Mega New Elk WIP
-
@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
-
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...
-
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
-
@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_ElkCheers...
-
@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.
-
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...
-
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...
-
@wc_sumpton Makes sense. Yeah I was noticing some more inconsistent behavior from FastAI as well, I tried to see if I could find a happy medium there, although it could be a bit swingy. Still pretty fun to see the computer doing a nice sprawl now.
Here was my first trial just HardAI vs itself for 5 rounds. Not too shabby
Axis were definitely on the march for that one so far2025-3-26-UHD-WIP-1940-45_France_5.tsvg
ps. Here's a Fast AI game. In that one Germans went after Malta rather than the French bombers. Italy took Algiers, and the French bomber at Corsica escaped hehe. They ended up bombing Tripoli too, so some flash there I guess. In that one Brit's didn't handle E. Africa so that one may be an open question too, they may regret not making as many calcs as HardAI lol, though in the Pacific computer Japan still pressed pretty well. They definitely like to keep it moving now which is nice to see.
2025-3-26-UHD-WIP-1940-45_Fast_France_3.tsvg
-
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...
-
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
-
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)
DakkarDakar (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...
-
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
-
Hell yeah! Nice
Looks cool! I'll be playing this one all night to see how it pans out
Great workHere 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
-
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.
-
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 ChineseHope that's it.
Cheers...
-
@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
-
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...
-
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?
-
@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...
-
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...
