Iron War - Official Thread

[Mora]

Sounds really forthebirds. I'll give it a try as soon I finish my current WAW. By the way, is there a recommended side to take that gives the most challenge? I am condemned to play solo vs. AI. And I like playing a single nation and try to rely on it's allies. My favourite is usually Italy.

[forthebirds]

I usually play a few of the major nations. Playing the axis first I think would be the the most fun. I would play as Germany, Italy & Japan.. I think, though that playing the allies is fun also.
In answer to Black Elk, I didn't think the Mech was unbalanced but , to be honest, I didn't buy many of them. Now that you brought it to my attention I may consider buying more of them because I see your point regarding its value. I hope that you can get the game to run.

[Black_Elk]

Alright took me a hot minute to get it working but finally got it to open. I think what had happened was that I had auto-updated the 2018 stable by accident after redownloading. This time I ignored all those prompts so it worked with 1.9.0.0.13... though there are some graphical elements with the map still displaying like a crossbar artifact when when I scroll about. But I can see some of the changes you mentioned. For anyone curious here is a screen of North America to see what forthebirds was talking about....

Essentially it makes the interior of the US true neutral so they have to be conquered/activated before the USA is collecting that income. There are some things I like about that approach, and some things I don't. So for example I like the concept of an initial stall of a round or two for build up/expansion before the nation is at full strength ready for war, but dislike the idea of presenting the USA as kind of fictitiously fragmented and nerfed on starting production. I think has some cool ideas for starting unit adjustments and territory ownership for the opener, but also has the downside of conflating the 1940 start date with one that in some respects looks more like 1941 or later.

Basically I think the same could be achieved using other neutral territories that make a bit more sense for the timeline and which would give a similar effect. But doing what you did for Mexico City (which is true neutral here rather than pro allied) but doing it for basically all those spots in Central America and South America or Cuba etc that might make sense, and just moving whatever starting steel or barrels might need to be moved to make that work.

Some things I like a lot (obviously hehe) is the changing of status from Pro-side neutral to 'true' Neutral, so that either side can grab them. The situation here with the way freethebirds has Mexico City, Morocco, Sweden, Spain etc. But I would try to be more consistent with it. So for example, if Spain is true neutral then Tangiers should be too, or like if Mexico City is true neutral, than so should Northern Mexico etc. I'd also suggest like the post above, that if the region represents one that wasn't historically a belligerent, then those spots should be much harder to "activate" through conquest, than the spots which were historically involved in the war. But basically having everything be the same as far as neutrals go, with the only differences being how much the territory is worth, and how many neutral armies are within the territory. But no pro-sides basically, that'd be my jam.

So on the vanilla map for example, there are strong incentives for Allies to conquer Pro Axis Sweden and Spain, or for Axis to attack True Neutral Turkey, or to have Brazil go on a painfully slow rampage vs Pro Axis spots like Argentina, even if nothing even remotely like that happened during the war haha.

Instead if the idea is to have a kind of neutral stomp in the opening rounds, then it should be focused on the neutral territories that actually ended up in the war, so Greece, Mexico, Iceland, Morocco all make a lot of sense, whereas spots like Afghanistan or Turkey etc really don't make much sense. The Pro Axis or Pro Allied division of neutrals complicates this I think, and creates conquest patterns that are kind of backwards in the vanilla map in pretty much every region where they exist (with the possible exception of Mongolia (which really was a Soviet satellite state, where it might maybe make sense to have the Russians freely moving about there.) But for the most part the pro side neutrals kind of do the opposite of what they should be doing, by painting a big target on the spot for the opposing team. Similarly it creates a bizarre situation in some parts of the map, where you actually want the enemy to kill your pro-side neutrals so that you can then reconquer and claim the production directly (e.g. how Morocco works in vanilla.)

Some other things I like here would be the added green barrels and factories, having Denmark under German control from the outset, or how more ships are in forward positions like German subs further out in the Atlantic for example, or how the naval balance off Truk Japan vs USA is set in forthebirds idea. Though I think I'd prefer more transports for the Allies and fewer for Axis. Since mass transports moves are so powerful, and even in vanilla the disparity in transport capacity creates a very different feel between how Axis plays compared to how Allies play.

I think a challenge with a map like this that is rather large and with a unit roster this involved and a large number of player faction is how to keep the first round from becoming kind of overwhelming. Or basically trying not to get stuck with a really lengthy scripted opener for everyone. Part of me thinks this map would benefit from many fewer units on the board at the outset, and instead have a build up production feel to the first round that simplifies what's going on. Basically a first round that doesn't involve a ton of major TUV exchanges, or battles that have to be fought to have any prayer of winnning, especially with the main fleets, which I think is a flaw in many A&A type games. Probably because I've played the opening round so many times by now that I am very familiar with it, the opener seems straightforward, but I know it didn't feel that way the first time I played haha, where I can remember thinking that it felt kind of insane. But G1 was entertaining enough to keep me engaged with it and now I kind of dig the big first turn from G. Still I think I'd lean towards maintaining the starting unit set up from Vanilla, and focus first on the production spread and the fuel, by tweaking the neutrals and adjusting the values there. Or adding more +5 spots or starting factories and such, before tweaking the big player nations.

But anyhow, I'm all for doing anything that generates interest in this map, since I think it has a lot of cool stuff going on, and pretty different from some of the other WW2 themed maps. I really think the playbalance for this one should be approached more from the Player vs AI perspective rather than the 1v1 PVP perspective, because I think the former is the more likely method of play. I think it'd also be easier I think to adjust for PvP balance with a bid, than it is to do the same for the AI, so I think it would be more fun to have a map that plays really well vs the AI by default, and then give recommended Bids for 1v1 if one side or the other turns out to be overpowered in that playstyle.

To Mora's Q, I think the map is most entertaining taking control of the Axis side, or to play as one of the major Axis nations vs HardAI. This mainly because the computer fails to do some of the things that a human would especially on G1, and AI Allies seem to manage the sprawl a bit better. But there are some things the computer fails to do as Allies as well, the main one would be the blocking maneuver from French Colonies or KNIL, to prevent Japan from taking French Indo China on J1. The set up in freethebirds adjustment is different (China is stronger, Mongolia is stronger, Russia is weaker, and Japan has many more transports and units they can pick up from the islands.) I haven't done a full play through to see, but just a cursory review has me thinking it is decidedly in Japan's advantage. That could make it more fun to play as USA vs a computer Japan, which may have been the idea there. But I think Japan would crush pretty hard if controlled by the human, since they have a lot more to work with there. I think you'd probably see the same from Germany and Italy, so I'm guessing the idea was to bolster them more for a computer controlled Axis. The HardAI makes a much stronger opener with Germany here for example. There are a few other things going on as well that make that the case, primarily just having more German boots on the ground (freethebirds has them colocating with Balkans and Italian troops the outset in many starting territories outside of Germany proper.) But yeah, just at a glance, I'd say playing as Allies vs computer controlled Axis would be more entertaining here than in vanilla.

My first step though would be to take vanilla and rework the turn order. Then change the neutrals to eliminate all the Pro-Axis and Pro-Allies neutrals and have only one type of neutral throughout. Then adjust the resources and production values to play up the lily pads at +5 and make sure there is sufficient steel and fuel for everyone to play well together. Then rework the starting units to accommodate those tweaks. And finally adjust the starting Income and starting Resources for each player, based on whatever the balance by sides recommends after doing all that other stuff.

But that requires editing more in the xml, since edit mode doesn't allow for some stuff we might like to do, such as changing the PU value of a territory to +5 say, or things of that sort. Not sure how much Frostion wants us messing with it, but I'd be game to try a mod off it if anyone is interested in working it up. Call it Iron War 1941 or whatever to distinguish if needs be, but I can see a lot of areas that would be fun to play with. Especially regarding the unit roster and steel.

Anyhow, gotta go grab some lunch but I'll cruise back through later to see what's cracking haha.

edit: right on I see forthebirds just posted too. I'll stop back by later to talk shop after making this sandwich lol.

[Black_Elk]

ps. I've got a gang of free time today, so I'll probably take a bong rip here and play a game as either side vs HardAI using 1.9 and that forthebirds save. I'll post the saves when I finish a dozen rounds or whenever 20 VCs like I usually do a few hours from now.

I'd be interested in continuing to develop this map for a Solo vs AI playstyle. I haven't messed with xmls and such in forever, but we could give it a go if anyone is game. I've been following along for a while, but not sure if Frostion has plans to develop it further? Its definitely one of my fav maps though, so I think it would be fun to work on.

[forthebirds]

I'm glad that Black Elk got the game to work. This certainly is a work in progress, although, like you I've been working on this for some time and have tweaked it to death.
I have not tried the bid route , nor have I given an added % to a nation which may be a good idea for sure.
What I was trying to do was balance the game , to make it somewhat historical and to make it fun. I would say that I gave more weight to balancing the game than the historical part. For example , I made N Mexico allied neutral so that the USA could move troops thru it immediately to get to S. Mexico. I only wanted to tie up the USA for 2 rounds and not 3.
I agree that the first round has a lot of moving parts but in my mind that allows for a lot of different openings and counter moves. After the first round the game moves much faster.
I do agree also that Germany & Japan are stronger at the beginning (Rise of the Axis). After all the allies start with a huge advantage in VC.
I wanted the axis to be strong enough that that allies must work together to beat them.
Things usually even out about round 4 or 5 when its either sides game.
I have played where the allies won in VC and other times in PU's.
The axis usually must win in VC.
Anyway, I'm open to suggestions and like you I don't want to step on Frostion's toes.
I'm good at editing but that's about it.:cat_face_with_wry_smile:

[Black_Elk]

Right on, I did get it working but I noticed almost immediately on G1, that the number of combat rounds in a given battle seems to be capping out much lower. I think it maxed at 5 exchanges between attacker and defender instead of 10. Not sure if that's from moving back to 1.9 engine, but definitely has an effect esp on smaller infantry/art battles.

With this set up I'd probably do something like this for G1 combat move...

iron-war-the-master HardAI Allies G1 Combat Move.tsvg

Then consolidate as much of the fleet together off Iceland as possible, with every sub in range on non com. The balance on Lenigrad I think would have to be G4 timing instead of the G3 timing of vanilla, just from the way France is set up, and the fact that 4 of the steel prob goes to the Graf Zep Carrier instead of all 6 to mass transports. I do that G2 instead, after pulling the whole fleet back to the Channel, and ready to mass transport East on G3. Ukraine balance here favors Germany more than Vanilla, so I'd go for the stomp there then push up the Leningrad VC to join with amphib units on G4 to crack Soviets. G has enough starting air to prop up Iran I'd think if needed, but I'd just gun east I think. For Med the choice between Vichy or Gibraltar is more interesting than vanilla, though the reduced number of combat rounds in a given battle makes those fights risky. Iceland is similar, or any ground fight that's not a blow out in the first couple rounds. Not sure exactly what's going on with that, sometimes even 10 rounds of fighting isn't enough, in battles involving weak attack units like inf or aaguns. But anyhow, I like the strategic choice there. I think taking the swedish steel probably worth sending a fighter or bomber, since G benefits most from early steel to buy transports and move the dudes after conquering France. I'll check it out some more after walking the dog.

For the save attached above I used tripleA 1.9.0.0.13066 was that the build you used. Maybe the combat round maxing out thing was something from earlier builds and I just didn't notice cause I take forever breaks haha? I'm going to reload and reboot just to make sure its not something else.

Anyhow, other than the combats cutting short, I think its an interesting set up. I like the idea of each player nation or each player bloc having a clear strategic choice to make on the first turn so it has that kind of push and pull going on. And the added German subs and tweaked opening position definitely throw a new slant on G1 which in Vanilla is kind of scipted for me by now. But yeah I'll give it a run after a run.

catch ya in a few dude
best Elk

ps. something like this maybe I think at the end of the opening turn block. I sent the channel fleet east to prop up the carrier build with the Finnish pocket fleet in the baltic. To converge on channel G2. I like that the Soviets have a transport up north to threaten Norway or shuttle units. Anyhow, will see what the hardAI does with this one when I get back in an hour or so.

iron-war-the-master HardAI Allies Finland Placement.tsvg

[ff03k64]

@forthebirds what about instead of making places like the central US conquerable to simulate them mobilizing, you make the value of their territories go up each of the first few turns?

[forthebirds]

That's a great idea but I'm unfortunately not capable of pulling that off.:downcast_face_with_sweat:

[forthebirds]

I changed the number of battles to 4 for land & 3 at sea.
I really like the possibility of a stalemate. which allows the other player to counterattack or you should plan to attack with overwhelming odds.
sorry that I didn't spell that out.

[forthebirds]

@Black_Elk
I like your opening moves. You do seem a little conservative with Germany's subs which may be a good idea. I like to attack right away because their attack value is greater than on defense. Also you can bomb Great Brit, but against the computer I would only use 1 bomber to keep it fair. AI doesn't defend with aircraft.
If it was pvp I would go at them with both bombers and hope to destroy the factory.
With Finland , on the opener I like to go all in into E. Finland to force Leningrad away from Germany.
Then, when they do build up, I duck back to Finland and hope I can survive.

[wc_sumpton]

@forthebirds

Change the production of a territory like this:

<attachment name="conditionAttachmentUSARound2" attachTo="USA" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.RulesAttachment" type="player">
   <option name="rounds" value="2"/>
</attachment>

<attachment name="triggerAttachmentUSAMidwestPUsTo4" attachTo="USA" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attachments.TriggerAttachment" type="player">
   <option name="conditions" value="conditionAttachmentUSARound2"/>
   <option name="territories" value="USA Midwest"/>
   <option name="territoryAttachmentName" value="TerritoryAttachment"/>
   <option name="territoryProperty" value="production" count="4"/>
   <option name="when" value="after:USAEndTurn"/>
   <option name="uses" value="1"/>
</attachment>

Cheers...

[forthebirds]

@wc_sumpton
Thanks. I appreciate the info very much.

[Black_Elk]

Ah that makes sense now if it was reset to be lower for a purpose. Just got back a second ago. I'll for sure give it a full game for each side to see what you've cooked up.

@ff03k64 I was kinda thinking something along those lines as well. For a map at this scale I think it can definitely support a larger economy or larger forces that develop over time, whereas usually A&A kind of frontloads the action by having larger starting forces that are harder to replace and kind of determine what can be done.

The vanilla game here is also a little different in that the starting cash and resources don't necessarily match the actual production or resources controlled (here its larger) but I also like that as the simplest way to establish a play balance if one side or the other is overpowered. I like a map where the production value written on the map shapes the play (moreso than like objective bonuses, which is another way money can come into play in AA50 or G40 but I prefer just territory values since that can be read at a glance.) The gold spot visual in this map is also nice to indicate where the +5 spots are.

One thing I think would be nice though is if the capital territories and major VC territories where more in balance with each other. I feel like 30 PUs should be the ceiling and anything more just pushed out to surrounding territories or more +5 spots adjacent. I think the floor should be 20 PUs for a capital whereas in vanilla its 10 PUs and sometimes lower. All the ultra high value spots are Axis capitals so I think you could break off a 20 here and there and spread it out a bit for the key core territories. But basically a few more +5 scattered about.

For neutrals, if the idea is to do quick sweeps in the opener, I'd say just make em true neutral but empty of units so they can be blitzed through. Especially for spots corresponding to countries that later declared war, or basically most of North America could work that way under the aegis either of USA, Britain, or Brazil depending on who goes where. But anyway I think it could be handled with fewer combats in some spots like that, whereas for territories that were really like Neutral Neutral because of geography or political alignment 1939-45, those I would have large Neutral forces, but lower values (no +5s and such to make them big targets.) Bosporus I think is problematic because canal control is so critical, and Spain kind of builds of Gibraltar in a similar way. But yeah, having more to kind of create that build of momentum for USA is cool.

I'm going to charge ahead vs Soviets now and see how it shakes out.

@wc_sumpton for sure! Nice
I think a lot of interesting things could be accomplished with just production tweaks and adjustments to neutrals

[forthebirds]

@Black_Elk
If you notice I had to make Switzerland have 40 neutral infantry because Germany kept attacking it at a heavy loss of units! I just didn't want Switzerland overtaken so that's what I did. Now they leave it alone, finally!!

[ff03k64]

@forthebirds you could just make it impassable

[forthebirds]

@ff03k64
I hate to sound really stupid but I 'm good at editing and that's about it. :disappointed_face:

[Black_Elk]

haha yeah I did notice. So far the play pattern is pretty cool, I like a beefier British Colonies. Still think the Brit play block would be nice to have altogether at a go with UK and Brit colonies after Italy. Adding impassible neutrals I also like if the idea is to totally lock off some stuff from ever happening. The Black Sea might actually be more interesting under those conditions, but its also kind of fun to allow for some things to be possible, just really expensive, and maybe not worth the investment unless doing like a showboat to stomp the machine hehe, which is fun on maps like these.

Took me a while to parse Germany, since they got a lot of units in hidden away spots, but yeah the fuel is the major thing I think and getting a big bunch of german transports next round. This was the HardAIs response to G opener. Looking over Italy's start now
iron-war-the-master HardAI Allies Italy 1 combat move.tsvg

The editor and edit mode is a cool feature of tripleA. I like how much you were able to get done just messing with the game save. Editing the xml isn't super hard, but doing a mod of the map is kind of more involved esp if competing with the vanilla one. Still I think this map is pretty rad, so I like the tweaks. Gives me something to do on an otherwise boring night inside. Everything is on fire out here wild west. Just bombing with air filters and tripleA to keep preoccupied. Catch ya in a few

ps. just noticed that there is still an issue on this map with placing fighters on carriers. It occurs when more than 1 coastal factory borders the same sea zone. I think the carriers on this map would be better under v3 placement rules, instead of revised placement rules. Anyhow you can see here with the Libya fighters unable to move them onto deck during Italy's placement phase.

iron-war-the-master HardAI Allies Italy placement.tsvg

Taking a look now at Japan
iron-war-the-master HardAI Allies Japan1 Combat Move.tsvg

[ff03k64]

@forthebirds said in Iron War - Official Thread:

@ff03k64
I hate to sound really stupid but I 'm good at editing and that's about it. :disappointed_face:

You might be surprised how easy some of these changes are. Impassable would just be adding one line. Putting units in a territory would be a single other line. And there are a number of knowledgeable people here willing to help.

[forthebirds]

@ff03k64
Thanks, I appreciate the encouragement.

[forthebirds]

@Black_Elk
Great moves with Italy taking Egypt. I had noticed that it looked weak. Also noticed that you took Gibraltar. That should help a lot.
As far as the fighters not landing, I think its a glitch somehow. I did notice that when fuel runs out some planes move first to wear carriers should be but they can't get there.
Hope that you're having fun. I'm on the east coast waiting for Sally to give us a deluge.

I'll see how you're doing tomorrow. Stay safe.