Iron War - Official Thread

[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.

[Black_Elk]

I like it a lot! I think it's helpful to have that variety in PU costs (even if the primary consideration for building is usually steel) because it allows the player to "spend their remainder."

This is a phrase I used a lot (especially when writing strategy guides and the like for v5 in A&A.) Basically in A&A it means whatever is left over in PUs, after you max spam the cheapest fodder unit available.

In A&A the base is 3 PUs for infantry. So what players frequently do (if they're sticking to Don Rae's tried and true strategy of "the Infantry Push Mechanic") is first determine how many infantry hitpoints their income/production will allow to placed, then determine how best to deal with remainder in PUs that is left over after that. If the cap on max infantry is reached, that is usually the ideal time to expand production capacity with new factories. So in A&A for example, if the remainder after the max inf spam is just 1 PU, then one of those inf units gets changed artillery for a total cost of 4 PUs. If the remainder is 7, maybe that inf gets changed to a fighter for a total cost of 10 PUs, and so on.

The same thing also happens on the water in A&A, with the cheapest combat warship (that provides a hitpoint) establishing the baseline, and the remainder then going to stronger warships that get substituted for a stronger push. The transport has it's own thing going on which is more logistical now in A&A, since the whole point of that unit is to move ground units and isn't a combat warship, but it too can help form the baseline/remainder on the water.

In Iron War the base cost for infantry is 10, and the base cost for transports is 20 (which is a warship here = grants a combat hitpoint which I definitely prefer). So when it comes to spending a remainder of less than 10 (ie. 1-9 PUs left over), this in a lot of cases will suggest what unit the player ends up purchasing, at least if they don't have any broader more complex strategy in the offing than the default "Hit point Push" Mechanic.

If the player lacks steel, usually the remainder is going to artillery or aircraft so remainders of 1 or 8. Provided they have the steel, a remainder of 2 PUs might suggest Mech at 12. If the remainder is 4 PUs maybe they get a tank-destroyer for 14. Or 5 PU might suggest a light tank for 15 and so on. Similarly they might buy ships using the same sort of generalized or spontaneous purchasing decisions.

PT boats at 13 seem really cool for that reason, since it offers another remainder tier on the water.

I think the optimal use of the PT boat is to rapidly expand hitpoints in a sz that you're trying to stack for defense or deadzoning purposes. So it's the kind of unit I'd typically want to build in place (or as close as possible to the sea zone where I want them to ultimately reside permanently). It it is potentially a pretty cool unit, and makes a lot of 5+ coastal territories even more attractive as production hubs.

I dig it!

Oh yeah, I kind of had a similar thought about VCs. It seems like this should definitely be a top priority for the AI. Since its probably the simplest example of a primary "target territory" that could be assigned to the AI. Many games use the idea for determining how to win, so it seems like a key component for a more effective AI. By having more potential VC targets, we'd have some room and some flexibility to use more territories as targets like that. Hopefully this stuff will be incorporated into the AIs behavior at some point in the not too distant future.

Will try again, and redownload the latest to double check the music thing tomorrow.

This map is highly addictive! Haha

[Black_Elk]

ps. one final thought on Canada.

Now that British-Colonies is more interesting, my thoughts on how to incorporate Canada have changed somewhat. What I would do now, is ditch French-Colonies to make room for Canada on the Allied side.

Since the French-Indo China falls almost immediately, it's really only 4 territories of interest remaining. French-Guiana, Syria, Madagascar and French-India. In my view these could easily just be French, and would probably make France a lot more interesting to play, since they'd have at least one strategic decision to make with regard to production (whether to put units into West Africa to aid a Europe focused game, or into French-India to aid a Pacific focused game.) The additional income to France would only really amount to 2 hitpoints per round, so it's very distorting. If anything France could probably use the money anyway.

To get Canada in there, you would have close to 36 production already in North America.

I would have Newfoundland as British +5, and Labrador +5 as British with a bit more Steel, but everything else in North America going to Canada. (You could probably increase a few values if you wanted to make them a Nation in the 50 PU range.)

I think Britain with Newfoundland, Labrador and Iceland as starting territories would give them plenty to manage in the North Atlantic. Then you could just increase the value of Scotland and England itself to whatever amount seems good for the overall British Economy.

Right now England is 8 PUs, but I think it could just as easily be double digit production, like 20 or 30 the way East Germany, Italy and Japan are 50 (with the big numbers at the core). This would create a little more parity by side, so the economic slant doesn't seem overly distorted at a glance in favor of the Axis side. But in practical terms, the Allies/British would still have the logistical challenge of coordination by separate powers.

With that in mind, I really think coordinating Canada with the British would offer a lot more interesting choices and gameplay challenges, than coordinating French-Colonies with British-India (which is really all the French-Colonies do currently after the initial loss of their naval units.) Canada at least would have to think about Fighter transits or the Battle of the Atlantic, and be more connected to the broader game in Europe, whereas French-Colonies are basically just spamming infantry out of French-India, which isn't really much to do. France could definitely handle this by itself, and I don't really think players would find it too onerous having another zone of operations for the French. Scrolling between Africa and the Mid-East/South Asia isn't all that far, and I think might make France a bit more engaging to play.

But of course the bigger pay-off in my mind is just getting Canada into play, since I still think that would be good for the game in the North Atlantic and for the popularity of the map generally. To me it seems only fair, given that we have South Africa, the British Raj, Anzac etc hehe. A lot of the player base are probably in these countries of the Anglophone, so its cool that they're in there, I just feel like if we have it all broken up regionally already, might as well give the Canadians a nod.

One of the particularly cool things about Iron War, is that it presents the dissolution of the British Empire as like a sub-theme of World War II. So set against the backdrop of the Axis expansion, you also have this to deal with on the Allied side, where the Empire is already being eclipsed by the natal Commonwealth, with the separate regions taking on a more independent role. I dig it, but just think Canada would fun to have in the mix, to really ice the concept globally.

Anyhow, here is my last game. A German Solo versus Fast AI Allies at 120% income. Using Iron War 1.8 and the pre-release tripleA TripleA-1.9.0.0.4717. The Indian Ocean region feels a lot more dynamic now, with the Allied AI trying to coordinate a wedge between Japan and Italy on the water. In the Med I had a nice campaign overland to set up the kill on Egypt, but it was a 3 round set up and still felt like I had to work for it (and Russia is still crashing in on the Mid-East, so we're still not truly secure.) I went with the Carrier opener and the plan to smoke London. Here it is in Late 1941...

0_1497088386001_Iron War Elk Germany vs Fast AI Allies x120 percent income G4.tsvg

[Frostion]

@Black_Elk There is no need to redownload if you have v0.1.8. I have not updated to v0.1.9 yet. You could edit your XML to try out the new pieces.

[Black_Elk]

@Frostion Sounds good. I played another couple rounds just now, so here it is in late 1942, with the AI's Torch invasion into North Africa coming right on time haha. Nice

0_1497092452880_Iron War Elk Germany vs Fast AI Allies x120 percent income G6.tsvg

I've been enjoying the game so far. Look forward to trying the next revision when it drops. Catch you in a few man!

[Black_Elk]

Another thought I had, was that it would be cool strategically if more nations on each side could exchange steel. Steel is really the main resource that drives purchasing decisions, and I dig that it provides a built in cap for the heavy hitter spam. But even the ability to share 1 steel could sometimes be decisive for a clutch naval build, or key tank blitz etc. Would fit with the namesake Iron War, if one could spread a little more ore around haha.

After a couple more rounds of spamming air production and infantry, Germany is gunning with a major surplus in steel. Meanwhile the Allies (with their 120% boosts) have been buying tanks non-stop. So I'd probably throw some at the team if I had an option to do so. Instead I'll probably just have to buy a grip of heavy tanks or warships with G, which I guess isn't so bad haha. But it might be fun if there was an option to send some of this excess steel to Italy or the Balkans.

0_1497166416567_Iron War Elk Germany vs Fast AI Allies x120 percent income G10.tsvg

Decided to spend the steel on a major naval expansion for the Kriegsmarine. Got another battle group going with a Carrier, Battleship and bunch of cruisers, and proceeded to trap and then annihilate the combined Allied fleet in the Med. Hopefully the German fleet is now large enough to start taking the fight to the Allies in the Atlantic.

0_1497168659141_Iron War Elk Germany vs Fast AI Allies x120 percent income G13.tsvg

ps. I think I can probably call this one a defeat at the hands of the Allies (Fast AI) haha. Even if G is still ahead in the VC game, and technically on par at sea, the Allied press on Africa was just too much for the team. With the 120% boost I think they'll prove a massive pain to dislodge now that they've basically stomped Italy out of the equation. It was fun to play out a naval campaign, but I should definitely have turned my attention to the Russian front a little sooner to help stabilize the center for Axis overland. As it stands, with British-India pressing in on the Middle East, and everyone else charging up from Africa, Egypt is certain to crack eventually. Got a hot mess brewing down there South of the Equator.

Resorting to Nuclear Armageddon these past few rounds is probably a clear indication that we're in over our heads hehe.

Fun stuff though!

0_1497254956297_Iron War Elk Germany vs Fast AI Allies x120 percent income G16.tsvg

[beelee]

heh heh this is pretty good
italicised textit means whatever is left over in PUs, after you max spam the cheapest fodder unit available.

[beelee]

bummer I fckd it up : )

[redrum]

@beelee You can edit your posts using the 3 dots to the far right of 'reply' that opens a menu with options for your post.

[redrum]

@Frostion So finally got a chance to sit and play a few rounds of Iron War. First off, awesome work so far and I think its your best map even though it isn't finished. I particularly like the use of various resources and the unique unit set with some cool abilities. It also seems to hit a pretty solid mark in terms of complexity where it isn't overwhelming.

So to get down to it, I only played a few rounds but wanted to provide feedback on my experience so far and I'll try to keep it concise/focused. I may be missing things so feel free to point that out.

General

• +Really like the use of neutral vs pro-axis-neutral vs pro-allies-neutral. Especially with some of them producing resources for certain nations.
• +Like the per round updates to technology/available units this adds some nice flavor as the war progresses
• -Once things stabilize the game notes could use some updates and improvements
• -Smaller nations are really useless due to unit prices being pretty high compared to other maps which causes them to build 0-2 units per turn. These nations including Brazil, Iran, Iraq, Thailand, Baltic, Finland, and South Africa really should be removed, consolidated, or beefed up. Otherwise they end up having little depth/options and are just fillers.

Resources

• +Really like the variety of resources especially PUs/Iron/Oil and makes playing PU-only maps seem kind of 1 dimensional
• -SS/CR seem to lack depth and importance with each only having 1 type of unit and needing 10-20 of each resource to build that unit with territories only providing 1 production of it. It ends up being every turn or every other turn then I build one unit using it which doesn't really add much to the game (I do like the unit concepts though). I think they either need flushed out further with more depth or just removed. This is a case where extra complexity of having them isn't adding much depth/fun.
• +/-Oil/Fuel is interesting as its only used for mobile land unit and sea unit movement cost. It does add depth by making players consider how often to move their fuel based units or whether to conserve fuel. The challenge is that the current fuel system is pretty limited and has some issues and that its a very 'negative feedback' system to the player (meaning it doesn't reward the player but kind of punishes them which can lead to it not adding much to the 'fun' factor even if it does add depth). As you can see, I'm kind of mixed on this system and like the concept of Oil but wonder if it would be better as a unit cost like Steel or as unit upkeep say 1 Fuel per turn per unit instead of movement (so it would end up just limiting the number of fuel units you can build kind of like 'population caps' in many games.
• -Iron/Steel feel like they need to be even more prominent in the game considering the title. I think it would be even better to have more of it and more variety of costs across units.

Units

• +Unit images are awesome, kudos here.
• +Really like unit types you've chosen which seem to cover a large variety.
• +Like some of the unique abilities like 1/10 AA for cruisers, 1/10 land/sea hits for dive bombers, and 1/10 land vehicle hits for tank destroyers which adds some character/flavor to these units.
• +The land and air transports add some nice flexibility to the unit sets (though the AI doesn't understand them)
• -Air units are pretty OP given their cost vs stats/flexibility. They cost no steel and no fuel movement and when comparing them to tanks it seems way unbalanced. Fighters/Dive Bombers cost only 2-3 more PUs than light/medium tanks while having superior stats and flexibility of air units (land/sea attacks + more operational range). This is also compounded by AA units being weaker 1/10 vs 1/6 on this map compared to most. This makes the game feel less like an 'Iron War' with tanks/ships and more like an 'Air War'.
• -Strategic bombing is OP. In particular, being able to destroy factories with 5 damage (while its a cool idea) is way too strong as it would then block production for 2 turns since the enemy would have to spend 1 turn rebuilding the factory. This also makes it too black/white where if I send 3 bombers and end up only doing 4 damage vs 5 damage its absolutely game changing. There is also no real counter play to save factories besides having an AA gun which isn't enough. I think a system where factories can be destroyed needs more flexibility put into it otherwise I think removing that aspect would be preferred. Also its really not clear from units or notes that repairing 1 point of damage costs 5 PUs.
• -Unit stats variety across units is too narrow. I think the best example is light vs medium tanks feels so underwhelming with medium costs +1PU/+1Steel for +1D. As a player, I want to feel the power of larger tanks and the cost/stats gap should be much more significant. This is the most glaring example but many other units end up just being slightly stronger versions of each other which does add much value. The key is trying to make each unit feel unique and have a role which in some cases like tank destroyer and mech inf they do but others like SP artillery vs light tank vs medium tank they kind of all feel the same with slightly adjusted stats.
• -Unit attack vs defense is too balanced. The vast majority of units have no more than 1 point difference between attack/defense. It tends to add depth and make unit choices more interesting when some units are more attack oriented and other are more defense oriented. I would suggest tanks being more attack heavy and infantry being more defense heavy.
• -I end up primarily building infantry/artillery/planes with a few battleships/carriers with my steel. The main reason is most nations end up fuel constrained after a few rounds with just their starting fuel-use units so building more vehicles or low cost ships isn't a good option (also compounded by these units being underpowered for the most part). Given the theme of the map around iron/steel, I think tanks should have a much larger focus/impact especially for Axis nations.

[Hepps]

@redrum Strongly agree with what is here.

One of the things that seems essential when playing with consumable resources like fuel, which is used during combat and non-combat, is a real-time indicator of where you are with the resource. Something like the below would be really effective in helping a player know what he can and cannot achieve while moving before having to undo almost and entire rounds moves and start over due to something like fuel constraints.

To be honest this is why I am still in deep deliberation as to whether I want to add oil to GD at all.

[Black_Elk]

@Hepps yeah I had a similar impression. It took some getting used to but now I tend to cycle back and forth between the economy and action tabs quite a bit, just so I can see the fuel totals.

@redrum I agree with pretty much all the feedback here. Though I admit some of my initial impressions concerning the power of aircraft has shifted somewhat. I like that there is another unit type (aside from infantry) that the player can build/move without requiring steel/fuel. But it does seem a little odd that something like a Jet or a V-Rocket would have no fuel requirements. But I would hesitate from a playability standpoint to just plug them into the same resource system currently used for ships and tanks (especially because the movement requirements of air would make them total fuel hogs if it was 1 fuel per movement point.) Perhaps an upkeep system would work better?

I kind of agree that bombing can be Over Powered, but it's also kind of hard to tell how interception would play into things in PvP, since my experience is mostly with the AI and they don't currently intercept.

I really do enjoy that factories can be destroyed, by ground units at least. And I like that they are relatively cheap to replace. Perhaps not allowing them to be destroyed from the air by regular strategic bombing (while still allowing them to be destroyed by nukes and ground units) is one option? Right now I kind of feel like it's all or nothing. If the SBR move totally destroys the factory then the raid was a success if not and the player simply has to repair it feels like a failure haha.

I agree also that the unit abilities/costs could be a bit more nuanced. Just to stick with your example. I think I'd always rather have 15 light tanks for 150 PUs and 15 steel, than 9 medium tanks for the same cost in PUs but twice the steel, or 8 heavy tanks for triple the steel. The attack power and mobility is pretty similar. On the other hand, when it's a choice of just 1 tank or maybe a pair of tanks, then I think the aesthetics of having the "bigger tank" do kind of weigh into my decision making process haha. Just because they look so much cooler.

Of the other mobile units SP-Artillery and Tank-Destroyers usually take the backseat during purchase to Mech and regular Tanks. Though I do recall a battle where the Tank-destroyer unit helped me prevail vs a big stack of heavies on defense.

My feelings on the "minor" nations are kind of back and forth. On the one hand I like that we have a little variety in scale and some nations that exist primarily to be destroyed on the warpath by their larger neighbors. But it can sometimes seem like a bit much. I like the Axis minors now that the Balkans have been consolidated. Since most make fun targets for the Allies. On the Allied side though some of these minors seem a lot more interesting than others. China for example or the recently reimagined British-Colonies (the "front line" minors) are more engaging than say Brazil. Others like the French Colonies, KNIL, or South Africa feel like they are here more for the Axis' benefit than as a fully playable assistance to the Allied team. Meaning they are basically there to die, or for giving the Axis some variety in their choice of expansion pattern. I dig the unit work though, so its hard for me to suggest ditching them. Though I do kind of feel that the French Colonies are unecessary. And South Africa seems a little out of place without Canada for parity among the various British Dominions.

One of my favorite things about Iron War is the simplicity of the production system and the relatively expensive cost of infantry compared to other units. I think it just creates more interesting purchasing challenges than we see in standard A&A. So I'm a little wary of increasing the PU costs of say Medium or Heavy tanks to the point where they cost more than twice the base infantry fodder unit. This is because I see something really interesting happening when all the primary combat units are under 20 PUs. I've noticed for example, that since the Jet was increased to a cost of 20, that I now purchase fewer Jets (even if it's combat abilities are more compelling than the regular fighters). Because with 20 PUs I can buy two infantry hitpoints, so the remainder purchasing incentive is removed. That said I could see some room for a bit more focus in the cost/abilities of the heavy hitters as you mentioned.

I just don't want to lose that cool thing that happens when the heavy hitter ground ratio goes from some fraction lower than 2 infantry (like 1.1-1.9 the cost of infantry), to just double the cost of regular infantry. Because I think that would revert us to the A&A playstyle with its familiar inf fodder spam.

All in all, it's my favorite game for tripleA right now and a pretty kick ass map. I think it's getting pretty damn close to perfection, even if it's not quite there yet. Can't wait to play more! Haha

[Black_Elk]

Ps. Just to elaborate a bit more on what I think makes a nation viable for player control (meaning I would rather select them as human than assign control of them to the AI.)

First the Nation needs at least 2 potential purchasing or attack strategies that could be pursued.

So for example, with attack it might be go West vs go East. Or go North vs go South. Pacific vs Europe etc. For purchasing it might be Naval vs Ground. Or maybe SBR vs Regular Combat units. But some split decision like that where the Nation has at least 2 viable strategies they might explore, neither of which is immediately more obvious or clearly better than the other.

The second thing I think a Nation needs to make me want to control them (rather than assign them to the AI), is the ability to eventually cross a certain production threshold through conquest. For the Axis this threshold is basically 200 PUs. For the Allies it's a bit more varied, but you're looking to at least get to 150% or 200% of whatever you started with through conquest. If the player is essentially stuck with their starting production/income with no good way to expand it beyond a middling amount, I think I am a lot more likely to see them as an AI candidate.

Or put another way, if they can't pass the expansion threshold then they are not very fun for Solo play. Similarly in a multi player PvP game, a player would need to control another nation too or find the gameplay kind of boring.

So that's the bar I'm setting for myself at game launch. With the Allies the really enjoyable Solo Nations are Russia and the USA. Going with Britain I think you really need to tack on the other commonwealth nations to get a comparable feel. Smaller nations like China or Brazil, KNIL even Australia etc need to be attached to one of the big dogs to be interesting.

On the Axis side, it's basically the big 3 Germany, Italy or Japan that work for a Solo. I think the minors there are really only interesting if attached to one of these. So I wouldn't want to take Balkans or even all the minors together as a player. But I might take Germany and Balkans together. Or Italy and Finland. Or Japan and Iraq, whathaveyou. As long as they're part of a big dog block, if that makes sense.

[Frostion]

@Black_Elk
I think I will add the ability to ship Iron around the map to allies, like the nations can now with PUs.

@redrum
Great feedback! Many of your issues with the map is stuff that I also have noticed and thought about, but it is first when someone else mentions them that I really accept them as problematic, so thanks for that.

Fuel: I have also noticed that the current use of fuel seems to be more of a nuisance then fun. It is also a bit difficult to calculate how much fuel is needed to move ones units around. Mostly I have just moved units in the move phase until I see the fuel run out, and it is kind of random which units get to move. I think the idea about using fuel as unit upkeep / build cap maybe be the right way to handle fuel. Iron will be used to buy mechanical units and fuel sets a cap on the amount of mechanical units. I will try this out in the next version of Iron War.

Air units are pretty OP: Yes I can see that. I think I will make them cost Iron and fuel again. I will have to see if their PU cost should go up also.

Strategic bombing is OP: Do you take into account that fighters can / should be used as factory defense? The AI does not do this, but I would think humans would.

Unit stats variety across units is too narrow + Unit attack vs defense is too balanced: I will have to look into this also. I noticed that I also seldom buy medium tanks. I do on the other hand buy SP artillery, sometimes in combination with one Infantry and one Mech-Inf. This makes three units that are able to move two territories together.

Iron: Now when fuel is to be changed, and maybe planes and other stuff should cost iron, the amount of resourses on the map will get an overhaul. Maybe to get the iron into play a bit more and make players really want iron, the medium and heavy tanks should be much stronger units, relative cheap in PUs but expensive in iron. I will have to play around with this.

@Hepps
Maybe when the Iron War fuel system is changed you should try it out and see if this works for GD. I can understand why you don’t want to implement the normal movement fuel. I like your fuel indicator idea. The first thing I thought was “WTF! What kind of mod is he running. That’s cool!”

[redrum]

@Hepps Yeah, tracking fuel is kind of a pain and I end up switching to the economy tab just a @Black_Elk mentions to keep track with isn't great but doable. I have a hard time wanting to put a lot of time/effort into improving fuel-based movement as I'm not necessarily sold on it being a great system and very few maps use it (though if it had better support/features then you could argue more might).

@Black_Elk Couple of responses:

1. I agree that trying to do fuel with air units is a nightmare and I was primarily getting at just the PU balance. Even if tanks only cost PUs, I would almost never build them since planes are only a few PUs more. I think planes need to either cost more or have reduced stats.
2. I'm fine with factories being destroyed on capture just not so easily by bombing.
3. I'm actually alright with unit PU cost. I'm more concerned about unit stat similarity. For instance, light vs medium tank price is fine for me but medium tank should be much stronger. Medium tanks in general should kind of phase out light tanks or just have different purposes. Right now the only decision is if I have too much steel and not much fuel than I buy medium otherwise I'd buy light though in reality they both are underpowered so I buy neither
4. I agree with most of you thoughts on minors and I think it aligns with what I laid out as well. Each playable nation should have at least some basic options which is why I think anything less than 20 PUs/turn with the current unit prices is kind of a non-starter (Brazil, Iran, Iraq, Thailand, Baltic, Finland, South Africa). I think these should either be merged into larger nations or made pro-xxx-neutral. Here are some individual thoughts on them:

• Brazil - make pro-allies-neutral or merge with USA
• Iran/Iraq - make pro-axis-neutral or combine them together and buff starting production to 20-30 PUs
• Thailand - make pro-axis-neutral or buff starting production to 20-30 PUs
• Baltic - make pro-axis-neutral or add to Germany or buff starting production to 20-30 PUs
• Finland - make pro-axis-neutral or add to Germany or buff starting production to 20-30 PUs
• South Africa - merge into British colonies, no real reason to have them separate

EDIT
@Frostion Glad we seem to be mostly on the same page. I like your ideas/direction and I think the only major point you didn't comment on is the plan for weaker nations.

Strategic bombing is OP: Valid point though you can use escorts to cancel that out. Makes it so the bombing player can actually place his air stack in between 2 factories and only 1 of them could be defended with fighters or each would get only half and not be able to compete (particularly problematic for say the Soviets who have lots of factories relatively close together)

[Hepps]

@Frostion & @Black_Elk

Yes. I love the idea of fuel... just not the current mechanics.

I don't even mind the potential for having air units consume fuel as they move because you can always play with the stats for what's available on the map as far as deposits as well as the reserves each nation begins the game with. For me the real issue is a simple visual representation that is effective.

[Hepps]

@redrum said in Iron War - Official Thread:

@Hepps Yeah, tracking fuel is kind of a pain and I end up switching to the economy tab just a @Black_Elk mentions to keep track with isn't great but doable. I have a hard time wanting to put a lot of time/effort into improving fuel-based movement as I'm not necessarily sold on it being a great system and very few maps use it (though if it had better support/features then you could argue more might).

I think you hit the nail on the head.... few maps use it BECAUSE it is not well integrated into gameplay. I can certainly vouch for the fact that I have not added it for that very reason.

[CrazyG]

The current tab system is kind of a mess and probably due for an update. Making them provide more information in an easier way would be a good start to making things like fuel more accessible

[redrum]

@CrazyG Agree. I would like to use the screen space more effectively and reduce the need for all the tabs. That probably entails having more info along the top and bottom then reworking the right panel. But that is really an entirely separate topic and should be in a separate thread so we can keep this thread focused on Iron War.