Iron War - Official Thread

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.

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

Black_Elk

Yeah I agree, its better if there's a way to boost the AIs access to fuel without the human being able to exploit it in game. That's why it would be nice if we could do something at edit/launch to just tweak the fuel reserve directly for the AI, instead of the hackjob thing I did editing adding oil drums onto the one Allied capital that's the hardest to reach hehe. But the AI does pretty well for itself once it can ignore fuel for movement.

The human newb can still get a feel for what's involved with fuel (since the fuel movement mechanics still happen on their end) while they battle an AI opponent that's a little more challenging.

Anyhow, I think the AI is a useful tool for learning the basics of the map. Its gameplay won't match what happens PvP, but we can still having it doing some fun stuff and showing the people the ropes, while allowing them to explore various endgame conquests and such.

redrum

@Black_Elk Yeah, being able to edit amount of non-PU resources would be a very good feature request

@Frostion You could consider doing something like trigger some extra fuel drums if a player is AI as even if I do eventually give them more logic around using fuel, it will probably always be something they struggle with more than other resources. I know @panguitch does it with some useraction or something in some of his maps to identify if they are a player or AI.

I actually don't think fuel drums cost or TUV will matter as the AI doesn't check non factory infra unit value at the moment when capturing territories. But the TUV unit parameter if set always overrides purchase cost when valuing units for the AI.

Frostion

@redrum I am surprised that the AI is not affected by the tuv setting of some units. Would it not be an obvious way to have the AI be "guided" towards prioritising and capturing for example resource generating units, units that are in some way critical for a win or in other complex way important targets. If the AI can't see or figure out the real value of a resource generating unit, could the AI not just use the tuv?

redrum

@Frostion Yeah, ideally the AI would take into account the value of any capturable units in a territory. But since I wrote the AI mostly based on revised/v3, those maps don't have anything besides factories. So right now I think that TUV only matters for units that would be involved in battle or can be purchased. But its something I'd like to add.

Frostion

@redrum I hope it is then added to the list of AI to-do stuff

redrum

@Frostion Added it though that list tends to grow faster than things are checked off these days

Black_Elk

Went another match vs the HardAI using the extra fuel and adding 110% on top of that. The AI Allies have been doing pretty well massing fighters in Russia despite having England knocked off early. Germany had a half backed plan to take South America and West Africa after Sea Lion, so the Russians got a bit of a reprieve in the west, although Japan is laying into them from the other side now. Japan made a brief escapade into Australia before getting turned backed there, only to see Anzac even make a late game revenge strike to take Tokyo! They snaked it for a round while I was preoccupied defeating India, after Britain cleared a path with their fighters. In general AI Allies playing much stronger with the air and ships hehe.

Iron War HardAI Allies 99 fuel 110 pu Germany round 10.tsvg

redrum

@Black_Elk Yeah, giving the AI essentially unlimited fuel and then probably a 20-30% income bonus should give a pretty interesting game.

Black_Elk

For sure 20-30 can pretty engaging. The small guys get a few more tanks on the board over time, and for the bigger dogs they're picking up 2 or 3 more hitpoints a round at least. I think for a new person interested in trying out Iron War I'd suggest playing as the Axis. You can get a pretty good feel for how steel dictates purchasing decisions and how fuel informs movement decisions (definitely with fleets) by beating up on the AI first before trying your hand at PvP. All the resource stuff that might not seem like a big deal in the first round becomes way more critical down the line, esp in rounds 3-4. Japan and Italy quickly have to make tough decisions about how to use their steel and about allocating fuel for movment, and if Germany builds any kind of sizeable fleet then fuel is hugely consequential for them as well. When you get into the higher numbers with ships, or carriers with aircraft, often your fleet/air has to park it for a round or even two rounds, if they need to make a big movement across two tiles to attack/defend a key spot.

Part of me is still not entirely sure how I feel about fuel from a gameplay interest standpoint, since it remains a tough thing to track intuitively (in terms of what the opponent can do with a given amount of fuel), and sometimes it comes up more frustrating than exciting (when you realize you don't have enough fuel to move everything you thought you could haha), but its still pretty novel. Different enough from the standard A&A experience, that I think a newb can definitely benefit from seeing how it works vs an AI opponent. Either taking just one power or the whole team. I like Axis for that since their game is more straight forward and their expansion pattern to gain new production lillypads offers a lot of different options. And there's something to be said for the endgame crush where you are painting the whole map with your colors, or getting yourself off (as Hepps might say haha) on total victory vs the AI, into the depths where a human opponent would almost certainly have bowed out and gone to bed already long ago.

For the playing as the Allies, I think the difficulty bonus probably needs to be higher in the 130-150% range to provide a comparable challenge. Mainly because the first round combats are so consequential. Either that or you can probably give the Axis a conservative scripted opener for G1/J1 with a smaller bonus to get at a similar feel.

Either way though, for the AI to do its thing and muddle into a decent attack plan during the mid-game it needs way more fuel to function. I think for the learning curve its more practical on the fly to assume that the opponent can always move or hit you with any units it has on the board, rather than thinking about whether they have enough gas. Having unlimited fuel for the AI just sort of reinforces that basic gameplay caution, that unless you're willing to crunch a lot of numbers and prognosticate constantly about what your opponent can do with their fuel every turn, you're probably better off assuming they can just get there and defend accordingly.

Its pretty rad right now, but I'd still like to see a rework on the unit costs, esp the double digit steel thing to bring aircraft into line. I think at present airpower makes it too easy to ignore steel as a resource. The fact that they are relatively cheap makes them simple to mass, but they are also fuel hogs at movement (you need all slots available in fuel 4 per unit at combat move), and without a steel cost up front to cap them, you might not realize until you're way into the purchasing game that half the fighters you spent all that loot on have to stay on the runway. I think everything in the roster could have a steel cost if you moved over a decimal and broke it up a bit at the low end.

Frostion

@Black_Elk I think you just wrote an intire critical review of the current version of Iron War
Concerning Iron resource and unit prices, I have given it a lot of thought for some time. I am thinking of making alterations. It will not be a x10 resource generation thing as I think this would be strange when oil, as, colonial etc. all produce only 1 resource per unit. But I thought about adding like x3 number of iron units to the map, most of them placed on top of the all ready existing units. Then changing unit prices to need more iron. Small units less iron, large units more iron. What do you think?