Sorry to hear of the RL time sink, I know how that goes. Currently up on a move, buried in boxes and packing tape haha.
Still looking forward to Iron War updates though. I love this map and can't wait to see where it goes next. Especially with the resources ideas for steel/fuel.
Catch you next round
Yeah the various colonial boxes and naval abstractions were probably a bridge too far I think, though I still kind of like the western front box as a novel way to make the fighting in France and Belgium feel more thematic and engrossing, given the limitations of the time. One thing that the map failed to resolve, similar to many WWII maps is the overall advantage of attacking G directly via amphibious into Hanover or a Baltic push. I guess a simple solution might have been like some impassible sz to block the approach at the danish straits, but didn't really have an easy way to do it without cutting G off from the water. US entry can get pretty gamey when they arrive in force and start getting the dead drop on G amphibious. In that way it's still falls into a revised WWII trap of sorts, but still pretty Russia centric for the most part. The AI exploits that to good effect, as I imagine most humans would too, even if it takes a little longer to get there. CP AI finally handled the East after several more rounds, though the AI Allies are trying their best to push across Italy with US now. All in all the AI does its thing pretty well here on balance. What they got going with the Turks, nobodies business haha.
In the enthusiasm for news of new tripleA WW1 map stuff, I've been watching the AI try to stalemate itself in that old Great War map I made with Surtur ages ago hehe. Currently skynet has bloodied itself into the 10th round. Going to just let it go tonight till it breaks itself or my memory. So far the HardAI seems to be managing fairly well for itself on either side. A dose of nostalgia from an oldy. For all its idiosyncrasies, it was fun map for the time, trying to bend the engine in early days hehe. But I haven't actually opened it up since 4.0, and now the AI is much much improved from back then.
Its been fun to watch the machine actually cobble together a vague kind of plan, compared to the nuts ass stuff it used to do with the AI when this map was first made like 10 years ago hehe. Cool to have an AI that gets the job done, pretty damn well actually, with something based on the old v2 rules.
CP are finally pushing where they can, but Allies just saw the US hop into the mix, so still a nail biter over here lol. I don't think the boys'll be home by Christmas this year. Nice work Hard AI
Great War Hard AI round 10.tsvg
Getting my kicks off for the era, watching the AI lamp itself before I crash into bed hehe. But will dream of badass 1914 PvP stuff to come for sure.
night all
I also favor a shorter per round timeline. I think 1945 just arrives a bit too soon, and 3 season year would extend the endgame before the nukes start flying hehe.
In general I like a timeline that is open to interpretation based on what's happening in game, so the player is more free to create their own narrative. Like if D-Day happens in round 7 or round 10, either one might be seen to correspond to 1944, if nothing else is there to tell the player otherwise. But since its all fixed aligned up with the tech advances here, and the new round prompts, I think it would be cool at least to split the years into 3 rounds rather than 2.
Some of the units like medium tanks and tech weapons like V1s would probably benefit from a longer period of use before they get replaced by the more advanced stuff.
So badass! Can't wait to take it for a spin! Its like the greyhound of plans, hella sharp, hella quick. Nice work!
I think when it comes to visual depth and a solid read across the entire map, TWW probably strikes my favorite balance of anything I've seen so far in tripleA. Could be my personal color preferences showing here, but its got a really nice scheme overall for a WWII map, with values that feel cohesive. When something is that pretty to look at I don't find myself getting hung up like I do when I open Global or V5, wanting to tweak stuff with sea zone color or whatever hehe. Just you know, for a sense of something I think works really well.
Well, its just more of an aesthetic design consideration than anything to do with the colorblind, that's just a side benefit.
The issue I see is with poor value contrast overall. When the ocean is a mid value color as it is now, the point of highest contrast for the entire map is the neutral/impassible territories which jump out and yell at you.
It would be considerably better if the point of highest contrast was between the ocean and all other land territory tiles. Which is easily accomplished if the ocean color is at either end of the value scale, darkest or lightest. Save the variation in the mid value range to differentiate the land colors.
If anything, given that neutrals are not usually a hugely significant part of those games, they should probably be at the 50% value point, so they don't pop, and you can save the pop for where its more useful between the various player nations.
Contrast is clearly relative to everything else that's going on in an image. You can create significant contrast between white and almost white, if there's not much more going on, like with the light ocean map above that I desturated. In the standard WWII maps there is surely more going on, but I still definitely think it would be cleaner with the ocean color at either end of the value scale, instead of smack in the middle of it haha.
Just a thought, I know it was changed at some point to make everything consistent with global, but you can still see the older blue in some of the older map variants, which was definitely much lighter than the current.
Some people like a dark blue instead, for a more Revised or AAZ feel. It would be ideal if we could just push it to either end on the fly with a view setting or quick map file edit.
Not sure if it bugs anyone else, but all the WWII baseline maps make some weird choices for color value in the ocean. I rambled about it a lot just now on the A&Aorg boards. https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/33233/argo-s-middleweight-map-for-1939-1942
Just going to quote myself here again, so these thoughts are saved somewhere on the triple boards.
"Even people who may have trouble distinguishing Hue (red/green colorblind is the most common), will usually still be able to distinguish Value or Saturation pretty easily. I think Value is the most recognizable and easiest to work with. The quickest way to determine what Values you have is to desaturate everything and make the map grayscale. If you can still differentiate the various nations in grayscale then you are usually solid. Just note that the defaults for most nations in tripleA do a really poor job of this. Some nation’s territories are almost identical in value/saturation. Many people have a strong aesthetic preference for colors at a certain value/saturation threshold and end up just changing the hue, which can lead to everything being more similar than one might realize at first...
...for whatever reason someone changed the ocean to a mid-range value almost 50% gray, which was a weird call in my view. In the standard WWII maps it creates these strange visual ‘pops’, where some land territory colors are significantly higher value (closer to white), than other land tiles or than the sea (i.e. impassible neutrals, or lighter nations like Japan.) I think it is better to go way light or way dark on the Ocean color value."
Here is a screen of v5 with the standard ocean color (map details off) and the standard Hex colors for the various nations in the map file, desaturated to show the values. Then a couple screens of Global doing the same. Note the value of the sz tiles relative to the value of all the other colors.
Compare to a baseline with a very light ocean color ala Classic physical board (then desaturated to show the value range of the sz blue)
Or a very dark colored ocean ala Revised (then desatured to show the value range of the sz blue).
"Below I attached two versions of the AA50 baseline, the first has a very dark ocean with all the land territories at roughly 50% gray. The second has a very light ocean, again with all the land territories at roughly 50% gray.
What I wanted to show was that, we can use a lot a variation above/below 50% value for land colors, (colors with values that are still very easy to differentiate from one another), but which are unlikely to ever be confused with the basic sea zone color value. This is why I like to save the mid-dark tones for the land territories, instead of wasting the 50% sweet spot in on the ocean, if that makes sense. I think the range between 20%-80% grey can give you a lot of variation in color value for land territories, just saving that last 10-20% at either end for the Ocean, depending on whether you like it light like Classic, or dark like Revised (the physical game boards I mean.) That way you have a lot of room to work the values in mid range, while still maintaining an overall map that reads easily at a glance, value-wise, with fewer pops. In my mind neutral/impassible territories should never draw the eye, but should kind of fade into the background, which is part of why the color values for the current WWII maps in tripleA kind of bug me..."
Those lights/darks went pretty extreme, granted, but just wanted to show how far we could be pushing the values if we wanted to and still have it read as blue.
I'm curious if there is a particular design reason why its better to have the color value for the ocean/sz in the baseline tiles so middle of the road? Like if it works better with mapmaking tools or something, or just to create that simple cloud effect in map details?
To me it creates a weird value range, where you can have really high highs and really low lows competing with each other on land, and then the ocean smack in the middle range, all sort of muddled. Whereas I'd think it would be a lot more visually cohesive if the Sea Zone color value was either very light, or very dark, depending on whether the player prefers a more classic aesthetic, or a more revised style aesthetic. Ideally the player should be able to switch it on the fly to suite their taste. If any of that makes sense.
To me editing hex codes in the map file is pretty standard, since I like to customize those and it doesn't affect anything else, but with the ocean it is harder. I guess recoloring the individual base tiles? Seems kind of onerous, wish it was simpler. Reskins I guess would work if the energy was there, but I kind of like the stripped down no details look otherwise.
What do you guys think?
Anyhow, just wanted to jot down the thought before it got buried. Catch you guys in a few
just trying to do the legwork here with a solitaire, for opening fuel/movement (trying to move everything I could think of the max distance) you get numbers around the following...
Germany somewhere around 55-60 fuel expended (of 80 starting total). With max naval movement its 26 fuel just for the ships.
Balkans 3 fuel used (of 5 total) if they move their fleet to attack Russia in the black sea.
Finland 6 fuel (of 5 total). Finland starts with 5 fuel in reserve, so this is the first example of a movement/fuel choice in round 1, since they can't move all fuel units the max distance. But this one probably goes unnoticed just owing to Finland's position usually doing turtle up.
Russia somewhere around 60-65 fuel used (of 80 total). Assuming that Germany takes Ukraine on G1 and if the soviet ships survive for max naval movement at 15 fuel.
Britain about 20-22 fuel used (of 30 total). It's 19 for all the ships/air max movement, then depending on whether the tanks needed to go to Scotland.
France 8 fuel used (of 10).
British Colonies 12 fuel used (of 20) .
South Africa 8 fuel used (of 10)
Italy 32 (of 40). This is if they are moving all their fleets/armor the max distance. But Italy is probably the nation with the narrowest fuel gap going into the second round because they are only collecting +10 per round.
That's as far as I got on lunch today, but the basic pattern is that the nations all have just enough fuel to cover a max move in the opening round, but not nearly enough on recurring fuel per turn to cover that in the second round. So basically the first time player would have very little warning about the consequences of their heavy fuel consumption until after its already too late, when things start crashing off after round 2.
I think it would be better to have the starting reserve just under max movement from the outset, in round 1, that way the player can see what's going on before they commit to combat movement. Having it happen sooner rather than later would serve as a wake up, so the player can get familiar with the fuel mechanic right away. Then give them some cushion to purchase new units or recover from a movement error by not having the +fuel per turn be quite so scarce. Essentially having the first round movement consumption as the benchmark (from the player's pov) for what can be done with the total fuel coming in per turn. If that makes sense?
Right now the are many more starting steel units on the board than can move once the initial fuel reserve is spent, and the +fuel per turn is so low relative to the starting fuel, that I don't think the player really has a chance to see what their movement benchmarks actually are for their starting units until after they have already run critically dry. Since fuel is ultimately a cap on movement per turn, I think its important that the player has a somewhat more forgiving way to see that in operation from the very first turn of the game, and a little time to learn the ropes since its an entirely new mechanic going on here for most people. If the fuel coming in per turn was boosted and the starting fuel lowered, then I think the game could be more about managing/conserving fuel income in line with your movement needs, rather than managing the starting fuel reserve. The later is much more challenging (though not necessarily more entertaining owing to that challenge), since it requires a more advanced understanding of how fuel works than I think most people would be able to see coming at it cold. And each nation has different needs, so its hard to ballpark until you actually play through it, which is why I think round 1 movement needs would make sense for the recurring amounts of fuel, rather than having a large reserve meant to be spread out over several rounds.
My impression is that the learning curve for the fuel/movement mechanic goes up the higher the difference between the starting fuel reserves, what that nation can move initially, and what the nation will collect or be able to move on average. But if there is going to be a large difference between starting fuel reserves and +fuel per turn per nation, then I'd consider going way up on that by a substantial amount, enough to cover more than one round of max movement by the starting units (probably several rounds at that level before it starts to fall off, just to cover normal purchasing). Right now I think the overall fuel totals are too low to really accommodate the large number of units that enter play through regular purchasing, so I'd put it in the barrels +fuel per turn, because to me that is much easier to get a feel for. But either way I think you just need more fuel in this thing for the gameplay.
For me the ideal on G1 would be that the German player first tries to move all their stuff, discovers that they don't have quite enough fuel to do everything, and so much choose which stuff to move for their strat in that game. Thinking about it from phase 1, starting to build a mental picture from the very first turn of how much fuel they need to acquire/conserve to move effectively each round. Then have something near that coming in next turn on G2 (with some flex aid or conquest), and do much the same for each nation on both sides in the first round. So their totals are just under their max movement for the starting units, and their fuel income also at about the same amount with a little give and take.
@redrum you gotta couple games of Iron War under your belt, but might be able to speak to first impression better than I can here. What do you think?
I've only played a few games in the past couple weeks, waiting on the next update before I go to town again trying to pick apart the difficulty settings vs AI opponents. But I do have some more thoughts on fuel.
Right now the starting fuel reserves for both sides are nearly 3 times the recurring fuel income per turn. So for example, Russia starts with 80 fuel +32 per turn. Japan starts with 90 fuel +38 per turn, ANZAC starts with 20 fuel +6 per turn etc. Honestly I think the ratio is weighted way too heavily towards the starting reserve, and not enough on + per turn recurring fuel. The starting fuel reserve is dramatically larger than the fuel income that can be achieved from the barrels on the actual map, but the player (esp. a first time player) is unlikely to notice just how stark the disparity is until the reserve is exhausted which takes sometimes 3 or 4 rounds of play. Germany for instance starts with 80 fuel, but in order to ever see a total like that on + fuel per turn they'd basically have to conquer most of the globe, so once its spent the starting reserve is essentially unrecoverable. Since the game is based on movement at bedrock this makes that starting fuel reserve (how you spend/save it initially) the single most important thing going on in the whole game.
The issue I see is that the new player just doesn't have enough time to settle in and get used to how fuel works before it totally dominates the gameplay and they have to learn the hard way. Basically its a situation where the first and second round can accommodate casually moving just about everything on the board, but then you see a really hard crash in the third and fourth round after which point the fuel per turn can't cover a substantial number of the units in play. From round 5 on most of the larger powers can only move like half their stuff in a given round and some of the smaller nations barely have enough to move even a couple steel units before running dry. I think the fuel movement works against the entertainment factor here mainly because from the player pov it occurs really suddenly, more as a crash than something gradual that you can figure into your planning, and so potentially more frustrating than fun, since its harder to see coming until you're all mired in the problem hehe. But again, I think its more because the starting fuel reserve is so large relative the recurring fuel per turn, and not the fuel mechanic per se that leads to the disconnect.
I'd consider coming way down on the starting reserve, so that fuel is a factor right from the outset and a critical consideration in the opening round gameplay, then bringing up the +fuel per turn by a significant amount, like 25% at least, maybe 50% more to cover the disparity from having a smaller starting reserve. That way the learning curve isn't quite so steep, and the player has some time to get used to the fuel/movement restrictions before seeing a hard crash off the cliff. In other words, having the player immediately confronted with the fuel thing right from G1, instead of pushing it out into the midgame, so the player can see what's happening right from the outset and say to themselves 'oh wait what's going on here? I guess I need fuel to move? I better figure this out'. Then start adapting to the new mechanic right away.
For that to work at its best, ideally each nation should have to make at least one important fuel/movement decision in their opener, so that each player is immediately introduced to the core concept that will be governing the gameplay for the rest of the match. So an example might be on G1, the player discovers that they don't have quite enough fuel to move every single starting unit and must choose between say moving the bomber, or moving a couple mech or moving a few ships. Same deal with J1, where maybe Japan can move 'almost' everything but not quite all of it, so the whole fuel=movement thing comes into play immediately.
Right now the way its set up, all players depend on the much larger starting reserves to see them into the midgame. Even planning way ahead and only moving what is absolutely necessary from the get go, the ultimate limit usually comes from the size of the starting reserve and how quickly you do or don't burn through it. But if the +fuel per turn was increased it would feel a lot less do or die, and players would have an easier time recovering from a poor decision in early rounds (moving a large fleet too early, buying more armor than you can afford to move etc.) Basically putting in more of a buffer over time, rather than front loading it with larger starting reserves.
The optimal target range would be enough +fuel per turn so that new units can still enter play and be functional, higher than the current, but with the movement spread per round being narrower. So rather than a choice between moving like just half the existing steel unit force, it'd be more like just a few units in a given turn that would fall out of range. Same deal on the purchasing side, where you'd be acquainted with the fuel dynamic sooner (right from the opener), so you'd have a better feel for how a new purchase plays into the fuel requirements.
I think the current recurring + fuel per turn is just too low to really get a feel for things before it suddenly becomes the whole game, so basically trying to stage it in more gradually if that makes sense. I think the easiest way is to come down on the reserve based on the movement needs of the openers, and then put the +fuel per turn at right around that amount (little more or a little less) depending on which nation it is, whether they are meant to expand into oil territories right away, or giving them up to the other side after the openers.
Any thoughts?
In the save below you have Germany doing a max move, and ends up using just about...
20 fuel on mobile ground (maybe about 25 if all the armor/mech move 2 tiles.)
10 fuel on aircraft (closer to 20 committed to land.)
25 fuel on ships (if you move all the naval units.)
So ballpark, something around 70 fuel to move all their starting units?
In that case a range of maybe 55-65 starting fuel would probably force a fuel/movement decision in the opener. So either leaving some ships in position, some armor at move 1 instead of move 2 etc. Things like that.
Assuming the attrition rate for steel units is pretty low in the opening rounds (most will survive the opener to keep moving each turn) then that probably also gives a decent ballpark from how much G should be seeing in +fuel per turn. Buying new steel units beyond that means that some existing units would either have to stay in position or die in combat to make room, or else the new unit stays in position until enough fuel is conquered or saved up to get them moving out together.
I know having large starting fuel reserves might feel thematically cooler (since its easier to rationalize as pre-war stockpiling of fuel), but for the gameplay and ease of use I think it'd be much better to have the player learning to manage fuel as they go, incrementally, with more guideposts out of the very first turn. I think that would be an easier sell for the newb, instead of the current situation where they kind of have to be already familiar with the mechanic, and able to prognosticate about fuel consumption far in advance in order to play well (like an expert fuel barron), which is what the practical effect of having such a large starting reserve relative to the recurring totals per turn amounts to.
Haha just seeing those screens reminded me of this project! I forgot to check the experimental section last few times I redownloaded my maps
Guess I'm pretty good at leading a charge and then dropping off the cliff hehe. Sorry I haven't been following more closely of late. Good to see some peeps at least taking at a crack at it.
I wonder if an HR via tech concept for one of the smaller scale maps might give the idea some more traction? v5 is probably still the one that might benefit most from HRs, since its so busted OOB. Might be of interest with the a&aonline thing happening? I still think v3 is the stronger mid scale map all around to build off of though. Just a better base board.
Anyhow, nice to catch you dude. Hope all has been well!
Looks badass! I was a tides of darkness kid when II hit. Dabbled a little in III, though sadly I missed out on WoW, cause I was deep in school at the time and new it would just ruin me if I opened that box hehe. But its cool to see this universe getting a tripleA treatment. Can't wait to check it out
For anyone just coming to it, also just wanted to note again the things I really like about this map...
Its visually clean and easy to read at a glance. The map details and notes are straight forward to parse, and the map divisions and overall play-scale fits a nice niche at the level above global. There's enough familiar stuff going on that you can step into pretty quickly, and its accessible coming at it from a basic A&A background. There are for example fewer complex rules to track than in global (total war start, no politics national objectives or nation specific rules), but a more complex map with a greater number of player nations, and more expansive unit roster. The production rules are also much simpler, with only one kind of factory and very clear factory build locations designated with the gold stars. The naval game is solid with convoy zones putting money in the water, but done in a way that is very intuitive to understand (control of the sz either awards cash or denies it the opponent). It's familiar going back to A&A Europe, tied directly to the sz tiles, and much easier to step into than the complex rules for coastal convoy raiding or interdiction that you see in say the 1940 A&A games. Technology advances based on the timeline with unit unlocks, so again pretty simple to understand. I think the lighter footprint in rules overhead makes it easier to focus on areas where there is more complexity like with the unit roster, resources and combat. The game-phase set up is streamlined for combat before purchase, which makes the playpace much faster in my view, and the production spread and cost structure for units allows for a nice mixed force build for most player nations, with cool variety in the base abilities. Not so many types that it becomes overwhelming but definitely enough to keep it engaging. D10 and base 10 infantry is a fun change from D6 base 3 infantry, and the naval roster balances well on the water at base 20 for the transport. The naval game kind of feels like a cool throwback to older A&A games in some respects, with transports still as a combat unit, fighters moved onto the carrier at placement, capture convoy zones etc, but with a better overall cost structure. Ships are relatively cheap compared to land/air units, and there is a good pairing of unit abilities on the water, again all pretty intuitive and quick to settle into. The build up and eventual smack down on land sea and in the air is all very enjoyable and I dig the soundwork and music. Game works well for a solo too, which is good to have in the back pocket. Anyhow, I think its high quality for sure and has kept me entertained for a while now.
Solid work
To the subject of fuel I'm still a bit torn. On the one hand I like the concept in principal, but in practical terms having resource based movement kind of works against the overall entertainment value for me. Maybe I just kind of suck at the beancounting hehe, but I still find it challenging in advance to plan for movement needs or to anticipate what the opponent can do based on their fuel reserve. Chronically running short on oil with any nation sort of kills their fun. I don't know, but I think it may detract a bit from the overall playpace and the other cool stuff going on, like with the map itself, the production spread and unit roster. Its all happening on a pretty large scale, just with the numbers of units/player nations involved, and lots of possible moves in a given turn, so the tracking of fuel on top of all that can feel a little overwhelming.
Of the various iterations the most entertaining overall for me was when the resource was purchase oriented, rather than maintenance/movement oriented, even if that's less innovative. But I think if it sticks to movement, then having a basic way to adjust the overall totals might good. Or just introducing the concept incrementally might be nice, for example a "high vs low" oil setting for the overall game, or a way to manage the movement resource thing so that the fuel scarcity matches the interest/desired challenge level, even in pvp.
Anyhow, basic point being I think human mismanagement of fuel is also a factor to consider. Maybe any privileges should be by player nation, rather than just an AI thing? Would give players the option to determine how core they want the role of the fuel/movement mechanic to be in a given game.
Right now the percentage bonus also awards steel and pus which is pretty overpowering, but I think a separate bonus to fuel might be more useful for general play.
Just going off the thought above about adding in a couple more gold spots...
Sicily would take Italy from 67 up to 70 production.
Algeria would have France up from 46 to 49.
Okinawa and Sakhalin would have Japan up from 87 to 95.
Kamchatka would put Russia from 144 to 148.
Southern Alaska or Midway would have the USA from 103 to 107, or 111 if both.
Just at a glance I think those numbers feel pretty workable, not too far off the current spread, and you'd get a lot of gold tiles in contested areas of the map that can really push the back and forth. I think it would work on balance because most of the tiles can be reached by Axis early, but it also offers something for the Allies, because they'd have a few more Axis gold spots to gun for. As well as locations to liberate, which are really fun when you can take them over during the endgame to push the production fronts.
I think the factory is my favorite unit. The way its handled in Iron War is really cool.
Well during the endgame by like round 10, there are so many fuel using units on the map I think the only way for the AI to remain viable is for them to basically have an infinite fuel reserve. Their purchasing decisions and non com moves especially probably have them using like 3 times as much oil as a human would on average. The AI of course does all kinds of crazy little moves shifting transports and fighters around each turn, whereas a human can parse things out and make larger coordinated moves to conserve fuel. But over time its still impressive to see how the AI amasses its steel forces and aircraft, and they can gun pretty hard even despite its other shortcomings, usually in far flung regions of the map when they have the juice to do so. With a boost even doing like scrub reloads every other round, the AI can still pull out surprises. Some more saves messing around with that oil hack for USA that had me up late on a good time hehe...
Hard AI Allies 99 fuel 133 pu invasion USA Germany round 12.tsvg
Hard AI Allies 99 fuel 133 pu Russia crush Germany round 21.tsvg
Hard AI Allies 99 fuel 133 pu Balkan gambit Japan round 15.tsvg
The main thing I notice when the AI is just given shit tons of oil, is that the endgame (after 20 cities has been achieved) is a lot more engaging, where even after you have turned the production spread, the machine still churns out enough of a punch that its fun to keep it going. Otherwise I think the AI does ok for the first few rounds, but after its starting reserve is expended it gets bogged down pretty hard, and can't move enough aircraft or ships to prevent an easy rout.
The sub pens are pretty badass for Axis. It gives them a way to maintain parity if they go naval, but I also think the air transports can be kind of nuts, once they park a half a dozen somewhere with a lot of fighters. The AI of course doesn't use them to their fullest extent ferrying ground, but even just as fodder they can do some cool sweeps against ships. But yeah, the pens are hella potent once you start stacking up.
ps. got a fun one going vs Axis at 145% where I tried to do a Russian transport thing in the baltic. Basically giving up the middle to try and switch places with Germany haha.
Hard AI Axis 145 USA round 5.tsvg
Few rounds later, Japan is still kicking and pretty thorough with their island hop and tank launch. Italy and Balkans are still trying to throw their weight around to make up for the loss of Berlin.
Hard AI Axis 145 Russia round 9.tsvg
And then again a few rounds after KGF, AI Japan still doing pretty well all by itself into round 16 with the boost at 145% vs the rest of the world lol. Its been a while since the UK has had enough fuel to move their airtransports, so we're counting on those to cover north america while everyone else dodeca-teams godzilla.
Hard AI Axis 145 USA round 16.tsvg
Playing as the Allies is fun, but I still feel like they could use some more +5 production lily pads on the pacific side. Like maybe a couple starting Japanese island territories that the Allies can target to build out of? Here I totally ignored that side in favor of trying to screw G, but for the Pacific game I think it would be cool if Anzac and USA had another spot to gun for after Truk but before they swoop on coastal China/Thailand.
I think Iwo could be fun, though probably Okinawa makes more sense for the size. Maybe Sakhalin, since it was like a prestige target/bone of contention between Russia and Japan going back like a 100 years, is large and had resources. I think it would be a cool way to add something to the choice between going north vs south with Japan, and make it a little more challenging to cover everything at once. Maybe could be offset on the Allied side by Southern Alaska? The north pacific has a lot of potential for back and forth, but its kind of a production deadzone currently, so might benefit from another couple golden tiles that can support a factory.
Kamchatka maybe? A counter weight to the Sumatra/India expansion route would offer some variety, if you want to imagine say a scenario where Japan went to war vs Russia first instead of the USA. Or a scenario where the USA goes straight after the North Pacific instead of the South Pacific, or vice versa with Japan trying to springboard east rather than west. I think you could hang like 4 Russian inf here, so Japan has to divert a second transport or the bomber or something if they want to make a run at it. Kamchatka is also interesting because it can be covered by USA or Britain if Russia is backed up, or if Russia is destroyed they can reclaim it directy, which might help them to reposition on the North Pacific if Axis crush the center. Plus its got the RISK connection, so I think people would dig it hehe.
Midway is a bit of a stretch, but might also be cool for the Pacific, since its midway. Call it a historical highlight or whatever hehe. I think the gold tiles are cool abstractions that really activate the region they're in, so I think any of those options would fit with the spread and jumpstart the action around them. They make all the surrounding +1 tiles a lot more interesting when there is an adjacent production hub, and I think it helps the gameflow when you have ways to push production to the fronts, so the fleets and forces aren't stranded on the move as much.
On the Europe side I still really like Sicily and Algeria as potential gold tiles to open up the western med a bit. Greece on the Eastern side of the med for a toss up toehold next to Balkans. Benelux for the North Sea.
Yeah I don't know, I think it would be cool if each side had like 1 dragon to start, maybe randomized between the 3 factions on each team, so you don't know if its going to the dwarves or elves or humans etc, but know you'll have at least one. You could still compete for the remaining neutral dragons, but given how potent they are esp vs fleets, it'd be nice if the red and blue were always paired off against each other on opposing sides.
Haha yeah looks like that wizard mopped up. Evil converging on land and dominating the high seas. I'd say good is finished. Nice one!
Its an Ironhorn turtle up hehe. The dwarves are digging in for a bloodbath
TripleA Turn Summary for game: Dragon War, version: 1.2.5
Game History
Round: 8
Combat Move - Elves
1 Wood-Elves moved from Oorsik Forest to Sea Zone 8
1 Hvy-Infantry and 3 Wood-Elvess moved from Deldrach to Sea Zone 8
3 Biremes, 1 Hvy-Infantry and 4 Wood-Elvess moved from Sea Zone 8 to Sea Zone 11
1 Hvy-Infantry and 4 Wood-Elvess moved from Sea Zone 11 to Blood Hills
2 Auxiliariess moved from The Outlands to Doomed Bridge
1 Auxiliaries moved from Athondir to Durlan Steppes
Combat - Elves
Battle in Doomed Bridge
Elves attack with 2 Auxiliariess
Murlocs defend with 1 Murloc
Elves roll dice for 2 Auxiliariess in Doomed Bridge, round 2 : 0/2 hits, 0.50 expected hits
Murlocs roll dice for 1 Murloc in Doomed Bridge, round 2 : 0/1 hits, 0.25 expected hits
Elves roll dice for 2 Auxiliariess in Doomed Bridge, round 3 : 1/2 hits, 0.50 expected hits
Murlocs roll dice for 1 Murloc in Doomed Bridge, round 3 : 0/1 hits, 0.25 expected hits
1 Murloc owned by the Murlocs lost in Doomed Bridge
Elves win, taking Doomed Bridge from Murlocs with 2 Auxiliariess remaining. Battle score for attacker is 7
Casualties for Murlocs: 1 Murloc
Non Combat Move - Elves
Purchase Units - Elves
Note to players Elves: An Elven Wizard stands ready in Athondir.Wizards are capable of supporting up to 10 military units in battle. These 10 units will receive attack bonuses. Wizards are also capable of flying o....
Trigger Elves acquire a Wizard: Elves has 1 Wizard placed in Athondir
Elves buy 3 Mariness; Remaining resources: 5 PUs; 8 Food; 11 Wood; 0 Metal;
Place Units - Elves
3 Mariness placed in Athondir
Turn Complete - Elves
Trigger Wood-Elves in Oorsik Forest: Elves has 1 Wood-Elves placed in Oorsik Forest
Trigger Auxiliaries in Athondir: Elves has 1 Auxiliaries placed in Athondir
Elves collect 29 PUs; end with 34 PUs
Units generate 3 Metal; Elves end with 3 Metal
Units generate 4 Food; Elves end with 12 Food
Units generate 9 Wood; Elves end with 20 Wood
Units generate -15 PUs; Elves end with 19 PUs
Combat Hit Differential Summary :
Murlocs regular : -0.50
Elves regular : 0.00