Iron War - Official Thread
-
@lincoln-russell
I can take a look at the specific line number in the XML, but I can not immediately recognize this error. A new Iron War version with minor fixes will be out in a matter of days I think, perhaps we ( @redrum ???
) can identify your map error before this. -
@frostion Could you expand on your request? I'm not as tech savy as a would like to be.
-
@lincoln-russell Can you try downloading the latest TripleA release here: https://triplea-game.org/download/. I believe that error indicates you have an older TripleA release that can't handle some of the new properties that Iron War uses.
-
@redrum Would downloading this version replace all my original files? Should I make a folder for all my saves, and will they work with the new versions?
-
@lincoln-russell You can have multiple versions installed if you'd like. Generally most players keep their saves in a folder outside of the install. Then you can either install it over the old version or in a separate location.
-
-
Just out of curiosity, any thoughts on why the HardAI Germans don't utilize their transports on G1 to knock off Normandy? They seem to go really light into France as well, to the point where often they don't have enough hitpoints there to take Normandy on G2 overland either. Seems a little curious that they always bounce to the Norwegian Sea Zone with everything, when they could just stay in place and be pretty safe from counter attack. Also, not sure if the German AI is taking advantage of the free sub pen on their first turn. I'm guessing they must max their production capacity at purchase and then don't have the build slot available to place it?
Here's an example about what I mean with the German AI vs the French...
0_1542151182275_elk vs hardAI Axis 133 Russia round 1.tsvg
Also, something kind of interesting happened when I reloaded the AI save at Germany's combat move. The AI made a number of additional movements, which seem to me a lot stronger. Like taking Denmark with their air-transport, strengthening their invasion army to take Paris, making a bombing run on Moscow etc. Here is their opening after I reloaded just before combat, you can see they must have recalculated something. Its a significantly better opening from G.
0_1542151628186_elk vs hardAI Axis 133 Russia round 1 reload.tsvg
-
@black_elk The AI doesn't see the triggered sub until after its purchase, for more details: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/105/ai-development-discussion-and-feedback/105
There is a lot of variance in the AI when playing dice since it relies on the BC with a low number of rolls to minimize how slow it is. If you want to test specific AI openings/turns, I'd suggest doing it first on LL as that should be less erratic and more consistent.
The main reason that the AI tends to not push enough units towards France is that it overvalues Moscow since it only understands the capitals rules for standard A&A games where you get all the enemy's PUs and they can't production anymore. So it pretty much decides to focus everything it can towards Moscow in most situations.
-
Right on. What's funny is that the more times I reload, the more the AI seems to think "hey wait, maybe I should really take France" lol. I tried it with another save just to see what they'd get up to. In this one the AI decided to take Switz and Holland in addition to Denmark, and stacked huge for the battle of France...
0_1542152435438_elk vs hardAI Axis 100 Russia round 1 reload.tsvg
I haven't experimented with LL openings, mainly because I don't really enjoy the low luck playstyle generally, but I can see how it would change things if you know how many hits are coming in a given calc.
I guess G sends the destroyer to take the Russian convoy and then figures it doesn't have enough juice on defense? Too bad cause it seems once the AI moves their fleet north it spends the rest of the match out of commission
-
ps. I tried something a little different and gave AI Germany an opening script to follow. Made their first turn for them and then loaded out as AI to see what they do in subsequent rounds. They seem to be doing alright thus far. Playing under .12949 and giving the AI a 120% bonus. Will report back in a few with how they hold up...
0_1542155919283_elk vs hardAI Axis G open 120 Russia round 2.tsvg
-
@black_elk Yeah, the first turn in Iron War and really most maps is the hardest especially for Axis as there is a lot of attacks and complexity.
-
After 5 rounds the AI Axis have been a lot more creative than usual. Even seeing a little battle of the Atlantic action with Germany taking Iceland and such hehe. Italy and Japan seem to be doing alright as well, even though they didn't get any kind of script. So far it feels fairly historical in terms of the AI's play pattern. I think AI Germany really needs an assist so they can make the most out of their first turn, after that they seem to pull it together a bit.
Just had a nail biting showdown in Stalingrad. The Russians held on down south, but then Finland blew across the north with a vengence! Who knew they had stockpiled so much oil! Those blue mech units were rolling with a fury! haha Nicely played HardAI
0_1542161748339_elk vs hardAI Axis G open 120 Russia round 5.tsvg
-
The HardAI Axis played a pretty impressive game. USA took the TKO with 20 VCs in the 11th round. I bypassed Truk to take Japan which screwed their pacific game, but they did manage to link up at the center and encircle Siberia. Seems like they might have a bit of fight left in them, although we got the nukes coming in hot now so pretty much a done deal hehe.
0_1542180597464_elk vs hardAI Axis G open 120 Russia round 12.tsvg
-
Started another vs the HardAI Axis, with a scripted German opener this time at 133%. Tried to play to the German AI's strengths in the first round, so heavy on artillery and aircraft without any kind of naval expansion. So far its pretty nice press from the machine. I went after Finland early, to punish them for the last game, so the center will probably collapse in short order, but wanted to see how hard I could swing at the minors. Here it is in the third round, still using .12949.
0_1542233730217_elk vs hardAI Axis G open 133 Russia round 3.tsvg
-
Some thoughts, notes on possible tweaks
ANZAC: I think the secondary +5 spot should be moved from Melbourne to Darwin. This would serve the dual purpose of allowing ANZAC a viable way to shorten their supplies lines (via factory purchase) and also attracting a potential Japanese campaign vs Australia. I think it makes sense from a game-play perspective, since it would allow for Naval support somewhere other than the Sydney sea zone. Right now there isn't much difference between a having a factory in Melbourne vs the one in Sydney (probably Anzac will never have more than 5 units in a given round anyway), but Darwin would have some strategic advantages closer to the front that might encourage the expense of 25 pu to activate it. Also ANZAC is pretty fuel thirsty (they are mainly purchasing aircraft or ships), I think it makes sense for the USA to have an Aid option to support them. Right now Britain can send fuel, but Britain is already thirsty, so its basically a 2 step process of sending Fuel from the USA to Britain, and then from Britain to Anzac, which is kind of cumbersome. Simpler I think to just add a field for Anzac to the USA phase.
Balkans: They are fun on the Eastern Front punching holes, but it would be cool if they had some other options for expansion. Maybe worth thinking about increasing the value of Greece or Ankara to +5, so that it could potentially allow Balkans more options to expand? The same territories could also overlap a bit with the British Colonies and the Middle east factions, or Russia, or even USA late game with another road into/out of Europe
Brazil: This nation still feels a little cash poor. The 5 PUs/5 oil from USA is nice, but I think often the USA player will be hard pressed to send it along given all the other demands on their cash. Maybe it would make sense to raise the value of some outlying Brazilian territories? Another option would be to increase the Pro-Axis territory of Buenos Aires to +5, which might encourage some more activity in South America from the Allies. I think a total income of 20-25, with the option to expand that to like 30 PUs if you take over the Pro-Axis spaces would help those Smoking Cobras to develop a more viable expeditionary force.
Britain: I think they need at least one starting transport in the Atlantic to get the ball rolling. Even if it's not in a SZ where it can be immediately used, just having it at the ready would be nice. I think the British Aid phase might include a 10 spot to Russia. Perhaps you can split the difference between USA aid to Russia by giving the Brits 10 and USA 10 to send, making it a harder decision, since Britain has less cash to throw around. Right now I think the main gameplay decision for Britain is whether to take Scandinavia or North Africa (choosing just one focus and leaving the other for USA), which is something I like.
British-Colonies: They are fun to play. I think Egypt might be a little light vs the Axis crush, but that's sort of always a feature of these games hehe. I think if anything their game might be bolstered by having a few more +5 target territories in and around the Med, so they have a reason to press back vs Italy. Otherwise its just dropping back to Nigeria and holding on with the French. I think South Africa could be absorbed into British-Colonies and the larger faction would be more interesting to play.
The way I see it right now we have 5 British factions, the Atlantic one that includes UK/Canada (British), the African/South American one with a few Pacific islands (British-Colonies), the South African one (South Africa), the South Asian one (British-India), and the South Pacific one (ANZAC). But the political/national divisions can feel a bit arbitrary for the Empire at the time. I think it's simpler to have just 4 British Empire factions, which basically correspond to the North Atlantic (British), South Atlantic/Africa (British-Colonies), India/South Asia (India), and the South Pacific (ANZAC). It's easier to imagine them as like faraway Imperial regional commands that way rather than as separate independent nations.China: The Chinese could use a buff. Right now it's pretty simple for Japan to come at them really heavy and force them out of Chunking in fairly short order. The total hitpoints needed just to stall Japan for a couple rounds is very narrow, which makes it hard for them to expand into Tibet. I think some combination of more starting Artillery and a larger aid amount from USA would help, or perhaps just raising the value of the territories in the neighborhood from 1-2 PUs up to 3s or 4s. The artillery mainly so they can deadzone spots like Lanchow, and the increased aid/cash so they can drop a few more hitpoints per round. Right now China is maxing at like 2-3 hitpoints per round, whereas Japan can probably push like 6 hitpoints plus all their starting heavy hitters, which is a lot to defend against. I think it requires almost all the Soviet Far east forces just to prop them up currently, which doesn't leave anything to deal with Japanese push out of Manchuria vs Irkutsk.
Finland: kinda feels like a German problem to prop up, but I'm not sure I'd do anything there. Basically Finland has to survive and then snag Archangel or Leningrad to get big enough to be of much use elsewhere, but that seems only fair hehe. I think the dream is probably like some ships in the White Sea or something, but G has to do a lot of work to make that happen.
France: I think France right now is kinda weak and spread a bit too thin to be of much interest. I wonder if Algeria might be bumped up to +5, so it can serve as a contested midpoint between Morocco and Libya? I think it would be a fun springboard, not just for the German player, but also a reason for the Allies to take French North Africa more seriously, and force early actions there. Otherwise I think France could be bolstered by ditching French-Colonies.
French Colonies: Right now they feel kinda outsized in terms of influence. Functionally the main role is to do some early naval action, and then build a factory in French India to try and help with the Indian multi-national stack fest. If that factory gets knocked off then I guess you buy fighters out French Guiana. But it seems to me that the overall strength in India is kinda disproportionately French-Colonies for the fodder, when it should probably just be more British India dudes. If the concern for French Indochina is getting a big influx of troops early, I'd maybe just ditch the starting factory and give the space to France directly, same deal Guiana. Basically I think having a more potent France would be more fun overall than keeping the colonies as a separate faction.
Germany: I like the German set up, for the most part feels pretty solid. The only thing I can think of to add some more interest would be to maybe give Benelux to the KNIL faction as a +5 spot. Right now its sort of a throwaway spot since the Allies can't build there, but it could give the KNIL faction some life if the Allies make a press into Western Europe. I think that in combination with a potential snag in Algeria might help Germany springboard a bit more to west for variety, since right now its definitely centered on Russia.
KNIL: They are surprisingly fun to play in the Pacific, right up until the point when Japan cracks Sumatra. If you can keep them alive, they can transport to help the situation in India. But when the factory gets knocked off, which probably happens sooner rather than later, their game is pretty much done. Fighters out of Dutch Guiana I guess is the play after that. But if Benelux was activated for KNIL, it would give the game some Market Garden flavor for liberation days, and put the port of Antwerp in play for both teams at the start or at the end.
Iraq/Iran: maybe could be combined into "Axis Near East" faction or something like that is kinda all-encompassing. I'd keep the light green territory, but use the Iraq unit set, since it's a little easier to distinguish. (I sometimes confuse the Iranian units for the Italian ones when they start to converge, but the black in the Iraqi units makes them pop a bit more.) Anyhow, if combined then it would be easier for the Axis Near East player to trade one production hub for another, and better absorb a crush. I still like the idea of the Axis Near East potentially expanding to a more significant power if they can take over Arabia, Egypt or press farther afield. Maybe it would be worth considering Afghanistan as a true neutral instead of pro-Axis so that the Near East faction has a chance at it.
Italy: Italy is pretty fun. I wouldn't touch much there. Their fleet in Mombasa feels kind of vulnerable, so maybe its worth giving them a cruiser or something to help deal with the British Colonies/South Africa/India fleets. Libya can stack pretty heavy. I'm thinking a few more +5 spots in the med might make their game a bit more interesting. Prime candidates I think are Algeria, Greece, Ankara and Syria. I think the way the gameplay works the more potential factory spots in play the more interesting the map becomes strategically. Essentially I think that the +5 territories are sort of the only ones that matter, so it makes sense to me to consider added a few more in the Med, since there are a lot of factions in the area that could contest them.
Japan: I like Japan's opener. They might be a bit too deadly with the 6 transports for the home fleet. Maybe one of them should be peeled off? Otherwise I like how they work. There are a lot of springboards and things to keep you busy. I think China might be a bit too simple to roll over, but I think that can be fixed with just a few more units coming in each round for the Chinese. I think the only real areas of improvement would be to give Japan more of a reason to consider Australia as an alternative to the India crush.
USA: Most of my thoughts on the USA have to do with the Aid phase. Right now I think it makes sense for the USA player to send the max fuel they can early on to prevent everyone other than Russia from running out of gas immediately. On the cash front though using the USA as the Allied banker can be kind of tough. Even clocking 90-110 PUs per round, you can burn through that pretty quickly if trying to spread the cash around (especially since you need transports). This is difficult because as Redrum pointed out, some of the aid packages are no-brainers, which can lead the USA player unable to mobilize enough units to actually move out towards the front. I'm not sure what the best solution is... Part of me thinks that the Aid amounts for USA should be increased so that they can't be used every round. For that latter idea, instead of sending China 10 PUs every round, maybe you send them like 50 PUs once during the entire game. Basically the idea there would be to make the aid amounts much larger so that the player has to choose just one buddy to prop up in a given round. So basically you can send maybe half the pie in aid, and are forced to use the remainder on units. Of course in that case, the situation with Russia is problematic, because they are always the player on the Allied team that can do the most with the cash.
I am wondering if an aid rotation of some sort might make sense? Like maybe every round the USA gets a different pair of Allied aid packages for PUs. Doing this you might be able to create a historical theme to the aid year by year. So maybe in Early 1940 its a choice between Britain or China, where the aid amount for each is too large to give to both. In Late 1940 maybe its a choice between China and Russia, again with the total for both packages exceeding USA income (so they have to choose just one.) As time goes on the pair might change to account for what happened historically, so perhaps ANZAC would come up in 1941 as the Pacific heats up. Or Brazil in 1942, just before Operation Torch gets underway. Maybe France hits in 1944 so it pairs up with Normandy etc. Basically what I'm driving at is trying to force a more significant gameplay decision each round. Over time perhaps the total aid amounts diminish to represent the USA entry into the conflict proper, where they start keeping more of the pie to build their own forces.
USSR: I like Russia right now. I wouldn't do too much there. They are entertaining. There is some sprawl in the middle that can be hard to hold down if the Axis punch through, but its fun for the back and forth with the mobile units. I think the air-transports help to connect Siberia with the rest of the Soviet Union over all those tiles.
Thailand: Its probably a little overpowered and out-sized historically, but fun to play for the only Pacific Axis minor. Basically its a choice of how far to extend at Japan's expense, but if you can take a +5 spot in India or China, you can start churning out fighters or ships for the team. To add some more strategic interest to the expansion maybe Singapore or Bengal at +5 as well.
All I can think of at the moment for a faction by faction recap. I dig all the changes of the last build including the Air-Transport spawn. Will play some more AI games while I wait for redrum. Catch you in a few dude
-
ps. here is that game from earlier vs Axis at 133%. It took 11 rounds to stabilize the Russian front. So far its been a pretty conservative push to take Africa and Scandinavia to consolidate the early Russian gains. Light footprint in the Pacific from USA, India and China trying to holding it together with big stacks in Urimichi and Burma Road. But seems like the Axis still have some good fight left.
0_1542353147820_elk vs hardAI Axis G open 133 Russia round 12.tsvg
I noticed that the German AI spawns subs in Lake Onega if they take Leningrad. Not sure that that connection is necessary since its landlocked.
Kept it going for another couple hours. Victory in Europe is almost at hand, but Japan is still pretty thick in Asia. I sent the Australians globe trotting to knock off South America. Finally took Thailand, KNIL got the prize. About to start letting the nukes fly.
0_1542362155131_elk vs hardAI Axis G open 133 USA round 15.tsvg
Against all hope AI Japan is still trying to bring it at the center. They've got a bunch of nice 30 stacks balling around, trying to sweat the Russian backfield. They just tried to force their way back into Burma too. Ultimately doomed but still kicking, I think this is probably the highpoint of their press into Asia hehe. Most of the IJN surface fleet was nuked out of the water, but they still got a gang of subs prowling the pacific. The 133% boost has been pretty enjoyable for the long slog.
0_1542366330595_elk vs hardAI Axis G open 133 Russia round 18.tsvg
-
What should be done about lake Onega? Make it impassable? Could ships sail back and forth to and from the sea from those lakes?
-
I would say impassable, since a connection between the lakes and the Baltic/White sea would not be intuitive at glance. Another connection that might be worth ditching to prevent confusion is the one between Scotland and Hebrides, since right now Hebrides looks like an island. I had it happen a couple games back where I landed some German dude's there thinking it was a safe island only to have some mobile artillery blitz over at it from England. Otherwise I think you need some kind of graphical feature to indicate on the map that a particular island or lake is connected to another tile that might not be immediately apparent. I don't know though, if you leave one spot then it opens things up, like why Hebrides but not Sicily... Or Lake Onega but not Ontario etc. Easier to just remove the suspect connections I would think.
Any thoughts on some those suggestions regarding +5 spots?
I think it really opens things up, and is the simplest method to make the map more entertaining for both teams. The way the game is set, it's the +5s tiles that really allow for more dynamic play patterns, since they give factions a way to gain new foothold bases. Having them in contested areas gives both sides more to consider. Every time we add one into the mix it seems to enhance the strategic nuance in the region, so I think the map could support a few more just to help with the spring-boarding. Here are my top candidates...
Afghanistan (true neutral)
Alaska
Algeria
Ankara
Benelux
Buenos Aires
Darwin
Greece
Okinawa
Papua New Guinea -
@Black_Elk I generally agree with most of your feedback across the nations. Though I think you are a bit too pro-allies. I personally think Allies are a bit OP in the current version though figure I'll wait to say too much until we finish our game and switch sides.
-
I like the absence of names in the map; it keeps it cleaner for the actual gaming stuff to be seen and it easily allows for changing them. On the other hand, I'm not sure what is your method for naming territories? I see like a mix of territories and cities, and also a practice of naming the less important portion of a territory with the name of the same.
For example, Canada, by your borders, I would rather name this way:
Fort Norman->Yukon
Yellowknife->Western Mackenzie
Boothia->Eastern Mackenzie
Melville->Keewatin
Canadian Northwest->Northern Baffin
Baffin->Southern Baffin
British Columbia->Northern British Columbia
Victoria->Southern British Columbia
Alberta->Northern Saskatchewan/Northern Alberta
Calgary->Southern Saskatchewan/Southern Alberta
Saskatchewan->Southern Manitoba
Manitoba->Northern Manitoba
Wabakimi->South-Western Ontario
Ontario->Northern Ontario
Toronto->South-Eastern Ontario
Ungave->Northern Quebec
Quebec->Central Quebec
Halifax->Southern Quebec
Labrador->.
Newfoundland->.The United States of America, my take would be:
USA North Atlantic->Middle Atlantic USA
USA South Atlantic->South Atlantic USA
USA North->Northern North Central USA
USA Midwest->Central North Central USA
USA Central->Southern North Central USA
Gulf Coast->Eastern South Central USA
Texas->Western South Central USA
Montana->Northern Mountain USA
Great Plains->Central Mountain USA
USA Southwest->Southern Mountain USA
USA Northwest->Northern Pacific USA
California->Southern Pacific USA("Central Noth Central USA" doesn't sound great, and "Central Midwest USA" would sound much better, but at the time those regions were called "North Central", but further divided into "West North Central" and "East North Central" (that may be mapping too badly to be used, as the division here is in 3 parts, north to south))
Also, I would find more correct either "US America" or "US of America", instead of "USA" (as "USA" can mean whatever like that; for example, "Union of South Africa").
Just making some examples, starting from the upper-left portion of the map. Nothing specifically intended. Just letting you know what I would do with naming. Nothing really important. I see that your way keeps it easier to reference, tho it is arbitrarily jumping from city names, to States names, to region names, to purely geographical names, pure cardinals (like "USA North"), and also broad statistical "area" concepts (like "Gulf Coast" (that would be more defined as "USA Gulf Coast")).
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 💗
Register Login