💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread
-
@thedog said in
1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread:The Base_Camp
As you say "a bit too tiny"I would ditch the hanger, too big and the chances of air units being "built" at the Base-Camp are very low, although tempting.
Then rearrange to make it a little bigger, but still 54px high and close to 54px wide.
OK I tried to see if I could make something that wasn't as wide and still have it register with the more basic quonset shapes. But 54px might be a little tight. I tried this at 64 wide, not sure if it's still too beefy? Basically around the same width as the tanks I guess.
I liked the elements in Frostion's AB but it was a little hard to break em it apart and move stuff around, without eliminating some stuff, cause of the drop shadows mostly and just the flux in opacity. The AB was also fairly isometric with the fencing, so it was just kinda hard. I just ditched that third tent and the stuff that was crowding around it. I wound up with this one as a stripped down version, but not sure if it'll do the trick or not.
-
Thanks, that works for me, its got all the elements of a base or camp and its smaller than the placeholder.
How's the updated map going, base and relief?
Its got at least one new TT, yes? -
Yeah base is corrected
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xnvwl23sf092dia/Domination_1941_baseline.png?dl=0New added tiles are E. Colorado and W. Texas. The New York-New Jersey tile was reshaped, so the connection between Boston and Delaware needs to get nixed. I think it makes sense to rename the 'Hudson-Delaware' tile, to Philadelphia or Pennsylvania given the new shape
Relief should be good to go. Shows the new lines and has the opening for the flash highlight. Canals are the same as previous version.
-
I think you wanted to split a desert, is this included, if so what to call them?
-
Oh yeah, I did make that change as well. Good call haha. They're both in the base and such, just forgot to mention.
So I would rename the TT currently called Mali to Timbuktu-Mali. Then have the split desert tile called. W. Algerian Sahara and E. Algerian Sahara. I think that'd work
-
Thanks, yes I thought you had already posted that, its so long ago like a few days, I was just too lazy and go and check.
Currently Im busy setting up USSR defence for the German onslaught, Im hoping to have a release done in the next couple of hours, so time for sleep.
Although, it will not contain your new map, those fixes take a little longer, so in the following release.
-
Latest version ready for download from 1st page 1st post
Major changes
- Late 41 game start, game moved on 1 round, so preprogramed Tech is 1 round nearer
- Over 200 Forest TT changed to no terrain, easier to Blitz/move & take, took a couple of hours to fix, template should of been clear terrain
- SZ Flags reduced to 32px high was 54px
- Base-Camp new production unit, can be placed in 1pu TT, can produce 1 Infantry type per turn
- Renamed Artillery-Med to Artillery
- Most Air units PU cost increased
.
WEST- USSR Stalingrad-Volga Industries moved east, factory shells reinforced for defence
- USSR get lots of Siberian reinforcements
- Germany removed Battleship & Carrier production
- Germany Bordeaux-Gascony new Industry-Hvy so Submarines can access the Atlantic directly
.
EAST- Pacific-Allies Brisbane-Queensland on turn 11 1944-2Q, gets a Industry-Hvy & access to new British units including HQs
- USSR & Japan NAP back in force, it gets canceled randomly around T13 with warnings
.
Link to 1st post that has the download link
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/3326/1941-global-command-decision-official-thread -
@Black_Elk
In chat you mentioned that you were concerned about the speed of the German 1st turn, G1, you said HardAI takes about 5mins and FastAI about 2mins.When playing Germany I admit I go and make and drink, but as you are doing loads of testing try this;
(It increase the Java cache to reduce hard disk paging)
Our game needs more java RAM allocating to it …
So to play it you need to make a one off change to TripleA.vmoptions to use 3 or 4GB
Currently it uses 2GB, but this is not enough, if you have ever played Cernels 270BC Wars or Frostions Warcraft this is one reason why they play so slow.Download the zip, it contains 3 folders,
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EAEd2OPxZO0EkvCFFiH23PPtjeoufcSm/view?usp=sharing
zTripleA.vmoptions2G – to return your file as shipped
zTripleA.vmoptions3G – use if you have 8GB of RAM
zTripleA.vmoptions4G – use if you have 9GB+ of RAMOpen your chosen folder, copy theTripleA.vmoptions file to your installed TripleA folder and overwrite the original.
Typically it's installed here for Windows 64bit users;
C:\ProgramFiles\TripleA
You will need to authorise the overwrite.
Run TripleA and enjoy the new speed for maps like;
270BC Wars by Cernel
Warcraft by Frostion
The Shogun by Ebbe & TheDog
1941 Global Command Decision by Black Elk & TheDogQuicker alternative for default Windows 64bit users using batch files to ease the overwrite;
Right click on the batch file
Select Run as administrator
Select Yes to allow the app to make changes
Press spacebar to close the black dos window -
Here are some thoughts for Germany.
Germany Objectives
Besides continuing the Russian invasion, do you commit to?
- Battle of Britain (Air War) attempting to destroy their Industry
- Battle of the Atlantic, reinforcing the uBoats via Bordeaux or the Baltic factories, as each Sea Zone with a German flag denies the enemy of 1pu and grant you 1pu per turn.
- North Africa and attempt to taking Cario (Victory Centre & PUs) and then drive on to take Baghdad area Oil-Fields (2x Victory Centre & PUs)
- Invest in a Industry-Lgt in Algiers to reinforce North Africa
- Syria and stir up trouble by droping two Base-Camps (infantry production), forcing Britain to counter
- Africa and stir up trouble by droping one or two Base-Camps (infantry production), again forcing Britain to counter
Committing to any of the above detracts from your primary object of crushing the USSR.
Destroy
- Barents Sea Fleet - as they Blockade your coastal PUs and reduce your PU by 8 per turn
- Black Sea Fleet - as they Blockade your coastal PUs and reduce your PU by 7 per turn
Occupy
- Leningrad (Industry-Hvy) to join up with your Finland Army Group
- Moscow (Industry-Hvy) - forward production centre
- Baku area Oil-Fields (Victory Centre & PUs)
- Uzbekistan area Oil-Fields (Victory Centre & PUs)
Any more strategies?
-
I've been meaning to reply but kept getting caught up in RL stuff. Quick note from earlier
So as Axis I'd probably crash whichever Factory TT was the greater threat from that position at Leningrad, and it seems like that'd probably be Arch, since Moscow is another round for the Allied fighter transits. Tough call though. Moscow falling is a big psych blow to the USSR player, but I think Arch is better positioned to receive direct support from the West. I'd prob stack there and try to contest the middle as Allies. South is very hard to reinforce. I'd consider splitting Iran, putting the north under Soviet Control and the south under British control. Just so team Allies has another way to reach the USSR. Historically this route was called the Persian Corridor and it was the most important route for western aid to the Soviets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Corridor
-
I didn't know about the Persian Corridor, and that is awful lot of materiel shipped to the USSR, almost half went through Iran! (That's almost the equivalent of 200,000 Shermans).
.
But how best to represent this?- we could as you suggest convert 4 TT, north under Soviet Control and the south under British control. Currently this would give 3pu to USSR and 6pu Britain
- Leave Iran neutral and put a Railhead/Supply Depot in Baku, producing say 9pu per turn until captured then it is destroyed?
A&A wise the 1st option fits with the world at war?
2nd option is probably more historical?.
Balance- How does the current game feel balance wise for each nation?
- Is the PU generated for each faction feel about right?
- Germanys forces are probably at their limit (pu output to unit upkeep ratio)
- Does the USSR need a lift, like the Persian Corridor. But this benefit will be short lived as it will be closed in 4-5 turns by German occupation. Or more units arriving from the east?
-
I'd do both honestly hehe, but if it's a choice between the two, I think the first option would produce a more dynamic play pattern, since it presents team Allies with a more consequential strategic choice.
Like which warfront to prop up first... prioritizing India defense vs Japan, or Soviet defense vs the European Axis? With some tension there about how best to position their starting units near the middle, and a way to reverse direction if conditions suddenly change. Similar to how Allies would bounce between India/Persia/Caucasus in Classic. I think the real value of the TTs in the region would be more in opening that lane for movement and convergence rather than the money per se. If the passage is inactive (like having Iran as a neutral buffer region, defended with bunkers and such) I'm not sure the British player would choose to go that route, even if they were able to. You know, if they had to grind through neutrals, with Japan snapping at their heels. Unless it was a fairly simple walk-in, India has a lot of tiles to cover already vs Japan. Absent another factory spot in India I'd want to buy some bases there for sure, but I think any inf units spawned there would likely be needed just to hold India vs Japan, rather than racing up to save the Russians.
Right now "Neutrals - can only be attacked by Germany, Italy & Japan" so it's not really a command decision for team Allies to make I guess, but to me this feels a bit odd. I mean the Allies were just as capable of invading neutrals when it was deemed critical to their war aims right? Iran and Iraq seem like good examples. Neutral Portugal also had it's overseas territories occupied by the Allies where it was expedient. Bases being "leased" with a strongarm, like at Azores https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Alacrity or occupied preemptively like with Portuguese Timor. Here's another earlier plan the Allies cooked up regarding neutral Sweden... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_R_4 It was called off since the interim-peace between the USSR and Finland in 1940 removed the pretext to cover the British invasion. But again, not inconceivable as something that might have gone down. I still think it's simpler to treat all neutrals the same, and if sensible to somewhat anachronistically align them to one team or the other.
Of course the start date of "late" 1941 is going to be somewhat murky here. Barbarossa cracked off in June 1941, and the British had already landed troops in Basra by then. They were in Baghdad by the middle of June. The campaign to take Syria and Lebanon was concurrent like June-July. The Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran began in August. If J1 is December, that means you have a few months between G1 and J1 for things to shape up. To me this is fine, since the turn order allows some wiggle room for the suspension of disbelief. But I'd aim for a situation that basically has Britain taking over most of the middle East on their opening turn. That way when Japan/USA are up, the rest of the board sorta syncs up.
I think it'd be fun to do the rail thing such that the terminus or next rail hub isn't always at the max distance away. So like if the movement bonus is 3, but the hub location are set at 2 tiles apart rather than 3, this creates a layer of space between them that can be contested. I think doing that would create a bit more depth in the region for the push and pull. So for example if doing the Trans-Iranian Railway, you could have a rail hub at Fars, then Tehran, but from there you could split either towards the Volga via Azerbaijan or transports in the Caspian, or going the back way round Turkmenistan if that fails. Capturing factories/rail is a bit of a gameplay conceit, but I like the way it works for a map on this scale, allowing either team to get a movement bonus. I like that they can be used to stitch the the map together in a way that makes the playscale feel more manageable, despite having many more TTs.
Thus far I haven't really had any issues with maintenance for German units, although I did feel that pressure with the USSR. I couldn't find any viable counter-attacks on USSR1 since the Soviet units in Kazan and Aktobe can't reach, and the stuff that survives down south is usually trapped. Before giving them a big boost, I'd consider whether we really want Western Units operating in the Soviet backfield? I mean it'd be pretty familiar to most A&A players, since that's how things work there, but it's also pretty abstract. Basically asking the player to think of Western Units in the USSR as a form of lend-lease type aid, but in practical terms it means the USA/UK armies are doing a lot of the heavy lifting in battles vs Axis within the USSR itself. This always struck me as weirdly jingoistic, and also a bit complicated when it happens in A&A. I think if Western Allies can co-locate within the USSR, then the playpattern/starting unit set up has to assume this will occur (since the move is just too strong for players to ignore). Team Axis then has to get more units as an offset, whereas if the USSR is closed to Western units, then you can pair down the Axis starting units a bit. Or strengthen the USSR directly without, having to worry about how Western fighter transits or funneling units into the backfield might upend things for either team.
Earlier I framed that initial question about the German/Axis strategy in terms of Allied counter play, but that's cause I'm used to thinking about this mainly from a PvP perspective. Player-nation's controlled by the computer won't reliably stand up their teammates in the same way that two human opponents facing off might against each other, (why the AI needs some kinda boost to stay competitive), but the AI is still pretty capable of launching fighters and trying to get units towards the center of the gameboard, so it's still a useful frame.
I think the AI builds on the same fundamentals and uses the same shorthands that the human player would, just cause of how Redrum set it up, and these tend to favor defense over attack in a lot of ways. Just how the infantry fodder units are designed, that's sorta baked in, but even more than that, it's the ability of teammates to co-locate and mount a joint defense. When Axis can converge at the center of the gameboard things can get pretty brutal, so in most A&A games that means Allies spend much of the early game just trying to funnel units towards the middle (USSR, India) where they can all join together and try to form a wedge between Germany and Japan. But often you'll see a flipside version on team Axis, where Japan/German will transit fighters and explout the turn order sequence to prop up their teammate on defense. Currently Japan can't attack into the USSR's TTs directly cause of the hard NAP, but this wouldn't prevent them from still sending units into German occupied Soviet TTs to prop up team Axis on defense right? I mean if Germany or Italy can get far enough to open a lane for Japan along the border.
This would probably be the main reason to concentrate on driving towards the South as G, as opposed to the North/Middle (which would be simpler logistically under the current set up) since if Germany can get to Tblisi or Baku, and Japan guns for the the center through India/Iran, they can start pushing units into the already Axis occupied Soviet TTs to support the German/Italian advance. Sure they wouldn't be able to attack Russia directly, for the classic JTDTM or hammer/anvil move, but they don't really need to. Provided they can launch enough fighter aircraft or shoot enough tanks or inf to make any Soviet counter attacks vs G near impossible, they can still put the Allies on ice that way. So convergence is still pretty potent for Axis I'd think. Again this dynamic would be very familiar to A&A players, but it's also a bit strange, where you like have 5-6 nations all stacking into the same tiles on the eastern front, just to try and swing the contest at the center in their team's favor hehe.
That'd be a farily radical revamp compared to the current build if changing to No Western-Soviet or Germany-Japan co-location (on land), but if doing a big rework it's probably simpler to iterate those set up changes early on, as it gets harder to change the big stuff down the line. Like if people get used to the set up, and it starts gathering momentum, then a big tweak is a little harder to pull off. So far I like the production spread. I'm not sure if bases are bit too easy to spam for the cost right now, but if so we could raise the cost or the production requirements (to tiles worth 2 or whatever.) I think it might be nice to see a few as starting units too, like maybe one for each nation or something. Overall though I think the production spread feels pretty cool, with many options for both sides that I've wanted to see in a game like this.
So far I am enjoying the rail movement bonus concept a lot. I don't get the same sense of joy from terrain movement restrictions though, so I'd do another counterpoint there. It's just such a potent nerf to all the mobile ground units, especially when a factory tiles has the terrain thing going on. When it comes to how units can move, I guess I find that the carrot is a lot of fun, but the stick not so much hehe. Confining the terrain malus to the attack/defense power rather than a movement I think I could get into a bit more. This latest build was definitely more enjoyable for me than the previous for sure, but I still felt like my tanks weren't pulling their weight and constantly falling behind. Or I don't know, maybe just make em an M3 unit or something, so it's not as rough. Like where they could at least always move 2? Not sure, just some random thoughts.
Still having a ton of fun with it! Nice work dude!
-
Latest version ready for download from 1st page 1st post
Major changes
- Cosmetic; 30+ Sea Zone unit placement moved from top left to SZ center - its boring work, but it looks better
- Cosmetic; Territory names SZ names & PU removed, from territory, but still displayed on the status bar - to reduce clutter
.
WEST- Graphics; New Territory in North Africa, spilt a large desert in two
- Graphics; USA some territories redone like Colorado, Texas and the east coast
- Cosmetic; Germany invasion force unit overflow set left
.
EAST- N.Korea-Chosen and 006 C Sea Zone connection fixed
.
Link to 1st post for the download link
https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/3326/1941-global-command-decision-official-thread -
-
Shouldn't French Equatorial Africa be part of the British? Also I think Cameroon should not be named as "French Equitorial Africa"
-
Belgian Congo and Namibia should be part of the British IMHO.
-
Dodecanese was Italian.
-
Britain had took all Syria-Lebanon and Iraq also partitioned Iran with the Soviets in 1941.
-
Dutch and French Guianas should be swapped.
-
The British took Comoros only in late 1942.
-
The Italians actually controlled more Greek territory than the Germans.
-
-
@schulz said in
1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread:- The Italians actually controlled more Greek territory than the Germans.
But most of the productivity of Greece went to the Germans.
-
Thanks Schulz and Cernel! Those goofs almost certainly on me, probably from one of those earlier label keys I did at 3am. Definitely the backwards Guinanas my bad hehe.
Few others I wanted to mention but forgot.
TT called San Juan-Puerto Rico to USA control (that top islands in the Leeward chain could go to USA as well, as the US Virgin Islands.)Cuba I think should be assigned to USA, as they declared war on Axis in Dec 1941. I would consider treating the rest of the West Indies, Brazil and Mexico the same way, although they didn't declare till 1942. That's one of those neutral anachronisms I mentioned, where we could wind the clock forward a few months to capture the trajectory of belligerents that entered on team Allies. Another option would be to have those TTs as walk-ins so the USA can activate them on their first or second turn just by sending a unit down without having to run battles in the process (removing bunkers and standing armies). I think there was another I remembered somewhere but it's escaping me right now. Anyhow thanks for the reminders!
Ps. Oh just remembered another one. So Liberia wasn't officially official till 44, but the US occupied it in 42, for the rubber. I think 'neutral' spots like that, which ended up on team Allies a little down the line, just being empty with no bunkers? So they're easier to snap up as USA would prob be a good way to swing it.
-
ps. Oh also here is that list of VCs from G40...
-
Europe board:
Ottawa
Washington (capital USA)
London (capital UK Europe)
Paris (capital France)
Berlin (capital Germany)
Rome (capital Italy)
Cairo
Warsaw
Leningrad
Moscow (capital Russia)
Stalingrad -
Pacific board:
Calcutta (capital UK Pacific)
Shanghai
Hong Kong
Manila
Sydney (capital ANZAC)
Tokyo (capital Japan)
Honolulu
San Francisco
I know you mentioned in the current map that the VCs are using the capital code to get the AI to target them. I think this is quite cool! There is no capital cash-capture dynamic in the current build, though we might introduce some kind of added boost if we need something a bit more decisive for resolution towards the endgame. Like perhaps instead of just winning, the team is awarded a large cash bonus if they hit a certain threshold of VCs controlled? That might be interesting.
Here they are framed as Victory Centers rather than 'cities' to be more abstract/flexible, which I also like. There is some overlap with those G40 VCs listed above, and the stuff currently on the board, but I think as long as all the usual suspects are there, players would probably be amenable to some new additions. Just given the scale of the board, I'd shoot for like 40 total maybe? Ideally distributed across both theaters, so the map isn't weighted too heavily towards one side or the other, though I'd probably put them in regions that are are more easily contested where possible to help round stuff out.
So for example, in addition to Paris, we might add Normandy or Antwerp as a way to get the HardAI Allies to do the D-Day thing. Or in addition to Rome we might add Sicily or Naples to get them driving up the boot hehe. Oslo might make Scandinavia more attractive to the AI etc. Or for the other straits at Denmark and Gibraltar, similar to the way you have Suez and Panama, just to make them seem juicer to the AI. Especially since it works both ways, the AI defender would maybe stand and fight, and try to hold these tiles for a bit longer, rather than withdrawing when things get hot.
The VCs could be used the same way in the central Pacific, to draw the AI towards some notable spots, for more historical flavor to the playpattern. Esp for stuff that might otherwise get bypassed. Say Guadalcanal or Iwo and the like. I'd probably highball it on the first pass, just to see how we can push the AI controlled player-nations to do the things we want them too.
Speaking of that last, I wonder if there's a way to do a Sea Zone VC/Modified Capital code as a way to get the AI to concentrate their fleets in certain tiles? At first I was thinking just having some Sea Zones worth more, like in spots where we want the AI to focus their navies, but perhaps we can get them targeting those zones in other ways too somehow.
Oh and one final thought on the terrain feature. I'm trying to think of a graphic that we could use for that, similar to the gold star for VCs, just to help the player spot them at a glance. I'm not sure what would be best, but perhaps just a simple shape would work for that? Like a small red triangle similar in size to the star? I think bung's Current VC graphic is 48px . I could make a larger one if we want and punch up the V a bit maybe. I'll give that a look next time I'm tooling around in GIMP.
I really dig the cleaned up look! Again, great work!
Ps. Trying to mess around with rail hub ideas. You mentioned wanting one for the Soviets so I snapped an image of a period locomotive off the wiki and added one of Hepster's crates with a simplified crossing pole. I think it reads pretty well, so thought something with that vibe might be cool. Let me know if it works for ya
-
-
Victory Center/Cities next release will have 31, currently 20. Now it includes all the G40s as well. As can be seen below, their display has been split by world region to aid players finding them.
.
This is a draft
As you suggest we can add/remove VC to aid the AI.
Tested VCs for SZ, the AI attacks/defends them as well, so if we wanted to ...
VC icon
The currently used VC is from here;
C:\Program Files\TripleA-2.5.22294\assets\misc
It is 36x35px, but if you could make it 48x48ish that would be fab. For me just a yellow star works and you could drop the V as that would look cleaner, but you choose, yes Im passing the buck.
Terrain symbols
If you could do stylised terrain symbols for;
desert, forest, marsh, mountains, tundraI think the best way to implement them is as a 48x48px png in the misc folder and I use the decorations.txt to place them on the map, top/top left of the TT. This way the reliefTiles are not 'damaged' and your reliefTiles map can be reused by another mapmaker without terrain symbols.
Ebbe's Oil & Snow uses stylised terrain, but on the relief Tiles. Careful with forest as Im using it to represent forest & jungle.
.
Thanks for the train icon, that will do nicely! -
Sounds good!
If you just want something basic to use for now I did a quick 2 tone star shape in GIMP to get this...
31 seems pretty cool. Look forward to seeing how it'll push the AI!
I'll look into the terrain stuff. I was playing Oil and Snow earlier tonight actually! Fun stuff! hahah
ps. I'll admit I'm struggling on the terrain thing. Trying to come up with something novel that isn't just clip art looking is kinda tough. I've seen some 48px images in other maps, but not sure how busy you want the visuals. Like if it's 5 different images, might get a bit cluttered. My default is thinking a single icon that simply indicates that there is a terrain effect going down, and then the player can cursor to get the deets on it. Or maybe to have them all within the same shape, black diamond maybe or red caution style triangle... Basically sticking a black icon for whatever terrain thing inside this maybe? Least you can use it as placeholder till I figure out how to do it.
-
What do think of coloured circles?
With a white border?
desert - sand light brown
forest - dark green
marsh - semi circle of blue & semi circle of green (mix of water and shrubbery)
mountains - grey
tundra -mossy green/yellowAbstract but still convey a meaning?
ps. Red/white bordered triangle also works, but red might get lost in USSR.
