwan, which is a mountain territory. Mountain territories reduce movement to 1 for all land units entering, thus these armor unit would be stopped there and can move no farther.
Cheers...
-
@wc_sumpton OH MY Geesh !!! Hahaha. It makes PERFECT SENSE when you explain it.
But how the heck would anyone KNOW this?
I’m actually pondering the idea of offering to write a players guide for you guys !
Ok either way I feel this means that WE REALLY NEED some improvements to the graphics. I mean you say “mountains” and “swamp” but I sure don’t see that. And yea I’ve actually traveled to many of the spots but heck if I would even get that. The big exception being the Priapit marsh in Russia as that’s probably common knowledge.
Another suggestion would be to put those commanders in little ship/armor or plane icons. I can’t tell you how often I forget those little human faces simply don’t register as a unit I should move.
And I swear those guys give super powers at times, lol. Be nice to see more documentation on those commander units as well.
I love all this feedback - y’all must really love this game!!!! AND I CAN SEE WHY. ITS A MASTERPIECE.
Oh and for theDog: I KNEW this was a real strategy game and not the risk-like base TripleA game. But it still needs to have rules that people can EASILY access
-
I’m actually pondering the idea of offering to write a players guide for you guys !
If you do write a players guide, that would be fantastic as my writing style is too terse and Black_Elk too verbose. We often joked about it in private chats.
.
Page 7 of the manual, tries to explain terrain effects
As the map/game only use 6 sided dice a +1 or -1 from any source is a ~17% change, so terrain effects do play a big part in game play.
.
NEED some improvements to the graphics. I mean you say “mountains” and “swamp”
It was a design decision to use a physical geographical relief of the world, rather than icons representing marshes mountains etc. This map has lots of unit types and that can mean the terrain area gets hidden, no matter what the relief looks like. So Black Elk thought a round icon at the movement waypoint of the territory was the best option(and it was) because for the most part it is not covered by units in said territory.
Below Calcutta territory with a round marsh symbol and the status bar showing its effect. With a 32px high area, 2 lines of text is difficult to convey all the terrain effects, but hopefully it is there.
.
.put those commanders in little ship/armor or plane icons. I can’t tell you how often I forget those little human faces simply don’t register
Interesting difference in what we each 'see' as the HQ commanders are the first units I see/move.
Other players will have to express their opinion before they get changed. It was a design decision to use a round unit with a face to make it easy to spot. They are easily the most powerful units in the game, as they can add +1 to 10 units in combat.
.
Be nice to see more documentation on those commander units
HQ/Commander units abilities are * in the tool tips in a terse format & are in the manual in slightly more expanded version.
-
The issue is the Territory: Baku-Azerbaijan
It has a medium level factory there - 2 chimneys - and used to produce units but now it cannot. All other factories and those inf-producing things can so this appears to be a bug. Italy got this territory but then lost it to Russia, then got it back. Now it cannot produce anything.
I hope this helps - I see many such things and my guess is that I am doing things that the devs probably never foresaw but who knows...
.
It is Italian own territory/TT with German owned Industry and Oil-Field, these should of changed ownership to Italy, but did not.So this a TripleA engine problem, so one for the Devs, I will raise it on GitHub. (They are not active at the moment.)
-
What happened:
On Round 7 Germany invaded Russian owned territory Baku-Azerbaijan, and after 7 rounds of battle there was no winner.
Russia counterattacked during its turn, but lost. The nine Lend-Lease-Depot were destroyed and position of the damaged Industry-Med and 2 Oil-Fields were given to Germany. So, at the end of Russia's turn Germany controlled the Industry-Med and Oil-Fields, but the territory, Baku-Azerbaijan, still remains stalemate and no owner because Germany cannot take ownership until after its turn which would be round 8. This is by rule with map option "Abandoned Territories May Be Taken Over Immediately" being false and cannot be changed.
On Italy's combat movement for round 7, they move into Baku-Azerbaijan and take ownership of the stalemated territory. Because Germany and Italy are allies, Italy cannot take over ownership of the Industry-Med or the Oil-Fields.Since there was no more combat in Baku-Azerbaijan, the territory remains Italian controlled, with Germany owning the Industry-Med and Oil-Fields. Italy cannot produce out of Germany's Industry-Med, thus Italy cannot produce in Baku-Azerbaijan.
Cheers...
-
Okay so here are some updates.
As I suspected, you guys are on MOST of the issues I had but I still feel that your overall documentation smells of what a bunch of geniuses hanging out together would put together for docs, hahahaha. "Sure Brian, the tool tips have the bulk of those rules, and the remaining rules are easily found in section 42 of the Triple addendum to paragraph 14 sections 8 but on Tuesdays it's section 74. And of course those tool tips and hovers only work when the dipping sauce is set to savory."
IN other words, this might make sense to you experts but I have to question regular a bunch of us regular low brow types can quickly pick up on all this ...
QUESTIONS:
-
If you look at the MAP that I have attached, you can see the map that I see and - THERE ARE NO TERRAIN FEATURES !!! How am I not seeing marsh or mountain???
-
Why are air units not allowed to attack neutrals?
THANK YOU - and please take my comments as supportive and constructive. I HATE to complain about this masterpiece but it's not readily playable in my opinion without some "dumbing down" to make it easier to understand. And yea, it's no simple axis and allies game... but that's what I love about this game.
And I don't even want to get started on game balance, lol.
Cheers from lovely Silly Valley
-
-
Okay so here are some updates.
As I suspected, you guys are on MOST of the issues I had but I still feel that your overall documentation smells of what a bunch of geniuses hanging out together would put together for docs, hahahaha. "Sure Brian, the tool tips have the bulk of those rules, and the remaining rules are easily found in section 42 of the Triple addendum to paragraph 14 sections 8 but on Tuesdays it's section 74. And of course those tool tips and hovers only work when the dipping sauce is set to savory."
IN other words, this might make sense to you experts but I have to question regular a bunch of us regular low brow types can quickly pick up on all this ...
QUESTIONS:
If you look at the MAP that I have attached, you can see the map that I see and - THERE ARE NO TERRAIN FEATURES !!! How am I not seeing marsh or mountain???
Why are air units not allowed to attack neutrals?
THANK YOU - and please take my comments as supportive and constructive. I HATE to complain about this masterpiece but it's not readily playable in my opinion without some "dumbing down" to make it easier to understand. And yea, it's no simple axis and allies game... but that's what I love about this game.
And I don't even want to get started on game balance, lol.
-
OMG - so there is a switch to TURN ON MAP DETAILS
WE DID NOT SEE THAT IN 1 YEAR OF PLAY
OK so only need to know why neutrals cannot be attacked.
Cheers
-
@johnnycat
Im glad you have found the SatNav/Map Details now you can see the terrain and terrain icons and know where to attack/defend.
There is a Dev fix for a sea attack that crashed one of your games, here
https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/releases/tag/2.6.14790
Download it and overwrite your current version of TripleA.Keep the comments coming, as you are making the map/game better :thumbs_up:
Im working on another release for August, It will have Japans PU output reduced by 20, amongst other things.
-
I've just downloaded this map and briefly taken a look at it.
Firstly, let me congratulate for the over 180 thousands visualization of this thread so far (coming from someone whose main map thread has not even reached 1 thousand as of yet).
I understand that the HQ are never going to be very good depictions in the moment you have to have one dude's face for all land, sea or air, but I find the Italian ones particularly bad.
For the land, you have used the image of Mario Roatta, who starts being very important only in 1942 and only about commanding the anti-partisan warfare in ex Yugoslavia, something which is not even depicted in this game (unless I'm missing some rules), so we have an image of someone which is not even where that guy was at the start of the game and is not going to be pictured in this game anyway.
Instead, I would suggest to go with an image of Ettore Bastico, not because it is considered a particularly good general, but because the Italian HQ-Army in North Africa is headed by him.
For the air, you have used the image of Italo Balbo, who died on 28 June 1940 so is barely a World War 2 figure at all (having died of friendly fire 18 days after Italy entered the war)...
Instead, I would suggest to go with an image of Francesco Pricolo or Rino Corso Fougier, respectively the head of the Italian Royal Air Force before and after November 1941, November 1941 being the month when the former is substituted by the latter.
For the sea, you have used the image of Pietro Badoglio, which makes absolutely no sense because he was not even an admiral. Seeing Pietro Badoglio smiling over the sea at the command of fleets is terrible and arguably the worst thing in this game of all the pictures.
Here the image has to picture Angelo Jachino.
About the Germans, talking only about the land HQ, I guess Rommel is fine, but it is really weird to see Rommel everywhere (especially on the Russian front) in the moment he is a figure strongly identified with the war in Africa (Obviously, he was not in Tunisia at this time. I don know why any German unit would be there.), which was enourmously less important than the Russian front.
I would have rather gone with the Manstein picture which @Black_Elk provided, although he actually never took part in main operations during 1941 and 1942 (In 1941 was in Group North, which was the least important of the three groups, then in Crimea, which was a side-show, then again back to Leningrad thereabout, again being the least important front beside anything farther north.).
For the HQ in the way it is used here at start game (3 German HQ being present on the German - Russian front except Finland), I'd see the HQ as representing Army Groups, so I would go with an image of Fedor von Bock since he was often the commander of the most important group until he was fired on 17 July 1942, and in particular commanded Operation Typhoon, arguably the most important late 1941 operation.
An other lower level possible pick would be Heinz Guderian, who actually started Operation Barbarossa serving under Bock, but the main problem with this is that historically Guderian had a very long hiatus starting on late December 1941 (so it would make little sense to see him anywhere during 1942).
A possible alternative, strongly related with both Bock and Guderian, would be Maximilian von Weichs. He took the 2nd Army command from Bock and then again took over for Bock when Bock was dismissed (this time leading Army Group "B") so serving directly under Bock until taking over for him for all the war with the Soviet Union. I would say that for a 1941 game this is not as much a good pick as Bock, but it has the upside of making sense still to see him around in late 1942 onwards, even though he would be eventually relieved of command in favour of Manstein when things started to get very ugly.
On a dynamic perspective, starting in late 1941, I would say that (in this game) the German HQ image for land forces would be better as initially an image of Fedor von Bock, then substituted in July 1942 by an image of Maximilian von Weichs, then substituted in November 1942 by an image of Erich von Manstein, then substituted in April 1944 by an image of Walter Model.
Long story short, I'd substitute the image of Rommel with either Manstein or Bock.
Something I cannot understand is why having an HQ-Submarine image on the sea depicting Karl Dönitz in the moment he was obviously never actually commanding the submarines from the sea? Is the HQ-Submarine supposed to be on a submarine?
Generally speaking, I think that the HQ images of this game are questionable, so I suggest to reconsider them all.
-
@cernel
Thanks for the feedback, I am not well up on WW2 commanders so dont feel like I can comment, maybe @Black_Elk might?Firstly, let me congratulate for the over 180 thousands visualization of this thread so far (coming from someone whose main map thread has not even reached 1 thousand as of yet).
I don't think we cannot take credit for the number of views, I too am amazed, as lots of my other maps struggle for views, but;
- Any WW2 map does appear to give much better views
- Maybe that the map/game was designed for solo play with 'good' playing AI, we can take the credit for, as we spent many hours trying to make it better.
.
Is the HQ-Submarine supposed to be on a submarine?
Yes, and they represent the idea of Wolfpack tactics and veteran submariners, which only the Germans really maximised upon.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login