Iron War - Official Thread

[Frostion]

@all
I have just played a USSR game, and I started to think about the value of the AA gun.

Is the AA gun worth buying? The AI buys it sometimes, but as a human player could buy a fighter for 20 PUs, is the AA gun not a little lame for the 15 PUs price? If the territory is attacked/bombed, the fighter defends/intercepts on 6/10 (60% kill) but can also die from a lucky 2/10 shot from a bomber. And the attacker could bring his own fighters as fodder alongside his bomber. The AA kills on a 1/10, but has a lucky chance to actually hit the bomber instead of the fighter. Maybe the AA gun should have more than one shot?

Here are the stats in the unit purchase screen. Even if people do not play the map, maybe people can use the stats to determine what the AA gun should be worth. I find it real hard to set a value on AA guns:

@Redrum I have had the “Withdraw planes” error pop up again. This time I have saved the game. I was playing USSR and it happen after combat step of Britain in the last round of this savegame. Do you have time to look at this save and the error? (It is an Iron War v0.1.9 save)

0_1497924625424_BritainWithdraw.tsvg

Error:
triplea.engine.version.bin:1.9
Loading map: iron_war, from: C:\Users\David-Corsair\triplea\downloadedMaps\iron_war
Loading resources from the following paths: [C:\Users\David-Corsair\triplea\downloadedMaps\iron_war, C:\Games\TripleA_1.9.0.0.5043\assets]
Loading map: iron_war, from: C:\Users\David-Corsair\triplea\downloadedMaps\iron_war
Loading resources from the following paths: [C:\Users\David-Corsair\triplea\downloadedMaps\iron_war, C:\Games\TripleA_1.9.0.0.5043\assets]
jun. 20, 2017 1:22:13 AM games.strategy.triplea.ui.BattleStepsPanel setStep
INFO: Could not find step name:Britain withdraw planes?

[Hepps]

@Frostion If you look at the comparative cost between a Tank Destroyer or an infantry (with their combat values) and an A.A. Gun.... then it should be immediately obvious that there is a valuation issue with the A.A. Gun. Never mind comparing it against a fighter that has a world more combat value and the ability to move quickly between theaters. You are buying them against one another nearly at par.

The one and only advantage it provides is a piss poor 10% chance of registering a hit... then it is simply fodder. To be a viable unit one of three things need to happen: 1 ) it has to have some other role outside of its A.A. ability... 2) or it has to perform dramatically better in its defined role.... or 3) the cost has to played with.

EDIT Obviously the solution could also be a combination of the three things to differing degrees.

[redrum]

@Frostion There definitely is a bug here and it can actually be reproduced by a human player with that save. Essentially if you save at the beginning of the UK's turn and follow the save movements to attack Ireland (3 fighters, 1 non-amphib inf, 1 art, 1 med tank) then as long as the neutrals get at least 1 hit you will see the error message. Here is a save to try it with: 0_1497932302404_test.tsvg

The reason this appears to occur is that the battle window has to be initialized with retreats options (along the left side). It gets initialized with the option of "Britian withdraw non-amphib units?" since it has 1 inf that is non-amphib and you have the game property "Partial Amphibious Retreat"=true. The problem is that if that one inf is killed the UK no longer has any non-amphib units so it should prompt just on whether to "Britain withdraw planes?" but that option isn't displayed in the battle window so it throws the error and the selected option stays on "Britain select casualties" rather than highlighting a retreat option.

https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/1954

This is a display only bug as the engine still properly prompts the user on whether to retreat the planes, it just can't highlight that option in the battle window:

[Black_Elk]

@Frostion Makes sense. Again its not a huge deal on my part, and I would obviously play with whatever iconography is chosen. I grew up with Castle Wolfenstein and played plenty of games like that. Usually people find the idea of killing Nazis pretty agreeable when they are always the adversary haha. Aesthetically the nationalist symbols of the period are all interesting to me, not just the Futhark mystical stuff by G, but all across the spectrum including what was done by the West, or the Soviets, or in the Far East too in promoting their own ideologies, so its not really an issue for me personally. I think in general I prefer the Iron Cross convention for tripleA though, and like how its used in Iron War with green for the Balkans and white for the Pro-Axis neutrals, in addition to the German one on the red field. I see the dilemma with trying to use a single resource for all the specialized national units. Because as you say, you don't want them to do double duty. The only way I can really think of to make it work, is to concentrate the resource into just a handful of high value territories (like the national capitals). I think doing that you could have a similar cap in functional terms, but then the resource becomes less interesting as a map feature.

Just getting ready to play my first game of the new version for a couple hours. But real quick, about the AA gun. I agree that it is not a desirable purchase option compared to aircraft. I don't mind that the AA is always on (either here in land or for the Cruisers etc on the water). I liked that feature of AA fire in the older A&A games, because it gave the player some way to defend against or deter players from using air transits. If there is any strategic value coming from the unit right now its that, because you can use it to block air paths overland (the way cruisers can in the war) to give the opponent some headaches with their fighter/bomber transits. It's also the only unit that can be captured by ground.

I don't know its always been the oddman out in the unit roster. I've never particularly liked it myself and would rarely purchase them in the older A&A games, except to cover a newly purchased factory from SBR, or when they were used for a rocket tech advance, or something of that sort. Put the fact that they are like the only unit that moves exclusively in the non-combat phase, I think they are always causing me more headaches, rather than thrilling me with their unique abilities haha. In the newer games, the combat AAAgun is made pretty redundant by the factories and bases having built in AAfire, and the fact that they can be stacked in combat still doesn't really make much difference to me from a purchasing perspective, I tend to use only what I'm given at the outset, and rarely buy new ones. I don't know perhaps with a new set of abilities or a different cost structure I might do it more often.

Anyhow, enough rambling for now. Gotta fire this thing up and check it out! Will report back in a few

Using TripleA_1.9.0.0.5060, I like the new resource modifier layout of the launch UI.

ps. OK into the 4th round. Decided to play as Russia and British-India vs the Hard AI, so I could check out the units and the music. So far I really enjoy the new fuel system. It just feels more intuitive and less cumbersome, and I feel somehow encouraged to buy more tanks lol.

The Dutch just set up shop in Iraq, so I'm trying to back their play in the Middle-East with the Soviets and British-India. Just crushed Finland, but will probably have to absorb a fairly large Axis push coming in the next few rounds here. So far I dig it!

0_1497944578086_Elk USSR British-India Solo vs Hard AI Axis R4.tsvg

By far the biggest new challenge to wrap my head around is the steel cost for Artillery. The remainder purchase is changed quite a bit, since now the base units are all 10s or 20s if you want to spend without using Steel, Fuel or CR. I suppose you have the 5s in there if you want to expand production for 25 or build the AAgun for 15, but basically its dealing with the 10 spot for regular income.

Entry into the Air at 20 PUs seems fine, since its definitely a harder decision to make if its 2 hitpoints on the ground vs 1 in the Air. Though I do sometimes miss the 18-19 PU spot for Fighters when it comes up at purchase. The Commissar at 5 is nice though, since he helps flesh out the remainder purchase for the Russians, but that one has a cap so its limited for the remainder thing. Speaking of the cheaper units, one thing that happens to me a lot with Colonials, is that I'll blast through the select casualties screen during combat and end up losing more infantry than I probably should since the default seems to be for preserving Colonials over Inf, even though Colonials are weaker on defense and cheaper to replace (they should probably get knocked off first.) Not sure if there is an easy way to address that one, for now I just need to pay more attention haha. But yeah, mainly its artillery Im thinking about right now. Probably will come in handy if I'm steel rich but fuel poor during the endgame, and then just buy a gang of them at once haha. Having fun! I'm sure I'll keep it going into tomorrow. Again, killer job on the latest!

[Black_Elk]

The commissar's in town haha. Allies took the Economic Win in the 6th round, in the 7th the Soviets are pretty well positioned to overrun Berlin so just went for it, but there's still a pretty impressive German pocket developing down there in the Balkans.

So far so good. I definitely bought more tanks, and fewer aircraft. In the choice between artillery and mech, I think mech is going to win out. Perhaps spamming artillery early would conserve on the fuel slots for the tank, but I just found myself wanting to run and gun. British-India was fun. I enjoyed the music, it made them feel a lot more distinct. They seemed to pair well with the Soviets to break up the round, while still keeping the focus on the center.

The French, British-Colonies and KNIL AI did pretty well for themselves this game. USA bought factories in Liberia and Iceland, and the British are pressing in on West Germany pretty consistently. Japan and Italy are still clinging to life, despite getting squeezed in on from several directions. Here it is in the 8th...

0_1497951999894_Elk USSR British-India Solo vs Hard AI Axis R8.tsvg

Next time I'll try some naval powers, and see how the fuel system works there.

[Black_Elk]

About to start a second game, but before I do, just wanted to point out some remaining timeline issues regarding control of certain starting territories that might be worth addressing. I know when I initially started playing the first round was set in 1939. Currently its set in 1940, with a couple anachronisms left over from 39.

Historically the German invasions of Norway and Denmark occurred in April of 1940 (Denmark had already surrendered by the end of the month).

The invasion of France and the Low Countries occurred in May of 1940.

The British occupied Iceland on the same day that the Germans invaded France, May 10th 1940.

Right now the first round is just called "Early 1940 " and conceivably all this stuff can still occur in a pretty reasonable time-frame, so I'm not suggesting that everything needs to be all perfectly timed like dominoes. However it may actually be helpful for the balance of the game by sides if Germany already controlled Denmark/Norway at the start of their first turn (especially for the AI) so they can move through the Danish Straits and start a campaign for Scandinavia. Currently the German AI is locked out of the Baltic until the second round, by which time they are already doing silly things up north. Since the AI doesn't understand canal control, they can't be relied upon to open the Strait on G1 or even G2 or G3, so their fleet is basically screwed out of a safe harbor. I think it might be helpful for the gamplay, and more accurate if Germany just controlled those territories outright.

Similarly for Iceland, it currently takes the Allies like 3-4 rounds before they can even reach Iceland with transports, and another round after that to purchase production there. That's a pretty long time in gameplay terms. I think it would be more straightforward as a starting British territory that can receive fighters from North America, or to give the British another spawn point in the North Atlantic for their fleet or ground troops for amphibious attacks.

I also have two suggestions regarding the Canals...

The first is to change the sz border and orientation of the buoy at Denmark, so that the divide between North Sea Zone and Baltic Sea Zone is in the kattegat-skagerrak area rather than the Copenhagen area. This would allow for Germany to attack Norway/Oslo from the Baltic side of the divide, instead of requiring them to have transports in the North Sea (or pushing units through Sweden) to do it. Basically like a straight vertical line from Denmark so that the intersection of the two sea zones occurs at Norway, rather than Sweden. This would also prevent the British from taking Sweden from the North Sea, which is something that seems to happen a lot in my games.

The second would be to move the sz border between the Bay of Bengal Sea Zone, and the Gulf of Thailand Sea Zone, so that Malaya can be reached by the Bay of Bengal. Currently the Allies must control the Gulf of Thailand, or push through Southern Thailand to reach Malaya/Singapore.

In terms of viable sz area to house units, both those changes would be pretty minor (the shift in border lines only requires a centimeter or two) but I think it would make the combat around the canal tiles more interesting.

Anyhow, here is the game I just started. USA and China versus the Hard AI Axis. You can see how the German AI is struggling with its main fleet stranded up North (outside of transport range) and having a tough time dealing with France too. I noticed in my last game as well, that it is often Italy that ends up holding Paris after the Germans have been ejected.

0_1497997394629_Elk China USA Solo vs Hard AI Axis Round 2.tsvg

[Black_Elk]

Got a couple more rounds in for the US/China game.

I think the pacing for the US feels pretty realistic, even though they are technically at war in 1940, they really can't do anything of consequence until 1941, so it seems to match with the history there. I will say though that the reduction in US starting cash means that they don't really have the money to purchase anything other than transports for several rounds. They have a fairly sizable starting ground force that needs to be put "on the move" first and foremost, and no starting transport capacity, so there's not a whole lot of room for buying aircraft or warships out the gate.

China feels pretty tough though. Holding Chunking for any length of time seems like a virtually impossibility, and once it goes the front basically shifts to Tibet and the western interior provinces. I think the Chinese might need more to work with if we want them to have a realistic footprint. You can see from this save below just how quickly even an uncoordinated push by the Japanese AI can spank them. Japan can mobilize a pretty massive stack in fairly short order, so as China there's not much you can do except pull back and let Japan into Tibet...

I think part of the issue is the map compression that has the Japanese starting territories representing a considerably larger area than the coastal enclaves that they controlled historically. Excepting Northeast China, in 1940 and for the duration of the War the Japanese were still largely concentrated on the littoral port cities. The front was basically held stable at Shaanxi, Hubei, Hunan etc. And Japan never came close to penetrating as far into the interior as say Yunnan or Sichuan. The idea that they could reach Qinghai or Tibet, let alone Xinjiang or Urimchi is pretty far fetched. But Japan routinely does this in Iron War by the time you get to like 1944-45.

My suggestion would be to beef up China by giving them a starting factory at their capital and some more ground units in the area, so they have a better shot at holding the Chunking/Lanchow choke point.

I think they should definitely have a flying tiger at the outset, because by the time they unlock USA tech in the 4th round it's already 1941 and the Americans are openly at War with Japan anyway (which makes the whole idea of volunteer pilots or secretly arming China with fighters seem a bit late.) It also looks a bit peculiar to have bombers in their purchase roster without fighters, even if they don't have enough cash to buy one haha.

I understand the need to give the Axis some ahistorical advantages for gameplay purposes, but the way it's set up now Japan in 1940 is already at their max territorial extent (in terms where they got historically) at least with respect to China. So it's kind of a steamroll. I think it would make more sense thematically if China was on the offensive out of Changsha during the first round, and Japan was more bogged down playing defense along the coast in Amoy and Hong Kong. That way finally breaking into Chunking is like a major strategic victory for Japan.

0_1498019032677_Elk China USA Solo vs Hard AI Axis Round 4.tsvg

Ps. Another thought I had about the USA... in previous versions I kind of liked how having a large pile of starting cash allowed some real flexibility in developing a purchasing strategy for the entire course of the game. Part of me thinks that the best way for you to balance this game once you've settled all the unit costs/abilities and core features of the map like resources, is simply to increase the starting income for everyone. Ideally the starting cash should exceed the frontline production capacity in max infantry (whatever that is for a given nation), because then the player is forced to buy heavy hitters in the first turn. That first purchase then sets up the cascading effect to make each play-through feel unique. When production capacity exceeds the starting cash however, the play pattern becomes a lot more static/predictable, because then usually the best play is to just spam as many cheap hitpoints as you can.

Starting cash adjustment is definitely the simplest approach, especially if starting income/resources don't exactly match what is currently held by the player on the map 1:1 in the first turn. At a certain point, before you exit the Beta and roll out the first final draft, I think we should shift the focus from unit adjustment to only messing with the starting cash. Increasing it incrementally on a nation by nation basis until the desired balance by sides is achieved.

Doing this for PvP requires head to head matches, since right now I really have no idea how the map will play between two expert humans. Doing it for the AI is a lot easier though, since we can just provide a recommended income bonus to make the AI challenging.

Anyhow here is the final for the game I started earlier. Allies clinched it in the 10th when the Russian AI crashed in on Berlin. China was forced off their home base, but the USA was able to push across both oceans to chip away at the Axis. First in Libya and Truk, then Romania and coastal China. This one was just vanilla, but I think I will start giving the AI a boost again soon. First I want to try a German solo though, to see how the new fuel system and unit/cash changes effect them.

0_1498036229874_Elk China USA Solo vs Hard AI Axis Round 10.tsvg

[Black_Elk]

Right now for the stats I have the following in Income, Productions, Units, and TUV...

Germany 90 89 129 1117
Balkan 30 15 21 163
Finland 20 8 26 217
USSR 140 134 260 1718
Britain 60 58 81 574
France 40 46 59 313
British-Colonies 30 47 78 481
South-Africa 30 10 15 121
Italy 80 77 88 747
Iraq 30 6 14 128
Iran 30 12 26 223
British-India 40 38 50 279
French-Colonies 30 35 38 243
ANZAC 40 43 54 396
KNIL 20 23 45 271
Japan 70 87 146 1393
Thailand 30 7 21 200
China 30 22 38 289
USA 80 102 103 831
Brazil 30 12 18 120
AI-Neutral 0 52 85 500
AI-Pro-Axis-Neutral 0 33 69 603
AI-Pro-Allies-Neutral 0 48 70 454
Allies 570 570 839 5636
Axis 380 301 471 4188

So, in general, the starting cash is basically half what it was in the previous draft, and there are slightly fewer starting units in play. When the time comes to balance it out, my thought would be a range something like what you had going (like 150% to 200% cash on hand for a start), but with some definite wiggle room to tweak the starting purse for each nation. Then go up or down on starting cash, depending on the needs of the game balance, while leaving the starting units alone. Simple doubling gets pretty close to what it was previously, except for the USSR (which is up from the previous build) and the USA (which is down). But with those kind of rough ballpark target numbers at the high end, I think you could just come down if someone feels too overpowered, or go up slightly if they feel really underpowered, from that larger baseline of starting cash.

Germany 180
Balkan 60
Finland 40
USSR 280*
Britain 120
France 80
British-Colonies 60
South-Africa 60
Italy 160
Iraq 60
Iran 60
British-India 80
French-Colonies 60
ANZAC 80
KNIL 40
Japan 140
Thailand 60
China 60
USA 160*
Brazil 60

Just saw something happen in the game I'm playing right now (German solo vs the Fast AI.) The Italians attacked into Syria with a pretty good chunk of TUV and hit the 10 round limit. Rather than retreating their fighter it was frozen in place with the rest of their stuff, and killed off at the end of the round. I guess usually when the AI brings in heavy hitters the battle tends to conclude within 10 rounds of combat, this time they caught a string of duds haha. Kind of amusing to see. Here is the game at the dawn of the 4th round.

Last round I had a gang of Iron, but not much in the way of fuel, so I bought a second battleship. Probably the first time I've done that, unless I was just showboating during the endgame with a naval power. But here the desire to spend the excess Iron and my total lack of available fuel (clearly we're spending beyond our means) made it seem somehow reasonable lol. Pretty fun so far. Certainly more challenging on this side of the Eastern Front, compared to the Russian game from earlier. I'm think I'm trying to get the drop on Stalingrad here the minimum investment, but haven't quite decided yet on the best route for the major push on the Leningrad pocket.

0_1498040511433_Elk German Solo vs Fast AI G4.tsvg

In round 6 I got the withdraw planes error that has been mentioned. Happened during the British-Colonies turn, I think in the fight with Italy for Nigeria...

triplea.engine.version.bin:1.9
Loading map: iron_war, from: C:\Users\jason\triplea\downloadedMaps\iron_war-master.zip
Loading resources from the following paths: [C:\Users\jason\triplea\downloadedMaps\iron_war-master.zip, C:\Program Files\TripleA_1.9.0.0.5060\assets]
Jun 21, 2017 3:45:41 AM games.strategy.triplea.ui.BattleStepsPanel setStep
INFO: Could not find step name:British-Colonies withdraw planes?

0_1498042172726_Elk German Solo vs Fast AI G7.tsvg

I've noticed that I'm pretty reluctant to free up fuel through unit attrition, I guess maybe I'm more conservative there than I imagined I'd be. But the demands of the stackfest on the eastern front make it hard to justify throwing any of my starting heavy hitters away. Artillery seems the most sensible buy for G given their excess of Iron. I imagine I'd buy like 1 heavy tank or 1 battleship per round, and a shit ton of artillery until I lock the Russians into a deathmatch, at which point I'd hopefully have more fuel than I know what to do with haha. Aircraft would be a good purchase for the mobile attack units (rather than mech or light tanks as before) but building enough inf/art fodder to make them effective takes a while. A somewhat slower push in the East for sure. I've been letting the Balkan states do the dirty work down south while building up for the showdown in Leningrad. I think I finally have an opening, so probably going to crush them now rather than risk a Soviet retreat haha...

0_1498044193044_Elk German Solo vs Fast AI G7 combat.tsvg

My initial impression is that the fuel cap encourages the infantry/artillery push mechanic over the tank/mech drive, but that probably has a lot to do with the fact that I'm not trading the Kriegsmarine for the Royal Navy on G1. I like to conserve my starting TUV whenever possible and can't see a reason to throw any of my ships away when they are so much more effective on defense than attack. In the ground game my goal is always to avoid losing my tanks or expensive mobile units unless it's absolutely necessary (like to kill enemy production). So basically its been 1 fuel per round to Germany for some time now.

I'm also wondering if the fuel cap will actually sometimes be an incentive not to attack enemy ships? I noticed for example that I was trying to avoid killing off the Russian fleet in the Baltic, because it was already trapped, and sinking it would have just freed up their fuel slots to buy tanks for the ground game. So I wasn't in a hurry to knock off that TUV. I can imagine something similar, even with the larger/deadlier naval powers (at least for AI opponents) because usually you can back down their fleets to the point where they aren't a threat anymore. Was just thinking of the IJN, how chasing them down and sinking their ships can already be time consuming, and might potentially be counter-productive strategically, if killing warships (which no longer present a real threat) just frees up fuel they can use on tanks to send against Russia.

[Frostion]

Based on a lot of feedback, especially from Black_Elk, a new version of Iron War is now ready for testing.

v0.1.9 to v0.2.0
• There are now 30 VC and holding 20 is a win condition.
• Smaller nations now have approximately 5 PUs more territory values from start, to make them more playable.
• Economical win is now at 650 PUs, not 600.
• Added 1 more USSR Commissariat to the map. This makes 4, and 5 is needed to make a Commissar every round.
• China now has a factory in the capital of Chungking, to make China able to hold ground against Japan.
• China can now build Fighters from start, and also start with 1 Fighter.
• China is now after USA turn, as USA can support China financially.
• The AI prefix of the neutral players is removed (Currently players should remember to set them as AI)
• USA Heavy-Tank unit picture made a bit smaller.
• SS Troops and Panzer now give Commissars -1 att./def, like all other units receives -1.
• SS Panzer now cost 25 SS, not 20.
• Tank-Destroyer lowered 1 PU in cost.
• The Anti-Air gun can now move during combat and is much cheaper. (But currently a bug prevents it from being useful in attack as it only shoots in the first round).
• Changed the start unit setup and economical conditions a bit.

@Black_Elk
Concerning the starting naval situation around the North Sea and Baltic Sea. It is a hard situation to crack. I would like the game to start before Denmark, Norway and France are invaded, so that the player may chose priorities in the starting phases of the war. As you know, this can all happen in the first round, but the German fleet is pretty vulnerable if it does not retreat to the Norwegian North Sea. If Germany keeps its fleet in the North Sea and use it to invade Norway or France, it can still save the entire fleet with the current starting setup by purchasing 2 cruisers in the first round. The UK will then not be strong enough to take out the German fleet (it’s a 45 % win chance for UK using every possible sea and air unit). In the second round the Baltic German fleet may join the North Sea and make an Über fleet, that is if Denmark is also invaded in first round.

I don’t see it as a realistic option to change the layout of the sea zones. Adding Truk was a pain, and I would rather not do that kind of work again. I also think the current sea zones are OK, even though other configurations could also work well.

[redrum]

@Frostion @Black_Elk The "Could not find step name:XXX withdraw planes?" bug should now be fixed in the latest pre-release. You shouldn't see that happen any more and if you do please let me know.

[Frostion]

@redrum
Nice!
I have just installed version 1.9.0.0.5336 and there is a “Set All To” feature that lets me change all players to a specific control. Also nice! I am just wondering, that if the XML can at some point include definitions on the default control of every player, should this "Set All To" not also include a pickable “default” option?
Also I would think “Set All Players To” would be more telling about what this feature does.

[Cernel]

@Frostion said in Iron War - Official Thread:

@Cernel Idid not think of Kamikaze planes needing to land either, but as I played Iron War as Japan the other day, I wanted to fly my Kamikaze unit from Japan to my fleet and attack with it the next round, but the unit could not land on my carrier, and that was a bit lame. I think it is OK to have Kamikaze units able to land on carriers as they also may land on land.

What I was mainly saying is that I don't believe any intended kamikaze ever took off from a carrier, but I guess it's a legit what-if.

[redrum]

@Frostion Interesting point. So you are saying if the default in the XML is having 3 of 10 nations as AI then having an option in the dropdown to choose default or kind of reset to default so it would put the 3 nations back to AI and other 7 to human?

[Frostion]

@redrum
Yes, that was what I was thinking. But as I understand XML options to set players to a default and specific controller (AI or human) are not yet available. Right? So it would not really make sense to add a “default” in the drop down menu right now, unless of course the "default" could just be all human now and in the future be made to look for any default player settings in the XML.

[redrum]

@Frostion The initial ones I put out are available in the pre-release:
isAIDefault
isHidden

Example:
<player name="Pro-Axis-Neutral" optional="true" isAIDefault="true" isHidden="true"/>

I'm considering changing the isAIDefault to playerType with a few options based on the discussion: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/132/handling-of-ai-players-not-meant-to-be-played-github-request/20

[Black_Elk]

Its been a busy week at work so I didn't have a whole ton of time to play, but I really like the new aagun. The cost at 3 actually makes it interesting as a remainder purchase, and moving in combat is just so much better. Probably the first time I've ever been buying them. I don't even know how they'll hold up, but at 3, I'm certainly willing to give em a try.

I dig the newer UI layout, been playing TripleA-1.9.0.0.5411, and its very helpful to have those dropdowns. Much easier/faster in a solo game to set everyone to hardAI and then choose who to play, than to assign them all individually. I also like the way the resource modifiers are handled. I tried a flat 20 to all the Allies in my newest game just to see how they'd do. Pretty fun.

Still trying to puzzle out the new German opener, now that the Luftwaffe has been nerfed haha, but overall I'm digging the unit costs/starting income/resources, at least as far as G goes. Will update this post with a save when I get a bit farther along. But so far so good

Nice work!

Here is the game so far in the 5th round. German Solo, with the Balkan/Finland block under my control and everyone else HardAI. The AI has been doing pretty well for itself with the extra 20 on the resource modifier for all the Allies. I decided to expand the fleet, and knew Germany would be piss poor in fuel with the Allies collecting heavy, so I tried a different attack plan. Pushed past England into West Africa, to try and put France to bed once and for all. Italy always seems to struggle, perhaps G backing them up while still maintaining parity in the Atlantic is better. The fuel restriction is interesting. I had a solid shot on the French fleet last round, but thought it better to take the land rather than sink the ships. Will see how it goes, but I dig it thus far. Some interesting choices on offer, and the I like how the AI has been buying a gang of aircraft. They seem to do better when they have some mobile attack flexibility from fighters.

0_1498991688848_Elk vs Hard AI Allies 20 income G5.tsvg

[Frostion]

@Black_Elk
Nice savegame It will be some time before a new version has anything new to offer. But I have two minor alterations already in version 0.2.1:

• The Commissar is no longer artillery supportable.
• Liberia is changed back to (British) Sierra Leone and PU value is lowered from 5 to 2.

The new change will lighten some of Italy’s pressure, and they seem to always need this. It will add to realism and USA still has lots of other options than pumping troops into Africa. Among the other options are Iceland, Morocco and Truk.

If you would like to test out the new XML here it is:
0_1499033346044_0.2.1.zip

[Black_Elk]

@Frostion right on. I'll check it out tomorrow after work.

My guess is that the loss of Liberia won't be too hard to bear for the Allies. Though I kind of like seeing the Italians sweat a bit. In the older versions they were just rolling up everything in sight haha.

I'll probably try Russia to see the Commisars in action next game. Would they then be the only infantry class unit that isn't artillery supportable? Right now they're kind of like a super artillery unit themselves right? Boosting 3 inf?

I dig the concept, but I'm less familiar with how they work than SS for G. I think one of the challenges is becoming familiar enough with the opponents roster to make sure you know how their units behave in combat before actually facing them down in a do or die fight. The best way I've found for doing that so far is to take direct control, so I can read the specs in the purchase screen.

The +20 to Allied AI (flat) felt pretty good in the last game, but I forgot to check it for the resources. Do we know if it's giving them +20 for steel, oil etc? If so that's probably a bit much. Anyhow will give it a go soon and report back. Catch you then

[Black_Elk]

Still haven't had a chance to switch out the xmls. For some reason when I try to modify the zip the game won't launch. I might just play through with 2.0 till the next update. I did have a couple thoughts on VCs though.

First I dig how there are more VCs to contest now. It definitely helps to shape the broader attack pattern. The only suggestion I would offer, is the same one I mentioned to Larry back when the VC concept was introduced with Revised. Namely, that without some direct connection to the gameplay mechanics (other than game resolution ie sudden death) that VCs just aren't that interesting. It would be nice instead, if they offered some sort of round by round purpose, or advantage to the nation/side that controls them.

In other games I suggested a cash bonus for VCs, even if that seems somehow overly simplistic for a game like Iron war. But I still think it could work as a universal objective thing of some kind. The game might benefit from something like this, sans capital looting, as an alternative way to prevent any really protracted stalemates.

Or along similar lines, I was curious if you've considered just attaching an Officer/SS type resource to VC territories, and making it a more generic thing available to all the player nations? To me it would make sense that the number of unique officer unit slots increases when you gain control of the major population centers represented by VCs. This might create consistency across the gameboard, where taking a VC from the enemy reduces their ability to spawn the specialized unit while increasing your own, while still having a global cap on the unit type (since there are only so many VCs on the map.) Something focused on VCs in particular, and that is easy to parse at a glance, since it works the same for everyone. I don't know, just seemed like it might be a cool way to make VCs feel more relevant on an ongoing basis.

Right now (and in pretty much all A&A style games) VCs only matter when one side or the other is about to cross the victory threshold. Until then, they can basically be ignored, since controlling them doesn't really do anything for you in gameplay terms. But that seems kind of unfortunate, since they could just as easily be a major driver in shaping the play pattern throughout.

If there was a 1:1 association between VCs and some kind of officer resource, I think it would make make them more interesting and more consequential, with players keeping closer tabs on who owns what in any given round. Just a thought.

[Black_Elk]

Ps. A few more thoughts on VCs and their locations.

I think it might be worth considering whether you want the VC win to feel distinct from the economic win. Right now the target territories involved are basically the same tiles. Since VCs are all located at high value starting factory territories, I think this might make the VC win feel a little redundant compared to the economic win. I tend to leave both boxes checked and kind of lose interest after a win has been achieved in either, unless I'm trying for some kind of personal goal like making all the map one color lol.

Anyhow, just in terms of the VC locations, thematically it would probably be more interesting if they were not conceived of as "cities" but something more all encompassing. Perhaps you could just tweak the acronym and call them Victory Centers, or Victory Conquests or Victory Campaigns of whatever, so they don't necessarily have to stand in for Cities.

This would also solve the issue of a territory like Urimichi or Romania being a VC, when there are clearly a number of cities in territories nearby that would make a lot more sense if the theme was population.

Instead I would organize them around the idea of Historical WW2 campaigns.

I think this would be more consistent than having them as like political or regional "capitals." You could ditch places like Washington/New York (which already seems lonely anyway without Rio or Ottawa or anywhere else on the continent except SF in California.) Instead you could put them in places like Hawaii. Or for Japan instead of Harbin or Tokyo, maybe you have one at a place like Iwo. Or again for British-India, instead of Bangalore (which is where it seems to be at the moment), you could have it in Calcutta or Burma or Singapore. Basically reserving VCs for territories of historical interest, and for territories which were actually contested in the war, or which were realistic wartime objectives, as opposed to having them as like administrative or production centers.

So just as an example, if Berlin/East Germany is already one of the most important territories on the map, (worth a ton of PUs, Fuel and Steel, key strategic location etc) then having VC there too is kind of reduntant. If instead the VC was on Warsaw/Poland say (a pretty significant campaign goal and historically thematic territory for both sides) then the VC would be doing something different. The VC win might be more nuanced as result, or feel different than the economic/production win or the win by concession which is always related to production capacity anyway.

Imagine that under normal circumstances G would probably prefer to turtle on East Germany and just trade Poland with the Soviets. Whereas if we suddenly included a VC in Poland, then there would be an incentive to hold it. Things like that, where you can use the VC to push the play pattern into areas which are significant historically, but which would otherwise probably be neglected in favor of the usual production/economic considerations.

Redrafting the VC spread from scratch, getting rid of political capitals, but still with 30 total in territories in mind. I might try places like the following... Just using Europe as an example...

Poland
Sicily
Normandy
Norway
Romania
Caucasus
Karelia
Greece
Tunesia
El Alemein
Benelux
etc.

You can kind of see what I'm driving at. Basically the VCs are used to push the gameplay onto tiles that are historically interesting, (each one listed above was the location of a major WW2 campaign), but which would otherwise be subordinated in strategic importance to more valuable neighboring production tiles.

You could use them anywhere on the map like this. Once the VC is separated from concepts like capitals or cities, and instead seen as a generic Victory Campaign marker. You could put them wherever it makes sense for the split by sides, using major battles from the history books as the guide to their locations. This would also be rewarding for players who enjoy the historical details, since they would have another way to parse the map outside of just the production spread.