💥 1941 Global Command Decision - Official Thread

[Black_Elk]

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

@black_elk
Some interesting points & observations. As the map is focused on solo play and I dont play PvP I will leave that to others.

@All
Overall I think that in 2.6 the AI buys less Inf-Elite then 2.5, so in the next release they will be cheaper 6pu, was 7pu. Still overpriced unless used in their specialist role of marine/paratrooper.

@wc_sumpton
Interesting table, below is my additions

It shows that Pacific Allies need a few more Base-Camps from turn 1.

6pu seems sensible for an Elite. Though to me the current elite is perhaps a bit too elite hehe. I really think their attack power is pretty high at 2, and that at 6 PUs this makes them harder to differentiate from artillery. Like from the purchasing perspective. They attack in different ways, I but I mean for the quick calc at Att 2 when building out a force and choosing whether to buy one over the other.

6 pus would put the Elite, Inf-Motorized, and Artillery at the some price point. So sort of in the same class, in direct competition, like for a remainder purchase. To me that's fine because there is potentially an interesting choice to be had there, between raw attack power (artillery) versatility (elite) or mobility (Inf-motorized) all at the same cost in PUs.

Though I think that only really works if Inf-Moto attacks at 1 (not 2) and also is not a land-transport. Those two abilities make the unit significantly more powerful at the price point of 6 PUs relative to the other candidates in the ground game, and esp to light armor, which is more expensive at 7. Elites attacking at 2 have better transport capacity and better mobility on terrain via the rail thing, which I think makes them a rather better buy all around than even artillery for the same cost currently, since you have more placement options for elites. Especially if you have transports that need filling. Elites also sorta eclipse trained infantry for most factions in my view since they're so much better on attack and are subject to all the terrain boosts on defense, as well as not having the malus for amphib. They're much more versatile than tanks in most regards, other than the tow thing which sets the armor apart provided the Terrain isn't thwarting them. I think the current elite is possibly underpriced at 7 for how useful they are, but a big part of that is their raw attack power at 2. If their attack power was 1 outside of special combat I think 6 PUs makes a lot of sense. I think the main use for Inf-Trained, Inf-Motorized and Elites should be their hitpoint and defense power, not so much their attack power. For the Inf-Moto the entry level hitpoint at m2. For armor the higher cost would be justified by their higher attack power and the land transport aspect unique to armor as sort of their theme. I think Anti-tank is potentially a stronger unit at 5 Pus, but the placement and transport limitations there don't really have the unit in the same class. To me that one is almost exclusively a remainder purchase. Like if I have 5 to burn, don't want a bunker or destroyer (which often feels a bit better investment for the cost to me) and also have that ready slot at an Industry-Hvy. But that feels pretty situational. Since Artillery, Anti-tank and the bunkers have a different form of attack than the standard units it can be a little harder to parse how they'll perform in actual combat at scale. Like when the unit is stacked together with others in a magnified way. A dozen Anti-tanks can be pretty intense or artillery the same, or those spots with 9 bunkers, like once you cross a certain threshold they work similar to aircraft, and more useful when massed.

I was curious if the Transport loading defaults to Infantry-trained over Infantry-Elite. Like I noticed as a player that if I hit max load from a TT, the transports will fill with the regular trained Infantry or units like artillery and tanks before loading the Elites. This requires a bit of micro-management to get the most out of the transport capacity. Like when moving say 1 Inf-trained and 2 Elites together, or 3 elites etc or any combination that has 3 hitpoints per transport instead of just the normal 2. I'm curious though if this may be affecting what the AI brings into the fight? I think the lower purchasing price at 6 PUs would hopefully make the AI more likely to purchase them and to use in amphib just cause there'd be more on the board in general. The elites I mean. Then perhaps the Machine would be a bitter better at managing their landings.

For the Tanks though, I think having the "is a land-transport" for all armor types would be good. The earlier A&A rulesets had towing as a tech advance that allowed armor to do this, like pairing with infantry for a movement bonus, so to me that's a natural fit. The ability is potent, but the price of armor is higher, so makes sense to me there. Infantry-Motorized I would have the m2 be the thing that makes it special, but relative cheaper, so having it's uses if you need movement (often the case if building from a base rather than a factory.) That alone makes the unit an attractive buy, but the tow is a bit much there. In A&A games after the introduction of Mech-Infantry there were also techs or special options to allow them to tow/blitz, but the standard is more bare bone. Basically just an infantry unit that's more flexible, particularly for non com. To me towing as a non-com exclusive might also work. Cause that's an interesting trade off between using your armor to punch ahead in the vanguard on attack, or be used for versatility to help infantry play catch up. But with a trade off like that, combat vs non com. Might be interesting.

I gotta game going as Germany now. Pretty entertaining so far. I think the caps could go a bit lower and the effect wouldn't be too noticeable. As the a player in the solo, I didn't feel the caps. But I haven't tried Germany or USSR for v100 yet, and that's sorta the main stackfest. Will let ya know how it rolls.

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk, @TheDog

Global Command Decision starts mid to late '41. Most countries are just starting to change their production from WWI designs to more modern units. With this in mind, most deployed unit should be Early Fighters and Tankettes (Armor-Lgt), but production should represent Fighter and Armor (Armor-Med) with the production of WWI type units halted.
Germany, on the other hand, should already be fielding some modern units, but Panzers I and II (Tankettes/Armor-Lgt) were still being used during its 'Blitz' of Poland and France. These units, including Panzers III and IV (Armor) were not much better than their Allied counterparts. What the Germans had were better tactics. The use of Tactical Bombers (Bomber-Tac) with Tankettes/Armor, follow by Mobile Infantry (Halftrack/Inf-Motorized). To represent this advantage the Tactical Bomber should only be used/produced by Germany, with Armor supporting them, and they should support Mobile Infantry. Armor units by other countries should still follow WWI tactics, so removal of the Tactical Bomber, and making it a Advance Tech would give Germany their missing advantage.

Most countries at the start of the war had some type of Strategic Bomber, which could be represented with a Early Bomber having a range of 6. USA did have the B-17, so a couple of Bombers could be deployed, with their production showing the Bomber as purchasable and the Early Bomber removed. Britian should be allowed to research this unit after about 4 or 5 turns. Like Carriers and Battleships the Bomber should be a heavy PUs investment for other countries, before research could be started and the unit produced.

Halftracks (Inf-Motorized), I agree with @Black_Elk as 1/2/2 unit, were mainly produced by USA, Germany, British and Japan. USSR did not produce Halftracks, but received the units from Britian/Canada through Lend-Lease. So Japan should produce Halftracks and USSR should not. They could receive one through Lend-Lease maybe every 3rd or 4th turn as long as the British/USA Lend-Lease is still active.

The KV-1 USSR Armor-Hvy gives the unit to much fire power. To better represent this unit it should stay as Early Armor (Tankette/Armor-Lgt) with 2 attack/defense but it movement should be reduced to 1, the unit was very slow and not very maneuverable, but it should also have 2 hit points to represent it heavy armor. USSR also had T-27's/early T-34's fielded but these units were of WWI pre WWII designs and production had been halted and replaced by moder T-34's/T-40's/T-60's and T-70's (Armor/Armor-Med). IS-2/3's (Armor-Hvy) should be a Advanced Tech starting at about '43, right around turn 9 or 10.

Some of my thoughts.

Cheers...

[TheDog]

@wc_sumpton @Black_Elk
Putting aside A&A units for now.
Lets take 1/2/1 Trained Infantry as a given.
Proposed 1/2/2 Motorised Infantry

So on the attack they are both equal, ignoring other units for now.

You are both saying that a brigade, a combined arms fighting force, of mainly mechanised/motorised infantry, with its extra manoeuvrability/armor and extra firepower from more machine guns/equipment/etc is still only 1/2/2 ?

[Black_Elk]

Hehe more or less, though I am of course thinking about the unit as an abstract game piece with the player providing the narrative on what exactly it represents in any given instance during the gameplay. Very hard for me to set A&A aside, cause it's so ingrained hehe, but yeah I guess. To my way of thinking not everything really needs to be or even can be modelled at this scale or in d6, or at least not in the same way one might with an RTS tactical type game where there's a bit more opportunity to flesh things out, so sometimes something gets left on the chopping block I suppose. To me whatever extra maneuverability or firepower and the like, that advantage is just sorta already all folded into the m2 of the Inf-Moto unit. For heavier hitting attack power units like artillery or armor, effectively the infantry moto would be at attack power 1, so you could keep the others at 2 or 3 without creating too much redundancy. The movement being the thing that makes that purchase worthwhile. Other options might be to keep the increased power, or retain the tow, but also increase the cost in a commensurate way. I would keep in mind here that the hitpoint alone is very powerful, regardless of the specific attack value (especially with that extra movement), but when you pair the units vs the standard infantry fodder I think the cost needs to scale in a particular way or you'll get some kinks here.

So right now we got a 1/2/1 Infantry-trained unit that costs 4 PUs...

Two of them cost 8 PUs, with a cumulative attack power of 2 and 2 hitpoints. This is the threshold really, what I mean when I'm talking about remainder spending. It's like what else you can buy, still getting that second hitpoint but boosting the power or mobility of the force, if you have say 9 or 10 PUs to burn rather than 8. Inf-Motorized, Artillery and the proposed Elites all cost 6, with superior power, mobility, or versatility, but they still only have that single hitpoint. The big breakpoint would be 12 PUs spent. Where the player has to make that tough choice, is it better to have a 3rd hitpoint for the same cost (all trained inf), or 2 units but with something extra (trading out for artillery, or inf-moto, or elite). How much more valuable is power/mobility/versatility over sheer quantity in HP, like if one just spammed infantry fodder to the heights. Depends on the spot right and how close you are to the maintenance limit. Also acknowledging that if a unit competes with infantry fodder too directly at the same/similar price point when you scale up, then that unit will simply become the primary fodder unit, or replace infantry in importance generally. Becoming the go-to buy as it were. Fodder is typically the cheapest unit, but more importantly also the best/cheapest hitpoint you can get, for the money. Typically in A&A this is infantry, but that's also a design choice.

If the best hitpoint you can buy is slightly more expensive but clearly a better unit at scale, then that unit will predominate, with the rest of the roster sorta keying around it instead of the reg Infantry. Currently I'd say the Elite and Inf-Moto are in this position, despite being at 7/6 PUs in the current v 100 (compared to Inf-trained at 4). This is because they have much better attack power, and in the case of the Elite better transport capacity, and no real downside from terrain. So sorta like you start by seeing how many Elites, or Inf-Moto you can divide out from your pile of cash. Then maybe boost up in reg Infantry once you've got what you need for power, to ensure you're building enough HP per turn to cushion them and keep stuff alive, but keying off the elites as the baseline. USSR roster might be making this a little bit more pronounced, since they are more reliant on their Elites and Artillery and such. Russia is working off 3s and 5s for fodder (Inf Conscripts/Anti-tank) or else the 6/7 price point, since their Inf-trained are not accessible in the same way and they might not be able to build conscripts depending on their cap, or place Anti-tanks depending on the build location, so the elite/inf-moto end up filling that slot for them.

Also thinking about this in terms of the land-transport/tow feature, I'd think about it like trying to slot in the most combat effective force with the most mobility you can from a limited number of placements. Here the land-transport (Tank) can encourage mixed forces from the factories, since you can get more mobility out of the same production for a somewhat cheaper cost. Taking the Industry-Med as an example. You got 3 slots, how to fill em? Could buy 3 Armor-Medium for a cost of 27, gets you the most attack power, but then each of those Armor units individually is not being used to it's maximum effect, cause that wouldn't utilize the armor's tow capability. A better purchase (if immediate power/terrain isn't a factor) might be something like 1 Armor Medium, 1 Artillery and 1 Inf Motorized, because now the artillery piece picks up the movement bonus from the armor, and boosts the Inf-Moto (which can move the same distance as the tank) and so the purchase has the units working in concert. Wherever it lands it's got that m2 going for itself at least, but you also got a little cover from the inf-moto unit as fodder/defense. Only costs 21 PUs. Now you got 6 PUs left over for a 4th hitpoint of artillery/elite/inf-moto somewhere else. Getting a bit more bang out of your limited production on the cheap. Not that it will always work out that way, sometimes you just need the 3 tanks you know. Max power. But often it's trying to split that difference which makes the choice interesting.

The terrain or amphib malus for M2 units could also factor into the situation in a big way. Where buying 3 tanks would make a lot less sense if you know that they will be rendered ineffective by terrain. In that case you might not want to buy armor at all, and the combo called for might be something more like 3 artillery vs 3 elites or whatever.

I think a second hitpoint is another interesting approach for Tank types, or heavy variants, though I would pick one (tow or 2 hit) and make that the units theme. Mobility/M2 with tow is a bit more familiar I think than the 2-hit land unit, but both have some precedent for people to give a nod. I'd worry about doing an M1 tank, cause I think people might find that a little confusing though I get the concept there. Doing both works too, like 2-hit plus the tow, but then that has to be factored into the cost a bit more I'd say. That's a lot of versatility to complement the raw power where tanks already outclass the other ground units by a fairly wide margin, since the hit 3s/4s are harder to come by here.

That said, I'm pretty game for whatever. Like I'm having a lot of fun with each of these builds. The current Inf-Moto are pretty fun. OP but fun! So I think I can get behind a lot of things for this one, even if it's a little less familiar.

[wc_sumpton]

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

I am of course thinking about the unit as an abstract game piece with the player providing the narrative

Agree with you 100%. That is why I disagree with the USSR being able to purchase Armor-Hvy at the start of the game. The only reason given, in the xml, is USSR had the KV-1. The KV-1 was developed in the interim, between WWI and WWII. Their firepower was very limited, but they were very well armored. At the time Germany invaded Russia, there may have been 700 of the units left, and they were no longer in production. To call them Armor-Hvy, game terms, at 4/4/2 is a real stretch. The reason they were called Heavy Armor was their weight, at almost 3x the weight of Germany's Panzer. But the design of their turrets restricted the ability to add a bigger gun on the unit, thus their production was terminated.

Next would be the Bombers with their movement of 8, means these were long range aircraft. Because of their range, Germany, Italy and Japan cannot build them. Basically, the Americans with the production of the B-17, would be the only ones fielding such a unit. Otherwise, there was the medium range Bombers which most countries (Russia's Petlyakov Pe-2 production stated late '41 early '42) had and were producing, but is not represented, thus cannot be purchased. This gives the Allies (USA and Britian) a big tactical advantage. Thus, give everyone, with the exception of Russia, China and Pacific-Allies, medium range bombers at 6 movement.

When a country can produce Armor-Med, Armor-Lgt should be removed from production. The choice should not be Lgt vs Med, the choice should be Infantry vs Armor. The same can be said about Fighter-Early vs Fighter vs P-51 Mustang. When the Fighter is being produced, Early-Fighter should not. And when the Americans produce the P-51 Mustang (long range fighter), the Fighter should be removed. Also Bomber (long range) for America and British should replace their Medium Bomber.

Advance Units (Armor-Hvy, Nuclear-Bomber, V-1 and V-2 rockets) could be added to production, and not replacing another unit, during early mid to mid game.

Again these are just my opinions.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

Yeah, I used Frostion's unit graphics for all the armor, with the exception of Germany's Armor-Lgt which I made on the fly cause Cernel requested something more early model for a v3 redux, so slid that one in there. I'm pretty sure Frostion's heavy is based on the IS-2, or from a similar type graphic/model maybe? Hard to really tell cause of the angle/perspective, but it also looks kinda like a T-54 to me honestly, so it might be one of those play until the 1946 type angles. Not really sure of the source for the visual, I don't have all the specs there, but essentially I think we got a pretty iconic feel here mostly from his initial work. I'm not totally chomping at the bit to revisit the graphics too much, since it took kinda a while to get it even feeling this consistent, but like if we want a KV-1 we could make one I suppose. This could also be an interesting approach to a 1939/40 start date, as a bonus scenario on the same map. You know with some adjusted NAPs and fielding early equipment types for a more inter-war leading into the big time sorta feel. It can be a fair bit of work though. For aircraft I have a number of graphics for those, not too hard too cook up something specific though I feel like a lot of the bases are covered. I'm amenable to the concept of unit unlock/upgrades, if only for the reason that it's a bit simpler to track. It's kinda cool to see the older model units in play, though if you do the phase out from the purchase roster this would allow you to keep the price constant and just up-grade the abilities.

So I don't know, say you got the entry level tank (primary features = land transport, attack power) at a cost of 10. This gives the unit parity with the naval transport cost. Perhaps the air transport is also 10, just so you got the 3 way competition at the same price point, with the choice between sea/land/air. An improved model of the tank with an increase in attack power could be at the same price, 10, once unlocked. Basically having it so that the better equipment upgrades aren't more expensive, but simply replacing the older stuff in the roster for purchase at that same price point. Though if 2 units of the same type are overlapping, like both available at purchase after the unlock then I think I like a price increase of 1 PU as you level up there, just so you get a differentiation in the purchase phase. But it'd keep it kinda close that way for the quick read.

To me, on this map, the units all feel like they're coming in triplicate, which is cool. We got the 3 factories, 3 HQ types, 3 tank types, 3 infantry (conscript, trained, elite.) In the water 3 big warships with the 2-hit, 3 types of smaller ship (sub, dd, cruiser), also the 3 transport types. For fighters-early, fighters and the more advanced jets/LR. For infrastructure beyond factories, there's the bunker, base, and perhaps the lend-lease if treated as a unit.

For bombers I could see 3 as well, just to sorta fit that bill of most things coming in sets of 3. Even if all 3 aren't necessarily available in all rosters, or if the timing on the upgrades for that stuff is different by nation, or hits different plateaus in the endgame, to keep the asymmetry thing going.

I suppose it's 4 Inf types if we count the Inf-Motorized. I meant more the little dudes, like by the visual, though I guess the conscript is more of the oddball in the triplet, since it's dependent on the Nation having been invaded. But anyway, if you wanted to reserve the tow as a feature of the Inf-Moto that would also work, I'd just make em cost more. I think towing is like the most powerful ability in the entire game hehe. Movement over attack power in this sort of game, like any day of the week, cause of the turn base. The ability to boost a cheaper m1 hitpoint to an m2 hitpoint via the tow is huge, why I think the pricing there can go pretty high and the purchase would still be worthwhile for Armor. Second hitpoint is pretty huge as well (like for the 2-hit land unit idea), but not as huge as the tow in my view.

Also just opinions hehe. The Unit roster to me is one of those arenas where I'm pretty open to trying out new ideas, though my experience/expectations I'm sure are totally colored by the A&A thinking hehe. A lot of times my first thought was, if a unit looks like the familiar thing, but behaves rather differently, that's kinda tricky for me. Why I like say Towing for Armor, cause that just reminds me of like National Advantages in Revised or Tech in V3, sorta fits the mold. Even if the costs/power etc are different it's got some touchstone. I think you see anything with wheels or treads and the player instantly is thinking, oh ok that's gotta be an M2 unit. Why I think an M1 tank could be tricky, or also perhaps Katyushas might be a little confusing for the newer player, since they sorta look like the Inf-Moto of other nations, but are in fact artillery. To me having a badass Artillery unit that moves M2 is a unit concept that works though, cause you got SP artillery in other scenarios and that's pretty fun. Provided it costs more than the regular version of artillery to account for the added reach, to me that'd be a cool sorta specialized unit as a hybrid Artillery/Inf-Moto that might be a Soviet exclusive. I wouldn't mind seeing each nation have one of these specialty type units. You know where Germany gets the cool Sub that nobody else has, or Russia has the boss artillery, some trick air type like a Lightning or Mustang LR Bombers for USA, something along those lines. just to catch all where you get a 4th or 5th type for specials within the same unit class exclusive to certain nations. Like 3s types standard in whatever unit class, but also 3+ sometimes, where it works.

[Black_Elk]

ps. here's a quick framing that I think would work well

The Transport unit class costs 10 PU, bonus capacity +1 infantry-elite

Transport-Fleet
Transport-Air
Transport-Land (=Inf Motorized)

The Armor unit class costs 9 PUs, is a 2-hit land unit with superior attack power that improves progressively.

Armor-Lgt
Armor-Med
Armor-Heavy

This is based off the Infantry at a cost of 4 and Elites at 6 PUs

What it means is that when you buy Armor instead of 2 Inf-trained, that you are trading up in attack power, and still get a second hitpoint from absorption, but you only have the 1 shot. Compared to the 2 shots you'd get if buying infantry at 1 PU less. Or if spending an extra PU to purchase a combo of Inf and Elite/Artillery over the single Tank. This is a trade off. It means you want more punch from fewer production slots. Like that's why the player would buy them, for the absorption and raw attack power, but you get fewer shots in total. This is still very useful though in the trade off, like battleships or bunkers, as a shock absorber, or where you need to max power from a single placement slot. Somewhat pricey, but good in the long haul. Making Tanks solid in the vanguard and for clearing out tiles/deadzoning, as well as the usual strafes, cause they could operate more solo with fewer inf fodder needed to back them up. I mean compared to a more standard inf/art advance with greater numbers. This would require a starting unit set up adjustment, but I think could basically work with what you have currently. All that's needed is to make the Land-transport more expensive, and where it gets that bonus if bringing elites. That puts the tension between better capacity for a higher up front investment vs going cheaper with Inf in combo, but where you'd lose that bonus tow.

Essentially making your land transport behave more like the Naval and Air transports in that respect. Where they can always bring that Trained Inf, but they get a bonus dude if the infantry types are Elite. I think that would work pretty well. Definitely a mech type unit worth buying, since again, an m2 bonus extended to m1 units is hardcore. Especially when out in the field, off the rails hehe. That's your motorization/mechanization/firepower factor bonused in right there. Coming from the extra capacity with the bonus elite.

Probably wouldn't require too many changes to the starting unit set up, other than substituting a few Mech types for Tank types where the tow in round 1 is needed. But Armor as a 2-hit I think could be pretty cool. With Anti-Tank to help neutralize the absorption those units also would become more essential, since they can target. I'd do it for all the armor though, not just the heavy, and make that the defining theme/characteristic of the tank, the 2-hit aspect. Then everything fits pretty neatly into the 3 type mode.

Just like you got a 2-hit at sea, and then on land, the same could be done in the air, with a fighter that can take a beating or supped up super fortress or whatever the most badass unit there is meant to be. 2-Hit types are novel, but also pretty familiar from the Naval game. I think that has potential over just an increase in say range or attack/defense power cause I haven't seen it done really, another angle that hasn't been worked. A bomber that could take a second hit before dying might recommend a much higher cost. Just as the battleship is more expensive you could probably go that high, because the flak wouldn't murder those dudes at the same rate, and this would be a way to prevent a hardcore strat/med bomber spam. I think usually the approach for whatever a Heavy bomber was meant to be, it was always a second shot, but a second hit might work better.

Anyhow, just riffing. I mean we got the bunker already doing it. It's sorta thematic here for the gameplay. Like that and M3 I'd say could be the defining hallmarks of the game, along with the production concept which I very much dig. Especially the bases. I think those with a block also would have that sorta competition going between the pricepoint at 9 vs 10 or the 18s vs 20s hehe. Could cinch up pretty nicely that way.

Oh and one last thought, while on this transport kick. Since the AI uses Naval and Air transports basically as attack units, this might recommend abilities something like 2-2-2 for all of them, like the current Infantry-Motorized. This is a significant boost, but I'm thinking that if that was the case the AI would immediately become a lot more effective. Subs I think of like tanks of the sea, that they might be good at picking off the subs I get, but currently transports are the best unit for defending vs subs sans destroyers, and paired with defensive submarines of they're own they're pretty good in that role, but they get clipped by aircraft a lot. Again speaking of how the AI is using what it's given. Transports are traditionally an attack 0 defend 1 or attack/def zero unit defenseless in A&A, but there's nothing that says they couldn't be be at 1/2 or 2/1 or 2/2 or whatever to make them more like infantry on the water. This to me would recommend refiguring/revising up the attack power of a few other units as an offset, but the unit is already spammed heavily by the AI, and one of the main deficiencies of the AI is in losing their transports or leaving them unguarded. Could be that just rolling with a deuce instead of a 1 could make a real impact there, and then just bring a few more 3s into the fray maybe to nail em, so it's not all lopsided. Just kinda giving em enough to stay alive and mix it up. Could be interesting

[TheDog]

Using some of the above for land ...
I will code the following;

Inf-Motorized 1/2/2 5pu, was 6 (loses Towing as the half-tracks/trucks are too light and are already full)

Will have to re-evaluate Inf-Elite to 1/2/1 at maybe 5pu
Note Anti-Tank is also 5pu
.
Armor-Lgt gains Towing, consistent with other Armor

Britain-Churchill built 5000+ USSR-KV1 built 5000+ Armor-Inf 3/3/1 2HP, cost about 12pu (Slow moving Infantry Tank)

Later tech some nations.....Armor-Hvy 4/4/2 2HP, cost about 17pu

[wc_sumpton]

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

You are both saying that a brigade, a combined arms fighting force, of mainly mechanised/motorised infantry, with its extra manoeuvrability/armor and extra firepower from more machine guns/equipment/etc is still only 1/2/2 ?

Yes, every infantry squad includes machine guns, that's why they defend at 2. When attacking the machine guns need to be pickup and moved, even on halftracks/mechanized/motorized when attacking, the unit bounces, and is moving, making it much harder to acquire targets, thus attack 1. Also, many armor units carried machine guns, it's just baked into their attack/defense.

Just my thought.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

Sounds fun! I'm sure I'll immediately miss kicking ass across the Eastern front with the Moto, but I think those specs sound good! To me the 5 spot is great. It's one over Inf fodder meaning the most likely candiate for a remainder buy, so some tension there between a couple key units is all to the good. Cause you probably want that bunker too or a destroyer to run interference, so you get a little pull in a few directions. I think just having the tow for armor light will make tanks sorta everyone's favorite, but that also is to the good, cause with the tow they bring everyone along for the ride ya know. I think it should be fun.

I'm digging the new dynamics on the Eastern front a lot. The new one is my fav so far. I just enjoy how there's a good choice between North Center South for both sides there. And how HP production from the backfield pairs off vs constant desire for heavy hitters up front. Also the scramble I think plays off well vs the m3 rail there and the terrain element. It's pretty cool how you set that up. Lot of ways you can wheel around or do shifty stuff with the armor and fighters to try and cover multiple TTs off the rail. I feel like I always want to mess with England in some fashion but the Conscripts can make that pretty tricky, which I also enjoy! I think AI Brits just needs a bit more coverage for their early move outs/landings which hopefully the elites may get going. They definitely know how to get transports on the move, but do the floater thing a bit when the German air goes nuts or the fleet plays forward. Still doing that kinda invites a grind elsewhere. I just think its fun how gunning after Britian has a payoff. Or same deal vs Italy as Allies. If you get there and snap up a line hehe. Anyhow, good stuff!

Nice work

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk

Russia did use artillery during WWII, so I could see adding the Katyusha as a special unit for Russia 1x3/2/2. It looks like it launched small rockets, about the size of mortar rounds, not the big shell that artillery uses. More quantity then quality, that's why 3 dice on attack. Also, its a wheeled truck, so it may have more TT where its movement is reduced. The three shots could be very disruptive to emplaced defenders, -1 to units defending.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

@wc_sumpton that sounds like a cool take!

I will say that for me, when a single unit fires multiple shots (ala Heavy Bombers in Classic rolling x2, or the AAgun post v5 x3) I find that this can be pretty hard to ballpark on the fly for the mental calc. In this scenario, where the order of battle may be less intuitive to the new player, and aslo where many casualty selections are automated (via targeting) and where the player is encouraged to camp their space bar for while just to confirm to progress the fight, I worry a little bit about multi-shot units. Like just cause the combat/dice rolling part of the phase already goes pretty quickly with a lot flashing in on the player at once. It took me a long to to figure out when the artillery were actually firing vs the anti-tank etc heheh.

That said I'm not really opposed. The way it works currently, at least in a solo, the variability and unpredictability is almost part of the charm to me now. So I guess in that sense, if you already got a different order of battle and some units doing it, an artillery special pushing a bit for the1x3 for the shot seems like it could work, and I probably wouldn't notice. It'd just be one of those battles where it's like, "wow another big clap, it must have been the Katyushas!" hehe. Part of what obscures what is happening for me comes a little bit from the way the AI assigns casualty to/from bunker hits. I think it's because of the TUV and defense values of the bunker, but you know how sometimes the AI will start trading out Inf before the bunkers, like in that second wave sometimes as defender. Anyhow, a lot of that stuff passes me by, so a lot of the way I play is sorta raw power vs hitpoints, in terms of what goes on in my head for planning. Then often I'll get surprised with a result and wonder if I brought a different combination of units whether I'd have done better/worse in any given fight. I'm just I'd still sorta default to the Inf/Art push with most factions cause that's so ingrained, but it can be tricky to tell which units are firing when for me, even after playing many many games now hehehe.

For the latest build v 100, my main suggestion right now, when doing the switches mentioned in posts above for the armor etc/ would be to give the USSR a bit more reach for a first turn counter attack against Tula, or second turn counter attack vs Ryazan. This is because the new rail hubs in the Ukraine/Belarus regions makes it faster to shift units from the backfield onto Ryazan as Axis.

Axis also get the 1/2 punch with Italy/Germany in sequence before USSR is back up. Means Axis can stack a lot of their starting HP into Tula on G1, and many more hp into Ryazan on G2/I2 with support bringing up the rear and fighters landing adjacent. Whatever the ceiling on the units caps, I think that's one to keep an eye on. Currently I see a pretty reliable G3 kill on Moscow. It's because of the map/production design. I think with the current Production spread Ryazan would be analogous to W. Russia in a lot of A&A maps. As Axis if you can stack in, splits the Allied defense across multiple tiles, so this works the same way. Except rather than a choice between say Moscow/Stalingrad via W. Russia, the split there is Moscow/Kuyby/Stalingrad via Ryazan with 3 enemy factory spots pressured from that location. Germany alone can pull this off right now I think, but if you factor in Italy I think the HP swarm is more than Russia can handle.

In order to dampen the effect I think a USSR counter attack option to thin out the advance and make it a bit harder for Axis to stack in along that line. Like if they could be hit by a strafe, so the play has more risk for Axis. I think you need to have a pretty strong Axis line on Moscow in these sort of games, like in order for the game to have any tension, but right now with the added rail hubs I think it might be too easy for Axis to swoop in quick-style immediately, like G3. I wouldn't remove the rail there, cause I like the new factories a lot, but I'd perhaps give Russia an edge a bit closer to the frontline, just so they have more of a first turn response if Axis go murder mode vs them.

Similarly, if both Germany and Italy, commit 100% of their effort to USSR, it would be hard for Allies to stop this, so it's kind of up to Germany to set the tone there. How much they elect to send vs Britain/Africa basically, with Axis having the initiative/choice there. If they throw their full weight East (sorta traditional, least from A&A experience) if that's reliable for the kill, I think it becomes the default. What I like about this particular map is that there's actually a fairly decent payoff for going vs Britain though, and an option for the fleet to play forward if Germany plans for that from G1. In a Solo I think the player might be led by greed to try some balsey stuff and edge it. But you know what I mean, like standard Kill Russia first, send everything to the middle type strat. Where G balls up and Germany and Italy move in tandem for the B-Line on the Moscow pocket.

Another related thing would be the Black Sea edge that Axis can build up on the water, though I think this is a trade off, cause it's pretty expensive for Italy to build a pocket fleet in the black sea. Still, if they do, this would be hard for Russia to counter. USSR has a lot of Aircraft to wipe a newly minted Axis fleet on Turn 2, but they gotta get their air in range first, and Axis might contest the whole coastline and have many fighters of their own in round 2.

To offset this, I would give the USSR a mini fleet with a transport in the Caspian. This way they have an option to reinforce the Caucasus from the Caspian side, if Axis take over the black sea and start funneling units with transports. They could shuck 9 hp per turn that way I think, like vs Baku/Baghdad via Georgia, and it'd be pretty hard to answer with USSR. But the Caspian rout if there was a transport there, would at least allow Allies to cover that Baku VC and Uzbek/China. Caspian sz cash currently could not be contested, since there is no production there along the coast.

I think you could do the Caspian Flotilla basically...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Flotilla

With a transport and some destroyers, just so it isn't insta-wiped by the Italian Air-HQ. Axis would still have to advance their line by 1 tile to reach the Caspian with reg fighters, and Russia at least would have a turn to answer that.

The headquarters for the Caspian Flotilla was at Baku at the time I think, which might be made an Industry-Medium rather than a base-camp situation. It would help the Caucasus to pair off vs Axis in Rostov/Ukraine in the early game. Like if you wanted to reduce the Lend-Lease at Baku and have a little more of the cash coming like direct income from an Industry-Med on the USSR side, Baku prob would make sense. Essentially having some of the 'lend lease' represented by that production/naval units along the Caspian route. Astrakhan I think would be the next best option if Baku seems to already have enough going on. Either of those tiles at 7 though, perhaps with no factory initially might work. Just thinking of a way to make it so that the Caspian sea zone is actually in play and not quite as isolated, since it'd be in a sort of push/pull contest with the Black Sea there, with a couple of VCs on the line.

Anyhow, just some thoughts. Again, enjoying this one quite a lot! Good times!

[TheDog]

Latest version 105 ready for download from 1st page 1st post

If using faster 2.6 remember to minimize the error box to the taskbar, to stop it it reappearing (this is only a warning error please ignore it)

• To help the AI, each Allied Air & Sea unit type limited to 10 per TT/SZ. Each Land unit type limited to 20 per per TT, was 20/40 (the sweet spot for AI & player might be 15/30)
• Armor-Inf 3/3/1 2HP 12pu (new unit)
• Armor-Hvy 4/4/2 2HP 17pu (new stat line)
• Inf-Elite 1/2/1 5pu (new stat line)
• Inf-Motorized 1/2/2 5pu, (new stat line) also lost its carry/tow capability (not powerful/heavy enough to pull/tow) (Thanks both for the discussion)
• Armor-Lgt gains carry/tow capability (just powerful/heavy enough to pull/tow) & helps balances out that China/Japan/Pacific-Allies dont have Inf-Motorized) (Thanks both for the discussion)
• Updated Game_Notes, Prologue, Start_Nations & tooltips to match recent changes
  .
• supportAttachment, heavily based off WC Sumpton post, thanks again
• V1-Rocket Raid damage d2-1, was d2
• V2-Rocket Raid damage d2,...was d2+1, cost 6pu, was 4
• Fixed Lend-Lease amounts for the donor nations
• These nations can purchase Conscripts ANZAC, Britain, Germany, Japan ONLY if their homeland is invaded, removed maxBuilt=30 as the Conscripts are conditional on being invaded

WEST

• USA Theme reinforcements 2x Destroyers /turn (as AI under buys)
• USSR Archangelsk Lend-Lease doubled to 8pu

EAST

• USSR Vladivostok Lend-Lease doubled to 16pu
• Pacfic-Allies Darwin-Northern Territory & Melbourne-Victoria Base-Camp

TODO

• Balance
• USSR code Armor-Hvy Tech T9 = tech of T8+
• New icons Armor-Hvy_hit
• New USSR Armor-Inf (KV-1) Icon & _hit (Yellow man?)
• New Britain Armor-Inf_hit Icon (Yellow man?)
• Bomber-Tac support Tech

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

[wc_sumpton]

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

TODO

Balance
USSR code Armor-Hvy Tech T9 = tech of T8+
New icons Armor-Hvy_hit
New USSR Armor-Inf (KV-1) Icon & _hit (Yellow man?)
New Britain Armor-Inf_hit Icon (Yellow man?)
Bomber-Tac support Tech

For the "_hit", I used:
Also add it to the Armor-Med.

Trying something different for the techs, using Japan's "Long-Lance", for "Armor-Hvy" I added the tech "HV-Armor":

<technologies>
	<techname name="Land-Transport" tech="mechanizedInfantry"/>	<!-- Note the name change for display -->
	<techname name="Air-Transport" 	tech="paratroopers"/>
	<techname name="Long-Lance"/>
	<techname name="HV-Armor"/>
</technologies>
<playerTech player="Germany">
	<category name="Technology Advances">
		<tech name="Land-Transport"/>
		<tech name="Air-Transport"/>
		<tech name="HV-Armor"/> <!-- can also be add to USA and British -->
	</category>
</playerTech>

And the new triggers:

<!-- ======================================= Tech Germany Armor-Adv ======================================= -->
<!-- Germany Armor-Adv T1+ & remove Tankette -->
<attachment name="conditionAttachment_Germany_Research_Armor-Adv_Success" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
        <!-- Removed -->
        <!-- <option name="switch" value="false"/> -->
        <!-- Replace with -->
	<option name="techs" value="HV-Armor" count="1"/>
</attachment>
<attachment name="conditionAttachment_Germany_Research_Armor-Adv_Invert" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="RulesAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Germany_Research_Armor-Adv_Success"/>
	<option name="invert" value="true"/>
</attachment>

<attachment name="triggerAttachment_Germany_Research_Armor-Adv_Chance" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Germany_Research_Armor-Adv_Invert"/>	<!-- note Invert on end as starts T1, as rounds not used -->
	<option name="chance" value="1:3"/>		<!-- more chance -->
        <!-- Removed -->
	<!-- <option name="playerAttachmentName" value="RulesAttachment" count="conditionAttachment_Germany_Research_Armor-Adv_Success"/> -->
	<!-- <option name="playerProperty" value="switch" count="true"/> -->
        <!-- Replaced with -->
	<option name="tech" value="HV-Armor"/>
	<option name="chanceIncrementOnFailure" value="1"/>
	<!-- Changed to after end turn -->
        <!-- <option name="when" value="before:GermanyPurchase"/> -->
	<option name="when" value="after:Germany0EndTurn"/>
</attachment>
<attachment name="triggerAttachment_Germany_Research_Armor-Adv" attachTo="Germany" javaClass="TriggerAttachment" type="player">
	<option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachment_Germany_Research_Armor-Adv_Success"/>
	<option name="productionRule" value="production_Germany:buyArmor-Adv"/>
	<option name="notification" value="Notify_Germany_Research_Armor-Adv"/>
	<option name="players" value="$All-Players$"/>
	<option name="uses" value ="1"/>
	<option name="when" value="before:GermanyPurchase"/>
</attachment>

Also add tech and tech_activation before purchase for each player. Doing this allows players to check which techs each player has.

Thoughts.

Cheers...

[TheDog]

Another Masterclass thanks!

I have it working for Armor-Hvy for 3 nations

[wc_sumpton]

@thedog

Glad you like it! I've used it for **Fighter-Jet, P51 Mustang, Adv-Sub, V rockets, etc... Make's it nice to see who's got what.

Now onto support. First I placed on the early units: When these units are used they don't require offensive support. Except for China and for a limited time Pacific-Allies.

<variable name="All-HQ-Air-Command">		<!-- 5  -->
	<element name="Fighter"/>
	<element name="Fighter-Jet"/>
	<element name="P51-Mustang"/>
	<element name="Bomber-Tac"/>
	<element name="Bomber"/>
	<!-- <element name="HQ-Air"/>		Not self
	<element name="Fighter-Early"/>		Only has Def
	<element name="Kamikaze-Plane"/>	Special
	<element name="Air-Transport"/>		0/0
	<element name="Nuclear-Bomber"/>	Special
	<element name="V1-Rocket"/>			Unmanned & Only has Atk
	<element name="V2-Rocket"/>			Unmanned & Only has Atk
	-->
</variable>
<!-- HQ-Air can add 10 support -->
<!-- Offensive air w/o China and Pacific Allies -->
<attachment name="supportAttachmentHQ-Air_Dog_Fight_Offence" attachTo="HQ-Air" javaClass="UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
	<option name="faction" value="allied"/>
	<option name="unitType" value="$All-HQ-Air-Command$"/> <!-- Does not include Early-Fighter -->
	<option name="side" value="offence"/>
	<option name="dice" value="AAstrength"/><!-- Dog Fight support, not Strength in this case is ground support only -->
	<option name="bonus" value="1"/>		<!-- + for allied or - for enemy -->
	<option name="number" value="5"/>		<!-- apply this many times -->
	<option name="bonusType" value="Command"/>
	<option name="players" value="$All-Axis$:USSR:Britain:USA"/> <!-- Add Pacific-Allies on turn 11 -->
	<option name="impArtTech" value="false"/>
</attachment>

<!-- Offensive air for China and Pacific Allies -->
<attachment name="supportAttachmentHQ-Air_Dog_Fight_Offence_China" attachTo="HQ-Air" javaClass="UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
	<option name="faction" value="allied"/>
	<option name="unitType" value="$All-HQ-Air-Command$:Early-Fighter"/>
	<option name="side" value="offence"/>
	<option name="dice" value="AAstrength"/><!-- Dog Fight support, not Strength in this case is ground support only -->
	<option name="bonus" value="1"/>		<!-- + for allied or - for enemy -->
	<option name="number" value="5"/>		<!-- apply this many times -->
	<option name="bonusType" value="Command"/>
	<option name="players" value="China:Pacific-Allies"/> <!-- Remove Pacific-Allies on turn 11 -->
	<option name="impArtTech" value="false"/>
</attachment>

<!-- Defensive air for all supportable units for all players -->
<attachment name="supportAttachmentHQ-Air_Dog_Fight_Defense" attachTo="HQ-Air" javaClass="UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
	<option name="faction" value="allied"/>
	<option name="unitType" value="$All-HQ-Air-Command$:Early-Fighter"/>
	<option name="side" value="defence"/>
	<option name="dice" value="AAstrength"/><!-- Dog Fight support, not Strength in this case is ground support only -->
	<option name="bonus" value="1"/>		<!-- + for allied or - for enemy -->
	<option name="number" value="5"/>		<!-- apply this many times -->
	<option name="bonusType" value="Command"/>
	<option name="players" value="$All-Players$"/>
	<option name="impArtTech" value="false"/>
</attachment>

<!-- Offensive gnd w/o China and Pacific Allies -->
<attachment name="supportAttachmentHQ-Air_Offence" attachTo="HQ-Air" javaClass="UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
	<option name="faction" value="allied"/>
	<option name="unitType" value="$All-HQ-Air-Command$"/>
	<option name="side" value="offence"/>
	<option name="dice" value="Strength"/>	<!--  ground support only -->
	<option name="bonus" value="1"/>		<!-- + for allied or - for enemy -->
	<option name="number" value="5"/>		<!-- apply this many times -->
	<option name="bonusType" value="Command"/>
	<option name="players" value="$All-Axis$:USSR:Britain:USA"/>
	<option name="impArtTech" value="false"/>
</attachment>

<!-- Offensive gnd for China and Pacific Allies -->
<attachment name="supportAttachmentHQ-Air_Offence_China" attachTo="HQ-Air" javaClass="UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
	<option name="faction" value="allied"/>
	<option name="unitType" value="$All-HQ-Air-Command$:Early-Fighter"/>
	<option name="side" value="offence"/>
	<option name="dice" value="Strength"/>	<!--  ground support only -->
	<option name="bonus" value="1"/>		<!-- + for allied or - for enemy -->
	<option name="number" value="5"/>		<!-- apply this many times -->
	<option name="bonusType" value="Command"/>
	<option name="players" value="China:Pacific-Allies"/>
	<option name="impArtTech" value="false"/>
</attachment>

<!-- Defensive gnd for all supportable units for all players -->
<attachment name="supportAttachmentHQ-Air_Defense" attachTo="HQ-Air" javaClass="UnitSupportAttachment" type="unitType">
	<option name="faction" value="allied"/>
	<option name="unitType" value="$All-HQ-Air-Command$"/>
	<option name="side" value="defence"/>
	<option name="dice" value="Strength"/>	<!--  ground support only -->
	<option name="bonus" value="1"/>		<!-- + for allied or - for enemy -->
	<option name="number" value="5"/>		<!-- apply this many times -->
	<option name="bonusType" value="Command"/>
	<option name="players" value="$All-Players$"/>
	<option name="impArtTech" value="false"/>
</attachment>

I've used this 6 bracket setup for all HQ units.

Thoughts

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

Looking good!

Couple quick thoughts from my last game v105...

I saw USSR attacking into neutral Konduz (Afghanistan) pretty consistently. Mechanically this isn't a bad move for the computer, especially since the NAP blocks Japanese movement into Soviet tiles, and in general it's easy enough for me to imagine random neutral spots entering the fray, but this is something I'd try to avoid happening in the turn 1 script. Some other neutral TTs may be similar, like Aragon-Catalonia for Germany or the spots in South America for USA.

I would suggest creating a separate set of units for the neutrals where all those units have a TUV of zero. Right now a neutral TT with 2 bunkers on it is worth 10 TUV destroyed, and a TT with 9 bunkers would have a TUV of 45. I believe the AI takes potential TUV destroyed into account, meaning it may be less likely to make such attacks if those same bunker units had a listed value of 0 for neutrals rather 5 PUs. Bunkers might not work as well for that, if they're more generic infrastructure (outside the national unit folder), but you could do it with infantry and regular combat units I think. Since no player has access to that neutral roster and those units are not entering play beyond what's down at the start, I'd make them all at zero TUV. Like the neutral infantry and tanks and whatnot, cause then you could explore other ways to scale their forces for the deterrence factor, beyond just multiples of the bunkers. Like we could go around the map in edit mode and scale those neutral forces without having to worry about how much the TUV might be drawing the AI's attention away from their 'live' opponent hehe.

Second thing I wanted to mention, I think we might to use the zombies rules for our Carriers. In A&AZ carriers can't host friendly fighters from other nations on their team. So for example, you can't send USA fighters to land on British carrier decks or vice versa like in the older games. Here I'd suggest it especially for the solo game, where the AI will attempt to land fighters on it's teammates carrier decks to support them or just to move out further than they'd be able to otherwise. This could be potentially frustrating for the player, since until the AI flies off on their next turn, that carrier slot is locked up. Like you might have 3 fighters that could otherwise be in an attack on your next turn, and planning on that, only to find that you can't cause a friendly decided to camp out on your deck hehe. AAZ carrier rules are somewhat less dynamic than say v3, but also simpler to follow. It's easier I think for the player to track.

Otherwise feeling pretty solid to me! I'm playing as the Brits right now. Pretty entertaining
Nice work!

ps. oh and my last thought real quick. I would remove the strict separation between combat and non-combat movement phases. I find that enforcing the distinction between movement phases just increases the likelihood of error for me in tripleA. I think it's unnecessary for the digital version, where tripleA will track individually whether a unit has moved, or how far, unlike sitting around the table top. Anything that interrupts the decision making during movement, or which makes the transportation/transit process more tedious I think kinda hurts the flow. Also if a unit has moved during combat but still has movement remaining it will freeze out in the non com phase right now, like for ships at m2/m3. Currently if a TT is contested, empty of enemy units but occupied by your own troops (often happens clearing bunkers in the stalemate) you can't move the units out of the TT during the combat move phase except via transport. But then if the phase separation wasn't as strict, even if we couldn't exit the tile via an attack during the com phase into an adjacent tile, we could non com into a friendly tile if there was one. Anyhow that would be my suggestion, basically to allow non-combat movement during the combat phase generally without added penalties. It's already better for the player to separate phases, than to collapse all into their com movement, since then you'd see the results before committing, so really it's a trade off there for speed. But many would make it, and I think it's sorta the default in tripleA for me hehe. I get the intent forcing movement phase separation, but I think it isn't really needed and just sorta slows things down here.

On the physical board this is harder to achieve, but in tripleA basically what we can do is streamline it from a combat movement/combat/non-combat phase, into something more like a movement/combat/'land aircraft' phase, which is a fair bit faster. To me this is a draw in tripleA, since it keeps the gameplay moving at a steady clip. Similar to combat before purchase which we've already got going. I think when the player is the the movement mindset, they will issue those command during the com phase just as easily a lot of the time. And then you only have to hold back in reserve if there's a question hanging in the air, or if like the results of a battle would change what/where you wanted to move, but otherwise if you can handle a non-com move during combat movement, I'd say go for it. Only a few unit types currently would need to be tweaked for that, mostly just the transports I think right? Works for the other air/fleet/ground units. It's just the ones that do the load/unload I think right? Cause it works for the land transport tow currently.

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk

Good thoughts on the Neutrals, I'll let you and @TheDog hammer out that idea.

Aircraft landing on allied carriers, can see where that is enforced. Maybe @TheDog has more ideas about that.

Very confused about the last part. If you have attacking units stuck in a territory with a bunker, then during the follow-up attack, the bunker, with a movement of zero, cannot retreat. The defending, old attacking units, cannot retreat. If its combat units lock in a stalemate, then move 2 units may move out of the TT during combat move, as long as they finished their move into another combat TT (not enforced by TripleA). There is always the undocumented "canRetreatOnStalemate".

You can noncombat move during combat movement. If you are talking about making a partial move during combat movement, and then finishing the move during noncombat movement. That would be a "board" house rule, not supported by TripleA.

Cheers...

[TheDog]

Bunker TUV
A good idea about Bunker TUV beling less than 5.

Below its set to Bunker_ & TUV=1 (note the underscore this is a Neutral Bunker)

Only one test and it does not appear to work, see below.

I will leave the code in so you can test it. (it might have a small effect)

.
Allied Air on own Carriers
Does the property below control the above? As per the text you can still land, but will not fight

<!-- if true, allied air on your carriers will participate in an attack -->
   <property name="Allied Air Independent" value="true" editable="false">

In the next release it will be false, so you can test it.

Is there another property?

.
One Movement phase
TripleA does not support 100% Non-Combat move in the Combat Move phase, it would be nice if it did.

[wc_sumpton]

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

One Movement phase
TripleA does not support 100% Non-Combat move in the Combat Move phase, it would be nice if it did.

What types of Non-Combat are not supported? The only one's I can think of would be "canMoveIntoDuringCombatMove" which is not used and "canNotMoveDuringCombatMove".

At a loss here. But that's not uncommon!

Cheers...