Mega New Elk WIP
-
@black_elk said in Mega New Elk WIP:
Germany production 150 > 75 PUs
Italy 50 > 25 PUs
Japan 80 > 40 PUs etcEven 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...
-
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...
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
@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
-
ps. In that case I think returning to the playscale target of the other night, before the resource modifier idea cropped up in my head again hehe. I mean basically it was going to be higher economy regardless either way, so not the end of the world, just a higher TUV sorta gameplan now.
I think there's also something to the idea of taking money away from the player (which they might otherwise have collected) that probably wouldn't sit right with most. I mean nobody likes to see their money disappear, 'like wait, why?!' lol So maybe there is something to not pulling a fast one there. If it's all automated out to the point where the player isn't having to click around and such, but I think you're right that players will want to just click play and go, dive in and not do a bunch of set up. For the most part I think people could get behind a big board with higher production/higher income TUV entering play via purchase. It'd just be nice I think for the first turn, and maybe first round or two, where it's paced in a bit. So perhaps Starting income in the first turn is just at that 1/2 level or something modest. Round 2 they build up from the initial starting deficit, by round 3 sorta collecting in stride, but I think that's enough room for the player to get acclimated. Least it will all calc and look as expected, no extra step at the end.
-
@black_elk said in Mega New Elk WIP:
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?
Programming wise, and I'm taking about the engine, this and setting resources would not be that hard to implement. Problem is getting it accepted. With many thanks to @TheDog, @beelee, you and many others, isAI was finally implemented. 'Baked a cake that day! Sure did! Wife was bemused but also pleasantly surprised, what with our ages and all, "We must watch our sugar intake!". But wow what a great party was had that night in the wc_sumpton household!
Sorry, got diverted there. But yea, getting any real change done right now will take a Herculin effort!
Still, we can dream! Visions of "hasResource" dancing in his head.
Cheers...
-
Was wondering if Americans should be split like British, UK_Pacific into USA_Pacific with San Francisco as the capital. It's already a capitolCity.
Cheers...
-
@wc_sumpton said in Mega New Elk WIP:
Programming wise, and I'm taking about the engine, this and setting resources would not be that hard to implement. Problem is getting it accepted
Maybe it's time fork off a "tripleB" lol
jk
kinda
-
@wc_sumpton
saidProgramming wise, and I'm taking about the engine, this and setting resources would not be that hard to implement. Problem is getting it accepted. With many thanks to @TheDog, @beelee, you and many others, isAI was finally implemented. 'Baked a cake that day! Sure did! Wife was bemused but also pleasantly surprised, what with our ages and all, "We must watch our sugar intake!". But wow what a great party was had that night in the wc_sumpton household!
isAI is so
It makes games so playable, as the player does not have to tick/match/think about their AI opponents, just select them once and go.If only wc_sumpton (he did isAI) could be made a Dev, Devs?
@frigoref
@LaFayette
@Myrd
Pretty please
I know Im such a pleader
-
I have no formal training. Self-taught, I do this for fun.
Cheers...
P.S I would submit 20 changes the first week.
Cheers...
-
@wc_sumpton
and I would help you test them. -
@wc_sumpton said in Mega New Elk WIP:
I would submit 20 changes the first week.
pretty sure that's what Dan did when we switched to git lol
Hope his bike ride going ok. I don't get the update things anymore
-
I'm all for the self taught! Some autodidact wizardry, might be just what the doctor ordered here.
I had forgotten LaFayette was on that big trek. Would be cool to have some redundancy in the chain of command, though I'm of zero use in figuring that all out. WC's got my vote though for sure!
To the Q about whether to split USA, I'm a little reluctant, because while I think approach could be very easy to parse on a physical board, here the map wrap can be a little strange since the board meets at the Rockies there. I think also, I have a little frustration from the vanilla handling of Britain, as having more to do with fact that G40 is built by combining two games meant to function independently of each other (though honestly I think most combine the two theaters and just play global if they're going to go through the effort that is hehe.) On the one hand I'd like to simplify the global game and only bring over what we really need, on the other hand I think it's helpful if whatever is the expectation from G40, that this one would sorta meet the player where they're at, and crib the basic flavor/structure.
For this game, just to further explain some of the rationale here, what I'd like to do is sorta invert the standard approach taken in A&A, for how to deal with production, specifically when adding new territories/polygons to the map. I mean the approach that we inherited from Revised, AA50, G40 etc when compared to the first board Classic. There the approach taken was basically keep the total production values fixed (whether by individual game tile, or by some larger region) and so most of the TTs added will either split up an existing tile and shift it's production values around to keep the same overall totals, or (often) adding/changing the value of designated tile at Zero PUs. Larrry very reluctant to add production under the million man hours scheme, so there we have these ceilings on Production, and instead the starting Units TUV is treated very flexibly in the A&A as a way to balance that. Examples would be like Tourney rules adding unit/TUV as a standard bid. What you don't see much is a dramatic rework of the production spread at the base.
Basically that approach, it will create a larger board, but with many more low/no value territories, and lower PU value generally (all the things designed to keep the set up, and the number of sculpts required at a bare minimum). Then to balance the board by side, Objectives are introduced as a way of adding money back into that spread in a somewhat asymmetrical way under that methodology.
Here I want to basically do the mirror image, or the opposite of that approach. Essentially I want to add new territories or polygons at a base 1 PU value, and raise the ceilings from there.
The challenge of course is that this board is very very subdivided, hence pretty high Production totals overall and the desire to mitigate that in some way so it's not just an ultra stackfest map. In the GCD situation was different, because there we get a sort of equilibrium between unit count, maintenance, PU generating infrastructure and other things to keep the pot of gold from running away from us, like to lift/lower the thresholds by individual nation/team. For this version I'm trying to get at what I suppose would be a bare minimum for the production spread to justify this sort of sub-dividing to begin with.
I think we can get there though. There will be a little bit of a balancing act for sure, since I moved the goal post for the production spread. Down from 9 PUs to 6 PUs at the high end for the most productive spots, but then still higher at the low end which is now 1 rather than 0. To me this an abstraction of course, PUs become something more like a generic strategy point. In the vanilla IPCs have the connection to 'industry' but here I'm pursuing something more catch-all and a bit more flexible. Values may vary depending on the locale, so that 1 PU in one region of the map might be weighted slightly differently than some other region. Example a 1 PU territory in a highly industrialized region of Europe, compared to 1 PU for some central Pacific island atoll or whatever. Meaning there's no real parity for example between Japan's production and USA's, or Italy's and Britain's, but instead these may be artificially inflated or lowered, to match the playscale of the board.
It's a fair bit of work to puzzle out, but I think I'm getting a closer with each iteration here. For me the starting idea would be to just graft the core of the G40 ruleset onto the larger board, key up the production spread at the base to work a bit more readily at that scale, then tinker using some of the familiar solutions, though I'm trying to hold off on using Objectives as the primary mechanism for balancing, because I want to first see what I can achieve with the production spread by itself.
The reason for all this is in part, to get around the problem which the computer has, and which you noted in that other thread, of not being able to transport effectively or efficiently.
I think there are a couple kinds of A&A players, there are players who like to build out infrastructure on front line production, and then there are players who delight at playing the game with a very long but efficient logistics line, say moving units from the core to the front as USA via transports. Something very satisfying in the latter about using the transports just so, to max the efficiency, but it's something that the computer in particular struggles with mightily. The computer is basically the first sort of A&A player. Meaning I think it plays better under those conditions buys and moves well when it has a frontline production pocket to build from, but it's being asked to play more like the second sort of player in most cases. Just comparing say, what USA will do vs what Japan will do generally to push their fronts. If USA can get a toehold going in Africa or some production capacity in the Central Pacific then they reorient a bit and we see less floaters and such. But then on the normal board production along those paths isn't really an option. Here I'd like it to be, but in a way that's more limited like scaled at the level of the minors basically.
For the computer, it tends to work much better if they can lily pad their placement hubs in some way, or resupply more front line and be less transport dependent if that makes sense. This can work, but it also requires that the map's production spread be handled somewhat differently to allow for more Production=Placement capacity type stuff. G40 also uses a different scheme for Major/Minor where the placement is decoupled from Production as some fixed amount on the high end, so there's that too. Say Majors producing 10 units, on a starting TT worth 3 PUs, whereas in the smaller boards almost always you got the Placement limit reflected by the TT value at the cap. I tend to prefer the simpler system from say Revised or v5, but I think either could work, though it does have an effect on the necessary values at the high end cap per tile.
As I get my head around it hopefully, I can find some form of happy medium here. That's the aim at least, still early days though
-
Few other thoughts, not specifically to do with production, but more general.
If a 1940 scenario, Declaration of War (politics) and Objectives can be problematic, esp if trying to design with the computer behavior in mind. Computer will do quite random things there, say trying to Neutral crush, Japan deciding to invade Russia immediately that sort of thing. In part I think A&A services the 'what if' fantasy of Japan and Russia tending to end up at war, and the whole center crush Axis convergence plan. I think better to not be over-reliant on the computer triggering the Declare War stuff for a map set in 40 to still function though. Instead, unit pre-positioning and things like distance to that particular front could be used instead as the delay. This works say for setting up a G1 press vs France rather than USSR, or to allow Japan to do a big J1 burst that doesn't involve sacking into Soviet Far east insta style, but I think it would be harder in a 41 or 42 to create a satisfying play pattern there without at least some form of Non Aggression Pact. I mean a lot can be done with China as a counterweight for Japan, but sorta need something there for a NAP, a bit more than the Mongolia approach, or way more of a Mongolia approach maybe, or just something that would keep Japan and USSR honest vs one another haha.
Second dilemma would be how to handle the center of the gameboard and USSR itself. In most games they are designed to be relatively weak and propped up by defensive air from their teammates. So the standard has Allies like bouncing air between say Soviet Capital or the India VC depending on where Axis are pressing harder. But I think in a game which features higher cash/higher economy, the whole defensive fighters for teammate's fronts, becomes a bit over pronounced. I mean we typically think of USA and Britain working together in tandem, or German and Italy, or All 3 allies trying to work together to keep Russia/India alive, but it also works this way for say Japan or really any nation that can shoot fighters over to a teammates front. It's just a very powerful move, and the same will happen on the water with carrier decks.
One approach might be to borrow from A&AO's early implementation which restricts fighters landing on friendly decks. The computer will frequently try to land on a friendly's carrier deck, so it creates a dynamic where everyone had their carriers with their teammate's fighters on them. Those A&AO rules sorta kept things more on the player's own deck only.
Potentially something similar, which prevents fighters or other units from ending their turn in Soviets starting TTs, or vice versa. Japan and Germany/Italy have a similar thing going on with their air, in typical boards I mean. Some slightly more simplistic handling for that, may prevent the situation where tiles become overstacked with multinational forces, requiring another placement queue spot and all the rest. I think to work and meet expectations, USA and UK need to be able to co-locate. But I'm not sure USA and UK, need to be able to co-locate with USSR. For Axis it's tougher because not allowing Japan a way to prop up Germany or Italy, severely limits the ways they can impact the broader war. Also I think there is a sort of fantasy one could indulge of maybe pilots and such being trained or experimental aircraft exchanges or whatever. The joint Axis what ifs, if they'd managed to meet in the middle for real. But I think for USSR and the other Allies it might come a bit more naturally. Reason being that the Soviet Union will have a lot more operating cash here, so the need to peg them to defensive only, or requiring USA/UK to send fighters so they don't get flattened, will be much less pronounced here. Or one would hope at least, we added many tiles at 1 PU to bolster what's happening and many more zones on the Eastern Front between them to trade back and forth. I think if the theme is to have USA/UK or Japans units operating in the USSR backfield, that would be sorta traditional, but I think it is not the most satisfying handling. Like it requires a lot of the player suspending disbelief and making the USA/UK units into like a lend lease analogy, but I think it would be easier to just limit the ability of USA or UK to operate within the USSR, or least within USSR starting 'home' territories. This would be a departure from the norm, but I think to support stuff like that it helps if other things are somewhat more familiar. So still trying to determine how much I want to bite off, before chewing it I guess haha.
Anyhow, just some quick thoughts there. NAP handling will change whether we need USSR starting TUV to actually defend the far east, or just be more of a delay on arrival at the Eastern Front, so sort of a factor there for starting TUV position. Similarly, the distance for air transits if including USSR flyovers vs if we dont for team Allies. Alternatively we might restrict the colocation thing in USSR home territories to only ground, but that still encourages allies to send as many fighters as possible to their teammates at the middle, so sorta same dilemma there. There's also the question mark on whether the computer can really understand the limitations on their actual movements, or if they will just get stuck trying to make moves that have become say illegal or against the politics/rules or the like. I think if we build around the idea of multi-nation defense/attack the Computer also will struggle a fair bit with that. It just can't plan out as far as the regular player would or max the defense or attack power over the whole round instead of just the current turn. I think would be nice if we can get the basic framework to still play to the computer's strengths where possible, and to sorta build around it's deficiencies for the starting TUV, or opening turn attacks at least.
-
@black_elk You may want to take declarations of war out of the player's hands at all. The WW2 Global rules are complex, but in practice result in a largely historical path for entering the war.
You could either have declarations of war occur historically or make them random events.
-
I think this is where my instincts are pushing me as well.
A&A is such a peculiar game, since on the one hand it indulges a 'What-If WW2 had gone differently? Let's imagine that...' angle on the gameplay, but then with the other hand it's holding a ruler and dictating fidelity to the history and the expected story beats, at least in terms of an opening play pattern. It's very hard to do both, and allow some/all players to put their thumbs on the scales.
I think there's a pretty strong internal logic that says, 'nothing that comes after the start should really matter' in this regard. Otherwise the player is just sorta simulating history books and trying to meet expectations there, with the idea that maybe they can change little things, but can't really change the big things. Or I don't know, like that whole idea of being straight jacketed into one optimal playpattern, sorta same deal.
I think because of the static unit set up, or things like set bids, there is this idea that maybe A&A is a solved game somehow. I don't think that's true, but I think it is the case that there are often these clearly optimal lines of play, and then lines of play that are less optimal or pretty sub par. On the game board face to face, many interesting things can happen, if one or more players have really committed to playing in an unorthodox way, or perhaps they're still learning the ropes and so they do unexpected stuff, or maybe expected stuff, when some other line would be more optimal. However, once teams are sorta evenly matched and two players of roughly equal skill and experience, both those players are going to be playing to win right? If the natural playpattern suggests some ahistorical thing happening each and every time, like say having Japan stomp USSR into oblivion right from the getgo. Or say USA throws everything one direction to make D-Day happen a few years early. If the big naval contest between the USN and the IJN happens somewhere in the Mediterranean, instead of the Central Pacific. Or maybe D-Day happens in Baltic States or Karelia instead of France, Germany is invaded by all 3 Allies from the East. Maybe there is never some push across the Rhine, but instead Allies invade Berlin directly with some mass amphib triple airblitz assault to snap the capital etc.
I mean that stuff is just going to happen, if it's what the production/overall thrust of the playpattern would suggest is the more optimal line. Players will just do that, whatever it is, cause they want to win.
I mean we can try to get in the player's way on that, and do a bunch of jazz hands style distractions or try to muddy the waters with rules overhead so it's not as obvious, but then at the end of the day, if it works and works consistently, I think players will eventually start gravitating to a winning line. Sure we might get a honeymoon period where everyone tries something novel, weird purchasing with magnified builds or tries to play in some different way, but over time the play pattern, much like the opening set up, becomes much more static. Like players just going through the motions based on what the attack pips and hitpoints are telling them is best for an opener. Or what their past experience or past observations of other players/games tells them is best. Also I think the design there can easily miss something, if it's just a couple sets of eyes on things, same players with the same instincts for what should be happening, that maybe miss an obvious breaker for a bid, or something that will just flip a standard battle on it's head. For example the Pearl opener in 1942.2, which relies on a certain order of loss and fighter hits to become more of a sure thing than might otherwise be possible. Takes a fight that probably wasn't meant to occur very often (1942 date after all) but then it turns into the standard opener cause it's just more efficient TUV trading. Or similarly when bids are used to break a given battle in the opener, by say adding a submarine to some initial battle, pushing the advantage by sides over to one team or the other.
All that said, I think there is some sort of hazy sense, that 'of course' western Allies in the Pacific/USA need to somehow be attacked by Japan to set the dominos falling in a way that makes sense - or feels appropriate to the historical fantasy of WW2. Or likewise, pretty hard to imagine a game where say USA, never declares war on Germany but just stays focused in the Pacific. Or where Japan decides to War against the Soviets instead of France and Britain, the Dutch, Anzac and Americans.
Random events I think are a good approach perhaps, although it's not exactly the traditional way of doing things, there is a sort of precedent there with things like National Advantages of Revised, or sort of one off things that maybe happen (framed as events) in the course of normal play. There is often maybe an idea like 'ok this time, this D-Day amphib invasion is the real D-Day, for real' probably based on how successfully Allies managed to stack in, or just how deep the stack is. Whereas light trading in France, is maybe abstracted more into a continuous Dunkirk, or like Brits harassing atlantic wall= support for French/Dutch resistance. More based on the scale there to determine how the player is interpreting what's going on in the more historical sense. Or similarly, like how Allied units in the Soviet backfield might be understood as Lend Lease, rather than a joint expeditionary force or whatever. Some of that flexibility goes away, when things are sorta parsed out into very specific events on set sequence based on turn order.
I do rather like the idea that Rolls might be involved. So perhaps Japan really does want to stomp USSR immediately, but instead of being purely elective, such a thing maybe requires them to roll a DoW token? Or something along those lines? If framed like a Tech token (again somewhat familiar or at least with a precedent on other boards v3) that might feel somehow more satisfying. Maybe taking a particular action, awards the player or the opponent, a Declare War token, but to have this be somehow more progressive. For example, Japan/USSR don't have enough tokens to War against everyone at once immediately, but perhaps after a round or two have elapsed, they suddenly have 6 such DoW tokens, so the roll is more assured. The standard framing is a bit more all or nothing I think, which makes it hard. I mean not so hard if using just the reg Global board at that playscale, but to adapt to something here where we're trying to scale up to such an extreme degree.
I did like the idea floated a few times of having a really big carrot, or a very large stick, in terms of objective cash, but here also trying to avoid becoming overreliant on Objectives. Mainly because they are harder to track. From the standpoint of holding those 7 plus or minus two things in mind, it can be pretty onerous to track dozens of objectives. Similar to boards where the core unit roster is asymmetrical and then needing to parse everyone else's roster as well as one's own. Asymmetrical objectives mean that the player needs to track not just their own Objective money, but everyone else's Objective money, or potential haul. It's a lot to keep track of, especially when Income is decoupled from production. Part of the reason why I want the production spread to be somehow a bit more consistent or easier to decipher, before too much other stuff layered on top.
Sorta the main thing I'd like to explore on this board is the more singular concept of Factory Rail or a land base at m+1 on the ground, cause I think it will make for a more interesting dynamic in the stack push, or in the contest to capture production on the map or to contest and trade it back and forth, round to round. I think it's a really fun concept and could work well for something like this, which is a bit stripped down to service that idea more in isolation. I think it solves some problems, that might otherwise prove pretty intractable if taking a map with this many sub-divisions and trying to build out a scheme at m2 rather than m3 (or at least some form of limited m3) on the ground. To me this will determine the production spread in some of the peripheral or contested areas, where we want to see a theater operating more at m3, on account of starting factories, or minor factory purchase as a possibility to set up different movement dynamics, while still being able to nix that in other areas, by having the production just be too low to sustain the rail that far out.
I think it may also help to encourage bombing/sbr and repair, since a movement advantage is more critical than a placement sometimes. Player might opt not to repair if placement is the only consideration, but if there's a +/- 1 to movement on the line, that is much more impactful I think. Least on the decision of whether/how much to repair I mean. Along those same lines I think we also need to have enough production (major factory location) being vulnerable to SBR in certain spots to even make it happen at all, or to not run the risk of factory spam being too extreme on the other end. I think it's going to be a balancing act for sure, but there are I think easier ways to get at what I want, and I'm just not sure I'll ever be able to get the computer to do it's DoWs and such with the right timing, so that it doesn't feel arbitrary or capricious heheh
-
Back to production, so when I drafted at first I had this as a vague approach. Taking the G40 territories and those production values, then doubled that production value before dividing and distributing the PUs among the new Polygons.
Example would be Germany in the smaller 1942 board is worth say 10, so then on G40 you get that same basic area split into 2 territories worth 5 each. Here I just thought that the initial value could be higher, so say 20 PUs rather than 10 at the start of that process for determining what those regions would be worth, so it could be divided up more readily.
Without that initial production increase x2 to ballpark, the larger board values were generally too low, and even on the reg G40 sorta too low (without objectives to pad the totals there). Creates some discrepancies going from the earlier iterations out to the more recent one. So say when Northwestern Europe was first added as it's own discrete tile out of what used to be just Western Europe, or a little further to add Denmark and split spots in France and Northwest Europe again. Or where the older territories of say E. Europe or Karelia get broken down further to add in a Baltic State, W. Russia etc. Or at any point when new tiles have been inserted. Usually that would be done requiring some minor adjustments to the production spread, so going a little higher seemed to make sense.
In much the same way, I'd think we'd want to ballpark TUV at sorta about double that standard amount, in many cases at least, in order to accommodate these splits. Here things can get pretty challenging though. Total number of hitpoints or TUV attack/defense power, gets weighted a little differently when it comes to aircraft. or bombers especially. Simple doubling might not always give us the best results for unit totals by type, but I think it would at least give us a bit of ceiling there to work from. Or a way to use the standardized forces at a given start date, say a 1940, might look like G40, just with twice number of total sculpts, or something under that amount, not over. I mean really almost the lower the TUV count at the start the better. Easier for both the player and the computer probably to get their bearings that way.
I think it's very easy and readily understood by the player if the starting purse is lower than the first turn production capacity, like it doesn't need to be 1:1 there, even though that does make for a cleaner stats window hehe. An easy way to hit the breaks on round 1, is just to go like half the regular purse, though after that recuring income and unit attrition/replacement via purchasing would have to drive it I think, just from the sheer number of PUs involved.
Doubling for Unit costs would also be a relatively simple thing to grasp I think. I do worry a bit though about some of the ready calcs and mnemonics and such, if adopting the x2 price point. I mean in the abstract it should make no difference at all, but I think psychologically it might be a tough sell. Especially since I want to try this other thing with the m3 factory rail concept cooked into it. Another somewhat simple to grasp idea would be for Repair costs to double or something similar.
Something like a DoW token, or a Tech token, some form of investment per turn could be a natural cash sink at some higher level, to even the scores.
Introducing Convoy mechanics, whether along the G40 model for that or the older schemes of say Europe 2000 is a bit of a sticking point. On one hand I like very much the idea of money being directly attached to the sea zones, because it does encourage both the player and computer to contest the lanes, but this is not the system that G40 deploys. There is a bit of a precedent from older boards, though there the money is always attached to a specific nation, as opposed to just allowing for sz control = 1 PU to whoever takes it over first. If not adding any additonal sea zone breaks it's at about 130-ish extra PUs per game round in contention on the water. They're not all as easily contested in the same way though. For example, it's challenging for Germany or Italy to continually disrupt the Atlantic sea zones, though they maybe have an easier time in their more core zones around the Baltic and the Med. Similarly Japan can sorta globe trot if left unchecked to claim sea zones cash, and it can give a reason for fleets to attempt a spread. This would be another big novelty, on par I think with introducing Factory Rail into the mix, so I worry a bit about going too big there or overly complex. I think the only downside really to the G40 system for convoys, is that it's rather hard to parse/calc since it involves counting unit totals, and coastal PU totals, also there can be rolls so it's quite involved. On G40 map is a bit more simplistic but here, quite a lot of coastal territories if trying to use that system, and it doesn't really do much for those intermediate transit sea zones, which is more where I imagined we'd want to create a back and forth, or at least deadzones being contested by fleets.
I think I would be more inclined to option on the sea zone system that just does a universal 1 PU and lets everyone try their best to collect on that, but in the standard order of phases, collect income comes last, so this is actually quite a bit of cash changing hands. A single convoy under that scheme could produce +1 PU multiple times if going back and forth between Axis Allies in the same game round. I'm not entirely sure which approach is best. Another method would be to have these zones dispersed and with more concentrated values for example +5 or +10 or quantified out for those PUs. I think the control flag concept works well enough to indicate ownership, similar to the paintovers on land. It is kinda cool to see the oceans more lit up that way.
In any case, that's about where it's at in terms of potential PUs in the water. I don't think I would go higher than 1 there, if trying to assign a value to everything, and then probably assigning control of many more starting sea zones to Axis, so that Allies must first move to reclaim that production before they can convert it to income.
Right then just trying to map it out a bit in my head, or kicking the ideas around, before trying to tackle it in earnest. Right now I'm still trying to get my head around some of the basic entry stuff like using those variables to group TTs by PU value, and to get the VCs on their separate line. Last time I tried it, I got the stars to show, but blanked the PUs. Plus there are labelling adjustments, so until that's all done, probably need to cool my jets. But it's fun to think on for me
-
@black_elk said in Mega New Elk WIP:
Last time I tried it, I got the stars to show, but blanked the PUs.
Yea I seen that, this should correct that plus have the updated PUs changes for the '40:
Oops, it happens this is the (hopefully) good file:
mega_new_elk_1940.xmlCheers...
