Mega New Elk WIP

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk

Hard AI tends to follow the 'scrip'. While Fast AI tends to be a little more unpredictable. What Germany misses, Italy tries to clear up.

Cheers...

P.S Putting a dummy first step and attaching territory setup removes the "star" problem.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

Right on

I was just spending the afternoon watching the HardAI make it's moves hehe.

Here was another interesting game to round 8, where Italy captured the syria VC and Japan grabbed Honolulu. Took Japan about that long to overrun China. USA eventually moved on North Africa but the delay was pretty pronounced since Axis were fierce in the med.

2025-3-26-UHD-WIP-1940-45_France_8.tsvg

I was thinking perhaps USA starting minor factory on Rio de Janeiro might give them a better angle on Africa.

Also, watching Japan go all ham vs Hawaii made me think it might be interesting to see if we can get HardAI Japan to sometimes flex vs Alaska or North America in the midgame rather than just always slogging it out vs the USSR up there.

Ideas for territories we might raise to 2 PU value, I did a pair in the case of Allies so the starting income thing would still divide cleaning, with a mind towards giving the Axis some more targets, or making the payoff somewhat better if doing particular moves, like say a Sea Lion invasion or maybe an invasion of Alaska or South America etc. I also thought to do a 2 PU for a couple of the neutrals since they don't have starting income easier to add there.

Anchorage (USA)
Brittany (France)
Calais (Germany)
Bulgaria (Pro Axis)
Dakkar (France)
Denmark (Germany)
Dovao (USA)
Dt. Guiana (Dutch)
Hungary (Germany)
Morocco (France)
N.Ireland (Britain)
Narvik (Germany)
Toulouse (France)
Wales (Britain)
Yugoslavia (Pro Allies)

Then making Oslo a VC, would give what, like 42 VCs across the board? That's probably pretty solid. Puts a couple in a each major theater of ops for the back and forth, push and pull. Idea being to make North Africa, Balkans, Scandinavia, France etc a somewhat bigger get, and to make an Axis push vs the Americas somewhat more viable should they attempt it, even if that's less likely outside of endgame solos and such.

Ps. Was going to try something like this, 2 inf and the factory minor at Rio, 1 transport 1 destroyer off Brazil. Figured it gives the German sub down there something to do with a bit of a coin toss on whether USA can jump out early or has to rebuild. I expect they'll probably drop a few ships down there more maybe fighters to push up on West Africa. Not sure haven't run it yet to see, but maybe it'll give Allies a bit of a leg up on simulating torch. Last game Allies were a bit on the back foot, but I think it's looking pretty good thus far. I'm not sure what sort of trick we might use to entice Japan more towards dutch harbor, aleutians, alaska etc. since it's a bit further afield. I think a production foothold or VC up there would probably make USA just sorta camp up there and drop into USSR the whole time, as they already seem to want to do that. Right now the balance Japan vs USSR felt pretty stable, so I don't know if it's better to weaken USA position to reinforce with transports, or to give USSR a secondary hub at like Yakutia or Yakutsk to cover the Soviet Far East backfield. If USA covering that area they tend to march south and eventually end up in Manchuria, or at least last couple games. Japan was on China a bit harder, and of course Germany had USSR more on the backfoot since the last iteration. I do kinda like that Axis charge and sprawl though, since I think that would make playing as one of the Allies a bit more entertaining, which would be a like to have the Allies just naturally a bit more behind the 8 ball there. Anyhow this was the one I was looking at

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

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk

Wow, what a list of changes.
UHD WIP 1940-45 1.38.5.zip
EndTurnNoPU step added to the beginning of every player to allow the map to center on players capital even when Tech is not checked
New starting setup by @Black_Elk
The following territories changed to 2PUs
Anchorage (USA)
Brittany (France)
Calais (Germany)
Bulgaria (Pro Axis)
Dakkar Dakar (France)
Denmark (Germany)
Dovao (USA)
Dt. Guiana (Dutch)
Hungary (Germany)
Morocco (France)
N.Ireland (Britain)
Narvik (Germany)
Toulouse (France)
Wales (Britain)
Yugoslavia (Pro Allies)

Oslo changed to vc

(I think that's it)

Cheers...

P.S Start PUs adjusted (I did miss something)

Cheers...

[beelee]

@black_elk

as wc said, it doesn't matter for the computer but It Totally Kicks Ass for the Player having it center on the Capital !!!

with the tech off

[Black_Elk]

Hell yeah! Nice

Looks cool! I'll be playing this one all night to see how it pans out
Great work

Here was my first trial with that new set up HardAI vs itself. Brazil did seem to help the Allies get positioned somewhat better on N. Africa. Took about 4 rounds for them to get enough transports to start dropping. I might give them a few more tanks maybe, just so their initial push is slightly more credible, but otherwise felt pretty good.

In this one Japan came crashing hard vs Anzac and overran them I think in round 7, which was around the time that China collapsed. It almost looked like they were going to take a crack at Alaska, they had some floaters hanging out, but then doubled back at the last minute lol

HardAI Axis just met up at the middle of the board, when they went godzilla mode and cut the USSR in half hehe. Least it seems Axis are back in the running now. If anything might be Allies need the slight boost. I did rather neglect Anzac thus far, since they've been pretty stable. Probably they just need another bomber, or again a tank or two prepositioned somewhere. Overall all though, pretty entertaining for the popcorn into round 10 hehe

2025-3-26-UHD-WIP-1940-45_France_9.tsvg

Here's a second game around the same point HardAI. In that one computer Japan went after India instead of Anzac. Computer G took Gibraltar and Axis were dominant in the North Atlantic after that. Computer Italy held suez and then made a play for the Mid East and Africa. Axis made a breakout to take N. Ireland and started chopping it up. Seems the boost up there was an enticement. Computer Anzac had sorta the reverse turn of fortune compared to the previous game, and made some alright gains while the other Allies were taking the heat. I think Axis were clearly in the lead. Just based on those two outs, probably it'd be team Allies from here, adding TUV for tinkering around the margins for the balance by sides. Probably mostly for Torch and to keep China from getting swept too quickly.

2025-3-27-UHD-WIP-1940-45_G9.tsvg

[Black_Elk]

More brainstorm hehe

So returning to the China and France situation, the more I think about it the less I think we should use the standard China rules. The way the standard rules are framed, the justification is basically to hold China to an infantry wall, for a more defensive style gameplay, but it's such a departure from how the rules work for all the other factions, and it's a bit one note, that I just don't know if it's worth retaining. The rationale originally was probably to save on sculpts and as the callback to Classic or Revised where that whole theater was under the USA aegis. Similar to Anzac, UK Pacific, and Italy, I think breaking China off to form its own separate faction removes what used to be a somewhat more interesting strategic choice about where to dedicate resources or TUV for the main factions. So you know it's less a choice on Britain's party about whether to commit resources to Africa or India, Europe or the Pacific/Australia New Zealand etc, since Anzac is carved out. USA doesn't have to worry about propping up China or USSR/UK/India in the same way, since those spots are bankrolling their own thing on the larger boards. Now for G40 we have those extra sculpts for France and Anzac so I guess it makes sense to use them. The thematic rationale for how China is handled is presented here. Basically a full page spread to explain what's going on there...

https://www.axisandallies.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Axis-Allies-Pacific-1940-Second-Edition.pdf

"China and its units are controlled by one of the Allied
players, but for game purposes it is considered a separate
power and its resources cannot be mixed with those of
other Allied powers. Chinese territories on the game board
have a Nationalist Chinese emblem on them. Some of these
territories begin the game already under Japanese control.
They still are considered Chinese territories for purposes of
original ownership.

Unlike the other powers in the game, China is not an
industrialized nation and has a rural economy and
decentralized government. As a result, China does not have
a capital like other powers do. If all Chinese territories are
captured by Japan, China retains its unspent IPCs in hope
of liberation and does not give them to Japan. In addition,
China may spend IPCs only to purchase infantry units
(with one exception, see below) and does not use industrial
complexes. New Chinese units can be mobilized on any
Chinese territory that is controlled by China, including
those captured in the current turn. If a Japanese industrial
complex is built on a Chinese territory and that territory is
later recaptured by the Chinese or liberated by another Allied
power, the industrial complex is removed from the game.
China is not subject to convoy disruptions (see “Conduct
Convoy Disruptions,” page 22).

While being invaded by Japan, China is also fighting a
civil war. This limits China’s interests to matters within its
own borders, resulting in a limited range of occupation for
Chinese units. They can be moved only into territories that
have a Nationalist Chinese emblem. However, Kwangtung
and Burma are special cases. Although they are not Chinese
territories, Chinese forces can move into them. These are
the only non-Chinese territories that Chinese units can
occupy. China can even temporarily control them, but only
if it recaptures them from the Axis while India is under Axis
control. Chinese units cannot be loaded onto transports.
The Burma Road is vital to the Chinese war effort (see
map). When all of the territories this road passes through
are controlled by the Allies during China’s Collect Income
phase, China receives a bonus income of 6 IPCs per turn.
Even without an industrial complex, China can purchase and
mobilize artillery, but only if the road is open during China’s
Purchase and Repair Units phase. These artillery units will
be supplied by the United States player (because China does
not have any of its own), but are considered to be Chinese
units in all respects.

At the beginning of the game, China has a United States
fighter unit located on the map. This represents the American
volunteer group the Flying Tigers. This fighter is considered
part of the Chinese forces for purposes of movement and
combat. It cannot leave the territories that Chinese occupation
is restricted to, even to attack and return. If it is destroyed, the
US player cannot replace this fighter unit for China."

To me that is all very complicated, and pretty hard to describe in a nutshell.

The main and most immediate issue in tripleA terms is just that for tripleA starting control/original owner is indicated by the painted over national hex color. On the physical board a double control roundel is used. For standard G40 we can get away with not showing them, since it's assumed the player will know from the OOB, since all those territories are 1:1 with the physical board, but when there are more territories/sub divisions this may be less clear. Short of drawing a couple dozens roundels on the map, to me it just seems easier to say that starting control is original ownership, and to ditch the whole restriction on movement, since the effect there is pretty limited. But then it may not match expectations compared to what is happening in OOB G40.

I think it would probably be simpler to treat them as a more complete faction, with a wartime capital and an industrial base at Chungking and Sinkiang. Like all the other smaller factory hubs, these are analogous to supply commitments more than industrial complexes and an abstraction, so I think the same could just be extended to this part of the board.

If doing so I think I would raise Chunking, Yunnan, Sinkiang, Urumchi to 2 PU value. VC in Chungking, with starting minor factories.

Instead of the standard framing from the rules quoted above, China's more limited industrial base can be reflected in their more limited/restricted unit roster - one that doesn't include naval units or the more advanced air and mobile ground units or infrastructure units like bases. Example their purchase roster could be restricted to just Infantry, Artillery, AAguns and the Basic Fighter. Or perhaps if we want to give them a mobile unit, perhaps that might just be the mech unit instead of tanks.

I mean even if it was just Infantry, Artillery and Fighters, that'd probably be enough, it's more just how the units are spawned that I think we could make a bit more regular.

This way the whole Burma road thing is just sorta abstractly baked into the territories of Chungking and Yunnan understood as support from Western Allies, with units from Sinkiang, Urumchi understood as support from USSR. I think Soviet or Western units operating in the Chinese backfield can also be understood that way, so the civil war is sorta reflected in those factions, but mechanically then China could just function a bit more like everyone else for simplicity, less need for exceptions to the general rule. Their more limited industrial capacity being captured thematically by their more restricted purchase options.

The trick for that to work is that USSR and Britain need to contest those backfield resupply areas and the Soviets in particular need to be able to fight forward, otherwise those spots just become springboards for Japan onto the all important center of the board. I think for managing the Soviet Far East front, we probably need to extend the terminus for Tran Siberian Rail from Novosibirsk/Siberia to a point further east.

I think Irkutsk at 2 with the factory makes the most sense, since the way we have things drawn it borders lake Baikal. I think Bury could also work, but that ones a little closer to Japan and might be too much of a gift for them if they just slam into the USSR from the coast. Irkutsk still has an alright line to cover the coastal territories of the Soviet Fast East, but not so close that they just can instantly project too much power by Air. At the standard distance of 4, they can cover sz 5B if they have a landing spot, maybe 5A if they were to purchase an Airbase for that position. Although not as potent as say doing the same for Vladivostok, which is much more likely to just trade hands, since it's right next to Japan. Kind of a big powerup for Allies, but I think it could work well for holding Japan from going too monster too fast. Anyhow, just what was scrambling around in my head for now.

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk

You're going to love this:
UHD WIP 1940-45 1.38.6.zip
Chunking, Yunnan, Sinkiang, Urumchi changed to 2PUs
Chunking, Sinkiang, Urumchi fictory_minor added
Chunking vc added
Irkutsk changed to 2PUs, fictory_minor, infantry, mech_infantry added
Iceland infantry added
Chinese no longer destroy captured factories
Chinese can purchase infantry, artillery, aaGun, mech_infantry, armour and fighter (max of 2)
Loss of capital can purchase infantry, artillery, aaGun, mech_infantry, armour, fighter, transport, destroyer, submarine and fictory_minor
Starting PUs adjusted for Russians and Chinese

Hope that's it.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

@wc_sumpton Yeah I think this will be easier to work with for sure. Or at least to me it seems like a more straightforward approach to build off.

First trial HardAI vs itself still showed Axis pretty dominant under the new arrangement. Game was notable especially for Germany just going nuts on the water.

Since I strengthened their hand quite a bit when I added all that Axis TUV and changed the G opener to be more forward vs France/USSR in the last few iterations, it may be necessary to go back to giving Allies their full starting cash now, since they'll probably need it to manage the response to the Axis press. Alternatively we could beef up their starting TUV, but maybe they'd just build back with the heftier purse, might be worth trying to see what Allies do with it now.

Here was the last save HardAI tapping in at USA round 9

2025-3-27-UHD-WIP-1940-45_usa_9.tsvg

ps. oh and I saw for the factories in Urumchi and Sinkiang had 3 of each there.

Also I wonder if Gabon we should just give a starting French factory? In this one it went to Dakar on the spawn in, but then G snatched it right out from under them heheh. I think it was not their luckiest day that game though, Axis definitely crashed their party and Allies never quite made it to a proper Torch. USA did take Iwo though which was cool to see!

Second trial HardAI, Allies faired better in this bout.

2025-3-28-UHD-WIP-1940-45_G7.tsvg

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk

UHD WIP 1940-45 1.38.7.zip
factory_minor reduced to 1 on Urumchi and Sinkiang
Allies beginning PUs changed, they are no longer cut in half

@black_elk said in Mega New Elk WIP:

Also I wonder if Gabon we should just give a starting French factory?

It gives the AI "freedom of choice". If it makes a bad choice, then it needs to live with it. One thing I've notice, the AI will calculate its production, then how much it can produce. And it tries to use every dime. Only when it can't place what it's producing will purchase new factories. So, we may want to limit their number. The more we place, the more it will not place. This is why I didn't add one at Yunnan.

Cheers...

[TheDog]

Only when it can't place what it's producing will purchase new factories. So, we may want to limit their number. The more we place, the more it will not place. This is why I didn't add one at Yunnan.

So true.
Even if you you give/buy the factories to the AI, it still might not place them.

If it really matters, for the AI only, it might be worth testing each TT with no factory and placing one?

[wc_sumpton]

@Black_Elk

@thedog said in Mega New Elk WIP:

If it really matters, for the AI only, it might be worth testing each TT with no factory and placing one?

You have limited production 10/3. But they are placed all over the map. I think I had the same discussion with @TheDog. The AI will try to spend every last dime (PUs). If it has the production\placement, it's not going to purchase more production. So, keep the 2/3 territories to increase purchasing power, but remove some of the factories to squeeze production and see what happens.
In one of my earlier playthroughs, prior to this change allowing Germany to destroy France, France hah a factory in Algiers with over 30PUs to spend. It bought a bomber, mech_infantry, infantry at 19PUs. That was all it could produce, and it still had PUs. So, it purchased a factory.

Maybe we should think about letting factories be destroyed, either by SBR and/or capture. To try and limit their numbers more. Have most of the production in locations where they can easily be captured/destroyed, not protected in the rear.

Cheers...

[wc_sumpton]

@Black_Elk

Germany starts off with almost 60PUs. That's 20 infantry. It can produce over forty units. Why would it ever buy another factory.

The production, amount of PUs gained, feels about right, but there is way too much production/placement before the AI will ever consider buying more.

Everyone complains about the AI not buying production/factories, but if you calculate what can be purchased by what can be placed, the imbalance is perfectly clear.

factory_major should not be destroyable. When captured they should take at least 12 points (factory_minor cost) of damage. factory_minor should be destroyable, both by SBR and capture.

Germany should only have a factory_major on Berlin and maybe 2, 3 at most, factory_minor. And they should be located on, or near, the front. When Germany captures Paris, the factory_major should be rendered inoperable, but should still remain on the map. Any factory_minor captured should be destroyed and removed.

Things might change dynamically if the AI/player is forced to think about production. And then again maybe not.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

I think it could be worth trying.

Right now the 10/3 placement thing is producing a situation where computer has significantly more placement than I was anticipating initially. On account of the inf x999 thing I'm pretty sure, I routinely see computer placing more than 3 hitpoints out of a frontline factory minor. Right now it's capped at 10 placement for inf but that is very high (it makes every minor behave more like a major), and also that's not applying to the other unit types, so it's a bit inconsistent currently. These are like the early v1 first edition rules right now, in practice, since there are effectively no hard limits on placement when doing that aside from the inf thing. I think I would just spam mech and artillery all day under these conditions.

Example, as Germany I can buy 14 artillery and place them all in E. Prussia. This is pretty distorting, since it allows the player/computer to drop its big TUV stacks in very forward positions, without first having to telegraph or a run a logistics line from their production cores (where their placement is more concentrated.) I think the Minors probably need to be kept at 3 placement regardless of unit type, for both player and computer, otherwise the strategic value of a forward minor is pretty pronounced. Even if it does seem to be producing a stronger play pattern from the computer right now. If we need more placement coming from a specific factory location, I would maybe just make that spot a Major, since those have 10 placement standard.

My concern with destroyable factories, just from having seen how they work in the other one, is that it's relatively easy to bomb a player off the board, before they have a chance to respond in a meaningful way. Also the player doesn't have the ability to damage/destroy their own factories, so I think that could be problematic. Still it might be worth trying just to see.

In the standard game purchasing production/factories is generally poor gameplay, except in the case of Japanese tank/mech drives, or for the more do-or-die formula from Classic where Allies would buy forward factories to try and wedge at China/India simultaneously. Or perhaps in SA factory to push tanks towards Suez in Classic, though I always found that one a bit weaksauce compared to the Brit Carrier buy hehe. In any case, point being that there was always the big danger of purchasing new production, only to have it used against one's own team if captured. Destroyable factories would remove that purchasing tension, or the double edged sword, although the same thing remains for Bases right now. AI I don't think is going to be purchasing these, since they're so expensive, but they're probably the most important unit type from a strategic standpoint.

I think as a human I could probably see purchasing a couple to make the naval or air logistics more effective, or to activate a scramble option, but AI is not really keyed up for that. I think I would not consider SBR vs bases a very efficient use of bombers, if they could instead be used to destroy factories or limit ground movement, I would just always only use them for that. A magnified bomber build would have them knocking off production pretty consistently. I mean AI will use 1 maybe 2 bombers to SBR. I would use 12 bombers and knock minor factories off the board all day, cause that screws the computer harder than just about anything else they could do. It's because of the whole repair thing post v3, where the ability to prevent enemy placement is just way more potent than some extra cost to place in PUs coming from the opponent's pile to repair. I haven't seen the AI showing that it has a reliable way overcome the factory destroyed from the air, either with AAguns, interceptor fighters, or new factory purchases to offset. Even if they are gifted them as a bonus freebie. Instead what seemed to happen is that the computer's placement would just diminish over time till eventually they get to the point where they cannot place. Since so many of their factories can be nailed by bombers at the m6/7 distance, I think many factories would get knocked off, especially the critical coastal factories, which are the only spots where ships can spawn.

In general the AI does what I would do as a player, shucking units from the existing backfield factories which are more secure, rather than purchasing forward production. The problem there is that the AI sucks at protecting it's Transport TUV, so it just can't do this anywhere nearly as effectively as I can as the human. It moves/positions it's Transports for defense as if they were v1/v2 style transports, the transports which still had a hitpoint and defense power of 1, rather than the v3 style defenseless transport which has no hitpoint.

I don't know that we can really go back in time on that one, since the Classic transport was very overpowered. There was no need to purchase any other ship type really, since a large enough transport stack could operate independently there. In the post v3 ruleset they get wiped continually trying to deplay those tactics. Sure, in the standard game, a player may risk a transport to push 2 hitpoints, and then draw enemy aircraft or ships into a predictable attack response, but the AI will do that with an entire transport stack. I'll see stuff like computer sending a single cruiser to defend like 10 transports = 70 TUV, or else I'll see some edged combats from the attacker where they will go very light into such an attack. Like where allowing a single return fire shot from the defender cruiser may allow those 10 transports to escape if they get a lucky roll, whereas a human would probably just bring a second fighter or whatever.

Computer will likewise do something like group 6 transports together, (not a bad move in classic since that's 6 hitpoints and a reliable 1 hit. Even rolled at a 1, x6 transports firing is a pretty scarry battle for the lone fighter, bomber, cruiser etc) but when transports have no hitpoint and no defense power, it's more like a death wish from enemy bombers. AI will still group or place transports pointlessly into locations where they're immediately at risk from such attacks. Sometimes computer gets lucky, on account of the turn order sequence, and a computer teammate will float in to protect them, but this is pretty inconsistent. The computer may still overwhelm itself eventually via the transport spam (even defenseless transports with heavy attrition will ultimately push the stacks into position), but it takes a long time, and a human I think would just cut them to ribbons with aircraft on approach.

There is still a divide in the player base I think, between peeps who prefer the classic transport vs the anniversary transport, but I think that ship has sorta sailed by now. In PvP the v3/v5/global defenseless transport is currently the norm.

If HardAI would pair it's defenseless transports with a destroyer/carrier combo the way human players typically do, we could probably get something cooking, but it just doesn't appear to be set up that way. Even if it has some warships that could be used to protect it's transport stacks, it will frequently send these roving instead, or leave the transports unprotected in some vulnerable spot nearby. I think also the way the computer edges it's attacks on the water is less efficient there than it would be on land, say with tank attrition.

Here the computer I think loses sight of it's fundamentals, as it will risk it's more valuable 2 hit naval unit to attrition pretty regularly. Example would be like when the computer sends a naked carrier with zero attack power and like 1 sub, to attack enemy 1 HPs worth of enemy naval TUV. Sure Computer might be more likely to win the fight in narrow terms, or eek out the pyrrhic victory there, but a human would just never be making those sorts of moves when they could preserve the carrier absorption for defense. Again they may occasionally be saved by their teammates, landing fighters or moving warships to protect a damaged carrier deck, but this is somewhat random and often down to like luck of the draw.

Other main thing that computer fails to do, would be positioning it's destroyer blockers to prevent enemy naval movement into attacks. So hardAI will not do something like put 1 destroyer between their main fleet and the enemy's main fleet, just to shut down an attack lane. They won't do this to cover their own fleet movements, or to send a blocker unit to save a teammate's fleet from being attacked, even though I would always do that in PvP. It's debatable sometimes whether that is efficient use of destroyer TUV round to round, but for a big press, if one can prevent some massive loss of TUV, or prevent an attack from occurring in the first place, that's often a pretty good use of an 8 TUV destroyer sacrificed.

The obvious solution to me would be to somehow fix the transport itself, or to simply get rid of it in favor of warships that can transport ground units directly, but that is such a departure from the standard G40 expectations now, that I think it would introduce confusion into the roster pricing balance, which is otherwise pretty much identical to OOB. I don't anticipate that we will see improvements in the HardAI behavior for it's transports, which is why I was trying to mitigate that somewhat by having more factories in place at the intermediate spots, and probably more air bases where scrambling can happen, since that does help with the defenseless transports quite a bit, provided there are fighters flying around those coastal production hotspots.

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk

I think you're right. You have more experience in these matters, and know better what the AI is capable of, or lack there. If harbors and airfields are strategically placed, with a good number of fictory_minors, as long as these cannot be destroyed. Then you're looking at the cost of repair, 6PUs maximum, which the computer will do. Versus the cost of producing at 15/12 PUs, which the AI tends not to do.

So, play to the AI strength. Give it plenty of distribution points, it's just giving to have to pay to keep them open.

As to the transport AI problem. I don't know. I've tried to keep compatible with 2.5, so I've not used 'isAI'. We'll see.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

[Whoops I edited this into the above by accident, meant to reply. There I managed to grab the previous edit to restore my ramblethon above hehe]

Yeah it's always such a bind. It's like I would love to see the computer doing some wild stuff like I imagine 2 players might, but then for the more solo experience I definitely would rather build to what the hardAI will actually use reasonably well. But then for transports, there's a lot to untangle there lol.

Broadly speaking I've seen a couple possible approaches that have been adopted over the years, but the issue remains sorta intractable even in the latest iterations. These are the sorts of things that I've seen adopted, more in the realm of House Rules or customized/specialized mods...

Revert to Classic transport, with the old values a0/d1 m2 with 1 hitpoint. Works but then introduces the old dilemmas for transport spam, also nerfs the air umbrella/dark skies method for covering vs enemy fleets, so sorta not the most desirable probably.

Or use the post v3 transport no hitpoint, but give it some form of defense power - whether through anti air or anti ship, restricting the attacks/defense rounds there, or finding some way to give them defensive punch, but without the fodder aspect.

Some hybrid of those, where cost/capacity there is sorta indeterminate, but I have seen everything from 7/8 standard costs up to something more like 10 depending on the power mix or whether it has a hitpoint.

Then the last would be to introduce the concept of Warships with transport capacity. Has some precedent from Revised National Advantages. Frequently by the introduction of a new infantry type. So say the Marine of some boards, or the more generic elite unit. We have graphics for this. Of these the most familiar I would say is maybe the traditional unit from Iron Blitz.

In that game they cost 5 and amphib attack 3. TripleA has a version where they cost 4 and attack amphib at 2. I think these are probably equally unfamiliar in the grand scheme, though the latter prob more familiar now. I think an easy rule to grasp would be to allow warships to transport an 1 Elite or something similar. In the Revised NA this ability was given to Destroyers for Japan's Tokyo express, otherwise haven't seen much in terms of OOB precedent, but it does have a logic to in. Old destroyers were basically the current cruiser cost 12 attack 3 possible that sort of thing. In that case the question is how much to restrict them. In the standard-ish games where these units types have made appearances there may have been limits on the total number, though that's tough for a board on this scale. Introducing a supped up elite infantry unit I think is workable.

We have graphics to give basically some version of Marine or Commando or Elite type unit to each faction, but this introduces a fair bit of crowd control since Inf types tend to proliferate. I have graphics as well for paras, but the air transport I think can be problematic for similar reasons to all the transports I guess, like the AI just sorta doesn't do what one would hope with those. Although in G40 with bases, the Para ability can be attached more to ABs. It's not something I had considered much since I thought first to try and capture the more vanilla roster, but I think there is a more general issue with transports for tripleA that it's hard to account for when dealing with the computer. Mainly cause it just seems like it's making it's moves in the Classic way, but the newer games have sorta moved on into the defenseless still somewhat uncharted waters.

I think for everything else that's going on here, an adjustment to how transports work could be advisable. Although I would try to keep it somewhat limited, just because invariably a change to one thing has the knock on effects, especially for how ships work.

There have been adjustments to the cost and behavior of both carriers and transports in the standard, so I think these units are probably the first candidates for a tweak. Example the v5 carrier, compared to the global carrier. The hardAI I think uses the older ones somewhat better, but not by much. I think the main issue for the AI is just that the carrier is such a relatively weak attack unit by itself, but the hit absorption makes the calc tell the computer it's going to be worth it in the TUV exchange immediately, and they don't consider as much the counter attack or how it will limit fighter range in subsequent turns to have the carriers getting dropped. For the standard game I just feel like carriers should probably have had their own air unit types baked into the attack/defense value but we've seen quite a few different approaches in the various HRs or across different boards. The vanilla OOB carriers work pretty well in pvp since players can adapt their behavior and how they defend, but the AI sorta whiffs it, alas hehe

[Black_Elk]

I think probably for now I would keep the roster as is, even if the AI is somewhat deficient. I'm not sure it's worth the potential player confusion if we tweak how transports or carriers work too hardcore. Perhaps something simple like an AAfire shot for transports we could get some buy in there, but it probably needs to be pretty limited just for ease of use. Even though the computer whiffs it's transports, there is a way to compensate a bit for the challenge by giving them more cash via resource modifier. Which may end up being more satisfying/simple way to help them with general transport attrition. Although they sometimes goof and leave their damaged carriers in spots where they're likely to be sunk, they still purchase and move them around a fair bit. They often will place with just 1 fighter instead of the pair, but over time they tend to purchase quite a few so it sorta works out. I think in a PvP type contest, the push would be faster and more furious, but I don't know that the computer has to necessarily be all that effective to still provide some entertainment value for what it is. Like usually it's kinda fun to stomp and slay transports, try to pick the computer apart in that way, so maybe it doesn't matter as much. PvP vs PvE Solo type dynamic will be pretty different either way.

[Black_Elk]

Ok I think I have a sense for how to approach it now.

I've been going back and forth on it a fair bit, and as ever I'm sorta non-committal. Or where I'll try something on a lark, just to see what happens, but then have to probably rein it back in after the fact. I do the same when playing, I'm both impulsive and likely to second guess myself, then try and achieve some sort of internal consensus I guess, or just how my brain likes to process information through the many trials I suppose hehe. I think we're on the cusp though, like it feels pretty close. When I see that the computer can stalemate itself a bit, or see how the board resets after capital collapse where those production lines tend to end up it's a pretty good proxy for the PvP endgame or stalemate I think. Computer just takes longer to get there.

I think for game resolution Capital capture is the most straightforward, it sorta supersedes everything else and is the most hardcore way to get the leg up towards game over. The first time it happens this is very powerful, but it's more the second time purse stealing that I think starts to throw a wrench. This is because then the player has to consider the risk of gifting recovered money to the enemy a second time. Or when deciding whether to restore liberated territories to their rightful teammate, where it could negatively impact their own front line placement. Example being like most of France or North Africa under USA/British control where they can drop the big ticket buys, vs liberating Paris and giving all that forward placement to a faction with less money to burn. Although here France is more powerful generally now, and goes last in standard sequence, so there is a bit of a momentum build on that. They get to place rather than the delay on place by 1 round. I mean moreso than the vanilla situation where France has a lot less cash, or where things like Objectives also enter into the equation and G goes right after interrupt the French placement after Paris is restored.

I think the best option may be to highball the number of minor factories, keep the placement on them individually lowballed (3 to the minor) and then see how impactful it is, if I add a few more in locations where they make sense just purely from the movement standpoint. I think it's easy to understand them abstractly as the endpoints for some form of logistics line, whether that's themed more like rail or just a kind of outpost. To me they can represent different things depending on the theater/location. For example, maybe Siberia and Irkutsk is meant to be Tran Siberian rail, something like Chungking is more like Burma Road, Truk is like Tokyo Express, Alaska might be like ALCAN Highway or ALSIB air lifts. The stuff in North Africa is maybe interpreted differently than these, similarly a logistics hub or an outpost but we can imagine what it represents differently, depending on whether that hub is on an island or at the end of some long road or whatever makes sense thematically. For the main industrial complexes those would be more like where the Major Factories are located, the minors more abstract than that.

I'm heading up the mountain to watch my dad's hounds this weekend, so I think will just run a bunch of games and start trying to see how the computer responds to what I'd do when controlling a single faction. I suspect something like a modifier 110-25% resource to the opposing team's AI would be pretty fun. It makes a pretty significant difference, where suddenly the big takes from wiping enemy transports are less decisive, and the player cannot delay as long with efficient trading, since computer will outpace them the longer the game goes on. I think there's a point regardless where, because of the production spread, the ascendant power will continue to ascend. So it's more like can the human battle against the clock/recurring income bonus to the machine, to some midpoint where they can crescendo into a big stomp down. At that point I think it's fun if the computer, even on the back foot, has a way to keep it's life line going. I mean if it cried uncle and quit, say in round 20 or whatever, I wouldn't want to deny the committed player that last battle to control Washington DC or Berlin or the like hehe.

Anyhow, here was my latest thought. I added several minor factories and bases and a few combat units. The opener is largely similar, but the production fronts are a bit deeper.

Here's the edit save

2025-3-28-UHD-WIP-1940-45.tsvg

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk

UHD WIP 1940-45 1.38.8.zip
New starting setup @Black_Elk

@black_elk said in Mega New Elk WIP:

I'm heading up the mountain to watch my dad's hounds this weekend

You have fun.

Cheers...

[Black_Elk]

@wc_sumpton Cool digs!

Just got up here, fired up the first game to poke around haha

For now I think the issue I'm running into is that the $AllPlayersNoCaps$ attachment seems to be allowing all the players to over place at their factories.

So for example, Japan can place a bunch of dudes into Peking and just slam, or Germany can drop a big stack in Algiers, making it pretty hard for Allies to snap up a foothold. Rather than just the 3 units at a minor, they might be placing like a dozen units, so that can be pretty distorting for the play pattern that emerges. Probably cause I kept going back and forth on the desire for China rules hehe, but I think it crept into just the regular purchasing too. Anyhow wasn't sure if I nixed the line if it would go haywire or spit off an error when national capitals start falling? I think for now we could prob just go back to the vanilla situation for that, now that we got China behaving more like all the other factions.

Just ordered Pizza!

[wc_sumpton]

@black_elk

Hope you enjoyed the pizza! I've made a few changes to the "China" style recruitment. I'm going to run more test, but I'm sending you this new change to test.

mega_new_elk_1940.xml
Changes to purchaseNoPU

Cheers...