Iron War - Official Thread

[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?

[Black_Elk]

Sounds pretty solid to me. I think it gives a nod to the name too, where the iron war to take control of the resource producing spots will be closer to the way it feels now for fuel (totally essential to winning hehe.) Speaking of fuel, the main thing I notice in the current build is that Anzac is pretty thirsty. Its tight right now to the point where they can't really make naval movements or field a carrier group (even if they have the air/cash/steel to do so.) I think they'd definitely benefit from a US aid option for fuel.

In general the movement cost for fighters on carriers creates a kind of gamey situation where you are really much better off having a friendly nations fighters parked on your carrier deck rather than your own fighters. So for example an Anzac carrier with US Fighters, a British-Colonies carrier with South African fighters, or whathaveyou. Because then the carrier can move around and retain the defensive fighter bonus on the water, but without the huge cost in fuel. Its a considerable difference when the carrier deck is stacked with your own fighters since it sucks up a dozen fuel slots. In practical terms it means that the carrier is the most likely unit to get stuck in place due to fuel shortages. I think it matters less in the Atlantic because those decks tend to stay in place over the same sz for several rounds anyway, but in the pacific where Japan can make big moves on the water, it can make it a real challenge to bring the US and Anzac fleets together if a carrier is involved. I think that's where the fuel aid thing of like 15 barrels could really come into play, forcing the US player to think about it in advance, if they need Anzac to move on coverage.

Another option if you want to bring the air fuel thing down, would be to increase the oil totals and then increase the movement cost at the low end. Like maybe lighter land/naval units cost 1 per move, and the heavier land/naval stuff cost 2 per move. The fighters at 4 or bombers at 6 might seem less slightly less fuel intensive relative to the other fuel units.

But yeah, anyhow, I dig the steel idea. I think a x3 increase to the totals would definitely open it up at the low end, where you could have more cost 1-2 steel units without upending the relative cost on the heavier stuff.

[Frostion]

"Its a considerable difference when the carrier deck is stacked with your own fighters since it sucks up a dozen fuel slots."

I actually though that this was changed in the engine some time ago. But it was probably just a part of a discussion. I think it would be great (and logical), that if you move your carrier (with planes in the same zone) and thereafter the planes follow the ship's path and stop at their mother carrier again, then the move should be free of charge/fuel should be paid back, no matter combat or no-combat. Just as the conditions for any allied planes. Of course the same rule would apply if you select and move carrier+planes at the same time to the same path and destination.

I don't think that I will change Iron War rules and unit stats based on these circumstances. Who know how engine rules might change in the future.

When looking at iron resources and cost, I will keep an extra eye on ANZACs fuel situation

[redrum]

@Frostion If you move the fighters along with the carrier then you shouldn't be charged any fuel for the fighters.

[Black_Elk]

Is that how it works currently, and I am just missing a click or something? If this was the case it would make a huge difference since aircraft are the biggest drain on fuel for sure. If there is a way to move them on the water without incurring the fuel cost that's major. Right now the only way I've figured out how to do it is hitching a ride on a friendly carrier, or during initial placement moving air from the coastal factory. If there is a return on fuel for moving together or ending in the same spot, it would be cool if there was some kind of graphical representation, maybe similar to how damage is represented? Like a loaded deck shows smaller fighters or something, or if the fighters are 'released' for separate movement they get larger.

[Black_Elk]

Had a lively match messing around against the Hard AI Allies using the pre-release, unlimited fuel edit and 133% boost. They battled hard across Africa to mess with Italy and are now blasting into the middle east from the other side. They've been stacking up in India and China pretty heavily to give Russia some cushion. Even with Germany putting the stomp down on the Soviets in the west, they are still fighting hard. Had a pretty impressive German fleet going there for a hot minute, but the Americans sent it to the bottom of the sea with like 20 fighters in the air off the coast of Norway. Japan tried to put the sting on California for revenge, but seems like it could go on for a bit if the Allies keep stacking in Africa. Least until the nukes start flying hehe. Anyhow, pretty fun stuff with the unlimited fuel workaround.

Hard AI Allies 99 fuel 133 pu Italy round 11.tsvg

Smoking Cobras! I went a different match for another 10 rounds under the same set up. This time tried to snake the middle with a German expeditionary force to Siberia, and Japan going the b line for India. Ultimately got bit by Brazil though hehe. Figured at this income level for the machine Japan basically has just enough juice to knock off one target, so I skipped the dutch factory thinking they could be contained and went after British India directly. The Dutch are pretty deep with Anzac fighters now so had to kiss that oil goodbye. Germany funneled their dudes across the north shucking from Scandinavia over to Siberia to eat the Soviets from the inside out. Had a pretty good run of it disrupting the backfield, but the Allies had the spanish landing pad, gunning full D-Day. AI America just liberated France and flattened Italy, clearing a path for Brazil swoop Rome! French Colonies did a number on the pro-Axis powers down south too, so definitely saw some action out of South America at 133% hehe.
Hard AI Allies 99 fuel 133 pu Germany round 11.tsvg

Another fun sea lion. Axis had the tko, but Russia is massive, getting ready to bear maul their way into the Balkans. Taking England and winning the Battle of the Atlantic early seems to be the best way to keep the Americans off your back in Europe and Africa, but it means the Russians come heavy. G took over all the little islands to transit across the Atlantic, so here we got about 40 aircraft pinned up Greenland for the time being anyway. The AI Soviets knocked off the Finns but have since been focusing south, so no Scandinavian landing pad, otherwise they'd have steam rolled Germany for sure by now. Soviets coming heavy despite getting split up the middle by Japan a while back, Managed to save the Middle East a few times, but with it looking like Balkans is toast, I think the Allies can definitely keep it going into the nuclear era. AI is pretty fun at 33% without the fuel consideration. They're pretty mobile, even the Dutch have managed to sneak back in here on the Allied Africa defense hehe. Good times

Hard AI Allies 99 fuel 133 pu Balkans round 11.tsvg

In this one the AI Brits got their revenge, taking Rome in the 7th... Axis did an alright job of savaging Russia out the gate this time. Left France for the Italians to take and just threw everything to the East to crack Leningrad. Il Duce was feeling pretty good in early days, but then got caught with his pants down and double teamed by Britain and South Africa in the perfect storm of factory annihilation hehe.

Hard AI Allies 99 fuel 133 pu Italy round 7.tsvg

[Black_Elk]

while I'm waiting on the internet to get back up, couple quick thoughts on nukes.

One idea I thought might be fun is if the USA player gets a nuke or two when the tech is first achieved, like maybe spawned at their airbase? That would ensure that it can reach a target by late 1945, and might be fun in a solo. For PvP I have no idea how nukes might determine the deep endgame, but since most games are probably decided before round 12, I see it as more of a novelty for the edurance oriented player.

For the Anglo-Americans the nukes feel historical, for Russia also plausible for a game that stretches into 1946-49.

For Germany and Japan the nukes are less plausible and more gamey I think. But its nice if both sides have access just for parity, in the case of a close game, of if people want to just push on for the hell of it. Perhaps for the Axis instead of saying 'nuclear weapons', we could just say that Germany and Japan 'can now purchase strategic weapons' with the idea that it goes more bio-chem for their side, since the Axis had the technological edge there for sure. A lot of mad science going in that area, and for Germany the rocket delivery method, so its not implausible to imagine some late game Axis super weapons on par with Allied nukes. That's how I've been picturing it anyway. Like Axis using Tabun or something, which could definitely have happened (we paperclipped up a lot of their scientists in the aftermath, along with the soviets, so they had the capability there.) Anyhow I like the mechanics of a high cost suicide unit that can break the big stack stalemates once you pass the dozen round mark. Its a fun scenerio, even if totally mad.

[Frostion]

@Black_Elk Well, in Iron War, unlike real world history, the sides have to be on nearly the same strength when the war starts and also they have to not feel that something grounded in the real historical timeline is playing against them. Hopefully ALL the players feel like they have an equal chance to win. Also, from round 1 the players have to feel like they have control and power to alter the real historical events, like if one player surpasses the economical and resource strength of its real world counterpart.

But at the same time, the way "tech"(units) and nukes are "phased" in, is an anchor into real history. If it should be altered into a more fair way, one could argue that all players should get the opportunity to purchase nukes at the same time. So that the most resourceful players are the ones who could buy the finishing blow weapons.

I think that the current way of implementation is a good mix of real history and of the player's impact on history. Now we can say that the US has history on its side in regards to them being the first with nukes, but they still have to purchase the units. And in Iron War the German "Uranverein" nuclear project is just behind the US, and if Germany is a resourceful nation by this time, it is not set that much further behind.

So currently don't see a need to change this. I like the idea of nation specific "super weapons", but it is a bit to late in the development process to implement more of this. I like the idea so much that it is a big part of my upcoming Warcraft game. Here it is like 33% of the unit roster which is nation specific units. But it is probably difficult as hell to balance.

[Black_Elk]

Yeah I like how its handled, and I think it progresses with a pretty historical playpattern at the outset too, even under total war conditions. Like as the player you really have to make a series of key choices in the first round about where to press, since you have a lot of options, but choosing to go one way rather than another will define the rest of the game. I like how tech is handled, I think it gives the flavor but still keeps things simple and I think its more elegant than some of the research oriented stuff out of A&A. I like that for example that you have to buy the stuff, as opposed to just everything getting upgraded. The nukes are cool. I think there's enough suspension of disbelief that you can fit it into game narrative. Like who knows, maybe if the Germans made different decisions about how to allocate their resources or prioritize their research, maybe they could have cooked up a fission bomb of one sort or another. In gameplay terms for me, its mainly about the highly satisfying stomp down that comes from finally breaking an otherwise insurmountable stack. The longer range movement and ability to shave off an average of like 5 hitpoints per nuke can really turn a battle, where you might normally have several rounds of stacking, or cat and mouse before one side gets the leg up.

Haha look forward to seeing the Warcraft one. Comcast finally got their shit together, so I'm back on the laptop instead of my phone. Going to dive back into it presently.

Have you given any thought to the idea of an AI fuel boost of some sort, to increase the challenge for solo play? I think Iron War has a lot to offer in that area, it certainly keeps me entertained hehe. There's enough variety in cooking up attack plans and enough different target options out of the first round, that you can really shape a pretty different path to achieving total domination depending on where you go. Its fun to see how you can divvy the spoils between the various powers and maintain enough oil to move in the endgame.

[forthebirds]

I agree with Black Elk that an AI fuel boost would make playing solo more fun and would add variety to the end game when Great Britain & Japan run out of fuel.
I love the game. Thanks for all of your work and input.