Mega New Elk WIP

[Black_Elk]

Fascinating! I just had a Spock moment I guess as this is all fairly new to me lol.

I checked and they do indeed appear after a few turns. So I guess this is probably more to do with me just pushing tripleA to the outer limits by using such a large map baseline image and taxing the rig? hehe

I'm curious, if the sequence for initializing delegates is making the difference like if we had say initialized the capitals after the victory cities instead of before them, if those would then stall instead for display? or if say something else would then stall on display based on the listings? I don't know say like all the PU values or something, where those don't fully visualize on first turn if they came later in the list hehe. It's mildly amusing to me because my feeling before was that VCs were treated as this sorta accidental thing to a lot of the standard games, like that they'd just sort of float as a technical thing for determining victory, but less relevant for the actual gameplay in those cases. More like an afterthought in how the computer or even player would prioritize what they're going to do. So like in this instance, would indicate that tripleA computer player cares a great deal about the PU values, since it's trying to crunch all that before it moves or purchases, or like for Capital control same deal, it cares very much, but then perhaps for VCs, the HardAI is like 'well I don't care about them, since no one pays attention to those anyway' as if it could speak about what it's doing hehe.

Here at least they'll all be worth that 2 PUs and production capable, to sorta make them always relevant to the gameplay mechanics no matter what.

Or curious maybe for this we could just use whatever method to jumpstart their display, since ostensibly victory would be about controlling these VC, that'd they'd be highlighted like first to drop? Sometimes I have to watch for a sec as the map tiles in at various zooms or when panning around if I reset the map zoom display. But this was the first time I had seen the display stall out on the stars haha. Guess first time for everything

But now I'm just curious about it. Example, in standard world war II global, initializing delegates just does original owner and Kamikazes I think, but if we are trying to initializing more stuff during that phase with the variable lists, maybe the length of that trigger list compared to how many moves the hard is trying to calc to do the movement prior to purchase, it will sorta clip towards the end of that list?

I was unsure how this worked now, since in the file I was copying initially VC was listed as an option under territory attachment, like victory city =1 or whatever for all the stuff listed by a given territory, but the newer is organizing by variable thing, so still learning it as I open the stuff you lay down in notepad and try to reveal the mysteries to myself hehe. For the tiling thing I compared the tiles in the relief folders...

Standard world war 2 global Bung's is basically 7500px by 3200px with a tile folder 30 rows by 12 columns deep for each.

The UHD version is basically 11000px by 5000px, 40 rows by 20 columns for the tiles.

This current thing is ~16000px by 8000px, 65 rows by 30 columns deep for the tiles.

These last 2 are comparable in terms of the overall file size, example there 40 mb compared to about 60mb for the reliefTile folders, but the latter has many more individual tiles that it has to reconstruct and stitch together for the full image to display on screen. So probably a bit more heavy lifting there in terms of whatever my GPU is trying to do

To me having the the VCs visualize at launch would be optimal, even if it only effects the solo thing, as I'd anticipate people may use Germany's first turn (if controlled by HardAI) to study the map and try to parse what's going on generally with the view at a glance. Or I guess to take advantage of the slight delay there on HardAI's part to get their bearings. After G1 computer always seems to move at a much steadier clip, and as units sorta coalesce into stacks and consolidate across fewer tiles. For now this works fine for testing the computer behavior, I thought it must be maybe just the display cause was still seeing all the stuff in the stats bar. Didn't think to let it run it's paces and then check again, good looking out!

It may introduce confusion to see things suddenly change on USSR's first turn from what the player sees on G1 hardAi though, if there's a workaround we can use. I mean even if it may be more efficient for the HardAI to start crunching numbers instantly before the display updates in this way, but then I think I would still prioritize the users initial display, like whatever user is seeing upon first launch. Doesn't seem to be mission critical right now, as it catches up pretty quickly and then appeared as expected on the follow up Russian turn. That's a relief

Right on!

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk

There is a lot here, let's see if I can simplify it a little. Before play can begin all territories (units, relationships, etc) needs to have a defining attachment. In G '40, everything is done at the attachment level:

 <attachment name="territoryAttachment" attachTo="Novgorod" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TerritoryAttachment" type="territory">
	<option name="production" value="2"/>
	<option name="unitProduction" value="3"/>
	<option name="victoryCity" value="1"/>
 </attachment>

Because of this, all information is presented at map drawing. In UHD '40 the territoryAttachment looks like this (after foreach, which can be seen in an exported xml):

<attachment name="territoryAttachment" attachTo="Stalingrad" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TerritoryAttachment" type="territory">
	<option name="production" value="2"/>
</attachment>

There is just enough information to get the territory drawn on the map, and triggers are used to adjust this territory information/attachment.
These triggers are called during a players turn, at which point a modern computer will fork processes into different treads. So even though the process for adding "victoryCity=1" has been completed, the map update process/thread may still be waiting to be executed.

Granted this is a simple explanation, it can get even far more in depth.

Cheers...

P.S You may have noticed that when Germans are AI @beelee 'Welcome' message does not appear. The trigger still fires, it can be seen in the "History", but the AI ignores pop ups.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

Yeah I just realized that all I have to do is click into the game tab right after starting it up and click 'show current game'

Then everything for the display instantly pops up.

If I forget they'll sorta stage in over the game round anyway. I thought I was seeing stars, like the full VC ko heheh

ps. I would say from my last series that FastAI is still playing a stronger game than HardAI. It opens more effectively at least, seems more likely to trade and throw it's stacks forward, also just a smoother experience as it takes less time to make it's moves. It seems to attack and take territory somewhat more consistently during it's combat move, whereas HardAI seems a bit more preoccupied with it's non coms, or positioning to counter often leaving it's transports more vulnerable with floaters. For the opener FastAI just seems to play more forward using it's transports for amphib, or just generally trying to destroy more TUV as it goes.

Oh also, I think G needs a starting airbase in Mecklenburg to cover their Baltic safe zone with the scramble. Just so they have a bit more coverage vs the allied airblitz vs their main fleet. Leningrad provides it later on if they can take and hold, but sometimes computer really takes it's time on that one. Both HardAI and FastAI may take, but then fail to hold, so I think they probably need a coastal AB somewhere closer to home in the baltic, just so they don't get wiped too hardcore from the air. Otherwise though the computer does a pretty good job of positioning on the water I think.

ps. I ran a game FastAI Axis vs HardAI allies to a dozen rounds

2025-3-25-UHD-WIP-1940-45_G13.tsvg

computer France got their revenge vs computer Italy, but then also had their purse snatched several times, same for China with Japan grabbing the bag. I think it may be hard to ever really get AI to latch onto the capital trade for cash situation. They'll sometimes decline to take a capital, even for a simple walk in, to trade like maybe 1 transport and 1 inf 10 PUs to take a capital worth 100 to the opponent. Maybe it would be better to dispense with capital rules altogether and instead frame them as generalized objectives. So like when a Capital is captured the purse is awarded only once, like the first time the Capital falls, then afterwards the game just sorta falls back onto more regular production values. But I think it's where say the computer can lose it's income multiple times that it starts to snafu. Computer USA was poised to drop on Italy I think but then Brits liberated Paris and they lose their production foothold, though they recovered by taking Libya and Southern France they pushed on Italy overland after the Italian fleet was sunk. Germany managed somewhat better since they took over the north first and tucked their fleet up to safety. Japan made like they were going to cut for Anzac with the sprawl, but then backed off and just went for the brawl towards the middle in China. It was amusing to watch, I'm not sure who will prevail. Will it be FastAI with it's reckless but relentless advance, or HardAI with it's more cautious calcs? heheh Seems like it might hinge on what FastAI G does right there. I may leave myself on the cliffhanger and spectate on the HardAI Axis vs FastAI Allies.

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk said in Mega New Elk WIP:

Maybe it would be better to dispense with capital rules altogether and instead frame them as generalized objectives. So like when a Capital is captured the purse is awarded only once, like the first time the Capital falls, then afterwards the game just sorta falls back onto more regular production values.

This can be done. Thanks for providing your recent play through. There were a couple of turns that Chinese were not receiving any reinforcements. So, I've made some changes. Also, French buys it's own factory_minor for Gabon, even though it still possesses Algiers.
The game starts with the Allies having more production, as they should, but they also start with more units. Germany begins with 50 production, and can get to 100+ with the fall of France, but two off the biggest producers, Americans and British, both at over 120, go back-to-back, with China, another allied player, between them. Without a more balanced production a balanced starting unit count/TUV seems to heavily favor the allies. So much so that by round 6/7 both America and British are both in France.
Hope you understand what I'm saying.

UHD WIP 1940-45 1.38.1.zip
airfield added to Mecklenburg
NoPU Purchase changed from 2 territories to 3
NoPU Purchase requirement change so Chinese are not being skipped from receiving reinforcements.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

Yeah this was my sense too, that Axis would require much more starting TUV to offset. Or that Axis would begin the game in round 1 with significantly more starting cash than the Allies, or both. Also since I've yet to observe the computer purchase infrastructure, we can probably assume it never will, short of dramatically altering what stuff costs, something I'm reluctant to embrace since I want the purchase screen to remain familiar. I think we could try giving AI a free per turn or something similar to catch them up round to round, and just let the player purchase, or just stage in a few more. Perhaps could be randomized with a roll, example 1-3 AI gets a factory, 4-6 they get an airbase, or something along those lines, since otherwise computer probably would never buy a base hehe. Maybe for factions with no Capital or purchase that roll is for a Fighter or a couple Artillery piece deployed using the china rules.

I also agree that the turn order heavily favors Allies especially with the US lead/UK follow type turn order, although I think keeping the turn order sequence will help for familiarity, so prob Axis need the leg up for parity.

My initial thought would be that we have the Allies begin the game with only half of their starting production value in starting cash. Then Axis with their full production value in starting cash.

Example if Russia has 110 PUs to start in production their cash on turn 1 is 55 PUs.
If Britain has 120 production their cash is 60 etc. Whereas if Germany has 50 PUs in production their starting cash is the full 50 on G1. I guess the rationale would be that the aggressors are already on the war footing on their first turn, whereas Allies have to scale up first. I think we could tinker with the totals just so they're all even, not having to round down or up. So if Britain is 121, we just find another spot to raise so it can be 122, or another spot to lower so it can be 120, just to keep that clean for the quick read in the stats columns. Basically the idea that for starting cash Allies are at 1/2, Axis at 1/1 for that, since it's pretty straight forward.

Makes the German haul from France slightly smaller in that case, but I think having Allies with less cash to burn on the first turn, and Axis with more cash to burn, should be pretty impactful. It might be enough to even the scales, or at least get closer.

Then we can consider raising Axis starting forces or production incrementally. Since we lowballed everything initially for production there are a fair number of territories that could be raised from 1 to 2 to pad the Axis totals. Basically in areas which are not trading hands initially to level it slightly. Example if we set the floor for Axis starting territory at 2 PU value rather than 1 PU that's a pretty big haul. That'd add another 15 or so PUs to Germany, I think a dozen to Italy, Japan something like 20 PUs. It's an abstraction to have Axis starting territory weighted more heavily, but I think it works for what the game is meant to do, where Axis sorta burst in the opener. Not that we need to raise them all at once, but gives a range for increasing Axis totals. They have more TUV at the outset to do a big flashy drive typically, so I think we could add more forces to their pile now that we got a sense for where their stacks like to position. Allies sorta more on the backfoot playing catchup and reacting to what Axis have done in their opening round, with less cash for the magnified builds.

Similarly if a territory is routinely captured by Axis the first turn from Allies or Pro Side Allies, I think more of those spots could also be at the higher value like 2 PU if we need more swing. So for example most of Metro France and North Africa or South East Asia could swing to Axis. The front line territories in the USSR or Balkans that Axis take over on the first turn, we could jump most of those to 2 and that would also pad the totals. But I think I'd start with just halving Allied starting cash and see how that effects the tilt.

Now that I'm caught up again, might be a good time to revisit the starting unit set up. In Alaska I think I had kept whatever Victory laid down initially, although in the standard Allies don't have anything up there, so I might nix. Axis could probably use a few more Air units. I'll take a look when I get home later tonight

[Black_Elk]

quick Q, do we know if there's a way to have armor blitz at the m+1? Like advancing across two enemy territories in the same blitz?

When testing the set ups, thus far I haven't been able to persuade the HardAI or FastAI to blitz at the m3 distance with their tanks. For example, if I blank the Eastern front of USSR units and give Germany a bunch of tanks on their starting factories, they will still only advance at M2, whereas under human player control they can advance another space. Example would be like from E. Prussia (with no enemy units on the path) could blitz to Estonia, but here they'll always stop short at Latvia. Curious if the blitz is something that's set somewhere or if we can get it working at further distance somehow, cause that could shape where starting units are best placed.

Since I had reconsidered what G1 is meant to reflect (the whole idea of first turn =recap turn) I think it makes sense for us to set it up such that Computer Germany with blitz forward to basically their Sept 41 lines or something close to it.

So like for this image, that G1 would have them basically between the Yellow/Orange, G2 follow up closer to the Purple/Green.

Right now they will advance to the July 41 line since that's basically the M2 distance from their starting position. Although if we could get the tanks/mech to dart around at M3 from the factory spots we could probably get something that is caught up out of round one. Meaning that at least J1/G2 would both be more into the 1941 frame.

Similarly if on the France side of the board, the tanks could strike at the M3 distance off the starting German factories, I might be able to cajole the Computer Germans into taking Brittany and Poitou on G1, like if I removed the starting factory from Normandy to clear the blitz path. Currently they wont do that though, cause they stop up at M2 with the tanks.

[RogerCooper]

@black_elk Does TripleA support the possibility of multiple move/combat phases?

[Black_Elk]

@rogercooper I'm not sure, but that could be an interesting idea, like to have a double combat phase, with a specific blitz phase. I remember at one point thinking it would be cool if we could do something like a same time TripleA, sorta how RiskII handled it's same time, but I could never figure out how to set such a thing up.

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk said in Mega New Elk WIP:

When testing the set ups, thus far I haven't been able to persuade the HardAI or FastAI to blitz at the m3 distance with their tanks. For example, if I blank the Eastern front of USSR units and give Germany a bunch of tanks on their starting factories, they will still only advance at M2, whereas under human player control they can advance another space

By rule, the attacking tank may move through (blitz) an unoccupied enemy controlled space, as long as that space is the first one moved into, the next space move into may be friendly or enemy controlled. And this is how the AI is programmed, if the adjacent territory is enemy controlled it will attempt to move through it and end its movement in the next territory entered. If this first territory entered is allied controlled it will continue it movement until it enters the closet enemy territory, movement allowed, Blitzing is only checked for the first adject territory, so no you will not be able to get the AI to "blitz" 2 territories, or move 1 territory and blitz the second territory.

Cheers...

[wc_sumpton]

@rogercooper said in Mega New Elk WIP:

Does TripleA support the possibility of multiple move/combat phases?

Yes TripleA will support as many Tech/Purchase/Movement/Combat etc.. They even can have the same name as the engine will move through each step as they are listed. The problem comes when you want triggers to fire off of certain steps, then each step should have a unique name.

Cheers...

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk said in Mega New Elk WIP:

I remember at one point thinking it would be cool if we could do something like a same time TripleA, sorta how RiskII handled it's same time, but I could never figure out how to set such a thing up.

Something like "Movement/Battle check if battle won, if won reset/Movement/Battle etc.. for maybe 10/15 turns. If a battle is lost, set all movement to 0. Not that impossible.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

@wc_sumpton Ok cool that's sorta what I was figuring was going on. In that case I think the goal should be just to hit that first line in yellow, which we can achieve with the regular tanks at M2 blitz

For France, I think we can say that there G1 is modelling May/June 1940 till basically the end of the year, since the eastern front would reflect late summer 41 with the German invasion of USSR being compressed into that same opening 'Recap' turn.

With this date in mind for the opening fireworks display, I think we can just assign control of Calais to Germany on the first turn, put 2 tanks or mech there and then HardAI will reliably blitz to take Brittany and Poitou. I can then rearrange the forces in Southern France, so that the dominoes fall sorta how the line would look in most books. With Germany overrunning the North and West and the South being taken the follow up turn. It might make sense to see if we can get a German transport to launch units from their position in Libya to take over most of North Africa on G1, otherwise Brits tend to send their air to prop up Algeria, a bit sooner than we'd want a Torch to really crack off. This may take some tinkering since it's hard to test with edit mode. Usually the computer will fail to utilize it's new transports if I simply edit them in, I have to edit the entries to check, so it's a little hard to model on the fly. Though I think we can get it to work. Say either from sz 96 A or sz 95 A, like with a transport or two to use on G1, and then they might have a bit more flexibility to reinforce North Africa.

Transport behavior is a little different between HardAI and FastAI, but I think I'd use hardAI since it's going to default to them anyway unless the player clicks in.

Since Germany routinely uses it's pair of Strat bombers vs the British fleet, I think it might make sense to give them another in N. Africa, probably a fighter or two on the new AB we gave them as well. I think I will empty the Soviet front line, move some of the German forces more forward there, since we don't have to model the one round delay anymore if I do the whole recap concept for the first turn.

I'll play around with some stuff when I get home in an hour

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk said in Mega New Elk WIP:

Though I think we can get it to work. Say either from sz 96 A or sz 95 A, like with a transport or two to use on G1, and then they might have a bit more flexibility to reinforce North Africa.

Tried this in the XML, HardAI Germany retreats them to zs 97A. Fast AI goes after Gibraltar with one, the other is used to reinforce the Tunis battle.

@black_elk said in Mega New Elk WIP:

I think we can just assign control of Calais to Germany on the first turn, put 2 tanks or mech there and then HardAI will reliably blitz to take Brittany and Poitou.

These units reinforce the Paris battle. Brittany and Poitou are the only 2 territories left in France not captured/controlled by Germany.

UHD WIP 1940-45 1.38.2.zip
Calais changed to German control w/mech and tank
2 German transports in sz 96A

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

@wc_sumpton Looks interesting! I will use that as the basis. With Calais under Axis control, this draws an an Axis Air attack pretty reliably vs sz 110 A. That is a pretty significant one since Allies will scramble to defend. If Axis prevail it's harder for UK to tip the scale on Algeria defenses vs G2 press against N. Africa.

If I remove the French starting factory at Normandy and add another German tank/mech pairing in Calais then computer G will go the distance to Brittany.

I also saw that HardAI was more cautious with those new Med transports, although I think this should still work, since it gives them more options in subsequent rounds. I also like that it helps to indicate the presence of Germans in N. Africa here I added a cruiser just so they'd have a little coverage.

Then I started making a number of edits to add in more Axis TUV, and push the Eastern Front a bit so it will sync up more on G1/G2. Mostly I just repositioned Germany into a more forward position.

Since Italy is pretty light on income, I gave them a battleship and factory at Istria so they'd have a springboard facing more on the Balkans, also a few more aircraft, so they're fleet doesn't get dropped too hard.

For Japan I filled out their empty tiles with some light forces and a hub on Bangkok.

Going to test from here and see how it shakes out, since I changed quite a bit there. I think the swing towards Axis should be pretty pronounced, so hopefully evens things out a bit. They're into USSR much earlier now and have more to work with in forward positions, so hopefully an alright pick up.

Here's the edit save I just put together to trial

2025-3-25-UHD-WIP-1940-45.tsvg

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk

Here you go:
UHD WIP 1940-45 1.38.3.zip
New starting setup by @Black_Elk
All Allied starting income adjusted by 50%

I was thinking about making Gibraltar as 2PUs VC because it controls the entry to the Med.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

Sounds good. Makes sense to me

They may need another inf dude or two there as well for fodder, just so it's not too much of a sure shot for the Germans to take it with those minty new transports. Looks pretty cool so far.

I suspect I may have juiced the Axis just a little overboard there, since my last trial they had a pretty good drive going and were in Moscow by round 8 hehe, but we can always dial it back again from there I figure. Still sorta broad strokes painting on this, but it gives a pretty nice push/pull by sides I think.

Since computer won't purchase any intermediate factories I thought to add a couple more. It may also make sense for another +2 spot on the other side of the med like in Damascus or Aleppo maybe in to give Axis a reason to push there.

ps. By adding a French bomber to Algiers, I was able to persuade hardAI Germany to attack it on G1 with 1 of the transports. I think that might be the most reliable way to get the computer to attack a spot. I'm making another round of minor adjustments hehe. Ok so in this edit I used the French bomber to make the take on Algeria more consistent, pretty sure hardAI will go after it every time.

I added another bomber to Corsica, computer G will then attack it with the second transport.

I did the same sort of thing for Japan by adding a target bomber to Philippines, Borneo and Wake etc so Computer Japan would hit they'd hit them more reliably.

Then to get Britain to mop up in East Africa an Italian bomber at Mogadishu. Seemed to work pretty well

Here's the edit

2025-3-26-UHD-WIP-1940-45.tsvg

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk said in Mega New Elk WIP:

By adding a French bomber to Algiers, I was able to persuade hardAI Germany to attack it on G1 with 1 of the transports.

This seems like a good idea. But what happens when these high value targets are not attached? Should they remain or should they be removed?

mega_new_elk_1940.xml
Damascus and Gibraltar changed to 2PUs and cc
New starting setup @Black_Elk

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

@wc_sumpton Looks cool!

Yeah, so the bomber idea would be an example of me trying to script the opening attacks via target TUV, and cajoling the computer/human player into making a particular attack consistently. It was actually the opposite of my initially approach which was to add Axis TUV, here I was adding Allied TUV, but doing so in a way that advantages Axis since it encourages the computer to make a better opening move on G1. Better positioning for their combat move at any rate.

In general if the player has a chance to destroy naked or weakly defended aircraft (especially strategic bombers) before those air units have a chance to fly away, they will just always make that attack. It becomes part of the standard opening script. A good recent example of this would be the 1942.2 Tourney Rules (world war II v5 TE used by A&AO as the standard set up now) where the German bomber was moved to Ukraine. That Ukraine attack by USSR vs the German bomber in the first turn is now scripted into the 1942 TE opener, because the bomber is simply too powerful to ignore. The chance to kill a bomber on the ground in the opener is just a solid tactic and pretty much impossible to resist. There are other moves one could make, but that's the best move, and so then it just becomes the default play pattern.

So basically, with that attack vs the naked Algiers bomber, the computer is doing exactly what I would do as a human player, prioritizing killing the enemy aircraft. As a player I might simply attack the bomber on the ground with other aircraft, rather than doing the whole amphib thing. Or say for the bomber in Corsica (since there's no factory on that tile) I might approach the attack in a different way, but the priority would still be to kill the lone French bomber before it can get in a move, or fly off and cause havoc elsewhere.

Here I was simply trying to see how far I could push the computer's behavior, which turns out can be pushed a fair bit hehe.

I don't think I would auto add/remove units from play based on what the computer is doing, as I think that would be somewhat confusing. Though of course we'd have to fine tune if it's an either/or sort of attack. It's still possible for example (since the computer edges it's attack) for a defending bomber to roll a 1 and throw a kink in the plan. Although here I think in the Pacific that could provide some interest in the variability game to game.

TheDog in the other map used high value non combat targets (oil derricks and the like, to achieve something similar) but here I wanted to try the simpler method using standard air units. Your mention of what the FastAI was doing vs Gibraltar game me the idea, since I remembered how much the computer loves to try and kill aircraft on the ground, especially bombers (but also tactical bombers and regular fighters), any time they don't have a lot of fodder cover, computer tries to pick them off before they can fly away. Another relatively high value unit that could be used is the naked AAgun, but I saw that computer was not quite as consistent there. Using bombers they will lock in on those targets like a magnet, so it just seemed like an easy way to get things moving.

Once the computer is making it's standard scripted moves, then the challenge is to find the breakers in a more PvP oriented framework. Because we know the human player will have a much better grasp on how to defeat the opponent than the computer does. For example, human will prioritize capital capture above all other considerations, since it's the most impactful game resolution mechanic. They may ignore everything else, send all tanks to nail Moscow and know that they'll have won, because the opponent loses their purchase, purse gets stolen etc, whereas the computer will fan out and sorta cautiously trade territories instead of going for the killshot. For the most part this is fine, since we don't need to create a situation where the computer is always mopping the floor with the human player, but just to put up a reasonable challenge. We can always use stuff like income modifiers to scale the difficulty similar to bids in PvP, which would probably be my approach here since it's pretty easy. Example might be HardAI 125% resource modifier for Very Hard, or 150% for Iron Man mode or whatever hehe.

ps. here is the pattern for the first round. I'd say the script there is pretty consistent, meaning the computer will at least run it's standard attacks reliably. The results of the individual battles will have some variability sure, but the computer will tend to do the same thing on G1/J1 for it's opening attacks, which I think is desirable. They may non com or edge the attack in different ways, especially HardAI vs FastAI, but even there, it's pretty consistent using this method. Here's an image of the first round HardAI, on Frances first turn...

You can see the modelling for the Fall of France/N. Africa has most of the production being overtaken by Germany on G1, and this is fairly reliable game to game. There is a bit of variation on whether G will attack into Toulouse, or how they will activate the Pro Side neutrals in Finland, but for the most part I think we can control it this way.

Quickie save/screen to show the G1/J1 attack pattern.

2025-3-26-UHD-WIP-1940-45_France_1.tsvg

Goal for Japan was just to get them to use those transports in attacks rather than non coms, to make the standard pickups and to press a bit harder vs the Dutch islands and such. Here they will take Wake and Guam etc. If they capture Wake with a tank, they will often advance vs Hawaii on J2, so it might recommend a second US infantry unit there, but for the most part felt pretty good. In this game Japan faired rather poorly at the Pearl Attack. I added a US battleship, to try and make that fight somewhat more interesting. The Axis control of the Med is a bit more reliable than before, so I think it's just a matter of making sure USA/UK can still get a Torch going.

Here computer UK will pretty consistently invade Italian East Africa with something, which while still a bit of an anachronism, at least reflect that whole idea of the Recap turn, like the last pockets of resistance there. They tend to nail whatever German transport off the coast of Algiers as well, so that seems to work pretty well. Axis have sprawled, so now it's just making sure computer Allies can clap back, so that rounds 2-3 have the right vibe generally.

I think we can tune from here, like trying to get USSR/Japan front to stay stable, since Japan will press harder now. Vladivostok is a bit difficult to manage, since they tend to skirmish, again a bit of an anachronism for the 1940-41, but it's not entirely off base. Khalkhin Gol was 39, so I guess any back and forth can be seen sorta like porous borders, or minor clashes. There is always an option for a NAP, but I think there is something in traditional A&A "what if" that lends itself towards letting the players brawl on that count.

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk

Hard AI Germany will go after Algiers and Corsica, but Fast AI does not. Fast AI Italy will, as long as Britain does not reinforce Algiers. I've also notice Fast AI British not attacking Mogadishu. Japanese Hard/Fast AI does tend to clean all their 'lonely' bomber targets. This is why I was asking, because of the inconsistent Fast AI play.

But all good.

Cheers...

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk

When "Tech Development" is not selected, the map does not center on the player's capital (only matters for human player's). This is because the first step, which is used to center the map, is being skipped. This can be corrected with a dummy endTurnNoPU at the beginning.

Thoughts

Cheers...