Iron War - Official Thread
-
@general_zod said in Iron War - Official Thread:
I see you changed the original fuel cost concept, from a movement charge to a maintenance model. May I ask. What were the primary issues with that fuel model, as you saw them.
As I recall it was very good attempt.
I ask because I'm wondering if there was something other than the somewhat difficult forecasting of army and fleet movements.
It would be nice to someday see this model be successfully used. Especially since fuel was such major factor in WW2. Maybe with the right future feature enhancement or addition.
My experience with the fuel movement model was that it become pretty difficult to determine how much of a fuel reserve was really needed to properly plan your purchases and combat moves, or to know in advance how much fuel you needed to send to an ally to keep them from running out of gas on the march. Initially it seemed pretty novel to have nations getting stuck in the mud or out at sea after the first couple turns, but the interest starts to wear thin after a few matches where half the ships and mobile units on the board can't move anymore.
Maybe if the fuel exchange system was more robust, or players had the ability to expand their existing oil production (like investing PUs to further develop their fields or something?) For the current game the maintenance models seems to work fairly well, although I sometimes wish there was a unit that used fuel but didn't require steel (similar to the way artillery have a cost in steel but not fuel), since often there is a remainder of fuel that can be hard to spend for some nations. Perhaps a fuel cost for aircraft might work? It would seem consistent with the unit type, but I admit that would be a pretty significant change on balance and there might not be enough fuel to go around right now.
Frostion might have some more thoughts on possible ways to re-create a more successful movement oriented fuel system, but I think the tweak here made things a bit simpler to parse, easier to pick up and play.
ps. for an example save, here is a game I just played as Japan/Thailand vs the AI...
Typically in the old system my fleet would have gotten stuck somewhere in the middle of the pacific, and I'd have to throw away transports or do random stuff like that to try and free up fuel.
The way it works currently, fuel is basically the same as steel and functions more as a purchasing restriction/requirement rather than a true a maintenance cost, since you don't really go into the red like you used to haha. Less realistic I guess, but probably more fun, since Japan is putting the stomp down on South America instead of lost at sea with no way to move hehe
-
I agree the air units should have used a fuel cost as well. As I recall it was a bit of a loophole which made air units the main operational unit, because it was so cheap to operate.
I wonder if setting up a structure of core figures would help visualize planning. Basically structuring the fuel costs of each movement point and the ratios of fuel consumptions of any given unit, in a way that has more meaning.
The concept being first establish what each unit truly represents in terms of quantities.
Eg, 1 fighter unit = 100 fighters (air wing), 1 tank unit = 500 tanks (column), 1 destroyer unit= 10 destroyers (task force) and so on.
So in the hypothetical example above, it is somewhat logical to assign, lets say...
1 fighter unit (air wing) uses 1 fuel cost per movement point
1 tank unit (column) uses 5 fuel cost per movement point
1 destroyer unit (task force) uses 10 fuel cost per movement pointSo maybe it would be easier to accept and work with the figures when planning and forecasting. If there is more context to them, versus using figures that seem arbitrary. Anyways just a thought. Also limiting the amount of units on the map helps, so we don't have to try to micro mange a million units fuel costs.
This would also help with assigning unit cost in terms of steel, oil, rubber, etc...
I love the concept of making each movement matter more, as fuel cost would do. This limits the somewhat lazy and unrealistic scenarios that see the frequent redeployments of entire naval fleets, air wings or armored and mechanized columns into single massive stacks as viable strategy.
Also another cool useful element would be synthetic fuel producing locations. And depending on the timeframe of a typical game. The transporting of fuel from location to location before it enters the supply chain, would be a nice realistic touch.
-
@General_Zod Balancing fuel is extremely difficult. It also has very limited UI support. I don't think any maps have achieved anything even relatively balanced around fuel for a combination a reasons.
-
@general_zod
Yes, my initial plan was to use fuel as a movement cost thing. Now it is just a unit maintenance/accessibility thing (and it is still very difficult to balance. Some nations seem to always have too much while others too little.). Actually I would still like to use fuel for movement in Iron War, but there were some things that seemed to prevent this from working:• The AI did not support fuel movement. It cannot prioritize its movement, but I could actually live with this. On my maps there is a lot of random action by the AI, like in Age of Tribes where the AIs tech development is totally random, and I kind of like that unpredictability. The crucial factor was, that the AI kept flying air units out into attacks with no fuel to return, so the units perished even if they won the battle. I guess this could be fixed if the AI “reserved” some movement fuel resources for the return non combat movement. (And then we have the “should a withdrawal cost fuel?” issue)
• A human player had difficulty keeping track on how much fuel he had available. The player could ofcourse constantly click the resources tab in the right side of the screen and let his eyes find his nation and then look at fuel. But this seemed too troublesome and kind of ruined the play experience. I would realy have loved a very easy overview of fuel available. At GitHub I proposed a visual fuel indicator:
https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/1804
https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/1310@Black_Elk and @all
Player “ability to expand their existing oil production” very good suggestion. One that might be given serious consideration if the Iron War fuel system was changed and updated.The need for “a unit that used fuel but didn't require steel”. This was originally the airplanes. The main reason why they don’t require fuel now is because of the AI movement issue described above. Their fuel dependence killed the aircraft when controlled by the AI.
When I changed the fuel system to the maintenance model I could see that a player would have to invest a big portion of his fuel into his air force, the same fuel that would have been invested/locked into land and sea vehicles. For some reason I cannot really recall, I began thinking of aircraft as expensive luxury units that should just cost PUs. The only other unit that solely costs PUs is the standard infantry.
Right now, giving aircraft fuel dependence would require a rebalance of all fuel drums on the map, and possibly also the units. It is a lot of work, but it is easy to just try out by editing the XML and making airplanes require fuel. This should of course be a first step; to see if the game play and fun is better of with aircraft requiring fuel. If it is, then balancing and drum placement would be the next step. Alternately it could/should be done if the fuel system of Iron War was changed back to consumption mode.
I like the idea of keeping fuel consumption costs simple and easy to manage: 1 unit movement = 1 fuel. Meaning an aircraft would use the same fuel as a tank or a ship. It might not be realistic, but it would keep the required player calculations more simple. And yes, aircraft would use a lot of fuel, but this would then just be the penalty of using aircraft. A differentiated system (1 fighter/1 fuel. 1 tank/5 fuel. 1 destroyer/10 fuel) might work, especially if fuel consumption was displayed visually somehow, like my proposed visual fuel tracker. But we would have to try it out first.
I am very much for the devs developing more fuel support. As I see it, it is just too difficult to keep track of fuel right now, and the AI kills its own aircraft because there is no return fuel reserved for non-combat movement. I think these two issues were the primary reason why Iron War now uses fuel as a purchase/maintainance resource and not as a consumption resource.
Don’t anybody hold back on test editing and altering the fuel system of Iron War. I don’t have time atm. But at some point the fuel system might need an overhaul, and then any testing and experience would be much appreciated.closed Enhance Fuel Movement #1310
-
@frostion Very well presented, and I wholeheartedly support the idea for better integration within the engine.
-
@frostion Yeah, I think the following 3 things need added to make fuel more playable:
- Show current amount of fuel on the main screen (how much you have)
- Show projected fuel income on the main screen (how much you'll get)
- When moving units, show how much fuel the move costs (how much you're spending)
-
-
All sounds great. I had a thought on how to maybe make fuel consumption a little easier to manage. Its a bit gamey, but then again so are a lot of things haha.
Perhaps only combat movements use fuel?
What you'd lose in overall realism, you'd make up for in avoiding that problem where aircraft or ships get stuck with big red targets painted on their backs. Still allows for situations where the forward march could get stalled without enough gas, but at least players would have a way to handle their planning goofs with less catastrophic consequences. My guess is that this would cut the overall fuel consumption in game by half (probably more). Perhaps combined with an initial fuel cost to purchase as well, like the current scheme, which would help to rationalize or explain away the non-com stuff not consuming fuel.
A related alternative idea might be to have an opperational radius of some sort, within which non com moves are allowed free of charge. Like allowing players to move out from or return to a factory territory or coastal sea zone without consuming fuel. Again you could rationalize it as accessing some kind of strategic emergency reserve or the like, built into the initial purchase, but the practical gameplay purpose would be to give the human player a pass when they fuck up, or as a way to keep the AI competative on their home turf.
Just trying to think of some way to make the whole fuel=movement thing slightly more forgiving than what I experienced before, short of flooding the world with oil drums, which would kind of undermine it as an interesting gameplay resource.
-
This isn't really related to the fuel issue, but if any further revisions of the current game are a possibility, I still think the major power that needs the most attention is Britain.
Right now the British feel kind of one dimensional compared to their Allies or rivals on the Axis side. I understand how breaking up the British Empire helps when all these factions are under AI control (since they can amass a lot more total production/TUV that way without seeming too overpowered for a single power throwing their weight around the globe). I also like the idea of a game that highlights the dissolution of the British Empire as a major feature of WWII. That said, under human control, it kind of feels as if there's not a whole lot for the British themselves to do. Compared with British-India or British-Colonies, which have some room to grow (if they can gobble up the Middle East, or take hits on Italy or Japan), the British in Europe are sort of frozen at their starting level.
Basically the way I saw it at first Britain had to push on Morocco ASAP to have any real chance of significant production expansion. Iceland seemed nice to have, sure, but Morocco was the closest factory viable territory with an overland target of opportunity nearby. Target Libya seemed somehow more attainable to me than Finland (since there is no factory viable location in Scandinavia other than the Finnish capital itself), but even going the Morocco/Libya route it's still damn tough putting enough TUV in Africa to actually uproot the Italians there. The Canadian factories feel largely irrelevant. I suppose Halifax might see a ship or two built if the Luftwaffe shuts down the coast off England/Morocco, but if it comes to that then the British game is pretty much shot already anyway. So its pretty much Morocco or bust haha. Anyhow, in the game below you can kind of see the predicament... Even if you bounce around the Med a bit, there's really not a whole lot of real estate up for grabs that the British can exploit. I think the first thing I'd do to try and make it a little more interesting is change the 3 Norwegian territories from Pro-Allies to regular Neutral. Having Norway as pro-Allies really works to Britain's disadvantage, since the Brits can't get at that steel unless Germany or Finland takes it first. This makes the Northern route pretty awkward, and easy enough for the Axis to shut down by simply not going there to begin with.
I think if Norway itself was Neutral and a +5 gold territory (factory viable) this whole northern region of the map would see more action from both sides.
A couple other alterations that I think might help...
Benelux to +5: to make a D-Day push more viable (either from Britain or the USA), since it would give them a toehold territory on the continent capable of supporting a factory.
Sicily to +5: sort of like the above, would encourage a sand and sea play pattern in the Med that is a bit more like what cracked off historically. In this case Sicily could serve as a stepping stone or toehold for the Allies to support a med fleet, since it would become factory viable but isn't threatened overland.
Greece to +5: This would also give the Brits a way into Europe from the south. Might open things up for Germany, Balkans or Italy as well with a factory build option, so seems like the advantage could go to either side there.
I suppose the basic theme behind this post is that I think the British would be more fun to play if there were more +5 factory viable territories that they could acquire around the European periphery. A few more +5 spots than currently exist here, because, given the choice between handing one of those +5s to Britain or the USA, the USA will always win out. The Americans have further to travel and more cash to throw around once they arrive, so it just seems ill advised to give any of these prime build spots to Britain. But if there were a few more possible factory locations around, maybe players would be more inclined to let the Brits get in on some of the action. Then you'd have like three interesting expansion routes for the Brits.
North to Norway: to mess with Finland (end around option to Poland, the classic Eastern Front attack pattern from A&A).
Center to Benelux: to mess with West Germany directly (liberate France and open the second front, the D-Day).
South to Libya, Sicily or Greece: to mess with Italy and Balkans (the Churchill special lol).Anyhow, just some thoughts after playing a few solos as the British lol. In previous iterations the Royal Navy would often get slammed right out the gate, so I think the last German naval tweak was an improvement, but I still think the Brits need something to make them more exciting. There just aren't that many spots nearby to take over (since most revert to French control). It would be nice to help the feeling of expansion a bit, when you see larger swaths of the map change color to your own faction. In the current set up, the only real spot for this with the British is that pocket around Libya, so that's where I was gunning till it finally panned out around 1945.
0_1517737476806_Britain Round 12.tsvg
Here is another British solo game, this time went with a Northern attack plan. I think its shows what is probably the best chance the Brits have to prevail along that route, namely trying to dead drop West Germany and snake those 50 PUs with a surprise amphibious invasion. If you nab Denmark and the straits then some exploits that open up. A bit of a cheapshot on the machine since it has trouble controlling canal zones. The target Finland plan ended up being more effective than the target Libya one, since the Germans let their guard down. In this game I left Morocco for the Americans, but they were slow on the uptake, preferring to take Spain first for some reason instead of pressing North Africa. Brits dropped Finland in 1944.
0_1517749585827_Brits northern round 9.tsvg
ps. also, sometimes it still feels like 1945 (and the nuclear age) is arriving a little soon. At least in the single player vs AI type experience, the calendar advances pretty quickly. Like usually it takes until the 1950s before I can achieve a satisfactory conclusion (at least in an Allied campaign, Axis can break out a bit faster). I wonder how a 3 round year might feel for the pacing? Like in addition to "Early" and "Late" you could maybe add "Mid" or "Middle" into the mix?
Early 1940, Mid 1940, Late 1940...
Early 1945, Mid 1945, Late 1945 etc.That would have the game reaching its natural conclusion about round 18, instead of round 12. Little more time to get stuff done before you feel like you're getting timed out, but still not quite as long as a 4 season split (which I admit seems kind of excessive) haha.
-
@redrum
Please tell me that you save all the game engine and AI fuel handling ideas and eagerness to improve this aspect of the game, so you can one day bring the ideas to life
@Black_Elk
I hear what you are saying, and I can see that the British have limitations when it comes to strategies and expansion. I will not change Norway from Pro-Allied Neutral to true Neutral. I would like to keep a bit historical correctness (even though game play is important), and not have Britain attack Norway to get their resources. But I will try to motivate Germany a bit more in regards to attacking Norway. If Germany does this, then at least Britain can choose the liberation of Norway as a way to go.I have made a version 0.2.2 XML. I have tested it as human Britain vs AI Germany. With the changes, it seems that if Germany captures Denmark in the first round and both German fleets are intact, Germany can join the Baltic and North Sea Fleets in the second round and take Norway. The Hard AI sometime does this, so I guess a human player would also consider it. I don’t think the Fast AI does this, maybe its too complicated a plan. I normally play with the Fast AI as the Hard AI is slowing the game down tremendously.
Of course the British can try to counter the above plan by moving their fleet and build a Battleship in the North Sea Zone (between Germany, Britain and Norway) in the first round. And even the French can try to help out by moving their two ships into the same sea zone and also build in it. But this might lead to the total destruction of the Allied fleets if the German naval forces are intact … so it’s risky / suicidal.
It’s a pretty big job to make years 3 rounds instead of 2, so that is not happening in the near future!
@all
Here is the new version. Britains navy is also nerfed a bit. You guys tell me what you think if you play it.Iron War v0.2.2 BETA:
• Trondheim-Narvik is now a 1 PU territory, not 2.
• Norway is now a 5 PU territory, not 3.
• The Iron Ore in Norway is moved to Tronheim-Narvik and is now British from start.
• Removed 1 British Patrol-Boat from Celtic Sea.
• Removed 1 British Oil-Barrel from Egypt.
• Added 1 German Fighter to West Germany.
• Replaced 1 French Battleship with 1 French Destroyer in Bay of Biscay.
• Other minor changes.
(Right click download, rename and play with this file: 0_1517780449397_iron_war.xml ) -
@frostion Good point. I created a feature thread to official track and discuss fuel improvement ideas: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/558/fuel-enhancements. Added some of the commentary from here but feel free to add additional thoughts.
-
Sounds cool, I will try when I get back to the house.
Just to mention though, having Britain attack neutral Norway is in line with the history. Or at least, its still well inside the realm of historical possibility... Some actual plans from the wiki of the tricks that the Brits had up their sleeves with regard to Norway...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wilfred
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_R_4
"The Allies devised a plan to use the Soviet Union's 30 November 1939 attack on Finland as a cover for seizing both the Swedish ore fields in the north, and the Norwegian harbours through which it was shipped to Germany.
The plan was to get Norwegian and Swedish permission to send an expeditionary force to Finland across Sápmi, ostensibly to help the Finns. Once in place they were to proceed to take control of Swedish harbours and mines, occupying cities such as Gävle and Luleå and shutting down German access to Swedish ore, presenting Norway and Sweden with a fait accompli.
Because of the danger of Allied or German occupation and of the war being waged on their territory, both the Swedes and the Norwegians refused the transit requests.Meanwhile, the Germans having realized the Allied threat, were making plans for a possible pre-emptive invasion of Norway in order to protect their strategic supply lines. The Altmark Incident of 16 February 1940 convinced Hitler that the Allies would not respect Norwegian neutrality, and he ordered the plans for an invasion hastened."
and from the Weserübung wiki...
"Starting in the spring of 1939, the British Admiralty began to view Scandinavia as a potential theatre of war in a future conflict with Germany. The British government was reluctant to engage in another land conflict on the continent that they believed would be a repetition of the First World War. So they began considering a blockade strategy in an attempt to weaken Germany indirectly. German industry was heavily dependent on the import of iron ore from the northern Swedish mining district, and much of this ore was shipped through the northern Norwegian port of Narvik during the winter months. Control of the Norwegian coast would also serve to tighten a blockade against Germany.
In October 1939, the chief of the German Kriegsmarine—Grand Admiral Erich Raeder—discussed with Adolf Hitler the danger posed by the risk of having potential British bases in Norway and the possibility of Germany seizing these bases before the United Kingdom could."...
Framed that way it seems like the invasion could have come from either side, so seems reasonable enough to let the players model it if desired. I see it as similar to allowing either side to attack Turkey. Or allowing for other stuff not strictly by the history book, but which might have happened, Japan attacking Russia would be the prime example haha. But basically for a 1940 start date it seems like Norway would be fun as an option for both teams.
I agree that if we can persuade the Germans to routinely attack this direction early on then its probably less of an issue, since that activates the theater for the Allies. Having some of that Norwegian steel assigned to the Brits would be a motivation, and the +5 spot definitely sweetens the deal. I'm not sure if it will be enough for the AI though, which will determine the single player experience.
I'll be excited to check out the latest tweaks.
Also, I hear what you're saying about things getting slow. I might end up switching back to FastAI, since going HardAI I usually have to save and restart every couple rounds or things tend to bog down. Anyhow, will report back with a gamesave in a couple hours.
Best,
Elkps. OK downloaded the latest update with the changes and finally got it working (took me a minute to realize that the xml was listed in two spots haha.) About to launch a new solo with the Brits. I will return in a few hours after I see how things cracked off with a gamesave.
-
Alright here's a quick Brit solo opener against the hard AI...
On my first 2 attempts the Germans immediately destroyed the Royal navy at anchor. Even blowing the whole wad on a British carrier didn't seem to deter them, so had to scrap that idea and come up with a better plan. In the third game I just sent a patrol boat to block in the North Sea Zone, sacrificing itself for the greater good. That seemed to do the trick, allowing for a transport purchase initially and then a carrier build the following round.
The dead drop on West Germany came rather sooner than expected here, since I went for the jugular as soon as the opportunity arose in round 3.
Not sure if Norway will see much love this time around, since it looks like the remaining German transports are too far out of range at this point.I wonder if the territory was completely empty of units if Germany would take a crack at it right out the gate?
Will launch a few more games and see what happens.
-
@Black_Elk
Pretty convincing about the Allied plan to take Norway. I might try out a new setup.Yes, the German navy is pretty dangerous at start. This forces the British to keep a distance. But British reinforcements are sure to come from Canada, and Germany does not seem to strengthen their navy at any point in the game, at least not the AI. But the primary reason I like the Germans to have a strong Navy is that it is their only chance to have some navy action in the game, and their navy is sure to fall (sink) at some point as the Allied pressure is just too high.
PS: I think the AI has a habit of leaving VERY important and high value territories under-defended. I dont think it thinks "I cant let the enemy destroy my factory and let them harvest my 50 PUs, not even for a single round!" I think a human might think that
-
Yeah I tend to agree, its more important for the overall gameplay enjoyment that Germany has a chance to get something going on the water, even if it nerfs Britain a bit. Otherwise its just hurling headlong into Russia every time and that would hurt the dynamism and long term shelf life of the map. I also think that as the first player in the turn order and the major big dog nation, the game kinda has to favor Germany (and the Axis team more generally) even if this stretches the imagination somewhat historically, just to maintain the gameplay. Without some creative license taken, WWII by the book would be rather boring. I think the gameplay is best with Axis headed towards complete world domination if left unchecked, even if that was probably more of an Allied propaganda narrative than historical reality, it makes for better drama and a better endgame.
Also agree on the West Germany thing. That'd be the last territory a human lets go of for sure haha.
Will put in some more time tomorrow and see how things go vs the AI.
...
OK just put in a few rounds for another British solo. This time I decided to try something a little different and prop up the French. We stacked Normandy as heavy as we could and seem to have just forced the Germans to withdraw from Paris. The situation up North was much the same as the last game, but the Germans are trying some crazy naval maneuvering in the Med. They took Crete and Cyprus, all dug in on the islands now, just sank the American fleet after it sailed past Gibraltar. Kinda cool. The French AI has been busy trying to take over Spain, while the British are taking little jabs at Germany/Italy trying to take some heat off Russia. So far seems to be working, will see how it concludes tomorrow...
0_1517821118351_Elk vs HardAI Axis Britain 6.tsvg
Here is the situation a couple rounds later. We crashed the party in Italy and then traded West Germany a few times, so it's pretty much cinched up in Europe, although Japan is getting massive...
0_1517903701789_Elk vs HardAI Axis Britain 12.tsvg
Back to the fuel thing, under the current system its really hard for me to determine how much oil I actually control and how much I am consuming at any given time. The economy tab isn't much help, even if I am constantly shuffling back and forth, because it only lists how much fuel is on hand, not the overall total. I guess its like only knowing how many PUs I have in the bank but not knowing how much Production I possess. Basically you have to count up the drums and then count up the ships and mobile units to figure out how to run a surplus. Otherwise I guess most people would do what I do, and just plan to always only have 1 fuel available at purchase, until a bunch of your stuff gets blown up or you start snaking the really oil rich territories from your enemies haha.
-
Russia solo vs the hard AI. In this one Allies achieved 20 VC in just the third round. As USSR I threw everything at Persia, Iraq and Finland. I decided to continue playing after the Victory TKO, and a couple rounds later Germany is rolling up the entire eastern front haha.
Sadly still no action out of Norway, though Iceland, Morocco and Afghanistan got up in the mix. I think if Norway was neutral maybe the AI would put more into it. But as it stands here, Ruskies will likely be trapped and destroyed up north.
I noticed in most games that Japan is still pretty monster in the East, and Russia tends to get gobbled up. Maybe some more fighter support or a couple light tanks would be nice to help put up a wall?
Usually I see the Japanese breaking through right about now in the 5th or 6th round, after which point the Soviets just start hemorrhaging cash. I also wonder if the Russians couldn't support a bomber in Siberia or something, so they have a unit to snipe with in all these border clashes with Japan?
Irkutsk is a pretty long way from the Leningrad/Arch/Moscow pocket. I think anything that far east and the player/AI is more likely to use it to hold the Japanese at bay when they start pushing all those mobile units up through the backfield.Anyhow that was how I was feeling, like a few more air or tank units might help balance it out on that side of the board. This game below is about as effective as been able to manage against Japan without putting much into it, (just throwing all the starting units forward right out the gate) but once those dudes are spent it gets pretty ugly. And of course G looks poised to work the center, despite having no help from those minors anymore lol.
-
@black_elk 20 VC might be too easy for the Allies. Though glancing at the game, it looks to actually be a somewhat interesting game into round 5. Are you planning to continue playing it?
-
I went another round till they stomped Finland, but then the hardAI started to crawl, so I just gave up the ghost and launched a new game vs the Fast AI. Yeah the VC spread might be a little tight for the Allies early on, but I think a human could probably prevent the 20 VC win without breaking a sweat. I still evaluate the set up more in terms of the single player vs AI experience though, since I think that would be a popular way to play a map on this scale. As for Japan, its kind of the same deal, a human would probably be more aggressive vs Japan with a triple-team, or octouple-team or whatever, but when you're flying solo leaving it up to the AI, Japan brings the pain. Another fighter or a bomber for the far east might help stem the tide a bit. In the backfield vs Japan its usually a lot of smaller battles, rather than a large stack fest, so even a couple mobile attack points in the air might make a big difference.
Anyway, here's where I am in the new game at the moment vs the fast AI. This time I tried my hand at a Russian Baltic fleet and forward positioning as a way to trip up the Germans. So far so good along the front with G, they are surrounded by the red army. But Japan is starting to chip away things on the other side of the globe, and Italy is still hanging on in Europe.
-
@Black_Elk
Very good and constructive feedback, as always
I really appreciate it. You have again pointed out some issues that have also crossed my mind, vaguely. But it’s first when other people point them out that they become clear.• Yes, as you and @redrum point out, the 20 VC win is problematic and favours the Allied, maybe especially if the Allies focus on a very specific VC strategy. I have experienced several AI vs AI Allied fast-wins where the Allied AI, most likely coincidentally, wins fast by getting 20 VC . The map already starts out with a very uneven VC score: Axis 11 / Allies 19, and even though the Allies normally lose a couple of territories early on, it seems that the Allies can just focus their efforts on like Finland, Iraq and Iran and get the upper hand relatively fast.
I reckon that we could try to fix this issue by tipping the stating VC balance by 1 for starters, forcing the Allies to capture at least one more territory to win.
I have now tried to fix this by moving the Irkutsk VC to Oslo/Norway. This makes Norway a bit more important. It also sets the Allied start back a bit. And finally it makes “Plan R 4” a possible UK strategy and goal. Of course Norway has now become True-Neutral along with their Iron. I guess that all this also gives a human Germany more incentive to invade Norway.
• The Soviet far east does have a tendency to fall to Japan relatively fast. The Soviet AI does not seem to focus on building in that that area and protect it. But if the soviet forces become too strong from the beginning, then the Japanese territories in that area are in danger of falling to a Soviet invasion.
I have tried to give the soviets a bit more resistance to the Japanese, while still not making the Japanese overall weaker, there are now a bit more USSR infantry in the area and the Japanese infantry is withdrawn further away from the border of USSR. To not make the Japanese overall weaker (because they now have to build more units at the border) Japan also get a bit more Infantry on the map, but they are spread out on several territories, away from the Soviet far east (like Truk, Shanghai and Peking).
The Far East changes really alter the conditions in the east, but I difficult to see if it does what is needed. It seems that the AI can’t really handle protecting the USSR far east coastline, and that AI Japan sometimes goes all in and invades the USSR coastline, taking many territories simultaneously.
• Another thing, that has not changed but that is open for change/balancing is the territory of Japan PU income of 40 PUs. It could go up to 50 if needed. To me it sometimes seems that Japan is overall under a lot of pleasure from like ALL corners of the world, and that Japan is maybe slowly “worn down” as the game progresses. What do you think about that? Does Japan normally have problems in the long run? Could they need another 10 PUs (cost of 1 infantry) per turn from turn 2?
Here is a new XML test version 0.2.21:
0_1518553887906_iron_war.xml
0_1518553937673_vc.txt
(Right click, download, rename and override old files) -
So far I like it a lot. The front between the USSR and Japan feels a lot more stable. The Russians have just enough to hold the initial line around Vladivostok or Manchuria for at least a few rounds instead of just immediately folding back to the Irkutsk pocket. Basically you have a better shot at fighting along that whole Far East Pacific corridor, so long as you don't risk too much on the coastline.
I also really like how this Norway thing is panning out. Definitely more interesting for the region with the 20th VC here, since a lot of powers have a shot at it. Nice call! I think it puts a new spin on that region for sure.
Started my first solo as Russia just to tease out the new opening options. Tried a similar play against Persia and Finland, but this time the Axis held off the early VC win. Pretty fun so far. Here we are in the 5th round, for comparison with that earlier game...
0_1518596497170_2.21 Elk vs FastAI Axis Russia 5.tsvg
I'd like to see how the Russian Ai does with the new stuff, so probably will try a Japanese solo next...
