Iron War - Official Thread
-
@Black_Elk True. Many of the smaller and pro neutral nations are better when they've been wiped from the map. But my suggestion was aimed at making the British Colonial power in Africa strong enough to be worth fighting for. Additionally if Cairo was an original territory of Colonial Britain, then ownership would return to them should it be liberated. So you'd still be fighting out of that territory with a fairly limited power. Thus potentially making it more in-line with Frostion's intentions and long term playability deeper into a game as well as not leaving as a wild card opportunity for a larger power that could exploit it completely and destroy an otherwise good game. ie. Russia
-
When playing with TripleA_1.9.0.0.4568, everything aseems to work much better and the Air units do not kill themselves.
@Hepps I am testing out the idea of letting the British-Colonials start with Egypt and it seems to be a good one. Seems to let the British colonial try to hold Egypt for at least 3-5 rounds.
-
@Frostion Cool. Glad you like the suggestion. I figured this might work for the game since you can still play with unit balance in the region and make it really expensive for the Allies to hold onto Egypt... if at all.
I think the real up-side to this idea comes later in a game, where (if they {the Allies} can fight their way back to Cairo { as I suspect the game still needs Cairo to fall to the Italians at some point}) the Colonial British are forced to be the one pressing North Africa and the Mediterrainian.
-
@Frostion I give you this suggestion and shall consider the debt fully paid when my beloved country is given its rightful status in the game. The true north strong and free!
-
I think if they were given some more cash and resources to work with, and Egypt as a starting factory, then the British-Colonies player might be more entertaining.
But I this is contingent on them having normal liberation rules for their territories. A few versions back their territories were going to the French when liberated.
I have to say though, if they are in there I really like the idea that they have some attack options, and not just be a speed bump for Italy. Right now they are just getting smoked. The idea that the Regia Marina can just go anywhere it pleases in early 1940 without really having to fight the Royal Navy just seems off. They should at least have to destroy some enemy ships and take a few losses in the Med, before doing stuff like taking Gibraltar or Suez. The campaign for Egypt was fought largely over land out of Libya, rather than with direct amphibious invasions.
Also Because Italy has a starting production center and a starting naval force (that they can expand) on either side of the Canal, I'm not sure why it needs to be critical for them to actually take Egypt right away to still threaten the Allies. They can converge overland by going around Egypt, or with transport actions out of Italy/Libya/East Africa. They have a lot of flexibility with their own aircraft, and potential support from the other Axis powers nearby to help them out. So I'm not terribly concerned about Italy's ability to maintain income parity and be effective on the warpath.
The Allies on the other hand have a hell of a time getting anything into the Canal area. British-India has to focus almost all their resources against Japan and Thailand or they'll get stomped. Russia has to break through Persia/Iraq (pretty challenging even if they throw everything at the Middle East immediately, which risks their capital being overrun by Germany.) France and South Africa have to cover a lot of ground facing stiff resistance along the way. Probably the Americans have the best chance to get there but its going takes Patton several rounds.
So with all that in mind, I'd definitely consider adding some Allied naval TUV to the med, to slow down the Italian steam roll. Personally I like the idea that, just around the time when Italy is in a position to take the Canal (which really shouldn't be possible without at least some support from Germany) then Americans start showing up to complicate their plans.
That way you can really get the vibe of a serious desert war, with Graziani or Rommel in a high stakes showdown vs the Allies. Trying to get the job done quickly before Monty and Patton arrive from the West haha.
I still see some issues with North America and Britain though. Even with the Victoria factory removed, the Canadian production in Halifax seems to be directed West rather than East by the AI.
I think this is mainly a map issue that might be hard to overcome regardless of production. The only thing I can think of right now would be maybe to add Bermuda or Azores as a lily pad in the central Atlantic.
Giving the Canadians a starting carrier works as a one off, but after it moves away or has it's deck stacked, the fighter transit across the Atlantic seems to fall apart. I can't really figure put why the AI doesn't head to Greenland. Maybe it's because this is only 3 moves rather than 4 so they can't max their movement?
-
Ps. Probably the single best thing that could happen for the AI, would be some way for the map designer to assign priority target territories for each nation in the xml. That way you could get the units moving in the right direction and try to encourage the desired play pattern from the AI.
Right now we have to design maps to fit with the AIs general priorities. But what would really be awesome is if the AI would change it's core priorities based on what the map maker is telling them to do (whatever is most important thematically for the game narrative, or perhaps what a human would do strategically to win). Like with primary and secondary targets, or even randomized targets, but done in such a way that the AI sticks to a more consistent attack plan over time.
Until something like this is implemented, I can only suggest that maybe the AI would develop a more efficient fighter transit out of North America if there were a couple more 4 move lily pads along the way? Not sure. But I can't really get the Canadians to move those 5 fighters they purchase on the first turn towards Europe rather than the Pacific.
Currently I see that the AI will move from Halifax to California, then from California to Midway, and finally from Midway to Anadyr or Chukotsky (each of these are 4 move transits, the max that a fighter can travel.) From Victoria the fighters will sometimes move straight to Anadyr, Chukotsky, or Uelen. But for whatever reason the AI doesn't seem to move from Halifax or USA NorthAtlantic to Greenland very often, even though this is also 4 moves, and would put them 4 moves from England or Norway.
The Iceland transit is even more potent. You can fly from Halifax, through Labrador and the Cape Farewell Sz, and have a fighter parked on Iceland in 4 moves (just one turn.) So it's kind of bizarre that the Allied AI would build a fighter in Halifax, and then fly it to the low value Soviet Pacific, when they could just as easily be in Leningrad if they just went towards Europe. Both are 3 turn transits, but the one to Europe is obviously better for the team, since that's where the heaviest concentration of Soviet production is located, and where the most salient threat to Russia is always amassing.
Perhaps the starting USA carriers are somehow messing with their calculations? Or maybe its something else more basic? Not really sure. But it would certainly be cool if we could get the AI to start moving aircraft across the Atlantic the way it moves them across the Pacific, in stages.
-
Ok just tried something interesting, that seems to work really well!
I changed the ownership of Iceland to be a British starting territory, and then placed 5 starting fighters in Halifax just to see what the AI would do.
On the British AI's first turn they immediately flew the fighters to Iceland!
Perhaps this is a solution we could explore? Just making Iceland British.
After all, the British did invade Iceland in May of 1940, so it would be true to the history and the start date "Early 1940." It would actually probably be more accurate than the current map, since France didn't fall until June 1940. So while having it Neutral might have made sense for a 1939 start date, a 1940 start date that has the Germans capturing Paris on the first turn should really have the British already controlling Iceland anyway.
And you get this nice perk, that the AI actually does what we want it to, at least with regards to the Atlantic fighter transit.
Check it out...
0_1496726225326_Iron War Iceland to British AI test.tsvg
I didn't have to remove the Victoria factory to make it work either. Tried it twice just to make sure. Using TripleA-1.9.0.0.4564
Here is the same move made by the Canadians (British-Colonies), in that edit scenario I made. The one with no Victoria factory. Only in this case, the fighters making the transit to British Iceland were purchased by the Canadian AI in round 1. Presumably you could set things up so that the North Atlantic Ferry Route (Canadian fighters traveling in stages to the British Isles) is a consistent feature of the Allied AI's early gameplay.
In this game, it took 3 rounds for the AI Canadian fighters to reach England. Which was coincidentally the same amount of time that it took for the Italian AI to take Egypt.
-
@Hepps Gigglez ... Ya we always get short list eh bro
-
I can present a new version of Iron War. This one has some small visual changes, like a new KNIL look and some more nation color changes. The concept of minor and major nations is now totally abandoned. All players should be payable and this might simplify the rules and understanding of the map. Also, nearly all players now have an option to support other players, but I try to keep some realism, so for example it is only “France” who can support “French-Colonies” and so on. Here is a preview and a list of all the changes:
New in v0.1.8
• Submarines now require 2 steel to build, not 1.
• V1-Rocket attack lowered to 1(Still has 1-2 strategic bombing damage)
• V2-Rocket attack lowered to 2 (Still has 1-3 strategic bombing damage)
• KNIL now have new flags and markers, so they don’t look like South Africa.
• The concept of minor nations is no more. Now all players should be worth playing.
• Egypt is now controlled by British-Colonies, even though it might be hard to survive more than 3 rounds (unless British send a lot of Aid).
• VC moved from Iraq to Egypt.
• Some nation color changes.
• Some other starting unit placement changes.
@redrum – The Fast AI still seems to do kamikaze-like attacks with the Japanese bomber against Hawaii, and when the bomber survives the battle it just dies as it cannot land. I have been playing with 1.9.0.0.4568. Also, there is nearly always an error popping up that looks like this: (It is not linked to a specific player. In this example is just Britain. It is not something that happens with the bomber thing. I think it is unrelated, but I don’t know.)
triplea.engine.version.bin:1.9
Loading map: iron_war, from: C:\Users\David-Corsair\triplea\downloadedMaps\iron_war
Loading resources from the following paths: [C:\Users\David-Corsair\triplea\downloadedMaps\iron_war, C:\Games\TripleA_1.9.0.0.4568\assets]
Loading map: iron_war, from: C:\Users\David-Corsair\triplea\downloadedMaps\iron_war
Loading resources from the following paths: [C:\Users\David-Corsair\triplea\downloadedMaps\iron_war, C:\Games\TripleA_1.9.0.0.4568\assets]
1 - Italy. strafing territory: Egypt, alliedPlayer=Germany, maxWin%=95.83333333333334, maxAttackers=4, maxDefenders=1
3 - Britain. strafing territory: France, alliedPlayer=USA, maxWin%=100.0, maxAttackers=1, maxDefenders=0
jun. 07, 2017 11:21:56 PM games.strategy.triplea.ui.BattleStepsPanel setStep
INFO: Could not find step name:Britain withdraw planes? -
@Frostion If you have a save game to reproduce the bomber issues or error pop up then I can take a look.
-
@Frostion The error in the log: "games.strategy.triplea.ui.BattleStepsPanel setStep
INFO: Could not find step name:Britain withdraw planes?", have you seen that before or just recently. I don't think that has anything to do with the AI and appears to be an engine issue. Wondering if a recent change we made had an unintended side effect or if the issue has always existed. -
-
Website was down for a day, so haven't had a chance to write. I'm typing from my phone at work, so I don't have my most recent gamesave to share, but just wanted to say I am liking it so far.
I think having the launch/player-selection screen mirror the actual turn order in game is pretty helpful. Feels more straightforward and may help players to decide who should take which block.
For the turn order itself, everything seems pretty well balanced. The only thing I might tweak at this point is the USA and Brazil switching positions. But that's mainly because I like the idea of the game round beginning and ending with one of the big dog players.
I haven't had too much input so far on the unit roster, but increasing the cost of subs to 2 steel seems sensible enough. The unit will now be in competition with transports, but that's fine by me. It does leave patrol-boats as the only ship you can build for 1 steel, though that probably makes sense too. Personally I find it kind of tough to build a broader strategy around PT boats, mainly because of the movement restriction makes it hard to cross the major sea lanes with them. The move 1 puts real limitations on where you can build them (unless the production is close to home, and you don't really plan on moving the fleet much). But sometimes they are critically necessary as last minute fodder purchase, to prevent all out air sweeps, so I see their main use as bolstering shuck lanes. Basically the transports move to shuck while the patrol-boats remain in position at the unload endpoint. For that to work though, you really need to have the logistics in place and a pretty short distance to cover.
I do feel like the destroyer is pretty expensive in steel for what you get. Even if it is the cheapest ship that can still move 2, (at 16 PUs), the cost in steel can be pretty steep at 3, so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense as a fodder unit. I typically will purchase 1 or maybe 2 per battlegroup (just so I can hit enemy submarines) and then rely on my own subs to do the dirty work as fodder. But destroyers are not serving as the bulk of my fleets by any stretch.
Right now I'll admit to still not being particularly good at calculating my overall fuel requirements in advance. But I think fuel (even more so than steel) is what was preventing the all out sub spam of cheap naval units for me. Even when the sub only needed 1 steel to build, purchasing a whole gang of them was not the best plan, just because I'd find myself running out of fuel if trying to move a huge fleet, and end up having to leave them behind anyway. From a fuel perspective the carrier is by far the best purchase on the water. Because, if the deck is fully stacked, you can move 4 defensive units into a sz while only requiring 1 fuel per movement point. Even if the initial cost in PUs and Steel is almost prohibitively expensive, you definitely make it up on the back end with fuel savings and the extra mobility/hitpoints that fighters provide. I don't think I would suggest increasing the carrier cost, since it's already the most expensive unit in the game (at least until you get nukes haha) but I might perhaps consider scaling down the cost of some of the other ships. For example, I might go 4 steel for the battleship, 3 for the cruiser, and 2 for the destroyer, Sub and transport. Or something or that sort.
One thing that might be fun for breaking naval pickets or creating a more independent role for submarines (with convoy raiding) would be the idea of a move 3 Sub.
Right now Subs typically operate with the main naval battlegroup, and there aren't many cases where it's a good idea to break off and do solo hunting. If I do break away, its usually to serve as a blocker (which I see as there main role in gameplay terms.) I like that role for them, since it is disruptive to enemy fleet movement, so it kind of fits the unit thematically. But even if they can be effective for that use, their range is still pretty limited based on where the main surface fleet is parked. A 3rd movement point might make convoy raiding a bit more feasible. I'd say 2 moves for everyone has a certain simplicity to coming out of A&A, but the patrol boat is at move 1 already, so you have some nuance to naval movement anyway. Maybe a naval unit at move 3 would carry that idea even a bit farther? I think the sub makes the most sense if any ship is considered for M3. Anyhow, just an idea, as a way to somehow make the sub feel more unique and not just an extension of the surface fleet.
I like the new colors for the Dutch and South Africa, really feels more recognizable at a glance. Nice work on the flags for the dutch especially. I feel like they are a lot less likely to be confused with South Africa now. On the Axis side, I do sometimes mistake Italians units for units from Iraq or Iran, so not sure if it might be worth doing some work there? Seems like the flags would be tough to change, but perhaps something with the unit tint might work. Like more green for Iran or more red for Iraq or something along those lines. Mainly the confusion happens with fighters or tanks at glance, since these nations are all operating in pretty close proximity to one another.
The new British-Colonies player seems cool. I like the Egypt focus, and a larger fleet is great. Having some capital ships to move around definitely makes them feel more significant, and I like how they can put a wedge between Italy and the Middle East. In previous versions the Italians could get on Riyadh without much difficulty, and stole the thunder from Iraq. Here they really have to earn it if they want that Arabian oil.
I noticed that there has been some switching of VCs in the last couple versions. Have you considered just adding more total VCs as a possible solution? Seems to me that each player-nation should probably have at least 1 VC territory to protect. So maybe 30 VCs, would be better than 20? That gives you some flexibility to give each nation at least 1 VC with a few left over to round out the historical interest angle. A little while back a had like a month long conversation at A&Aorg where I asked people for feedback on which VCs they wanted to see in Global. We got a lot of replies and some definite back and forth, with the primary tension being between gameplay interest and historical interest. The final top 40 list looked like this below...
In my view Iron War has a much more compelling production spread than G40, so the need for VCs in some of these places is a lot less pressing on the Iron War map (since their strategic advantage is already covered by having +5 gold territories.) But maybe it would be useful for brainstorming, if you decide you want to increase the number of VCs. The parenthetical territory names refer to the G40 map, but the Iron War map is more detailed so they may not correspond exactly.
ETO:
Berlin (Germany)
Rome (Italy)
Paris (France)
Ploiesti (Romania)
Oslo (Norway)
Warsaw (Poland)
Tripoli (Libya)
Mosul (Iraq)
Athens (Greece)
Washington (Eastern USA)
London (UK)
Cape Town (South Africa)
Moscow (Russia)
Leningrad (Karelia SSR)
Stalingrad (Volgograd)
Archangel (Archangelsk)
Reykjavik (Island)
Cairo (Egypt)
Dakar (French West Africa)
Tunis (Tunisia)
Kiev (Ukraine SSR)
Ottawa (Ontario)PTO:
Tokyo (Japan),
Shanghai (Kiangsu)
Manila (Philippines)
Truk (Caroline Islands)
Singapore (Malaya)
Harbin (Manchuria)
Rabaul (New Britain)
Calcutta (India)
Sydney (Eastern Australia)
Wellington (New Zealand)
Anchorage (Alaska)
Honolulu (Hawaii)
San Francisco (Western USA)
Victoria (Western Canada)
Chonqing (Szechwan)
Irkutsk (Yakut SSR)
Hong Kong (Kwangtung)
Vladivostok (Amur)Oh and one final thought. In the latest version I downloaded, I didn't hear any of the national anthems playing at the start of the turns. So might want to have a look there. The music is definitely one of my favorite things about this game. Anyhow, I dig it a lot! The new version looks way slick! Can't wait to get home from work so I can play haha. Keep up the great work man!
-
Patrol-Boat:
In the next version I have changed ship prices a bit. The Sub price is increased with 5 PUs and the Patrol-Boat is lowered 1 PU in price:
The following battle calculations are based on these new prices and have fokus on the Patrol-Boats role:
9 Destroyers (144 TUV + 18 Steel) attack 7 Cruisers = 46% win
7 Cruisers (140 TUV + 21 Steel) attack 7 Cruisers = 48% win
4 Battleships (140 TUV + 16 steel) attack 7 Cruisers = 49% win
6 Submarines (150 TUV + 12 Steel) attack 6 Cruisers + 1 Destroyer = 40% win
11 Patrol-Boat (143 TUV + 11 steel) attack 7 Cruisers = 82% win9 Destroyers (140 TUV + 18 steel) attack 11 Patrol-Boat = 49% win
7 Cruisers (140 TUV + 21 steel) attacks 11 Patrol-Boat = 52% win
4 Battleships (140 TUV + 16 steel) attacks 11 Patrol-Boat = 57% winBattleships and Cruisers (that also have 1 AA shot every round) are better against defending Patrol Boats. Attacking patrol boats is the ultimate attack ship, if it can corner enemies or enemies are careless. Poor players may buy Patrol Boats as cheap steel cost protection of their coast, or if they just have that 13 PUs left when building. What do you think about the new prices and the patrol boat role?
VC:
I have thought about adding more. I will have to look at the list and the possibilities. I really hope that the AI will some day consider these VC and canals as worth going for.In the coming v0.1.9 of Iron War the Strait of Malacca is also added, and I have adjusted many of the minor nations starting economy and a few map resourses. Will probably be a few days before it is out.
Music
I haven’t had the music problem, I will have to look into it. Please tell if you find out what’s wrong. -
I like it a lot! I think it's helpful to have that variety in PU costs (even if the primary consideration for building is usually steel) because it allows the player to "spend their remainder."
This is a phrase I used a lot (especially when writing strategy guides and the like for v5 in A&A.) Basically in A&A it means whatever is left over in PUs, after you max spam the cheapest fodder unit available.
In A&A the base is 3 PUs for infantry. So what players frequently do (if they're sticking to Don Rae's tried and true strategy of "the Infantry Push Mechanic") is first determine how many infantry hitpoints their income/production will allow to placed, then determine how best to deal with remainder in PUs that is left over after that. If the cap on max infantry is reached, that is usually the ideal time to expand production capacity with new factories. So in A&A for example, if the remainder after the max inf spam is just 1 PU, then one of those inf units gets changed artillery for a total cost of 4 PUs. If the remainder is 7, maybe that inf gets changed to a fighter for a total cost of 10 PUs, and so on.
The same thing also happens on the water in A&A, with the cheapest combat warship (that provides a hitpoint) establishing the baseline, and the remainder then going to stronger warships that get substituted for a stronger push. The transport has it's own thing going on which is more logistical now in A&A, since the whole point of that unit is to move ground units and isn't a combat warship, but it too can help form the baseline/remainder on the water.
In Iron War the base cost for infantry is 10, and the base cost for transports is 20 (which is a warship here = grants a combat hitpoint which I definitely prefer). So when it comes to spending a remainder of less than 10 (ie. 1-9 PUs left over), this in a lot of cases will suggest what unit the player ends up purchasing, at least if they don't have any broader more complex strategy in the offing than the default "Hit point Push" Mechanic.
If the player lacks steel, usually the remainder is going to artillery or aircraft so remainders of 1 or 8. Provided they have the steel, a remainder of 2 PUs might suggest Mech at 12. If the remainder is 4 PUs maybe they get a tank-destroyer for 14. Or 5 PU might suggest a light tank for 15 and so on. Similarly they might buy ships using the same sort of generalized or spontaneous purchasing decisions.
PT boats at 13 seem really cool for that reason, since it offers another remainder tier on the water.
I think the optimal use of the PT boat is to rapidly expand hitpoints in a sz that you're trying to stack for defense or deadzoning purposes. So it's the kind of unit I'd typically want to build in place (or as close as possible to the sea zone where I want them to ultimately reside permanently). It it is potentially a pretty cool unit, and makes a lot of 5+ coastal territories even more attractive as production hubs.
I dig it!
Oh yeah, I kind of had a similar thought about VCs. It seems like this should definitely be a top priority for the AI. Since its probably the simplest example of a primary "target territory" that could be assigned to the AI. Many games use the idea for determining how to win, so it seems like a key component for a more effective AI. By having more potential VC targets, we'd have some room and some flexibility to use more territories as targets like that. Hopefully this stuff will be incorporated into the AIs behavior at some point in the not too distant future.
Will try again, and redownload the latest to double check the music thing tomorrow.
This map is highly addictive! Haha
-
ps. one final thought on Canada.
Now that British-Colonies is more interesting, my thoughts on how to incorporate Canada have changed somewhat. What I would do now, is ditch French-Colonies to make room for Canada on the Allied side.
Since the French-Indo China falls almost immediately, it's really only 4 territories of interest remaining. French-Guiana, Syria, Madagascar and French-India. In my view these could easily just be French, and would probably make France a lot more interesting to play, since they'd have at least one strategic decision to make with regard to production (whether to put units into West Africa to aid a Europe focused game, or into French-India to aid a Pacific focused game.) The additional income to France would only really amount to 2 hitpoints per round, so it's very distorting. If anything France could probably use the money anyway.
To get Canada in there, you would have close to 36 production already in North America.
I would have Newfoundland as British +5, and Labrador +5 as British with a bit more Steel, but everything else in North America going to Canada. (You could probably increase a few values if you wanted to make them a Nation in the 50 PU range.)
I think Britain with Newfoundland, Labrador and Iceland as starting territories would give them plenty to manage in the North Atlantic. Then you could just increase the value of Scotland and England itself to whatever amount seems good for the overall British Economy.
Right now England is 8 PUs, but I think it could just as easily be double digit production, like 20 or 30 the way East Germany, Italy and Japan are 50 (with the big numbers at the core). This would create a little more parity by side, so the economic slant doesn't seem overly distorted at a glance in favor of the Axis side. But in practical terms, the Allies/British would still have the logistical challenge of coordination by separate powers.
With that in mind, I really think coordinating Canada with the British would offer a lot more interesting choices and gameplay challenges, than coordinating French-Colonies with British-India (which is really all the French-Colonies do currently after the initial loss of their naval units.) Canada at least would have to think about Fighter transits or the Battle of the Atlantic, and be more connected to the broader game in Europe, whereas French-Colonies are basically just spamming infantry out of French-India, which isn't really much to do. France could definitely handle this by itself, and I don't really think players would find it too onerous having another zone of operations for the French. Scrolling between Africa and the Mid-East/South Asia isn't all that far, and I think might make France a bit more engaging to play.
But of course the bigger pay-off in my mind is just getting Canada into play, since I still think that would be good for the game in the North Atlantic and for the popularity of the map generally. To me it seems only fair, given that we have South Africa, the British Raj, Anzac etc hehe. A lot of the player base are probably in these countries of the Anglophone, so its cool that they're in there, I just feel like if we have it all broken up regionally already, might as well give the Canadians a nod.
One of the particularly cool things about Iron War, is that it presents the dissolution of the British Empire as like a sub-theme of World War II. So set against the backdrop of the Axis expansion, you also have this to deal with on the Allied side, where the Empire is already being eclipsed by the natal Commonwealth, with the separate regions taking on a more independent role. I dig it, but just think Canada would fun to have in the mix, to really ice the concept globally.
Anyhow, here is my last game. A German Solo versus Fast AI Allies at 120% income. Using Iron War 1.8 and the pre-release tripleA TripleA-1.9.0.0.4717. The Indian Ocean region feels a lot more dynamic now, with the Allied AI trying to coordinate a wedge between Japan and Italy on the water. In the Med I had a nice campaign overland to set up the kill on Egypt, but it was a 3 round set up and still felt like I had to work for it (and Russia is still crashing in on the Mid-East, so we're still not truly secure.) I went with the Carrier opener and the plan to smoke London. Here it is in Late 1941...
0_1497088386001_Iron War Elk Germany vs Fast AI Allies x120 percent income G4.tsvg
-
@Black_Elk There is no need to redownload if you have v0.1.8. I have not updated to v0.1.9 yet. You could edit your XML to try out the new pieces.
-
@Frostion Sounds good. I played another couple rounds just now, so here it is in late 1942, with the AI's Torch invasion into North Africa coming right on time haha. Nice
0_1497092452880_Iron War Elk Germany vs Fast AI Allies x120 percent income G6.tsvg
I've been enjoying the game so far. Look forward to trying the next revision when it drops. Catch you in a few man!
-
Another thought I had, was that it would be cool strategically if more nations on each side could exchange steel. Steel is really the main resource that drives purchasing decisions, and I dig that it provides a built in cap for the heavy hitter spam. But even the ability to share 1 steel could sometimes be decisive for a clutch naval build, or key tank blitz etc. Would fit with the namesake Iron War, if one could spread a little more ore around haha.
After a couple more rounds of spamming air production and infantry, Germany is gunning with a major surplus in steel. Meanwhile the Allies (with their 120% boosts) have been buying tanks non-stop. So I'd probably throw some at the team if I had an option to do so. Instead I'll probably just have to buy a grip of heavy tanks or warships with G, which I guess isn't so bad haha. But it might be fun if there was an option to send some of this excess steel to Italy or the Balkans.
0_1497166416567_Iron War Elk Germany vs Fast AI Allies x120 percent income G10.tsvg
Decided to spend the steel on a major naval expansion for the Kriegsmarine. Got another battle group going with a Carrier, Battleship and bunch of cruisers, and proceeded to trap and then annihilate the combined Allied fleet in the Med. Hopefully the German fleet is now large enough to start taking the fight to the Allies in the Atlantic.
0_1497168659141_Iron War Elk Germany vs Fast AI Allies x120 percent income G13.tsvg
ps. I think I can probably call this one a defeat at the hands of the Allies (Fast AI) haha. Even if G is still ahead in the VC game, and technically on par at sea, the Allied press on Africa was just too much for the team. With the 120% boost I think they'll prove a massive pain to dislodge now that they've basically stomped Italy out of the equation. It was fun to play out a naval campaign, but I should definitely have turned my attention to the Russian front a little sooner to help stabilize the center for Axis overland. As it stands, with British-India pressing in on the Middle East, and everyone else charging up from Africa, Egypt is certain to crack eventually. Got a hot mess brewing down there South of the Equator.
Resorting to Nuclear Armageddon these past few rounds is probably a clear indication that we're in over our heads hehe.
Fun stuff though!
0_1497254956297_Iron War Elk Germany vs Fast AI Allies x120 percent income G16.tsvg
-
heh heh this is pretty good
italicised textit means whatever is left over in PUs, after you max spam the cheapest fodder unit available.
