Mega New Elk WIP

[wc_sumpton]

@beelee said in Mega New Elk WIP:

and then added all of The Dog's stuff over for territories basically.

Yea... little paw prints all over the place.

Cheers...

[beelee]

@wc_sumpton said in Mega New Elk WIP:

Yea... little paw prints all over the place.

That's how most people use triplea. Copy other peoples shit

[Black_Elk]

Yeah totally hehe. My thinking was the barest of bones first, then could add stuff back in as it goes along. Sorta the hackjob Frankenstein approach, to get the roster and the g40-ish thing going on, but then was also trying to the aesthetic there, cause labels on gives a pretty different vibe. I can't really think of a way to match out the labels with the double tone thing, short of like typing them out. It could be done fairly quickly but I'm not sure we ever actually determined the font choice he used. Couldn't find it in my GIMP plugins, alas. But then there are some other options too down the line, like we go try transparencies as well. Or making the little circles and whatnot slightly smaller, could options there. For just seeing what the Fast/HardAI does with it, can add in a large purse to start and see how it's building out under the g40 with the cash involved. I suspect it will buy quite a few bombers and such, but then also each Ai nation has it's own purchasing that it tends to do. Anyhow, should be easy enough to riff and sorta tease out different ideas to add on top. At some point down the line.

[TheDog]

@beelee
@wc_sumpton has a point about mech infantry, you need to find a balance for including/buying them.

Mech infantry/Inf-Motorized in GCD

• For Japan and Pacific-Allies, I removed Inf-Motorized, as the Player & AI did not buy them, also Japan used most of its trucks for supply.

• For Germany, Italy, Britain, USA Inf-Motorized can

  • Blitz if stacked with Armor
  • Get Combined Arms support of +1 Atk from being stacked with Armor or Bomber-Tac
  • Produced from Base-Camp, good for moving around Africa

So are they worth the extra 1pu over infantry?
For me, for Germany & Italy attacking east, yes, the rest is situational.

[TheDog]

@beelee
The minimalist in me see no reason to display the TT or SZ name/label on the map, usually its hidden under a mass of units, also it is on the status bar.

Unless, you are going to print the map as a map board then I would go to all the trouble that it entails of shoe horning the name within the TT/SZ.

Just my 2p.

[Black_Elk]

I'm ambivalent, I think it would probably be fine if I could do a line break instead of hyphen, but for the built-in text sorta just has to run in one long line. I think the text itself could probably be danced around, though for me the PU is the more important at a glance. Text sorta more for flavor and to make it G40-esque though prob recommends some noodling.

Thought for units would just be the barest bones, like grafting G40 or some form of it onto the existing thing. So mech would just do whatever they do in world war II global, basic roster there. I think since standard roster has the ABs and NBs, that land base of some sort makes sense, and for that some form of simplified rail would be nice for m3. Just granting say the +1 bonus for ground units beginning their turn on a territory with an operational factory, but otherwise probably keeping all the ground the same. I think unit set up was more just to get some stuff down see how it filled out. I think other stuff probably just like a holdover from trying to port the one on top the other.

[wc_sumpton]

@thedog said in Mega New Elk WIP:

@wc_sumpton has a point about mech infantry, you need to find a balance for including/buying them.

Thank you, this reminds me of our conversation about the AA, which has gone the way of the Dodoo bird in GCD with the mech_infantry and submarines on the endangered species list.

TripleA, IMHO, is designed around the concept of each piece having a job. Though there is the bomber which can SBR, combat, and transport. But if it transport it cannot SBR or combat, so it can only do 1 job per turn. When jobs are shared between multiple pieces, then some pieces become useless. Tanks are land transports, so you do not need mech_infantry because now infantry can move 2 and blitz. Every unit can AA so you do not need AAA. Transports have isDestroyer, so submarines are used as fodder.

Why buy an AAA, you don't.
Why buy a mech_infantry, it cannot blitz, so maybe give it a buff with armor? But now infantry can blitz and move 2 les 1pu!
Why buy submarines, they can no longer sneak attack on transports?

I know, I need to get off my soap box, but one last comment. Each infantry unit represents between 1000 - 1200 soldiers, while each armor will equal maybe 100 tanks. So, you going to put a platoon of equipped infantry on a tank! Someone walking. If half the infantry are walking, then the tank should only be able to move 1 space, to allow the walking soldiers a chance to keep pace.

To me the logic just does not work. I know that soldier road abord tanks, but that's two or three, not ten to thirty.

Sorry, this is just one of the things I can't wrap my head around.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

I think the vanilla roster in G40 would work fine for this one. I mean it has the advantage of being extremely familiar, so then if that is the starting point it's a bit easier to riff on something more advanced there, maybe via tech or novel mechanics, or some form of different combined arms I guess. For this thing though, just sorta seeing if we could get the G40 features onto the jumbo board for some bones. Requires a different sort of production spread to make it more in-scale with a G40 I'd think. Hence sorta blanking the production back down, and then putting the high end a bit lower on this one 6 pu instead of 9 pu at ceiling, for the most productive tiles. Then reworking the rest of the spots back down from there.

Goal would be to get something that might service that idea maybe of tech token oriented game ala v3 NML style, but set more WW2 and using the more vanilla roster from one of those scenarios, or basically just world war II global, but reduxed for the larger map. I think m3 factory concept is pretty solid, not too hard to implement in a simplified way if the bonus is sorta universally applied +1. So tanks at M2, or Mech when paired with tanks might be able to move M3 into combat if starting their turn on factory, M1 units like inf or art would be able to operate at M2, but again only when positioned on that tile at the start of their turn, and if the factory is operational (under the G40 scheme for factory/base repair). It will would be fewer factories on the board overall and only two types Major/Minor, and with some limitations there to follow the vanilla scheme on how factories and such work in A&A, but I think once it's put together a bit more it should be pretty simple to see in operation there.

Basically just an analogy to the NBs and ABs, but handled via the factory so we wouldn't need an additional graphic to make it work. I would keep all the units essentially identical in terms of pricing and abilities to world war II global, so that when opening this one or UHD global, all the stuff looks more or less the same. Vanilla G40 roster as the basis, then other stuff possibly optioned on via techs or the like, but first to just get the reg stuff down.

[Black_Elk]

Here is a quick savegame using that last map file posted to the git the other night. I just used Edit mode to ballpark a control arrangement for a 1940-ish set up. To mirror the g40 in terms of who got what sort of neutrality treatment. Didn't have the VCs cause I didn't want to mess up the xml, but just to give a gist.

2025-2-28-Mega-New-Elk_1940.tsvg

Then the other one would be more like the Ozteas or a 41 or 42. A 39 could be more like the HBG's board, that sorta thing. I still like the idea of X files aliens and zombies at some point in 45, but that's surely getting in over my head lol. Here at the start, more to just crib the standards.

[Black_Elk]

Proposed adjustments from vanilla to support the playscale of this board.

Minor Factory restricted to territories worth 3 PUs or more
Major Factory restricted to territories worth say 4/5 PUs or more (something limited)
Operational Factory grants +1 movement to ground units

Universal rules for the Capital capture, following G40 - taking an enemy capital awards the purse. However, if the faction still controls a factory VC they may collect income and purchase the following round (fight till the bitter end option hehe).

When a Nation's capital or final VC factory is captured, then the standard China G40 rules apply for placement. Idea is to make what's happening with China rules in the standard thing a bit more uniform here. Applies to all factions. So France, USSR, Italy, any nation might end up in the same position once their last VC is taken. Liberation rules for teammates I think would just also follow the G40 rules on that, but I can see a situation where any territory that isn't a VC is treated as original owner neutral, and could go to whoever is holding it in case of liberation.

For production spread, and to accommodate those tweaks, I suggest the following PU adjustments

E. Prussia 3, Netherlands 3, Belgium 3, Oslo 3, Juteland 2, Silesia 2, E. Romania 2

Germany 150-ish PUs (these are all ballpark but trying to round up to get a few more 3 PU spots)

Rome 5, Milan 5, Naples 3, Venice 3, Istria 3, Sardinia 3, Sicily 3, Tripoli 3, Italian Somaliland 3, Albania 2, Benghazi 2, Tobruk 2, all the rest 1 PU

Italy 50 PUs

Iwo Jima 2, Saipan 2

Japan 80 PUs

On the Allied side, I think need to bump these

Kuybysev to 3 PUs, Archangel 3 PUs, Rostov 3 PUs

Soviet Union 150

Normandy 3 PUs, Marseille 3 PUs, Vichy 3, Algiers 3 PUs, Tunisia, 3 PUs, Gabon 3 PUs

France (in a 1940) would be at around 80 Pu starting, but with the Capital capture that's more a way to push Germany's starting cash after their opener for a fall of France timeline, so sorta swing to Axis there. Idea is to provide some option for Atlantic or Med fleet resupply.

Scotland 3, N. England 3, Egypt 3, Nova Scotia 3, Cape Town 3, Vancouver 3, Ottawa 3

British 140

To provide them a few option for Minor purchase and to support the fleets, but stretching the choice on which theater to build out.

USA production pretty feels good to me, they're at 160 I think, with a starting factory on the east coast should be about right.

ANZAC I would raise Guadalcanal to 3 PU, Melbourne 3, New Zealand 3 so they can be around 35 production and a backup option, secondary sea zone just to feel more viable or dynamic down there, or for Axis targets along that path, more south pacific stretch by Japan.

I would lowball Allied starting TUV across the board, and starting factories lowballed for both teams. Basically a cluster for each Nation's core should be sufficient, and then allowing them to build out the rest on the tiles that could support a minor/major or upgrade. Since the income is relatively high compared to G40, I think better to let the players, and especially Allies guide the pace on that. Factories at the standard G40 prices can be a bit of a sink there, along with giving the player a way to really shape the pattern through choice of minor factory builds.

Italy I think needs a Major in Milan to work, probably another minor as well to keep one pace with the placement. I'd say Venice and just keep them like a block. Italian player can choose to expand in other directions at their discretion via Minor factory purchase.

My thoughts for now, think that should work though. Pretty close at any rate

[Black_Elk]

Proposed Income collection for the board on this playscale...

So in order to maintain a more familiar amount of cash being spent per game round, I suggest we use Options > Resource Modifiers > 50% Income.

To calculate their cash per turn, player takes home 1/2 their production total during the Collect Income phase

Effectively this makes all territories worth 1 PU = .5, while still allowing us to preserve the whole integers on the board. So the map that way is really something between the base 0 PU spread of vanilla global and the base 1 Pu spread I had envisioned initially.

The number of units in play would not effect these totals, so it's not really maintenance, although it could be understood abstractly in that way. Here though the nations would not be slipping into the red over time as more TUV gets added round to round, instead it's just a simple way to bring the totals more in line with standard gameplay expectations.

I think for starting units, TUV on the board on turn 1, this should likewise be somewhat lowballed. So trying to take perhaps a similar number of units to what we see in the vanilla G40, and distribute them among subdivisions of that same spot on the new board. Example all the stuff in E. Germany in G40, gets distributed between Berlin, Silesia, Mecklenburg, Pomerania etc. The stuff in W. Germany gets distributed between those tiles. A single factory capable location on the G40 board, might be slit into 2 smaller minor factory sub divisions. That sort of thing

Current totals we end up with something like

Germany production 150 > 75 PUs
Italy 50 > 25 PUs
Japan 80 > 40 PUs etc

So a bit closer to the standard G40 scale there. Similarly for Allies you get numbers that are a bit more manageable given the purchase prices of units the standard roster.

ps. Using such a scheme, player challenge vs the computer or by sides could use a more extreme modifier, though I would suggest we try it at 50% to see how it feels at that level.

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk

It would be hard to suggest to players to lower all the income by half. I think a better idea would be to double the price of units.

Cheers...

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk said in Mega New Elk WIP:

Universal rules for the Capital capture, following G40 - taking an enemy capital awards the purse.

Standard OOB rules.

@black_elk said in Mega New Elk WIP:

However, if the faction still controls a factory VC they may collect income and purchase the following round (fight till the bitter end option hehe).

This may take some fancy footwork, but it should be possible.

@black_elk said in Mega New Elk WIP:

When a Nation's capital or final VC factory is captured, then the standard China G40 rules apply for placement.

Wow, you do want some extravagant stuff !

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

@wc_sumpton I think I really prefer a scheme which has a launch setting that we can control, and which can be parsed easily by scanning the map at a glance, or read quickly in the Stats column. Something that can be easily adjusted, as opposed to introducing a new price structure which has to be set in the menu, or asking players to adopt a new mental math when counting pips or calculating their TUV for unit attrition or purchasing out in the wild.

To me raising unit prices would be somewhat more complicated and a slightly bigger ask, if only because that is requiring players to adopt an Infantry replacement value at 6 PUs instead of 3 PUs, whereas everyone is used to using 3 PUs in their heads, from all the A&A boards going back to 1984 hehe. When the player sees the Unit purchase screen for the first time here, I want that to read sorta exactly like G40.

Inf cost 3, tanks cost 6, bombers cost 12 etc. As opposed to scheme where the player has to adapt to seeing Inf cost 6, tanks cost 12, bombers cost 24 etc. I understand that the end result is similar, but the first approach allows me to keep a real sense of familiarity there, like for ease of use with our mental abacus, or just how things are visualized in the purchase menu, stats bar, or parsed at a glance when scanning the board. I think having some lower thresholds will help the player to get acclimated, just so they're not too overwhelmed.

The nice thing about doing a quick method like halving the total, is that the machine does this for us instantaneously, it's just automatically applied during collect income phase, so the player doesn't have to calc anything really to sorta get a big picture vibe based on what they're used to from the other G40 board.

The idea for the China rules is more iffy I'll admit. Might be too extravagant, I don't want to bite off more than I can chew here. It was just to be a little more consistent with what every other nation uses for that, something I've wanted to see since those rules were first adopted in AA50. I much prefer a system where what's happening in China for purchasing/placement mechanics, is sorta justified by the fact that their National Capital is already under Japanese occupation at the time of the game start, or because they don't have a factory VC spot, kinda pre-industrial pre-mechanization status. I just thought it might be adaptable for scenarios where a player/faction might be basically overrun as part of the script, but then if we want them to still be able to put up a few pips as a more minor faction, we have a way to make that work that's familiar from the other game. So an example might be like Free France uses China rules to spawn infantry in West Africa to simulate De Gaul, or maybe UK gets flattened in Sea Lion, but then they have a secondary option if still controlling a secondary VC/Factory. This is more for when the player is playing vs the computer opponent I'd think, but has the benefit of being sorta familiar, since it's how China works in the reg game. It might not be necessary but just a concept to kick around, or proposal to consider. It might not make the grade, but figured while I was brainstorming haha.

For the 1/2 Production = Income concept that's a bit more central to the thing I'm proposing. What I was hoping to find was just a more simplistic method to control the income totals round-to-round, and which might suggest (abstractly anyway) the idea of Maintenance, but without requiring the player to actually count all their units per turn to calc it.

Also typical Maintenance has an additional layer to it, whereas here, because the player cannot readily destroy their own TUV or scrap Units or suicide them conveniently in battle, they wouldn't really have a way to keep those unit totals down over time, so possible for players (or especially the computer) to purchase itself into the red that way pretty quickly. I wanted to avoid having to deal with that by just getting a faster road to the smaller pot of gold for each. I think players prob get used to working with a certain sort of purse, or certain totals for the income threshold, which can be a bit tough when we starting going into the triple digits for cash. I mean it'll get there I'm sure, but just as a way to keep things sorta in check initially. Also it's a very easy way to set the initial starting Cash for each player. So when player makes their first purchase, or sees that screen for the first time, they'll be sorta buying at a level that's a bit more in scale with the G40 expectations. I mean it is a higher economy map still regardless, but just a little less so going that way.

I also really like the idea of having a method which could be readily applied by Nation or by Team/Side, if trying to create multiple challenge settings from the launch. So essentially where the player could Nerf or Buff themselves or by side, to get a more Hard/Easy mode going, say vs the Machine. Here 50% would just be the default, so like if I could set that as the default probably would do that, so it loads auto style from the launch. If that's possible to do easily. Still sorta experimental days, but I think it will work, and get me a little closer to what I'm after here for the totals round-to-round. Fingers Crossed! hehe

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk said in Mega New Elk WIP:

Germany production 150 > 75 PUs
Italy 50 > 25 PUs
Japan 80 > 40 PUs etc

Even if it was possible to set resource percentage, the "production" values are still displayed in full. But this cannot be set the xml. The territory production would have to be reduced, either by display, or by xml so that the player would receive about half their expected PUs. So, if a territory displays 6 PUs, the xml will give them 3. If production says 150, the xml may give the 75. Here I think we are being false to the player, because were telling them one thing and doing another.

Again, reduce territory values, since this is done with foreach loops it is not a problem, or increase unit prices.

Cheers...

[wc_sumpton]

@Black_Elk

This is what I'm seeing:

All 1, 2, 3PUs have be reduced to 1, 4 and 5 to 2 and 6 to 3. Because Russian and British have more territory, their values are still high, while Americans and Germans, with the highest volume of high-count territories have been affected the greatest.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

@wc_sumpton Well let me sit with it a bit more, but just trying to brainstorm and give some of my way of thinking here.

In my view we are being pretty clear to the player, both in what we are showing to them and what we are doing. I mean it's just how income would be collected for the scenario here, so not trying to hide what's going on there from the player or keep that under the hood. Just like stating the rule and showing how it works in the opener. I envision this as like a launch prompt, where I tell the player what they are to expect here.

National Income per turn is calculated as Production total divided by 2.
All Production values are written directly on the map.

So there is no need for a complex series of objectives, or a some other means of holding the cash. This way will explain how both the starting PUs and round 1 income collection is being determined. Player can be informed via the game notes, options, and the first launch screen, as well as being reminded how it works during each collect income phase. It has the advantage of being universal and also easy to control at 2:1. Meaning I don't have to redesign the purchase roster or double pricing or things like that to hold the starting cash or recurring income at a given level relative to the board. In the vanilla game income is already sorta decoupled from production, because that game is built around Objectives for maintaining income turn to turn. Here I wanted to build that more into the map itself via the production spread. Somewhat lower than on the other map where the ceiling was at 9 pu.

The reason to do it this way, is to provide full integers for the purposes of quickly scanning and counting up PUs on the map, for what's being contested on the game board in a given turn, while also preserving placement at that level. Here we can give tiles at a base value of some fraction between 0 and 1. Not for the visual board display, but for how they are counted in the income phase.

In G40 there are island territories worth zero, here they are always worth a minimum of 1 if intended as a playable tile with it's own polygon, but with a practical income coming in at 0.5 PUs. Keying it off the infantry replacement analogy, so we ware able to create both a psychological value for trading territory, but also a real value, it's just that instead of 1:1 it's now 2:1 at the low end. Eg player needs to take 2 tiny islands at a value of 1 PU to recoup the 1 PU during income collection. It's only being false to the player if we don't explain what's happening in advance. But here I am planning to build the scenario around this concept, so it will be sorta front and center.

Compare that with a situation where a territory say production value 0, nevertheless grants a +5 bonus in the form of objectives, as it does in the Vanilla game sometimes. Or some alternative but common situation where the player is already decoupling production from income in the normal game (AA50, G40), or through things like warbonds, or just any situation where the income collection totals require the player to track extra information on top of the totals. I just find this simpler. It's an easy calc and relatively easy to explain. I can't reduce a Territories value below 1 except to all the way to zero, I mean without requiring me to put a 0.5 Pu territory graphic on the board, which feels odd, or to double the cost of all units, both things I'd prefer to avoid if I can do it a simpler way.

Would it not be easier to ask the player to make one extra step after counting their totals, as opposed to having to relearn the purchasing count in multiples of 6's instead of 3s? That was my thought anyway. Just seemed like something that would work on the face to face board (even though this is obviously more for computer tripleA play I don't have enough tables to print this map as a physical thing heheh.) Anyway I think it will also make the TUV column in the stats easier to parse. I mean either approach could work, but I was thinking to try this because it seems so straight forward to me and easy to click.

The launch setting Resource Modifier 50% income seemed to be working pretty well.

It just takes the income for everyone and cuts it in half, applying this the same way for all, so just what the player will be experiencing when income collection/purchase comes around. Or do you mean like if the player is saving starting cash? I believe the income bonus is applied after to all PUs held, not just what is collected from income from production, although this is pretty minimal and anyway this is more to create a ballpark. Anyway, I think it's worth a shot. We can also pursue another method if it's not working, but I like it because it allows me to keep the purchase screen as is, rather doing the doubling thing. I think it will be more clear once I get the set up dialed a bit. Currently there is more TUV on the board than I would use for such an idea, about 2-3 times more I'd say than what I think we might target, and the production spread itself still needs a bit of noodling.

Goal would to retain the basic play scale of G40, so ballpark a similar Unit count and total TUV at game's start, at most say doubling the unit count or TUV, but not more more. But I think right now it's quite a lot more than the G40 in terms of starting TUV, so going to pair that back. G40 has pretty streamlined opener. I think a similar basic dynamic for an opener here, could be preserved, despite having a significantly larger board. We will just be distributing the stuff across more tiles, to justify the m3, and the scale.

[Black_Elk]

ps. Ah I see, the image came through as I was posting

So my reason for wanting to preserve the higher values on the map Production is twofold, first I want to preserve the placement limitations (this in case of pursuing a single factory concept v3 placement rules instead of the current idea using G40 with different placement restrictions), but also for the reason you mentioned, that Axis because they have fewer starting spots necessitate higher values in their core.

This gives me a way to effectively make some, most territories for say Britain or USSR at a relative income value of .5 whereas for many axis tiles the values will have them closer to 1 there, just on account of more higher valued tiles in their starting neighborhood.

Reason I wanted to not double the purchase price as an alternative was more to do with wanting to preserve the G40 purchase screen. I just worry that someone opens it sees Inf cost 6, and balks at the mental math there, where they are too used to counting up by 3s and such haha.

I do see the merits in trying either way, this just seemed good to me because it's so flexible from the launch. 50% very simple, but just as easy might be 25% as Human vs a 50% machine, or that sort of thing. Or where like maybe 100% is tutorial mode sorta easy, but Ironman Hardcore is 25% or I don't know exactly, but just a quick way to ballpark and work the totals on income, for the desired playpattern to replicate a G40-ish thrust.

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk

I really do understand what you are saying. But in the xml, you can set the player's name, capital requirement, starting controller, disabling status and if the player is hidden. Later the alliance can be set. By game property for AI only but this can only be a positive whole number between 1 and 100, no fractions or decimal places allow. There is no way to set the "Resource Modifiers" on the main screen. So, you will have to tell the player to set this, and there is no way to tell if it was set.

So, you are designing the mod, hoping that the player set the first screen for all eight players. Ok, but I think very few players are going to do this. They are going to select the map, set the players to AI/Human and hit play.

In the xml it could be written to simulate the 50%, by counting each territory by half their assigned values. And hope. There is no way to query the PUs that a player has. There is no way to query the amount the player may receive. So, there is no way to divide the players income within the xml. If you want this 50% resource, then the player has to be told to do it prior to launching the map.

This cannot be done with the xml, and there is no developer that is going to do this. Sorry...

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

@wc_sumpton Ah I see, so it's like the dilemma of the other game, where we couldn't get the settings to change there for a FastAI default launch option? Alas. Well then, I guess back to the drawing board a little bit in that case. There are other ways we can get there I'm sure, but I thought that one sounded promising. I agree that it would not be ideal for the player to have to do that much manual entry in the options. Really needs to be more baked-in so that that the player doesn't have to fuss overmuch.

There are other ways to bring down the totals as you mentioned, though I think I would prefer to preserve the purchase screen pricing, so I think will have to explore some other methods. At the very least we can always control a fair bit via the starting income that is assigned, where there is precedent on many boards for lower starting income than starting production might suggest. Though that's more a 1 round thing, we can still use it to bring the ceiling down slightly. Will have to go in search of more tricks.

Good call though, and good looking out. I was all excited and thought I'd found the easy way. I'd have probably gotten a ways along before realizing I was building around a setting that can't be set haha