Iron War - Official Thread

[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.

[Black_Elk]

Pps. Played another game of 2.0 with the 20 boost to Allies. This time I took control of all the Axis nations.

Went with a Sea Lion game for G, and India push for Japan. So far it feels pretty good. I'd say it's definitely challenging to take England and still prevent the Allies from rolling up on you as a result. The payoff isn't spectacular with only 5 PUs on England, but at least this way I don't have to worry about the RAF stacking up on me. Russia has plenty to distract them with Finland and Persia and such, so managing a defense of the East is possible, but they stack heavy and with all these German ships in the water fuel is still tough to come by haha. Instead I've taken to expanding the Luftwaffe with a few bombers and fighters to hopefully help us win the battle of the Atlantic.

Somehow I still feel like the British balance is a bit off. Or rather, that they still don't have many interesting choices to make. I kind of wish that all of the possible British Altanic stuff was brought together under one umbrella. Like the colonies in West Africa, maybe British Jamaica or Guiana, or Iceland. It feels a little disjointed how "France" is basically all of French Africa, but Britain is just Canada and the UK.

My thought was that maybe the "British Colonies" should be everything east of Egypt or the cape of could hope. And everything West of those would be "British." Then just have Egypt and British-India/Pacific play as a single faction and all the British Atlantic territories as a single faction?

You could then substitute all the British-India units for British-Colonies units. I think this would help to create a nice wedge at the center South, to compliment the center North (ie Russia). And would allow to still keep the regional feel without too much scrolling around. British Colonies would then be a truly credible naval power too, to deal with what Italy and Japan are likely to throw against them.

Maybe the same could just be done for the French Colonies? Where everything on the Atlantic side is "France" and everything East of Africa is "French Colonies." Right now the British Colonies and French Colonies are kind of all across the map anyway, so it's hard to see the difference between having it happen on the major players turn or the minor colony players turn. One way or another someone is still going to have to skip across the map during their turn, but it might feel more streamlined if the divide was between Atlantic and Pacific possessions.

This would free up another faction slot for the Allies, so you could include Canada if desired. It would look clean, since you could just use the British-India stuff for Canada (sans colonials.) Their flags already look pretty close anyway, or if you wanted it to be more accurate all you really have to do is make the field solid red (with the Union Jack) instead of the India circle, or put a Canadian emblem in its place.

Or even if you didn't have Canada, at least doing it that way its absence wouldn't seem so conspicuous, since you'd have a few other colonies to help round out the "British." I might consider ditching South Africa as a separate faction. That way all the dominions and Atlantic stuff is British and everything else is British Colonies. Along those same lines, I might make dutch Guiana Pro-Allied neutral so it matches Benelux.

In any case, I still think something like that would make Britain more interesting, and still preserve all the essential unit art, just with a few tweaks.

Here is an edit of 2.0 showing how it might look. Here I have all the Atlantic stuff (including Canada) as a single British player. And British-India + Egypt and East Africa as British-Colonies. The way it shakes down the Atlantic faction has around 100 PUs, and the Eastern Faction has around 60. I think something like that would create some interesting choices for each, because then you have to decide where to concentrate your builds. For example, the Colonies would have to make a choice between Egypt or India. The British would have to make a choice between Europe/Atlantic or Sub-Saharan Africa.

0_1499363091150_Idea for British edit.tsvg

Anyhow, that was my last thought for the night lol. Meantime, still trying to get my crush on with Axis. It's been pretty entertaining thus far. This save uses the vanilla 2.0 map.
Here we are in 1942...

0_1499328138603_Iron War Elk Axis vs Hard AI Allies 20 income G5.tsvg

Here is the game after another 5 rounds. Its taken about this long for the Axis to start having an impact vs Russia. The +20 boost has definitely helped to keep the Allies in it. China and India have been holding steady for a while, and Anzac is starting to creep up into the mix. Most of Africa is under Italian control, but West Africa is still a hotbead of Allied activity. We made a solid push but got bogged down before we could crack Nigeria. Now the British Colonies are starting to fight back with an offensive of their own. A lot of aircraft waiting in the wings. I like it. Air seems to be the best bet for the AI to pull out some surprises or catch me off guard. Will probably keep it going for another few rounds, at least unit the nukes start flying lol

0_1499376477699_Iron War Elk Axis vs Hard AI Allies 20 income J10.tsvg

After 14 rounds, Axis clinched the VC win when they finally snaked India and Leningrad...
0_1499493054521_Iron War Elk Axis vs Hard AI Allies 20 income G14.tsvg

[Black_Elk]

Was on vacation for a week, just got back. Had a few hours for a German solo using 2.0 again. Left Finland and Balkans under AI control this time, and gave each of the Allies 10 for the income modifier. They seem to be doing quite well, stacking aircraft and dominating around the periphery.

Went with the Sea Lion plan as before, but kept the fleet closer to home this time. I basically just hung out up north and pushed against Russia trading England periodically. The Allies built a substantial combined fleet in the Atlantic, pushed on Africa and eventually entered the Med, before we trapped and nuked half of it. Pretty far along here, with things reorienting as Russia is getting rolled up by G. But Japan and Italy and on the brink, so maybe the Allies can pull something out yet. Almost into the 1950s...

0_1500960488223_Iron War Elk Germany vs FastAI Allies 10 income G17.tsvg

Took it another 3 rounds with Germany, but the Axis were unable to round the corner. Although Finland and Balkans are pretty impressive, Italy and Japan were never able to recover, and the sweep across Suez by the Allies has been monster hehe. Been letting the Nukes fly for a while now, and they just keep stacking up. I like the way the Nuclear weapons work in normal combat for clearing out large stacks of fodder during the deep endgame, but they are pretty expensive, so I think I've hit the wall here. Fun stuff though.
0_1500964395765_Iron War Elk Germany vs FastAI Allies 10 income G20.tsvg

[Frostion]

@Black_Elk
I'm glad that you still find it fun to test Iron War. I have also been thinking about ditching South Africa as a nation, but I haven't taken that decision yet.

I have been using my time to work on the Iron War Europe map. I don't know when a playable beta can be posted, but I am working on it. Maybe you can be a first closed beta tester?

[redrum]

@Frostion +1 for removing south africa. I still feel there are too many small nations that just have very few options and little impact.

[CrazyG]

I haven't played this game in a while, but all the small nations was a big downside for me. If playing it human vs human competitively, it felt time consuming without adding much depth

[Black_Elk]

Yeah, I'm always down! This map is damn enjoyable for a solo against the AI, it definitely passes the "next turn" click test for me hehe. I guess I've been treating it like the 4X WW2 game that I always figured CA or someone else would put out eventually, but which still hasn't materialized. So I return to it the same way I'd return to MOO or MTW, just has a certain classic charm and simplicity, and I always dig watching the map change colors for these sorts of games.

As for South Africa, I don't think it would be missed. Axing SA as a faction would probably help with the unit crowding in Africa too, which can get a bit extreme if you have quite a few Allies converging in just a few territories. Sometimes there's a lot of spill over in some spots, especially towards the endgame, when airstacks (even from midling players like KNIL or French Colonies) start dropping in to contribute to the chaos. Something similar can happen with the hotspot seazones, where a ton of smaller powers converging can create a lot of look-alikes and spill over.

Just from a UI standpoint, I think 18 playable factions might be cool (8 Axis vs 10 Allies), since that would mean that you can see all the factions on the launch screen without having to scroll down. Currently you have to scroll down to see last three slots for the Neutrals. I'm not sure which other faction I would nix though. Maybe French Colonies, since they seem like the easiest to just fold into another existing faction. I think what I'd do in that case, is weaken the current French position in Central Africa, to accommodate the inclusion of places like Indo-China, Madagascar, Puducherry as part of regular France etc. With British-Colonies becoming a much more important faction in Africa (presumably they take over South Africa?), I think it makes sense to give the French something else to do/worry about. Right now its pretty much all Africa all the time for the French, since their only active production outside of Normandy is Gabon. I think part of what makes a nation interesting to play, and big dog status is if they have the option to effect both theaters of operation ETO and PTO in at least some capacity. Clearly France wouldn't have the money to do both at once, but at least it would put more of a dilemma on them, about whether to concentrate their early builds in Africa or Asia. But yeah, whatever else is decided, I agree with you guys that I think South Africa is a bit unnecessary. I think it stands out a bit as the lone Dominion to get a separate treatment. Even ANZAC is a combination of two Dominions, so it just seems kind of conspicuous like "why S.A. but nowhere else?" I'd say just fold them into one of the larger British factions.

Only somewhat related, but I was thinking in my last game that its kind of rough getting a toehold in the Eastern Med as the Germans. I wonder if increasing the value of Syria to +5 gold, so it could serve as a production hub, might up the suspense in the area a bit? I was thinking about it more in terms of German expansion (rather than Italy or Iraq), since they could probably use a few more places to set up shop. I guess Greece or Tunisia could work in a similar fashion, but was kind of digging Syria's location strategically.

[Black_Elk]

This was the first map I came back to after taking a break from war gaming for a little while. Every so often I gotta bow out for a few months, or I'll catch a year where things get heavy and have to slow down, but usually I return when the bug catches again and this was the game I'd fire up periodically haha. It remains one of my favorite games for TripleA when it comes to the AI challenge. I bought the obligatory back up board of AA50 when it was re-issued and played a bit face to face. I always dig v3 for a live game, but Iron War has a charm that pulls me back when (as often happens) I'm the lone solider and only have a few minutes here and there to beat up on the computer lol.

In general I'd say it's pretty solid right now. One thing I do notice playing solo is that the game can feel a bit quiet (relative to a full game), especially if you're controlling just a one nation/block. That's kind of unfortunate since the sound work and music for this map is great, but you only fully experience it if you take control of all powers in the game. It would be killer if the anthems played on a loop, or played during the AI's turn, something like that, so that the long silences punctuated by movement or combat sound effects were somewhat less pronounced. I find for example, that I really start grooving when the Taiko drums are playing as Japan, or when some random anthem can pump me up to crush and heighten the level of overall immersion, and then a little sad when the music ceases haha. Anyhow, just a thought for some final spit and polish.

I dig it quite a lot though. Glad to see its made it out of the experiment section into the general download pool. Nice work man!

If I come across any amusing situations I'll post the saves here...