💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread

[TheDog]

Latest version 65 ready for download from 1st page 1st post

Major Changes

• New reliefTiles show flashing Find better, also show the nation TT in a pastel version of their hex colors in map.properties
• New Changed some nation TT colors to match new reliefTiles
• New polygons.txt file, many islands refreshed should look better, thanks Black Elk
• Inf-Trained & Inf-Motorized & Armor get Flak 1:d12 attack v all air
• Most nations can only produce Fighter and not Fighter-Early. (Aid the AI carriers as Fighters move 4.)

.
WEST

• Germany & Italy removed 4 HQ-Army & 6 Artillery (for balance)
• Germany theme for HQ-Army changed to get a HQ-Army every 4th turn
• 6 SZ connections removed
• Britain Themed reinforcements for 20 turns are 2x Destroyers (Aid the AI to counter German subs)
• USA theme on turns 4,8,12,16,20 gets a Carrier fleet (Aid the AI counter attack Japan)
• USSR themed reinforcements are now free, was -19pu/turn (for balance and to offset Germany free subs in the Atlantic)
• Britain & USSR both have a new placeholder introduction panel, giving more detail on that nation.

.
EAST

• Connection 030 Sea Zone" to Honolulu-Pearl Harbor removed, thanks Black Elk
• Also removed connections 013 & 025A SZ to Honolulu-Pearl Harbor
• Pacific-Allies get 1x HQ-Army & 1x HQ-Fleet
• Japan has a new fleet in SZ 006A
• USA has ship reinforcements

.
TODO

• Balance
• Terrain effects icons for each TT

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

[TheDog]

Latest version 70 ready for download from 1st page 1st post

Major Changes

• New Placeholder Prologue panel
• New Placeholder introduction panel, for all nations, giving more game detail on that nation.
• Game Notes now has Game Notes + Prologue + Axis & Allies national panels to help overall game play
• Destroyer AA now 1 in 12, to hit air units, was 1 in 6 (for reference Cruiser AA is 1 in 6)
• 2 more wrong connections removed, thanks Black Elk

.
TODO

• Balance
• Terrain effects icons for each TT

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

[TheDog]

Im trying a few things to help the AI play better, here is one variant.

But it requires the player(s) to deselect/untick options on the Map Options panel.
(As I cannot automatically test for AI players within the xml.)
However if you forget its currently not a big problem.

So if your playing Axis, open Map Options and untick Germany, Italy & Japan.
This will stop the purchase of themed reinforcement, like the Japanese Bunkers, that maybe you dont want.
Also, now again to help the AI, as it is reluctant to buy Bunkers and Factory's these are also bought on turn 4:8:12.

If playing Allies, do the same untick the Allies.
This will stop the the purchase of themed reinforcement, like the British Destroyers every turn and the USA Carrier Battle fleet every 4 turns, that maybe you dont want. Also the Factories and Bunkers.

Here is the current build 73 with updated National Introduction panels.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16HvmZYH0tVpBOU5ZJzmnd0oJ30A-_0c3/view?usp=sharing

Thoughts?

[Jason Green-Lowe]

So, kudos for developing a new map on an epic scale, obviously an enormous amount of love and work has gone into this project, and I'm really glad you are adding it to the collection!

I tried out the current build (70) playing all of the Allies against an Axis Fast AI through Germany's second turn, just to get a feel for the map and what's going on. I am not quite your target audience; I tend to prefer much smaller and simpler maps, but I've at least played World at War before and I didn't see a ton of commentary on this thread so far from anyone other than TheDog and BlackElk, so I thought maybe you would want to hear from me anyway.

Unit Roster:
With conscripts at $3 and the primary offensive units (artillery and light armor) at $7, I'm very tempted to buy almost all conscripts, or at least up to the maximum number I can place with my various types of factories. A pair of conscripts will attack with 2 pips and have 2 hit points, whereas the light armor also attacks with 2 pips and only has 1 hit point and costs more money. I realize the armor and artillery have various bonuses that can boost infantry, but it's not obvious to me that these bonuses are worth paying an extra $1 and giving up a full hit point. As Black Elk points out, the tanks often aren't even any faster because of the advantage the infantry have on railroads, and the tanks often don't actually fight at 2 because of the various terrain penalties. Yes, building a pair of infantry means I'll be losing an extra $1 per turn to upkeep compared to a single tank...but that's only while they are alive, and in this game units tend to die pretty quickly.

On defense, it seems crazy not to immediately boost every front line territory up to 2 bunkers. $5 for 2 defense and 2 renewable hitpoints with only $1 of upkeep is the by far the best defensive package in the game. It also seems crazy to build bunkers anywhere other than what you expect to be your front line. Because you can immediately lay down 2 bunkers in an empty territory, there's no reason to start construction any earlier than the turn before you expect to be invaded. Finally (on this topic), because every territory holds a max of 2 bunkers (right?) it's not possible to add extra-deep fortifications anywhere. I'm not entirely sure what the bunkers are supposed to represent or how they add to gameplay or create interesting decisions. In west/central Africa in particular, it seems like they just mean that everybody keeps the territory they start the game with; if I can only build 1 infantry per turn at a base camp, and I need something like 6 infantry to knock out 2 bunkers, then it will take me the whole game just to conquer two $1 territories, so why bother investing in a campaign there?

I like the idea of having fighters only provide 1 strength in ground combats, but I am worried that your overall design of the sea & air units means that there is no reasonable counter to submarines. It looks like light bombers can't target submarines -- I'm not sure if that means they need a destroyer present to help, or if they just can't target submarines at all. If they need a destroyer to help, that's still pretty expensive; 1 DD + 2 light bombers cost $25 and roll a total of 7 pips on offense, only some of which are first strike; 3 submarines cost $24 and roll a total of 6 pips on offense, all of which are first strike. If the DD + light bomber combo is what you're supposed to use to keep submarines in check, then there ought to be a kind of rock-paper-scissor advantage where I built the right unit so I have a relatively easy time in the battle, but instead it seems like the anti-sub units are barely keeping pace with the subs. Presumably a pack of German subs up against cruisers & transports will clean the Allies' clocks; that means that a dedicated Allied anti-sub fleet needs to be able to clean the submarines' clocks in return, or at least that's how I see it.

Territories and Sea Zones:
Mostly the map makes sense and I see what you're going for. I appreciated having the extra room to maneuver in Egypt/Libya and in Southeast Asia.

I disliked the Tibesti territory in the eastern Sahara; I think it penetrates way too far into British Sudan and gives the Axis unrealistic opportunities to strike into east Africa without first taking Egypt. Nobody had any ability to support an invasion across the Sahara that way. The Tibesti territory seems to roughly line up with the Qattara Depression, which was essentially impassible on a strategic scale. My philosophy is that it's fine if there's a couple of places to cross the Sahara somewhere between Spanish Morocco and eastern Egypt, but those places need to be carefully tailored so that they don't provide major tactical advantages. It was barely possible to get an army across the desert; there's no way the army could cross the desert and then immediately strike against five or six different enemy territories.

I was also really surprised that Sea Zone 46 (eastern New Guinea) was all connected; as I understood it, half the point of the Kokoda Trail campaign that was fought in the New Guinea mountains in 1942 was that it wasn't possible to just sail all the way around the enormous island without ruining your supply lines and hitting stiff enemy naval resistance. I would split Sea Zone 46 into a northern area and a southern area. This would also make it a bit harder for Japan to just sail right into the sea zones that contain most of Australia's money. On that note, I think New Zealand should have a $3 territory, and that the $7 territory should probably be New South Wales, not Brisbane. Sydney had something like 5 times the population of Brisbane, and it's better if Japan can't easily seize Australia's most valuable territory.

Starting Setup:
It appears to me that the setup reflects something like November 1941 -- you've got the Finns back in Vyborg, the Germans in Lithuania and Sevastopol (which technically didn't fall until June 1942, although the Axis had most of Crimea sewn up by Dec '41), the Italians in Tobruk, and the Japanese in Thailand (which was not annexed until December 1941). Meanwhile, the Soviets still hold Kursk, Smolensk, and Karelia, so we're not quite all the way to the high-water mark of the Germans' advance to the gates of Moscow.

This is all fine and I appreciate the extra novelty afforded by the way you've picked a slightly non-standard time to begin the game, but I was irritated to discover that as Russia I started the game without Leningrad -- it seems relatively easy (and correct) for the Germans to occupy it on the first turn, before Russia even moves. After Leningrad falls, I see no way for the Allies to stop the Germans from mopping up the rest of the Karelian peninsula and most likely moving on to Archangel -- the Russians can't afford to send significant forces up north because they're quickly needed for the defense of Moscow. The Russian economy is crippled by their large number of Siberian bunkers and starting infantry that have to march into position -- on turn 2, I got $0 net for the Russians to spend on new units, so pretty much the only units the Russians have available to defend are the ones they start with, I guess. Meanwhile, the Baltic Sea is a German lake, and the Germans aren't too worried about the North Sea, either -- you can see that in my saved game I stacked most of the British Navy and Royal Air Force right off the coast of England, in Sea Zone 110B, and the Germans just casually sank it on turn 2. That means Germans can easily build transports and ship in new troops directly to Leningrad, as well as building a factory there on turn 2 (do they even need to, or is it captured?) for additional reinforcements. I don't see how the entire north doesn't rapidly become German in a human vs. human game.

Another concern I had was that almost every territory that can support a factory already has one at the start of the game, which limits opportunities for industrial development and for players to make interesting decisions about where to focus their efforts. I built one light factory for the British, and the only territory I could find that would accept it was Singapore. This actually worked out OK against the AI, because they're slow to strike and have trouble prioritizing factories as targets, but against a human Japanese player, the factory would have been wasted.

The Japanese failed to take Manila on their initial strike, which meant that I was able to build new bunkers and infantry there. I'm not sure if this was a freak accident, or if it's bad planning on the AI's part, or if the Japanese need a couple more starting transports.

The Pacific Allies had literally no combat targets on their first turn, which is a little boring. I also noticed that the Dutch start with literally zero units, which seems a little too stingy to me. I realize that the ABDA command was starved for resources, but the Dutch East Indies navy should have at least one boat, and there should be a couple of infantry, at least, and maybe an early fighter at start, spread out across Indonesia.

I also thought British / Free French Africa needed a lot more in the way of starting units. They weren't all shipped in from South Africa; there were local armies being raised in Nigeria, Kenya, Congo, Sudan, and so on, plus significant forces left over in the region from the liberation of Ethiopia. It's fine if you want to weaken those forces relative to history to give the Axis a fighting chance, but there shouldn't be literally zero units between Capetown and Cairo.

Strategic Bombing:
It looks like bombing runs are most effective when you concentrate against a single target, because you then have the chance of rendering it non-operational or maybe even killing it. Even then, bombing seems relatively inefficient in terms of money -- the heavy industry costs $27 to replace, but the bombers cost $13, plus the bombers also cost $1 per turn in upkeep. If I have a stack of 8 bombers and attack your totally unguarded factory, I expect to lose a bomber to built-in flak, plus pay upkeep, so I'm down $21 and you're only down $27, and that's if I get average or above-average rolls and actually deal the 7 damage required to kill the factory. If I only damage the factory for $6 (which is a totally plausible outcome) then I'm down $21 and you're down $6.

It probably is more cost-effective to go after the lighter factories, since they take many fewer hits to kill but are only slightly less expensive. A light factory costs $16 to replace but only needs 3 hits to kill, meaning my stack of, e.g., 4 bombers is quite likely to kill it at a profit.

Interface and Graphic Design:
I like the way you've used both different symbols and different silhouettes to help distinguish the units. I had no trouble telling, e.g., artillery apart from tank destroyers, which was a pleasant surprise. The graphics in general are both functional and attractive. One exception is the base camp image, which I find to be a little too crowded. It has so many buildings on it that it doesn't visually register as "less important" than a light factory.

I really need some easier way of telling which units I can build at which factories. This could be a chart on the Notes page, or some kind of symbol that goes on the units, or maybe you could even break up the production option into different tabs on the purchase window, if TripleA will support that, e.g., instead of "All/Land/Sea/Air/Construction" you would have "All/Base Camp/Light/Medium/Heavy," something along those lines.

I also want more guidance about what the hell is the difference between precision strike, first strike, targeted strike, and so on. The battle reports are so complicated and have so many different layers that I really have no idea who shoots first or who shoots at what or why it matters. At a minimum, I would work on developing names for these different kinds of strikes that more clearly indicate what they do. "Anti-tank strike" is clear; "targeted strike" is not. Targeted against what? When? In how many rounds of combat? Ideally, I would try to combine a few of these attacks if possible. Nothing wrong with having 2 or even 3 different types of dice in the game, but ~7 seems excessive to me; whatever added value you can get from precisely specifying how the units are supposed to work is mostly lost by confusing the players about what is happening during a battle.

As far as the unit overflow you mentioned in Eastern Europe, I also see that as a problem, but I don't think you need more resolution -- I just think you need better unit placement locations. Try out the manual unit placement picker in the XML Tools on the map creation utility, and I think you'll be able to clean it up without too much trouble. Make sure to specify a reasonable zoom (e.g. 75%) when choosing placement locations.

Unit Stacking Limits & Terrain:
I think Britain probably needs the ability to build a 3rd Fleet HQ -- one for the Atlantic / North Sea, one for the Med, and one for the Indian Ocean.

Not sure what if any HQs the Pacific Allies get, but probably they should be able to build 1 Army HQ and 1 Fleet HQ.

I like that you have stacking limits per territory for various unit types, and in general I would prefer that these limits be much stricter. I think there is still too much of a tendency to form "stacks of doom" where I just ball up all my available armies into a single stack for the region and then dance that stack around your stack waiting for the right moment to strike. Rather than have to count up limits by the exact unit type, I might say something like no more than 30 land units, 20 sea units, and/or 10 air units per territory at a time at the end of a turn -- you can gather more than that as part of a battle, but then afterward anything in excess of those limits is lost or at least returned to your capital or your placement stack or something like that.

You could also consider having terrain limit how many units of which kinds can be brought into a territory. I like the idea of having terrain, even at this scale, because it makes the map much more interesting than just a series of abstractly connected numbers, but most of your terrain effects right now are a bit redundant. The difference between "no blitz" and "only move 1" is relatively minor, and 5 out of your 6 terrains are giving the same +1 defense bonus to infantry and anti-tank units. It looks like forest and urban terrain have literally identical behavior. To shake things up a bit, why not say that, e.g., air units have trouble stacking in forests, or that tanks have trouble stacking in mountains? A stricter stacking limit can also be a subtler tool than a +1 or -1 on a six-sided die, which often doubles or halves a unit's combat potential.

Disclaimer:
I realize this long post is full of complaints and criticisms, but it's meant as constructive criticism; I want to help you take a cool project as far as it can go. I only bother to comment in this much detail on a game when I like what the designer is doing. I like what you're doing, and I wish you the best of luck with it!

[Jason Green-Lowe]

2023-4-14-1941-Global-Command-Decision.tsvg

[wc_sumpton]

@thedog

On a side note. there is a 'isAI()' method, but there is no call to it. I have designed a 'checkAIPlayer()' option to call this method. It seem to work fine in my testing, but I never submitted it.

Cheers...

[TheDog]

Thanks for engaging and even better for the 'essay'

Dont worry, all your comments are taken with good intentions.

It will take awhile to digest everything and look at it as a whole, so back some time later.

Thanks again!

[TheDog]

@wc_sumpton
Does that mean currently I cant access it in 2.5?

Even if you put it in 2.6, 2.6 crashes for this map and I dont know why, as the error message is poor. if you take a look why is crashes that would be very helpful.

It crashes on G1 using FastAI, before the end of the turn.

[wc_sumpton]

@thedog
isAI() is a internal method within the TripleA engine, which cannot be accessed without a call from the xml, and no such call exist. For my own personal use I created option 'checkAIPlayer', which I use for testing and has never been submitted to upload to the engine.

If you want, I could put in the pull request, but this close to releasing 2.6, will mean that it will probably not be uploaded.

I am sorry.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

Great feedback! I'm on board with a lot of it, for sure. Well I was reluctant to mod the map much more hehe, but a change to the New Guinea sea zone 46 would be relatively simple. Could go on the north south divide into an 46 A and 46 B, the bottom sz could either strike at the Port Moresby-Papua line or the hit at New Guinea so that one is more contested from the South? It might have been that way in one of the early drafts. Could be cool for what you mentioned about splitting the logistics. We'll have to mull it over. I also envisioned the Sahara as more of an impassible terrain type tile and think it does give a bit too much reach when just assigned like the rest of the Vichy TTs, least on the eastern half of it. That would probably be easier to handle just assigning the TT to neutral, so not needing a map tweak. Done that way it would split Egypt off a bit more and create more a pocket which would be fun I think. I had the same thought for the Western End, and Tenere. I don't mind so much the gap across the West or the Middle of the Sahara which reminds me of classic a bit hehe. But anyhow, yeah, kinda same thought there on how that Eastern desert tile might work. For the graphics we could always give the base camp another pass, it was one of those units I cranked out on a whim hehe. Kind of a tricky one, it was a Frostion Frankenstein like reassembled, but I'll back burner an improvement there if I can come up with something cooler. I think I'm used to them now, but I can see what you mean. I had a similar feeling about the purchasing of new factories vs stuff that's pre-set, that it would be cool to see more spots at a value of 3 or 5 (for the smaller and medium factories) but which don't house them at the outset. So sorta more build as you go for the playpattern. If the player invests in a particular region, but not like a pre-set per se. I like having the anchor factories where they're at, but like for India say I could see another spot that could upgrade or for the USSR where they can expand to generate more income via that method. The bunkers I agree, they feel to me pretty abstract though I guess I've gotten the hang of them after a lot of plays haha, they still feel a little wild, but I also think they're fun the more I play around, so I think there's gotta be a good balance somewhere for that. They definitely give me another thing to puzzle over. It's cool to see that save! Thanks for posting

Good to catch you dude!

[Black_Elk]

Some quick ideas from my last couple bouts vs the AI. So I really enjoy the setting that allows the player to handicap themselves in a way other than just the raw income bonus, I think it's a fun concept that the computer would get a boost to expand production or field extra units in thematic ways. In PvP context I think this might pretty confusing cause it's a lot to track, and to play effectively you'd need to know not only your own bonus but everyone else's too in order to plan/place with those bonuses in mind. This is because, when the player has this information in advance, and they know what is coming in round 4 or 8 etc that stuff is basically set as part of the script. If instead it was randomized, say 1d6 roll to determine which sort of bonus was going to apply to the nation that round, then the player still has some information in advance, but it's imperfect, so I'd think there it'd be more about rolling with the punches rather than trying to memorize the script. If that makes sense.

Just as an example, take the USSR. Currently they get a production advance which will spawn factories in Khanty and Tomsk on the second turn, with a theme something like rapid mobilization of industry behind the Urals. This is fine and pretty fun after the opening slog where they're basically on their heels the whole time, also cause they get the income boost. But I can also imagine other thematic options that might fit more of a randomized roll (similar to the way that the German sub spawning has randomization.) Major factories are 27 cost and generate 7 pu's the way you got it, and it's a double for that second turn boost so basically a 50+ PU bonus that has a chance recoup even more over time. That's pretty substantial. If framed as roll 1d6 among multiple options you might have something like this to get a comparable benefit over many rounds in terms of the TUV there each with a slightly different theme.

1: Industry-Hvy in both Khanty and Tomsk
2: Industry-Hvy, Tactical Bombers x2 and Artillery x2 in Khanty
3: Industry-Hvy and Armor-Hvy x3 in Tomsk
4: Med-Armor x4, Inf-Trained x4 and Inf-Motorized x4 in Kuyby
5: Fighters x5, AAgun x5, Inf-Conscript x5 in Moscow
6: Armor-Med x6 and Elites x6 in Siberia

That's just an example. Tried to get some kind of mnemonic numeric device going their with the roll number and the unit numbers. But anyway, then you'd basically have 6 branches on the playpattern from the point, depending on what happened during USSR2. Something similar could be done for each nation, or perhaps also where these same bonuses might apply at different points (later rounds) but with a roll to randomize which of them actually occurs at a given point. This would make each playthrough largely unpredictable out of the first round, but although the player player couldn't say for sure what might happen, they could still plan along the lines that those contingencies might present. I think that would spice things up, while not presenting as something like where the player really needs to know what each bonus will be and camp the manual in order to play well, or risk getting caught up, like "oh I didn't realize that would happen lol." I mean it'd still have the surprise factor, but it would be random enough that the player wouldn't feel too in the dark, cause the lighting in the room would be the same for everyone, if that makes sense hehe. Anyhow, just a thought.

From my recent play throughs I'd say in terms of balance, Russia and China are pretty behind the 8 ball for production. Like they're both in the red pretty quickly from maintenance after the first turn. Probably could use a boost.

Balance to me means something a little different in a solo type game, grand campaign mode vs skynet, compared to PvP. Something I mentioned earlier, but didn't get a chance to expand on really before getting distracted. Basically I think some of the variability that works well in a Solo game experience, might be somewhat frustrating in PvP. In part this would be limited by the roster. The more units that attack at low values, or especially stuff that hits at the 1, the more inherently variable the game will be from combat. You'll see more swings and duds over the course of the game. Since many nations can't put up hit 4s, and some Nations here would struggle to put up hit 3s in their roster when under a terrain effect, it's a style of play where most battles will necessarily be swingy. In terms of the swing 2s are way less swingy than 1 and there are a lot of units that hit at 2 here, so it still works I think, but might be more variable than some would expect. Duds tend to stand out more than sweeps, either of those moreso in PvP than a solo thing probably, where a truly frustrated player might just restart or reload. But even there, it's nice when the player can pad stuff a bit, like with a reliable hit 3. Some nations don't really have the hit 3 the water, unless they're going ham with BBs. Though it is a reason to build a battleship which I kinda dig, some nations don't have them in the roster. Like Germany especially would probably be able to make use of them cause of their coastal production limit constraints. I kinda like the vibe though where they're trying to keep their two starting battleships alive. Maybe each nation should have a unique flagship that kicks ass and works in a similar way? That might be cool. Guess I'd have to make a unit graphic then though. I do kinda enjoy how each fleet is themed differently. It's fun, like Italy itself having to be the aircraft carrier, since that's a famous line, but it's more about being able to field a hit 3 or hit 4 unit I think, cause not having a hit 3 you don't get a stabilizing unit on attack. Like the heavy hit you can count on compared to the wild fodder that might blaze or dust on 1.

Kinda same deal for the aircraft hitting at 1. They basically become air infantry, so pretty swingy there. You might sweep with a bunch of 1s of totally dud, and bringing the air along with the infantry isn't much different than just attacking with infantry by itself at a cheaper total coast, so it's got everything riding on the mobility. That and fleet screens. They're still fun, but kinda almost a luxury purchase for me the way it's set currently. Maybe I'm not using them to greatest effect though. For Fighters the scramble thing seems to be their best use. Tactical Bombers I buy cause they can bomb and are good at bunker busting, I still buy a fair bit, though not as much as the HardAI will purchase haha. I think some asymetry in the air would be fun, for regular combat. Fighters defending or Tactical Bombers attacking at a 2 say. Something to mix it up there beyond the 1. That's more in the rolls though I guess, for the unit setup distribution, I think it feels pretty good, but the Eastern Front I think could get adjusted for more USSR counterplay on their first turn.

For the eastern front battles on G1, my main thought would be to reduce the numbers in those battles on both sides, mainly so the HardAI can complete it's turn more quickly. But also so that the stacks that end up on the front line aren't too tall, to the point where USSR has no option for a counter attack of any sort. I think similar results on G1 could probably be achieved with fewer m2 units and aircraft in those fights. Basically for all those Tiles where the Soviets are going to get wiped anyway, the total unit numbers in those battles could be reduced and then moved to a non com type location (basically catching up on non com) since the non com phase goes much quicker than the combat move phase. I'm sure you'd probably lose some variability by going a bit lower with the unit totals, but that's probably to the good, so the swings on G1 on quite so dramatic.

I think just by reducing the armor and air (air especially) the amount of time it takes the HardAI to complete G1 comes down considerably. I tried a few different set ups, with a starting combat force about half the size I can get it down to about 2-3 minutes from launch to G1 combat move, whereas in the current it can quite a bit. Sometimes like 10 min or more for G1 to reach the combat move. Probably my laptop is slow, but that's still a long time for the first turn. Anything we can do to speed it up a bit I think would be cool.

For the Submarines, I tend to think they're a bit OP, but then at other times vulnerable to mass dd spam. Since the dds are quite inexpensive at only 5 pus a pop. I think to be competitive, even with their sub spawns, the G1 naval unit set up needs to be dialed a bit more. I think a good G1 opener would have most of the uboats stacking in sz 109 to kill the transport and blockade UK, while the Luftwaffe kills the 4 British Destroyers off Narvik. I've seen the HardAI do this a few times under the new setup, so it's got the right idea, though it often fails to kill the transport which is kinda key, or it'll advance the Baltic fleet a bit too forward where it can be attacked on Britain's first turn. Britain has a lot of build spots, but many can be deadzoned with air, so 109 is sorta their safe spot ideally. Having the Subs there is disruptive cause it puts the UK home island under pressure. Which you sorta need, otherwise they can just coast and drop fleets and start going on the attack immediately. Whereas if their back's against the wall, getting strangled by Uboats at the start, then it they have more of a dilemma. Like do I really want to build up in Nigeria or South Africa or try to save China some woes, or do I really need to buy ships or hold the line at Scapa Flow? heheh Stuff like that.

Oh and the other idea I had while playing some of the long games, so probably VC win at 21 works pretty well, but for Solo play I'd go up on this for a more enjoyable endgame experience. Like if you're going to go 10 rounds to hit 21 VCs, might as well go a few more till Berlin or Tokyo falls, but I find that if I hit the TKO some of the motivation is lost there. So I'd say maybe try maybe 25 or something and see how that feels at the end. Probably would recommend a different split actually, say something like 25 for Axis, 28 for Allies maybe for the full unconditional surrender vibe. In PvP need the resolution, but in the solo game I think people stick around to paint the map their colors and try for some crazy connected empire fantasy or whatever hehe. It might be fun to advance the timeline a little for some of the tech/industry unlocks or the Soviet Japanese NAP. To me the NAP can still be a bit wonky. In the Mideast the border between UK/USSR in Iran can be a little challenging because the movement is blocked Axis can have an invisible wall there if they just stop short by 1 tile so UK/USSR can converge via attack. Similarly the USSR convoy zones in the Pacific can be similar with Allied ships hiding from Japan. Japan can entert the sea zones on Non Com to block, but can't attack into them, which allows USA to creep. They seem to float a lot of transports, probably trying to reach the USSR backfield still or something, not sure. It'd be nice if those ships would just push across the south Pacific instead of hanging out up there. Like it's not a bad plan to just charge Japan and dismember them at Hokkaido or whatever given the way the AI tends to play, or if not to land in the USSR and run coverage, but the later option is out, so they get kinda stuck if it fails and then just have to sorta wait.

I think from Japan's perspective, it'd be nice if Hawaii had a Med factory or if Alaska had a spot that could support a minor, or just some way to get a toehold vs North America. Not anything too massive but credible enough to keep USA honest and not just going all ham vs Atlantic with everything. I think they'd be inclined to split theater focus anyway and at least send some stuff both direction cause they have enough cash in this game and the production is such that they kind have to build on both sides of the board to get the most out of their starting position. But still in terms of Japan actually messing with the USA on the West Coast, this would be pretty hard. Japan would have to Telegraph in advance a very large transport fleet, and then take a few turns moving it into position. Whereas USA can just stack to the ceiling as soon as they see that happen. I think what you'd want is a situation where Japan can kind pick apart a few spots say Alaska, or coming from the south up to Hawaii, doing the annoying gnat stuff, but where a transport build timed right could really screw the Allied timing vs Europe. Like the sort of thing where if USA doesn't build big for defense they might actually get invaded, otherwise they can just kinda ignore Japan till they meet at the middle of the board, ala A&A. So that might be fun. I'd honestly just start by scattering a few more spots worth 3 or 5 around the map in spots that might be fun to activate. Maybe Anchorage is worth 3 or Mexico worth 5, or just some way for Japan to get a springboard going if they make landfall, cause then USA has to respond ya know. This would be more sideshow antics in any PvP type game, for the Solo AI game it's probably meat and pototoes. Like that's what I always want to do as a player haha. Try for some crazy moonshot win Invasion Canada or something for the crown jewels, cause that's always a blast.

For the Victory Conditions in terms of the HardAI, it would be cool if the computer had a way to still win coming from behind. Or I guess framed another way, a chance for the player to still lose even when playing from way ahead. I don't think that can be captured with a straight VC total, probably needs more a triggered Victory type thing, but I think that could be fun for a solo. Just a reason to keep the player invested in the game, otherwise we're kinda reliant on the desire to paint the map to sustain the game after the point when the player pulls out in front. If they could still get tripped up in round 20 regardless, then it's sort of a different situation. Like sinking the 8 ball, or a run in 9 ball if it was billiards basically, but the command decision version of that I guess haha. That'd be fun I think!

OK big wall of my own there, but just wanted to just stuff down while it was top of mind

I think it's pretty fun! Like I'm definitely enjoying myself! There are some things with the unit interactions that I'm still getting my head around, but I like main thrust of the thing for sure! I enjoyed especially when I got a bit further into the game to see what happened in later rounds. Nice work dude!

ps. here's a save from earlier today vs HardAI Axis using version 73.

2023-4-18-1941-Global-Command-Decision AI Axis USSR round 9.tsvg

AI Germans had a pretty good press going vs USSR, despite opting not to hit Leningrad, but then fell apart after taking Moscow when they spread around instead of stacking. USA went for Italy and Japan primarily. For China I just camped out in Hong Kong. This seemed effective since UK could at least build a factory for the place and some bunkers. China had no units after the first turn, so just tried to do what I could there. I attempted a base in Yunnan but didn't seem to generate the dudes. For USSR the Stalingrad/Rostov starting structure gave me issues, basically needing Axis to wipe those out before I could build factories. I gave up Arch to hold the middle then just waited for USA and Britain to open a second front. Allied game was pretty satisfying for the play pattern. I enjoyed taking over the spots and trying to advance. On the Pacific side just went for Truk and then got an opening to trap the IJN so that was fun. Pacific Allies made a cameo appearance in West Africa. I was going to send em to the Med, but then thought to have em do the mop up there. Madagascar was the lily pad for that one. Allies took Berlin in round 8 so didn't get much of the endgame unlock stuff, all the dominoes fell in round 7 hehe.

My sense was that while pretty satisfying to advance in both theaters, felt like I should only have been able to really get that far in one or other, but splitting the difference was pretty effective here. I like how the USA kinda naturally has the shorter line on North Africa, so Allies have a reason to go there, and that the payoff for taking Italy is substantial enough to make it feel worth it. I tried to bypass Sicily but then Germans made me pay for it with a little airblitz haha. But for Brits it was pretty easy to just smash Hanover and take the Danish straits once the U boats were dealt with. I started out in Norway but then just hammered it home, since Copenhagen seemed the shortest route to threatening all those German factories. The AI kinda panics and pulls back so we had the walk-in there for the finish. Anyhow, that's where we got in that one. Fun stuff though!

Here's another game, this time as Axis vs HardAI Allies, also version 73. Things were going pretty well on the Atlantic side until this Normandy invasion attempt by the Brit AI in round 4. I got a notice something like "air combat must precede the battle" and then it locked up at casualty selection. I think because the fighters from Brittany can scramble into the sea zone with the transport, but it's trying to run the land battle first? or something like that. Anyhow, thought it might be worth checking out so grabbed a save.

2023-4-18-1941-Global-Command-Decision Ai Allies Britain combat move aircombat notice.tsvg

The scrambling can be a little buggy with stuff like that (order of the air battles I think, like if more than one scramble is from the same tile into many adjacent tiles, but I do prefer the scramble on, as it makes fighters much more useful. For some nations like Germany/Pacific Allies scrambling fighters are the only way to effectively defend a fleet in the desirable build spots. It's also fun for scrambling into the land battles, where a big stack of fighters can cover multiple TTs, like from Moscow say. Makes the Axis drive into USSR a bit more precarious. In terms of the starting unit set up you got going right now, scramble off would change the playpattern a fair bit.

[TheDog]

@black_elk & @Jason-Green-Lowe
I have not forgot your suggestions, I have been busy trying to reduce the German/USSR front line unit count so that German Turn 1 (G1) does not take as long.

This process takes a long time to test the AI, as it has unintended consequences. By moving German reinforcing units from the front line to say Warsaw the AI then wants to move them to France

@black_elk please test about how many seconds are saved with this new version for G1 and does it appear balanced?

[TheDog]

Latest version 75 ready for download from 1st page 1st post

Major Changes
WEST

• Germany & USSR eastern front redesigned with fewer units, in an attempt to speed up German 1st turn
• Germany removed 9x Bunkers in Germany, added France defence
• Normandy is now a "Capital", this is to encourage more aggressive allied AI play
• Sahara now Neutral with Bunkers, was Germany

.
EAST

• China now has Inf-Trained, as free Themed reinforcements like USSR
• China added 3x Base-Camp,
• China Purchase panel added Inf-Elite, removed Inf-Motorized
• Added 006 C SZ N.Korea-Chosen (oops took that out in error, now back in)
• Removed 006c SZ to Tokyo (good catch, I missed that one)

.
TODO
Balance
Terrain effects icons for each TT

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

[Black_Elk]

So for my rig (the old laptop) G1 there takes about 3 minutes. To me this is much improved, like almost twice as fast as version 73. I wish there some sort of wheel that'd spin and say "AI calculating moves" or something, but 3 minutes is ok I suppose for a map at this scale hehe. G1 combat move was the bulk of the first round for the AI, so this feels a lot quicker to me.

Eastern front balance seems pretty decent. AI hits Leningrad which is what I'd do probably. For the uboats I'd probably stack into sz109 kill the British DDs off Svalbard so they can't be hit on Britain's counter, then try to pull them home. Maybe peeling off 1 or 2 for the lucky hit vs Canada transport. HardAI behavior has them attacking subs with aircraft currently. Like the hardAI will dime into sz110A vs those 2 Brit subs. Probably some kind of specialized opening combat for air vs subs would be cool. Something limited so it's not just airblitz all day vs subs, but which makes what the AI wants to do more sensible. I like the idea that subs could dive after a round or something. Or possibly tweak the cost structure there. Right now DDs seem very strong. Like with Germany I'd build m3 destroyers over subs if trying to go vs England, though the free subs of course I'd try to make us of, and the super subs once they arrive. Anyhow, point being for the playbalance I think you want that tension between confronting England in the West vs USSR in the East, where G has to split the difference a bit or risk one thing falling apart even the other goes well. I think it's somewhat easier for Axis to barrel roll right in the Moscow/Kuyby pocket, and then the AI sorta collapses whether from income loss or just not quite knowing what to do with the rail, but they can still put up a pretty good fight. I like that they get the teeth from units in the backfield out of Siberia, though I think they probably need a starting commander to really have a chance. Like maybe Zhukov coming home from the East in Siberia, cause that's his mug, but then you gotta wait to buy more?

I kinda felt the same for the other nations that it'd be nice to have a starting HQ example of each type. Cause Germany has many generals at the outset. Just for parity, it'd be cool to see everyone have at least 1 on the board at game start. I could see increasing the limit on AirHQ to 2, and Naval HQ to 3. Army HQ I'd just make the cap whatever you're going to give Germany at the start, cause having the starting units over the max limit that would otherwise be imposed via regular purchase I think can be confusing. Same deal for Elites and their max. Meaning I would try to avoid a situation where the player starts with so many that they can't buy at least one in the purchase on their first turn. So if the limit is 9 Elites, maybe they start with 8 you know. Or just raise the max number to whatever the starting force has of Elites.

I think for constructions you'd have a similar issue if starting overmax in certain tiles. Cause like the player sorta needs to get a feel there for what the limit will be. If they purchase something but then hit a limit they weren't aware of, they'd have to reload from the previous phase. Cause the information might not be apparent till placement. Probably the simplest would be to match the construction limit to 1 over the PU value. So a TT worth zero could have 1 construction. A TT worth 2 PUs could have 3 constructions etc. But where you start with an existing construction already filled, or overmax, I think that could maybe have some strange results. Example in the current would be Stalingrad with 4 bunkers, when the player can only build 2. As the Allies I want Axis to take it, because otherwise I can't remove those bunkers to build a Factory and generate income, even if I somehow manage to hold the TTs vs the initial Axis press. For Rostov I think the limit is in place for all ground, I wasn't able to place there until Italy killed the TT and I took it back.

One other thing for the USSR, so not having an air HQ makes me not really want to purchase much air for them, cause I know I won't be able to use it as effectively as Armor (which has the Army HQ general to boost em up eventually.) So I don't know, might consider that, adding a Soviet AirHQ. I'd think it would be cool thematically, if the Soviet air force was reinforced regularly by like a fighter per turn. You figure they had something like 80,000 built during the course of the war, but in the game I tend to only use what I'm given at the start. I think in that situation a freebie would make sense.

In general for Fighters, having an attack value at 1 means that the units have to be grouped to be effective. Since the hit 1 is pretty variable on attack, you need the numbers for it to be reliable, especially if there is a risk of AA fir. If I have 3 fighters I will send all 3 into a single attack, rather than split these across 3 attacks. If I have 12 fighters I might split them across 2 attacks I guess, but even there, I'd probably group all of them together for better odds on the hits, you know what I mean. Hitting at 1 means you need 6 units to reliably make a single hit in normal combat, and that's not counting losses to aa fire. 6 fighters is 66 TUV. You could buy 22 conscripts for the same cost, which is no contest for me. Like I'd buy the conscripts every time hehe. I think if the fighters attacked at 2, the situation becomes rather different, because the mobility advantage is pretty major and at attack 2 (or defend 2) they'd start match up a bit over the long haul for the cost vs a comparable amount spent on infantry or other ground units. The situation for some nations is different where they need fighters for fleet screening, or just because they have to move such a long distance anyway, that it makes sense as a purchase, but for Russia that motivation isn't really there. USSR needs the boots on the ground more than the wings in the air basically, but it's tough cause if they're not building air through purchasing then they won't really have much left, by the time a few rounds pass, and couple get shot down. Perhaps a spawn would work there?

The Red air force was bomber centric at the outset of the war, so might make sense to have a lot of starting tactical bombers with just a few escort fighters, and then have fighters spawn in as the game goes on. M3 early fighters aren't something I would purchase (except for Anzac since that's all they have) so I'd think if you want them to be in play, you'd have to give these to the players from the start like with USA, Britain. When nations stop production of early fighters this sorta passes without notice for me. Germany I guess might use them for screening, though they're not top of my list for a buy. M4 is just a lot more bang for the 2 bucks. I do sometimes confuse the m3 early fighter with the m4 reg fighter for nations that have them at the start, so that can sometimes be a headache. I think I might need to tint a few so they're easier to tell apart from the reg fighters. Russia having a bunch of m3 starting fighters would probably work well though. Since they're basically locked into their own theater in this scenario. Like Russian fighters aren't flying to India here say, or England like in a Sea Lion game of A&A. So I think if anyone could use a bunch of early fighters that aren't that spectacular it's probably Russia hehe.

Soviet naval ambitions are kinda similar. It'd be fun to see a Russian fleet have an impact, but that's more of a gameplay wish/conceit, just cause the old boxed games came with so many Soviet naval sculpts that'd never get used haha. I think for the current Soviet fleets, they're a bit too easy for Axis to wipe from the air and a bit too hard to reinforce (just cause USSR needs all the production up front to hold the line probably) so hard to spend any of that loot on say a destroyer transport combo hehe. Axis have a lot of air which makes buying a transport for 10 pus pretty unlikely, when you could have 3 conscripts for the same cost to hold ground. Problem is the fleet with transports probably tries to do crazy stuff like an expeditionary force to Africa or whatever by sea lol. So it kinda makes sense not to have the fleet up north running too wild I suppose. As G I'd probably want to try and wipe one or the other, either the Brits or the Russians since they have a lot of starting air, they can push the Russians back to sz127 B where there is no production. It'd be nice to capture something of the idea that most of the marines and such were fighting on land.

Like it might be fun to have a transport in the Caspian and Black Sea or one in sz 127B, because then the USSR player would have a reason to try and the transport to shuttle troops forward for the defense of Moscow and such. I don't know that up north there'd be any reason, cause infantry can already move the distance, and Germans can cover the sz if they park fighters at Novgorod or Lapland. The Caspian is better protected from early Axis air blitz, so a transport their might give some of that flare. I can't remember, but I think there where what, something a quarter million sailors fight on land for the USSR at this point, so you'd sorta want whatever they got going with their 'navy' to be sorta theme/restricted in that way I'd think.

For USSR first turn purchase, the maintenance weighs kinda heavy. I noticed that if a player goes into the red on maintenance that the purchase phase will skip to placement with just a freebies. I think for turn 1 especially the purchasing would be something you'd want the player to see, since that's how a lot of the unit information is conveyed I think. Just for example, if I allow Germany to run G1 and make all the attacks/attrition then there is a purse, but if a skip past Germany's just to see what USSR has in their roster, their maintenance will be too high and they'll skip over that one. Same deal with China in pervious builds. I think they just need more production maybe to match their maintenance. For USSR I can think of spots that might get raised to 3 or 5 so they got a bit more room there before hitting the wall. Once they're industry thing kicks in they have more to work with, but if Germany takes over the Soviet Hvy Factories in the first few turns, they seem to take a pretty big hit from it. I think whatever the results of the maintenance, it'd be nice to for everyone to have a starting pile of cash that is set. Like where USSR just always starts with 50 bucks or whatever, but the I guess it depends when in the phase order the maintenance is counted. My approach would be to highball the starting cash as the main balancing mechanism, cause then it's less is down to the starting units or the results of the first turn battles and more up to the purchasing/production dynamic.

I noticed the AI movement thing as well, where if left to it's own devices the AI wants to move units away from the Eastern Front back towards the west, putting them inexplicably out of position to do anything for a round or two. I'd say one method would be to have some of the starting infantry forces marooned off the rail and without the medium armor to tow them about, so they can't move too far on that first non com. Because from G2 on they starting marching East again like you'd want. Basically so they don't skirt across 3 tiles towards the middle immediately only to double back. AI behavior seems to like tucking in off the coast, and the same with the air. I think having the Sahara closed off a bit should help with air concentrating down their in Africa, but I still see it a fair bit in Europe. Axis get better about creeping towards the coast in the Med, or once they have more air concentrated together I guess. Though on G1 if they can keep it close to the coast after the combat move, it puts a lot more pressure on the Allied ships.

I think I probably also do the ball room dance with stacks of doom, whether as G or Russia. I'd say stack limits might work, but in the earlier iteration when we had that going on for air and armor and such, it made the non com kinda cumbersome. Like finding ways to split the available forces to hit the stack limit for as many spots as possible, and then you have an issue with the opponent trying to counter that.

Just as an example if the limit is say 10 units of each type in a given spot, and the opponent can only bring that too, then you end up with a lot of sorta 50 battles where the attacker is at a disadvantage cause they can't bring greater numbers to overwhelm the defender advantage. But I mean a lot of that would be down to just the way the starting units were distributed. The difference between starting with say a handful of fighters and a cap at 10 per tile, vs say 20 or 30 starting fighters with a cap at 10 per tile. Cause in the latter instances you're already hitting the ceiling like on the opening turn. Just to say, it might work, though with enough other tweaks, but I wasn't digging the stack limit during that earlier version, which seemed to just make the combat and non combat moves takes longer, cause I was always trying to figure out how best to max the caps, if that makes sense hehe.

In principle I agree though, it'd be nice to have ways to make stackfest not the go-to for everything, but it's tough to find the right limit. If it's no limit, then the hardAI as well can sort of adapt whereas with stack limits I think it just goofs, cause it doesn't understand them. So that'd be the other kink with that plan that I could see. Otherwise though I do get the sense that the big ball of doom is kinda how the Soviet have to manage the early press with some upsides and downsides to that. If they spread they can run out of steam real quick cause the German armies are quite large. Unless you've got everything together it's hard to threaten an effective counter attack. But if you got 60 some odd units bouncing across the M3 from a rail, that can at least prevent G sometimes from going all in on a single spot.

Another option might be giving the Soviets more starting aircraft to scramble around. I'd have a hard time buying more, so might be a thing where they get one for free for part of their standard package like the guard units and the anti tank gun. Otherwise, once I lose a fighter, I don't think I'd replace it. Just too pricy compared to the cheap fodder which is needed to hold the line, or the big tank for the heavy hit. Air transport would be another tough purchase as USSR. If I had 1 to start, I'd probably have fun trying to use it, but wouldn't be something I'd buy. For USSR I just spam conscripts and maybe spend the remainder on an elite or two, until I hit the unlock with the big cheese. Then start buying more tanks and generals, but even then I pass over the fighters and just spam more conscripts from Siberia or something probably haha. Anyhow, just some impressions.

New one is fun! I like the handling of China especially. Feels a lot better to me

Nice work!

[Jason Green-Lowe]

@black_elk The occasional free Soviet air unit makes sense to me because of the large size of their air force, as does starting them off with an air transport or two -- the Soviets had the world's largest paratrooper corps at the time they were invaded, they just didn't get to use it very much because they were busy defending.

I don't think I would want to boost Soviet fighters to 2 strength -- they were pretty ineffective until very late in the war, and even then arguably it was only because the Luftwaffe had all gone west to deal with the British and the Americans. I could see an argument for putting German, American, British, and Japanese fighters to 2 strength.

As far as fleets, I found it odd that (a) most countries start without any transports at all, and (b) the Soviet navy is entirely concentrated in the White Sea at the northern tip of the map, with no presence at all in the Baltic. Historically it was the other way around, and the British had to provide most of the destroyers to guard the lend-lease convoys heading for Archangel and Murmansk, while the Soviet Navy more or less effectively defended the waters around Leningrad all the way through the end of 1942. The Germans mined the eastern Baltic to keep the Soviet Navy bottled up, but the Soviets sent submarines that sunk German transports and significantly interfered with their efforts to reinforce the Leningrad front by sea.

[Black_Elk]

Yeah I think perhaps a cost reduction for fighter aircraft would be comparable to an attack power increase. They have a pretty high attrition rate. I think if they need to be grouped then it might make sense if they were a little cheaper, but flying hitpoints you don't really want too cheap either. I've noticed also because of the air combat thing, or just the way scrambling works perhaps, that sometimes you can kill a bunch of enemy air by taking a TT with ground forces. Or similarly sometimes AAfire from a naval battle can just wipe like half the air in a single round of combat. To me this is all fine, provided the units can be replaced as we go along. Or if more just sorta roll off the line, in the case of USSR bonus fighter or whatever hehe.

Oh also, just to elaborate on the stack limit thing. So what would happen is that, when you got a stack limit going, once a unit moves into that TT and the limit is reached then this locks out other units. So it means that the order in which the moves are made becomes consequential. Moving a tank from 1 spot, might lock another tank off, or with aircraft especially. As a player you could kinda puzzle this out, and figure out which order of movement would allow the most units to reach the most spots, but the computer would just start making moves lock itself up and then fail to move units during combat which might otherwise have been in battles. Then the same thing would repeat on Non Com, with many units just failing to move. As a player I found it hard to parse, but in part this was probably from the scale of the forces. I like the idea of a universal ceiling say 50 units or 25 or whatever, but then you deadlock over the core tiles if the player can't stack they have to just start making a secondary stack spot, so it sorta just spreads the issue around. Not sure, there might be a better solution than what we tried at first, but my impression was that it wasn't quite doing what we wanted. Ultimately the stack is still limited by maintenance. Like for USSR you can bloat out with conscripts till you're in the red, but then the units are not as effective for the maintenance. German trained infantry start eating them up on the counter attacks, so at a certain point it makes sense to go more big ticket. I just think from the start everyone is likely to spam up as many hitpoints as they can, cause that's how you usually play it safe in A&A games.

Agree I think the Baltic fleet was in the first draft. I think it kept getting smoked by German air on G1, so sorta refigured. I kinda like the idea of the Leningrad pocket with a pocket fleet. Though it probably does just get wiped all the time by Germany. I guess it'd be nice for turn 1 flavor. siege of Leningrad seems kinda tricky to model, I tend to abstract it into Germans just getting stalled after they take the TT. Maybe with USSR doing bomber hits or something to kinda demonstrate that the fighting is still going on. But I think in practical terms Leningrad gets abandoned for Arch, the way this production spread is set up and just the way the play pattern tends to go. I didn't really design the starting unit distribution, but have been giving feedback on it as a player. It's kind of fun, the push and pull has basically been I'm sorta A&A backgrounded and theDog's got this different angle, so we sorta meet in the middle somewhere, but the game is pretty fun so far. I like the suggestions you've made! I think we could get a lot going with some of the concepts the map has in place. The idea of reinforcements by theme I think is cool on the per turn basis, or every couple rounds. Adds some flare, even if like my purchasing habits are kinda settled from experience playing other tripleA games. It's fun when you get something as freebie and then gotta figure out how to make the best use of it.

ps. One thought I had, so if the idea was to have Germany sort of bypass Lengingrad, I think to pull that off you'd have to change the values of the TTs in that neighborhood. The starting factory for example makes the TT a target. If it was low value, had bunkers on it and no dude, the German player might just say, 'well not worth taking', and then you basically would have an isolated Soviet tile that the players could say was representing that stuff. I was thinking of it because of how Estonia is set up currently, where I might just bypass that tile. The bunkers cost USSR -2 PU per turn, so taking the tile isn't necessarily hurting them worse than leaving it. So basically you could do Leningrad like that maybe? Like just tweaking the production spread. Anyhow, just a thought.

[Black_Elk]

Also quick follow up, but my thinking regarding the starting units... since it's been pretty iterative I was looking at it more like a template that would give a likely set of turn 2 positions for the HardAI. Basically where the moves it makes set it up to do reasonably well, given the way it plays, then sorta build more historical flavor on top of that once the play pattern is producing the right sort overall push and pull.

I think for the USSR Baltic fleet basically you could do it like Kriegsmarine sz 113, Soviet Baltic Fleet sz 115, with a Russian destroyer in sz 114 to block. This gives G a consequential choice. Use the aircraft to sink the Soviet fleet or use it to pad the attack vs Lendingrad (or whatever big push attack you want to model with that.) Or pair that choice vs one where the Luftwaffe is messing with England. Right now I'd say the playpattern is a bit more A&A post revised, where G camps on Leningrad from the first turn and builds tanks there. Which is sorta not a siege, though without the springboard G would be kinda stuck up there I'd think, since the game often turns on that pocket. Probably especially here cause of where it's situated vis a vis the other factories nearby. Like it's pretty much the spot to nab for G.

This is a riff... just editing the sea zones, but something like that would probably work if the idea was to have the 2 fleets sorta pin each other, at least for the opening round. Leningrad factory could be removed as a way to weaken the German springboard. I'd probably buy the factory as G anyway, just cause it generates income, but it wouldn't be as impactful of a loss on the first turn for USSR. Might be a more likely deadzone in the early turns.

I like the idea of USA, Britain, Germany and Japan with fighters at 2, that works for me. Since there is already asymmetry in the national rosters for other stuff, like which ships they can build, to me that makes sense. I really was thinking that the fighter would just be a more versatile and entertaining unit if it could have a slight imbalance between att and def. So like where a fighter might attack at 1 but defend at 2, or a tactical bomber the inverse, so there would be more of a niche for each there. An endgame fighter maybe defends at a 3, or bomber that attacks at a 3, just to give em more room to operate solo. I think for the carrier contest as well, it would be nice to have the att/def tilt there even if at lower values like a 2. But starting at 1 seems fine to me, for the entry level air. I think probably air transports need to have that 1 too, because if the ai is buying and using them like fighter aircraft it would be nice if they were somewhat effective in that role.

I really like the idea of a starting Soviet air transport in the backfield. I feel like that unit could somehow make a clutch save if the Axis aren't careful, like flying in a blocker. Axis have the Italian can opener, but Russia doesn't have the US/UK counter, so it's sorta like Russia could use that unit probably more than anyone else. Plus it's thematic. I doubt more would get bought and the ai would just use it as attack air like it does, but for the player it'd be fun to have 1 or even 2 in case of aaguns. I like the idea that each unit that can be bought on the first turn would be represented on the board somewhere, and for Germany it's cool the new base in Smolensk. I think that will help because once you see it (even if I'm second guessing the graphic hehe) you can get a feel for what those are about. Placing an elite or mech or just the reg inf dude.

There are other spots where I think we could inject a bit of historical flavor too, on top of what's already going on.

Oh one last thought regarding the fighter costs

I would say
Fighter attack 1, defend 2, cost 10
Tactical bomber attack 2, defend 1 cost 11

The reason for the cost would because that's the cost of those units in the A&A games, so it'd be familiar. Since the bomber has the advantage on attack it's slightly more expensive, because attacker has the initiative. Makes sense that it would cost slightly more to get the edge on attack. Having the fighter defend on a 2 would also capture spirit of the classic fighter unit, which was strong on defense.

I think it would be easier for the player coming to this from that to say, "oh ok, so it's basically the fighter/tac B I know, at the cost I'm familiar with, but it's like a weaker version of that, cause hits at the 2 instead of 3 or 4." Since fighters can scramble, the defense bonus makes them more useful there, where they can at least match a cruiser even though they cost 2 PU more. With AAfire in every round of combat, the fighters will have a fair bit of attrition so the def 2 would make them more attractive to purchase I think. Or same deal for the tac on screening or deadzoning vs ground. I think the hit 1 defend 1 should go to the air transport, or the strat B, because the AI is trying to use them as attack aircraft. Or even using the d12 thing, for an ASW spotter role vs subs or something along those lines, just so it makes sense for the AI's gameplay.

Oh and the last reason I think to do fighters at 2. So currently, with default casualty selection by attack power, fighters will often be selected first even though their TUV is high and the player probably wants to conserve these units. If the player simply spacebars their casualty selection (likely because there are many confirmations per combat) they may lose a lot of fighters that way. Attack 2 would put them on the level with most m2 ground, so the casualty selection wouldn't favor the lower TUV units over the higher TUV air automatically. Least up to the att2 ground units. It'd still choose a medium tank over a fighter, but so would I, cause those units hit at 3 and can tow, so they're intrinsically way more valuable. But for like Artillery or Mech, least there the fighters wouldn't die first if their defense power was at 2 rather than a 1. Same deal with tactical bombers on attack at 2, on attacker casualty selection. Since the player probably wants to conserve the more expensive mobile units that can bomb and strike bunkers, over infantry and such, least by default. Airblitz might be different but that's more niche. I mean just for the regular combat auto casualty if hitting space.

My ideal would be actually be

Fighter attack 2, defend 3
Tactical bomber attack 3, defend 2

cause then they'd be last casualty or near last in most battles, which would match their cost/versatility. Also because that's very close to the 3/4, 3/3 split of A&A, just scaled down, so the player wouldn't have to relearn how to use their aircraft as much. It'd still be a weaker overall air unit than the traditional A&A fighter or tactical bomber, and it would face more aafire from dd/cruisers. But since there at att/def 1 currently, I'd go for a 2 for either if it's on offer, cause that's still better than a 1 heheh.

You do get a similar thing going on with Carrier decks, the low attack power will have them default to first casualty in a lot of instances, where a player might probably choose a dd or cruiser first, especially if the aircraft wouldn't otherwise have somewhere to land. Increasing the fighter to defend 2 would make carriers more useful, but it might be worth raising the carrier itself to attack/def 2, so that it doesn't fall before the dd/cruiser in the auto casualty select with the spacebar thing.

For the Armor, I think the Med and Hvy types are a lot of fun. The tow ability is quite strong, which easily makes them an attractive purchase. Lgt Armor feels rather different, perhaps also because it's transport capacity is different. I think perhaps all armor should tow (the HQ also has a tow ability), so the player can understand that as basically the units main role. This is similar to how I've seen mech used in other scenarios, but I like the ability the way you have it, since tanks are sorta the big badass ground unit. The ability to haul an extra unit would certainly make it's cost at 7 seem worthwhile. The artillery at 7 can feel pricey, but it does boost an infantry unit, and it also can be towed. Towing is powerful though. It might recommend more expensive armor. Perhaps with a tow Armor Lgt could cost 8, Medium 10, Hvy 12? Then light armor would outclass most of the other ground units that aren't themselves better versions of armor, which would probably make sense. Also since some nations only have the lgt version for most of the game.

For remainder/impulse spending current has

3 Pus: Conscript (if available)
4 Trained-Inf, Anti-Tank (baseline ground fodder)
5 Destroyer, Elite, Bunker, aaGun
6 Inf-Motorized (entry lvl m2 ground), Air transport (cheap for a transport)
7 Artillery, Lgt-Armor
8 Cruiser, Submarine
9 Base Camp, Med-Armor (big jump in power/ability over the 7 pu lgt version)
10 Transport, Bomber-Lgt
11 Fighter, HQ-fleet/sub
12 HQ-army
13 Bomber-Hvy (if available)
14 Carrier (if available)
16 Industry-Lgt
18 Battleship, HQ-air
21 Industry-Med
27 Industry-Hvy

Might try something like

3 Pus: Conscript (if available)
4 Trained-Inf, Anti-Tank, AAgun
5 Destroyer, Elite
6 Submarine (can be hit by air at some % shot?), Inf-Motorized
7 Artillery, Bunker
8 Armor-Lgt (with tow), Cruiser
9 Base Camp
10 Transport (might raise att/def, since AI often sends them solo), Fighter (D2), Armor-Med
11 Bomber-Lgt (A2), HQ-fleet/sub
12 Armor Hvy, HQ-army, Air-transport (A1/D1, since their sp transport ability is very useful, avoids AI spam)
13 Bomber-Hvy
14 Carrier (increase power to 2)
16 Industry-Lgt
18 Battleship, HQ-air (I think BB cost/value depends on production constraints. Number of air already in play for HQ)
21 Industry-Med
27 Industry-Hvy

The cost for the last few entries is sorta up in the air for me. I think because of the map design, and production income, the factories cost is offset. For battleships, since it's the only hit 4 unit and because sometimes the naval production slots are at a premium. Otherwise kinda pricey relative to the DD spam. Like 2 dds and 1 cruiser for the price of a single battleship, I'd rarely go battleship (if it was available) but sometimes the production constraints might factor there. For AirHQ the unit is only really effective with it can boost up a bunch of air, so it's like I'd buy one after I had a dozen fighters, but probably a hard buy for the player to make at 18. Especially if it gets picked off by AA fire. Part of why I think having more than 1 as a purchase option might be cool, or just having 1 at the start.

For Industry-Med I'd consider allowing the fighter and sub to be built from these spots, and then using a few more around the map. Since the medium factory is the one that builds ships I think it has a theme sorta like a naval base. Could go at Truk or Hawaii, in India, Egypt etc. Few more 5 spots would be cool. Not being able to train more advanced units from the small factory makes sense, but the Mediums I think aren't quite pulling their weight. Like I think there could probably more of those and fewer Factory-Hvys. If the Mediums could build more of the stuff like med armor and air or a stronger warship than the DD, then maybe just increase the money some other way whether through production value of the TTs themselves or just a cash generating mechanism that's more independent from the production like you did with the oil rigs or lend lease. Right now I think they're sorta built into the economy of each nation, the factories, so changing them around would change that too, but I like the idea of more spots that could build factories and perhaps fewer at the start. Like with the really big factories being more reserved for the core main spots for whatever region and the Mediums sorta fill in the gap between that and the smaller ones. Mostly in the areas that see a lot of back and forth, or which might. Like say the central Pacific or India. Pretty much anywhere becomes pretty interesting at a value of 3 pus right now, cause that spot can develop the production front. But 5 is sorta the real deal, cause that's what you need to build a ship.

[wc_sumpton]

@TheDog, @Black_Elk

According to the notes, "Upkeep/Maintenace, most units cost 1PU to maintain per turn." This is incorrect, and should read "Upkeep/Maintenace, most units cost 1PU which is charged during "Resources" and "Turn Complete" phases resulting in a 2PU maintenance cost per turn."

Cheers...

[TheDog]

Well as Winne the Pooh would say
"Oh Bother"

I said something quite different.

Err thanks, not intended, but I will change the notes.

If a unit dies in that turn from combat then it will only cost 1pu from Resources, yes?

So endTurnNoPU still charges pu from createsResourcesList ?

[wc_sumpton]

@thedog

Yes, thought that was understood. Part of the cleanup process. Maybe try removing endTurnNoPUs?

Cheers...