Iron War - Official Thread

[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.

[Black_Elk]

Ok just spit-balling here... But if the total amount of resources was increased and the ability to share resources was expanded, then I think you could also consider making convoys related to resources rather than PUs, as a way to increase the naval action. Right now Convoys are set up purely as a feature of Allied income. Instead you might make it so that control of convoy lanes is what actually allows a player to share resources with their teammates overseas. So rather than granting 5 PUs to the owner, maybe they allow the owner to ship or receive 5 resource points (whether fuel or steel.) Or maybe its just 2 resource points per convoy, or whatever makes sense for the overall scale of the world economy. Since resources are ultimately the more significant cap on unit production by type, this would create a serious incentive to contest the opponent on the high seas (especially if fuel was maintenance rather than movement oriented). By raiding you could deny the enemy access to the more effective units in their roster, and screw their ability to exchange resources for strategic purchasing advantage

At present, it can be hard to justify risking a sub that costs 20 PUs and 2 steel, just to shut down 5 enemy PUs. But if that same convoy raider could shut down the resource exchange between enemy teammates (and thereby affect their total unit cap) that could be major.

I would consider making convoys significant for both teams. Germany could have one in the Baltic, Italy in the Med, Japan in the East Indies etc. The Axis minors might have them as well, with Balkans in the Black Sea, Iran/Iraq in the Persian gulf, Finland in the Baltic or the Arctic etc. The Allies would have more total convoys, clearly, but the Axis convoys could be easier for their team to defend, or be worth more in the exchange as a counter balance.

So for example, if two players on a team are separated by the sea, then to exchange resources, they need to control a convoy lane. If those two players share an overland border, then maybe they can share some smaller amount of resources, but to increase the amount they can share, convoys are needed. Something like that would really give players a reason to put their subs and warships on the move, to try and lock down their own maritime trade or deny the same to their enemies.

I'd say get the canals involved somehow too, but that might be overly complex.

I think to pull it off, more total resources in play would probably be required (more steel and more fuel in general) but that might not be such a bad thing. Just imagining that the kind of D10 nuance we see in combat is carried over into the purchasing with steel. So maybe instead of 5 steel a Carrier or Battleship Costs 10 steel? At the low end, Mech, Patrol Boats (and maybe the basic fighter) might still only cost 1 steel.

Then we get a broader range within which to set up the purchasing structure. 1-10 steel, rather than 1-5. And just have more steel overall produced in a given steel-rich territory.

Fuel is a little more complicated. The challenge there is what to do when a player exceeds their maintenance allotment? Currently if this happens the solution is pretty straightforward, the unit simply cannot move. But I am struggling a bit to figure out how it would look when we move to purely maintenance scheme. I'm not a huge fan of the idea of manually or automatically decommissioning/suiciding units to free up fuel. Since it seems like a lot of micromanagement, or else a pretty rude awaking when you start to run out of gas. (Somehow I'm remembering that awful feeling in Master of Orion II, when all your starbases would get nuked, and you just start hemorrhaging cash and watching ships disappear lol.) But if Fuel isn't relating to movement, how do we make it feel different from steel? I mean I'm definitely down to try it out. Just having some difficulty getting my head around how it would work in practice other than that MOOII example, where the unit starts costing you money once you've exceeded the maintenance needs, and if you go into the red on cash then the unit is just lost haha. For all my inability to track my own fuel consumption, I do sometimes enjoy how it forces me to make tough movement decisions. Like "do I send the tank column forward or move this damned transport?!" haha. So it would be cool to preserve something of that flavor going forward. But I'm not totally wedded to it. If we can come up with an alternative scheme that is fun for the gameplay, I'm sure I'd embrace it pretty quickly.

Maybe a simpler approach is to keep it all production oriented, but vary the primary resource requirement for a given unit? Like some units have a high fuel cost, but low steel cost, or vice versa. Maybe some units only cost fuel, or only steel. Sure it would be a clear abstraction, but might be easier to work out, and give us another way to differentiate the cost of certain unit types from others. Just as an example, perhaps aircraft are fuel hogs but have a low cost in steel, whereas mobile ground units are the reverse. I don't know, maybe a unit like Mech has a fuel cost, but their steel cost is negligible (and just overlooked) whereas a heavier unit like a tank might cost both fuel and some steel. Ships might hog both resources, you know, since they're such beasts haha. Or something along those lines? Might be simpler for the player to parse what's going on that way.

Ps. To Redrum's point about phasing out older model tanks or aircraft as time goes on.... perhaps heavy hitting late game models would get an attack advantage vs older units of the same type? Like similar to the way tank-destroyers currently work. So a Heavy Tank might get like an opening shot vs a medium tank. A Jet might get an opening shot vs a regular fighter etc. Stuff like that.

On the water, the only other unit I might introduce would be the escort carrier, which would be fun for the smaller naval powers, or to round out mini-fleets, help control convoy lanes and such. Like a cheaper carrier that only holds 1 fighter and only has a single hit in combat. Just an idea. I dig the naval unit catalog right now, but might be cool to have something at the low end that can still put aircraft in the water.