Yeah I think you're right, it was kind of reaching and probably belongs in another section since I'm struggling to contextualize in reference to a specific map. Though its such a ubiquitous issue across many maps, I guess just wanted to hear what some designers might think about a way to address that checkerboarding effect. I feel like there are probably mutliple ways at it, was just trying to think of something simple that might be workable across otherwise pretty wide ranging scenarios. And also just curious what the engine can handle in terms of counting stuff based on whether its adjacent to other owned territories on existing maps, or if its the sort of thing that really needs to be built in from the getgo? I like the second solution offered with the 'attacked from' concept, but don't know the practical particulars of how that might be set up. Like if it could grafted on top of an existing map/mod or if it has to be reworked at the foundation to pull something like that off?
Posts made by Black_Elk
RE: Connected Empire: Contiguous Landgrab vs Can Opener Criss-Cross?
Connected Empire: Contiguous Landgrab vs Can Opener Criss-Cross?
I guess this is an idea for a mod, maybe for some WW2 map?
The thought is to create a slight offset to the power of the can opener in a lot of these games with a slight bonus for holding larger blocks of adjacent land. On the one hand you have this hugely potent strategic advantage of having friendlies all blitzing around at the front to create those patchwork checkerboard expansion patterns, but set against the kind of silly but nevertheless innately powerful desire to have your powers all expanding in shapely ways, with like defined spheres of influence hehe. So wondering if a small PU bonus awarded for controlling adjacent territories as a connected mass would counterbalance the canopener somehow? or at least give some pause, if a player is trying to instead cash out a small amount for the connected empire.
I recall it among the options for RiskII, but seems like something that might work for A&A style games. Similar to other objectives that tie territories together, but just as like a generalized bonus for having connected TTs. Think something like that might work v3 or G40 or games at that scale and up? Not sure what numbers would make sense there in each case, but seems like something that might work in a few games. Basically a set boost based on how many adjacent territories are under the nation's control.
Trying to break up a contiguous empire of the enemy is a draw I think on any map based game hehe, but it would be easy to recognize and could perhaps be adapted into a more generalized thing.
Thought for v3 it might be interesting starting at like 5 territories? Something that might be achievable for the little guys like Italy and China, but also more reliable for the big dogs, because Allies still have the USA's relative safety in North America, while Eurasia and Africa are still pretty large for the contests between everyone else. As players try to carve out bigger contiguous blocks I think you might see some swings between the majors trying to take the 10th TT for an extra PU or two. Could encourage attrition while still being simpler to track than specific objectives.
What do you guys think?
RE: Best game for AI
I dig the AI, its pretty fun in the current state. Even if it doesn't really play to nuances and specialized rules, as a blunt intrument it usually cobles something reasonably effective together for a landgrab, if you can just find that threshold were a boost in income overcomes its other deficits. Sometimes that can go by side, its land/air game is usually a lot stronger than its naval game, so for maps where the balance really hinges on the water its easier to exploit the AI there. Sometimes one side is more dependant on that kind of thing than the other. A lot of times for second world war games that's the Allies, though I think in Iron War its a little inverted from the norm, since the Europe Axis side and mainly W. Germany can fall apart pretty quickly when Allies get the upperhand around the channel, whereas Japan is a little better at managing a land war even after the IJN is pushed around. I think AI Allies have the edge there probably, and its more entertaining to play as Axis because of the way the opener is set up. Not sure how the world map compares to the Europe one, but might be a fun change if you wanted to try one where AI Allies seem a bit stronger than AI Axis under vanilla conditions. But in general I think a lot of maps could probably support an AI challenge, its just a matter finding the right number for a handicap. So for WaW if the AI is doing well as Axis maybe the vanilla challenge is good for the one side, but Allies might need something extra. Usually I'd go for a modest increase (probably percentage increase for PUs at the lower end 10-20% and see if it makes a difference for their ability to trade more effectively, then just see how high you can go before its ridiculous hehe.) The spread you end up with there probably tells you a rough ballpark of how dependant the map is on specialized rules, higher level purchasing strategies and such, compared to the basic WW2 maps where the AI does pretty well for itself. So for the difference in complexity between say v2 and v3, or v5 and Global, there is probably a number for the later where the HardAI will become competative again, even if its not prioritizing added things like objectives or VCs or tech.
I have noticed more recently that the Hard AI will now bomb semi regularly, if it has enough bombers, but whether they buy them or not seems to depend more on the production frontier, like low production but high cash scenarios. Not sure a map that's overly dependant on consistent SBR for balance would work well at this point. The AI also struggles with things like intercept or scrambling where those dynamics are utilized heavily or with bases that use stuff like dynamic movement boosts. So G40 type solos really fall apart there. Objectives you can probably overcome with an income bonus but the AIs handicap in not managing an Air/Naval bounce from bases is something you can't really compensate for as well. Probably every map would have exploits when the combat mechanics rely on map position (any kind of terrain effect reducing or improving movement.) The AI will do what it can do from the current position (if it ends up on those kind of tiles) but won't build like a competant strategy around the map. Its pretty good at projecting power with air and cheap fodder though, so if bombers are cheap they will spam them pretty well for dark skies, when the income outpaces production capacity. Happens in Iron war when the AI gets backed off the front, or is knocked down to just a lone factory. Otherwise I see them mainly bought for the AI air umbrellas around island territories. The AI is actually surprisingly good at projecting air power vs enemy naval under those circumstances. They will make some clutch strikes to sink fleets, but then often don't follow up with re-establishing fleets or transport capacity of their own. See it happen to Japan at the home island or like with USA out of England which is kind of cool, but once the AI is boxed in it becomes a lot more conservative with its TUV, so its more likely to withdraw than trade TUV at disadvantage, even if a human definitely would to try and turn a game around. When the chips are down HardAI goes for like the slow bleed instead of going out with a bang hehe. But sometimes that can make for entertaining attrition endgames that last way longer than you might see otherwise.
Anyhow, yeah I like Frostion's maps for the AI, since many were built out with the idea that the AI control some stuff already. I think it works on probably any map, but definitely better where the income/production or basic victory conditions are set up more along classic economic domination lines rather than the TKO victory conditions of v2 and later. Right now the AI doesnt understand VCs, so what matters to it is really the income/production and distance to nearest enemy capital. It will knock off TUV when it has the advantage or to take over territory along the way, but won't airblitz to take a capital or secure a specific VC for the win or things like that. I think for the naval game one place where it struggles on most maps is with blocking, and also stacking (like around carrier groups for example) to cover key zones like canals or straights. It spams transports pretty wild over time and launches more than you'd think to pretty good effect, but that only gets you so far, if a particular zone is do or die for naval balance due to map dynamic movement features that the AI doesn't get. But even still, I had a good time messing around with Iron War.
Screen centering/cycling around map UI idea
It would be really helpful if there was a way to cycle around the map centering on all territories/sz that are occupied by your units. For example maybe hitting a Right/Left arrow key on the keyboard would then cycle between a players units in various territories, re-centering the map each time?
Something like this already exists in most maps to the center the screen on the capital when a new player-nation comes up in the turn order, so this is just kind of carrying that same idea to the next level.
The basic idea is to provide the player with a simple way to double check whether they have moved/used all their units during a given turn and to prevent players from forgetting stuff especially during the combat/non-combat phases. Frequently it happens that a player might overlook units in far flung regions of a map (the southern hemisphere usually) or if they have positioned units in places where they might not normally be.
Anyhow, just an idea. Not sure how challenging it would be to implement but I think it would prove pretty useful if it existed.
I guess the analogy would be to other strategy games where the user is given a way to cycle between settlements or armies/fleets on a simple click rotation. I think it would be particularly helpful on larger maps where you often have to do a lot of scrolling, or where it is difficult to assess everything at a glance.
RE: Iron War - Official Thread
Here is a fun one where the AI Allies have been keeping us on our toes... Axis went with the slow push to expand carving up the conquests between the various minors along the way, but got stalled up in the Urals and the Russians had us fighting tooth and nail to take out Siberia. AI Soviets meanwhile have been launching some effective counter attacks using their bomber stack, with few furious bombing runs to sweep Japanese production on the mainland. Yakutsk is still kicking and British fighter support has kept the far east fairly active. US pacific fleet just did an end around towards Tokyo when the Japanese fleet finally launch from Truk , and AI Stalin has used the opportunity to re-established a final stronghold in Vladivostock! The Americans are stacking fighters to the ceiling! Germans just bought their first nuke to deal with the situation... hehe good times.
AI Australia felt better after the increase on starting fuel, they've been keeping Japan on edge bouncing defending fighters around. South Africa was knocked off and British-India is near collapse, but the rest of the gang is still up to no good in West Africa. Think it could go another half dozen rounds
A pretty Epic battle vs AI Britain for control of Mexico City! hehe been taking this one full invasion USA, but the North American air fortress is pretty impressive. Japan didn't have enough strength at the ready after the long campaigns vs India and Russia to turn around and directly take on Australia or USA. So instead they blew past Hawaii and the West Coast and headed to Panama. Axis are sweeping across the South America now, with German tanks leading the way and a massive Italian army finally ready follow along for the Atlantic crossing. Even with tactical nuke strikes by both Germany and Japan over several rounds, the British and Americans are determined to bloody us still. US AI has fifty some odd fighters defending the homeland. Good times! This one might go into the 1960s lol
RE: Iron War - Official Thread
Yeah I mean that sounds pretty cool! I'm sure I'd have fun playing against it. The main point I'd drive home is that we are probably arriving at a point now where a single type of AI is insufficient for the number/variety of maps we have. The HardAI is pretty good at doing what is was designed for, namely general principles for the WWII maps that came out prior to V3, and it does a fairly competent job playing other similar maps. But I think we've probably hit a wall here, where it's easier to have an AI gang rather than one hard dude running the whole block. I think randomizing the behavior based on different variables would be really interesting, using different AIs with cool names.
From a design standpoint, if we had a dozen different AI personalities, maybe people could build maps that play to certain strengths and weaknesses of that particular AI. Like just imagining extremes, maybe you have one AI who buys impulsively and spends half the pot on different units every time... well, at the other end of the spectrum you might have the dude who picks one or two favorite unit types and magnifies those buys every round. Or similarly maybe you have an AI who loves building ships and running the sea, another who's all for bombers, and just give them names or descriptions that fit.
Those things are just on the purchasing side, but I can imagine a Dirty Dozen different AI's where each are basically a spin-off of the main HardAI. Then it would be a lot easier to design maps based on these different AIs instead of trying to have a single AI that can cover all situations across all maps. Otherwise you have that tension that Redrum was describing where a certain behavior makes a lot of sense for one map, or for one nation on a given map, but would nerf the AI in another possibly significant situation. If we had different AIs then we could play around with it a bit, under less pressure for ultimate perfection, while still operating within the same basic framework. At least that way we could experiment with some different ideas, without having to worry about unintentionally hosing the regular HardAI in the process of trying to refine it. For starters I would ditch the Easy AI altogether. It's name is deceptive anyway, since it should probably be called "old AI" at this point hehe. Or if its good to keep Easy AI for some kind of under-the-hood/future re-development reason, just change the name to something less enticing for the solo newb and stick it way at the bottom. Fast AI is good, because it's name tells you what it's really about.
After that maybe just pick like half a dozen clever names and see if we can find a variable to tweak that would make their gameplay a little bit unique and let them loose on the solo playerbase to see whether it sticks...
Perhaps you have one called "Ivan" who does what you'd want AI Russia to do, like just stack for defense and try to hold down a contiguous empire with very conservative purchases.
Maybe "Tommy" is another AI personalty, except his deal is more about flying aid to his buddies, saving up to drop big fleets, and then establishing a beachhead near the front with transports.
Then you got "Fritz" who likes to buy mobile ground units and hurl them headlong at the nearest enemy, sometimes makes desperate attacks when the odds are narrow, because he needs to maintain momentum and seize the initiative.
Somewhere in there maybe you have an AI that focuses on developing production infrastructure or a wide variety of unit types. Probably analogous to what we'd want from the USA in a standard WWII type game. Once the basic template is established and people see how different AI types might fit together to make a more interesting game, then you could add to the list different behaviors that might be fun. I honestly have no idea, but it seems like that might be somewhat simpler than going at it Highlander style, where there can be only one hehe.
In the Iron War map, I can imagine at least half a dozen different AI behaviors that might be advantageous to have kicking around, depending on which Nation is up in the rotation. In most TripleA games, there are at least a couple basic types of player nations, where a human is expected to do different things based on who they play, so probably the AI should mirror that. In that vein I'd say start with AA50 as a model. We do Six different AI's with cool names and behavior themed on the 6 player nations on that map. Use them as the experimental guinea pigs, to see if we can get them to model a more human like approach on that map (since its kind of like legacy edition A&A at this point.) If successful we adapt them or add new ones to handle other different maps.
At least I think it could be a fun experiment to run. Maybe a little more entertaining for our AI guru, having something to mess around with that isn't quite as monolithic as the standard HardAI?
ps. Still going vs the HardAI Axis with the boost. We took the TKO in 43, but Axis are still showing teeth and its pretty fun to try and manage the Allied fuel reserve while preparing for the final strikes. AI Japan has done a pretty reasonable job of reorienting onto the mainland and not letting their main fleets get cracked. Allies are trading W. Germany on income for the edge, but the Germans still have their main fleet and an expanding tank force holding onto Berlin. Balkans just made a sneaky Blitz on Moscow after AI Germany canopened the way. Guess they made Stalin pay for his overconfidence hehe. Looks like they got a few rounds left. Probably will play on just to see how long Japan can play off the fuel reserve they built up. Catch you next round!
Axis 20 synth fuel per starting factory flat rate bonus Russia round 8.tsvg
AI Axis made a pretty glorious final counter offensive to push back the Allied occupation of W. Germany. Balkans then blitzed to punish Paris hehe. They took a lot of TUV down, but the big German ground stack also went by the wayside, so basically a done deal in Western Europe. On the Pacific side Allies are steady rolling up Japan after a big build up over several rounds... Italy is stacked heavy in Egypt and Rome, but also getting boxed in now. Probably time to throw in the towel but I'll give it to the AI for making a clean last stand! hehe
I think they could have gone on longer if the AI Japanese rebuilt their Tokyo factory, but they seemed to expend all their energy around China instead. Curious if the AI values territory income or just production value? Both AI Germany and Japan seem to underplay their highest value territories on defense/recovery, compared with the way they will target other lower value enemy territories in the area. Other than that I suppose the main thing that would probably make the AI more competitive is to prioritize VC control at the end of the round, for whatever threshold the Win is set. Like in this case, the AI just going all gangbusters trying to hold as many VCs as they can if they have the chance at 20. Right now the AI is still playing more total domination style ala Classic with solid general principles on the TUV trade, but not really set up for the VC aspect, even though that is how victory is determined for many games these days. Probably something like that would be at the head of the wishlist for me, making VC control supersede other considerations when Victory is reach. But anyhow, I like how the AI plays on this map when they have the synth fuel and a flat boost, fun stuff!
RE: Iron War - Official Thread
I still think it would be fun if there were a few different 'personalities' for the HardAI, named after different generals or whatever. Like maybe one guy has randomized purchasing for combat units, another has something similar for infrastructure type stuff, one makes more aggressive attacks prioritizing enemy TUV destroyed, one is ultra conservative prioritizing their own TUV on defense. Basically a dozen "spin off" versions of the same reasonably competant base HardAI, but just with one variable or two adjusted so they play differently. I think that would probably be more fun overall for players to have on hand than one AI that's meant to handle everything at the highest strategic level.
Then the same AI game might play out very differently depending on which personality is assigned to the HardAI for a particular nation. I think some kind of compromise like that which uses a small degree of randomness might be more engaging in the near term for surprise outcomes, or humanlike digressions from the usual best practices, just to keep things interesting. By running a few different experimental AI drivers like that we might find some combos that outperform others, or at least mix up the bag a bit. I remember some older games like RiskII that had fairly weak baseline AIs, but which still managed to create a feel of dynamism and interest for the machine that way.
If the behavior differences started out with something easier to control for, like purchasing preferences or attack thresholds, maybe it could be a thing that works for both Hard and Fast AI? Maybe it could eventually be randomized on a round by round basis, where the AI shifts back and forth over the course of the game, instead of just the initial assignment, but meantime it would at least give a place to start.
In the same way that playing against a newb can sometimes be quite entertaining because they are more likely to go off script and force uncommon situations. Maybe something like that works for the AI too? I mean we don't have to set the bar all that high, since it's mainly for getting the rocks off while learning or in the downtime between PvP games. But it might also be useful from a game design standpoint, like a map being built around a certain standard behavior for a certain nation.
Kind of off topic, but I still think the sweetest thing we could get going would be a way to flag a territory as higher priority based on some control maybe with an invisible marker. That way could be used for VCs or Capitals, high resources or Canals and such. Just like a generic tag that makes a territory higher up on the target to kill or defend to the death type tiles.
RE: Iron War - Official Thread
Got a fun one going vs HardAI Allies at the 20 fuel 20/10 flat boost. We had a legit Pearl strike from AI Yamamoto, but alas they got backed down by the American carrier. Lot of ships afloat in the Pacific early on. Meanwhile on the Europe side Axis are pushing on Russia pretty well. First looked like Stalingrad, but Finns on the March, are telling me they might be headed North! hehe Anyhow so far so good. Haven't seen the AI stalling much as they all have a comfortable reserve. Other than the sweep of Mideast sweep by Russia/British-Colonies they're still in the fight. Normandy might be a possibility now though, since AI Axis left W. Germany pretty light. Will see how it goes. Catch you next round
Big round for the Americans... AI left themselves open to the air blitz on Tokyo and W. Germany, so had to try for it. Brazil came big too, with the liberation of France and a sneaky hop to Denmark to seize the strait. Japan knocked off the Chinese, but Zhukov is driving on Manchuria, and with the recent US smackdown on the home island it might be lights out for the Empire. Will see how well they manage afterwards with the fuel reserves they've built up out of their last stronghold in Canton. On the Europe side, Germany went after Stalingrad after all, and the Finns took Archangel with a stealth blitz. Normandy held out long enough for France to drop a factory though, so the second front is now open for business.
RE: Iron War - Official Thread
ps. more thoughts on Australia and other production ideas... I think currently the Solomon Sea Zone and surrounding territories is undervalued. Given how significant this region was to the Japanese war effort, with the major naval base they built at Rabaul on New Britain, and the protracted campaigns they fought for control of the Solomon Islands and Guadalcanal, it should probably be highlighted for historical significance. I see a few things we could do to make the fighting around here more dynamic.
First I think New Britain (Rabaul) could support a +5 gold spot, and serve symbolically for bases at Solomon Islands and Guadalcanal (which could themselves be increased from 1 to 2 PUs without raising eyebrows, and allow Japan to help Italy vs British Colonies income by targeting Solomons/Guadalcanal). Perhaps with some resources attached so both teams have a stronger incentive to contest the Solomon Sea Zone and each of those islands. But I like Rabaul at +5 for a potential factory, because its controlled by Australia at the start, and a bit more isolated than New Guinea, but still activates the Solomon sea zone which is along a key transit lane. It could play off Truk, Hawaii and the Anzac starting factories, to create another lily pad for either side and a convoy lane near these Islands (perhaps in New Hebrides Sea Zone, Fiji sea zone, or New Zealand Sea Zone) would also help, and might bring the current convoy lane in South Pacific 10 Sea Zone into play. Basically I think the goal should be to encourage a naval conflict and amphibious landings between Japan and the US/Australia around the Coral Sea and adjacent zones, since the battles fought there were hugely significant turning points in the actual war.
All this stuff could build off the existing Japanese starting factory at Truk, so that the Japanese player feels more of a pull to the South East Pacific, and more pressure to try and cut the Allied supply line to New Zealand/Australia. Right now the conflict seems more static than it should be, and it's a little too easy for either side to just ignore or bypass the other, whereas a historical theme should probably be showcasing these locations a bit more. Right now the strongst natural pull for Japan is to go after India/Russia to help the Axis team, so anything that helps keep the war anchored in the South Pacific would give a more satisfyingly historical play pattern and any tweaks production wise would be warranted for that purpose mainly. Not to match the real world production levels of various islands (relative to other similar islands), but more for strategic/historical significanc to the War.
I feel that something similar could be done on the Europe side of the map for places like Benelux, Sicily and Greece, where a +5 gold space would encourage more fighting over historical hotspots. Benelux in particular would be ideal for a +5, because it would give the Western Allies somewhere to focus after France that isn't going just straight for the jugular on W. Germany.
I like how Liberating France for the French slows down the D-Day crescendo, but it also denies Britain/USA a way to build up on the continent other than just putting everything into an amphibious assault on W. Germany. Benelux would make a lot of sense since it starts neutral, and because the port of Antwerp was considered critical for liberating the rest of Europe from the early days of the war to the Battle of Scheldt in 1944 following the Normandy breakout. Having it at just 3 PUs makes the territory kind of an afterthought, but if it was +5 and a potential US or British factory location, I think it would make the whole D-Day game in W. Europe a lot more interesting. Right now the collapse of W. Europe when it occurs feels very rapid, without much opportunity for Market Garden or battle of the Bulge type scenarios. I think Austria-Bohemia at +5 would also help, and provide an endgame counterbalance. But one thing I like about having more spots to protect (and at least one space that can serve as a potential US factory) is that it kind of simulates the gamble that the Normandy invasion actually was. Like the game can't model things like espionage or deception, Garbo style intrigue with feints to Calais and whatnot, but with Benelux activated like that it would give the German player some pause about how to handle France. If they pull south to stack Normandy, then Allies might drop in France or Benelux, or stack one spot to hit the other the following round. So you'd have a kind of push pull on the build-up, but I think it'd more oriented on Allies clearly trying to put heat onto Western Europe before going directly at W. Germany via amphibious landing, which always feels off in A&A style games. The North Sea Zone is critically powerful on this map though, if Germany can't control it vs amphibious the Allies are well ahead, but I think having an intermediate space like Benelux to draw some attention off W. Germany might help with it. Having a production fallback to Austria would also make the final drive to Berlin (or battle for Italy if Allies go there first) a bit more dynamic.
An increased value on Sicily, could likewise benefit the battle vs Italy in the Med, allowing a more historical feel to the campaign to knock off Rome. Like where it develops in stages rather than all at once. In general I see +5 spots as adding to the strategic depth of the gamemap wherever they exist. I understand the argument of wanting to reserve special status of +5 locations and forcing players to develop logistics further afield, but the map is also very large and could definitely benefit from more ways to push the production fronts. That's why I suggest using those major historical battles/contests as a way to justify the higher value of some specific spots, even if they aren't necessarily always major industrial centers like Holland, still, the strategic value and the fact that major forces/invasions occurred there provides ample justification for minor variations in my view.
Any income balancing for parity by sides to accommodate production value changes for more +5 spots could be adjusted for with convoy lanes to the other team. Axis convoy lanes for example would be an easy way to offset any potential advantage that accrues to Allies, while Allied convoys do the same for any Axis advantage. A lot of the extra cash from any of those sources will likely go into fuel purchases during the endgame when the stacks get large. But on the whole I think the map really benefits most from +5s. They are the territories that make the game and allow for different kinds of attack patterns depending on the strategy.
The Benelux Low Countries would probably be the most fun if I had to pick just one. But I think the map could support another half dozen +5 gold spots. Just done up for historical flare.
Also here is another Synth Fuel edit for Solo play. It adds 20 barrels to the starting factories for either side. I'll run another test, but I think that should be more than enough so that the AI doesn't have any issues moving units well into the endgame, or at least for as long as they are still alive. I think its a good way to see how the new fuel thing works, even if only on the player's side. It can take some getting used to, but the new fuel unit definitely allows the player to scale up for larger forces over time... Anyhow I think these should work pretty well for learning the ropes against the machine, and you can add a flat rate bonus to the AI for a harder challenge.
RE: Iron War - Official Thread
Here's the final from that last game vs HardAI Allies with the boost... Finally eliminated the last Soviet holdout in Irkutsk with a nuclear strike! cause it's getting late hehe.
Good times! Overall I feel like the new fuel mechanic works quite well, and also reinforces the significance of steel. You can develop attack power with aircraft more effectively now, since there is a way to increase fuel production, but its still expensive to build up that kind of reserve. Even with air in place the AI does a pretty good job of countering, so you still really need to max the steel for ships and mobile ground to get enough defensive hitpoints in the water to keep enemy airstrikes at bay, or to move enough hitpoints on the ground to overcome enemy defensive air walls. I like it because if you try to just go with fighters and carriers and such, they become so fuel intensive to move that you need to balance unit production against fuel production or risk getting stalled out. Another fun aspect is that the synth barrels now allow the minor powers to feel more important during the endgame. The little guys have a stronger incentive to take territory up to the 20 PU point, since if they build some fuel every other round, and hit that economic threshold, they can buy fighters and fly defensive pips to the front to help their buddies. For the Major powers, the synth barrels seem pretty well tied in to the overall production balance, since there is a tension between dropping barrels and combat units, and sometimes its good to invest the 25 PUs in a factory just to have a spot to spend the extra 5 on a barrel next round hehe. Anyhow I found it enjoyable.
On the AI's side the only nation that really seemed to struggle in developing a functioning fuel reserve was ANZAC. Everyone else on AI team Allies stacked fuel and moved their units pretty effectively with the boost, but the Australians were stuck burning through all their oil every turn, so they never really had enough to position all their units. I think they might be a little dry relative to the type of units they need to buy, even with an extra 10 synthetics on the edit boost. But otherwise it felt pretty good. At 20 extra PUs per turn for the big 3 on the Allied side the Majors can fight on a lot longer after absorbing the initial rush from Axis, and the Minors slog pretty hard with an extra 10 PUs per turn since it allows them to keep the peripheral fronts active. I'll probably go again for another match tomorrow if I have time. I like the latest version a lot, nice work!