Iron War - Official Thread
-
@Schulz bumped
-
Been a little bit, busy at work, so haven't had as much time to game lately, but here are a few quick saves using 1.9.0.0.10355.
I started out with some Solo games to see how the AI held up. I didn't give the AI any kind of bonus, because I wanted to see how the baseline challenge felt after that land transport update, since it seemed like a major game changer.
For the first few rounds I'd say the AI does a pretty reasonable job of moving their mobile ground forces, though they do burn through their starting reserves of fuel pretty quickly.
Not sure if the AI has any way to prioritize which fuel units move first, like if it calculates that it should move mobile ground or ships before the more fuel intensive air units, things like that. But I think for the AI to provide any kind of serious challenge into the endgame, it needs a major fuel bonus.
Having the mech units finally functioning properly definitely helps the AI balance with Russia and Germany, since mech is such a large part of their starting forces.
I will probably play some full games next for each side to see how it feels with no bonus, then gradually increase to see how it compares to earlier versions. My guess is that it will probably still hover around 20%, though I think that could probably be reduced if it was possible to add just fuel without increasing the PUs or other resources.
0_1530315932628_elk vs hardAI Allies Germany Solo round 8.tsvg
0_1530315942437_elk vs hardAI Axis Britain Solo round 13.tsvg
-
@black_elk The AI doesn't take fuel into account when planning purchases or moves. Only thing it does is make sure it has enough fuel before making a move. But yeah having a separate fuel bonus setting would especially be useful for the AI.
Glad to see the land transports are a significant improvement.
-
I must admit that I have not tested out the new land transport. But the AI USSR should really gain some starting benefits from this as they got a lot of starting units far inland.
I will take a look at your no-bonus games. Regarding fuel needs, since it is now possible to send support as not only PUs but also fuel, I will most likely make use of this now and give Iran, Iraq, south Latin America (USA/UK) etc. the actions and operations options to send fuel to their allies, and therefore place some extra fuel in some selected territories. It would be the job/minigame of some nations to manage and ship fuel around. Any suggestions regarding who/where extra fuel could be given/placed to is welcome??? Especially if there is some historical basis in the suggestion. What territories would be fuel surplus?
If the AI was able to use actions and operations, It would aslo be awesome!!! (@redrum wink, wink
) -
Played a Russian solo for good measure. It was pretty challenging...
Tried to snake both Finland and the Middle East at the same time. Figured that Germany would slam into the center, but I just wanted to see how it would play out if I traded the core for the periphery. The European front was fun after the Finland and Iraq factories helped us to stabilize things a bit, but Japan came and gutted us from behind.
0_1530676900619_elk vs hardAI Axis Russia Solo round 12.tsvg
I guess I'll try Japan next before moving on.
As for where to locate more fuel, this link below was just at the top of my google search, but the charts about half way down give a pretty good historical breakdown of the world's distribution of various raw materials during the war.
https://ww2-weapons.com/military-expenditures-strategic-raw-materials-oil-production/
Most of the worlds oil was being produced in the Americas and the Soviet Union, but I'm sure it's better for the gameplay if you stretch the imagination. Coal was obviously more widespread and could also count as fuel, so you've got some leeway there to scatter it around.
Right now the fuel restrictions are hitting the AI really hard during the endgame. Lots of grounded aircraft, and ships stuck at sea etc. Its making the machine pretty incompetent, since it can't really use aircraft effectively or set up the shucks to cross the ocean. In most A&A style maps the AI will eventually find its groove through spamming, even if it's initial purchasing strategy seems suspect. After a while the transports and tanks and fighters somehow end where they're supposed to be (even if it seems pretty haphazard in early rounds) but here, when they run low on fuel, the AI halt gets really grinding. I'd say err on the side of overabundance, since you can always scale it back, but it seems to me that the air war and the naval game are very fuel intensive. My guess is that most players will want the fuel to go from the little guys to the big guys, since they'll be the ones with the larger starting forces and more concentrated cash on hand to buy the big ticket ships and aircraft. But as long as everything can move both ways I guess you could do either.
For a mini-game it might be fun if the US had the strategic responsibility of sending fuel where it needs to go for the rest of their team. This would match the historical situation pretty well, since the US provided like 85% of the total oil consumed by the Allies during the war. It would make the aid phase at the end of the current round pretty critical for setting up the next round.
The Germans kind of had their own thing going by creating synthetic fuels out of coal, but each of the Axis powers was trying to get more oil via conquest. They are constantly running and gunning, so I kind of like how they have to overrun Allied fuel rich territories to get ahead. For the Allies though a mini game with American fuel would fit pretty well, like just have the U.S. drowning in oil so they always have enough left over to send somewhere?
-
Tried to do something a little different in my Japan solo by gunning straight for South America. It was pretty fun for a globe trot, though the payoff wasn't quite as spectacular as one might have hoped after the US flew a shit ton of fighters to British Guiana to prop it up hehe. Even after we put the stomp down on Brazil and snatched most of the oil, those pesky British colonies troops are still harassing us from their south american stronghold! We did our best to keep the fight going live in China, but after sending the bulk of our initial forces on a world tour, it was definitely tough to hold the line against the combined might of Russia all the smaller Allies. A seven nation army couldn't hold me back, until it did hehe. After a dozen rounds I think we'll call this one for the AI Allies, but it was a good show nonetheless...
0_1531112471898_elk vs hardAI Allies Japan Solo round 12.tsvg
-
hey mine does not work when I try t open it. it says could not parse:jar file could I have some help with this because I really want to play this map
-
@jhon-doe
Yes. The map is right now not compatible with the current stable release of the Triples engine. You will have to use one of the newest pre-release versions. Sorry I have not made this clear in the download or in this thread.Download TripleA engine here: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/releases
A new version of Iron War is in the works. It will have fuel shipping between nations.
If you play a few games and have some feedback, please return here and post it
-
Just started a new full game as Allies vs the hardAI. I deleted the old Iron War files and redownloaded the map 0.2.5. Updated to tripleA pre-release 1.9.0.0.10558
Saw the new sub pen unit for some of the Axis powers, and noticed some other tweaks like the send oil option during the aid phase, more mobile starting forces in Siberia etc. Excited to try it out and see what's going. I only just got to the second round...
0_1531793170147_elk vs hardAI Axis full game Russia round 2.tsvg
I did notice a couple errors tossed off while cycling through round 1 with the Allies. Once with the British, then South Africa and again during Brazil's turn. So figured I'd post the save. Error read like the below. Didn't seem to be game breaking. It happens right as the turn is beginning when the national music usually plays. Not sure if there's something else I need to update?
Error: java.util.ConcurrentModificationException
java.util.ConcurrentModificationException
at java.util.TreeMap$PrivateEntryIterator.nextEntry(Unknown Source)
at java.util.TreeMap$ValueIterator.next(Unknown Source)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.screen.Tile.draw(Tile.java:90)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.screen.Tile.drawImage(Tile.java:76)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.MapPanel.lambda$drawTiles$6(MapPanel.java:578)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(Unknown Source)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(Unknown Source)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source)
java.util.ConcurrentModificationException
at java.util.TreeMap$PrivateEntryIterator.nextEntry(Unknown Source)
at java.util.TreeMap$ValueIterator.next(Unknown Source)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.screen.Tile.draw(Tile.java:90)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.screen.Tile.drawImage(Tile.java:76)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.MapPanel.lambda$drawTiles$6(MapPanel.java:578)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(Unknown Source)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(Unknown Source)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source) -
@black_elk Reported here: https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/3557
I don't think that error should cause any harm but is just related to some changes made to the map tile drawing code.
-
@Frostion
I don't know if you are still planning on implementing an computer controlled player system as discussed here: hitPointsBonus option for techAbilityAttachmentYou asked if it could be done through the map options, that would look something like:
Also the userActions check could be reworded like:
One or both way could be used. There are others as @Cernel stated. Was just curious on if you planed on anything.
Cheers...
-
@wc_sumpton Yes. The map options version is the one that I think would fit Iron War best. I think it would be the best solution as it could potentially function alongside an AI that could use the Actions and Operations, even just randomly. Then it would not press that button at least, and it would be up to humans if the AI and/or themselves used fuel.
Could you post the xml so I could use it or copy over the codes you have made? That would be great.
-
@frostion
Sorry it took so long to answer your inquiry. I needed to cut and edit some parts of the xml.
0_1532285800937_FuelMenu.txt
I hope this help you, it is only the properties section for the 'Map Options' and the conditions and triggers for reading and setting the proper fuel usage.One thing I didn't add is another production for costing fuel when purchased, when not using fuel for movement. There are a lot of production frontiers already.
Hope this gives you some ideas!!
Cheers...
-
cheers man this helped me out a lot
-
Here comes a bit late map update announcement. Now as the TripleA pre-releases actually work with the new Iron War version 0.2.5. I think it is time. (Remember to use pre-releases if you want to play Iron War (https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/releases))
The new version does not make use of @wc_sumpton fuel removal system. But thanks for the input @wc_sumpton
Maybe someday I will get around to make remove fuel from AI players posible, even though I still hope for and would prefer that the AI could just handle fuel and Actions & Operations better instead.Iron War version 0.2.5 changes are:
⢠USSR Siberia 10 to 15 PUs
⢠Added more fuel barrels controlled by USA, Iraq and Iran.
⢠Added ability for several nations to transfer fuel to other nations.
⢠Added âSubmarine-Penâ to the 3 major Axis powers to strengthen Axis at Sea. They give 1 Free Submarine per turn.
⢠Other minor changes.
Explanation on Submarine-Pens:
I have always felt that Iron War lacked Axis motivation to invest in sea units. As the Axis, like all other nations, are under resource pressure and pretty much forced to invest only in land/air units, I have tested out a few different solutions, such as Navy PUs and higher value convoy zones. I now launch this little âexperimentâ (Submarine-Pens) and hope it will make the Axis a bit stronger at sea.
Iron War submarines (First strike/5Att/3Def/2Move) are pretty vulnerable in small numbers if not protected by defensive ships. The Axis nations are now maybe motivated to also build additional defense ships to supplement the subs, instead of waiting like 10 rounds to go into action with submarines only. Either way the players must handle these submarines really strategically and careful if they do not want to just lose them.
I donât see this addition as a super strong Axis advantage, just as a little strengthening of Axis sea power. This also seems to make the Allies actually think about how they move their constantly active sea transports around. As of now I only see little impact on how the AI handles the Axis, maybe because the Allies have always had huge superior fleets and now the free subs still really donât mean that much.
Fuel transfer:
Fuel transfer is available from USA to its allies, USA allies to their minor allies, Iran/Iraq to the major Axis powers and the major Axis powers to their minor allies. Sadly the AI canât use the shipping system as of now, since AI does not use Actions and Operations, but the game isnât reliant on Actions and Operations being used and resources being sent around. Still, as Human player, one would be negligent as a fuel rich nation if the fuel surpluses were not sent out to ones fuel hungry allies. And the Axis should do an extra effort to keep Iraq and Iran alive, so that they may ship their fuel out to the Axis.If the Sub and fuel system works out well, maybe Iron War Europe will be updated to use the same features also.
Remember that Iron War may still need many other balance adjustments, so any testing and input is very welcome. -
@frostion I'm working on a new sub model which utilizes underwater sea zones where subs can harass convoy centers and shipping lanes, and from which to safely reach enemy coastlines for blockades.
Only depth charges and other subs can enter the underwater sea zones. Maybe something like this is the solution to lack of interest in Atlantic and elsewhere. At least that's my hope, since it is a lot of work. I will showcase it in "Final Solution". (hehe, no concentration camps, that was "The Final Solution"Oh another concept I'm trying to work in, involves strangling by sea, of the United Kingdom being a viable strategy.
-
@frostion does this map have a train? I love the train that sneakingcoward has in the waw variant vxxx. And from the technical standpoint of view. The invasion of poland was caused by the refusal of Warsaw to allow the construction of a railroad that goes from germany to easter prussia (also called koeningsber).
Thanks in advance for your attention.
Kind regards.
-
@General_Zod Interesting concept with underwater sea zones apart from surface ship sea zones. I never thought about it before, but it would most likely be possible to also have graphical representation of two sea zones in one. Maybe if a territory was split in two or the actual sea zone had a smaller field within the large one, where only subs and anti sub weapons could enter.
But it would most likely be so game changing and graphically demanding that it would be most suited for a map that was "born" with the concept implemented.Iron War is very difficult to alter graphical wise since I mainly used a petty crappy paint program (Photofiltre) that couldn't really save layers. I am working on a new map now and primarily using Photoshop and it's layers. I am learning by doing, so progress is slow. But it seems to be much better. But its more a medieval setting, and therefore subs are not really on the menu
@Mario-Rafael-Herrera-Vaca Iron War does not have trains. I never thought about it when the map was in the works. If I had thought about it, I might have implemented trains. But now I am not really sure. I think Iron War has a lot of map specific things going on already, and I personally like to keep my maps pretty simple and easy to play, not too advanced. Maybe this is a bit in contrast to Total World War, Global Dominance and other maps, but I don't mind that. Maybe I can satisfy other player types
-
@frostion Yes your correct a sea zone within a sea zone is the best way I can find to implement this concept given the current available functionality triplea offers. And it is optimal and possibly a prerequisite to design this kinda thing into the game very early, so it plays well. It is a huge departure from any existing maps, so even if starting with an existing map it essentially is redrawing the whole ocean, as I currently am.
There is more to the concept. It will resolve the issues with the isDestroyer rules most maps use as well. So one destroyer can no longer pin down a stack of submarines for a whole battle. Which severely hinders a subs capabilities and main function. Which is to effectively, stealthily and economically move into far flung positions and to harass any surface vessels it encounters. Thus placing great demands on the enemy to truly eliminate the threats.
My ruleset will allow subs to harass in normal sea zones only, where they will be 100% vulnerable to all air and sea units. When in a underwater sea zone they won't be able to attack or take convoy centers. But even lurking they need to be countered because they will strike at the right moments. Destroyer role will be to wield the depth charges and chase them around. Depth charges will be suicide units that only attack subs and are the only units that can hit a sub in underwater sea zones.
-
Hey there, been a little while, but I finally had a chance to play some full games vs the hard AI with the new changes in place... sub pens, resource tweaking etc.
My initial impression is that I really enjoy the game when playing as the Axis. I like the re-balance with Siberia, which makes Russia a bit more reliable at the center. The sub pens are fun, and seem to encourage more naval builds on the European side of the board, while also giving Japan a bit more breathing room to spend for ground in Asia, since they can use the sub pens to help support their Pacific naval defense. For the minor Axis powers, Iraq and Iran feel a lot more relevant to the overall game, because of the oil exchange. Even if they aren't expanding overland, or producing much in the way of units, just keeping them alive feels important for the war effort, because they can send critical oil to the 3 major Axis powers.
I wish the Balkans, Finland and Thailand had the same thing going on. Right now their role for the team is sort of an inversion of Iraq/Iran's role. Balkans, Finland and Thailand are more of a drain on German/Italian/Japanese resources and they have to expand quite a bit before they have enough oil and steel to really function on their own. They also tend to checkerboard the map and move pretty far afield from their starting core, once Germany/Japan do all the can-opening. Personally I think it would be cooler if their role was more resource support oriented, where they send stuff to the big 3 on the Axis team via the exchange phase, rather than going on the march. The ability to trade steel in particular would be cool, since steel much more than oil, really puts the hard limit on what you can build in a given round. If Finland could send 1 steel to Germany, Balkans 1 steel to Germany or Italy, and Thailand send 1 steel to Japan, that would provide a lot more flexibility in a given round, especially when it comes to purchasing necessary transports, or the big ticket items like Carriers and Heavy Tanks.
Anyhow, that's my only real suggestion for the Axis side, to get Balkans, Finland, and Thailand into the resource exchange, with support for the big 3.
On the Allied side, I think the resource exchange for the minor powers is somewhat less engaging than it is for the Axis. The Big 5 for the Allies (UK, Russia, British-Colonies, British-India, and USA) are pretty fun to play on their own, but the others are a bit of a toss up. I'd say British-Colonies and British India are now enjoyable, since they have enough going on in the neighborhood to keep them busy, and with aid from the UK they can be even more effective.
For France it basically comes down to whether you are willing to sacrifice critical early PU's/resources from USA to give the French something to work with, and whether you want to try and prop up Normandy out the gate. I guess China is similar, its up to the USA whether they have a chance to make an impact in central Asia. In both cases though, it's kinda hard to see the PU's being used there over Russia (where they can stack up more) or just keeping it for USA builds or for production expansion in places like Morocco, Norway, Truk etc. China is a bit of a special case, since it's still pretty tough to prop them up, even if sending max aid. Not sure, but they might use a buff. For the most part though it seems to work fairly well as is with the USA aid. I think the other minor Allies are set up kind of backwards though.
What I mean is that, if you want to utilize the aid phase, the resources/PUs are flowing from where they are more useful to where they are less useful. So for example, to me it would make more sense that KNIL resources might go to ANZAC (or India maybe). Or ANZAC resources go to the British (or British-Colonies). Or Brazil's resources going to USA etc... rather than the other way round. Ideally each of these minors should have like 2 possible ways to send aid, so they'd have a more compelling gameplay choice to make each round. Again the ability to trade even 1 steel would be particularly interesting, since the resource is so scarce. But basically that's what I'd do to make all those minor Allies feel more significant to the team. There's really only so much that you can do with your units when playing as South Africa, or the Dutch, Anzac or Brazil and can feel a little repetitive, but if you could send some aid (even a small amount) up to the big dogs on the Allied side, then those extra few PU's/Resources might make a real difference in the over-all fight vs the Axis.
The only other thought I have right now for the Allies, is that it might be cool if they had something similar to what the Axis have received with those sub-pens, some kind of specialized production feature that continuously spams units of a given type. Except rather than subs I'd maybe consider something like transports for the USA/UK, so that their North America production is more relevant as the game goes on. Or maybe you could try it with light Tanks, for something that Russia could make use of. I guess for simplicity it would probably make sense to just choose one unit type to highlight the way the Axis have subs. Probably Tanks would be the most fun, since the Western Allies kind of have the opposite problem as the Axis, they usually invest a lot in naval power, and somewhat less on heavy ground. I don't know, maybe its not necessary. Seemed like it was worth bringing up though just for parity by sides, since those sub pens can be pretty powerful after some time has elapsed. If the Allies are trying to match them round for round with destroyers, that's a lot of steel not being spent on tanks hehe.
Anyhow that's what I got for the moment. Will post some saves when I get home from work a little later. Still my favorite game for the AI I think
Best, always
Elk
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better đ
Register Login