Iron War - Official Thread

[Black_Elk]

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

[redrum]

@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.

[Cernel]

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")).

[Black_Elk]

@redrum Yeah I think though that the trick for Axis is achieving income/fuel parity in the early-mid game, I guess the idea being that with more +5 spots in contention that Axis would then have more avenues to pump it up. I think the Axis team would also be easier to balance for changes once the Allies are tweaked since the Axis drive is more straight forward, but right now I was thinking mainly of ways to accelerate the pace somewhat on the Allied end, and have more back and forth attrition rather than big stack build ups at the core. What I think happens now is that Axis gets bogged down slogging away vs huge armies in Russia, Central/South Asia, and Central Africa, where the Axis income and fuel is only barely enough to stabilize what you snag initially, rather than going for continued expansion. That's where I see those other +5 spots coming into play.

I also agree about some of territory names, though I imagine its probably too much of a rework at this point, since it would be a ton of xml entries to rehash.

I put in another 18 rounds last night, this time vs HardAI Allies at 150%. I put the Shah to work and got Iran about as large as I could hehe. There's been a ton of Allied aircraft giving me headaches. The Axis fleets are so large that I can only move them once every other round lol. I found that if you put a teammates friendly aircraft on the carriers for defense, it helps to keep them moving. Kinda gimmicky, but does the trick in a pinch...

0_1542497611341_elk vs hardAI Allies 150 Germany round 18.tsvg

[Black_Elk]

ps. just to elaborate a bit more on the rationale for more +5 tiles. I think Iron War does really well at implementing the idea of production lilly pads, something that A&A never did all that well. Mainly because the factory cost here is relatively low and because it can be destroyed, all those +5 tiles serve as like goal posts, allowing the various faction to get out into the periphery and push the fronts. They create pockets of activity, like stepping stones around the globe. Most nations don't have anywhere near the cash to max production on a given turn, so it becomes a game of move out, taking over new +5 spots to produce out of while the ones in the backfield lie more dormant. I think the more of them we have situated in intermediate/contested areas, the more strategic depth it provides in the back and forth between the two teams. I think right now most of locations should go in range of the european axis side/around the med, though I think there is room in the pacific for a couple more too, to orient the fighting there as opposed to just all in for Asia. That way both sides always have somewhere to drive against next in the pacific periphery.

Also, related to production, just a quick note, carrier placement can be tough if there are multiple factories in a given sea zone. As an example, for Germany it can be complicated if you build a factory in East Prussia then want to place a carrier in the baltic sea from West Germany. Moving fighters from West Germany onto the deck I mean. It also happens sometimes between Italy and Libya, where if you don't have enough hitpoints to fill the other factory you can't drop the deck in a way that allows to move fighters on board. Or same deal for Japan and Manchuria.

Maybe a prompt asking which coastal factory you want to produce the carrier/ship from would help? (Like the same deal as the bombardment prompt, with a selection of bordering coastal territories.) Often there is more than one option, and the default might not let you get the aircraft you want onto deck.

[Frostion]

@Black_Elk @redrum "Maybe a prompt asking which coastal factory you want to produce the carrier/ship from would help? (Like the same deal as the bombardment prompt, with a selection of bordering coastal territories.)"
This sounds like a great fix.

[Black_Elk]

Yeah in the last game it came up more than once, on account of the extensive naval build up hehe. Went 25 rounds to invasion USA, just nuclear winter forever...

0_1542524813641_elk vs hardAI Allies 150 Japan round 25.tsvg

I think the option to move fighters onboard ala classic is an entertaining throwback, but it makes the carrier placement out of the right coastal territory pretty significant.

[Black_Elk]

Aden might also be interesting for a +5. It would give British colonies a fall back point, or maybe more of a way to coordinate with British-India. Egypt is a struggle. Esp if the Near East Axis get a buff, so that Russia can't slam them so hard initially. Thing is for play balance its probably British-Colonies or British-India that need to be taking on the middle east income/oil moreso than Russia, but right now only Russia has the juice to come at them with the mobile units out of Aktobe. Wondering if Punjab or Bengal might be more interesting for the +5 as opposed to Nepal?

[redrum]

@Frostion @Black_Elk Given that I think that carrier rule is outdated and shouldn't really be used, its pretty low on the list to add a prompt like that.

@Black_Elk I tend to agree that a few more +5 spots would probably help the map. Regarding Nepal, I think Punjab is too close to Afghanistan and Bengal is too easy for Axis to capture. The one benefit of Nepal is that if India is captured by sea then it could be used as a land locked factory to try to hold northern India.

[Frostion]

@redrum @Black_Elk
After following your match I have prepared a slightly updated new version of Iron War. If you are going to go head to head again, you could use this version. Among other changes, Darwin is now a capturable spot that can hold a factory. I see this as fitting since it could both simulate an good potential landing area / beach head for a Japanese invasion of Australia, and at the same time the 5 PUs shows the town’s military importance for the Allies during WW2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Darwin
At the same time I have lowered som other ANZAC territory PUs, so to not affect the map’s overall PU balance. Before doing something like this I would really like to hear from you guys about which alliance the map currently favours PU-wise.

There are no revolutionary game changers in the update Just smaller fixes, and they seems to be leaning pro-axis. Here is the XML. I will probably also update the downloadable map at github with this same XML, especially if you also approve of the changes and start a new match.

Iron War Version 0.2.7 changes:
• Airfields no longer give +1 move to aircraft.
• "Units Can Load In Hostile Sea Zones" is now "true".
• Hebrides no longer has a land connection to Scotland.
• Lake Ladoga, Lake Onega, Lake Ontario and Lake Erie are now impassible land territories, so naval placements in these territories are no longer possible. (This does not affect air moves as there was never any tactical advantage in flying over them anyway.)
• Darwin is now a 5 PUs territory, not 2. (Factory placement is now possible here.)
• Melbourne is now a 3 PUs territory, not 5.
• North Queensland is now a 2 PUs territory, not 3.

0_1542655461029_0.2.7-XML.zip

[redrum]

@Frostion Those changes look good to me and definitely are a bit pro-Axis (though IMO Allies are OP in 0.2.6 so that's ok). I'm fine updating to use those for our next game. I'm holding back most of my feedback til I play both sides as don't want to be biased having only played Axis.

[Frostion]

@Cernel
On the world map of Iron War I am mostly satisfied with the names, and they are mostly taken from WW2 era maps. And yes, there is no single system in use like “only territory names”, “only city names” etc. It is a mix of names consisting of relevant, important, well know places, and there is NO emphasis on “localization” of names. On the contrary, it is probably WW2 era Anglo-Saxon naming (mostly). Though I have not named places like "Ryojun" as "Port Arthur" or its Chineese name. Some places I have taken into account who actually controlled the area at the time.

In the case of Canada, some territories have been named after the only settlements in the area. When that is said, there is a potential for name changing some of the territories in Canada. I am more satisfied with the current USA territory naming. I like that the large states have their own names, and I like short names like “USA Central” over your proposed “Southern North Central USA” and also “Gulf Coast” over “Eastern South Central USA”.

“Fort Norman” is names so because of the Oil refineries in Yukon. It was the only place of real importance and also the reason why there is an oil barrel placed in the territory. Players maybe think “why is there an oil barrel placed here”. The name Fort Norman (or Norman Wells) gives the player a hint, and the player is free to investigate. (From Wiki: ”Imperial Oil, a major employer in the town, was established in the area in 1937 with a refinery built in 1939. During the Second World War, Norman Wells was deemed important as a source of oil for military operations in Alaska and the Yukon.”) It was important enough to be the only place marked on the maps I have available.

“Calgary” is also named for the oil barrels located on the map. Turner Valley / Calgary was a small Canadian “oil capital” during ww2.

“Victoria” should probably have a name change to “Vancouver”, as it probably was a bigger ship producer in WW2 (even thought Victoria also had shipyards). In iron War the territory is a 5PU territory, meaning that it is a potential factory placement spot.

“Saskatchewan” should perhaps be renamed “Winnipeg”, as it was the largest city there in WW2.

“Wabakimi” should maybe be renamed “Port Arthur”, as it was the area’s most important place at the time.

[redrum]

@Frostion I think most of the names are actually pretty good. Only thing that irks me is not seeing Poland as a territory on the map. I also much prefer the names being displayed on the map so its easier to see and refer to territories.

[Frostion]

@redrum Well, “Poland” being named “East Prussia” is perhaps an example of a name based on who controlled the territory at the time. I guess a lot of inhabitants of “Transjordan”, “French Indochina” etc. feel that their territories have been given strange names also

[Cernel]

@Frostion So, I know that you (already told me that you) don't have primary focus on historicity; so chances are that you already know what I'm going to say (I infer it also from the fact that you said "small Canadian "oil capital" during WW2"), and decided otherwise, for gameplay reasons, but, since the matter got opened, just fyi, Canada was a small oil producer. In 1939 Canada produced 997 Gg of oil, while Venezuela produced 30,534 Gg, and the US of America produced 171,053 Gg.
So, assuming the ratios being constant from 1939 onwards, if you give 8 Fuel-Barrels to Canada, in total, then you should put about 250 Fuel-Barrels in Venezuela. 1940 shares are fairly similar, but Venezuela goes down some (used 1939 for reliability).
Looking at the game, having between 200 and 300 Fuel-Barrels in total, if one would want to be historical, I think Canada could have only 1 Fuel-Barrel (in Calgary), as that Dominion gave the 0.35% of the world's oil in 1939.

But I see that probably the ratios have been adjusted mainly on gameplay motivations, since Romania gets more oil than Caucasus, and Italy gets as much oil as all the Dutch East Indies (realistically here Italy would have 0 oil, or 1 in Albania, if Romania is 15).

Plus I don't know most of the oil productions after 1940; so it could be that Canada's oil surged at some point, as I see it was over 1% of the world in 1951.

[Black_Elk]

I don't see a good way to model real world resources or production capacity historically in a way that would be accurate while still maintaining gameplay interest. In A&A the attempt to hold onto IPCs as strictly corresponding to real-world manpower/production capacity usually just resulted in less dynamic play patterns. The best you can do is try to give a little nod to areas that were major production or resource centers, but trying to be in anyway exact about the numbers is tough because it would immediately disadvantage the Axis team out of any real shot. So I think the gameplay kinda has to take primacy, suspending disbelief when necessary. I think a historical play pattern (with the appropriate regions being contested, or in-game battles occurring in territories where historical battles took place) is more important than trying to model the historical economy or distribution of resources. So for example, as long as the German player has an incentive to go after Caucasus for the oil, and Russia has an incentive to stop them, then the exact numbers they are fighting over seems less important to me than the fact that at least they are fighting there haha. I think the harder area is usually the Pacific, where you'd like to get Japan and the Allies doing the tango in the East/South Pacific, with some island hopping instead of the traditional center crush, but historically that contest wasn't driven as much by resources/production as it was logistics (for air bases or naval supplies lines and such.) I think in that case, its important to think of the PUs as abstract, so you can justify making some of those islands contested targets. Okinawa I think would be a good candidate.

For the overall balance by teams, think the last build of the map is probably Allied advantage in some areas (like Africa/Middle east) and Axis advantage in others (like vs India, and the minor Pacific powers.) Losing the British fleet out the gate was a goof on my part in the first game with redrum, otherwise I think you'd see a more serious press vs Germany/Italy.

In choosing a target I think its gotta be easier for the Allies to coordinate on the European side of the board than it is on the Pacific side, (right now it feels like USA only has enough PUs to go seriously in one direction.) I guess whether India survives or not probably has to do with how successful Russia is vs the Near East, or whether Iraq/Iran can clip the British-India starting transport (since I don't think they have any real shot defending against a press from 2 directions overland while still covering the amphibious threat). They definitely feel like a lone soldier with a big bright target painted on their back. I'm not sure how much French-Colonies/Anzac/KNIL can do to help prop them up and the USA is pretty far away, so I think it's kind down to Russia to cover their rear.

I think you could up the starting income/resources for most nations by a pretty considerable amount and it would not be overly distorting, so long as there is parity between the two main teams. Right now I feel like most nations are just too cash strapped to have many interesting build options, so I would suggest picking a reasonable amount and upping it for everyone across the board. Every faction should have some variety to their build options on the first turn, but right now most of the smaller nations barely have enough to field a couple infantry hitpoints initially, and after that, a lot of times they are left with a remainder that can't be spent for several rounds.

[Black_Elk]

Just to elaborate on the remainder issue. Lets say you have a smaller nation (land focused) that ends up with a remainder somewhere between 1-7 with no steel to spare, after they buy an infantry unit or two. Basically you often have to save the remaining cash for next round sometimes like a third of your total, since there isn't anything to spend it on.

I think that's where the aid phase should come into play. Everyone should have an option to send like 5 PUs to someone else, (ideally 2 nations so there is a strategic dimension to the choice) that way the remainder can be put to work. Maybe it makes sense to have a spread...

Send 2 PU
Send 3 PUs
Send 5 PUs

I think something like that would solve the purchasing issue for most nations. The goal then would be to shuffle the pocket change around, to try and get the remainder somewhere that it can be spent in the current round. The larger nations don't suffer from this issue as much because they have larger totals and thus more ways to work out the purchase remainder, but for the smaller nations its a constant dilemma.

[Cernel]

@Black_Elk This would be a feature request, but a way to mostly solve this long standing distortion (and realistic nonsense) of deciding your purchase on how you can puzzle out the options, so to use more (possibly all) of your resources (that it is not really fun or interesting, especially in the moment you may want to lose a lot of time in forecasting what will be your future resources, and save now to buy what you want tomorrow (very tiresome, and very annoying if you end up short of 1 PUs on what you need, for not having calculated it correctly or at all)), could be that you can buy undercost for a chance of getting what you want, with the possibility of going in deficit (under 0 PUs or whatever). For example, if something costs 10, you can spend 6 and roll on a 60% to get it or not. If you get it, you actually spend 10, possibly going at -4 if you spend all you had. If you don't get it, you get back the 6 you spent (for either spending it the next turn or financing other partial purchases that may have succeeded, at the same time). On the long run, beside being killed while having a passive (and of course the opponent should not capture negative PUs!), there are no bonus or malus, as you always need to spend the full amount, eventually. Of course, it may be opportune limiting it to spending like at least half the value or so (roll at 50% or more only).

[Cernel]

@redrum My preference would actually be no names default but a quick key for showing them up for a limited time, like when highlighting units.

I mean only for the maps that decide to hide all or some of them. The maps having all land and sea zones displayed would not have the key (but that's rare, as almost all maps hide the sea zone names), and anyways that key would change nothing for what is displayed permanently (for example, using it in WAW would add only the sea zone names for a few seconds). Then there would be the problem of those maps that have names in the graphic, practically getting duplication, but that is not really supposed to be the way (tho doing it with the territory_names folder is far from handy).

[Frostion]

@Black_Elk There is no version 0.2.7 download from github/ingame. For the latest few changes you will have to download the XML in zip in post 442.