💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread

[wc_sumpton]

@TheDog, @Black_Elk

Still thinking aloud... When dealing with combat, both "supportAttachment" and "territoryEffect" need to be considered. Units with offensive and/or defensive values of "4" (Battleship and Armor-Hvy) should only receive HQ's positive buffs. And units with offensive and/or defensive values of "3" (HQ-Army, Armor-Med, and Submarine-Adv) should only receive HQ's positive buffs, and one positive "supportAttachment". Units with offensive and/or defensive values of "0" (all infantry units are "1" attack "-1" marine), or "1" (all air units) need to watch the negative buffs.

Desert lots of open terrane, Fighters and Bomber +1 attack. I don't see what benefit infantry have on defense. No blitzing.

Forest lots of cover, Infantry, including Anti-Tank, Bunkers and Base-Camp, receive +1 defense. Fighters and Bomber -1 attack (going to attack with these units bring the HQ-Air to buff). All armor (including HQ-Army) -1 attack. And again, no blitzing.
Notes: Artillery and Anti-Air should have their AA attack affected, also their ability to buff units should be removed (both can't be done in 2.5 or 2.6) should not receive the +1 defensive buff. Artillery if 2 attack, may have the -1 attack, but the unit's buff still remains.

Marsh difficult terrane to move through, but infantry should be able to find additional cover, +1 defense. All armor, inf-motorized, artillery, anti-tank, anti-air, bunkers and base-camp should not be allowed.

Mountains difficult to travel through, pass may be thin and winding. Land units with 2 movement (all Armor (including HQ-Army) and Inf-Motorized) reduced to 1. Lite infantry (Inf-Conscript, Inf-Trained, Inf-Elite and Anti-Tank) units should find ample cover +1 defense. Armor units (including HQ-Army, Bomber-Lgt and Artillery) should find targeting difficult -1 attack.
Notes: Bunkers and Base-Camp are already built up defensives so do not receive defensive bonus. Artillery and Anti-Air need open space to attack/defend so no defensive bonus. Air units (Bomber, Fighters and HQ-Air) have "canNotTarget" lite infantry, plus the absents of tree cover means there should be no negative attack/defense bonuses given. Inf-Motorized should have no attack/defense bonuses.

Urban more like manmade mountains then forest, but are designed for ease of movement, so no negative movement bonus. Also blitzing should be controlled by "Blitz Through Factories And AA Restricted" option. Otherwise everything else should be the same as Mountains.

Tundra frozen waste land or boggy mess, digging foxholes will be difficult, also not a lot of natural cover. Lite Infantry (including Anti-Tank) -1 defense. During the "frozen" time there should be no movement restrictions, but "boggy" is different, all Armor (including HQ-Army, Inf-Motorized) should not be allowed or have their movements reduced to "0". Fighter units (including HQ-Air, Bombers and Bomber-Lgt) on the other hand should have a field day, +1 to attack and defend!

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

I like the ideas mentioned above.

Also since terrain, bunkers and base camps were mentioned again... I would still try to avoid the situation where a TT has a value of zero and thus cannot build infrastructure, or where that TT is overstacked at the outset (has stuff on it that couldn't be replaced once destroyed.) I just think we went through the effort of making practically every tile worth 1 PU (including sea zones), such that anything still remaining that's worth zero feels pretty conspicuous on the map hehe. The whole top of the board currently and most neutrals, along with a few islands or random interior tiles. Since the totals for the economy are kinda arbitrary here (nothing tying us down/doesn't have to match any existing map/board), I don't see a strong reason to put the floor at zero when it could just as easily be at 1 PU. Then the player has a way to quickly parse what can be built where. We have a ready way to give every spot a value like that. Even if some tiles have intrinsic value as transits or landing spots or blocking spots, I just prefer the concept that everything starts at 1 and goes up from there.

I'd match the total number of infrastructure allowed to the PU value displayed on the map at the low end. So 1 PU = 1 structure, 2 PUs = 2 structures, 3 PUs and up = 3 structures... Then hold to that for the pre-placed stuff like bunkers or base camps so that nothing is over-stacked initially, which I think could lend itself to confusion once those tiles trade hands. Then I'd just go around the board and remove some of the bunkers which would be over that limit so it's consistent at a glance. So say a boggy marsh or harsh tundra/desert tile or a mostly empty island atoll, that spot might only be worth 1 PU, pretty limited. Just about everywhere else worth 2 PUs which gives an interesting strategic choice: stack 2 bunkers for defense, or 1 bunker 1 base for the build option? Spots worth 3 PUs (= 2 bunkers AND a base) become sort of the go to line for the more attractive conquests. Places that can be used to build a forward base and then defend it with the double bunker. Assuming you keep the max build for bunkers at 2 per tile, that means that just about any tile worth 3 PUs and up is going to be worth it in the TT trade. For neutrals, I'd replace the over-stacked bunkers with starting forces in infantry. I think seeing bunkers at 9 in those spots makes them feel less cool in places where there are only 1 or 2 bunkers, which would otherwise seem more formidable hehe. Also, even though they're an effective deterrent in early rounds, once the player stacks up I think the bunkers are too easy to cut through. I think with starting forces or higher PU values the AI may still go after Neutrals, but I think seeing some neutral inf forces on the board would look cool and give some flexibility to scale up with a tank or fighter or whatever if needed for the hotspots.

Another tweak, I think we could also consider removing some of the starting factories that are currently on the board, and replace them with starting cash for players to just buy factories in the opening turns. I'd keep the PU values of those TTs at that the same level, but allow the player to build up their production capacity via Factory buys instead of having them already as a given. Currently almost everywhere that could support a factory has one at the outset, but I think that's somewhat less entertaining than if the player just had a bunch of build options and could decide where to put the focus in that particular game. For example, maybe Germany has most of their heavy industry expansion in their interior tiles, where it's safer from bombing, but also somewhat awkward for movement to the front. So some tension between rebuilding forward production vs the risk of enemy bombing or building in the safer spots in the interior, but with a delay on moving out units. Then early rounds might be about making some tough decisions on where to build those factories, since the player would have that incentive to get production hubs going. For the USSR especially, since they get bonus factories placed automatically after a couple rounds I could see that as a way for them to scale up in the backfield. Or the USA, same deal. Currently there are only a couple frontline spots that can support a factory build that don't already have a factory at the outset. Most spots are in the USA which is pretty far off from the front (though a pretty good investment and thematic for the scale up), but I mean more the spots like Algiers, Bahia-Norde est in Brazil, Hong Kong, Singapore etc. Those spots are fun, and become nice targets. I think it'd be cool with like a couple dozen spots that could house a factory like that, but which don't necessarily start out with one, leaving it more at the player's discretion to connect some of those dots hehe.

I'm enjoying that last build v90 I tried a couple games as each side vs the HardAI and then FastAI. Both felt pretty entertaining. I think FastAI's wild antics were a nice change of pace actually, since they went for broke a few times in large engagements. Both struggle a bit to get their transports out and push their stacks early, but I saw some clutch air blitzes and some good back and forth in the ground game. AI seems to purchase base camps and bunkers pretty well (though sometimes they leave their bases undefended), factories they don't seem to build. It'd be cool if we could figure how to get em to buy those, cause otherwise it's harder not to have the stuff down at the outset. Maybe the AI could just ge them bonused in, whereas the player gets a pile of cash to pick and choose. I bought a lot of bombers and a lot of elites in the last game haha. Fun stuff! Nice work!

ps. one last thought, but I think it would be cool if the Industry-Lgt could produce transports, and if Industry-Med could produce cruisers and fighters for all nations. The latter I find a little confusing currently, since say USSR and Pacific-Allies can build 'Early' Fighters from their Industry-Mediums, but nobody else can, since they don't have access to early fighters. The regular fighters and bombers need an Industry-Hvy. But then some player-nations lose access to early fighters (if they had it to begin with), so it's a little tough to figure out Nation by Nation.

I think I would ditch the concept of "early" equipment honestly, and just frame that equipment as "Light" instead, which is a bit more vague/adaptive. That way you don't have to get rid of it after a couple turns. To me it's a little weird to have units that cease to be available in the roster but which are still hanging around on the board. The German armor-lgt for example, like by the time you get the notification that they're going out of style one might spam them, but it happens so soon and there might not be a ton of cash to throw around. Anyhow, makes the German Industry-Lgt rather less effective than the same spot occupied by Italy or one of the Allies, since they can't build their Armor-lgt from those spots in later rounds. Same deal for the M3 fighters and Industry-Meds. Perhaps the weaker M3 fighter might be something that an Industry-Lgt could build? That would then make the unit a lot more attractive as a buy, even though M3 is awkward, it has utility for the scramble and such, like I would definitely buy them more often if that was the case. And then you could push the reg fighters into Industry-Medium for everyone, just to have it feel consistent there. For Nations that have tougher placement restrictions like Pacific Allies or China that might help them to manage vs the Japanese onslaught or weather the aafire with less heartbreak. I think for China at least being able to build a fighter out of Urumchi might be helpful, or Pacific Allies being able to spawn them from a few more spots. Even for the bigger dogs like Britain, it would make some of their Industry-Med locations like in Wales or South Africa more useful, just being able to build reg fighters or cruisers from there as well.

[wc_sumpton]

@Black_Elk

Interesting, maybe all the over stacked, 0PUs territories, should have those bunkers removed. Bunkers can only be placed in territories with a PU value of 1, and replacing the bunkers with a standing militia while the value of the territory is 0, seams useless. May just make those territories impassable. Another thought would be to give those territories a valid PUs value, and discussing the role these neutrals (Spain, Turkey, Swiss, etc...) play.

Spain just finished with a civil war, but was indebted to Germany. So, while Madrid and the surrounding territories remain neutral a small PUs would be paid to Germany. If an axis player took control of Madrid, installing a "Puppet Government", then the surrounding territories, along with any standing militia/bunkers, would pass over to that player. Allied control, would cause a revolt, with the remaining militia being able to attack that player.

Just some thoughts on "0PUs neutral territories".

"Lend-Lease-Depot" is also listed as a "factory"/industrial unit. Its presence, over stacked, gives the owning player PUs, whether or not conditions are met for the PUs to be reduced from the paying player. So reclassify to "lending" remove its "1:PUs" resource and use the same conditions witch remove "PUs" to grant the "PUs":

<!-- Removes PUs from Britian -->
<attachment name="triggerAttachment_Britain_Lend-Lease-Depot" attachTo="Britain" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Britain_Lend-Lease-Depot"/>
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Persian_Corridor"/>
	<option name="resource" value="PUs"/>
	<option name="resourceCount" value="-9"/>
	<option name="when" value="before:BritainEndTurn"/>
</attachment>

<!-- Grants PUs to USSR -->
<attachment name="triggerAttachment_USSR_Lend-Lease-Depot" attachTo="USSR" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Britain_Lend-Lease-Depot"/>
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Persian_Corridor"/>
	<option name="resource" value="PUs"/>
	<option name="resourceCount" value="9"/>
       <!-- Still should happen before Britian end turn -->
	<option name="when" value="before:BritainEndTurn"/>
</attachment>

Reclassifying "Lend-Lease-Depot" would allow the building of one of the four "Production" units, even if the unit was destroyed.
"Base-Camp" can only construct 1 unit (Inf-Trained, Inf-Elite), and can be placed anywhere. I also think it should be able to produce a Transport. Also during times when the owning player is determined to be losing, Inf-Conscript, Early-Fighter (?Fighter-Lgt?) and Armor-Lgt. (Early-Fighter and Armor-Lgt should be considered old stock units, either over produced prior to the war, or given by an allied player, so these units should only be "purchasable" during times of need.) No matter how many different units Base-Camp can produce, it may only produce 1 unit at a time. Base-Camp main advantage is its ability to muster units produced at other locations, and have them be quickly moved into combat positions. This should also include the Transport. Other questions about the Base-Camp, should it be upgradable in territories with a PUs value equal to or greater than 5, or should its placement be restricted, and those territories require "Industrial" units.

[Black_Elk]

My preference would be to have all TTs on the board at a minimum value of 1 PU. I see two main advantages...

First, because it allows an easy way for us to differentiate discrete tiles. Each tile worth 1 PU or more will display on the map from the PU Place, wheras a TT worth zero won't show anything. Since the are no labels displayed, and control flags were nixed, I think this would be helpful particularly for islands where it might not be obvious if something is a separate tile at a glance. If everything has a value of 1 or more, then separate tiles are clearly indicated to the player. Even if they're not hovering over with their cursor, that info is quickly conveyed at glance by the PU graphics.

Second because the scale of the map here can pretty easily accommodates a floor at 1 PU rather than zero. Unlike a standard WW2 game where the player is maybe collecting 30 or 40 PUs per turn, the overall economy here is much higher. So if say Gibraltar or Malta is worth Zero normally, to me it makes sense that those spots be worth 1PU here, just given how many more subdivisions there and the values we're seeing elsewhere on the map. If Germany is usually what like 10 or 20 PUs, and here that same region is worth like 60 PUs, to me it just makes sense that everywhere would be worth 1. If it was worth drawing on the map, I think it's worth at least 1 hehe. The gulf between zero and 1 is lot wider than between 1 and 2, so I'd go for that as the foundation, 1 PU. Then if you want to hold the structure limit down, you could always say you need 1 over the displayed PU value to build a structure. 1 PU= 0 Structures, 2 PUs= 1 structure etc. Though to me it'd be easier to parse at a 1:1 where PU value = number of structures allowed. I think either could work, but I'd aim to have the TT value at 1 PU regardless hehe. I think many neutrals already have a value, so it's probably something like an added 50-100 PUs across the map, depending on what values are chosen and assuming most neutrals are worth only 1 or 2, just so a neutral crush isn't the go-to. Still just for parity with other regions of the board, I'd bump up a couple there. You know like Madrid could be worth 2 or 3 and I wouldn't bat an eye, if Majorca is worth 1, I'm sure that'd seem fine. Doesn't have to scale exactly the same way for the neutral tiles as it does for the the active player-nation tiles, but I think that would be sensible and make for a nice visual.

I'm intrigued also by the adapted Lend-Lease and Base mentioned above. Something I thought about earlier but forgot to mention, so right now there are those oil rigs in certain TTs. I believe they are meant as a way to hold down the production capacity on those tiles while still providing the higher income. Though to me they'd probably be more interesting as a destroyable/buildable type thing. As for the Lend Lease TTs, taking spots can be a little confusing after TTs trade hands. I think it's not totally clear whether control of say Yunnan/Burma will produce a bonus after the territory has been conquered but then liberated. Perhaps the player should be able to rebuild Lend-Lease but for some cost? I like the concept of a base-camp that is imagined more as a deployment center than a training center so I'm on board with that for sure. I had thought earlier about suggesting that transports might be built from a base-camp. This would make base camps on islands a lot more intriguing, since getting transports into position is a challenge. Allowing the base camp to spawn a fighter could also be cool. I think the key is to hold it to just a single unit, as you say, so they're not too OP. But I could see em doing triple duty like that, with an option for gound/sea/air, but where you'd have to choose just one, cause you can only place a single unit per turn. Since the AI buys a lot of base-camps, this might help them to play more effectively.

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk

I'm still puzzled about the Lend-Lease-Depot. In some regards it seems to operate like "objectives", with a list of territories connected, but only to withdraw PUs. The owning player only needs to maintain only the territory with the Depot to collect income. Also, they are destroyed when captured. So, if Baku-Azerbaijan were captured, all 9 Depot will be destroyed. If the USSR player recaptured Baku-Azerbaijan and placed 1 Lend-Lease-Depot there, while also maintaining control of Fars, Lorestan, Tehran and Gilan, Britian would be charged 9PUs, while USSR would only receive 1PUs. It just doesn't make sense.
The Oil-Field just increases the PUs of a territory and seems to be a ?Lend-Lease-Depot-Lgt?. Just confusing to me...

Basically we agree on Base-Camp. The Industry-Lgt, with its production capped at 5 units, should be able to produce Armor-Med, Fighter, Bomber-Lgt, Artillery, Anti-Tank, Anti-Air, Destroyer, Cruiser and Submarine plus all the units Base-Camp can produce. Basically everything that a growing army needs.

Industry-Med, seems like an odd unit, with its capacity top out at 7, is only 2 more then Industry-Lgt. I think it production should be Battleship, Carrier (capital ships), Bomber and all HQ units.

Industry-Hvy on the other hand, I think should be able to produce the number of units equal to the territory's PUs. Giving this unit superior production capabilities. And it should product advance units Submarine-Adv, Armor-Hvy, P51 Mustang, Fighter-Jet, Carrier-Fleet, and the V1/V2 Rockets.

Productive, production thoughts.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

I had a similar feeling re lend-lease. To me what makes it confusing is that the mechanic involves controlling or disrupting multiple TTs along the corridor, some of which aren't represented by a visual on the board. To me this also recalls National Objectives, which I disliked in vanilla v3 (where the NOs were introduced) exactly for that reason, because they are hard to track at a glance and require the player to go under the hood to get more info. We would have to ask theDog I think since my only contribution there was the graphics and floating the concept initially, though this is the first time I've seen Lend-Lease approached in this way, as like a unit. Typically I've seen it approached as some form of extra game-phase where the income transfer occurs if the player elects to send aid. The distinction here is that Lend-Lease is an automatic (provided the associated TTs are controlled) which might be advantageous to team Allies, or might not, depending on who can use the money more effectively, like based on what units are available in their roster and how much capacity they have for placement. I can imagine a situation where Britain or USA might be better off just keeping their money to direct it elsewhere, and maybe rooting for Japan to take Burma, or Italy to take Baku or whatever, since that frees their hand. If the income is simply redirected from another Nation's purse, it's not exactly a bonus per se cause the money doesn't go away if disrupted, it just returns to the 'lending' nation's purse again. So not as consequential as it might seem at first. Sure taking Yunnan would remove 20 PUs from China, but if USA can still place those 20 PUs somewhere else... ya know. Hehe

As a unit, to me it would make sense to distribute them more evenly. So for example, if it's 20 PUs to China say for controlling Yunnan and Burma, then perhaps 10 are in Yunnan and 10 are in Burma, so it's easier to see what's going on from the visual. Though again the mechanics are a bit of a puzzle to me as well. As for the factories...

Currently the production cap for the Factories is:
Industry-Lgt =2 units
Med = 3 units
Hvy= 4 units

To me this feels very much on the low end, despite having a pretty high economy, the placement restrictions here feel similar to v3 or Big World, or games where the primary limitation isn't the money in the coffers, but the placement cap allowing fewer hitpoints spawned from a given location per round. For the costs, this can be tricky, since the units also produce recurring income. (I like this, and think it's a novel feature, but also harder to pin down the concrete value, since they're worth more the longer they're in play/can be kept alive without being bombed.) For the extra cash vs cost...

Industry-Lgt = 3 PUs per turn, at a cost of 16 to build
Med = 5 PUs per turn, costs 21
Hvy = 9 PUs per turn, costs 26

The extra income somewhat offsets the higher cost of building factories, but if calculated in terms of trained-inf you might otherwise be purchasing, I can see how it might be better to just buy 4 inf units from an existing factory, rather than purchasing a new Industry-Lgt. The only reason I think to do the later, is because of the rail movement bonus, or to shorten the logistics in an area of the board that's otherwise hard to reach via transports and the like, or because you want to try to increase the income totals per turn. The choice is further complicated by the knowledge that a factory could be bombed into the dirt before you get much use out of it, or end up being a drain if you have to repair constantly, though I tend to find myself building them whenever I'm able to do so, just purely for the rail bonus, since that is so potent haha. Anyhow, broad agreement here I think. Good points/ideas!

ps. for the overall production levels, I think the current scale works well enough, meaning there's typically enough production to mass sufficient hitpoints per turn, even if you have to pull them from a lot of different spots, but I also worry a bit how quickly hitpoints scale up. The maintenance holds this down a bit, but still if the player is just spamming Trained-Inf to the ceiling for a couple rounds and then parking those hitpoints on the VCs, you can be into 60+ stacks pretty quickly. Attrition is up to the players to initiate right, but much favors consolidated defense, so if one side starts to stack it's hard for the opponent not to follow suit. Main thought being, if production caps are raised for individual factories, or the player has to put more into the investment (needing to front the cash to build em say), then fewer starting factories would probably be the way to go. You don't need as many on the board if they can produce more individually, though this would completely upend the current balance in spots where the production is tight. Say San Diego or Hamburg etc only able to put 4 hitpoints into the water, which makes fighters for the scramble much more important if trying to hold position from that coastal sea zone. You hit the placement cap in a lot of other sea zones that way, unless multiple factories feed into it, can be tough to mass enough hitpoints in a forward position. Having a transport spawned from a base-camp could dampen the effect somewhat though. For example G might purchase a few bases in Denmark or Norway for the transports and use the Hamburg slots for heavier hitting cruisers, stuff like that. I don't mind the 1-2-3-4 production scale, it does feel a bit tight at the high end, but it works provided enough factories can remain on the board. I think were it runs into the wall is that the player can disrupt the factory equilibrium pretty easily with bombers, and the AI won't really respond in kind. I see a similar issue with canal control. I think it may be more efficient to handle special waterways from a single controlling TT. Treating everything like a Panama or Gibraltar more or less, and at values that would encourage their defense/conquest by the AI. Control of the special waterways is pretty critical, so whatever it takes to get the AI to prioritize them would be cool, even if it bends from the usual. For example Gibraltar could be 4 PUs instead of zero, if that's what it takes for the AI to go after it consistently. It it requires 5 PUs sans starting factory or something more like 7 or 9 to make that happen, that'd be totally acceptable to me too. Like basically whatever it takes. Currently Copenhagen is worth 4, and I have seen the Brits/Germans go after it, but not with the kind of commanding attention the spot probably deserves. I'm not sure what it would take to get the AI to prioritize canal/strait control. Part of me thinks if we can't get the AI to gun for them, it might be better to leave them out altogether. Or have that feature be an option-on/off in the game settings for PvP. Least for the Straits, since Canals are a bit more established in the back-catalog. Classic players would recognize the canals, but straits are more recent. In most A&A games for example the Bosporus was just open by default, with an 'option' to close in later games (that most would ignore), and nothing special about Gibraltar or Kattegat till like G40 came along hehe. Anyhow, just another couple thoughts to kick around. I'm still having a lot of fun with this thing. I think it's got some charm for sure! About to start another game as Allies haha

couple gamesaves from the last outs using v90... To see the later rounds I upped the VC count from 21 to 25 in a few games, though some form of bid or resource bonus in the settings might be similar to increase the difficulty I was just using the VC count to see what that would look like. At 21 under the vanilla conditions I was taking the TKO by VC pretty quickly, like by round 10, it was pretty much in the bag, unless something really went awry in the opener. Even then usually just a delay of a round or two once the ball is rolling. 25 takes a fair bit longer, but usually from the position of already basically having won, dong more mop up, though that's enjoyable I found. I think a VC at Chunking might help on the Pacific side, since Japan can often contest the interior of the mainland more easily than some of the coastal spots at during the endgame if the IJN is on it's heels. Anyhow, gives a sense for what I was doing with what we're given. Each iteration I've tried to adapt to the changes, but the basic play for me is organized around factories and pushing mass hitpoints same way I'd play A&A, which seems to work reasonably well here now that I got a feel for it. Bunkers still throw me though. There will be times I'm thinking "sure shot! got it no prob" but then get stood up, usually on amphib hehe. Also a few AI airblitzes when the guard is down, that can swing things quite a bit. Fun stuff though!

2023-5-22-1941-Global-Command-Decision Elk vs HardAI Allies round 7 Germany.tsvg

2023-5-22-1941-Global-Command-Decision Elk vs HardAI Axis round 8 Britain.tsvg

2023-5-24-1941-Global-Command-Decision v90 Elk vs HardAI Axis round 12 USSR.tsvg

2023-5-25-1941-Global-Command-Decision v90 Elk vs AI Allies rematch round 10 Japan.tsvg

2023-5-27-1941-Global-Command-Decision v90 Elk vs FastAI Allies round 9 Germany.tsvg

[TheDog]

Re: 0pu
For reference: Sea Zones are worth 1-3pu, 2-3s are for those SZ that have high mercantile traffic usually outside a canal, the rest are 1pu.

Tundra with a large land mass is 0pu and very small islands are 1pu.

Lots of Neutral TT are 0pu, this was to deter the AI from attacking these TT, also to deter the AI by giving in the case of Switzerland 19 Bunkers s, sometimes the Fast-AI still invades Switzerland and Spain, but never Turkey.

@Black Elk & others, does the Hard-AI still do the same?

In the case of Tundra, Gibraltar, Spain, all the Neutrals with 0pu, I agree with Black Elk, there should be no 0PUs.

[wc_sumpton]

@thedog

Welcome back, as you can tell we've been sharing 'War Stories'!

Cheers...

[TheDog]

Oh my, you so have been sharing, there is a lot to get through!

[Black_Elk]

Haha right on!

I've seen the hardAI Axis attack Aragon, Switz, and Algerian Sahara, and Japan hitting Afghanistan. Haven't seen them hit Turkey or Arabia. HardAI USA will sometimes hit Columbia, Venezuela, or Ecuador, though they usually stalemate in the attempt, especially if it's amphib, which is usually the case. Creates some weirdness, since unlike the active player tiles there is no follow up for the Neutrals (i.e. USA won't clear those bunkers as a defender on the Neutral's turn) so they end up having to Non-Com out of the engagement the following round. This can be pretty disruptive for the HardAI USA's play pattern, as they end up wasting a lot of effort to mop up the Central and South America tiles, rather than moving their forces to the fronts vs Axis. Basically they have a delay of 3 or 4 rounds moving out from North America, which is a lot of breathing room for Axis.

I think the HardAI will take destroying 'enemy' TUV as an end in itself, and since forces here can get quite large, I'm not sure there's a reliable way to prevent this from happening short making those neutral's impassible. I think that's a perfectly fine solution for certain tiles perhaps Switz, though for others like Spain, Turkey, Sweden etc it seems more fun to have those be attackable-neutrals. Currently I think it's set so aircraft cannot enter/fly over neutrals. This dampens the effect a fair bit, since it means the HardAI/Player won't just airblitz the hell out of neutrals, or carve their bunkers to shreds with bomber-lgts. Perhaps you could use a similar method to make attacking Neutral more onerous. For example maybe neutral infantry hit like heavy tanks and have a TUV of zero, so they're more effective in combat but don't present a juicy target in TUV. Or perhaps neutrals are restricted like the marshes where the attacker can only bring infantry to make it more of a chore. Something along those lines to make the neutrals less attractive for the AI to stomp, while still leaving the option on the table for the player. Not sure which approach is best, though I do rather like how all neutrals are basically handled the same way, sans politics.

Or you could just let it ride, and call it a sphere of influence in the abstract when neutrals enter the fray. Like whether it really matters if some of those spots are in play. Many Neutrals could easily have ended up in the fight. In gameplay terms the most interesting would probably be Turkey, just to open those straits, though right now that's pretty tough to pull off. Easier for Axis to do I think, but either way probably needs a large amphib force to execute in a timely manner. The other is the Spanish landing pad, though for that probably advantage to Allies from the mechanics. I think Portugal could have gone either way, so that seems interesting thematically. Spain seems less likely, cause it had just finished a long war, but if it's brought into play probably a toss up, if Axis can stack into Gibraltar that way, but also opens up more coast to defend from Allied transports, so probably not a great use of their forces. Sweden is similar, more likely Allied stomp I'd think. Switzerland opens another lane for some of the rail movement, but once it's dropped the impact isn't too huge, could work to either sides advantage. But the player I think would be more conservative about it than the HardAI is.

I think if you can find a way to deter the AI from doing it, in PvP it probably wouldn't happen too often if the attrition was high and the value relatively low like 1 PU for most, cause you'd be better off sending those HP against the enemy directly rather than at the neutrals, but for a few spots I can see it for sure, like Kunduz especially. I would artificially inflate those spots to have larger standing forces if you want them to remain mostly inactive throughout. Although by round 10, probably anything goes, cause the armies get quite large.

ps. Oh also, before I forget, so for Bunkers, I think it would be fun if TTs worth a certain amount, say 5 PUs and up could support a 3rd bunker to differentiate those spots. Basically anywhere that can house a factory. The Atlantic wall for example might have 3 Bunkers from the start, or the national capitals. They don't all need to all be maxed from the start, but a few 3s here and there. So that there can be more depth to the defense in the high production areas, as opposed to the more out of the way spots which might have 1 or 2 bunkers. Just so there's some scale there and variety around the map. I like the idea that most key spots might have either a starting bunker or a base to make them feel more important, I like how you did that for Iwo.

pps. Another quick thought, but if bases could produce a fighter, then a base in Iceland would be cool. M3 is pretty restrictive, but at M4 there are a lot of spots that would make sense to spawn fighters for Allies. Labrador, Puerto Rico and the Guianas. Bases in West Africa could transit fighters towards Egypt from relative safety. Gives a way to reinforce India with air directly. Or they could funnel across the Central Pacific with the island hop from USA or Pacific Allies. This is similar to what happened in the actual war. To get aircraft to the further flung regions from where they were built. Thematically the base-camp could reflect that for the fighters, or be seen as refueling depots and such if used to support naval with a transport. If doing it I would allow the base to build the m4 fighter, cause I think it would be fun to play the fighter skip across the oceans and they're good on the scramble. If you don't want too many bases to form clusters everywhere, you could always restrict their total number or something. I don't know, perhaps everyone gets a handful, but then you hit a ceiling cap, just so they don't eclipse the factory in importance.

[TheDog]

Re: Oil-Field
Oil-Field does in effect add PU to a TT. As they are units 1x Oil-Field add 1pu per turn.

Rather than add the Oil-Field PU directly to TT PU, it deliberately means the TT will not support an Industry, on the negative side the AI does not see this additional PU.

As these TT were the WW2 objectives of the Axis, how should we represent Oil-Fields?

.
Re: Lend-Lease-Depot
I now realise all of them are not working as intended.

• Archangelsk, the TT has to be over run to stop the PU bonus (Oops missing conditional xml code for Britain to give 4pu/turn, where did it go )
• Persian Corridor through Iran(Fars, Lorestan, Tehran, Gilan) to Baku. Britain gives 9pu as long as 4x Iranian TT are owed (Only partially works, if one of the 4 is missing Britain does not get -9pu deducted, but USSR still gets 9pu)
• Vladivostok, USA gives 8pu to the USSR per turn, whilst the Non-Aggression Pact holds. (Only partially works, after the NAP is over, USSR still gets PU and USA does not get deducted)
• Burma Road from N.Burma to Yunnan. USA gives 20pu to China per turn, whilst it exists. (Only partially works as if N.Burma is occupied China still gets 20pu, but USA is not deducted)

So how best to have Lend-Lease-Depot, if at all ?

[TheDog]

Latest version 95 ready for download from 1st page 1st post

.
Germany can now move subs after random placement (turns 2+) they can now move & attack.

If using Faster 2.6 Remember to move the error box bottom right, to stop it it reappearing (this is only a warning error please ignore it)

.
Major Changes

• Inf-Elite get Flak 1 in 12, stop lone Fighters from blocking occupation of a TT, mainly in the East (thanks Black Elk)
• Fixed Artillery using AA re target Base-Camp & Bunker (did not make it crash) now using it for AA like other units
• Artillery looses its support defence bonus and drops to 6pu, was 7
• Reduced the number of Notification for USA alliances with Brazil, Mexico etc
• HQs support fixed, now are NOT self supporting, self-supporting was a bit weird (thanks WC Sumpton)
• Bombers can now be hit by targeted Flak from ground and sea surface units (thanks WC Sumpton)
• Fixed Industry SBR AA (thanks WC Sumpton)
• 100ish 0pu TT changed to 1pu, was 0
• Updated place.txt, pu_place.txt, reliefTiles (thanks Black Elk)
• Updated Pacific-Allies HQ-Air & HQ-Fleet icons (thanks Black Elk)

.
WEST

• Germany can now move subs after random placement (turns 2+) they can now move & attack.
• USA fixed Tech advances as they were not working (thanks WC Sumpton)

.
EAST

• China swapped Hong Kong VC for Chunking (Harder for Japan to get/hold Chunking)

.
TODO

• Conscripts only when occupied, code like Kamikaze
• supportAttachment and territoryEffect supports
• Balance

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

[Black_Elk]

Looking good!

Here's a pu_place for the neutrals and the spots that were zero before but now have a the 1up pu. Just tried to get the numbers out where they'd be more visible on the opening turn. I think I got em all. Figure we can fiddle with it once the starting units are set and that place is all handled, but least for G1 should be able to see em at a glance not clipped by the terrains or bunkers hopefully. If I gave it a pass I tried to pull the pu for the islands just outside which I think is sometimes easier to see. We can make it more consistent down the road, but this should service.

pu_place.txt

Nice work!

[TheDog]

Labels
Bomber-Lgt is a Tactical 1-2 engined, Dive/Torpedo Bomber

We should rename it?
Bomber-Tactical (long-ish but much better than Bomber-Lgt)
Bomber-Tac
Bomber-Tcl
or ...

Fighter-Early are Early war fighters, Im happy with this label, but ... ?

Any other label suggestions?

[Black_Elk]

I like something that indicates the shorter range, like Fighter-Patrol. Then maybe the m4 is called Fighter-Escort? Fighter-Early seems fine, though for Pacific-Allies this is their only fighter type for most of the game so I guess they're stuck in the past hehe. I buy them with Pacific-Allies cause it's the only choice on offer, but the range is pretty limiting. Fighter-Early seems like a decent buy for USSR though. For China they seem to work fine, though I'd probably buy a couple more to spend a remainder every now and again if they were a purchase option. I like tactical bomber or bomber-tactical, whatever works. Shorthand is Tac B for me. Strategic bombers I shorthand Strat B hehe. Or you could just call it bomber for everyone, and have the other one be Bomber-Heavy or Bomber-Long Range, since it's sort of a hybrid of those at M8 here. In my last game the German flak was pretty brutal, I think I'll try massing a larger air armada next time, so I don't get my wings clipped as hard.

[wc_sumpton]

@thedog

Like what you did to the Artillery, remove "Precision" and given "Flak". Maybe "Flak" could be given to Anti-Tank, besides Inf-Conscript this is the only other without "Flak".

Bomber-Tac seems more descriptive for the roll this units plays.

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk

Lol, yea Bomber were added to the "Flak", they are not quite the "Super-Weapon" they were before!

@TheDog
"Long-Lance" (+1 attack) is given to Japan Destroyer and Cruiser but not their HQ-Fleet which operates like a Cruiser. This advantage could also be given with a "Tech Advance". With a message give to all players about this advantage, and a mark, the gold "Diamond", used to distinguish these units.

As a thought I would give the Cruiser (also HQ-Fleet) the better "Flak" capabilities, not the Battleship, it has the "Radar" symbol. Then use this unit to buff another unit's "Flak". This could also be deter one pesky Bomber-Tac.

This same "Flak" buff could also be given by Anti-Air, if the unit were to be reinstated.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

For sure! I definitely prefer it this way even if bombing runs are nail biters now hehe. I think the attrition rate may be a bit high, but the ability to kill a factory outright is so potent I think its probably still worth the investment. Although the chance of getting cut to shreds with flak means the m8 bomber is best used 'strategically' like when its mission critical to shut down an opponent's rail link. Using them piecemeal seems ill advised, since the cost in TUV lost to flak is likely much higher than the damage you'll inflict. Probably best to save them for when it really matters hehe.

Few more thoughts on Aircraft... Currently you have m3, m4 and m8 air types. In A&A the standard is m4 for fighters and tac Bs, and m6 for strat Bs. That range can be enhanced with a tech advance or an air base in A&A, but those are the norm for the reg distances. I think m8 makes sense here for the big bombers, since there are so many more tiles on this map, and their use is somewhat limited to sbr, but we are missing an m6 type currently, which might make sense for the tactical bomber, since it can be quite tough to bomb effectively at m4. You have to be sort of right on top of the target at m4, with many spots out of range at that distance.

I bag on the m3 fighter a fair bit, although I'm pretty sure I invented it lol. Or at least first to stick em in a tripleA game, so I can be sorta overly harsh on em probably on account of that haha. At the time I wanted something that would reflect WW1 fighters, so figured reducing the range by 1 movement would distinguish them from their WW2 counterparts. For the bi-planes or a late game red Red Baron tri-plane, m3 seemed cool to me, but m3 and m5 (like G40 with the +1 from the AB) can be kinda wonky. It does create some interest for the attacker at the shorter distance, like trying to get the most coverage possible, and makes a few of the m3 transits more significant, although when I was setting the map divisions I figured m4 would be the standard, so there are fewer of those. Crossing the Atlantic with early fighters at m3 sans carriers can be a challenge. Right now for example USA needs their carriers to make use of their starting early fighters. I think a common exploit would be for Pacific-Allies to land their early fighters on USA carriers, or USA early fighters to land on British carriers at the receiving end. Not sure if that's desirable, as it's kinda gamey. I'm sorta used to zombies rules now, which restricts landing on friendly carriers, though for the m3 fighter that'd be pretty limiting here. Last game I bought a bunch with Russia just to see how they'd measure up, and they were pretty solid. M3 fighters still have their uses, esp for defensive scrambling. Even a fighter at m2 would be useful on attack though, since they can attack into a tile without having to occupy it in the aftermath. Fighters at any movement (2 and up), would still be handy for trading TTs and creating deadzones in that way, which is the primary use for fighters in A&A after defense, but m3 is definitely more awkward than m4. Any odd numbered movement would be awkward for aircraft, since it requires a different landing spot than the takeoff to achieve the max reach.

Anyhow, I think they're fine and make sense for some nations like China or USSR, though they wouldnt be my go to in the purchase roster for most. China currently can't buy any replacements if they lose their starting fighters to flak (pretty likely.) Same deal for Pacific-Allies and their pair of tactical bombers which can't be replaced. If the attrition rate is high with no way to replace, aafire can be pretty rough for the little guys.

I think the production restrictions are the most impactful though. Esp for Pacific-Allies, which have only have one coastal factory capable of producing aircraft/ships. Makes it pretty easy to throttle Australia with Japan, since if that lone factory/sz is shut down the Pacific Allies are kinda screwed on offense. I think it's that more than the m3 distance that makes it challenging for them to get in on the action, and pretty straightforward for Japan to contain.

A tactical bomber at m6 could be interesting, though that would likely recommend a price increase. If doing that I'd maybe keep the Fighter at m4, which would mean a little asymmetry between the reach of bombers vs their fighter escorts. The tactical-bomber could achieve further reach for SBR, but without fighter cover for the last mile if they're trying to push it. Having a little play there in the distance between m4 and m6 might open things up for some interesting counter-play between the Attack and Defender. Like how they transit those aircraft from the production centers to get them in position, or which aircraft they put on deck vs islands or coastal tiles. Since the tactical bomber is somewhat easier to differentiate, it makes sense to me, it's somewhat simpler to tell apart the m6 tac B from the m4 fighter from the unit graphics for most nations. Like a quick way to parse the range from the visual. Or could do an m6 strat bomber, like a lighter version of the current m8. Prob with m6 for fighter types is then you end up with pretty deep transits. Like the USA eastern seaboard to Britain in 1 move. That seems fine for strategic bombers that don't do much in combat, but for tactical types might be overkill. Not sure honestly, just seems like m6 3 out 3 back might be nice for a bomber type since that's pretty familiar.

Oh and one last thing, I'm still seeing some weirdness with defending USA Fighters in Philippines. Probably it's AI Japan not bringing air support into the attack, but the Japanese attacker still gets stuck not being able to hit the defending USA fighter, with the result that the TT remains contested. This allows USA to build at the factory in Manila or place bunkers into a contested TT on their first turn, even if Japan is parked there with a large force. I think if Fighters/Bunkers couldn't hold a TT by themselves the way regular ground units can, this would solve some of the current issues with stalemates. Or I guess we could raise the battle rounds beyond the cap, but I mean if you wanted to keep the battle rounds at 5, that might be a way to shore it up so aircraft and damaged bunkers couldn't be used to stall via stalemate that way. Currently it can be tricky to tell who actually controls a contested TT. Lone bunkers attacking can also be strange. The warning message says they will die automatically. Like when the stalemate carries over into that player's turn, since bunkers don't have an "attack" but it's still possible for everyone to dud, and then the TT remains contested, potentially into the next round. Although the stalemate has some charm, I think confusion about who controls the TT currently is a downside. Least if we could get the bunkers and defending aircraft by themselves out of the mix it would be more straightforward. Maybe the defending air could retreat to an adjacent tile or be auto-killed or something, but allowing it to remain and contest the TT seems a bit much hehe.

Anyhow, just some thoughts to kick around. Bout to fire up a rematch and try my hand at Allies again haha

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk

This was the desired effect, I think, although Industry do defend against SBR at 2/6 (Like "Radar" tech is added). Maybe a reduction to 1/6. Still Industries could give "Flak Assist" to defending units, though "supportAttachment" cannot be used to assist SBR defense.

Movement wise, I think aircraft are OK (with the exception of P51 Mustang's movement of 8). Maybe give some air units the bonus movement for Industries (Railroad/?Airfield?).

Alot of units have "-1" Amphibious Assault capabilities, plus attacking into a forested area brings even more problems. It's not so much they can't hit a target, as they cannot attack, attack value reduced to 0. Still, very few units do not have AA capabilities (Inf-Conscript, Anti-Tank and Bunkers), so, an Amphibious Assault into a forested island should have no effect trying to hit defending air units. Would need to see the unit breakdown to understand this problem more.

@TheDog

I think @Black_Elk had a very good idea regarding Lend-Lease-Depot. If the unit is connected to a chain of territories, then each territory should have that unit. The notes could be used to describe each Lend-Lease-Depot chain effect. And a popup message when a chain is broken. Doing it this way would require all PUs transactions be handled through triggers. Lend-Lease-Depot are destroyed when captured, so once a chain is broken, it cannot be restored. The question is should they be destroyed? If so, could they be replaced? If so, then by whom, the player that receives the bonus or the player that pays?

@Black_Elk (again)

On turn 11 the Pacific-Allies gain the ability to produce Fighters. It may be a long wait with what they begin with. Maybe the USA player could purchase some fighters for China (Flying Tigers/Black Sheep), and placed in specific territories, to be later controlled by China. Besides that, from what I understand, the Chinese Airforce was very small, with outdated aircraft. If they were to be allowed to purchase air units, it should be very restricted.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

@wc_sumpton

Yeah it's definitely an improvement. After my first game I figured to mass the bombers into double digits before attempting SBR. Brits have 10 starting bombers, 6 of which are at the ready, though it seemed better to me to wait until the 4 arrived from Canada and whatever was built on the first turn. USA and UK have enough money to buy bombers at 13 PU, and currently I think it's worth the high cost in attrition to bomb, especially the Industry-Lgts which are easier to kill, like in north Africa, but that's only because the AI won't replace their lost factories.

12 Bombers at 13 PUs a pop = 156 TUV. Say things go rather poorly for the attacker and factory flak drops half of those to aa fire. The attacker loses 78 PU invested in units instantly and still might not kill the factory with the 6 bombers that remain. Sure not exactly the most likely outcome, but it would happen often enough that it might give the players pause. If you do kill the factory though, esp in a critical round, where it prevents the opponent from moving a large number of hitpoints, that might be a very good use of that 78 PUs. Really though only when you can do that sort of stuff at scale does it start to pay off. Bombing with just a couple bombers would be kinda pointless. To press the advantage you'd need a bunch, with Britain and USA working in concert, to make sure you actually get the kill on the target. The player has the initiative in purchasing though, so could be that it's better to just buy combat units and try to take the factory rather than destroy it, which is generally better anyway. Using the opponent's production against them without needing to rebuild the unit. 1/6 might be easier to stomach, though I kind of enjoyed the heart attack inducing 2/6 which has a fair bit of swing

For conscription, I like that there is a consequence for invading the various homelands. Currently for example if you attempt a Sea Lion invasion then the Brits get access to conscripts. Same deal for Japan or Germany, though by the time that happens it's probably too late to make a difference. It does create a nice endgame stall, but only if the AI has enough income to spam the conscripts once they're unlocked. Instead what I think is more likely to happen is that the AI will be so far in the red on maintenance that they won't be able to purchase anything at all really, even with the cheapo conscripts. I think some form of maintenance reduction is needed for this map to work properly in later rounds. I mean like some way for the player to invest/purchase more capacity, something that will make their maintenance more efficient. Perhaps factories and bases should reduce the overall maintenance cost rather than adding to it? Or maybe when the conscription thing happens, infantry cease to have a maintenance cost altogether. Something like that, which would allow the underdog to mount a comeback without being hamstrung by the maintenance drain. Otherwise I think what will happen is the AI will just stack hitpoints to the ceiling, until they reach that tipping point, and then blast so far into the red that they can't collect enough income to place units once they're on their heels. Especially since blockades and SBR are likely stripping them of ready cash at the same time.

Another thought on the "homeland invaded" conscript unlock. Since this is basically a malus to the aggressor faction (gives the opponent cheaper units) there's a pretty strong incentive to try and work around that, by scaling the invasion. Like trying to take over multiple spots at a go, or bomb several factories to the dirt at once, so they don't have a place to spawn the cheapos. Taking over UK can be fun, but then Brits get those conscripts for everywhere, so sort of a double edged sword. I like that hehe.

For Japan I think Okinawa and Iwo should both be worth like 5, and considered part of the Japanese homeland. That way USA would probably want to snap them up for the production, vs coastal China or Indo-China or just gunning strait at the main Japanese islands, since it would be a shorter path and along the natural stepping stones, but when they do that would trigger the Japanese conscript thing, so sort of a trade-off choice to make there. Truk, Rabaul, Guadalcanal etc I think could be draws at 5 as well, to pull Japan a few different directions and develop more of push/pull going on in the central pacific for Allies. Any starting spot for Japan is going to be a bit more interesting at higher values, since it could conceivably go to one of 3 Allies, Brits, USA, Pacific-Allies. They make for fun targets that way, as opposed to liberating the Allied factories. I think currently it's a bit too easy for Pacific-Allies to stall Japan from Sumatra and the Dutch spots with destroyer blocks and bunker spams. I don't mind that Pacific Allies and China are smaller factions with more limited rosters, but I think China needs some flying tiger support. I'd do it from the bonus like every couple rounds they get 1. For Pacific-Allies, if Japan could mount a proper invasion of the Borneo and Malaya and such on J1 I think that would help. Currently the Brits and Pacific-Allies can throw down a DD picket. If you pulled those DDs back then Japan would probably get on Sumatra and such a bit faster, and I think Pacific Allies it would make sense to have more in backfield like Solomon islands or whatever, or just trying to defend new guinea and Australia itself. That's more like starting unit location/map production spread thoughts though. To have some of those contested 5 spots be more in the central Pac and Japan a bit easier to get on the oil and rubber spots early. I could see New Zealand as the fall back for Pacific-Allies, perhaps at 7 with a Industry-Med. Basically to give Japan something to gun for that direction, but also a way for Pacific Allies to split their home defense. Not sure but I think more juice that way would be cool, and Japan having a clear lane through the South China Sea on J1, that way they can flatten the Dutch stuff, but Pacific Allies would still have a similar income coming in from the backfield TTs. The allied Destroyer block stalls the IJN pretty hard. In the current Allies have 2 chances to disrupt the Japanese transports along the Borneo/Malaya route with Pacific-Allies DD or Britain's DD both in range.

I can think of a few different ways to infuse cash towards the endgame. The simplest I think would be to award a cash bonus for controlling a certain number of VCs, or a bonus when the player's team falls below a certain VC threshold. Depending on whether you want the game to resolve or continue. I think in PvP the former is desirable, in Solo play I think the latter would be more fun. Either way, I think an income/maintenance adjustment would make sense when you move into 1944-5 territory, to rescale for the number of units likely in play at that point compared to the start. Right now I think the VC win comes a bit early and the tech unlock stuff a bit late, but I've also been playing it a lot hehe.

Yeah perhaps the Mustangs at m6 would be cool? M8 is pretty intense for fighter aircraft hehe.

I'm enjoying the latest tweaks a lot. I got my ass handed to me in a few games. Got a best 2 out of 3 going at the moment as Allies.

2023-6-2-1941-Global-Command-Decisionv95 Elkvs AI Axis best out of 3 round 7 USSR.tsvg