Iron War - Official Thread

[redrum]

@Black_Elk Interesting idea. Though I wonder if letting all mobile land units tow ends up just making them all feel like slightly different versions of mech as well as make the map have too many high movement stacks.

[Black_Elk]

Yeah, I've been mulling over it most of the day, on various breaks at work hehe.

I think the short answer there would be a yes, they'd all feel like slightly different versions of mech, but then again, that seemed somehow more interesting to me than the current situation where they are all slightly different versions of the light tank. The challenge I guess would be finding ways to differentiate the various units from that same baseline.

The think the necessity for steel, and just the regular ceiling on ready cash in a given purchase phase, would probably put limits one the total numbers in play. And strategically there are still sound reasons why players might prefer aircraft and cheap fodder for trading over expensive tanks, so I don't think it would totally upend the current situation. But where I think it would be really interesting is for the breakouts. Like in a situation where a new +5 tile had been captured and the player is looking to push forward. Instead of buying say 2 mech for 2 steel, they might have a reason to consider 1 tank for 2 steel instead. Especially if the former could only tow on non-com, but later could do so in combat. It might also create a kind of staged attack, where the player blitzes with the tank groups first, and them reinforces the captured tile with mech on non-com. Hopefully encouraging a diversity of mobile unit types at a given production spot. I think the Iron war map is probably large enough to accommodate something like this. Some areas would be more hotly contested than others, depending on how close the opposing production hubs are, but there is still a lot of ground out there for the back and forth blitz.

Maybe its a little left field, but just thought I'd toss it out there. I think there's a definite reason why the mech units seem to have eclipsed tanks, since land transporting is no doubt a badass ability. Rather than nerf it away, maybe we just run with it?

I really like the suggestion you made earlier of making mech a non-com only tow unit. But then I think people will end up missing the combat tow, which is why I think giving it to tanks might be a win.

[Black_Elk]

Ps. OK here's another alternative if the above seems too extreme. Instead of opening the flood gates and having everything tow, a bit of a rework for each mobile unit type. Here are the proposed units, listed in ascending order of badassedness/cost from weaker to stronger.

SP Artillery: moves 2 (non com only ). Cheapest entry level mobile unit. It can get around the board, making it better than regular artillery, but only on non com. Basically rush to the front, but wait a turn before attacking. With a cheap price reflecting the nerf.

Light Tank: moves 2 (combat/blitz). More expensive than sp artillery but still relatively cheap, so it can serve as the workhorse. I think it should probably only cost 1 steel, so its more expendable. Decent attack so you can rush to the front and attack right now.

Tank Destroyer: moves 2 (combat/blitz), targets other mobile ground with opening shot. Should probably be more expensive than light tanks given the targeting.

Mech: moves 2 (in combat/blitz by itself), can tow 1 inf (only in non combat). More expensive than any of the proceeding mobile ground, since towing even only on non com is such a powerful ability. Talking like 2 steel probably. Only bested as an overall mobile ground purchase choice by...

Medium Tank: moves 2 (in combat/blitz), can tow 1 inf (in combat/blitz). Definitely a beastlier beast than the light tank owing to the towing. The most expensive and most powerful mobile ground unit, short of the advance that unlocks Heavy Tanks.

Heavy tank: moves 2 (in combat/blitz) can tow 1 inf (in combat/blitz), 2-hit unit (can absorb a shot before dying.) The best/most expensive ground unit.

Basically the cost in PUs/Steel is adjusted, so that mech is closer to the top of the heap and light tanks are closer to the bottom, but with medium/heavy tanks clearly still kings of the hill. Any takers? hehe

[Black_Elk]

Sorry for the triple post, but I actually think a slight overall for the roster could present a nice opportunity to tackle that remainder spending issue I mentioned before. Basically it would be cool if we could cover all the leftover numbers going up from base 10 PU's for infantry to 20 PU's for the fighter.

So right now we have these units that can be built without steel...
AAgun cost 9
Infantry cost 10
Fighter cost 20
Dive Bomber cost 20
Air Transport 25
Factory 25
Bomber 30

That leaves a lot of possible remainders, not least because some of those are unit costs that are already divisible by 10. The factory and air-transports only comes in if you have a tile where it makes sense to place one.

Just focusing on the PUs for now I'd maybe shoot for something very straight forward like...

Artillery: 11
SP Artillery: 12
Light Tank: 13
Tank Destroyer: 14
Mech: 15
Medium Tank: 16
Heavy Tank: 17

Once you get to 18/19 the AAgun can cover the remainder, either with 2 AAguns, or 1 inf + 1 aa gun. So as long as a nation has steel it is then much easier to work out the remainder.

I might consider increasing the cost of the dive bomber, so that there is a difference in cost between it and the fighter (justified by its added tank busting ability.) It would actually be fairly simple to give fighters a cost in steel as well, even if it means upping the steel totals somewhat to accommodate the greater need at purchase. The same could be done for the factory unit, to really make steel a necessity for any non-infantry/aagun unit. It maybe also be nice to make the entry level aircraft just slightly more expensive, so that they can't be so neatly divided into base 10 PU infantry. For example, maybe something like...

Fighter: 21 PUs
Dive Bomber: 22 PUs
Jet Fighter: 23 PUs
Air-Transport: 24 PUs
Factory: 25 PUs
Bomber: 30 PUs

Right now none of the aircraft require steel to build, but it would be easy to just make each of them cost 1 steel, if the steel totals were increased across the board.

Going another direction, I wonder if it might be smart to remove the need for steel to buy regular artillery? Because that would give a slightly better way to work out the remainder. Since you could build 9, 10, or 11 before you start incurring a cost in steel. (And artillery is kind of key for prevent the tired ass infantry push dynamic going back to classic A&A.) Even if it thematically makes sense that big stationary guns would need steel, I think it might be sensible to consider them more like the infantry unit, just because they are already treated in such a similar way for transport purposes (at land/sea) and because they're really only valuable in conjunction with infantry.

To go with a big list (not worrying so much about the individual abilities, but just the cost structure) perhaps something like...

AA gun: pu 9
Infantry: pu 10
Artillery: pu 11

Factory: steel 1, pu 25

Sp Artillery: steel 1, pu 12
Light Tank: steel 1, pu 13
Tank Destroyer: steel 2, pu 14
Mech: steel 2, pu 15
Medium Tank: steel 3, pu 16
Heavy Tank: steel 4, pu 17

Fighter: steel 1, pu 21
Dive Bomber: steel 1, pu 22
Jet Fighter: steel 1, pu 23
Air Transport: steel 1, pu 25
Bomber: steel 1, pu 30

Patrol Boat: steel 1, pu 13
Destroyer: steel 2, pu 16
Transport: steel 2, pu 20
Sub: steel 2, pu 25
Cruiser: steel 3, pu 20
Battleship: steel 4, pu 35
Carrier: steel 4, pu 40

The only thing I might do on the water (if the overall steel totals are increased to accommodate aircraft costing steel too) would be to consider increasing the steel cost for transports from 2 to 3. Since right now the most important cap from steel, is the cap on how many transports some nations can purchase in a given round. This is mainly for Germany, Britain, Anzac and USA.

The basic trend in all of this is that you can't really build an effective force, or even expand production without steel. So that it really becomes the critical purchasing resource and not something you can just ignore by saving up for aircraft. I think to pull it off, you necessarily need more steel floating around, but that could be handled fairly simply just by doubling the current values in territories where it exists, or something along those lines.

[Black_Elk]

ps. this is not exactly related to the stuff I mentioned above, (although its not entirely unrelated either) but when playing your other Dragon war map just now, it occurred to me that Iron War (like Dragon War) might really benefit from having some way to access the purchase screen before combat on the first turn. I'm not suggesting that the purchase phase be before combat, as I definitely prefer combat before purchase. Combat first is action oriented, more streamlined, and you don't have to prognosticate in advance about what to buy before you make your moves. Combat before Purchase is better for sure, I'm all for it.

Rather what I mean is that it would be very helpful if, as the player, you "Preview the Purchase Screen" for any nation in the game, at any point. Including the very first turn as Germany.

Not having a way to see the full unit roster and scroll over all the abilities/costs etc for each nation's units (esp. when there are specific national units with unique abilities), can be potentially very confusing for the first time player because they are going in blind, and are asked to start moving and attacking with stuff before really knowing the full specs on what they have. The way it is currently set up, you basically have to already have played the game once, taking control of each nation, before you really know what you're dealing with. While it can be done, this doesn't really help with the learning curve for the newb. I can imagine for example an FtF game, where two players each take a side and play there first game, but don't fully grasp what their opponent is capable of building, since they can't see it for themselves. Like how many colonial infantry such and such can field, or what exactly a commissar is and how that differs from SS.

The export unit stats feature is all well and good, for someone who likes to have all the details in a vast compendium, but its unwieldy and not quite as intuitive as just the regular old purchase screen with all the visuals and the scroll overs. The average player might not even think to click on that tab, so its sort of like a mystery, unless you just dive in and start messing about.

Since there is no option for a bid, that can't serve as a workaround. Although I wonder if precluding a bid altogether might ultimately be somewhat limiting, since that assumes we can determine an appropriate balance without any need for future unit placement revisions on the fly. (Usually pretty rare in these kinds of games.) There's always edit-mode I suppose, or direct modification, but those are less elegant ways to balance unit distribution after the fact, and of course doesn't solve the main issue I see of players not having all the info they might want the first time out.) Personally I'm not a huge fan of bidding for balance, I think adjusting the starting income is just much cleaner, and we already have that option, but even still, adding to the starting income totals won't launch an initial purchase screen the way a standard bid might. Anyhow, just a thought. Because if we did have a bid option, then players could enter whatever value (like 1 pu) and it would at least bring up the purchase screen for all the nations on their team, which may still be better than nothing, although not quite as good as a full preview options for anyone/anytime that doesn't require an unnecessary phase at the outset.

Thought it might be worth mentioning from an ease of use standpoint. This is the only real downside I can see to leading with the combat phase to start the game, which otherwise just makes every kind of good sense. Some stuff is easy enough to pick up on by fumbling around and referencing previous experience with similar games, opening the battle calc etc, but you're still kind of in the dark on the big picture until you can access the full purchase screens for the first time. Would be cool if there was just a button that could bring it up at any point, similar to the show history feature. Because ideally you need to know the details not just about your own stuff, but your opponents stuff as well, in order to make informed choices for your combat moves during the critical first round of play.

[wc_sumpton]

@Black_Elk
I really like your idea of bringing up the purchase screen, to consult whenever needed. Also I think this would be a nice feature in other maps. Maybe you could create a 'Feature Request' for this.

Cheers...

[redrum]

@Black_Elk I think the Unit Help is probably closest to what you are looking for.

[Black_Elk]

Unit Help! Discovering features I didn't know existed, even after all this time hehe. Well that is certainly helpful. I guess the only information not included there is the cost in steel, though I suppose that's kind of specific to this map, but otherwise has all the details and much easier to read at a glance than the export list.

Maybe this should be highlighted at the top of the game notes? Something like "please see 'Unit Help', under the 'Help' tab at the top of the screen for more information." Just like the very first thing you read. I've been playing for a while and totally missed this feature, even though I've gone there before for the game notes. Guess I'm blind lol

ps. the only thing I can think of, other than the resource cost to build, is a note for the units that are not immediately accessible. Again perhaps specific to this map, but many nations can't build certain listed units until later in the game, which might be good to know. Like if you were worried that Balkan's might build a fighter in the second round or whatever, to screw your strategy.

[Black_Elk]

Still thinking on some of redrums feedback...

@redrum said in Iron War - Official Thread:

• Colonial/SS feel a bit lacking as well especially cause they are spread out so much over the map and really just end up using it to build a unit here and there when you have enough. Doesn't really add much depth to the game.

Part of me thinks that some nations which might really benefit from having a cheaper fodder unit don't have access to them. South Africa, China and Brazil all come to mind for the Allies, maybe Finland, Iraq and Iran on the Axis side. I guess the whole 'colonial' aspect might not always fit, but just the idea of a fodder unit that costs like 5-6 PUs available in special instances, but limited/capped by the resource so that it can't be spammed relentlessly. For smaller nations, the ones that routinely collect less than 20 PUs per round, or which may eventually find themselves collecting less than 10 PUs, I can see such units filling a niche.

Going beyond the Colonial stuff/specialized fodder that is capped by resource requirements, just for the basic unit costs overal, a few more thoughts...

In general I don't have an issue with opportunity or impulse buys. The sort of stuff you work into a purchase simply because its available as a cheaper or more powerful hitpoint in a given round. I think often purchasing decisions are informed by the desire to max hitpoints/power by spending as much of the remainder as possible. And that this can be used as a way to encourage variety in builds.

For that reason I'm not terribly fond of having different units with the exact same costs. Or having lots of units which are neatly divisible by the main fodder unit. In this case base 10 infantry. I'd rather add or subract 1 or 2 PUs in those cases, or vary the cost in steel, so that players who are trying to max hitpoints every round are guided towards more mixed purchases. If that makes sense

Basically trying to avoid having a lot of stuff that costs 20 PUs, or can be cleanly divided into infantry. Like maybe fighters cost 21. Transports 22. Bombers 33. Carriers 44. Or things like that so that working out the remainder leads players to mixed forces, at least when it comes to deciding on the final unit to try and "fit" into a given build.

If there is a pressing strategic need for a given unit, then of course any solid player will forego their remainder to make sure they have the right unit for the job. So just as an example, under the current setup, if what you need is a Mech unit to tow another hitpoint into a key fight, then you're not going buy a light tank just to spend a couple extra leftover PUs. You buy the mech and save the rest. But freqeuently the strategic choice may be less clear, and the desire to spend the full remainder might very well encourage a tank buy over a mech buy, everything else being equal.

I think the impulse buy/remainder thing, is one of the very few tools we have, to disrupt an over reliance on the fodder push dynamic outlined so eloquently by Dan Rae way back when. Where players always max the cheapest fodder unit to whatever cap is established by the production limit, and then only buy the most OP attack unit (usually aircraft) to support them on the push. 2 move unit drives aside, I think everyone with A&A experience defaults to that style of build, and you'll never get rid of it. But the desire to spend a full remainder is at least one method to encourage occasional deviations, even if its only like for one impulse unit in a given turn of purchasing.

Iron War is uniquely suited to address this problem, because a game with fodder at base 10 PUs offers a lot more variety in effectively spending remainders, than a game like A&A, where the base fodder unit has traditionally cost just 3 PUs. This is probably the main reason I keep returning to this map, and what I meant earlier when I said I really like how the relatively high cost of infantry (compared to all other units) effects the standard purchasing decisions. i.e. it forces players to consider units other than inf. That coupled with your production system (a cheap destroyable factory/base, with many tiles that can support it, but limited in total output at 5 units per tile) make for a really unique change. I also enjoy how the naval units pair off against each other, since it avoids the transport spam without relying on the defenseless transport gimmick. Overall the unit roster is pretty close to ideal, though I think it could get some more polish to be perfect. Like with the mobile ground, or some cost tweaking like I mentioned in that post above.

[Frostion]

@all
There is a ton feedback that I have to chew through, and to little time to do it I would really like to read and evaluate from the point where @redrum and @Black_Elk finished a few games. And I would like to study the statistics of those games as well as hold that up towards what the AI does and handles the map. But that can't be today as I have too little time.

But just my thoughts on the unit prices and unit functions. As I see it, the Mech-Inf is ofcours a unit with its own special function and (to tow inf and art), and so is the SP-Artillery and Anti-Tank. They are also meant to be medium weight units in between inf/art and tanks.

Special for the Mech-Inf is that this unit aims to be very an attractive and widespread purchase. Purchase numbers should rank after Infantry and artillery, and maybe double as purchased than SP-artillery and Anti-Tank. So purchase tendency could be like:
10 Inf
6 art
4 Mech-inf
1 SP- artillery
1 Anti-Tank
1 Tank (Light/Med/Hvy)

The Mech-Inf should fill out the role of an expensive infantry, that is mostly a good purchase, unless you are stacking defence, you have to walk a very short distance, you have to sail on transport or you are low on iron and want to buy ships instead or something.

It seems to my that the Mech-Inf as of now lives up to this, but I will have to study the saves and the AI further.

When it comes to the special units, AS, colonial, commisars and kamikaze, they are just bonus units sometimes available. The player should go "yay! A new commisar!". Unlike the marines that are always available and unlockable heavy tanks and jets. As the availability is not unlimited, they don't need to be "balanced" or have a niche role. They are just nice to buy when available. I don't see a need to change them.

[redrum]

@Frostion Well I think the challenge is its probably more like this right now:
14 Inf
6 Mech
3 Art
0 everything else

[Black_Elk]

hmmm I think I see where you are coming from, but I would frame it rather differently. Instead of thinking about things in terms of the desired relative frequency of unit types (which can be kind of vague), think about the situation in terms of the fodder push dynamic and what purchases it is likely to encourage, absent some outside motivation combating the force of habit.

Lets assume we have a starting force that already includes some tanks or fighters (as most nations do). Under those circumstances, if I have exactly 100 PUs, and 10 available production slots, then I will probably buy 10 infantry, almost every time. Its the best all-around purchase for the money. The infantry push dynamic is a tried and true strategy, and all it really requires is that you are able to stack significantly more hit-points than your opponent while maintaining your starting heavy hitters. The push may be slow, but its consistent. So without some other consideration guiding me, I likely default to that.

Granted, some things may change this dynamic, like the number of starting infantry you already have, coupled with a desire for more speed. As you noted, mech is a pretty solid buy right now. It compares well with infantry, is only slightly more expensive (provided you have steel), with double the mobility and a kick ass tow ability. So ok if I have 100 PUs and idk say 11 steel, then maybe I would buy 8 mech instead, of 10 infantry, for a total of 96 PUs and save the extra steel for next time. I lose out on 2 hitpoints sure, but gain a lot of speed, and if I already have 8 infantry units at the ready in my starting forces, then those mech can tow double their weight in hitpoints. So yeah, for sure, go mech crazy. But here's the thing...

Now I have a remainder 4 PUs.

This to me is where the interesting aspect of impulse purchasing comes into play. Does the player now decide to backtrack by 1 mech unit, and only purchase 7 rather than 8, so they can spend that remainder on a medium tank instead of the 8th mech? The remainder here can encourage a more varied buy. It can change a mind at the last second, where at first I'm thinking 'all mech all day,' suddenly the question is reopened. Because that 4 PUs is like a nagging gadfly. Nobody likes a bunch of change burning a hole in their pocket, after all. So for me, that's where we get the big opening to disrupt an otherwise mechanical decision making process.

There are always going to be some units that are just better buys than others, and they will naturally predominate. But its that last "filler" unit, that gives us a way to encourage the more mixed purchase and more mixed forces over time. Whether that last impulse buy is going to be a Medium tank, or a light tank, or a tank destroyer, or SP artillery, may end up depending on exactly how much change you have and the desire to spend the full remainder. That's why I like the idea of differing unit costs, so there is not such a direct competition between similar unit types. If mech and SP Artillery both cost 12 PUs and 1 steel, will I ever buy SP Artillery, given that Mech's ability to tow is so potent? But if Mech costs 1 PU more than SP Artillery, I can almost guarantee there will come a point where I'd buy at least one SP Artillery unit, purely based on the remainder/impulse thing. That's sort of what I was driving at above. Clearly I know its a bit more complex than I just presented, because of the resource consideration with fuel/steel, but even still, I'd never underestimate power of 1 PU to potentially swing a decision at the last second hehe. Right now I think there are probably too many units in direct competition with one another for the same cost, or in competition with the Inf spam (ie divisible by base 10 PUs). Invariably some units will end up being considered underpowered and neglected, but even those may find ways onto the board provided the overall cost structure is set up in an enticing enough way.

I know the automatic response here is probably that we shouldn't have to rely on this kind of haphazard or impulsive decision making to accomplish the goal of players buying more exotic or specialized stuff. Ideally those units would all pair off each other in such a way that every buy is always made with a grande strategic purpose in mind (like for that one time when buying a shit ton of SP Artillery at a go is the exact right choice for the situation hehe.) But just trying to be a realist, I think what you are more likely to see is a general purchasing strategy that continues to focus on the basic fodder push dynamic, with the variety coming into it mainly on the edges. Like a couple exotic units added in here and there, until somewhere by the midgame there are enough of them in play that people start trying to get creative and work them into their plans.

Currently I think the fact that aircraft do not cost any steel, is sort of working against the heavy hitters on the ground. Aircraft are allowing a way to basically ignore steel altogether and play a somewhat oldschool push game that relies exclusively on inf fodder + fighters. I'm not sure of the solution. Probably more total steel in play, and having all aircraft cost at least 1 steel is a good place to start. I don't know how much we can increase the PU cost of aircraft before they become too expensive to justify. Maybe they don't need to be all that much more expensive if they required steel to build? I'd try the whole 21/22/33 idea for fighters/divebombers/stratbombers and see how they measure up once steel is a factor.

[Black_Elk]

Finally, something really radical for a closer...

It relates to the idea I mentioned before about units not being in such direct competition with one another. Right now the basic costs in steel are sort of undercutting the unique thing that having a base 10 fodder unit achieves with PUs, because all the steel units are costing between just 1-4 steel. Steel units are competing directly in a very extreme sort of way, given the resource cap and limited variety in potential steel costs 1-4.

I wonder if you've considered maybe shifting over a decimal point?

You know like instead of working with 1 steel at a time, going up to 10 steel at the entry level. That way you could have artillery that costs 10 steel. Maybe SP Artillery costs 11 steel. Mech 12. Light Tanks might cost 23 steel or whatever. With more flexibility to vary the numbers between, 11-19, 21-29, 31-39 etc. Just increasing the steel reserves across the board by x10, and increasing the steel costs for various units in a concomitant way overall, but broken down into smaller integers between, to differentiate the steel costs in a more nuanced way.

This would get a remainder thing going for steel as well, and seems like it would present some more flexibility in varying the steel cost of a given unit relative to all the other steel units. Doing this you could probably eliminate any redundancies, such that no two units would ever need to cost exactly the same amount in PUs/Steel.

examples:
Artillery 11 PUs/10 Steel
SP Artillery 12 PUs/11 Steel
Mech 13 PUs/12 Steel
Tank Destroyer 14 PUs/22 Steel
Light Tank 15 PUs/23 Steel
Medium Tank 16 PUs/33 Steel
Heavy Tank 17 PUs/42 Steel
Patrol Boat 13 PUs/13 Steel
Destroyer 16 PUs/21 steel
Transport 20 PUs/24 Steel
Cruiser 20 PUs/31 Steel
Submarine 25 PUs/25 Steel
Battleship 35 PUs/41 Steel
Carrier 40 PUs/44 Steel
etc.

I think we could include all the Aircraft units as steel types. Thematically it might make sense to include AAguns and Factories as steel units too. AAguns could have a steel cost less than 10, maybe like 5 steel, so it too can enter the remainder game here. Actually any unit not currently costing steel could jump in at less than 10 once everything else is bumped over a decimal point. Even infantry have rifles and bullets and such. If you wanted to bring them into the fray, maybe they have a steel cost of only 1? Just a thought, since you'd have a lot more room to play with the numbers.

Because Steel is a purchasing resource the simple bean counting of it isn't as necessary as it is for a movement resource like fuel, and this would basically give you a whole second way to carve up the purchasing roster to avoid repetition in costs. Its sort of the name of the game, so anything we can do to make it more heavy metal would probably be cool.

[Black_Elk]

Kind of long winded in my replies, but just to summarize a few points on how I think it might be improved further.

1. More variation in unit pricing (steel/pus) so that remainder spending encourages mixed builds. x10 Steel so we can vary the steel cost of units into smaller integers, as explained in the previous couple posts. In general trying to make steel a more significant resource by including it as a build requirement for all units, like aircraft, aaguns, factories, and even infantry. This could be done by having the current no-steel units requiring some fraction less than 10 steel after the current totals/costs are increased x10.

2. More options to send aid (in PUs) from minor powers to major powers, in smaller increments, say 5 PUs to help with remainder spending. More variety in where to send aid, so that there is a strategic dimension to the choice. For example, each nation has at least 2 possible aid recipients (for steel/fuel/PUs), so that the decision is more nuanced.

3. More +5 build locations that can support a factory buy in contested areas of the gamemap. Especially territories that can be reached by both teams early on. Alaska, Algeria, Benelux, Greece, Okinawa, New Guinea, Madagascar, Sicily etc.

4. Consider merging faction South Africa to Britain or British Colonies. Feels a little out of place as the lone dominion singled out for special inclusion, when all others are are composed of like two or more nations. ANZAC is Australia and New Zealand. British-India includes Singapore and Sarawak. The British faction itself includes Canada etc. I think the most logical is to make South Africa part of British-Colonies.

5. Consider merging Iraq and Iran into a single faction called Axis Near East or something similar.

6. VC spread: I agree that these are fairly well balanced and that achieving 20 seems to time well with one side or the other "winning" in practical terms. However, I think some VCs are currently uncontested and might be moved. Prime example would be trading out the USA Pacific VC from the West Coast US to Hawaii or East Coast US to Philippines. Perhaps Siberia could trade out for Irkutsk, so Japan has more viable VC targets? If the Near East factions are merged, one of those VCs could be moved elsewhere. I think the main goal here would be to set things up such that Axis have a way to win that doesn't necessitate the crush Russia/India first strategy. Or similarly that Allies cannot win simply by being ascendant in one theater while ignoring the other.

7. Pace of play, entertainment and overall balance: Right now I think that the balance probably favors Allies FtF, but that, of the two teams, Axis is more fast paced and entertaining to play. This is mainly due to the fact that the Axis have more build options and more opportunities to determine the basic expansion pattern. For the Axis team there is no shortage of "places to go next", whereas the Allies are mainly holding/liberating, with fewer opportunities to build factories as they go. I think a few more production lilly pads for the Allies would help jump start the action for their team.

8. I think one way to enhance the experience for both teams would be to have more target Neutral, Pro-Axis Neutral or Axis starting territories at +5. This would allow the many Allied factions to compete for their control. The Mediterranean region and Japanese pacific islands in particular could see a few bumps up to +5. Another approach might be to make some of the many +5 Pro-Allies territories into just regular Neutrals, so that the Allies have a way to occupy them more directly. I can imagine for example USA spending their first few turns activating neutrals, by occupying Mexico or the Central/South American neutrals. USA feels a bit cash poor considering all the ships they have to build, and this might help with that a bit. Actually I'd consider just eliminating the Pro-Allies Neutral faction altogether as unnecessary, and going with direct occupation if the Allies want to access those resources. (Its basically what they did historically during the actual war hehe.) Since there are no specific gameplay mechanics associated with the neutrals, I'm not sure having Pro-Side neutrals really adds much interest. Their main function right now seems to be as a way to bury team resources further afield, or to prevent one team or the other from doing a neutral crush in a particular region. I get it, but I think it might be just less confusing overall, for resource tallying, production and movement considerations (esp. fighter landings) if all neutrals were treated the same way. I'd just have them for bonus resources, rather than starting resources, and shift the starting resources from neutrals to home territories as necessary. In any case, if we really need a different kind of neutral, then I think just having Pro-Axis is probably enough to get the job done... Pro-side neutrals are more of a hindrance than a boon to the team (e.g. often you are better off allowing the enemy to capture them, so you can then re-capture them and take direct control, rather than trying to defend them in the first place. If that makes sense.) Sorry a bit long winded there again, but basically, because all the player-nations are belligerents from the outset, I think Iron War is more like a global domination game within a World War II setting. Which I honestly prefer for this sort of game, as opposed to like G40 with a bunch of complex declaration and neutrality rules to try and model the actual politics/timeline of the war. Having neutrals in there is a nice nod to the historical situation at the start date, but beyond that, I don't see any real need for players to check themselves when it comes to stomping on neutrals if they want to.

9. Nukes/Endgame: Although I've yet to play an FtF game into the nuclear era, I wonder if Germany getting access in late 1945 is a bit premature? In practical terms its probably going to take the USA at least one round to move their nukes into position, so the ability of team Axis to respond immediately with nukes of their own might be a bit much. I'd push it till like 1946 at the earliest before G gets them.

10. Single Player vs Hard AI. I think this map works really well for a solo against the machine. There is enough going on to keep the newb pretty engaged and it can be a lot of fun to try and expand until you hit monster status. I think some suggested settings adding to the AI's bonus income would be cool. Probably 110-133% for a moderate challenge, or 150% and up for a more difficult challenge, depending on which side you choose and how familiar you are with the map. Right now the main issue for the AI is in managing fuel, and especially fuel guzzling aircraft (which they like to buy in abundance.) So it might be nice if we had a way to give a bonus for fuel independent of PUs/Steel, in which case I'd just set the AI nations to infinite fuel or like 999%, so it's no longer an issue for the machine.

I think that's all I got. It's a solid game and I like the latest build. Will undoubtedly keep playing it hehe

[Black_Elk]

So I'm still thinking that the x10 steel idea is the cleanest way to open up the unit roster in a way that allows for more pricing variety on the ground and for aircraft (as well as the other current no-steel cost) to start costing at least some steel.

Been ruminating a bit more on the Med region as well. Read up a little over the holidays on French Algeria during this period, and the Algerian war of independence that followed in the late 50s, and I think it makes sense as a +5 tile. Unlike other colonial territories in the neighborhood (like Tunisia say), Algeria had a unique status administratively and was considered part of France proper.

I think the main gameplay interest for Algeria in the early rounds would be as a forward target in Africa for Germany, since it mirrors Vichy, and could serve as a springboard towards W. Africa or into the Atlantic. In later rounds Algeria probably makes sense as a secondary objective (after Morocco) for an Anglo-American "Torch" push. It likely takes a bit of time/energy to crack Italian Libya, so Algeria could act as a camping spot for the Allies in North Africa, while they try to make a breakthrough to take the main Axis VC in North Africa (allowing France back into the mix in the process), or conversely it might be a spot for Germany/Italy to make a last stand on the ground before they get rolled back to the Libya VC.

On the other side of the Med, I still like Greece for a +5, since it could go to Germany, Balkans or Italy early on, and then later serve as a toehold for the Allies if they want to go with a Churchill style plan for a second front in Europe. I think that would create a nice spread where you have 3 factory locations running along both the top and bottom of the Med, with some good options for a back and forth depending on the naval situation. Like if Allies control the Mediterranean or Aegean sea zones, but Axis control the Tyrrhenian or Adriatic sea zones, you could have amphibious actions into/out of those territories, without requiring direct fleet to fleet engagements.

Sicily at +5 would be cool too, again mainly as a late game target for the Allies (I'd just drop Italy a few PUs to make that happen.)

[redrum]

@Black_Elk I agree with almost all 10 of your points. I think the only one I still struggle with is #2. I think its actually better to have less options but have them be very difficult choices and make them somewhat historical and based on what nations supplied each other. I also still think in most cases there should be a cost for sending supplies as some will be lost in transit. Right now there are too many obvious choices and I feel I'm just clicking the same things each round. Also I think there should be less really small options like sending 1 Iron. I'd rather have minors need to stockpile a few rounds then send a meaningful amount then click the button every turn.

So for example for many of the minors replace "Send 1 Iron to X Major for Cost of 1 Iron" with "Send 3 Iron to X Major for Cost of 5 Iron". Now I have to think as the minor should I instead try to use up the Iron or stockpile and pay the fee to transfer it to my major. Presents a more interesting solution. Or as USA instead of "Send 20 PUs to USSR for Cost of 20 PUs" instead make it "Send 15 PUs to USSR for Cost of 20 PUs". Now I really gotta consider is it worth the fee of 5 PUs to support USSR or should I just use it to build my own fleet.

[Black_Elk]

Typing from my phone since the internet is down at my spot for some reason.

Historically the flow of aid works better with some nations than others depending on the tineline. The US and Britain both sent aid to Russia. The US, Britain and Russia all sent aid to China. For the various factions that make up the British Empire here the situation can probably be whatever we want, since the divisions are sort of artificial and don't really graft onto any historical political/economic reality of the time. Thematically I think of it like the dissolution British Empire, where those factions vaguely correspond to what the Empire devolved into following the war, but even that is kind of a stretch. The aid situation for a place like Australia could reasonably flow to/from the US as much as Britain I'd think. France and Brazil likewise seem like we could probably do whatever feels good for the gameplay.

The issue right now that I see is that the flow is too one directional, basically from the US/Britain to everywhere else for PUs/Oil, and then the reverse situation for steel. That's all on the Allied side though. The Axis weren't really integrated economically in anything like the same way that the Allies were. So sending aid from Germany/Japan elsewhere is more of a game thing in my view, to make that team play in a somewhat comparable way.

Part of me thinks a simpler approach might be to detach the Aid money from the regular economy and have it be like a once per round decision for each team.

So for example, instead of the USA sending its own regular cash to one of the other nations, maybe its just a prompt at the end of the round for entire side like... "Allies have 55 PUs, 22 fuel, 33 steel in aid, shall they send to Britain or Russia?" maybe the following round the choice is between China or Australia, later on it might be between France or British Colonies, whathaveyou. Basically a larger amount of money/resources, but where you have to make an either/or selection about where it goes. Then you could just have like a historical blurb accompanying the prompt that provides some kind of rationale for what is happening that round...

Like on the Allied side in 1941, maybe its "Flying Tigers" aid to China vs "Free French" aid to France. On the Axis side in 1941 it might be aid to Near East (Golden Square coup, pro-Axis government installed in Iraq) vs aid to Balkans (Yugoslavia dissolved, pro-Axis governments installed in Croatia). Or whatever makes sense thematically for that round, where the choice is kind of a toss up, between two similarly compelling options. What I mean also is that something like aid to Russia should be the sort of thing that maybe only happens like once every 3 or 4 rounds, with another good choice always set against it so the decision is trickier, like having to choose between aid to Russia or aid to India in the same round (when both are likely under pressure). That sort of thing.

In gameplay terms that would make the whole aid thing rather less tedius, but still provide some dynamism where the team can choose a different focus in each game depending on what kind of overall strategy they have in mind.

Basically instead of a bunch of smaller hard choices between "should I keep the money/resources, or send along, maybe get taxed etc" it'd be a choice like "do we want a beefy Atlantic fleet for Britain, or a bunch of Russian tanks this game?" On the other side of the map maybe, "do we want to be all deep in China this time, or do a wily Australian bounce about?" hehe. You know something that is still a hard/consequential decision, with a bigger chunk of change involved, but where the choice is broken down on a round by round basis, instead of turn by turn, if that makes sense.

If you wanted an opt-in/out, you could do it where where every nation can chip in to the overall aid pot for their team in smaller increments as a way to push the remainders, but then have the potential aid recipients go on a rotation (based on whatever round it is.) So maybe in the early rounds it makes sense to have certain pairings of aid nations come up, whereas in the endgame other pairings make more sense. Or you do it in blocks, where 3 nations are up for aid in a given round, but you can only choose 1 to actually receive it.

Maybe you could have additional players called
Axis Aid and Allied Aid, whose purpose is just to bank. So each nation could send aid to their teams aid bank at the end of their turn (similar to the way it works now), and then at the end of the round those Aid players allocate the total aid received in a specialized phase with the either/choices for that specific year.

[Black_Elk]

Messed about vs hardAI Allies at 180% using the pre-release 1.10.13840. At that point the income boost starts to overcome most of the AIs deficiencies just through sheer weight of the numbers, so its mainly about just staying alive into the nuclear age, trying make a break out somewhere to get the 20 VCs. The AI still runs out of fuel though. I think the best thing for the solo map would be a way to give the computer unlimited fuel, because then you could likely come down on the PU bonus a bit and still face a challenge if all the fighters and ships and such could move. Or easier might be a field a flat bonus to fuel the way you have for PUs, so the player you could enter 999 fuel or whatever for the machine. With the fuel/movement thing handled for the AI, I think it would be easier to set some standard HardAI difficulty levels just in flat PUs... like maybe 10 for an easy game, 20 for moderate, 30 for hard etc, giving the smaller guys a sizable relative boost on income, but where the larger powers like Russia/USA wouldn't be quite as nutso hehe. Anyhow that's my thought, a basic prompt at launch that lets you set the AI's fuel resources in more detail the way it currently works for PUs.

elk vs hardAI Allies 180 Germany round 13.tsvg

[Black_Elk]

Or any chance we can get a tab in Edit Mode to "change resources" the way you can change PUs?

Because that would be a good workaround for testing different starting reserves and the like, without having to add more oil drums (which is the only way I can think of to do it right now.) I was going to try running this one where I added 99 oil drums for each of the AI Allies to the American capital... which amusingly enough is probably not too inaccurate for world oil production at the time. But anyway I'm curious to see how the machine's play improves when it can move all its mobile units, ships and aircraft around. Since I'm not sure it needs a large cash bonus provided they have enough oil so their transports and aircraft don't get stuck.

Iron War HardAI Allies 99 fuel Germany round 1.tsvg

Here it is after a few rounds. Even with the Axis crushing hard into the center south, the AI is pretty slick about getting its fighters to India and England. It just needs the gas to get the job done hehe. But its pretty entertaining. I think you could go with a much more modest difficulty bonus in cash and still get a fun challenge once the computer has a solid fuel reserve.

Iron War HardAI Allies 99 fuel Italy round 4.tsvg

Allies made some nice counter attacks leading into 1943, in the Atlantic with a strike on the German fleet and putting on a bit of pacific press with the US and Anzac...
Iron War HardAI Allies 99 fuel Germany round 8.tsvg

[Frostion]

@redrum Could maybe answer about the in game edit off resources, like PUs.

The problem about giving the players as much fuel as the AI needs is that the amount would be way too much compared to what a human player would need/should have access to. The AI players play/move as if fuel did not concern them. It has no priorities when moving, about what move is more important and a "must do now" and what move is a thing that could wait until there is enough fuel. Humans as as of now are often forced to do this. This is the intention.

One thing that I have not done as of yet in Iron War (as I remember), and would like to do is to give fuel drums a relatively high tuv (Total unit value) setting. Perhaps this could motivate the AI to capture oil a bit more. @redrum Is it correct that it is first a unit's buy price (even though the unit can't be bought) and then the same unit's tuv setting that is a prime motivation for the AI to attack/capture the enemy? And also motivation to protect own units?