Iron War - Official Thread

[Black_Elk]

Oh man I just heard about that when I was making dinner. I'm hoping for rain over here but not like that, damn. Hopefully it doesn't hit too crazy down there!

I just did a quick survey for Japan, thinking maybe something like this for the opener... To set up for Sumatra slam J2. I like the set up on Pearl and how China is stronger. I went with a hit on the battleships here. The neutral impasse above Manchuria and no starting factory takes some of the pressure of J on that front. Seemed to do the trick on me anyway J1 as a deterrent. I'd see it as basically emulating the NAP by defusing the border clash there with a demilitarized zone between em, but seems to remain at Japan's prerogative whether or not to war against Russia since soviets are positioned more for defense. Will see how it cracks off up there, but I focused south using my vanilla attack pattern just with a bit more heat from the added transports to punk French colonies hehe. I like the set up on pearl since it forces a bit of a choice there with the carrier based aircraft.

iron-war-the-master HardAI Allies Japan1 Combat.tsvg

Not too shabby I was able to move most of the fleet where I wanted it to be on non com, save 1 sub in home waters. Figured to let Thailand handle Singapore and Hanoi. I debated on moving their pocket fleet to converge with Japan but ended up just leaving it in place to save the fuel hehe.

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

USA turn block just moved. AI China clapped back pretty hard from Chungking against the Japanese forward stack which was nice to see. That second flying Tiger making the difference for them haha. Nice touch! I think it went suicide squad though, which is something I've seen the AI do on this map occasionally esp with air transports. Same happens in vanilla, I think you may be right about it somehow doing with carrier fuel shortage contributing to the crashes at sea. But anyhow, they got a solid kill so I guess they figured it was worth it hehe.

This is what it looks like G2. USA I think did the continental expansion move as intended, since they got all the lower 48 under control out the first round. I still think it'd be cool to see them sprawl over like all of central america and some of south america or the various caribbean islands on their way to full strength in early rounds. But on the whole the first round was pretty fun. New spin on the game for sure. I'll play it out later tonight and post anything interesting. Catch ya tomorrow if you're around.

iron-war-the-master HardAI Allies G2 Combat Move.tsvg
iron-war-the-master HardAI Allies Italy2 Combat Move.tsvg
iron-war-the-master HardAI Allies Japan2 Combat Move.tsvg
iron-war-the-master HardAI Allies G3 Combat Move.tsvg
iron-war-the-master HardAI Allies Italy3 Combat Move.tsvg
iron-war-the-master HardAI Allies Japan3 Combat Move.tsvg
iron-war-the-master HardAI Allies G4 Combat Move.tsvg

Got the take on India J3, but now to see if Germany has enough fuel and enough heat for the G4 timing on Stalingrad hehe. Best of luck HardAI!

Snagged it! haha
iron-war-the-master HardAI Allies Finland 4 Placement.tsvg

Probably Axis are cruising from this point, but might give it a few more rounds before switching sides. So far so good though. Its pretty entertaining on the Axis side fuel running dry is a major consideration for fleet movement, but I just opted to sacrifice the subs and hold Rommel back off North Africa drives just to make sure both bombers could reach in the Leningrad attack. I suspect Allies will probably more tricky. Might dive into that tomorrow.
Have a good night

Best Elk

ps. 20 VCs at the close of the 4th for team Axis. I'll try team Allies next to see how it looks from the other side.
iron-war-the-master HardAI Allies G5 Combat Move.tsvg

I haven't seen any production expansion from the computer yet, even using the older build. Unless I missed one somewhere. Maybe going up against AI Japan would tell us whether or not they ever will buy a factory. Its still hard for me to tell whether the Axis advantage here is stronger than the og, but they felt pretty buff by comparison.

I tend to feel as Mora said below that the side that needs more to work for a buff is probably Allies. Though the Allied Atlantic fleets are definitely improved here over Vanilla, Axis fleets are also pretty mighty, so not sure its really an offset. I'll have to take a peak switching teams to see, but that was first impression.

If trying for an xml type edit with adjustments to turn order or map territory values, I'd probably look at going a bit more incremental with some of the changes, but definitely including some of the ideas presented in the edit mod that forthebirds posted today would be fun. Adds some spice to the pot haha

[Mora]

If in this last iteration Axis is stronger, then I am reluctant to try it vs. AI. Axis are my prefered side and I don't wish it to become too easy. Is there a recommended map to start from, besides the Vanilla? Let's say with some fuel issues addressed. And I have another question: is AI purchasing any factories in Iron War?

[Black_Elk]

@Mora here is version you might like. I made it a little while back, saved out using the latest stable of tripleA 2.2.20. Its a simple edit mode savegame, so that it could be launched without having to mod the map files. I made it basically as a template to see how the map would balance without Pro-Side neutrals, and trying to give the AI enough fuel to be competitive. I just touched it up right now, so it should work with the current stable.

Iron-War neutrals + fuel mod.tsvg

Would be curious to hear what you think?

There are no income modifiers, and no significant changes to the starting units, except that here all neutrals are handled the same way (ie true neutral, attack-able by either side) and there are only two types of those generally speaking, either empty or stacked.

1. If the territory was a belligerent at some point later in the war, then it is simply emptied of starting units here. for a walk-in. First come first served.
2. If the territory was historically neutral throughout most of the war till 1945 (Sweden, Switz, Turkey etc) then it has 10 neutral armies on it (or a 10 stack close by) to reflect the status of that larger region as non belligerent and to preserve some of those geographical choke points.

So countries that entered the war at some point later on can be activated in game simply by moving a unit into that territory to claim ownership here. Those territories that did not enter the war however, have more of a roadblock thing going with a nod to that reality. I at least tried to put a 10 stack for each general region that was truly neutral like that. Sure sometimes the computer may still attack these spots at disadvantage, but for the most part it preserves a more historical WW2 look to the map spread I think. For the truly true neutrals, if there was a starting resource like oil or steel in their spot, I moved it to an adjacent space that made sense. I just wanted something uniform and simple, and so I liked how that felt rounded out with the 10s where it made sense. I think its easier to read the map at a glance this way, and thus to quickly determine which of these passive neutral areas is meant to be seriously in play, without complicating it overmuch.

The simple neutrality scheme here is meant to suggest something a bit more like this over the long haul...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_by_country

You can see in the map and lists of that wiki how the neutrality situation of the war broke down by nation/region over the course of the war. Most of the globe was at war by the end, but with a couple notable exceptions here and there. Those are the spots that have the larger neutral stacks in this mod, the rest are empty for simplicity.

Each faction also has either 3, 6, or 12 added fuel barrels from the start (the green synths that can be destroyed) in various locations, depending on the size of the faction and their number of starting units. So the big nations each have a dozen barrels, the mid sized nations have half a dozen barrels, and the tiny factions each have 3 barrels. These are distributed in some areas to be safe fuel, and in other areas to be contested as a way to make certain islands or regions more significant to the playpattern. The idea was to provide enough fuel to maneuver into the mid game as either side, but still running dry towards the end.

In this one Germany does control Denmark from the start so that is a key difference. 1 German transport was removed as an offset for a start date is imagined as April 1940. But otherwise beyond that, the neutrals and the added green barrels, its like Vanilla for the rest of the unit set up pretty much. For a harder challenge with either side you can add income modifiers from the launch screen, but I think the computer actually plays pretty well just with the extra fuel.

If giving the Allies a buff, I would probably suggest another USA starting transport, or giving China a second fighter, or a few of the ideas that seemed to work well in the mod forthebirds posted earlier. But this one is pretty much the vanilla just with the neutral tweaks and the fuel stuff. And Denmark of course, mainly since the AI plays so horribly when those straits are closed, but also cause it seemed to fit for the start date from the game notes.

I think it would be cool to work off something like this but actually change some territory PU values, or to have the turn order adjusted so all the Brit factions move together but that'd have to be done in the map files with a map mod. I also like some of the other ideas showcased in forthebirds mod for a different balance of forces between the various starting armies and fleets. The one I made was less ambitious in that regard, I mainly just wanted to handle some of the probs I saw with neutrals and fuel shortages. But I dig the idea of combing it over and beefing it up a bit for a new slant too hehe

Best Elk

Allies before the attack on Pearl Harbor, Allies that joined after Pearl Harbor, Axis powers, Neutral powers

Map of Participants in World War II:

(Dark Green) Allies before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, including colonies and occupied countries. Dark green diamonds represent countries that initially were neutral but during the war were annexed by the USSR.

(Light Green) Allied countries that entered the war after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Light green diamonds represent countries that later in the war changed from the Axis to the Allies.

(Light Blue) Axis Powers and their colonies or countries that had to choose a side in order to stay independent. Light blue diamonds represent countries either being conquered by the Axis Powers, becoming puppets of those (Vichy France and several French colonies).

(Gray) Neutral countries during WWII. Circles represent city-states or geographically small countries.

[forthebirds]

@Black_Elk
Wow! That was a quick victory! You developed quite a German navy. I did notice that the AI did build some factories but one huge blunder that it made was that the FR Colonies built a factory in FR Guiana rd 2 instead of FR India which India needs badly.
Personally, I never saw this happen before. Usually it builds a factory in Fr. India rd 1 because it seems to know that Fr. Indo China is doomed. I have found that a small change can have big consequences. Perhaps a factory should be placed in Fr. India from the start. I also have never seen the AI leave Egypt so weak on rd 1.
That is curious to me. Perhaps it needs to be bolstered some more. Anyway, I appreciate you trying this setup and look forward to suggestions on improving it.
Stay safe.

[Black_Elk]

Yeah German transport actions are pretty overpowered, mainly because of the way the Sea zones are set up. Moving German units from occupied Normandy to Leningrad would take 6 turns if marching overland, or 3 turns and a shit ton of fuel if racing there with Tanks/Mech, but it only takes 1 turn if using transports. Italy has a similar thing going on in the Med, and Japan in South Asia where they can sprawl with a quickness.

I think ideally what we might want is a situation where Germany can't shuck from the North Sea Zone so easily, maybe by having their main surface fleet oriented more on the Baltic Sea Zone. Or similarly to make it a bit harder for Italy or Japan to springboard onto India so quickly by bolstering Egypt or Singapore. (I still think the turn order is problematic for that, since it would really be better if Britain and British colonies followed Italy for the overall balance on the Mid East and India.)

On the one hand I think having all these smaller factions does add somewhat to the charm and variety of the map, but on the other hand they are definitely presented as much more powerful and much more consequential to the gameplay, than they would ever have been in the historical reality.

For example, most of the smaller Axis factions featured here never actually fought outside their own starting territories during the war. So the idea of like Iraqi armies marauding anywhere outside of Iraq, or of like Thailand rampaging across South Asia all up into the Hindu Kush, that is for sure historical fiction hehe. But if they're going to exist as playable nations, it makes sense to me they should at least be able to collect 20 PUs or more in their immediate neighborhood just to be viably entertaining to play.

Same deal on the Allied side, where the role of the little guys is pretty outsized. Even France is kind of built on a post-war revisionist mythology, where the ideas of La Résistance and the Free French are played way up, and Vichy collaboration is played way down. The reality was rather less glorious hehe. I think most of the smaller factions could easily be ditched and the map would still work just fine using the big 4 on team Allies: Soviet Union, Britain, USA, China and the big 3 on team Axis: Germany, Italy, Japan. But then we'd lose out on all the cool music and unit graphics etc that Frostion put together, so I'd be reluctant to just nix all that work. Still I think there are ways it could be made to feel a bit more realistic there, while still having the smaller powers function in a way that's engaging, but without them overshadowing the broader gameplay between the big dogs too much.

I agree with doing whatever makes sense for starting factories to get the AI to play a fun game. Like if a starting Factory for French Colonies in India is what they need, seems fine to me. Better for them to just have it from the getgo I'd say, since the little guys are pretty cash strapped. South Africa, French Colonies, ANZAC, KNIL, and Brazil are the most problematic on the Allied side in terms of scale, or rather for their inability to 'scale up' very much. I think some things could be done by changing the value of their starting territories or to the value of nearby neutrals, especially if it makes sense for the war. For French Colonies Madagascar or Syria might be a +5 as an example. Or for South Africa, the 6 PUs they try to take from Mozambique and Angola (both of which were neutral throughout the war) could just be moved to Pretoria for a higher value starting territory.

I think the regional capitals/VCs in many spots should be increased to a value of 15 or 20 PUs for most nations, but esp the smaller ones. Likewise some of the main Axis territories currently valued at 40 or 50, could be reduced down to 30 PUs, with the rest of the PUs spread out across their other starting territories, or else into easy conquest zones nearby. Just to try and find something that's weighted a bit more equally by sides. In general I'd try to shift more money out of the interior and onto the main peripheral fronts, where they could support more contested spots at +5 in the intermediate areas of the map.

I'd set that stuff up first though, get it dialed, and then use the starting income and unit adjustments to handle any disparities or balance issues from there as needed. Another thing I'd consider would be incorporating v3 carrier rules, since Classic/Revised carrier rules are kind of outmoded now and less familiar. Also while running through my back catalog of random Iron War ideas, I still feel that renaming the SS resource to something a bit more generic would be good. The function is fine and the resource gives an interesting conquest/purchasing dynamic, but "SS" has pretty strong negative connotations. I don't think its really necessary to conjure up the Schutzstaffel in the game. Something like "Special Recruitment" SR, or whatever else basically, would serve much better I think. If we wanted to tweak the actual map properties or xml I mean, those are some things I'd look at too.

[forthebirds]

@Black_Elk
Those are all good ideas although I personally would have trouble implementing them.
You helped me to see that Germany's transports can be a powerful influence so I am going to remove the 2 German transports from the start and put a factory in Fr. India to start the game. Do you think that alone could have an impact?

[forthebirds]

@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?

[Black_Elk]

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

[forthebirds]

@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.

[Black_Elk]

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?

[forthebirds]

@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?:beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes:

[forthebirds]

@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?

[Black_Elk]

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

[ff03k64]

@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]

@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]

@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

[Black_Elk]

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.

[ff03k64]

@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.

[Black_Elk]

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

[Mora]

@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.