Iron War - Official Thread



  • @Black_Elk
    After looking closer, I believe it would be good to add 2 or 3 more inf to Norrland since it has 3 iron which is important to Germany. (Let them work for it a little)
    I just noticed that you conquered Norrland turn 1 which is a bit too easy, don't you think?😁



  • Yeah I mean I'm not the best at xml wizardry that's for sure hehe. I'm more into tossing around ideas. But its certainly easier to modify something that already exists than it is to create a whole new thing, so some of it would just be a matter of editing some numbers or a few values of things that are already built. I'd prob hold off to see if Frostion might be down to dive back in for some finale finessing, since I think that works well, and he's had a kind of moderating influence on what might be too off the wall. I think the map is strong though, and for the most part I dig it and think it would be pretty adaptive for different kinds of ideas. It could easily support multiple start dates I think anywhere from like 1937 to 1950s. Tons of units and cool tech ideas and the image work and sound is really pretty solid. Sometimes the anthems blend a little cacophonous when you blast through turn quickly (since they kind of overlay with a fade) but I always get pumped as the player when my turn comes up to hear the National jams hehe!

    Trying to distill some of my main thoughts for a possible update would be along these lines...

    Change turn order to have USSR, France, French-Colonies, KNIL in first Allied turn block, Britain, British-Colonies, South Africa, British-India, ANZAC in the second Allied turn block (after Italy.)

    Simplify the neutrality scheme by ditching the Pro-Side passive neutrals and going True Neutral for all of them. It'd be one less thing to keep track of and to me the idea of moving through Pro-Side spaces or putting garrisons in neutral territories just doesn't feel realistic. It creates weird disincentives for occupation/liberation and creates too many aircraft landing exploits. I still dig the unit art for Pro Axis neutrals and Pro Allies neutrals, but alas I just don't think the system works all that great for the global scale map. I think they could live on in the Europe starter map, since they work better there I think, but I'd just go true neutrals for this one.

    Include more +5 territories in regions that can be contested and which were part of the war historically. I think many more of the islands could support +5s, or else have green barrels or other things that make them more strategically significant to the gameplay.

    I would boost Allies more from doing that type of stuff with PU values on the map than by adding a bunch of units, though I do think some nations could be given a little more to work with. China is a good example. I also really like the idea of having the USA expanding their income by putting Central and South America and the Caribbean islands more under their direct aegis. Having those spots be true neutrals could benefit Brazil as well, or really any of the smaller allied powers in range, at the Allied players discretion based on who they choose as the occupying power. But USA would get the largest benefit obviously, which I think is fine. The Axis are very strong on production, so I think the Allies kind of need it just to stay in the running honestly. In Vanilla if Japan throws its full weight in any one direction, there really isn't a whole lot the Allies or USA can do to stop them right now, so I think Allies could definitely use the cash and it would have the benefit of making the early rounds with USA/Brazil more engaging. But yeah China I think could also use a buff, or maybe a cheapo spam unit like some of the colonial powers have, just so they don't get mowed over too quickly? The USA/China/Brazil turn bloc I think would definitely be a bit more fun to play that way.

    For Fuel, I'd try to high ball it a bit this time, using the green barrels. The sheer number of units that enter the game over 10-12 rounds recommends much more fuel. The green barrels are the most interesting, since they can be thought of as reserves or stockpiles rather than like oil fields pumping the stuff out of the earth. So I think they are more adaptive abstractions than the capture-able barrels. Right now everyone is pretty much running dry by the 3rd round in vanilla. I'd prefer to see them run dry more in round 5-6 or even later. There are so many ships, tanks and planes to move around by then that I think there could easily be like 50 green barrels added into the mix as starting units, and scattered around the map in various battle locations, just to keep things lively into 1942 and beyond.

    Bomber SBR is pretty OP right now, but having more +5 factory capable locations around the map (even if they don't have starting factories) would make the SBR situation more sustainable and less open to exploits over the long haul.

    For Mech I think they should cost 14 PUs.

    For Transports, I'd like to see a few more around the map, since they provide a lot of interest in the opener. But they are also really powerful when they can converge and start moving massive stacks around with ease. I think Japan probably has too many, and the Allies have too few. I like the idea of a few transports in far flung spots. Hudson Bay or Beaufort Sea Zone could maybe work for 1 British transport for example. East Siberian Sea Zone or Kara Sea Zone could be cool for a Soviet transport. USA might have one up by Alaska or down by Panama. Stuff like that to make the naval game more engaging, since the fleet game is really driven by transports. Where they are at the outset, or where they can be built and put to use pretty much shapes the first round. Caspian sea zone is kinda wild right now with just a lone transport. The Black sea can also get kinda crazy if the Bosporus is open. But I really think tweaking the neutral armies so that true neutral spots have larger stacks would solve that and play a bit more in line with historical situation there.

    We can still have a kind of neutral stomp I think, and one that allows for different expansion possibilities. I just feel it should be confined more to the places shown in that map which eventually went to war...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_by_country
    while still keeping notable neutrals like Spain and Turkey and such more out of bounds, with larger defensive stacks in place.

    Anyhow, that's what I got for now hehe.

    @forthebirds yeah, Norrland was a bit of a coup last game hehe. I'm about to fire up your save as Allies and see what HardAI G does. I'll report back later tonight or tomorrow. Catch ya in a few dude



  • @Black_Elk
    I know that you have given the map a lot of thought & effort. You have many good ideas that I think could really add to the fun of the game. I also think the game has real possibilities. I'm not giving up on the workings of it as it stands now but I do think that tweaking is needed. I'm still looking for the right combination but I haven't found it yet. So again I appreciate you giving my save a try. Let me know what specifically you might do to enhance the save as it now exists regarding placement of units., etc. For now I'm going to go listen to the rain coming down. Take care.



  • Thanks man! And you too!

    Before diving in I wanted to compile a big list of proposed territory PU changes. So going around the map by Player/Region, starting with their industrial cores and moving out to surrounding spots.

    Germany:
    Lower the Value of West Germany from 50 to 30 PUs, and instead spread that cash to surrounding spots. For example...
    Austria-Bohemia from 4 PUs to 10 PUs
    Poland from 5 PUs to 10 PUs
    That'd be 80 total production at the start, scaling up to about 100 or thereabouts from the surrounding neutrals or the conquest of France. Here are ways something similar might be done for other areas.

    Balkans
    Romania lowered from 20 PUs to 15 PUs
    Yugoslavia from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
    Hungary from 3 PUs to 5 PUs
    30 total production at the start

    Finland
    Finland raised from 10 PUs to 15 PUs
    Eastern Finland from 2 PUs to 3 PUs
    Lapland from 1 PU to 2 PUs.
    20 total production at the start

    Benelux from 3 PUs to 5 PUs
    Denmark from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
    Baltic States from 4 PUs to 5 PUs
    Trondheim-Narvik from1 PU to 5 PUs.
    Greece from 2 PUs to 5 PUs

    Soviet Union
    Siberia lowered from 15 PUs to 5 PUs
    Moscow from 6 PUs to 10 PUs
    Kuybyshev from 2 PUs to 5 PUs.
    Central Russia from 4 PUs to 5 PUs
    Western Ukraine from 3 PUs to 5 PUs
    145 total production at the start

    France
    Algeria from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
    Tunisia from 3 PUs to 5 PUs
    Mauritania should be True Neutral -1 PU
    50 total production at the start

    French Colonies
    Syria from 3 PUs to 5 PUs
    Madagascar from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
    45 total starting Production

    KNIL
    Western New Guinea from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
    Borneo from 2 PUs to 1 PU
    30 total starting Production

    Italy
    Italy lowered from 40 PUs to 30 PUs
    Sicily from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
    Sardinia from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
    Tobruk from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
    Libyan Dessert from 1 PU to 2 PUs
    70 total starting production

    Iraq
    Iraq raised from 10 PUs to 15 PUs
    15 total starting production

    Iran
    Khorasan from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
    Kerman from 3 PUs to 5 PUs
    20 total production at the start

    Afghanistan from 5 PUs to 2 PUs
    Kuwait from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
    Armenia from 2 PUs to 5 PUs

    Britain
    Scotland from 3 PUs to 5 PUs
    60 total Production at the start

    British-Colonies
    British Guiana lowered from 10 PUs to 5 PUs
    Guadalcanal from 1 PU to 5 PUs
    El Alamein from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
    55 total production at the start

    South Africa
    South Africa lowered from 10 PUs to 8 PUs
    Pretoria from 3 PUs to 5 PUs
    15 total production at the start

    British-India
    Malaya from 1 PU to 5 PUs
    Bengal from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
    45 total starting production

    ANZAC
    North Island from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
    South Island from 2 PUs to 1 PUs
    45 total starting production

    Japan
    Japan lowered from 40 PUs to 30 PUs
    Iwo Jima from 1 PU to 5 PUs
    Palau from 1 PU to 5 PUs
    85 total starting production

    Thailand
    Southern Thailand from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
    15 total starting production

    USA
    USA South Atlantic lowered from 9 PUs to 5 PUs
    California lowered from 8 to 5 PUs
    Southern Alaska from 1 PU to 5 PUs
    Midway from 1 PU to 5 PUs
    USA Northwest from 3 PUs to 5 PUs
    Panama from 1 PU to 5 PUs
    Texas from 4 PUs to 5 PUs
    USA Midwest from 4 PUs to 5 PUs
    110 total starting production

    China
    Chungking raised from 5 to 15 PUs
    Urimchi raised from 5 PUs to 10 PUs
    Burma Road from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
    40 total starting production. I think that fits the scale of the war there much better, it was massive.

    Brazil
    Nordeste from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
    20 total starting production

    Resources in the following neutral regions should be moved elsewhere I think. With the territories lowered in value and sporting larger armies to reflect their neutral status throughout. Where these regions are made up of multiple territories at least some of them should be stacked to create neutrality choke points, with the PUs and resources shifted eslewhere.

    Mauritania
    Afghanistan
    Angola
    Mozambique
    Sweden, Sveeland, Norrland
    Switzerland
    Spain, Northern Spain, Portugal
    Istanbul, Ankara, Central Turkey
    Western and Northern Tibet
    Western and Southern Mongolia
    Yemen

    I think all the other neutrals should be lightly defended or even empty, with higher relative territory values, since they all ended up in the fray before the end and make sense siding with whatever belligerent brings them on board first.

    Anyhow, I think that would present a really compelling production spread and fits the historical pattern. Clearly there are many more +5 spots, but I think that is all to the good and will make the gameplay more entertaining, and the trading much more viable. It's cool to insert them near other +5's to create clusters that can be contested by multiple factions at once. Each of those territories listed as +5 candidates are historical, and would round out the starting production for each faction pretty nicely and introduce more cash overall as the game goes on which is fun. A territory at +5 is just infinitely more interesting for the gameplay potential, so I like the idea to spread the money around a bit more, instead of having it quite so concentrated. The production spread here I think would allow for a much more dynamic tug of war, with added springboards or key fall back spots to entice the factory trading game basically. Tried to suggest key factory capable spots in areas where the historical fighting took place. I think Europe and the Med would balance better this way, and esp for a more robust North Africa campaign, since right now it feels really heavily weighted on the south. Same deal more or less with the central Pacific, just trying to fix the locations a bit more on the historical hotspots. I was aiming to keep the starting production levels pretty much on par with the current for each side, just with a few more +5s that made sense to me to put more of that cash in contention. Thoughts?



  • @Black_Elk
    Back at you. Those changes sound very good and it would make fighting for certain territories more interesting. Another territory would be Wake island which could be worth more than 1 PU because of its strategic significance. Also, I found myself wanting to put many more oils and some iron in logical strategic locations like Caucasus & Sumatra for eg. Actually in many locations. Like your ideas. Where's Frostion?😁



  • @Black_Elk
    If , in the future, you try out my saved game I recommend that you make these minor adjustments.:
    Add factory to French India
    Add 2 infantry to Norrland
    Add 3 infantry to Central Russia
    Add 1 patrol boat to Gulf of Bothia
    Subtract 1 patrol boat from White Sea zone
    Again sometimes I find that small changes can have a rather big effect.
    Thanks again for trying it out.
    You have made moves that I or the AI had not thought of doing.
    Catch you later. By the way overnight, we received 5.25 " of rain .How are things your way?



  • Right on, next go I'll try it with those ideas. I ended up watching Cobra Kai for like 12 hours last night and blasted through the day snoozing. Didn't get much done beyond walking the hound lol. Damn that's a downpour right there! I think they said we get some at weeks end, which'd be good for the air, but I'll keep it indoors meantime. I updated triplea back to the stable, cause the screen was kinda messing with me map drag cross bars haha. I'll grab 1.9 and have a look at the edit mode at some point though.

    Glad you're into some of the added +5 ideas and such. I really think the game would be improved by having a lot more. Even across territories that are currently contested like Western Europe, Med, and Eastern Front, but having factory capable spots along the fault lines I think it ups the stakes. And there'd be more pressure to stack/trade across a broader front, with somewhat less emphasis on the huge transport amphib plays. The reality is that most factions can't aford to fill every factory anyway on a given turn, but just by opening up the possibility to build more factories (which are relatively cheap at 25) I think that enhances both the trading game and the SBR aspect. Right now I feel like the economy and resources are bit on the low side for the scale of the map, especially for factions that struggle to produce a second hitpoint, or have to skip/save for later rounds to get in there. Basically I think everyone could easily see an influx of 5-10 PUs or a bit more fuel and it wouldn't hurt the feel. Some of the smaller nations that struggle to build I think could get a boost. Like China with a second tiger, maybe South Africa has a starting transport, or do things like that around the edges to give the smaller factions more of a role. But having more +5 around that could trade hands would be nice. A little guy like South Africa is positioned in Vanilla to target the neutrals which feels a little off. In reality most nations sent their dudes pretty far afield in transport actions, so I like the idea of that. It could work for ANZAC dudes maybe end up Africa campaigns if they had a transport on the west side of the continent. British India and Colonies as well might benefit from having another transport, to give them more options. Maybe half a dozen scattered around on team Allies would be fun.

    Another feature I like a lot of this map is the convoy zone concept. I think more could probably be added and it would be fun. Axis convoys might be cool as well. If trying to build it out for a slightly more high economy feel, that's a cool way to add an extra 5 bucks here or there.
    I just kind of went around the map and tried to round out the starting total in increments of 5s or 10s, cause I thought it would look clean for the quick glance. But starting income is different to starting production for many nations already, so that is another way to balance, just by adjusting the starting values there.

    Frostion's got a gang of projects cooking up I'd imagine hehe. The guy makes some great maps. I'm sure he'll kick back up again at some point. Meantime I dig having a fun AI map WW2 themed to mess about with! So that keeps me grinning

    One last thought. I think it would be cool if Liberated territories did not return to original ownership unless it was a VC, but instead for all the other territories to have control go to the conquering nation. It would vastly change the dynamic, but I think it would be more interesting. Imagining Normandy under British control say, or Algeria going to USA control towards the endgame and things of that sort. VCs would ensure that the minor factions still remain a thing, ever after being conquered/liberated, but some other surrounding territories would open up way more and be a bit more realistic I think. I could imagine like late game German campaigns taking over some territory from Itay or Balkans under their direct aegis, after resting it back from Allied control Or same deal across all of North Africa, Western Europe, the Central Pacific, pretty much across the board. Basically where all the non VC territories can change hands like that. That would be pretty cool don't you think? I wonder if it can be set up that way, return to original ownership only if a VC?

    That would open up a ton of the map, to play more in the way that the actual war broke down. So like maybe Japan takes an island from KNIL or British-India, but ANZAC liberates and is in charge of it after. That sort of thing makes sense for how the liberation/occupations actually worked in the real war, with like zones of control, and the major powers directing the war effort from there. So you can imagine D-Day where France is "liberated" at the Paris VC (direct control, reverts to original owner), but if UK or USA take Normandy or some other non VC spots thereabouts, those don't just revert to France's control when taken back from Axis. Original ownership would only be for the VCs. I think it would work nice for the playpattern. It would advantage the larger factions obviously, but hews a bit closer to the reality, and it might help to streamline the play for a more dashing endgame. Any thoughts on that idea?

    Best



  • @Black_Elk
    Original owners are set on a per territory basis. You can even have the original owner set to someone that isn't occupying it at the start. You could have someplace like shanghai originally owned by china.

    @forthebirds Not sure that you can do that from edit mode though.



  • @forthebirds said in Iron War - Official Thread:

    @Black_Elk
    If , in the future, you try out my saved game I recommend that you make these minor adjustments.:
    Add factory to French India
    Add 2 infantry to Norrland
    Add 3 infantry to Central Russia
    Add 1 patrol boat to Gulf of Bothia
    Subtract 1 patrol boat from White Sea zone
    Again sometimes I find that small changes can have a rather big effect.
    Thanks again for trying it out.
    You have made moves that I or the AI had not thought of doing.
    Catch you later. By the way overnight, we received 5.25 " of rain .How are things your way?

    Forgot to add this: Remove German Transport from Greenland sz
    and German transport from North sz.



  • @forthebirds said in Iron War - Official Thread:

    @forthebirds said in Iron War - Official Thread:

    @Black_Elk
    If , in the future, you try out my saved game I recommend that you make these minor adjustments.:
    Add factory to French India
    Add 2 infantry to Norrland
    Add 3 infantry to Central Russia
    Add 1 patrol boat to Gulf of Bothia
    Subtract 1 patrol boat from White Sea zone
    Again sometimes I find that small changes can have a rather big effect.
    Thanks again for trying it out.
    You have made moves that I or the AI had not thought of doing.
    Catch you later. By the way overnight, we received 5.25 " of rain .How are things your way?

    Forgot to add this: Remove German Transport from Greenland sz
    and German transport from North sz.

    Yikes! In trying the game with the changes made I just realized that the political relationship between Japan & USSR should be WAR instead of OPEN BORDERS.
    This makes a huge difference.
    I've attached the "saved game" with changes made.
    IRON WAR(The MASTER!).tsvg



  • Oh yeah that's a biggie haha. Right on, I'll check it out when I get home later.

    I caught Frostion briefly the other night, while doing a big netflix insomniac bender like I tend to do at random hours hehe. He mentioned looking into a possible update in a couple weeks, so that'd be killer. I'm eager to check it out!

    I think a cool approach would be to see what that one entails, and then maybe look into cooking up possible alternative start dates, which is something he's expressed some support for as a way to try a different theme or a different unit set up. I think a late 1941 start date, possibly with a Pearl Harbor opener might be cool. Something that kicks off with USA entry, and then gears into like Midway and Guadalcanal on the Pacific side, and Torch/Stalingrad on the Europe side would be fun. This would give a justification for a new starting unit distribution (maybe with larger forces, drawn on different battle lines, or with a different starting production front?) I can think of a lot of possibilities.

    There is something really appealing I find about a map with multiple start dates, which is something familiar from AA50, and exists already with G40 some community projects. It was also a feature of other map conquest games I liked such as Medieval TW, where you had a choice to begin in the Early Middle ages or Late Middle Ages etc. So I could see something like that for this one being pretty cool, while still maintaining cohesion.

    1941/42 is pretty compelling, since its still early enough in the war to imagine an Axis sprawl, but where USA could still do the build up thing. A late war setting of 1943 is also pretty compelling for a shorter game, but one which featured larger starting armies and more techs unlocked sooner, more advanced production by the front lines etc. I could see a number of themes to open it up for more starts, which would be rad.

    Best Elk

    ps. I do think there is something interesting in @forthebirds handling of the Soviet vs Japan front. Using a Soviet themed neutral power along the border area might be interesting to achieve something like this...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_Neutrality_Pact

    I said in posts above that my preference is for the True neutral mechanics, but there's nothing to say there couldn't be like multiple True neutral factions that all worked in pretty much the same way, while still having the different unit graphics or territory color themes.

    Maybe a neutral faction called 'Pro-Soviet' that is more red tinged in color, could work for Mongolia, or like a 'demilitarized' border zone in the Soviet Far East section facing Japan, or some spots near the border with China? If doing that we could use em to create a couple choke points in that broad swath of land constituting the USSR. In practical terms it could be used for geographical stuff, like marshlands of deserts or whatever, or just as an abstraction and a way to spice up the geometry without changing the overall look too much. Basically using stacks of 'neutral armies' that don't move, but which help to shape the look and feel of the play lines across the Russian interior and far flung regions in the extreme east that were less active historically. Either side could attack and occupy if they wanted, but used in that way to create the defensive choke points. This might actually be really helpful for creating buffer zones across Eurasia. I could see it working for Iran/Persia front, or China front, or Far East vs Japan front. Also along the front with Germany just to divide up the lines a bit.

    I was just imagining say the space above Siberia called "Ural" as a Pro Soviet neutral stack to create a choke point there, or the space above Irkutsk called "Sakha" same deal. Or maybe Vladivostok, Amur, Kabarovsk, Aldan, Chita etc are all handled in that way to emulate the Non-Agro Pact there. Might be fun. Would still look good if they were like Red colored and such so it doesn't jump out too much, but visually different enough so its not confusing, everyone can see what spots are the open lanes, and which are blocked out as working like true neutrals, and giving a way to create like shields and passes so its less sprawling in some areas between the +5 clusters.

    The main prob I see with the current pro-side neutrality system is the aircraft landing exploits it creates in some spots, and the rush through aspect. An example would be like Italy attacking Gibraltar and landing the fighters in Spain. But things of that sort can happen many places. It would be simpler if all the neutrals were true neutral. You could still have Pro Allied or Pro Axis as the name/icons, but just have them work the way True Neutral does rules-wise eg cannot be moved through until occupied or landed in until held for round.

    Pps. Actually Pro Allies icons already would look good (I mean they got the star already hehe) maybe just change the territory control color to something reddish to have it work that way?
    But all using the same true neutral mechanics.

    True Neutral: white
    Pro-Allies: I think red or red-orange tinged
    Pro-Axis: blue or green tinged

    So in the gamenotes would read "can be attacked by both Axis and Allies" for all of the passive neutral factions, and just remove the thing about being "moved through." Functionally they are all the same, the only difference being aesthetic.

    Then we could maybe add around armies to the neutral spots that make sense, to shape some choke points.

    Anyhow, that's something that could also be explored I think. It might work well as a way to have the campaigns vs Russia work a little differently than they usually do, while still being a total war from the outset scheme, if Pro Allies/Soviet passive neutrals could be used that way. Basically finding ways to use the neutrals from a gameplay perspective, more than a political one. The same thing could be used in Africa, or in North America or wherever, depending on what colors where used for the neutral factions territory color theme there. I think the trick is just figuring out how many neutral armies constitute enough of a pain to deter the player/AI from going all nutso on a neutral stomp there in some spots, but while still allowing it at the player's discretion.

    maybe something like...

    "It is the year 1941. Japan has attacked Pearl Harbor and is still on the offensive. All Axis nations are now at war with all Allied nations. All eyes are on the United States - What will their next move be?"

    Then we could still use the same turn order as whatever 1940 uses (just for consistency) while allowing for a different start position to the turn order. Different starting unit composition etc. I was not particularly fond of the changed turn order in AA50 between 1941 and 1942 scenarios, you know where Germany and Japan switch positions. I think it became confusing once people were used to the 1941 order, and so contributed maybe to less popularity for the 1942 start date. Anyhow, I think it is better to just change the start position, but keep it within the same main turn sequence (whatever that ends up). I still think UK following Italy would be best hehe. Whatever it is, to have that remain the same when moving between start dates on the map. There'd be plenty to do with starting territory ownership, and different starting forces. But yeah, I like the idea of having everything else working the same way, if that makes sense. Keeping the same kind of theme essentially, and the same gusto with a big start, just spinned with the emphasis more on USA1 as an opener for contrast. That might be fun, and popular. I've kind of wished for an A&A or tripleA map that starts with USA on the first turn, right on the eve of entry. Just think it's a cool concept that would make a slick purchasing dynamic, but it hasn't been explored much really. This map would be ideal for it I think.



  • @Frostion

    So I think i am about to 1944 in game. My thoughts so far. I am playing the allies against the hard AI.

    Not sure if you can do anything about this, but the AI seems to not be particularly aggressive towards neutrals. Germany has yet to attack unoccupied Denmark, so what they have of a fleet is stuck behind that 'canal' in the Baltic. They also never attacked Turkey (true neutral) or the Middle East (pro allied neutral).

    From being on the receiving end of it, strategic bombing seems very powerful. I never really properly defended against it, so it hurt a lot, but it looks like it doesn't take too much of an investment for it either, in return for the damage you can do. I think i never saw more than one plane at a time, but they could easily do anywhere from 5-25 PUs worth of damage in exchange for a 1/10 chance of getting shot down.

    I can't decide what i think about the number of nations. It seems like the real advantage of it is to can opener places? It does make for some interesting strategic choices for the Allies, but i would guess only if they are played by a human.

    I don't think the AI has built any synthetic fuel. Can you give them some via triggers or anything?

    Had the apparently new with 2.0 issue of them not building any factories. That might be killing Germany. Might be hurting Japan, though i would guess less than Germany because they have their transports. Speaking of which, they left transports unescorted a couple of times for me.

    It would be worth putting something in the notes about the financial support options.

    I can't figure out what i think of the free air transports.

    I will try to play the Axis next for some other thoughts

    edit: The italians are placing all of their free subs in the Red Sea, right where i have a battleship and a couple other ships, constantly killing the sub.



  • Yeah I just ran another vs HardAI Axis, with a similar sort of experience.

    In this one Japan bombed the Chinese pretty relentlessly. G did alright with their advance, mainly because I went after the Mid East and then Normandy early, and played it pretty fast and loose with the Russians hehe. Total Victory in the 6th round. You can see from this one how Japan has a way of sprawling across the Soviet far east and its kind of challenge to cover the coast from Irkutsk. It tends to stabilize something like this for me usually, since USA has stronger incentive to cut across the south.

    I've noticed the same behavior from Italy placing subs out of Somalia only to get killed by British-Colonies. They kept it up until British-India snaked their factory amphib. Germany I think fails to place their free subs, because the don't have enough production to fill out their buy I suspect. That factory bug is pretty significant for this one.

    Anyhow here's another save using the most recent stable vs HardAI Axis
    Iron War Hard AI Axis USSR 6.tsvg

    I like that idea of using triggers to give the AI opponent more fuel. That would be helpful. More +5 spots would also be killer. You can kinda see from the D-Day ops here, how its difficult to get something going under Frances control. I think if US or Britain could take Normandy and Vichy directly that'd be cool. Or where original ownership reverted to neutral for pretty much everywhere that isn't a VC I think would be coolest, but anyhow it sort of slogs relying on France to do the rebuilding in Normandy. I think it'd have more across the western side of fortress europa punch if Normandy and Benelux could be taken by the larger factions with options to drop a factory and up the stakes.

    I think the optimal shuck shuck for USA on this map looks like the above, with transports in Celtic sea zone transporting USA units from Iceland into Normandy, Bay of Biscay transports shucking from Morocco factory into Normandy. But here we won before really needing the set up. Norway I think goes best to Britain for their shuck, but either way its pulling from there into Normandy for team Allies if trying to push the most hitpoints possible, until you can just kill West Germany directly buying a bunch of fighters. Scotland I think could be +5, and Benelux to spice that stuff up. Then France wouldn't really matter as much. But it'd also give G something to go after, and more to defend.

    ps. Took it another round since G has been clapping pretty nicely on the eastern front. But West Germany is about to crack to UK/USA double it and then its a done deal pretty much vs Europe since AI don't buy production in last stable.
    Iron War Hard AI Axis Brit 7 combat.tsvg



  • @ff03k64
    It's kinda downer indeed to realize, late in the game, that AI you're up against doesn't perform adequately. It should be at least challenging to some extent. I usually play with just one or a very limited selection of countries. And this way there's another thing that often bothers me: incapable allies! But the latter isn't so bad as the enemy which doesn't take the obvious advantage. (My impression is that AI isn't capable of thinking two turns ahead.) Anyway, this issue isn't limited to this great map. (As a sidenote, the most challenging 2nd ww map available, to my opinion, is WAW under 1.9 engine. AI works great there.) To add to SB discussion, I don't know whether the concept is balanced well due to 10- sided die being used. If I understand correctly, chances of being hit by AA are reduced and possible damage increased, in comparison to D6. I have to try it to confirm this. I've just started a game, controlling European Axis. But I play quite slowly.


Log in to reply
 

42154
2038
2281
Who's Online