Iron War - Official Thread

[Black_Elk]

Ps. Another idea, if you wanted to give Britain something else to do, is to re-consider the treatment of Egypt. Even if it was declared unilaterally independent decades earlier, there were still thousands of British units stationed here, and the Italian campaign in Egypt was largely a battle between Italian and British forces (rather than the Egyptian army.) As soon as Italy invaded, the British snapped right back into the area with a quickness.

The way it is right now, Italy can amphibiously invade Egypt and take the Suez canal on their first turn, with no serious opposition either on land or at sea.

Because of the ease with which Italy can take the Suez canal their first turn, the round 1 script globally is built around a largely ahistorical play pattern. It's as if their campaign in 1940 was a stunning all out route of the British, with Italy virtually guaranteed to control the Eastern Med immediately. This leaves them free to do things that, had these occurred in the actual war, would have been major strategic victories for the Axis... Like closing off the Med at Gibraltar, taking over the entire Middle East, or forceably opening the Bosphorus to enter the Black Sea and smoke Southern Russia. All this happens as a matter of course currently, so Italy becomes pretty massive, sometimes eclipsing Germany as the preeminant Axis power in Europe.

Maybe if Egypt was British, and the fleet at Alexandria was represented, the play balance here would feel a bit more realistic historically? And then Britain would have plenty to keep them pre-occupied, enough that it might accommodate the inclusion of Canada to truly round out the Allied team.

Certainly by this time in 1940, Britain was doing basically whatever it had to in Egypt. Regardless of what the stated political situation might have been, the reality was that they were stationing troops and naval forces here, as if Egypt was still a crown colony haha.

Egypt/Cairo as a Pro-Allied neutral might be novel as a political/historical geography lesson, but it's kind of distorting for the overall historical play pattern and creating a realistic script for the start date.

Having Egypt as a starting British territory on the other hand, might also make the Italian gameplay more interesting. Currently Egypt is a blowout, and so Italy is free to reorient immediately on campaigns out of Somalia, to rock Africa or the Middle East, or to assist Germany against Russia or Japan against India. What should probably be Italy's primary achievement in the game (taking Suez and linking Italian East Africa with the rest of their Med empire) invariably happens within the first two turns. So it's kind of like, all the big fireworks here are over before it even gets dark outside haha.

[Black_Elk]

Ok rather than try to explain it in words, I thought it might be simpler to just edit some stuff and then make a game save for the visual.

Here I I gave control of Canada (with the exception of Newfoundland and Labrador) to British-Colonies. And then reassigned all of the British-Colonies territories (and Egypt) to the British.

Added a British-Fleet to the Eastern Med, and a starting British factory for Egypt. It's just a draft concept. Not sure what the exact unit distribution should be, but since the British move first, it seemed like Italy should have a considerable TUV advantage. The difference here is that Britain has something to work with to counter it. Also gave the British a fighter in Nigeria to represent the W.A.R.R. (West African Reinforcement Route) which was a supply chain that brought British fighters into the region.

These alterations created a new basic production spread with 38 PU's for Canada (British-Colonies) and 67 PU's for the British, both of which seemed slightly low. So I increased the starting income for each to make up some of the disparity and then assigned a 33 percent bonus, to try an represent what it might look like if they had like more valuable capitals. My solution for an actual re-draft would just be to increase the value of a couple core territories, to make each player-nation more viable.

0_1496695369273_Iron War with Egypt British and Canada separate G1.tsvg

That was a the concept that I thought might be fun...

In any case this seemed like an interesting way to test stuff out. I'm currently running an AI simulation where I gave the British and Canada (British-Colonies) a 33% income boost just for them and left all the rest as normal. Set everyone to AI control except Balkans, just so I'd have a point in the round to make a convenient save hehe. I'll report back with how it ends up after a couple rounds.

Here below is what the AI did in the first round...

Basically the British Med fleet pulled back to the Indian Ocean to destroy the Italian fleet off Somalia and then built ground defense for Egypt, while Italy advanced on Alexandria and Syria in the Med. Somehow it already feels like an interesting contest and somewhat historically grounded here in the Med.

Canada (British-Colonies) on the other hand, spent all their starting cash on fighters in Victoria. I think this may demonstrate what's going with the AI currently. Because the route from Victoria into the Soviet Far East is much shorter than the route from Halifax across the Atlantic to Europe/Africa, I suspect that the AI is always going to push this direction. My solution would be to remove the starting factory (while still keeping the territory at +5.) This would allow a human player to expand production if desired, but might help to keep the AI focused in the right direction. I may run another first round test soon just to see what happens if the Victoria factory is removed.

0_1496695937018_Iron War with Egypt British and Canada separate AI test Balkan round 2.tsvg

Using TripleA-1.9.0.0.4564

OK I tried it again, this time with no starting Factory in Victoria. The Canadians (British-Colonies) immediately purchased 5 fighters at Halifax, so hopefully this will finally jumpstart the Atlantic. Fingers crossed!

I'm not sure what might happen if the AI decides to buy a new factory for Victoria (as I suspect once that happens they might revert to the old pattern.) I think what you will have to do if that keeps happening is maybe reduce the value of Victoria to 4 PUs, so that it is no longer Factory viable, otherwise I don't know if we can get the AI to consistently do what you want and develop naval TUV for the Atlantic. If needed, I might offset the loss of this factory by increasing the value of USA Northwest to +5 and giving them the factory instead, so that they can manage a proper defense of the West Coast.

*Note how even the Japanese AI will bring their bomber into the attack on the US fleet at Hawaii (that exploit I mentioned earlier.)

But for right now, getting rid of the Victoria factory seems to be doing the trick, at least for the opener. Anyhow here is the game save after the first round...

0_1496698067083_Iron War with Egypt British and Canada separate No Victoria Balkan round 2.tsvg

Hmmm OK back to the drawing board. The AI keeps sending fighters from Halifax to California. But I gotta say the Med situation is going pretty awesome. Things are building up to be pretty epic around Egypt. Still, without figuring out this Atlantic situation, I think the Allied AI is pretty much screwed. So I need to come up with something different.

0_1496700051251_Iron War with Egypt British and Canada separate No Victoria Balkan round 4.tsvg

Alright I have another idea for maybe persuading the AI to send their aircraft across the Atlantic (since they don't seem to realize that Greenland is a good transit.) My idea is to give the Canadians a starting carrier, and see if they will use it for fighter launching. Going to test it now. Will report back later

[CrazyG]

I think its okay for Canada to be under British control. Because of how tripleA handles different nations attacking, having it as a separate nation is just awkward for gameplay. Especially since Brazil is in the game.

I say this a native Canadian. If you want to encourage units to be placed in Canada and brought over by sea, I'd use a special resource, like the colonials.

[Frostion]

@Black_Elk - Concerning the Japanese bomber that the AI always uses in a kamikaze run towards Hawaii, and the Russian European fighter seems to do the same thing against the German Baltic fleet, I don’t know what the heck is going on? I have not noticed the AI do these kinds of attacks earlier on. Are you also using TripleA or later?

@redrum - Have you altered the AI behavior in the v1.9.0.0.4520 (and later) version of the game? Like altered the will to do air attacks and crash into the sea? Also, I see the AI making some pretty new and futile moves suddenly, but maybe I am imagining things. In the case of what I am seeing with a Russian fighter doing a suicide run, the fighter moves 3 of 4 moves to enter a battle and the last move cannot bring it to a safe place to land. There is no theoretically chance of the fighter to survive but still it attacks ... Unlike the Japanese Bomber thing, where there is a theoretical chance for it to survive, but even when I see it surviving the attack on Perl Harbor , the Japan AI does not bring in the Carrier so the Bomber just dies.

@Black_Elk – As I see it, making a British powerful presence in Egypt and the Mediterranean will not work for this map. The only chance human Axis players have to win this map is to clear the Mediterranean of allies and go for Gibraltar and make ready to counter Allied landing in Morocco, before the hordes of African Allies presses upwards from the south. The German and Italians does seem to have trouble standing up to the pressure from all sides. Having a UK power in Egypt would totally ruin the Axis chances to win. But this is just my initial thoughts. I can try it out. Maybe it could give the British a decision to make toabout either keep Egypt alive or start building a French invasion force. I am in the midst of rearranging the powers of nations, so that the colonial players are worth playing again. Maybe a British Egypt could be tested out also. In the coming Europe map the British will surely be a power in the Mediterranean.

Concerning the use of Colonial-British and what's theirs and what is true British, I am aiming for an easy management of the nations, meaning that the French have a pretty straight forward overview when starting their turn, not having to manage all four corners of the earth simultaneously. Same goes for British and British-Colonies. Right now the British-Colonies only have stuff to do in Africa, unless it falls and they move operations to the Americas, or if they capture Somalia they can work out of this place.

The factory in Victoria, Canada will be removed in the next version of Iron War.

[Hepps]

@Frostion I don't know if this will just muddy the waters further... but Egypt could be included as part of the British Colonial holdings in Africa.

The way you have designed the map I can see the why behind many of the decisions you made... but it does really seem weird that Italy simply steamrolls all of North Africa and then can press in multiple directions while the British have little to no presence.

[Black_Elk]

@CrazyG Well I won't belabor the point. But I do feel that with 24 nations already in play, whats so awkward about Canada in the mix? Its essentially no different than British-Colonies in terms of turn order stuff. You're still dealing with multiple powers coordinating. Just from my last couple play throughs, the AI seems be doing much better with Canada separated off from the British.

In this last game I gave them a starting Carrier, and they've already started to make an Atlantic crossing towards Africa...

@Frostion I don't know, if hordes of African Allies from the south are the problem, then maybe we could do something to weaken them directly, instead of strengthening Italy ahistorically?

I just see all your glorious efforts to create a truly awesome game map, (one which is streamlined and plays elegantly, with great potential to create a historically satisfying play pattern), that to then turn around and have the balance of the whole thing hinge on the Axis overrunning Egypt immediately as a matter of course, seems kind of rough. I'm sure we could find a way to provide for Axis victory without having to give up an interesting role for the British in the Med or North Africa.

I can see what you're going for by trying to break game-play into more manageable slices, by having a regional focus (where the player doesn't have to do much scrolling around the map). I just think that in some instances the focus becomes so narrow as to lose its primary gameplay interest and just winds up like a frustrating extra step I have to get through before I can get back to controlling the "fun" guys haha. I feel like this is what is going on right now with the British/British-Colonies.

@Hepps This is my feeling as well, though honestly if Egypt was British-Colonial under the current scheme, it would create basically the same issue I mentioned earlier... Where all I want is for an Axis nation to kill them off, so I can come in and take it over with Russia, or British-India, or some other Allied nation that can actually make use of it.

I see the basic problem with Pro-Side neutrals and the weakest Allied Minors as essentially the same. They create incentives to lose and reconquer the territory, rather than incentives to defend the territory from ever being conquered in the first place. If Egypt was British I think the Allies would actually try to fight for it, and this might pull them away from other things they might wish to be doing. So I see it as a potential trade off on balance. Sure it might piss off Mussolini, but perhaps it would give Japan or Germany more breathing room elsewhere, by virtue of the fact that now the Allies have another choke point/production center that they have to worry about and send TUV to defend?

Right now there is a lot of action going on in central Africa with an endless back and forth between Italy and the weaker Allies, such that you'd think this was like a major theater of War, on par with France or Eastern Europe or something. But of course we know this wasn't really what happened. What happened was a slog in North Africa, where the Italians and then the Germans went toe to toe with the Allies in the desert, you know, sand and sea, blood and mud. Not like down in the jungles of the Congo hehe. I don't mind if Italy gets there eventually, after they put in some work, and kick the shit out of Egypt. I just don't dig how its given to them as a gift.

Anyhow, here is another save, showing what happened out of North America when I gave the Canadians a carrier. They still wanted to send their first fighters against Japan intitially, but started to get with program on round 2. Building transports out of Halifax and moving their fleet towards Africa.

The British meanwhile are focused on Egypt. Which is fast becoming a sinkhole for their TUV. I suspect something similar might happen in PvP, where because Britain has another priority to worry about they may be less inclined to just flood Leningrad with fighters (which is what I'd do every time when I control Allies.) So perhaps even if Italy suffers, Germany and the Balkans might get an edge against the Soviets, as a counter balance? Or similarly if the British have to choose between the Canal and the Home Island and start splitting their resources, this could create openings for Germany to make a breakout in the Atlantic or against England itself.

0_1496706050170_Iron War with Egypt British and Canada separate No Victoria and Carrier Balkan round 4.tsvg

[Hepps]

@Black_Elk True. Many of the smaller and pro neutral nations are better when they've been wiped from the map. But my suggestion was aimed at making the British Colonial power in Africa strong enough to be worth fighting for. Additionally if Cairo was an original territory of Colonial Britain, then ownership would return to them should it be liberated. So you'd still be fighting out of that territory with a fairly limited power. Thus potentially making it more in-line with Frostion's intentions and long term playability deeper into a game as well as not leaving as a wild card opportunity for a larger power that could exploit it completely and destroy an otherwise good game. ie. Russia

[Frostion]

When playing with TripleA_1.9.0.0.4568, everything aseems to work much better and the Air units do not kill themselves.

@Hepps I am testing out the idea of letting the British-Colonials start with Egypt and it seems to be a good one. Seems to let the British colonial try to hold Egypt for at least 3-5 rounds.

[Hepps]

@Frostion Cool. Glad you like the suggestion. I figured this might work for the game since you can still play with unit balance in the region and make it really expensive for the Allies to hold onto Egypt... if at all.

I think the real up-side to this idea comes later in a game, where (if they {the Allies} can fight their way back to Cairo { as I suspect the game still needs Cairo to fall to the Italians at some point}) the Colonial British are forced to be the one pressing North Africa and the Mediterrainian.

[Hepps]

@Frostion I give you this suggestion and shall consider the debt fully paid when my beloved country is given its rightful status in the game. The true north strong and free!

[Black_Elk]

I think if they were given some more cash and resources to work with, and Egypt as a starting factory, then the British-Colonies player might be more entertaining.

But I this is contingent on them having normal liberation rules for their territories. A few versions back their territories were going to the French when liberated.

I have to say though, if they are in there I really like the idea that they have some attack options, and not just be a speed bump for Italy. Right now they are just getting smoked. The idea that the Regia Marina can just go anywhere it pleases in early 1940 without really having to fight the Royal Navy just seems off. They should at least have to destroy some enemy ships and take a few losses in the Med, before doing stuff like taking Gibraltar or Suez. The campaign for Egypt was fought largely over land out of Libya, rather than with direct amphibious invasions.

Also Because Italy has a starting production center and a starting naval force (that they can expand) on either side of the Canal, I'm not sure why it needs to be critical for them to actually take Egypt right away to still threaten the Allies. They can converge overland by going around Egypt, or with transport actions out of Italy/Libya/East Africa. They have a lot of flexibility with their own aircraft, and potential support from the other Axis powers nearby to help them out. So I'm not terribly concerned about Italy's ability to maintain income parity and be effective on the warpath.

The Allies on the other hand have a hell of a time getting anything into the Canal area. British-India has to focus almost all their resources against Japan and Thailand or they'll get stomped. Russia has to break through Persia/Iraq (pretty challenging even if they throw everything at the Middle East immediately, which risks their capital being overrun by Germany.) France and South Africa have to cover a lot of ground facing stiff resistance along the way. Probably the Americans have the best chance to get there but its going takes Patton several rounds.

So with all that in mind, I'd definitely consider adding some Allied naval TUV to the med, to slow down the Italian steam roll. Personally I like the idea that, just around the time when Italy is in a position to take the Canal (which really shouldn't be possible without at least some support from Germany) then Americans start showing up to complicate their plans.

That way you can really get the vibe of a serious desert war, with Graziani or Rommel in a high stakes showdown vs the Allies. Trying to get the job done quickly before Monty and Patton arrive from the West haha.

I still see some issues with North America and Britain though. Even with the Victoria factory removed, the Canadian production in Halifax seems to be directed West rather than East by the AI.

I think this is mainly a map issue that might be hard to overcome regardless of production. The only thing I can think of right now would be maybe to add Bermuda or Azores as a lily pad in the central Atlantic.

Giving the Canadians a starting carrier works as a one off, but after it moves away or has it's deck stacked, the fighter transit across the Atlantic seems to fall apart. I can't really figure put why the AI doesn't head to Greenland. Maybe it's because this is only 3 moves rather than 4 so they can't max their movement?

[Black_Elk]

Ps. Probably the single best thing that could happen for the AI, would be some way for the map designer to assign priority target territories for each nation in the xml. That way you could get the units moving in the right direction and try to encourage the desired play pattern from the AI.

Right now we have to design maps to fit with the AIs general priorities. But what would really be awesome is if the AI would change it's core priorities based on what the map maker is telling them to do (whatever is most important thematically for the game narrative, or perhaps what a human would do strategically to win). Like with primary and secondary targets, or even randomized targets, but done in such a way that the AI sticks to a more consistent attack plan over time.

Until something like this is implemented, I can only suggest that maybe the AI would develop a more efficient fighter transit out of North America if there were a couple more 4 move lily pads along the way? Not sure. But I can't really get the Canadians to move those 5 fighters they purchase on the first turn towards Europe rather than the Pacific.

Currently I see that the AI will move from Halifax to California, then from California to Midway, and finally from Midway to Anadyr or Chukotsky (each of these are 4 move transits, the max that a fighter can travel.) From Victoria the fighters will sometimes move straight to Anadyr, Chukotsky, or Uelen. But for whatever reason the AI doesn't seem to move from Halifax or USA NorthAtlantic to Greenland very often, even though this is also 4 moves, and would put them 4 moves from England or Norway.

The Iceland transit is even more potent. You can fly from Halifax, through Labrador and the Cape Farewell Sz, and have a fighter parked on Iceland in 4 moves (just one turn.) So it's kind of bizarre that the Allied AI would build a fighter in Halifax, and then fly it to the low value Soviet Pacific, when they could just as easily be in Leningrad if they just went towards Europe. Both are 3 turn transits, but the one to Europe is obviously better for the team, since that's where the heaviest concentration of Soviet production is located, and where the most salient threat to Russia is always amassing.

Perhaps the starting USA carriers are somehow messing with their calculations? Or maybe its something else more basic? Not really sure. But it would certainly be cool if we could get the AI to start moving aircraft across the Atlantic the way it moves them across the Pacific, in stages.

[Black_Elk]

Ok just tried something interesting, that seems to work really well!

I changed the ownership of Iceland to be a British starting territory, and then placed 5 starting fighters in Halifax just to see what the AI would do.

On the British AI's first turn they immediately flew the fighters to Iceland!

Perhaps this is a solution we could explore? Just making Iceland British.

After all, the British did invade Iceland in May of 1940, so it would be true to the history and the start date "Early 1940." It would actually probably be more accurate than the current map, since France didn't fall until June 1940. So while having it Neutral might have made sense for a 1939 start date, a 1940 start date that has the Germans capturing Paris on the first turn should really have the British already controlling Iceland anyway.

And you get this nice perk, that the AI actually does what we want it to, at least with regards to the Atlantic fighter transit.

Check it out...

0_1496726225326_Iron War Iceland to British AI test.tsvg

I didn't have to remove the Victoria factory to make it work either. Tried it twice just to make sure. Using TripleA-1.9.0.0.4564

Here is the same move made by the Canadians (British-Colonies), in that edit scenario I made. The one with no Victoria factory. Only in this case, the fighters making the transit to British Iceland were purchased by the Canadian AI in round 1. Presumably you could set things up so that the North Atlantic Ferry Route (Canadian fighters traveling in stages to the British Isles) is a consistent feature of the Allied AI's early gameplay.

In this game, it took 3 rounds for the AI Canadian fighters to reach England. Which was coincidentally the same amount of time that it took for the Italian AI to take Egypt.

0_1496736508836_Iron War with Egypt British and Canada separate No Victoria British Iceland Balkan round 4.tsvg

[prastle]

@Hepps Gigglez ... Ya we always get short list eh bro

[Frostion]

I can present a new version of Iron War. This one has some small visual changes, like a new KNIL look and some more nation color changes. The concept of minor and major nations is now totally abandoned. All players should be payable and this might simplify the rules and understanding of the map. Also, nearly all players now have an option to support other players, but I try to keep some realism, so for example it is only “France” who can support “French-Colonies” and so on. Here is a preview and a list of all the changes:

New in v0.1.8
• Submarines now require 2 steel to build, not 1.
• V1-Rocket attack lowered to 1(Still has 1-2 strategic bombing damage)
• V2-Rocket attack lowered to 2 (Still has 1-3 strategic bombing damage)
• KNIL now have new flags and markers, so they don’t look like South Africa.
• The concept of minor nations is no more. Now all players should be worth playing.
• Egypt is now controlled by British-Colonies, even though it might be hard to survive more than 3 rounds (unless British send a lot of Aid).
• VC moved from Iraq to Egypt.
• Some nation color changes.
• Some other starting unit placement changes.

@redrum – The Fast AI still seems to do kamikaze-like attacks with the Japanese bomber against Hawaii, and when the bomber survives the battle it just dies as it cannot land. I have been playing with 1.9.0.0.4568. Also, there is nearly always an error popping up that looks like this: (It is not linked to a specific player. In this example is just Britain. It is not something that happens with the bomber thing. I think it is unrelated, but I don’t know.)

triplea.engine.version.bin:1.9
Loading map: iron_war, from: C:\Users\David-Corsair\triplea\downloadedMaps\iron_war
Loading resources from the following paths: [C:\Users\David-Corsair\triplea\downloadedMaps\iron_war, C:\Games\TripleA_1.9.0.0.4568\assets]
Loading map: iron_war, from: C:\Users\David-Corsair\triplea\downloadedMaps\iron_war
Loading resources from the following paths: [C:\Users\David-Corsair\triplea\downloadedMaps\iron_war, C:\Games\TripleA_1.9.0.0.4568\assets]
1 - Italy. strafing territory: Egypt, alliedPlayer=Germany, maxWin%=95.83333333333334, maxAttackers=4, maxDefenders=1
3 - Britain. strafing territory: France, alliedPlayer=USA, maxWin%=100.0, maxAttackers=1, maxDefenders=0
jun. 07, 2017 11:21:56 PM games.strategy.triplea.ui.BattleStepsPanel setStep
INFO: Could not find step name:Britain withdraw planes?

[redrum]

@Frostion If you have a save game to reproduce the bomber issues or error pop up then I can take a look.

[redrum]

@Frostion The error in the log: "games.strategy.triplea.ui.BattleStepsPanel setStep
INFO: Could not find step name:Britain withdraw planes?", have you seen that before or just recently. I don't think that has anything to do with the AI and appears to be an engine issue. Wondering if a recent change we made had an unintended side effect or if the issue has always existed.

[Black_Elk]

@redrum I've seen that one before I think. Going back at least a couple versions. The one that says something about "withdraw planes."

@Frostion Sounds cool! Will give a try this weekend!

[Black_Elk]

Website was down for a day, so haven't had a chance to write. I'm typing from my phone at work, so I don't have my most recent gamesave to share, but just wanted to say I am liking it so far.

I think having the launch/player-selection screen mirror the actual turn order in game is pretty helpful. Feels more straightforward and may help players to decide who should take which block.

For the turn order itself, everything seems pretty well balanced. The only thing I might tweak at this point is the USA and Brazil switching positions. But that's mainly because I like the idea of the game round beginning and ending with one of the big dog players.

I haven't had too much input so far on the unit roster, but increasing the cost of subs to 2 steel seems sensible enough. The unit will now be in competition with transports, but that's fine by me. It does leave patrol-boats as the only ship you can build for 1 steel, though that probably makes sense too. Personally I find it kind of tough to build a broader strategy around PT boats, mainly because of the movement restriction makes it hard to cross the major sea lanes with them. The move 1 puts real limitations on where you can build them (unless the production is close to home, and you don't really plan on moving the fleet much). But sometimes they are critically necessary as last minute fodder purchase, to prevent all out air sweeps, so I see their main use as bolstering shuck lanes. Basically the transports move to shuck while the patrol-boats remain in position at the unload endpoint. For that to work though, you really need to have the logistics in place and a pretty short distance to cover.

I do feel like the destroyer is pretty expensive in steel for what you get. Even if it is the cheapest ship that can still move 2, (at 16 PUs), the cost in steel can be pretty steep at 3, so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense as a fodder unit. I typically will purchase 1 or maybe 2 per battlegroup (just so I can hit enemy submarines) and then rely on my own subs to do the dirty work as fodder. But destroyers are not serving as the bulk of my fleets by any stretch.

Right now I'll admit to still not being particularly good at calculating my overall fuel requirements in advance. But I think fuel (even more so than steel) is what was preventing the all out sub spam of cheap naval units for me. Even when the sub only needed 1 steel to build, purchasing a whole gang of them was not the best plan, just because I'd find myself running out of fuel if trying to move a huge fleet, and end up having to leave them behind anyway. From a fuel perspective the carrier is by far the best purchase on the water. Because, if the deck is fully stacked, you can move 4 defensive units into a sz while only requiring 1 fuel per movement point. Even if the initial cost in PUs and Steel is almost prohibitively expensive, you definitely make it up on the back end with fuel savings and the extra mobility/hitpoints that fighters provide. I don't think I would suggest increasing the carrier cost, since it's already the most expensive unit in the game (at least until you get nukes haha) but I might perhaps consider scaling down the cost of some of the other ships. For example, I might go 4 steel for the battleship, 3 for the cruiser, and 2 for the destroyer, Sub and transport. Or something or that sort.

One thing that might be fun for breaking naval pickets or creating a more independent role for submarines (with convoy raiding) would be the idea of a move 3 Sub.

Right now Subs typically operate with the main naval battlegroup, and there aren't many cases where it's a good idea to break off and do solo hunting. If I do break away, its usually to serve as a blocker (which I see as there main role in gameplay terms.) I like that role for them, since it is disruptive to enemy fleet movement, so it kind of fits the unit thematically. But even if they can be effective for that use, their range is still pretty limited based on where the main surface fleet is parked. A 3rd movement point might make convoy raiding a bit more feasible. I'd say 2 moves for everyone has a certain simplicity to coming out of A&A, but the patrol boat is at move 1 already, so you have some nuance to naval movement anyway. Maybe a naval unit at move 3 would carry that idea even a bit farther? I think the sub makes the most sense if any ship is considered for M3. Anyhow, just an idea, as a way to somehow make the sub feel more unique and not just an extension of the surface fleet.

I like the new colors for the Dutch and South Africa, really feels more recognizable at a glance. Nice work on the flags for the dutch especially. I feel like they are a lot less likely to be confused with South Africa now. On the Axis side, I do sometimes mistake Italians units for units from Iraq or Iran, so not sure if it might be worth doing some work there? Seems like the flags would be tough to change, but perhaps something with the unit tint might work. Like more green for Iran or more red for Iraq or something along those lines. Mainly the confusion happens with fighters or tanks at glance, since these nations are all operating in pretty close proximity to one another.

The new British-Colonies player seems cool. I like the Egypt focus, and a larger fleet is great. Having some capital ships to move around definitely makes them feel more significant, and I like how they can put a wedge between Italy and the Middle East. In previous versions the Italians could get on Riyadh without much difficulty, and stole the thunder from Iraq. Here they really have to earn it if they want that Arabian oil.

I noticed that there has been some switching of VCs in the last couple versions. Have you considered just adding more total VCs as a possible solution? Seems to me that each player-nation should probably have at least 1 VC territory to protect. So maybe 30 VCs, would be better than 20? That gives you some flexibility to give each nation at least 1 VC with a few left over to round out the historical interest angle. A little while back a had like a month long conversation at A&Aorg where I asked people for feedback on which VCs they wanted to see in Global. We got a lot of replies and some definite back and forth, with the primary tension being between gameplay interest and historical interest. The final top 40 list looked like this below...

In my view Iron War has a much more compelling production spread than G40, so the need for VCs in some of these places is a lot less pressing on the Iron War map (since their strategic advantage is already covered by having +5 gold territories.) But maybe it would be useful for brainstorming, if you decide you want to increase the number of VCs. The parenthetical territory names refer to the G40 map, but the Iron War map is more detailed so they may not correspond exactly.

ETO:
Berlin (Germany)
Rome (Italy)
Paris (France)
Ploiesti (Romania)
Oslo (Norway)
Warsaw (Poland)
Tripoli (Libya)
Mosul (Iraq)
Athens (Greece)
Washington (Eastern USA)
London (UK)
Cape Town (South Africa)
Moscow (Russia)
Leningrad (Karelia SSR)
Stalingrad (Volgograd)
Archangel (Archangelsk)
Reykjavik (Island)
Cairo (Egypt)
Dakar (French West Africa)
Tunis (Tunisia)
Kiev (Ukraine SSR)
Ottawa (Ontario)

PTO:
Tokyo (Japan),
Shanghai (Kiangsu)
Manila (Philippines)
Truk (Caroline Islands)
Singapore (Malaya)
Harbin (Manchuria)
Rabaul (New Britain)
Calcutta (India)
Sydney (Eastern Australia)
Wellington (New Zealand)
Anchorage (Alaska)
Honolulu (Hawaii)
San Francisco (Western USA)
Victoria (Western Canada)
Chonqing (Szechwan)
Irkutsk (Yakut SSR)
Hong Kong (Kwangtung)
Vladivostok (Amur)

Oh and one final thought. In the latest version I downloaded, I didn't hear any of the national anthems playing at the start of the turns. So might want to have a look there. The music is definitely one of my favorite things about this game. Anyhow, I dig it a lot! The new version looks way slick! Can't wait to get home from work so I can play haha. Keep up the great work man!

[Frostion]

@Black_Elk

Patrol-Boat:
In the next version I have changed ship prices a bit. The Sub price is increased with 5 PUs and the Patrol-Boat is lowered 1 PU in price:

The following battle calculations are based on these new prices and have fokus on the Patrol-Boats role:

9 Destroyers (144 TUV + 18 Steel) attack 7 Cruisers = 46% win
7 Cruisers (140 TUV + 21 Steel) attack 7 Cruisers = 48% win
4 Battleships (140 TUV + 16 steel) attack 7 Cruisers = 49% win
6 Submarines (150 TUV + 12 Steel) attack 6 Cruisers + 1 Destroyer = 40% win
11 Patrol-Boat (143 TUV + 11 steel) attack 7 Cruisers = 82% win

9 Destroyers (140 TUV + 18 steel) attack 11 Patrol-Boat = 49% win
7 Cruisers (140 TUV + 21 steel) attacks 11 Patrol-Boat = 52% win
4 Battleships (140 TUV + 16 steel) attacks 11 Patrol-Boat = 57% win

Battleships and Cruisers (that also have 1 AA shot every round) are better against defending Patrol Boats. Attacking patrol boats is the ultimate attack ship, if it can corner enemies or enemies are careless. Poor players may buy Patrol Boats as cheap steel cost protection of their coast, or if they just have that 13 PUs left when building. What do you think about the new prices and the patrol boat role?

VC:
I have thought about adding more. I will have to look at the list and the possibilities. I really hope that the AI will some day consider these VC and canals as worth going for.

In the coming v0.1.9 of Iron War the Strait of Malacca is also added, and I have adjusted many of the minor nations starting economy and a few map resourses. Will probably be a few days before it is out.

Music
I haven’t had the music problem, I will have to look into it. Please tell if you find out what’s wrong.