Mega New Elk WIP
-
@wc_sumpton Looks Fantastic! Excellent work!
We can lock in around that for sure! Aces
-
So, once we settle on the name locations, some names like Washington D.C., San Francisco and Sydney Canberra are very long and the PUs or VC star seem missed place. These can be adjusted to look like:
UHD WIP 1940-45-x1.36.2.zipcenters, name_place, pu_place, vc files to show how some locations can be adjusted.
-
I copied all the flag/roundels, added "_large":
Now capitals don't look so bad. I also nudge E. Romania:
But Italian Somaliland really gave me troubles.Still, it was all fun!
Cheers...
-
@wc_sumpton Looks excellent to me!
I took a big long nap, just woke up to this and grinned, cause it's nice and sharp
I think the Frostion flag pucks look pretty good at that size! It's also possible for the Capital markers to utilize the Decoration place, if we wanted a different graphic to display for National Capitals (often the vanilla games will use the standard Air Roundels from OOB for that) though I preferred the designs that suggested more the national banner, and Frostion's flag pucks looked pretty clean in the UI menus, so I used those. I modified some of these when I did the tinted units, like to fix the star spangled banner so it would have the 48 star field, and a few others to look a bit more period. Should be good to go. It pretty easy to change flag graphics, or to switch settings in the props. I've encouraged peeps to try different Hexes as a why to stylize to their custom tastes, although I'm not sure many players would delve that deep, probably they'd just roll with whatever defaults we provide for map.props. Or also, if we wanted to preserve the option to use 'hidden capitals' for things like indicating to the Hard/FastAI which territories to prioritize, or if wanting to keep the display for those invisible via map.props. None of these are in effect right now for this board. The latter approach was used in the other map, although I'm not terribly familiar with that stuff under the hood. Also not sure how such hidden capital sea zones or territories would be weighted compared to actual capitals that do the cash capture/thing? The other scenario didn't use a capital cash capturing mechanic, so it wasn't impacting that at all, but it might be an issue if the computer was say weighting a capital like Moscow in the exact same way as some less critical hiddencapital territory or sz. Or similarly if it's like an all or nothing thing, where cash trades hands over those hidden territories too, which would sorta undermine the preeminence of the national capital in standard play. Here it's sorta necessary for how France is set up to fall on G1. Like if that attack were to fail basically Axis would instantly lose the game, hopefully not one the computer will be edging hehe.
In the standard maps all other mechanics are subordinated to the capital capture dynamic, since it's the most impactful thing that can happen in those games. It supersedes VC control, TUV trade, and just about every other thing that a player might be focusing on, since as soon as a capital trades hands the board resets dramatically, or the game simply concludes if the opponent cannot trade capitals elsewhere in the same round as an offset. Either way though we got the option, if exploring other methods outside the capital cash thing or some lesser bonus awarded perhaps (say treating all VCs as mini-capitals for a smaller pile) though again those would be novel House Rules type approaches from the standpoint of the vanilla games.
Heheh yeah I agree some of those names can be rough, particularly when it has the long national qualifier up front. I think perhaps a convention which abbreviates Br. for British, Fr. for French, It. for Italian in territories where that might make sense. There are only a couple such spots left on the board now, but examples would be like It. Somaliland, Fr. Somaliland, Br. Somaliland, or Fr. Guiana. and Br. Guiana. then we got Dutch Guiana as well. Other options might be Djibouti, Berbera, Obbia etc. Then Cayenne and Georgetown (Guayana), or Paramaribo (Suriname). If wanting to use the more metro type labelling. Though the space savings there would be sorta minimal. I think the abbreviated thing would work well enough. Could be used elsewhere for spots that make sense, and if the abreviation is sorta obvious. Say something like Gbr. for Gibraltar or similar. In cases like that it might make sense to use the labelling system of tripleA with separate label graphics for only those spots, so it'd still display more fully on cursor over, but then we run into the old issue of not being able to use font-size dynamically, since graphics are locked at whatever dimensions. I think prob the more simple text and just using abbreviations sparingly. Example might be something like D.C. for 'Washington D.C'. or situations like that if it gives nice space savings.
-
Territory name changes; French/Fr., British/Br., Italians/It., Dutch/Dt., Northwestern/NW., Cen./C. they may have been some others.
harbor change: "isAA" this will allow harbors to occupy the first place in place (thanks @TheDog).
The first picture show Leningrad as it is pictured now. The second picture is with the "isAA" update and an updated place.Most 2/3 PUs shore territories would need to be check. Lot of work.
Cheers...
-
Looking boss!
I was going to knock out some of the VCs last night, but then I got completely distracted after finally updating to GIMP 3.0 hehe. I had been foot dragging on that one, since every time there will be UI updates which throw me for a loop, like the little tooltip toolbars and such, or pluggins hiding in different places. Just trying to get ahead of things, as it will surely come in handy if I have to rework any reliefs. Anyhow noticed when firing the new one that a couple of those VCs hopped out from their hiding place behind a naval base. Nice!
I think for most of them, the VCs that is, it's just a little bit of a nudge here or there, say to be nearer the coast if a coastal city. Since most TT tiles are relatively small, usually the centered VC isn't too far off. Amusingly Honolulu did fall in the right spot, so dodged that bullet. In various OOBs of the past, Honolulu has been left off the list before, or misprinted on the board in the wrong island to some chagrin there, where updates to physical boxes or cards can take a while. Thankfully we don't have to worry about an actual print run haha. Shave ice for all!
For VCs I think probably I just need to do all of them at some point, even if the default location (near center) looked ok and didn't need an adjustment really, just to have them all in the coordinates list there for the VC txt. When I suggested to ballpark by just doing a copy/paste on the center or name VC coordinates initially, that was only cause I couldn't recall where they positioned relative to the center by default, but looks like it typically would be like 36 px lower than the center for that. Probably just the size of the images veq/bung were using for that. Anyhow looks clean! Names looking great! Nice work!
-
Some set up adjustments I'm considering based on the latest.
Switch the VC from It. Somaliland to Mogadishu, It. Somaliland to 1 PU, and Mogadishu to 2 PU. It's slightly more protected with two warfronts on land instead of three. This spot is a bit of an anachronism for the 1940 start date, but with the whole idea of turn 1 = recap turn, I think it'd give a nice flavor and serves as a base of ops for Italy/Axis on that side of the map, sorta largest metro for that corner. Also if Axis can someone hold, or recover it, then it serves as a nice secondary base beyond Cairo for them. I imagine some tension there as Axis, if Cairo is taken over, between whether to drive overland towards Baghdad, overland or by sea to the Italian spots in East Africa, or directly onto India or South Africa by sea. But then the reverse some tension for Allies about which spot to mount the critical attacks or pull back defense.
For that I think it makes sense to push the factory_minor over from Madras to Bombay. Keeping the values the same since Bombay is currently worth 2. I think New Delhi could remain the second VC and also remaining at a value of 2. This spot wouldn't have a starting factory but be factory capable. This to capture the classic build strategy of Classic and Revised, or whether to place a secondary factory in India. Generally a high risk high reward type proposition, where if it works Allies can wedge, but if it fails then Axis have another springboard. So anyhow I think New Delhi can work like that. At the m+1 Distance this means the UK will be slightly more oriented on Africa and a bit less on Burma push from their Bombay factory. Madras had more of a slam back and forth into Burma vs Bengal, so like UK and Japan clapping into those spots and Calcutta from the factories at Madras. Also UK playing very forward vs Japan from that position on the water. I think it might be helpful though to split that placement into the sea zone off Calcutta, which moving that second factory to Bombay would achieve. I think airbase could move Bombay as well, naval base could remain, or move to Ceylon maybe, just to keep each tile interesting. Maybe encourages some exchanges and forward fleet actions. Basic idea would be to move the main resupply into the Indian theater over a bit, and have it focus a bit more on stretching supplies up from South Africa or East Africa (more protected sea zone movement) vs being right on top of India trying to hold the line with their fleet vs Japan. This would create more of a deadzone for that between region from like Bombay to Singapore on the water or vs scramble/coastal air umbrella, and put a bit more distance from the Dutch East Indies. I think should work at any rate.
I have a few other edits I'm trying, will report back with any other ideas
-
Would like to make a GitHub push. I've moved the player\units factory images, plus other common use images.
Cheers...
-
Sounds good to me
I didn't have quite as much time to mull over things as I'd planned, got stuck running errands instead. But tried to do a quick list of things this morning that I need to do still. I saw when looking at the stats that VC disappeared from that column, but maybe was just on mine. When the Git gets updates I can dive in from that one.
Random ideas kicking around last night. First idea was that, for larger regional labels, I might do something separate for that and use the decoration place there. Perhaps just for some of the larger areas to clarify. So for example we might have "FRANCE" or "GERMANY" with a semi transparent font that way in all caps, and displaying over multiple tiles, in some spot where the demands of the starting unit place are less pronounced. Similarly for some of the many territories and island groups that we further sub-divided we could do the same. I'm not sure if it's necessary to go too ham here, but it may help in a few spots. For example a larger label that just says Libya, or India, or Sumatra, or something like a callback to the smaller boards. I would table this for now, since it's not anything critical, just a decorative element. But while I was quickly scanning the board had a few thoughts around the factory capable 2 PU spots.
As I recall, the computer has been much more reluctant to buy factories ever since the tripleA 1.9 thing where they stopped buying them altogether. I think this was resolved for the standard factories (placement capped at production values), but not sure if it was also handled for the G40 factory types, where the production value is decoupled from the max place, ie. factory_minor 3 place factory_major at 10 place.
To me the bread and butter of having these things, would be when one side or the other is trying to stretch their logistics into the next potential theater of operations- to provide a couple 'hurry up' spots at the end of those longer logistics lines. So that when the player finally does arrive, they have a way to establish new production toeholds nearer to the main fronts. This was part of a general idea that if we could make the AI somewhat less transport dependent to push it's fronts, that this would allow the computer to play a somewhat stronger game. I think also for the deep endgame, it can be entertaining, for stuff like invasion USA antics, which would likely never occur in a standard PvP, but which in a solo could provide some definite entertainment value. In a regular game sometimes it's a courtesy to play out a final round, so the opponent can do their big buy with stolen cash, but more often that'd be the point where their losing player bows out. The computer on the other hand never quits, so this is a way for players to sort of reset their production fronts when the game gets to that point (usually not for many rounds.)
I think a good example of this would be South America in an endgame where Axis are ascendant. Perhaps after Moscow or London falls Axis turn their attention further West to start thinking about a swing over towards Brazil, with the idea to sort of inch up closer towards North America. To make this worthwhile I think having a production capable tile there would be good. This would not typically happen in a normal game, since the region is more out of the way and not on the winning line for movement for either side really. Sure USA/Allies might try to build a factory in Brazil, but this is usually a waste of cash for them traditionally, since they have more productive spots already housing factories, and the distance from those to the warfronts is mostly similar to the distance from a newly minted Brazilian factory. By the same token Axis aren't typically going to target because they know the USA will just immediately stomp back in PvP hehe.
The computer is more cautious though, so it will sometimes allow the player to make a big brazen move into the Guianas or Brazil, and for that I like the idea of maybe Rio or Dt. Guiana as a minor capable at 2 PU value. It's not that those spots with minors could replace a logistics line, but more to support an ongoing press that's already coming from backfield production. Also the computer is just very unlikely to do what human player might do in the deep endgame, purchasing factories in all peripheral contested spots and then immediately just spamming them with infantry and sending fighters before the enemy can build up/position the transport or carrier capacity to deal with that. In a PvP probably the opponent would just quit, seeing the futility of fighting on vs a player who's willing to do that. Just the spam and stack. It's the sort of thing that wouldn't make sense until after the center of the board has collapsed, but examples would be the way in which Japan or UK can just stack to the ceiling if they concentrate round to round and become virtually unassailable as island fortresses. Other spots in the standard games can work this way as well. Dutch East Indies being an example, anywhere with a high placement to production ratio. Territories on land at choke points are similar, say India, but it's nowhere so extreme as on single territory (actual islands in A&A terms) where 1 TT is completely contained within 1 sz and also is factory capable. This is in part why G40 has that rule about factories on islands, but then it as violates it's own rule with Japan, so I don't know but it's a thing. Here the entire rationale of the further subdivisions (beyond fun m3 movement stuff) is to help mitigate that issue somewhat. Like the whole idea of having a sea zone boundary strike across a territory, particularly where the larger islands are concerned. Basically because we want to encourage the island hop in this one, even if bypass is sound, battle is fun, so we lean into it by giving all those spots some skin in the game for production values, but then take away with the other hand by making only the 2 PU spots actually viable for Factory build antics.
Short of it is, probably we try to keep to a single 2 PU zone for certain island groups, or where possible to split these across 1 territory or 1 sea zone where possible, just so no one spot in the local region becomes the be all end all. Instead we want the back and forth, or some pick and choose between which productive spots to gun for. Some spots we reduce from 2 to 1, so as not to see too much over stacking. It's an abstraction in terms of relative production scale, to service the gameplay. We already have this going on with coastal Europe where some spaces have their production value held lower at 1 to avoid the ultra stack/factory spam everywhere), and because the M+1 is pretty potent. Factory_minor is relatively inexpensive at 12 PU cost, at least for the nations that collect heavy, and movement in a turn based game is key, so I think there is more incentive here than in vanilla to be buying minor factories. Especially with mech/tank operating at the M3 distance from such a spot, they become very powerful pockets wherever a minor factory can be supported. So probably need to be careful where we double up, or allow a multi factory build strategy that can support a much larger push of HPs into a concentrated zone (say vs India or like Japan/UK home waters) as would be the case traditionally from the Dutch East Indies. So like where USA is gunning to take those over because it is more productive (more placement capable under the vanilla factories.) This sorta distorts the playpattern where Japan and USA are constantly trading the Dutch East Indies instead of the spots in the central Pacific where the fighting took place historically. So here again, the whole idea of production is abstracted based more on the place needs to keep a balance going between sides. For example USA takes out Truk, but then Japan has a fallback position. If either player starts buying factories, the move is typically to respond in kind and mimic, or else break the opposite direction try to take the factory over, use the current HP advantage in the press (since it takes a round and opponent has to telegraph the factory buy in advance) the idea being to use regular purchasing and stronger logistics to seize the newly bought factory and then use it against the dude who bought. That's the double edged sword on the factory that can't be destroyed, and the inherent risk to buying the new ones.
Anyhow thinking about that I was considering maybe we might reduce a few spots from 2 to 1 or raise from 1 to 2, just based on how the computer/player might push. Sorta like the Bombay thing, and then trying to have a more protected contested East Africa, since we know both sides tend to end up there either to hold or pressure Suez/Africa fronts. Overall feels pretty good though. I think it's mostly on the margins just to make sure everyone has sufficient hitpoints/placement spots around the board for the hotspots where we want the action to sorta coalesce around those pockets.
Should be fun! It's nice to see the clean read coming to fruition. Looks pretty solid to me
-
version 1.37 is ready (Thank you @beelee)
The Mogadishu/Somaliland and Bombay-Ceylon/Madras change have been made.
Cheers...
P.S Just notice that there is a factory_upgrade in New York for the Americans. It should replace itself at the end of the Americans first turn, and will be replace hopefully in the next xml update.
Cheers...
P.P.S Forgot the map.yml which has now been updated.
Sorry
Cheers...
-
@black_elk said in Mega New Elk WIP:
I saw when looking at the stats that VC disappeared from that column, but maybe was just on mine.
Nope, sorry, that was on me. When I wanted to look at the capitals I turned off VC for those cities. To retrieve that column would mean to turn on VC's for the capitals which would have those stars covering (or almost covering) the capital symbol.
What should ever I do... Hide the stars! He He He He He!
UHD WIP 1940-45 1.37.1.zip
New York changed to factory_major
capitals are now VCs again
map.yml (in case you need this)
vc.txt with the hidden starsCheers...
-
@wc_sumpton Hehe I just got home from pin balling around and fired it up. Looks great! Excellent work
-
UHD I centered the PU above the name like I did here
now it's off centered.
Do we just wanna roll with as is or should I change it again ?
-
@beelee said in Mega New Elk WIP:
Do we just wanna roll with as is or should I change it again ?
Sure, knock yourself out.
Cheers...
-
yea I'm on it
-
-
So, what I've been doing is running centers placement while look at the loaded map (mostly with units turned off). If the name looks off on the map, I'll adjust it location in centers. After I done maybe ten locations, I'll save centers, then copy the centers.txt over name_place.txt, then reload the map (because you are name placements, you don't have to reselect the map, just reload).
Then I'll go back and work on PUs. But really, I think just working on the position of the names should be done first.(Or we could leave well enough alone until @Black_Elk starts yelling and making faces!)
All in good fun!
Cheers...
P.S By the way, are there going to be any territory effects add?
Cheers...
-
Hehe that was like me at the post office earlier today, just lines out the door
I think we can press on get all these names knocked out, later can revisit any edge cases or substitutions just so its not reduplicated efforts. Long as it's basically blocked in and not clipping into the abyss for now I think we're good.
I hadn't given much thought to territory effects yet. For the most part I figured we keep it as close to the global basics as we can get away with for whatever default thing, then other stuff to option on down the line if desired. I think the Land Base rail factory M+1 thing is pretty solid, kinda the opening pitch there to see if it catches. I think that's a fair bit to chew on by itself for a more simplified game on the jumbo, but there is also parity with what the Naval Base and Air Bases are doing operating at the M+1 in the standard, so I feel like it's a fairly easy thing to extend that concept to the ground units. Hopefully at any rate like a grab and go.
For adjustments I think mainly that would just be in fine tuning the production based on the how the opener is playing out. So say if one power seems a bit light. Maybe Germany would need a boost up to match what's coming at them, so we raise a couple spots in their interior to 2, or perhaps a couple spots in France that they take over on G1. Stuff more on the margins though, since it feels pretty solid right now overall.
I was thinking we might raise Greece to 2 PUs just to give Italy and extra hotspot, and Brits another target. Rio also makes sense to me or perhaps Greenland for an endgame Axis waypoint. I think we could probably say that every territory with a VC is worth 2, and in that way VCs will have a intrinsically higher value, so the player or computer sorta always feels it. Probably only a couple VC spots right now still at the value of 1 but we could just boost em up to see what we're working with. I put that extra Brit VC in Africa on Nigeria, but we could probably switch it to Gabon since that spot already is worth 2, and Brits don't really need more money hehe. Any additional VCs I think would need to go to Axis or at least spots Axis can take over reliably in the first round just for balance by sides. I'm not sure if they'll be needed but I'm sure we could always find another spot to fold into the VC affair if we just need to hit a good split for that.
-
Sorry for the delay, was playing with name placement and PUs.
UHD WIP 1940-45 1.37.2.zip
Greece, Rio De Janeiro and Greenland raised to 2PUsPlease check for out-of-placed names, also some of the VC stars may need adjusting.
Cheers...
More visual updates.
UHD WIP 1940-45 1.37.3.zipCheers...
-
No xml adjustments
centers, name_place and pu_placeCheers...
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login