Iron War - Official Thread
-
@Mora I really think the simplest way to manage the SBR on this map, would be to expand the number of possible factory locations, esp in the bombing hotspots. Maybe putting some more money on the table as well, for factory expansion/repair/replacement. I think in particular it would be nice to see more in +5s in places that can be covered by AA (either with cruisers in adjacent sea zones, or aaguns positioned in adjacent tiles, since that is more powerful here owing to the fly over rules for AAfire.) Especially for factions that are more vulnerable it would be nice. Like taking Britain for example, Scotland and Northern Ireland could both be worth 5 and have factories. Germany could have one in Austria. Italy could have one in Sicily etc. Just increasing the number of +5 places across the board by like a 3rd, and placing them in spots where major battles occurred, or which make sense from a more historical flare angle.
Some of the smaller nations that currently have access to strategic bombers in their unit roster probably shouldn't in all honesty. It just makes the gang-up SBR turn order exploits particularly ruthless. So I'd be considering whether a nation like Finland, Thailand, South Africa or French Colonies should even be able to buy those types of units in the first place. Right now I think the only thing holding back SBR from being even more game breaking is that bombers are the most expensive unit to move in terms of fuel consumption, but even there if going cutthroat, I think its probably well worth the gas or not moving other stuff, just to nix a factory out of play before the opponent can even place.
The shorthand I've been following is that really it only takes 2 bombers to have a fairly good shot of killing a factory outright, which is pretty potent, esp if the enemy only has like 1 or maybe 2 locations that could even house one to begin with. Anyhow that would be my first step, just adding more factories into the mix basically, since that would mitigate the effect I think and make SBR less do or die. In the nuclear era, if the player goes on that long, factories can be basically be auto killed for a cost of 50, so again similarly potent.
Another interesting approach I still think might be to have a separate kind of factory or method of producing infantry tied to the VC territories, perhaps as a capturable type factory. I think it would make sense for all factions but particularly some of the smaller ones. The thematic rationale would be that VCs represent the major population centers, from which the boots are conscripted, whereas "factories" are more like actual factories, building heavy equipment like tanks, ships and aircraft. To me it makes sense for infantry recruitment to be tied to VCs, since those are kind of stand ins for the major population centers.
I think right now the Axis 'capital' territories are over valued (at 40-50), and some of the key Allied 'capital' territories are under valued (at just 5 or 6 in many places). So instead of having Axis VCs worth so much I think those should come down, and have the value spread to adjacent spots that can be captured. For the Allies I'd probably just add more value as needed since more of those spots are in immediate contention. For some kind of parity 10-15 vs 20-30 I think would be easier to swallow than like 5 vs 50, when comparing Allied 'capitals' to the Axis ones. Some of the Allied VCs could be easily raised up to at least 10 in many spots I think, England comes to mind, but it would help for some of the smaller guys too like say Egypt. France for example could be worth more, as a way to give Germany more via conquest, so it doesn't have to look as lopsided. Britain at a higher value is also a way to give Sea Lion a bigger pay off. India or China or ANZAC could be worth more to make the theaters there more decisive on the Pacific side. Clearly its all abstracted, with Axis spots worth more for gameplay reasons, but I still think there could be more parity, and it would make the game more interesting for both sides. More of a payoff when Axis conquer stuff, and more of an incentive for Allies to stop them from doing so, when more of the value is placed in contested areas.
It'd be cool if more territories in Europe were worth 5, 10, 15 or 20 PUs, and have Germany and Italy increase their main income that way via early conquest. While simultaneously lowering the value of Italy and West Germany. I'd do the same for Japan, shifting the money off the home island to surrounding places, and increasing the value of Allied spots that are nearby which can be conquered early. Instead of Japan worth 40, you could drop it 20. Up Hokkaido to 5, Sakhalin to 5, Korea to 5 and you'd still have loot left over to increase Iwo, Oki, or Saipan to get another island in play. Which would be a little truer to their production spread, having a cluster around the home islands and territories controlled prior to 1937. At the same time more of the Allied spots nearby could be worth 5 or even 10, so that the big money really comes from conquest for both sides. I just think the +5s work cooler when they are arranged in pockets like that, with another +5 adjacent, or sometimes one turn away via blitz, or in the case of islands one turn via transport, from another contested +5 spot nearby. It'd increase the pressure to trade across the whole region when set like that. 10-30 ipcs spread around the right way I think could really open up the factory and the territory trading game while also helping with the SBR thing.
With a couple hundred territories on the map, conservatively I'd think like 1/6th of those should probably be worth +5 for a really tense global back and forth. Like with the fuel, I'd say high ball it for the next go hehe. Aiming for a somewhat higher economy game across the board, since infantry is pretty expensive at 10 PUs. There's going to be that cap on hitpoints there regardless, but it also means that (at least thinking in terms of infantry replacement) you could add 20 PUs in value to the map, and we're still only talking about 2 hitpoints per round in added value to the board. I'd go for stuff like that over dramatically changing starting unit compositions, since I think it'd just make the production spread more dynamic as the game went on. Balance could then be handled after with starting income tweaks, whatever makes sense for the opener.
ps. I agree that right now its only really playable backloading to 1.9 due to the no factories bug. I played another game just now under the 2018 previous build, and HardAI already has a German factory in Poland and a Japanese one in Vladivostok. Just a much stronger showing when the AI can build. Anyhow, here it is using 1.9 on USA 2, AI clearly much stronger showing.
Iron War HardAI Axis USA2.tsvg
In the older build 1.9 the main issue for German collapse looked more like this... where West Germany really is their Achilles' heel. That's why I think some of that value could get pushed back to Poland and Austria etc. I think if one of the Germany spots is higher value East Germany would be better for that. But I think having them more like 20-30 PUs with more of the loot coming from France or the Eastern Front. But I like Austria so they got a fall back spot in the middle after something like this happens. Total Victory for team Allies in the 4th round there... Total Victory can still come pretty quickly if pressing hard. Maybe a few more VCs added and a threshold at 21 or 24 VCs. A couple new VCs could bring Egypt or Greece back into the fold with one, or maybe Malaya or Hawaii on the Pacific side. Might be fun
Iron War HardAI Axis USSR4.tsvg
I think it would work better all around for everyone whether AI controlled or not with more targets at +5.
pps. Went a dozen rounds vs HardAI Allies in 1.9. I think this is about as boss as I've been able to get Germany by 1946 with the mech drive. The vanguard panzers have finally reached all the way to the Pacific ocean hehe. Decisive invasion of England about to commence, pretty massive numbers involved. Fun stuff, better with the AI buying factories again for sure.
-
@Black_Elk
Hi y'all.
Just to add to the discussion.
I kind of follow the advice from Roger's Scenario Thread who tests a lot of games that I believe he only allows himself to do one strategic bomber per country per turn.
Likewise with this game I don't think you should be able to export anything to another country because the AI doesn't.
PvP, all bets are off.:beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes:
I still find it not good for the latest engine not to be buying factories when it should. Especially for Iron War, this is a real problem.
So, at least, for now I'm sticking with 1.9 for this game.
As far As WAW, I found that the USA was strictly buying fighters & nothing else. This was a bummer & it seemed to me unbeatable.
Any thoughts? -
@forthebirds
I have many thoughts about WAW. I don't see it unbeatable. Right now, I am giving USA and GB 110% of PU while playing only Japanese countries myself. And it looks like Axis is winning. But I think we shouldn't spam here, because this is Iron War thread. If you wish, we can PM. -
A display bug, I think.
Something is goofy with Japan's support to Thailand. I gave 10, and it said they were getting 15.
I gave 5, and it said they were getting 10.
I am pretty sure that they did get the correct amount though.
I will try to repeat it next time I get to Japan.
-
Further thoughts on the map and the production spread...
Currently the map has 931 production in total.
I counted about 11 territories that have no value, these are all in the extreme north of Russia and Canada.
I think those should all be worth 1 PU, just for parity with everywhere else on the map. One of the things I like about Iron War over A&A is that it assigns 1 PU in value to basically everywhere on the map (including minor islands) which makes those northern territories stand out as weirdly inconsistent. I understand there is probably some rationale here that if those territories have zero value then Japan won't take them over, but I don't think that really works anyway, and the map would just feel more coherent if everything was at least worth 1 PU at the floor.
Making every territory worth a minimum of 1 PU would increase the total production on the board from 931 to 942.
From there I'd say just add in the remaining 58 production and distribute it across the map in areas contested by both sides, so that you can have a clean total of 1000 Production in play.
I'd do this by adding more +5s to both sides, or perhaps a few more convoy sea zones, until you hit the magic number of 1000 total. It might seem arbitrary, but there's something to be said for having clean round numbers, and I actually think it would be about the right amount to get a cool playbalance going on this one. 58 PUs is a lot of wiggle room to raise up a few VC values, and to add a few more spots capable of producing factories or adding in some more convoys to spice up the naval game. Especially if it was combined with the idea in posts above to spread out the value from some of the Axis capitals to adjacent contestable spots. All said that should be enough to activate a couple dozen new territories or sea zones at the +5 threshold. So yeah, anyway, that just seemed like a good milestone to try and hit for the next one, since it would also look all neat and tidy from the birds eye, with 1000 Production total as the goal.
D10 Combat
Base 10 PUs cost for infantry
1000 total production on the boardJust has a good feel don't you think?
It provides a simple way for people to kind of get their head around things at the macro scale. Thinking in terms of hitpoint replacement, that's essentially 100 hitpoints worth of production value on the board, split across 20 factions. which feels clean to me. I think you could of course design a balance around any production just by adjusting starting income and starting unit position, so I rather like it when I open a map and see a lot of clean numbers in the stats columns for the opening rounds.
Here's an example of what I mean...
Turn Block 1
Germany 80
Balkans 30
Finland 15
(Total 125)Turn Block 2
USSR 155
France 50
French-Colonies 40
KNIL 30
(Total 275)Turn Block 3
Italy 75
Iraq 10
Iran 15
(Total 100)Turn Block 4
Britain 70
British-Colonies 50
South Africa 20
British-India 45
ANZAC 45
(Total 230)Turn Block 5
Japan 85
Thailand 15
(Total 100)Turn Block 6
USA 110
China 40
Brazil 20
(Total 170)Axis 325
Allies 675Out of 1000 Production on the board.
Since Axis have the larger starting forces at the ready, and more of the Allied starting production is in immediate contention, this roughs out to be more of a 50/50 production split in early rounds after Axis initial conquest. Basically I went around and upped the values (usually within 5-10 PUs) from the current totals nation by nation. And then going for the whole round number phenomenon of 1000, it was pretty damn close to that split. To match it up with the totals after that I basically just doubled the value of China to 40 PUs. To me this makes sense, both from an historical perspective and from a gameplay one.
China's contribution to the war effort is consistently undervalued in these games. Historically the United Front in China KMT/CCP tied down the Imperial Japanese Army in a massive way for pretty much the duration of the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_United_FrontThe IJA had an army that was what like 1 million strong, preoccupied with the fighting in China for almost the whole decade since the late 30s. The main reason Japan wasn't able to do the kind of wild stuff in the real war that it typically does in an A&A game lol because the war in China was such a grind.
So to get something more like that going here, easy fix I think is to increase the power of China vs the Japanese stacks via more Chinese production per turn. In the grand scheme even 40 production is still pretty minor, but that just seemed a fitting scale to me, since it at least allows China to actually fight back vs the Japanese stompfest with 3-4 hitpoints per turn if they can maintain their production front.
Anyhow, that's just an idea of how it could be done, working backwards from the overall totals. The play balance is determined largely by which starting territories are in contention and the strength of the starting forces facing off, but I think most of this would work without having to massively redraw any of the battle lines. It just changes the kind of stuff that can happen after the opener via purchasing and production expansion (since you got more cash for a few +5s to make viable spots). Axis starting totals are based on the current, but I still think the money could come out of the capitals and into the more peripheral contested zones, or even to convoys, and still match up on the totals (Especially if coming down to 20-30 in value for Japan, Italy, West Germany, which I think would be better). Anyhow, that's where my head was with it earlier tonight. What do you guys think?
The scale of the war in that theater was massive. Just by the sheer numbers it dwarfs many of the other arenas of fighting. Plus it was an active theater from 1937 till the final days, so clearly a long slog.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_WarIn A&A the treatment is generally to have China be like the weak link on team Allies, or treated with special rules or whatever, but I prefer the approach in Iron War where they are a full fledged nation and playing according to the same rules as everyone else. Obv they still spam infantry for the most part, just because they are smaller and that unit is their best buy. Still I think it would be cooler if they were represented more to scale at 40 PUs for a few more hitpoints, so they could go more toe to toe with Japan, or at least hold out a bit longer.
Best Elk
ps. I also had a few ideas, more related to starting units. One idea was to give British-India an air-transport in Nepal, so they could do something like this... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hump
An air transport flown from Nepal, could carry a dude into Chunking on Non-Com, which would represent the air lift. After Japan occupied Burma, that was basically the only route into China for resupply.
You could also have a USA strategic bomber located at Midway. This could reach Chunking on the first turn, and would signal an opening significance for that island. I'd like to see Midway at 5+ maybe. But anyhow, that strategic bomber if flown to China, could represent all the USA airbases and such and various activities that the US did when they switched support from Japan to China in the lead up to the 41 attacks and the larger Pacific War. US bomber actions from bases in China were like the main reason for the Japanese offensives in 44 to finally destroy those airfields with this one...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ichi-GoTaiwan/Formosa would be more interesting as a +5 tile during the endgame, and an offset for China, since it begins under Japanese control.
Xinjiang or Kashgar I think could be a true neutral at +5 to represent the soviet client state that existed there, while giving China something to do to control those western provinces. I think it would be better to have the extra PUs/Steel there in Xinjiang rather than in Tibet, which was pretty remote. But doing a neutral thing for Xinjiang would give China some east/west tension similar to how Tibet functions now. China would have a clear strategic choice to make, between whether to focus 100% on Chunking defense, or risk diverting some units to conquer the neutral Xinjiang spaces for increased production. Or alternatively Allies could take it over with Russia for a more Soviet supported theme in China CCP style. Thematically it would correspond to this situation which had Xinjiang up for grabs...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheng_ShicaiBut just gives some flair there for a new slant on the playpattern in central Asia vs Japan I'd think.
On the Pacific side, Japan defeating China should feel comparable to Germany defeating the Moscow pocket on the Europe side, just in terms of scale and play relevance to the endgame. Instead of the usual situation where Japan mows over China and just keeps pressing into USSR without skipping a beat. Using China as more of a linchpin for central Asia, where the Allies have to coordinate their stacks and fly in aircraft to prop it up, but where they have a chance of actually holding the line or fighting back. The way the geometry is set up, Lanchow would be the optimal defense line, but China ends up being split between Chunking itself and Lanchow. I think they just need to be bigger and have more money. Because Japan can land 20+ hitpoints against them easily when they consolidate the transports.
A bomber from midway could reach most of the Allied active theaters across the pacific, ANZAC KNIL or Russia too so stuff like that would be cool, but optimal would be Chunking which fits the historical pattern.
I'd also maybe think about putting a few US fighters and air transports scattered across a couple spots in the Philippines chain, Guam, Wake etc. Having US aircraft in places like that would make it more intense, because if Japan didn't kill them on J1 then they could fly to China and represent the Flying Tigers or do other things to give Japan headaches. So that's a way to also create some serious tension on J1. Otherwise I think Japan is just stomping into one VC/factory after the next using all their transports at once for the quick kill. Without a strong incentive to fan out (most islands are only 1-2 PUs) Japan can kind of just ignore the many smaller islands which historically they conquered at the outset of the Pacific War, in favor of a single large push that puts fewer hitpoints at risk on the follow up. Just having a starting US aircraft unit in some of those places would offer a major incentive for Japan to try and kill them off on J1, before they can fly away. Perhaps a pair of fighters in the Philippines chain, or 1 air-transport added to Guam, a bombers at Wake or Midway. Stuff like that. This would create dynamism for the opener in that theater, with more targets for J1 attack. Offering different options for Allied counter play, depending on which US aircraft (if any) survived the initial Japanese wave.
J1 is always a challenge, because I guess on the one hand you'd want them to focus on French-Colonies for a 1940 opener, whereas the big sprawl actually happened at the end of 1941 when they took over basically the whole south Pacific. But in gameplay terms, I think it's probably easier to have Japan do the big sprawl on their first turn rather than their second. Basically going islands first, then reorienting on India and South East Asia afterwards, since that is where they naturally want to end up anyway. In the current set up, after knocking off French Colonies the strong incentive is to crash immediately into Sumatra or directly against India, rather than doubling back to mop up all the minor Dutch, ANZAC and USA islands in the central pacific. This is because the production is weighted on India, and South East Asia much more than the central pacific, and every additional turn that the Allies can build out of their factories is a massive stall for Japan. If instead, the big Japan sprawl came at the opener, then US fighters could anchor the fighting towards certain smaller islands even without a big price tag on the territory, and still create some optimal attack patterns for J1. The strong Japanese priority would be to destroy US TUV before it can escape on USA1, so that could be used in lieu of higher production values for such islands while still drawing the fighting there. Though I still favor more islands at +5, since then the draw is baked in for either side.
It may be that I'm thinking more 1941, since this map would be fun for that. But yeah, once the main map is established, I think a lot of that stuff could be handled pretty easily with a set up tweak if you wanted to try for a second start date in late 1941 or maybe corresponding to late 41/early 42. I think the production spread is the most significant thing over all, the actual map PU values, since those cannot be easily changed on the fly in the same way that starting income or starting units can be. I'd like to see what Frostion has in mind for the +5s and such, and then build off that for a possible later start date scenario if people are into it.
pps. Here's something I tried just for an experiment with the AI. I noticed just now that it is possible to place starting factories using EDIT MODE anywhere, even if the territory value is less than 5 hehe.
So I just added a gang of factories across the whole map to see how far I could push the idea.. This is a little more extreme/absurd than I think it really needs for a production front, but I was curious how it would play out under such conditions against an AI that was able to build at many more forward locations. Here is a save using post 2.0 stable.... I was guessing there were enough factories in there that the bug wouldn't make a difference. In Iron War once they are destroyed they can't be replaced via purchase owing to the gold spot rule so it was just a one off, but thought it might be interesting to try. I also added either 5 or 10 green barrels to each nation according to their scale so the AI could compete. It gives the player a fuel cushion as well since I did it for both sides, but I think it'd probably feel fine at that level anyway for most. Anyhow I like the idea of a few more factory clusters.
2020-9-23-Iron-War Added Factories.tsvg
I took control over the final turn block USA/China/Brazil, so this is what the computer did up to USA1 first turn.
2020-9-23-Iron-War Added Factories USA1.tsvg
Kinda cool I thought. Just from seeing this as an example, I'd say a few more starting factories scattered about at a couple additional +5 territories would be pretty cool. Not as many as I added there probably haha, but a one or two added in to each contested theater would definitely crank up the heat quite a bit I think. The computer makes some interesting placement choices sometimes, and seems to spread around a bit. Like Brits bought a tank for Gibraltar, Japan a tank for Saipan hehe. But for the most part they push the hitpoints where you'd expect along the main fronts. Hopefully they can fix the factory bug soon, but maybe a nice reason to add a few more to the set up in historical spots. Austria, Korea, Sicily and whathaveyou, with one or even a couple more for each nation depending on their faction's size. The computer definitely suffers from not being able to build new factories though, especially Germany, but Allies too like USA if the AI can't build out Iceland or Morocco. Maybe Midway, Southern Alaska and Panama would be fun too. Britain probably Scotland or N. Ireland would make the most sense, but I also like Ontario or Labrador or Nova Scotia if trying to light up North America on the Canadian front. Could do the same for the interior of the US, like in Midwest or Texas. Basically so there are some fall backs under invasion USA type endgame, where Axis are ascendant and going globe trot style. Since you know everybody likes to play out that kind of game lol
Iron War 1941?
Attached below is a separate Edit save showing what the ownership of the map might look like for a 1941 start date....
The main feature is that by 1941 metropolitan France has already fallen. Control of Vichy, Algeria, Tunisia, Syria, Madagascar etc are assigned to Germany.
Hanoi and French Indo are assigned to Japan.In East Africa, the last Italian held territory for a 1941 start date would be Ethiopia.
Madagascar should be a target for Allies in 1941 under Vichy/German control.
Soviets should control Eastern Turkey(Armenia) and the invasion of Iran by Anglo-Soviets should already be under way to mark 41 in the mid east.
Otherwise farther on the Pacific side it looks much the same as 1940 for the opener, aside from Indo China, because the start is imagined to be basically Dec 1941 by the time the turn order sequence reaches Japan. This allows for a similar expansion pattern on the first turn from Japan and USA to the one they have in the 1940 map, but perhaps with some adjustments like added aircraft or bolstered fleets to jumpstart the Pacific War.
The main difference globally by sides would be that Germany is already at their 1941 territorial extent from the start, so in addition to France, the Low Countries and Scandinavia, they'd already be into Belo, Ukraine and the Baltic States too. Axis would also control Greece and Crete by that timeline. Germany would have basically twice the starting production of 1940, so basically a realignment of the German and Soviet units primarily, and to a lesser extent Italy, Iran, France, French-Colonies, British-Colonies to create a balance off that kind German position.
For the 1941 timeline Iraq should basically be designed to fall in the first round (or at least have that as an option), with Iran up for grabs in the second round, corresponding to the sequence of Allied invasions historically. It would work well if the British block followed the Italy/Iraq/Iran block in the turn sequence for that. That way Iraq could get a build in before British-Colonies moves, and we could create some tension that way for the British-Colonies opener, between Baghdad front vs Iraq/Iran and Cairo front vs Germans/Italians coming from the west side. Italian Ethiopia I think would also play rather differently without Somalia, but it could still present an Axis choke point, and a little bit of tussle there, but with the Allied production front realigned there, I think it shifts the focus more on the North for both sides.
Having Germany in a more forward 1941 position I think also recommends that USA and Britain have a couple transports for the Atlantic from the start, so they can move on Africa sooner.
For Japan's part it would be cool to really dime out J1 and give it attack pattern Delta hehe. The challenge would be to hit Philippines, Guam, Wake and almost all of the Dutch East Indies, while sinking the US fleet at Pearl on J1. In China the Japanese front is basically Burma and Changsha for 1941. I think it would have a comparable feel to G1 in 1940 just in terms of scale, it might be cool to have a J1 like that with a big push across a broad front to open.
I think on the Atlantic side we could design a unit balance that has more pressure on Allied convoys G1, but an accelerated Torch opener by the Allies into North Africa. An El Alamein tank battle could be set up too, since German armored units could be positioned in Tunisia opposite some British-Colonies armor in Egypt for Rommel style fun. This could build to more rapid Allied pressure on Italy via Morocco and the Western Med in rounds 2-3, to offset the fact that France and Scandinavia are under German control from the start. The Germans don't have that initial distraction, so instead Allies would provide a new one with the Torch front and the Egypt/Eastern Med East front.
Meanwhile the German Eastern Front vs the Soviets can be more advanced and built around the siege of Leningrad and battle of Stalingrad lines, with Germany positioned to take down either the north or the south as part of their opener. Russian counters on turns 2-3 could come from armor positioned further inland, to simulate Kursk and such when they arrive after a delay of a turn or two. Should be able to cover most of the big stuff that went down in 41/42 during the opener so that the second and third rounds still kinda look and feel like 42/43. The basic character on the Atlantic side would be Axis in a more defensive posture (having just conquered almost all of Europe) and trying to hold onto Fortress Europa vs Allied counter press, whereas on the Pacific side its sort of the reverse, Allies trying to hold vs Japanese mass blitz across the Central and South Pacific.
J1 script would essentially be 7/8 December 1941 when the Japanese took over Thailand and attacked Singapore, Hong Kong, Guam, Philippines, Wake and Hawaii to start the larger Pacific War.
In January of 42, they attacked Dutch East Indies, New Guinea, Rabaul, Solomon Is etc which could also be possible in a J1 script. Or it could follow naturally off the J1 script into J2. US Aircraft could be used as an incentive to draw Japan into the desired attack pattern vs US territories on J1, Green fuel barrels could be used as an incentive to continue the press vs Central Pacific press on J2. I think that's the easiest way to set it up.
Africa would also be a little different. For this time period Free France, was basically confined to just the region of Equatorial Africa immediately surrounding Gabon on the Iron War map. Basically the area corresponding to the dark red shown on this wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_France
Since the battle to take Gabon from Vichy in 1940 was the only major battle other than Dakar to take place in West/Central Africa that front is more downplayed here. For a 1941 start date the battle of Gabon could be seen as having just occurred right before game start. I think it would make sense to have France retaking most of those West African territories from Germany/Vichy control with a simple walk in for most cases. By the time of torch in 1942, Allies had retaken all of West Africa, Syria and Madagascar for Free France. In the game I imagine Free France like that, clawing its way up to an income by claiming tiles that are basically empty or just lightly defended. This would work well with Free France moving in the Soviet turn block, but having Britain/British-Colonies move in the next turn block (After Italy). Free France would also need a somewhat larger starting purse to fight from this position, since their production would be even lower here than it is in 1940, but that's fine. As long as they have 1 factory at Gabon and a transport to move units to Ivory Coast and the surrounding zones that's enough to have a role in the game, at least once the USA starts getting involved.
Italy would be in a weaker position vis a vis Somalia/Ethiopia, so I think this should shift the overall emphasis away from Central Africa as a major theater of war, and put the playbalance more on North Africa where it makes more sense for 1941/42. Some early actions by France and British colonies to occupy largely empty spots in West Africa makes sense, but not a big slogfest vs Italy across the whole of East Africa since that was largely handled by late 41 except for the final Italian stand in Ethiopia. Instead this one would be more about Axis posturing to hold off the Allied advance on North Africa and to defend Italy and the Balkans from Allied invasion there via the Med.
I just reassigned control and emptied the tiles of all units in the spots that changed hands for a quick read. You can imagine of course that Germany's starting forces would have to be largely rebalanced, and some other changes to starting unit compositions around the globe tweaked to fit the theme, but basically repositioning the starting territory ownership along these lines for the 1941 feel...
2020-9-23-Iron-War 1941 Ownership.tsvg
Here's one showing basically the same German starting units as 1940, but fanned out for a more 1941 style positioning. Something similar could be done for the other factions where it makes sense. Perhaps adding a couple tanks or aircraft here or there, to signal that the timeline has advanced a year. Maybe each nation shaves off a few inf as casualties buts gets another heavy hitter like a fighter, a tank, or ship distributed around the hotspots, to give them some added punch for 41. Here the edit shows G with the same basic number of starting aircraft and ships (the air transport repositioned to Crete, Kriegsmarine to Baltic sea etc) but I could see Germany with like an added dive bomber or maybe an extra tank or some extra subs prowling the Atlantic, just to mix it up from the original 1940 start and signal 1941 opener, while still building off similar overall numbers so it'd have the familiar feel.
2020-9-23-Iron-War 1941 Ownership + G Units example.tsvg
How to handle Soviet Japanese Non Agression Pact
I continued filling out that Edit Save to highlight a more 1941 feel, adding some new weight to each faction via starting units.
Building on the idea by @forthebirds I thought something like this might be cool for the demilitarized border between the Soviet Union and Japan... Basically I added 4 true neutral stacks along the border, just large enough to be a real deterrent, with two territories coming from Japan, and two territories coming from USSR. By adding the Japanese or Soviet flag on top of the neutral forces, it creates that cool 'contested zone' diagonal stripping on the map from the outset, which I think would be a nice way to illustrate the idea of the NAP being in effect. Of course either side could bust in whenever they want, but it would hold for the early game most likely since 10 hitpoints is a pretty decent wall. I just did a generic stack for each, with a fighter for some teeth, but it could basically be weighted to whatever scale makes sense for the Japan/Soviet units nearby. Just to put that front on ice in early rounds so the focus can be on the invasion of Philippines, Pearl, and waring against the Western powers initially. Looks something like this for a basic vibe...
I also liked that idea forthebirds suggested to have a few more German subs farther out into the Atlantic gap. Anyhow for this one, everyone got a boost across the board with a couple choice units here and there to round out the starting forces, larger airforces and such where it seemed to fit for the historical play pattern or for logistical routes then current. Just tinkering around the edges to try and create conflict zones that would make sense for 1941 to give a rough feel. Obviously its abstract, so things could be tweaked, but just trying to get a basic shape of things how it might look for that kind of start date. I'm still working on it but figured I'd share where I was at to see if anyone has more ideas for something like this.
-
@ff03k64 said in Iron War - Official Thread:
A display bug, I think.
Something is goofy with Japan's support to Thailand. I gave 10, and it said they were getting 15.
I gave 5, and it said they were getting 10.
I am pretty sure that they did get the correct amount though.
I will try to repeat it next time I get to Japan.
@Frostion
Found it in the properties file. Japan to Thailand is in lines 60-70 -
@Black_Elk
You've been putting a lot of thought into Iron War. Impressive!
I have a few thoughts not in any particular order of significance.I like the round numbers of PU.(Of course, it would effect victory conditions)
Starting in 1941, perhaps the rounds could be 3 per year instead of 2.
I, of course, really like the demilitarized zone between Russia & Japan. Perhaps adding 1or 2 aa units may discourage a swoop of fighters & bombers from Japan.
I think their could be more fuel available for the taking like in Sumatra, Caucasus, etc. For example KNIL only has 10 fuel for the taking in round 2. I think there should be more like 20 so that it benefits Japan like it should & opens up the game more.
I like how China is strengthened.
Personally, I like the sub pen in Germany but not in Italy. I don't think that Italy had that big of a sub fleet. I also don't think the airfield in Canada & USA are necessary. I like the airfield in Russia.
Finally, I think Japan could use 1 more carrier near Pearl Harbor. Perhaps , just move the one near Japan closer to Hawaii.
I guess one more thought would be to reduce USA PU's from start of game to something like 40 to indicate its slow start to the war. Then it would pick up in round 2.
I know that you questioned the cost of mechs. Personally, I think 12 is still the right cost.
Anyway, that's what I've got. Looking forward to these ideas being implemented.:beaming_face_with_smiling_eyes:
-
Right on, glad you like some of the concepts (I definitely borrowed from the mod you posted last week haha!) I'm still working on a 1941 draft and researching the history to make sure the forces are distributed in places that make sense for a Dec-Jan opener, but I agree with pretty much everything listed above.
One thing that I think is very important is for both teams to have sufficient fuel, not just for their starting units but also to account for at least some of the many units that are likely to enter play through regular purchasing. Even a single extra air, tank or naval unit can almost double the fuel requirements for some of the smaller nations. The fuel=movement concept is still pretty novel, and I think its important that the fuel dynamic be something that remains fun as a opposed to frustrating. It should be significant, but I worry about it totally dominating the gameplay at the expense of everything else. So my inclination is that we should err on the side of having more fuel, so the margins aren't quite so razor thin. A 1941 force distribution might help in some respects (e.g. some fuel consuming units can be positioned closer to the front in a way that requires less overall fuel in the opener.) Adjustments to starting territory ownership for 1941 can help for some factions. Additional green barrels in contested spots can also be used to put more fuel in play, but I think some tweaking of the starting resources might still be in order for sure.
Another thing top of mind, is how hitpoint attrition works on this map. Because of the relatively high cost of infantry at 10 PUs, this means that if even a single attacking infantry unit dies while trying to conquer a 1 PU territory, the attacker would have to hold that tile for another 10 rounds just to match the replacement cost of the infantry unit they lost. I think this effects the calculus about which spots to attack with overwhelming force, and which spots are likely to be ignored or bypassed. Unless some additional emphasis is put on the contested territory, such as with higher PU values, or more valuable TUV (e.g. aircraft) that could be destroyed in the opener to offset somewhat that potential attrition cost.
You can see from the edit save attached below how I tried for something like that with the Japanese situation vs Philippines. By placing a few US starting aircraft on those islands the incentive for Japan to destroy the TUV on J1 before it can be moved by the USA player is much greater, so I think stuff like that can be used to suggest an 'optimal' attack pattern that players are likely to adopt in the opener.
Not that it should be totally one dimensional, but I think many players would like to see something that reflects an historical pattern where possible, or at least corresponding to possible plans that were actually on the table, over an opener that is maybe more fanciful.
There are a couple big things that I think we'd want to see for a 1941 opener, and I'll try to make a list of the historical justifications for why I moved some of this stuff around, but in general the idea is to get the game to look like 1942 on round 2. After that I think it should go more free form, and allow a build out from the 1942 position according to the player's wishes. But essentially to have the gameplay drivers guiding both sides into an early 1942 type thing coming out of the first round.I like the idea of using starting PUs to shape the scale and speed of the build up, since I see these values as a lot more flexible than the production values on the map. Like you say, its fairly simple to imagine that some nations have a larger starting warchest for the first round purchase, whereas others might have to wait for collect income to start scaling up.
For opening battles, in general I prefer it be built out in such a way that scripted battles (where they occur on the first turn) should not involve wild swings. In other words, the basic balance by sides should not be coming down to how many hits somebody puts up in an opening battle. Battles which 'must occur' because of the shape of the opening script, should not be so massive that they can upend the balance completely, if one side or the other gets routed from lopsided dice. So taking Pearl Harbor as an example, I think Japan should be able to reliably destroy whatever US warships are stationed off Hawaii and that the composition of forces should be such that Japan cannot afford to ignore Pearl. (The chance to destroy a battleship and transport with fighters would present a target too juicy to pass over for example). The rest of the design there should assume that this is going to happen, and offer some counter play. So for example having the US carrier be located somewhere else, where it is not a realistic J1 target.
I'm kind of ambivalent about the Sub Pens and Airfields. Like you I enjoy how the airbase/sub pens work for Russia and Germany, not as much for USA/Britain or Italy/Japan. But I think rather than having a base/pen that automatically spams units, I kind of prefer the idea of just including more of those types of units in the starting forces. Basically adding a few air-transports to team Allies and few subs to team Axis, would be simpler and less distorting over time. The way it is set up now, Sub Pens and Airbases are introducing a massive amount of TUV over the course of the game. Its kinda hard to visualize from the starting situation, but 6 hitpoints and 150 PUs worth of TUV every round is really significant, and the impact on the playpattern gets more significant as time goes on. I think I'd rather just have a couple more starting air transports and subs scattered around, but having all new units enter play the same way just through normal purchasing.
Anyhow, still teasing out some ideas, and checking my sources to see what stuff actually looked like on the ground in various theaters. You can see for example that I added a US PT boat, transport, destroyer and sub to the sea zone off Luzon corresponding to this...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Asiatic_FleetBasically so that the battle for Philippines in game looks a bit more like, with the USAFFE represented...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines_campaign_(1941–1942)I'd like to do that for most regions where starting battles are meant to occur.
The other big thing I've been reading up on is the war in China. Really trying to find a way to make that feel more accurate and to get away from the typical A&A model that just has China as a speed bump for Japan or as a sideshow for team Allies. That just doesn't really match up with the historical reality, or the sheer scale of the fighting that took place there. Just for comparison by 1941 there were over 4 million soldiers fighting in China on either side, whereas KNIL in 1941 had what maybe like 90 thousand combatants in total? In game these two Allied theaters are presented as pretty similar in scale, whereas in reality the one was about 50 times larger than the other. Obviously the game is abstract, and other things like industrialization and access to modern equipment play a role too, so we expect some liberties to be taken, but I still think more could be done to increase the significance of the China front.
I think some of the smaller nations are kind of window dressing for 1941 and I'm not really sure how necessary some of them are. Each player nation in the turn sequence means at least a couple more minutes every game round, (even using Fast AI) and this definitely adds up over time. I think there are some smaller factions that could probably be treated more like neutrals, with fewer moving parts per rounds, just so the play from the larger nations could be more streamlined. But stopping short of eliminating a bunch of little guys, I still think there are things we could do to make a typical game round go a little bit faster while still being pretty easy to parse.
Anyhow, I'm still waiting to see what ideas Frostion has regarding Neutrals and the basic PU values for the map (if any of that stuff will change), but once we know what 1940 looks like, I think there are lots of options to explore for creating a 1941 variant. Feel free to add to the save any ideas you think might be cool. I think it would be fun to build it out with a back and forth and noodle away at it like that, till we got something that feels rad for a 41 starter.
Best Elk
ps. in gameplay terms, what I'd like to see for China is something where the Allies can stack Lanchow, and threaten Changsha from that position, with the pivot coming along the Lanchow/Peking front, and trying to avoid a situation where Japan can quickly stack Changsha or kill Chunking outright, or simply ignore it and bypass to race towards Qinghai/Urimichi production. If China is stronger, then they can fight forward against Changsha/Burma for longer. If the Chunking pocket collapses to early Japanese agression, then the idea of a fall back choke point at Qinghai would be ideal. To get that going I think we need stronger stacks in Northern and Western Tibet, so Japan can just steamroll. On the Soviet side, bolstering Eastern Mongolia I think would work so that the NAP line doesn't have a weak point there. For the Soviet Far East region, I think the best thing for play balance is to have those 0 PU spots raised to 1 PU, and just give the Soviets enough of a mobile force so they can defend along the coast, if Japan bypasses the NAP line and tries to transport around it. I think that would feel more realistic, while still being satisfying. I think the idea should not be to totally write off Soviet vs Japan aggression as play pattern, but just to deemphasize it by making the payoff less extreme for either side. Under regular conditions Japan has strong reasons to clip all those Soviet spaces and the Soviets have every reason to crash the party in Manchuria if they can, but with a demilitarized border zone, and the delay of transporting around, there is a more significant strategic trade off to doing that.
For stuff like extra starting fuel, I like the idea of putting some green barrels in contested spots, and perhaps a few more capturable barrels where it makes sense. I think there is plenty of room there to add quite a few, and still have fuel becoming a major factor running dry in the endgame. So a little bit more at the outset before territories change hands would be helpful, esp if there a few more fuel guzzling units added to the starting unit spread.
Anyhow, we can kick it around and start a new thread if there's an interest. But Just in case Frostion has more ideas, I'd wait on an update to 1940 and see what that looks like before building it out more. Just wanted to start roughing something out, cause I think it might be fun.
pps. I worked it up a little further just now.
In this one some of the neutrals (the ones which are meant to be more 'out of play') each have 10 hitpoints at the start. Many have AAguns now, or a heavy hitter to serve as a deterrent. It is still possible I'd think for the player to push some pretty large stacks after a couple rounds, so these spots are not entirely out of play, but they should at least be costlier to engage at the outset this way.
It also creates some interest for the possible air routes for either side with the aaguns added, so that was definitely a good call. I switched some other tiles to true neutral if it fit the theme, to get the Americas more open via Mexico/Central-South America, to fit the build up theme. I left some pro Allies spots in place (basically western Mongolia which was a Soviet client state, and the Arabian Peninsula.) For Axis I left Spain, Sweden, Argentina and Afghanistan in place, but each at the 10 hitpoint threshold. I think they might all be true neutrals, but I kind of like the look of the graphics, and anyway its just a draft for a visual. What do you think, does 10 hitpoints feel good?
I think 10 hp for a tile might be enough to deter a willy nilly neutral stomp, but still allow it at the player's discretion if they are willing to go all-in with a large stack battle. Risking 10 shots is not insignificant, so I don't think people would be trying for them early on. As it presses into the endgame however and more units have entered through purchase, the 10 hp stack becomes less insurmountable. So its mainly to shape the first 2-3 rounds I'd think, in practical terms.
2020-9-23-Iron-War 1941 New Draft 0.02.tsvg
I let the HardAI try out a round using this set up and I was pretty pleased. You can see that on J1 the attack pattern they adopted was pretty in line with the historical push for 41. Japan didn't opt to hit Pearl here, but I think that can be incentivized with another sub at Truk or something similar. Otherwise though it was a pretty nice opener position from the HardAI. Note how they didn't go all sprawling up into USSR but instead focused on a Philippines attack plan. The US response was also pretty nice, they even flew the Midway bomber to China like I was hoping. For the most part they used their starting transports to activate Mexico and Venezuela and such, so they could have a kind of expansion turn that way depending on how their transports are positioned (Aussie's looked like they were hoping to activate Peru, before USA got there fist lol). Germany hit Stalingrad and reinforced Finland, while shifting Rommel's Afrika Korps to Tobruk in the Med which was cool. Anyhow, I think something sort of like this, just polished up and fleshed out a bit would be nice. Getting the AI subs to clear the convoy lanes on G1 looks like it might take some tinkering, but that's something we can probably fine tune as well. What do you think?
2020-9-23-Iron-War 1941 New Draft 0.02 Hard AI round 1.tsvg
This is what they did during the second round... I gotta say I already love it since its definitely on track for the 42 feel hehe. Anyway, the idea is to create an opening pattern from the HardAI that tracks reasonably well with the historical flashpoints for 1941 on the first turn. So we can take some liberties I think, where it makes sense, so long as the resulting battle lines kind of shape up to feel like 1942 after the opener. Right now the no factory bug is major, but I think once that is fixed we build out the first round using the latest AI until we get something that feels rad enough for the period. I'm hella into it hehe. You can see here that USA, Britain and ANZAC are each activating portions of South America, and Free France has secured West Africa. Germany has taken Egypt with Italian support, and the Mid East is still Axis, but British-Colonies/India have reformed on a pretty strong line for that Front. Japan gunning to Sumatra, while still dancing around in China. Soviet Japanese NAP still holding at the end of the second round. Pretty slick for the AI. Now if we could just get them buying factories again haha
2020-9-23-Iron-War 1941 New Draft 0.02 Hard AI round 2.tsvg
Round 3, HardAI Soviets finally break the NAP with a border skirmish against Hailar. Japan moved to plug the hole with a block at Jehole hehe, but it still feels pretty stable along the front there vs Soviets. China stacked south to Burma Road, but AI Japan is still positioning opposite them. Unfortunately they crashed a bomber at sea, but otherwise seem to be holding steady. On the Atlantic side Soviets crushed Finland but also failed to retake Stalingrad. Axis are still in Egypt under Italian aegis, but British-India managed to get into Somalia after a tussle with Ethiopia. Most of the neutrals in Central and South America have now been activated by the Allies, so the transports are starting to move out. Still looks pretty solid after 3 rounds.
2020-9-23-Iron-War 1941 New Draft 0.02 Hard AI round 3.tsvg
I let it run for a few more rounds, doing my best with Brazil and observing the AI attack patterns. I'd say the Soviet Japanese NAP feels largely like it has held up to this point. Japan has managed to retake Hailar and advance to Chita), but the warfront is largely contained there, instead of sprawling all across the Soviet Far East coast. Japan has finally managed to crush the main Chinese stack last round, after China advanced full force into Changsha. USA I think is suffering from a lack of fuel, as they have a lot of aircraft marooned down there in Cape Hope and are struggling a bit to get their transports out and moving. I suspect the fuel requirements are really quite a bit higher than amounts in 1940, and even what was added with Green barrels might prove insufficient to get the computer functioning well past the 4th round. For an actual game, I think the computer should just have a much larger starting reserve to work from, so they don't burn out till later. But anyhow, I thought it felt pretty solid for a quick draft.
2020-9-23-Iron-War 1941 New Draft 0.02 Hard AI round 7.tsvg
In round 8 the NAP finally dissolved, with Japan making a break out from Chita and assaulting Ayan and Kamchatka amphib. But I think 8 rounds for the non aggression theme isn't half bad hehe. It held up for 7 rounds, and even at this point, the front feels like it could be managed. It has basically timed up with the Allied press vs Libya in the Med, and Japan finally cracking Chungking, so that's pretty cool. USA has some large forces loaded on transports at the ready, but I think they are burning dry on Combat move before they can move them on Non Com. So that's something I'm trying to keep an eye on, how much the computer actually can do before the lack of fuel ruins their play. Probably everyone would need like double what I laid down initially, or just a big reserve bonus to keep it humming to the 5th round and beyond.
Anyhow, the Brazilian Smoking Cobras are about to snake Libya from the Italians, so I think we can call it for team Allies lol. But over all I think the AI did pretty well, despite still being screwed by the factory bug. I was pleased with the back and forth, and especially how the NAP concept worked.
2020-9-23-Iron-War 1941 New Draft 0.02 Hard AI round 8 Brazil Combat.tsvg
Thought the Allies had it but HardAI held on by the finger nails into the 10th round hehe.
2020-9-23-Iron-War 1941 New Draft 0.02 Hard AI round 10 Brazil Combat.tsvgOther than the factory bug, some other behaviors I'm seeing from the Hard AI under 2.0. AI really likes to load transports and leave them floating that way. Sometimes it makes sense, if the sea zone is better defended than the land territory, but usually hanging floaters is bad for business. The other thing I've seen, and maybe this holds for the older versions too, but the AI often seems to attack with the bare minimum needed to conquer a given spot, putting many more hitpoints at risk than if they had just attacked with more of their available units. Frequently they will attack with very slim margins, and then move a stack forward on Non Com anyway, rather than just moving the whole stack to the attack in the first place. Sometimes this works to the advantage of the trading game, but often it results in narrow defeats or unnecessarily high attrition rates on the HardAIs part. The AI sometimes uses transports in a similar way, where they will only use like half during the combat phase, and end up non coming around, rather than launching as many attacks as the transports might allow. I see it happen a lot with Japan, where out of 7 transports they might only use 3 or 4 during the combat phase, even when it might benefit them to crash harder on combat.
Still even with its deficiencies I think the AI can be pushed a fair bit in certain directions, just depending on how the starting units are set up. I'm curious about South America, and whether all the production there is acting like a kind of magnet for the AI. The production pocket around the 3 Guianas is pretty hefty with 30 PUs concentrated there, so I wonder if that might be a factor? I think all 3 of them could be taken down from +10 to +5 and have some of that value shifted elsewhere.
It might be better to have Argentina treated the same way as everywhere else in South America (I left it Pro Axis here, whereas the rest were made True Neutral.) If the whole Hemisphere can be activated by the second round, the HardAI might move off to more relevant fronts sooner. Not sure, I'd have to try a few more games with the neutrality situation changed from Pro Axis to True Neutral and mostly empty to see if HardAI still hangs around down there once all the tiles are under Allied control. In this one the USA did eventually manage to move all that air from Cape Hope so I think it was maybe a fuel shortage thing. USA sporting a pretty large stack of fighters in Mexico now, more than they could move for sure hehe. I'd be curious to see if that's entirely fuel, or whether they might otherwise be further afield. Stuff to experiment with next time haha
Catch ya then
Best Elk -
Oh oh one last idea right quick haha.
I found a relatively simple way to get the HardAI to attack the convoy zones on the opening turn. Its a little gimmicky but works pretty well. What I did was to add a lone transport to each convoy, the AI will then go after many of them with adjacent Subs on their first turn.
So basically I added a few more subs and transports where it made sense. I think something like this could create some low-stakes/high-reward submarine battles in the opening round.
The way subs work, its kind of hard to have them wage a full on campaign that lasts the entire game, but this way they are likely to attack most of the convoys at least for the opener. Gives the Allies something to do as well, since they'd have to clear the subs afterwards. Any transports that survive might give the Allies some entertaining options that they wouldn't otherwise have. I'd have to run it a few times to see which sub positions are the most reliable for consistent attacks. But I think if we could get the HardAI making a run for all the convoys in the opener that would be entertaining for a 1941 start.
What do you think?
-
@Black_Elk
As you know, I really like the idea of more German subs in the Atlantic. I think that its historic and it adds drama to the setup. However, although its pretty cool that the AI attacks sitting- duck transports, I don't think transports would be alone: they would be with convoys.
So, I"m for having more subs but let the player & AI do what they will with them. It will still add some flavor to the game especially in the early rounds.
I do think that positioning certain combination of subs will entice the AI to attack what you want it to. -
China's presence contribute nothing to WWII scenarios except being annoying distraction for Japan and being a doomed to fall combatant for Allies. It is just becomes compulsory/railroaded task for Japan to take it or it's choke point before trying other things. China can be strenghened and turned to be fleshed out combatant but in expense of weakening other Allies which had more strategic options. It would be a bad trade-off. Nations with only one front are not really enjoyable to play with. Their options aren't even limited, just pure railroaded/predictable also they cause slowing down turns.
I'd suggest all WWII map makers/modders to mostly avoid presenting China and make their territories impassable.
-
Black Elk said “I ended up watching Cobra Kai for like 12 hours”
Me to, what a great show! I can’t wait for 3rd season
Forthebirds said “Where's Frostion?”
I am right here, silently looking at and scheming
I have had very little time for TripleA, and not given it as much attention as it deserves. But I have read all your posts and given some thought to many of your sugestions. Let me get directly to the point and let me present a new and done update:Iron War changes from v0.2.9 to v0.3.0 (Soon downloadable)
• Fixed a typo error when Japan gave PU aid to Thailand.
• “West Germany” renamed into “Western Germany”.
• “Amoy” renamed into “Changsha” (a major Nationalist stronghold that held up until 1944 when it was invaded by Japan). This is to give China some original sea territory.
• (Old) “Changsha” territory on the map renamed into “Central China”.
• South Africa now has its own Convoy Zone to protect.
• “Kuybyshev” is now a 5 PU territory, with a factory placed from start.
• “Denmark” is now not defended by an infantry, so it is essentially a free country for Germany to invade. This is because of two things: Les than 20 soldiers died defending Denmark and if the AI is controlling Germany, it is disastrous for the long term if Denmark remains un-invaded, as it often ends up being. Now AI will always invade.
• Turn order is changed into 6 blocks: German, USSR, Italy, Britain, Japan and USA.
• A lot of starting unit changes.
• A few territory PU changes.
• Added about 30 Fuel Barrels.
• Mech-Inf now cost 13 PUs, not 12.
• Transports now cost 1 Iron, not 2.
• SS-Infantry and SS-Panzer no longer gives -1 strength to enemy Air and Sea Units, only Land Units.
• SS-Infantry and SS-Panzer now have a “tuv” higher than their cost, making the calculator take normal Infantry and normal Heavy-Tank as casualties before these units.
• Commissars now give their 3 times +1 att/def bonus to all types of land units, not only Infantry. They also now have “tuv” higher than their cost.
• Anti-Air now have “tuv” higher than their cost.
• New unit called “Rally-Point” added to the map.Rally-Point is probably the most game-changing addition in this update. Essentially it is a non-buildable but capturable flag/factory, where you can place 1 unit 1 turn after capture. Think of it as combination of a strategic territory or island jump point, a national last-stand point if factories are bombed, or see it as a regrouping point for scattered fighting forces. I think this will work better than adding a bunch of +5 PU spots, not only because the AI does not at the moment build factories, but because this new unit only allows 1 build, not 5. This forces the player to still maintain, focus and build most units in the home territories.
Fuel is now more plentiful on the map. The 30 some fuel is circa a 5-6 % increase in fuel. I am not willing to add more at the moment, as I really don’t see the need. To be honest I see a fuel shortage around round 4-5, and this shortage is intentional. USA is swimming in oil at this point, and so is Iraq and Iran. One of the points of this map is fuel management and distribution, if this does not happen, then there will be fuel shortages. If USA does not hand out fuel, other nations get in trouble, and if Iraq and Iran fall (so they no longer can distribute fuel), other Axis nations can go thirsty. And I know that the AI does not manage fuel
(hopefully it will in the future), but the map must also be human oriented. Maybe a way to go in the future would be to implement a “Give this and that AI nation extra starting fuel from start”-triggers, but this is not included with this update.I did not add green Synthetic Fuel to the starting setup, as only Germany really made use of synthetic fuel from the start of WWII. But all players are free to produce them during play. Sadly the AI does not spend PUs on fuel. This possibility for players to make their own fuel barrels are also a good reason for the map to have an inbuilt fuel shortage, unless you manage fuel.
Neutral player changes was something I wanted to look at in this update, but it is a big change that actually needs new unit art done right, look cool and make sense. So because of the large amount of work, it might be something for the future. I was thinking about making new nations like “Spain”, “Turkey”, “Mongolia” etc., and then adding politics where the nations could join in on the war, or turn alliance, if they got paid enough PUs? Maybe also new resource called “diplomacy” or “Influence”? There would of course be luck orientated, with rolls. How do you like this idea?
Submarines and Air-Bases were originally added to give the Axis a needed boost to navy. The Axis is so much under pressure that it cannot hold the lines if it is also building lots of navy. Since Nazi Germany, Italy and Japan were know for its massive submarine fleets, and also the Germans were feared in regards to their submarine wolf packs in the Atlantic, adding a free flow of subs seems fitting in my mind. At the same time, the Allies have to move a lot of Infantry a long way on this map, so free Air-Transports seem reasonable, and these units may also join in on the potential D-day. For now, they will stay on map.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarines_of_the_Imperial_Japanese_Navy
“Japanese submarine forces progressively built up strength and expertise, becoming by the beginning of World War II one of the world's most varied and powerful submarine fleets.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_submarines_of_World_War_II
“The Italian submarine fleet of World War II was the largest in the world at the time, with 116 submarines”
I hope you guys want to try out the new setup
Maybe it can give you some ideas for a possible Iron War 1941 xml. I am all in and support an alternative setup, even if it also includes map changes, like tweaking neutrals, starting funds, changing territory PUs and such. It would be cool thought if the basic rules, units cost and unit strengths were the same, so to not confuse players playing both maps.This main Iron War map is still developing, but it is via small steps and changes. You know … evolution, in contrast to revolution
Map maker of: Star Wars: Galactic War + Star Wars: Tatooine War + Caribbean Trade War + Dragon War + Age of Tribes + Star Trek: Dilithium War + Iron War + Iron War: Europe + Warcraft: War Heroes
-
@frostion Looks awesome! Can't wait to get home and dig in haha!
Oh I know right! I was doing roundhouse insomnia kicks for sure lol.
These changes look great, I'm excited to have something new to play next week. Rally point sounds rad! I'm eager to see the new deets!
@Schulz In general I'd agree with you, but I think some of that comes just from having the bar set so low by China in A&A hehe. I think there's a bit of jingoism in the typical handling from A&A titles, and I find China and the Soviet Union both kinda poorly designed in the recent official A&A games. In the A&A games China is usually too broke, too weak, and too boring to be anything other than a Japanese distraction or stall on their way to the 'real game' vs Russia. A lot of games follow on that model. But that's an A&A design choice, and a kind of silly one in my view. It builds the overall play balance around Japan doing something that never really happened in WW2 (full scale war in the USSR) instead of building it mainly around something that actually did happen (full scale war in China). I brought this up to Larry a number of times when AA50 was first released, when the idea of including China was first kicked around. The handling of China in G40 is slightly better than AA50, though it still suffers from the same core production flaw/imbalance. The handling of China in 1942 second edition is way worse than AA50 in my view, and combines the worst aspects of Classic with the worst aspects of AA50/Global, for a bunch of low value indefensible tiles that make the China front pretty pathetic for team Allies and way too easy for Japan to steamroll. In many respects Classic and Revised A&A had a much more interesting China balance than AA50 or G40 or 1942 sec Edition. At least in the earlier iterations like Classic or Revised it was possible to stack defend China from a single tile (e.g. Sinkiang) whereas in every game since AA50, the map geometry, starting forces, and production values there basically relegates China as you say to an "annoying distraction for Japan." But it needn't be that way. The stack game vs Japan in China could play more like the Soviet Eastern Front does vs Germany, if the China balance was reworked. It happens the way it does in most recent A&A maps, because the newer handling of China typically has a bunch of low value low production territories, and barely enough starting units to even stack one of those, let alone trying to defend two spaces at a time. And of course China's starting attack power is so miserable in those games, they'd never have a chance of going on offense. Meanwhile Japan typically has flexibility to transport across the coast, and a gang of aircraft, and usually their starting territories have them several hundred miles further inland than they ever managed to get in the actual war. So what happens is you end up with a big blowout there, and instead of having an actual front in China, the front just moves to the Soviet Union or India etc. In my view that's a design flaw, and the solution is to strengthen China, and rework the production values so that team Allies can't afford to just let it be railroaded. That's not going to happen, when you're talking about defending a patchwork of low value tiles that can just be bypassed anyway, since China often doesn't have enough hitpoints to make a stand, and lacks the chokepoint tiles to make one worthwhile. I agree that a good solution for many maps would be to give a more honest handling of the topography and perhaps having the front cordoned off by impassable tiles.
In Iron War though the situation is somewhat different. For starters the map geometry is better here, and there are already a number of smaller factions in play, so the idea of removing China but keeping South Africa or KNIL or Brazil wouldn't make much sense. I also agree with you, that for a player nation to be interesting it needs to have more than 1 front. Historically the main competing warfronts that might provide some strategic tension for China would be between the Burma front on the one side, and the Changsha front on the other. But for it to work the way it should, their needs to be some depth of play there to the production at stake. If the starting units and production spread are all such that China can only ever withdraw/defend, and never advance, then of course its going to feel lame and kinda one sided, because that's how its being set up. But I say go the other way haha. The trade off needn't be between strengthening one Allied team member at the expense of another, but instead to give the Japanese a more realistic expansion pattern and a more clearly defined endgame objective in China. I think there are plenty of ways to keep the other nations on team Allies interesting vs Japan, and still have things feel as though they are moving at a steady clip rather than a slow down slog. Just means building off a different kind of foundation for the war front in the Chinese interior to get there. Sorry kinda long winded there, but obviously I ruminate a lot lol. I think Frostion's update sounds cool, especially since it highlights the Changsha thing.
@forthebirds haha yeah it was just an experiment to see how the AI would handle convoys with a TUV target on offer. I think an optimal approach might be something a bit more measured, but it would be nice to have the naval unit distribution set up in such a way that convoys are contested, at least on the opening turns. It would also be nice to get something that the HardAI will actually work with, while not upending the situation when the player switches sides, or by doing anything to screw up the PvP dynamic between 2 human players. Though I still think in terms of the unit set up and the round 1 script, it'd be good to take the AI behaviors into account. I think the game is likely to be more popular as a Solo vs computer type thing, than as a strictly PvP map. I've played a couple hundred games vs the AI, but only a handful PvP for example, so I now its got some charm that way haha. I like the idea of creating something where the AI is at least somewhat passing out of the opener, least for the broad sweep, even if a human player is certain to make better moves. The computer can still do some cool stuff provided the set up isn't hobbling them too hard with a complex opener that the AI can't really parse. The main things that seem to drive its play pattern are enemy TUV and territory PU value. It doesn't take into account things like Factories or Straits/Canals or VCs or using Air Transports etc. So creating an opening balance that doesn't lean so heavily on those features, but instead uses starting TUV and territory Production value in a more robust way. But anyhow, might be fun to tease out for a 41 theme, once we see what the latest update looks like and how the new playbalance shakes out with that fuel and such that Frostion added. Should be fun!
Best Elk
-
@Frostion I might be able to give it another try! But I need to spend time on my map. I would say if there is a way to determine if a player is AI via triggers or maybe a user action, I would do that to give them fuel barrels, since they don't build them.
I am also wondering if it would be worth giving China a cheaper fodder unit. As I think about it, it could be a 0/2/1 unit, that could be placed anywhere for like 5 PUs. If memory serves, they never really attacked during WW2, but they had a lot of manpower.
You could also do it with a resource similar to the CR, or SS resource some of the other nations have to keep the money cost down.
During the war they basically kept Japanese forces busy, and this could do this. Might have to have an attack power to really do that effectively, but artillery might be enough, or simply using them as fodder with other infantry. -
@ff03k64 I like that approach a lot. I think an auto trigger, or something from the launch menu would be rad, because then it'd be possible to modify Fuel to allow for a competent AI, without trashing the PvP fuel situation in the process. I like that Frostion added more basic barrels, since I think fuel was a bit on the low side before, but there are definitely slick ways to conserve fuel as a player, whereas the AI just burns through fuel like its going out of style lol.
I also like the idea of a cheaper spam unit for the Chinese, similar to the way it works for some of the Allied Colonial Nations. Cheap Inf fodder + Artilley can go some way towards giving them a few options early on. At some point though, Japan's ability to stack defensive aircraft in a forward tile is invariably going to eliminate any chance for China to create deadzones and to offer counter attacks. That's fine, since that situation is pretty much exactly how Moscow and India work on most A&A maps. But the key to making that actually work is largely defined by the map geometry, since you need a single choke point to stack. When the game gets to that point, defense power for the stack is provided by teammates flying in aircraft, since the stack no longer needs to move. To work in China I think Lanchow/Qinghai makes the most sense for such a stack based on how the map is drawn here, since you basically want a spot that can't be easily bypassed. But its made kinda tricky by the desire to stack at Chunking instead and the need to defend the VC/factory hub. The dilemma with high production in China, is that if Japan takes it over the +5 tiles become really powerful, since J can concentrate like 100-150 PUs from forward production and get the quick kill on Russia. But that only happens once they blow through Chunking and snake the rear production center. Still I think it can be made to work, perhaps with some heftier neutral stacks in Tibet to pin down the lines there, and then have the Chunking army beefy enough hold position. Urimichi might then have to be Russia's problem though hehe. Anyhow, couple different approaches I can think of that might work. I'm looking forward to checking out the new updates in an hour so. But I'm liking what I'm hearing so far!
ps. Just for a real quick primer on the war in China, there are a couple themes to explore... Early in the war (call it 1941-42 after the fall of Philippines), the United States wanted China to serve basically as a massive air base for Allied bombers to attack the Japanese territories in the region. During this period the US put pressure on Chiang to launch a large scale offensive towards the coast, again with the aim of using air power from more forward staging points to bring the fight to Japan. When it became clear that wasn't happening, the US redirected its primary efforts towards the island hoping campaign in the Eastern and Central Pacific, which shapes most of the popular imagination we have for the later Pacific war. But bombers and airbases in China were still an important feature of the broader US plan. During this early period Stalin refused to allow the Western Allies to resupply the KMT via Kazakhstan, so Burma became basically the only way into China for resupply. When Japan cut off that route via Burma, China was reliant almost entirely on airlifts for resupply, mainly from India over the Himalayas via the Hump. The British were constantly pressuring Chiang to commit Chinese troops to the Burma front, whereas the Chinese were more inclined to hold in Central China, rather than foddering it up in Burma. So I think that's a cool way to maybe set up some thematic tension for the region. Its true that the Chinese did not launch major offensives to reclaim the coast until the war had basically been decided by the advent of nuclear weapons. So it makes sense that they be oriented more for defense than attack, but I like the idea of at least some attack power to skirmish. A second Flying Tiger I think could help with that hehe. Anyhow, just some ideas for a 41 start.
Also thinking about what @forthebirds mentioned regarding the overall timeline. I think if we wanted to build out a 1941 start, it might be smart to just remove the per round year notifications, and push out the later technologies like Nukes/Jets so that there's more time to develop an endgame for it. 3 turns per year vaguely, sounds about right. I think most games would go 10-12 rounds before its largely decided.
Fort the Philippines, after Pearl there was a delay of a day and the US command at Manilla got the news over the wire the same way the rest of the world did. There was a plan Rainbow 5, to send B-17s to bomb Formosa in retaliation if the Japanese attacked the United States. The fleet there had just returned from Shanghai where it had evacuated the Marines and Patrol Boats back to the bases at Philippines. The principal naval defense was the US Submarines in the area. But the main fleet had permission to retreat towards India if needs be. As it happened the Philippines were attacked within hours, most of the fleet was destroyed. The bombers never launched. Many of the troops based there were captured and put on death marches and the like. The command evac'd with promises to return with conquering armies. But anyhow, I like the idea of this stuff happening on J1 with an actual fight going down in Philippines, by giving the US some teeth to make a minor defense of the tiny islands there. Luzon, Mindanao, Guam, Wake etc. Where to position the Japanese transports I think the max extent J1 should be Wake/New Guinea, and just out of reach of Hawaii/Midway for a 41 open. But the Japan carrier could definitely be out closer to Hawaii. By this point the Japanese home fleet could be oriented more on East China Sea zone, but maybe still keeping the bulk of the transports in Japan sea zone, so they can't strike too far afield on J1. What do you think of something like that?
For the Atlantic I like the US closer on Iceland so they can get things started there quickstyle. That also had a color coded plan Indigo 3. "Roosevelt responded by ordering the State Department to redraw the hemispherical map to place Iceland in the Western Hemisphere so it would come under Monroe Doctrine jurisdiction." heheh apt. The AI moves on it pretty quickly I've found, and usually ends up going either to USA or Britain. Either of which work fine from an historical standpoint. Mexico entered the War in 42, so I like the idea of the neutral stomp in the Western Hemisphere, which can be abstractly thought of as acquiring material and such for the Allied side.
-
It is hardly possible to make Chinese/Japanese front similar to Eastern front with increasing Chinese production strenght only. China would be unrealistically overpowered for Japan to match even if China just had half of the production of Japan. In this case Japan itself would be either doomed to fall or taking China first even becomes more a railroading task due to higher Chinese incomes. Reducing Chinese strenght is just gives us the current China on WWII maps.
The only way presenting China without turning it overpowered or simply making it doomed to fall is having special Chinese/Japanese defensive units which would result moving each other's zones too costly and Japan would most likely stay defensive in here and prioritize other fronts.
I don't like Japan easily marching towards Russia either. It is just as railroaded as Chinese situation. I've came with this idea.
This is my far eastern front with mostly v3 unit designs. But the exception is Russia has a special unit called siberian with 2/3/1 stats and 3Pu cost value which can be recruited only from these circles. With this situation Russia and Japan will act like they are set neutral towards each other because Japanese-Russian war wouldn't benefit either side much but this option still open for both sides.
-
@Schulz what do you think of my idea to give China a cheap fodder unit? They can't really pressure Japan much, and Japan can't really do much to them either, at least not early for a reasonable cost.
-
Exactly, they need cheap fodder unit. It is much better idea than increasing Chinese income. Domination 1914's Arabia with Bedouins would be good example to adopt similar concept to Chinese front. I have been extensively thinking the Chinese front for hours then I guess I got a vague idea;
In 1942 scenario Japan starts with 28 Income while China is just 6 but due to longer distance and possible cheaper Chinese cannon fodders, Japan should not prioritize Chinese front in here plus Sinkiang is easy to reinforce from other allied centers.
And if we give China a unit with Bedouin's stats, China could get more options too instead figting frontal war with Japan only. Their units due to cheaper cost might handy in eastern front and India too. Normally I was mostly againt Chinese presence in WWII games but after rethinking it could make sense.
-
@ff03k64 said in Iron War - Official Thread:
@Schulz what do you think of my idea to give China a cheap fodder unit? They can't really pressure Japan much, and Japan can't really do much to them either, at least not early for a reasonable cost.
I found it to work well on the Global 40 map. Has a Militia unit that is A0 D1 M1 C2. Can conquer territories. Had to limit to 8 max build so they can't be spammed out of control. Also has Primitive terrain in the interior of China and most of soviet Asia as well. All units can only move 1, except air.
I'm not real familiar with Iron War and I think it uses a different die system but the cheaper unit and slowing Japan's speed seems too work pretty good at keeping them from being steamrolled. USA can also send additional Flying Tiger units and china has some AA capability as well.
At any rate you'd have to fine tune for the specific game but I've found those things to work pretty good.
-
@beelee A D10 system, where the base unit is a 2/3/1 infantry for 10 PUs.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login