💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread

[TheDog]

@johnnycat
Replied here
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/3326/1941-global-command-decision-official-thread/870

[JohnnyCat]

ATTACK PROHIBITION RULE CLARIFICATION

Could someone please tell me where to find the list of prohibited attack types??

What I mean is that tool tips will say things like, "Can't Target Some Units."

So does anyone have list of these?

If I understand correctly, and despite the AI doing it anyway, strategic bombers cannot target sea units... At least I think that is the case. So why is the AI doing it anyway? Or am I not correct? I don't have a saved game showing this but I recall seeing the AI do use bombers in a sea attack.

In any case, you can see that I need to know exactly what units can and cannot attack what other unit types.

THANK YOU.
Johnny

[JohnnyCat]

@thedog OKIDOKI. I don't fully understand this save error but I will just ignore this as I have seen this only one time.

[JohnnyCat]

FINAL GAME PLAY QUESTION FOR TODAY

In the attached two files, the first battle has the air power ATTACK Manila

And in the second , the Air BOMBS Manila.

I want to use this as a game play example but I don't see much difference in the odds.

So my questions are:

1. In this scenario is it best to use the air to BOMB, or ATTACK, or some mix?

2. Do you guys have a better example of how to best advise players on which way to dedicate the air power?

Thanks

[JohnnyCat]

@johnnycat Here is an actual gameplay image showing the AI using strategic bombers in a naval attack.

Yet I thought that such bombers cannot attack sea units... Or are American bombers different?

[TheDog]

@johnnycat
canNotTarget
It is a shame that TripleA hides what the unit canNotTarget.
Most units cannot target air units with their normal attacks, so a Armor-Med would normally attack at 3, this is prevented and the AA attack is 1/12
.
These are the canNotTarget values that are hidden, they come from the code/xml
canNotTarget All-Sea
Bomber (canNotTarget All-Sea units)

canNotTarget All-Infantry, but can target Motorized
HQ-Air
Fighter-Early
Fighter
Fighter-LongR
Fighter-Jet

canNotTarget All-Surface (but can target Submarines)
Convoy

canNotTarget Submarines
Nuclear-Bomber

The logic is the similar for these, but I have simplified it.
can only target surface ships
Kamikaze-Plane

can only target Industries & Base-Camp
V1-Rocket
V2-Rocket

[JohnnyCat]

@thedog OK thanks. SO why is the AI sending bombers on naval attacks?

[JohnnyCat]

WHAT IS INTENDED HERE?

To me, the "nuke" is either "caught on the ground" or is flying overhead.

But neither case makes sense.

If caught on the ground then why is the unit not destroyed?

If up in the air then why doesn't the Japanese take the territory?

I have to think players will get all excited about finally being able to catch this thing only to then be frustrated by the game just not making any sense in this particular case.

What am I missing? Or is this a bug in the logic ?

Of course I DO KNOW how to counter these super powerful units, and that is to flood the zone with fighters. And I can put that in the manual but I really feel this unit needs to have its immunity adjusted.

What are your thoughts?

[JohnnyCat]

PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS

The force in Adelaide would naturally like to move into Sydney, but the game does not allow any of the forces to move there, EXCEPT THE ARMOR units.

WHY IS THIS?

INTERESTNIGLY those locked troops CAN load onto transports...

[TheDog]

@johnnycat
Your Manila example
As Japan does not have Blitzkrieg (all the extra +1 Atk with paired units like Fighters giving +1 to Bomber-Tac) this answer is for non-Blitzkrieg nations.

Blitzkrieg nations Fighters should support their Bomber-Tac in Bombing

Back to non-Blitzkrieg nations
Fighters will target non-Infantry, so in this example there are 2x Inf-Motorized, & Bunkers to attack.
If there were no non-Infantry, then I dont think it matters Bomb or Attack, I could be wrong?

[TheDog]

@JohnnyCat
Bomber post
Very recently, in the last year, maybe two, the xml function canNotTarget got fixed, because this map totally relies on its use to split normal and air combat into two separate Atk/Def values.

I will guess/assume that the AI ability to canNotTarget does not work as expected in this map, as the AI was intended to mirror A&A rules as much as possible.

So for now we have to live with it.

Besides Bombers targeting ships, other examples of poor AI unit use are V1, V2 rockets and Kamikaze targeting.

However to mitigate poor AI use of V1, V2 rockets and Kamikaze they are given for free for the AI use badly.

American Bombers are not different, like British Bombers move 8, the rest move 6.

[TheDog]

@johnnycat
More on canNotTarget

In the next release I have improved the tool tips and they now have entries like these.

For Bunkers & Inf-Conscript see red text

.
For Fighters

.
For Bombers

.
For V1 & V2

.
.
For Code Raiders the tooltips.properties file supports one line HTML so the following works

<br> <b> <p style="color:blue;">* Can only Attack surface sea units</p> </b>
<br> <b> <p style="color:red;">* Cannot target sea units</p> </b>

[TheDog]

@JohnnyCat

WHAT IS INTENDED HERE?
To me, the "nuke" is either "caught on the ground" or is flying overhead.
But neither case makes sense.
If caught on the ground then why is the unit not destroyed?
If up in the air then why doesn't the Japanese take the territory?

I agree neither makes sense.
Will do some testing, but time is short.
(Could be one for @wc_sumpton )

[TheDog]

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

PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS
The force in Adelaide would naturally like to move into Sydney, but the game does not allow any of the forces to move there, EXCEPT THE ARMOR units.
WHY IS THIS?

Adelaide is a contested area, so only move 2+ units can move.

.

INTERESTNIGLY those locked troops CAN load onto transports...

Now that is interesting, dont think that is intended, so it could be an exploit of the rules.
I have never tried it.
(Could be one for @wc_sumpton )

[wc_sumpton]

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

WHAT IS INTENDED HERE?
To me, the "nuke" is either "caught on the ground" or is flying overhead.
But neither case makes sense.
If caught on the ground then why is the unit not destroyed?
If up in the air then why doesn't the Japanese take the territory?
I have to think players will get all excited about finally being able to catch this thing only to then be frustrated by the game just not making any sense in this particular case.
What am I missing? Or is this a bug in the logic ?

None of the pictured units can hit the altera-high nuclear bomber.
-- Added by edit --
The next picture shows the American's turn. Adelaide is still considered contested, Pacific-Allies owned. Japan has scrambled a fighter and defeated the nuclear bomber while also losing the fighter. Because this was Americas turn, Japan cannot take control of Adelaide until the end of their turn. As a side note, because the Japanese fighter was scrambled into this battle, if they were to survive this air battle and because there is no land battle, it would have been returned back to its original territory, Sydney, since 062 Sea Zone dose not connect to Adelaide.
-- End edit --

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

The force in Adelaide would naturally like to move into Sydney, but the game does not allow any of the forces to move there, EXCEPT THE ARMOR units.

Adelaide is contested (Pacific-Allies owned). In GCD contested territories cannot be captured until the end of the conquering players turn, this is to avoid a known bug. Ground units cannot disengage from an embattled territory, even if no enemy units are present and enter into another battle. They must first move into an allied owned territory. The armor unit can first move into Melbourne-Victoria then into battle at Sydney. Loading into a transport would not be considered entering into an embattled territory, if Japan had one in 061 Sea Zone the ground unit could load and move into 062 Sea Zone and unload to do battle in Sydney. If there were enough transport, and all the units left Adelaide, or these units moved to Japanese owned Melbourne-Victoria, leaving Adelaide vacant, then Pacific-Allies would regain control of Adelaide.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

How's it going gang! Sorry I haven't been around much, or at all lately. Summer IRL, you know how it goes.

I largely agree with Johnnycat that aircraft are particularly confusing and it can be quite difficult to parse when they're going to make a difference in a given battle. I mentioned the issue with defending bombers a while back, especially when paired with bunkers, leading to wonky stuff with contested TTs. I like the idea of units receiving a bonus to attack power or an opening strike shot as a way of conveying the idea of "targeting" by unit types, but what I think is confusing is the idea where some units simply can't hit other units at all, or only when paired with other different attacking units.

Suppression is a novel concept, since there's really nothing like that going on in A&A, it's bound to be unfamiliar as a tactical approach here. For unit targeting, where a defending unit cannot be hit unless the attacker has some type of combined arms, the only real analog for that in A&A is the submarines/destroyers dynamic (eg aircraft can't hit subs unless a destroyer is present.) Or how only destroyers can neutralize the opening strike of subs or prevent the sub from diving etc. All the other combined arms stuff in A&A is handled via a bonus to attack power when units are paired 1:1. So for example when Tactical Bombers are paired with certain other units they get a +1 to their attack value. That is pretty complex in itself for A&A, but it's not as if deciding Not to bring the tank along is going to suddenly make it so the Tac Bomber can't hit at all.

I think it's problematic to have basic fodder units (Infantry) or basic blocker units (Bunkers) that can't be hit under some circumstances. For example the idea that fighter aircraft can't hit infantry units on the ground seems weird to me. Or that bunkers couldn't include Anti Air installations, to avoid these situations where units are just shooting past each other. Or where forces can easily stalemate the opponent by exploiting certain unit types that have this targeting feature to make themselves unhittable. In general I think if the Fast AI is using something in a way that doesn't really work, then that unit should probably be changed. Like if the AI is sending Strategic bombers to attack ships, even though those units can't target ships, then the Strategic Bombers should probably be changed so that what the AI is doing with them makes more sense. Similarly if the AI is attacking places that it shouldn't, for historical sweep, say USSR always attacking Turkey on their first turn, then that stuff should also be adjusted.

For me neutrality isn't a particularly interesting concept for A&A games. It's hard to model what the War should look like if suddenly Spain or Turkey or whoever joins team Axis or team Allies, because one player decided to go all ham with a neutral crush attack plan. In A&A they've changed how this stuff works across different editions of the game several times, and it's just never very satisfying to me. I like a very basic neutral scheme, where all neutrals are either Impassible (totally out of play and used to create chokepoints for the map geometry) or else attackable neutral with standing armies as a deterrent. I think given the way this game works, those attackable neutrals could easily add hit points to the standing army over time, +1 inf per round or whatever, so that it becomes harder to attack them the longer the game goes on. I think the open/closed border thing for neutrals or having that timed out by game round is sorta unnecessary most of the time.

For example, if the desire is to have USA in control of Brazil by round 3. I would just make them attackable neutral with no standing armies and allow the USA player/AI to take the territories via regular conquest on the opening turn, rather than a scripted thing where Brazil joins the Allies at some set game round. Perhaps coming as a surprise to anyone who wasn't aware of the scale up would occur until after it happens. For a territory like Venezuela, which never joined WW2 as a belligerent, I would just make it impassible so it's not a distraction for the player/AI or TUV calcs there for the AI especially. If we really want to keep all the options on the table, them making them attackable neutral with a large army and a low TT value is maybe much the same, except that the AI isn't then going to try and slog it out while they can, in this case for 3 rounds, but then be locked off that option. Probably with a bunch of units out of position that might otherwise be in North Africa or Guadalcanal, or somewhere that the fighting was actually cracking off in 1941/2. For me that stuff is more important. That the AI computer player will hit the right beats for the timeline/start date, and not get bogged down doing stuff that's just patently alternative history. The version of WW2 where Germany decided to invade Catalonia, or where the USSR decided to invade Eastern Turkey, Japan decided to somehow attack into Afghanistan or whatever.

There are lots of "What Ifs" that might be explored, but I think some work better than others for maintaining the WW2 vibe. For example, the "What if... Japan had invaded Australia" or "What if... Germany had invaded England" those feel different to me than 'what if Spain' was conquered by Axis, or 'what if Sweden' was conquered by Allies. We've also seen how this works in Classic A&A, like 'what if Japan had invaded the Soviet Union', which was almost the premise of A&A Classic just going by the usual play patterns that emerged. To me that stuff is ok, but not as cool as just having a campaign in the Central Pacific or the Med that sorta looks like the actual War, with the right feel and right story beats/timing.

What I mean also is that, if the computer player is constantly doing certain things that seem off, or reliably missing their marks, then that would recommend adjusting the starting forces. If Japan is just always going after Midway on their first turn say. Not really a thing that happened, so we might add a couple more defending US units to Midway, such that AI Japan goes after Wake consistently instead. Stuff like that. I think the divergence should happen in round 2, but for round 1 basically hitting the beats their for the opener.

In terms of overall game balance, I'd say Japan is the most problematic because they spread their fleet thin and end up hitting their maintenance limits too quickly to really get over the hump. When the Fast AI is facing down itself it manages alright, but against modest pressure from the Human they just buckle. It's probably because they don't have an option to fleet screen using Aircraft the way they might in A&A, again because this targeting stuff. In v5 for example, even if the IJN is completely destroyed, the Japanese player can still function by using Bombers and Fighters to sweep fleets that get too close, or which don't have enough carrier power. Here that doesn't work, because the units are capped by unit type (at 10 say), but there are more naval unit types for hitpoints than there are aircraft unit types at the cap. So heavy advantage to the naval defender compared to the would be attacker that's trying to just use aircraft for that. I'm not really sure what the best solution would be, cause the production limitations are also a factor. There's only a couple sea zones capable of producing warships, many more spots capable or producing aircraft, but there are still limits on what can be brought into the fight because of the Unit Caps per Territory or SZ by type. It's also possible for defenders to coordinate and co-locate with teammates, whereas the attacker has to go in solo. At the high end (operating near the cap) you end up with a pretty hardcore advantage to the defender and that's before stuff like terrain is factored in. I mean just going by the types of units that each faction can field. If Allies have an extra unit type, say an early fighter or whatever, but Japan doesn't have a matching unit to face it down, then at least at the cap limits there's still a lot of asymmetry there.

For my part the most confusing unit for the asymmetry remains the bunker, especially the bunker at x2. They defeat my mental math completely, and make it so that any time a battle involves bunkers I'm completely reliant on the battle calc to have any sense of the odds. It's just hard to ballbark. They function well as a randomizer I think, but I'm not sure it's worth the cost in potential player confusion. An example mentioned earlier is the Anhwei battle, where Japan is going to get their ass handed to them more times than not. It's because the tile is forested, and has defenders dug in behind the double bunker.

Here's a J1 to J5 from the other day showing one approach, where I just basically bypassed it and then mopped up two rounds later, after Szech was destroyed.

2024-9-1-1941-Global-Command-Decision J5.tsvg

You can see this wonky sorta rush on India as a riff on Classic. It's better than a Classic JTDTM with Japan just flattening China and then USSR, but kinda similar for the end around like just trying to sail towards the middle of the map by Suez and picking up the India factories along the way. Anzac is maybe more formidable as a result, but that doesn't really matter. Like once Japan is in this position the game is more or less over, and Axis have already won, regardless of what USA is trying to do with their destroyers. Quick double back to lock off the appoaches, since the USN has a similar issue to the IJN, where they just break down and spam transports but don't consolidate their fleet around the Carrier backbones. By the time stuff like Kamis or Nukes come online, the game has been decided for several rounds probably and the player is sorta going through the motions to time a VC kill.

I like the concept of bonus units or bonus income, or less maintenance for the AI as a way to offset it's deficiencies, but right now they're pretty uneven. The drops are predictable like a round in advance if reading the notes and such, but I'm not sure it's enough to keep things a tight race if the player is already ascendant. On the ground the swings can be heavier, mainly with the Eastern Front like wipes and then counter wipes where huge stacks maybe get nailed on the random, but I think we're it needs help is more the naval/air game, like for nations that need to cross the water to get where they need to.

Anyhow, rambles. I ate a lot of BBQ yesterday, so go figure! lol

I look forward to checking out any manuals that might be forthcoming. I think that would help for sure! Good work gang!

[Black_Elk]

Another random aside, just trying to find analogies from billiards again for some reason.

I think in a PvP or A&A standard scenario the ideal would be a game like 8 Ball, where everything from the break on is going to make a pretty big difference. What I mean though is that there should always be a way for the player to lose, even towards the endgame, even if they are doing very well and have built up a commanding lead, like the 8 Ball threat. For a similar thing set up as a solo vs the Fast AI I think we need something a bit more like 9 ball. Where it's possible not just for the player to goof and lose, but also for the computer to still win and do so convincingly at the very end. In Ball you can always come back as the underdog, which is always going to be the situation for the computer. I think it would be cool for PvP too though, just to have a game that works a bit more like that. Usually tech is the mechanism for these sorts of wild antics at the end, but I think there might also be room for staged in events or encounters, where the computer just gets a shit ton of extra material to work with. If they aren't purchasing properly, maybe just direct unit spawns similar the way things work for say USA if controlled by the computer, where they just get a pocket fleet or a gang or aircraft or something similar.

Or just generally, trying to find ways so that the game can still feel tight, even in 1945. Maybe there's a German winter offensive, and they get a gang of tanks for that if FastAI, or on the flip like where USA has to invade Japan but then Japan gets more ground attack units to bolster the conscripts. If the computer gets juiced in predictable ways I think that's fine, when the scenario is conceived as basically a solo sorta thing that has added stuff on top of a baseline that's maybe more PvP oriented, with balanced forces at a 50/50 for players of equal skill. Computer Bid doesn't really work, cause it's over reliant on purchasing logic from Revised v2. Some units the computer just won't use properly, like most Transports where it will strand floaters, or air transports which it won't use to actually transport ground etc.

The stuff it uses reasonably well like armor and tow units, or units that can move off the rail, those I think are better for bonuses. Ships again I think have got to be the hardest, because the Fast AI just does oddball things with them. Maybe with cruisers staged in and Elites already loaded? Stacked carriers are good. Sometimes the fast AI gets enough DDs in the water they will almost picket, but they never really back it up with the big fleet moves to secure a coastal production zone or factory foothold near the front. As the player to me that's the most intuitive, just go nail the enemy factories right. But the Fast AI doesn't really gun for them with same verve hehe. Bigger bonuses to the AI progressively I think would be cool, more frequently by round or steady drip so they become more formidable that way. Maybe some sort of inverse bonus to the side that controls fewer VCs. Sorta counter intuitive for a PvP frame, but I think would make sense for something like this. I imagine basically the Mongol Invasion approach from Total War games, where there's a capstone of that sort.

I'd go Alien invasion like Roswell sci-fi, but that's a bit more fantastical than this scenario. I think for something like this just larger conventional armies with the better tech, maybe more generals/HQs in later rounds. Same thing you got going on now, just with more I guess? Highball it somehow maybe, with a steeper increase towards the end for the Fast AI hostiles.

[JohnnyCat]

@thedog OK so the AI using bombers to target ships is just an artifact we live with... Roger that

[JohnnyCat]

@wc_sumpton OK. thanks for explain that. I will have some work cut out for me to explain this in the updated manual but your explanation is vital so thanks

[JohnnyCat]

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

For my part the most confusing unit for the asymmetry remains the bunker, especially the bunker at x2. They defeat my mental math completely, and make it so that any time a battle involves bunkers I'm completely reliant on the battle calc to have any sense of the odds. It's just hard to ballbark.

AWESOME !!!! Thanks for your update. And YEA those bunker rules are not intuitive !!! Lol

Well Everyone, I think I can continue now without any huge knowledge gaps as was the case with me over the past few months of learning this game.

When is the release date and/or when can I get a copy of the updated tooltips so that I can expand the regular manual and build this new concise manual prototype using the most updated game?

THANK YOU ALL AGAIN for being so helpful to me and helping me understand this truly great game... ah, I mean "map"

I'm trying my best to make a manual that everyone can understand...

Speaking of which, you all continue to speak in game-code, hahaha, so when you say things like the "CanNotTarget got fixed" I tend to lose focus because I just want to know or have some game-installed guardrails/descriptions that state clearly INF cannot target ships... Ships cannot move on land... and basic rules like that. But nonetheless all your comments are certainly helping me to explain this better to newbies (which is what my updated manual work is really about).

And finally, whichever of you wrote up the part about how the USSR restricted movement of allies into their territory did a SPLENDID job of explaining how the UK, in particular, needs to be cautious to avoid getting forces locked inside the USSR.

So kudos for that because it seems like I will need to provide a few such explanations... such as why when the Gross Deutschland (i.e. a Giant armored column) encounters a lone fighter (which appears to be on the ground) in fact the territory does NOT get taken for a turn and the figher gets away.

Or even more extreme, when that nuke is "CAUGHT ON THE GROUND" (I know it's up in the stratosphere according to you guys, but just like me earlier I doubt newbies will see it that way) and the entire armored division gets wiped out, haha. But now that I have your version of that in my head I will explain that better to newbies...

I hope you see what I mean by intuitive game play. In virtually every other game when land units encounter a lone air unit the land units will win, the territory will get taken and maybe the air unit will escape but maybe not.

But with your explanations I should be able to make a few additional examples and cautions just like your note about the UK units entering Soviet territory.

Cheers