Posts made by Black_Elk

@ff03k64 In the earlier iterations fuel was first a purchasing requirement similar to steel. So some units would cost X fuel to build. Then in the next version after that, fuel was an upkeep thing. So "fuel" units there would consume not during purchase but every turn based on how many of such units were on the board. It was basically a cap on the total number of fuel units that could be in play at any one time (unless those units were also being destroyed through attrition ,eventually the player would run dry simply by having a bunch of tanks, ships and whathaveyou. already on the board.) Then I think it may have gone back to the purchasing requirement thing for a little but, before the more substantial change was made with 1.9 where fuel become attached to movement. I think that's the change being referenced in the quote above.

The last two big changes regarding fuel were the resource exchange phase, and the introduction of the synth barrel as a unit that can be purchased which produces fuel, but which is destroyed rather than captured when the territory is taken over.

Anyhow its gone through a number of tweaks before arriving at the current. Each iteration had unique sort of spin or strategic aspect that was a little different. I think the current is the most novel, since I haven't really seen a resource=movement type thing used on another WW2 themed map before. This one is innovative in that regard, but also maybe less familiar. Steel has analogs in a lot of other maps, where you maybe need Wood or Metal or whatever. But needing a resource to move stuff around is pretty wild. I think it creates certain play drivers that I haven't seen in operation before this one, so its fun to tease that stuff out.

I like the concept a lot, but do worry a little that it may be a bit onerous to track. Unlike steel or PUs, its much harder to get a sense of how much fuel one actually needs, or how disruptive the loss of say a single barrel might be, not just for yourself but also for the opponent. The general sense I have is that the easiest way to screw the enemy in this game is to steel their oil hehe, because after the second round everyone who hasn't invested in green barrels is probably running dry. I think its kinda cool cause it encourages the purchase of the green barrels, though admittedly when I do so I'm usually just guessing at what amounts would be needed, cause its hard to parse. For a shorthand I try to think that I need basically 2 fuel for every steel unit I have on the board, to move unhindered. But for the larger nations the exact numbers there are harder to see at a glance than it is for the smaller nations. I tend to pick up a fuel barrel whenever I have a 5 PUs remainder that I can't spend otherwise, usually from lack of steel to buy a light tank. But I tend to do it more as an impulse buy, rather than from having a real clear sense of like "oh damn I need 3 more movement next turn, so I better make sure I buy 3 synth barrels and not 2!" hehe its never that exact for me. But maybe I'm shitty at counting on the fly, or taking the time to truly map out every movement contingency. Usually its just like 'well, we know we don't have enough, so better buy it whenever we can, unless the enemy is banging down the doors" lol

I think the best fuel exploit I've come up with is carrier camping. Basically sending 1 friendly fighters to hang out on a teammates deck, because then the fighter will taxi along with the carrier, but without consuming fuel. I think its helpful to leave 2 spots open on deck for your own fighters or so that a bomber can land if it has to, just to enable attacks. Sometimes camping fighters can get mixed up though, if there are multiple carriers in the same zone. Or two carriers from different nations on the same team. Really helpful to be able to move a heavy hitting defensive unit without needing as much fuel. Cause the worst is getting stuck in a situation where you want to move a carrier deck, but can't because your own fighters would require too much fuel to move.

A stacked carrier with 3 of your own fighters, requires like 8 fuel to move a full two spaces max distance. Whereas stacked with 3 friendly fighters on deck it only costs 2 fuel to move the same distance, but still gives the defense. Still I think you can run into problems with fully stacked decks. Sometimes its better to just roll with 1 or 2 fighters on board, so you can do gamey stuff moving a teammates air around or enable attacks that wouldn't otherwise have a landing spot. But it can be really potent once the little guys start contributing a fighter here and there to up the carrier game,

There are some other camping type moves that can also be done. Like trying to position subs, tanks or aircraft at placement into places where they can stay put for a round if need be. Trying to find ways to only move 1 tile rather than 2 whenever possible to conserve, or just skipping a round entirely to allow a major fleet movement later. Frequently I will just leave the subs or air-transports that spawn regularly in the position where they were placed initially, just so I can move more critical units like naval transports or carriers. I think the only thing that keeps the bomber unit from being really OP is the fuel cost, since most nations can't bank enough fuel to have more than 1 or 2 flying around without everything else grinding to a halt as a result haha

---

ps. Axis just murdered in the 3rd round. HardAI soviets seem to have trouble managing the G3 hit. They attempt to stack Leningrad, but at hopeless odds. With the transported units the attack was 100% in Germany's favor. So I'd think they'd withdraw, but the gravitational pull of that choke point at the Leningrad pocket is just too much for them I guess lol.

2020-10-6-Iron-War 3.1 Hard AI Allies J3.tsvg

Started a game as Allies, will have to finish tomorrow. Sleep calls
2020-10-6-Iron-War 3.1 Hard AI Axis USSR2.tsvg

pps. Oh one other thing I meant to mention but keep forgetting hehe, I would suggest setting a faster fade put on the Chinese national anthem. Their turn is usually pretty quick, so what happens to me a lot is that the China music starts bleeding into the Brazilian anthem at the end of the game round and sounds kind of jarringly dissonant quite often.

The game from yesterday was going pretty well, it took about 4 rounds to handled the mideast factions and a pretty thorough commitment from British India. Axis were holding steady but for some reason G decided to suicide vs the Leningrad stack last round. I think they had odds on the attack, but after a bad first round of the combat phase they pressed the attack even though the return fire was certain to see all their aircraft destroyed. I've caught it happen a few times where they AI keeps fighting when it would probably be better to retreat and cut the losses. With the smaller battles they do it more reliably, but for the big battles they tend to go all in and just fight to the death sometimes.

Anyhow USSR4
2020-10-6-Iron-War 3.1 Hard AI Axis USSR4.tsvg

Just played a round, felt pretty good. I like the Iran/Iraq order better. Maybe just the orientation jump back helps I think, and alphabetical that way too.

Here I went with an Italian reinforcement in the first round to try and hold the line. Then flew in the pair of German starting fighters for added defense. Iran had a money sweep with the PT boats vs the British-India fleet, but then Iraq whiffed at Syria hehe. Anyhow, here we are on Italy2, feels good from Axis perspective. I'll switch sides to Allies later after I play a bit to see how it feels from Soviet perspective, but so far seems cool.

2020-10-6-Iron-War 3.1 Hard AI Allies Italy2.tsvg

Yeah that might be a cool solution. Better at roughly 50/50 I'd think, because then if USSR tries and fails the Axis would get two shots to shut down the Western Turkistan blitz route. I think the options for a second round hit vs Iran kinda hinge on whether the mech/sp artillery can be brought into the fight. So that way Iran could try to shut it down first, and if they don't succeed, Iraq would still have the tank and fighter in range to try and make a save. Whereas going the reverse order its anyones guess how the Iran fight go hehe. I think the Iraq tank is more valuable used in the west, but I'd first take stock of how Iran held up. Other option might be like a naval escape of some sort. I was trying to think if there might be a good way to trade Iran itself for Riyadh, maybe using Italy fleet or something like that. But obv better to try and hold the line for a couple rounds if possible hehe

The fighter move I like (since the introduction of Soviet Caspian PT boat makes caspian attack less attractive), is still to try and kill the British-India transport by using the Iraqi PT boats and fighter there. But if Iran went first I think that would be more elective, since priority would prob be western Turkistan to hold the line. Iran then Iraq would allow for a somewhat stronger can opener, if they want to do a tank type thing instead of fighters. I think fighters are strongest, but first gotta get up to 20 on income to make it consistent. I still haven't decided which way I like best to try and divide up the middle east between the various Axis powers in range. Its a cool zone because pretty much every faction can reach it after a few rounds.

ps. This one has been pretty fun. First time I've had to manage a German press on the north, (I expected them to push Stalingrad, but they doubled back with huge numbers) Soviets had to withdraw. First time to see the Kuybyshev factory making a difference maybe. Trying to reform the line cause I can't see a way to keep the combined Axis juggernaut from sacking Moscow and Arch this round heheh. Meanwhile though they've been kicking ass and taking names in the Soviet Far East. I went with a KJF attack plan, bought a bomber at Irkutsk. Entertaining so far!

2020-10-5-Iron-War 3.0 Hard AI axis +150 bonus rematch USA4.tsvg

Hehe just helped my dad move, arms feel like Jello, so I thought I'd fire up another, switching sides this time vs HardAI Axis at 150% income.

2020-10-5-Iron-War 3.0 Hard AI axis +150 bonus USSR1.tsvg

One thing I think that can be done to increase the challenge vs hardAI, is to reload the combat phase if the AI nation makes a particularly lackluster combat move. So here on G1, the HardAI initially wanted to just attack Denmark, Belo, and France light. After reloading they also moved against Benelux, Switzerland and France heavy in this instance, and bombed moscow. So that's a way to at least get a stronger opening going vs the machine I think. This one they did pretty well for the distribution, Belo attack is fairly high risk, but has a nice payoff in that makes the cracking of Balkans harder to pull off.

I'd imagine at 150% priority would be to knock off one of the little guys to get stuff rolling and prevent Axis from crushing too quickly. With Balkans shot kinda iffy I still think cleanest kill is on Iran. But whether Soviets can break both Iran and Iraq without folding everywhere else I guess is what we'll find out heheh.

I think there may be an exploit vs Japan which I haven't yet tried in Iron War.

Anyhow, catch ya in a few hours

OK this was the plan to screw Japan heheh...

2020-10-5-Iron-War 3.0 Hard AI axis +150 bonus KNIL1 placement.tsvg

KNIL unfortunately failed in the final the coup to steal Palau before J1, but otherwise everything went off without a hitch. The idea was basically to box in the Imperial Japanese Navy by throwing up pickets everywhere we could.

Soviets placed a Destroyer in Sea of Japan. French Colonies blocked the approach to French Indo and Philippines, KNIL throws everything forward to block the Truk line. I'm pretty sure the computer will brain freeze, but I think that's probably what I'd do in PvP, so just curious what the machine will think on it lol.

We'll find out soon enough

Meantime HardAI Italy took the Regia Marina after the British Colonies fleet and failed miserably. I gave 'em reload and they had a better luck the second time. But they also flew the fighters away from the sea zone battle to El Alamein in the process. I think the AI probably calculates how to use aircraft for an attack from whatever position they're in, even if there's already assigned to a battle? Probably why G bombs SBR when given the reload. But anyway, for the first round I think it probably helps, since they will typically run an additional attack or two. Stronger opening press from Axis generally, which I think is what they need to be doing.

Trying to figure out what I want to do with the Brit Block now. I set the French pocket fleet up to guard Ireland Celtic Sea zone so I'll prob buy a carrier and see if we can hold vs Kriegsmarine. Our Soviets kicked ass in all their naval escapades and even snapped up Norway with a balls amphib action, so hopefully Mecha G is just too distracted to even deal with the Royal Navy for now lol

2020-10-5-Iron-War 3.0 Hard AI axis +150 bonus Britain1.tsvg

Japan went after the pickets, They swept pretty hard, but the Dutch transport survived hehe. Might not be as brutal as I'd hoped, since J still has strong transport position, but least we had em spreading around. Will have to mull over the American opener for a bit I think. I think at 150% to Ai Axis, USA probably has to go big time to have an impact in time haha.

2020-10-5-Iron-War 3.0 Hard AI axis +150 bonus USA1.tsvg

I decided to spread the love around with USA, just sent everyone the max cash and bought a transport, since clearly Japan was preoccupied. China banged out a win in both Shanghai and Canton, so they're sitting pretty. Brazil went boom into Argentina.

I gotta say, the USSR music is really enjoyable hehe. Our decision to stack Eastern Finland was probably ill advised, since I didn't catch the dudes up in Lapland. They had us dead to rights, but as it happened their attack failed spectacularly! I'd give em another go at it, but neah, the music says hymn to red october! The sub and transport both survived! We must fight for fortress Norway hehe
But that'll have to wait for tomorrow since I'm all zorsted out.

2020-10-5-Iron-War 3.0 Hard AI axis +150 bonus USSR2.tsvg

see ya next round

Bah who needs sleep? Total Victory out of the second round!

Allies snitched 22 VCs before USA2. Basically I just sacked French Colonies to kill Thailand. The plan was a quadruple hit, but French Colonies and the Dutch got the job done before British India or ANZAC were even up hehe. So they just stacked it. South Africa killed Somalia with a transport purchase in round 1. Russia smoked Iran R2 no contest. So I guess Norway and Finland by the skin of my teeth was just a bonus lol. Fun stuff! Hard AI was no match for the quick kill attack plan this time. Will play again tomorrow if I got a few hours

2020-10-5-Iron-War 3.0 Hard AI axis +150 bonus USA2 Victory.tsvg

---

Rematch haha

I tried a similar opener for the Russians, though this time with the focus on Balkans. I think its too good to pass up Germany doesn't reinforce it, or kill Belo or Ukraine on their first turn to push that attack out of range.

I'm still not sure there's really anything Axis can do to prevent Iran from dying in the second round. Its possible for Russia to get a lot of hitpoints on it if they want to, and the payoff is pretty solid if they can take at advantage. So I think a max commitment (basically German and Italy reinforcing) is the only way to prevent it, trying to make the fight too expensive for Russia to be worthwhile. But whether to attack or not is still the Soviet prerogative, so they can just position/purchase to threaten the kill shot without actually taking it. That's what I did here...

2020-10-5-Iron-War 3.0 Hard AI axis +150 bonus rematch Britain1.tsvg

Alternatively Soviets could try to just kill Iran outright. If they bring everything in range 6 inf and 1 aagun, they have a better than 60% chance of knocking off Iran before Axis can even get a build out of it.

Only the German bomber is in a position to reach Iran on G1, and to do so requires flying over space with AAfire.

Even if Germany flies the bomber over, this still only takes the attack down to basically a coin flip, 50/50. But with such huge payoff, that I think it might even make the attack more attractive rather than serving as a deterrent. Then it'd be potentially over 100 PUs in enemy TUV destroyed (if including the factory kill), which is pretty juicy, and Soviets only risking like 70 TUV to make it happen. The downside isn't too shabby either, even if the attack fails, since you can still position for USSR2 take, with the mech and sp artillery from Siberia, or with transports and air... likely facing fewer enemy units the second time around provided the first attack shaves off a few hitpoint or two.

If USSR takes Iran outright, Iraq can likely reclaim it on the first turn, but that still weakens Axis overall position defending against British-Colonies from the West, or British-India from the East. So I can't see a downside really to gunning for Iran early as Allies/Soviet Union. It feels kinda scripted in the same way as like Paris falling for the other team. Its going to happen, question is just how much gets committed to the take down and possibly drawn away from another front as a result. Anyhow, I went for round 2 timing here again, but I think in PvP a first round hit on Iran would be a pretty good gambit for Allies under the current set up 3.0

Norway is also pretty decent attacks if Germany doesn't block at barrents sea zone. That one is at like 65% odds to the Soviet attacker. It pulls off a few hitpoints from the Finland/German front, and transport seems like it should die as a result but for the VC and the 5 spot, its not too shabby. Lapland seems the most conservative if just trying to grab some steel, but Narvik also has similar odds, if trying for a spot that UK/USA don't want quite so desperately lol. I like the new options provided by the changes. Not sure on balance who has the edge yet, but I enjoy that it adds to the strategic depth of the opener.

In this one I didn't screw Japan as hard as I did last time by placing a naval unit at Vladivostok. I think a PT boat there or Destroyer can cause a lot of headaches for team skynet. Seems like a dust in the eyes Bloodsport type move that I'd reserve only for when I want to fight dirty, or maybe risk a nut punch. Cause its still kinda of pricy to sack all those subs, or buy even more naval stuff just for it to die in a distraction. And anyhow, French Colonies and KNIL can do some pretty mean street fighting on their own, just with those mini fleets going all agro and throwing down a couple clutch naval blocking plays haha.

This time I didn't do any resource exchange for Britain either, cause I wanted a carrier and a transport hehe, but it could be pretty potent I think, just shifting some money around on the first turn to one of their satellite factions.

2020-10-5-Iron-War 3.0 Hard AI axis +150 bonus rematch USA1.tsvg

Big play from HardAI USA!

They sank my massive German surface fleet at anchor off Normandy with like 30 aircraft! It was a sav move. I think they may have kamikaze'd like a third of their airforce just to make the hit from Iceland. My wolfpack cut down their carrier, and dove, but they snapped up Gibraltar at the same time with a sneaky transport sacrifice to cut off the surviving U-boats from the Med!

Slick play HardAI, slick play! heheheh

Italy mad a big push to kill South Africa once and for all, but then had to absorb some heat coming up the middle. Japan made a breakneck spearhead towards Siberia last round, but USA crept on the home island. Put my India campaign on ice. Had to pull the main fleet back again.

Still going into Early 1945
Not bad lol

2020-10-1-Iron-War 3.0 Hard AI allies +150 bonus G11.tsvg

Still grinding. It was down to Finland to snake Siberia, but the Soviets still got some kick. The Brits and Americans have started to shuck up into Soviet Far East. Germany rebuilt a pocket fleet up in the far north. Moved on Afghanistan to try and help the Japanese finish off India. Italy is contesting a pretty beefy Allied fleet still lurking in the Indian Ocean! The south african carrier remains a menace hehehe. Had to go on defense and regroup, after a failed drive into Congo. Dutch tanks in Morocco helped AI Allies to get into the mix on the North Africa front.

2020-10-1-Iron-War 3.0 Hard AI allies +150 bonus G13.tsvg

Kept going till it stopped showing the years hehe. I think it must be 1950 by now
Allies did a pretty good fighting withdrawal. Took like 20 rounds to handle Eurasia, and then another couple to bring South America online. Britain has like 40 fighters in Vancouver hehe. I gotta imagine if they took to the skies it would make invasion USA a lot harder lol. The other factions do pretty well with fuel at 150%. I'm sure they're still getting screwed by it, but USSR and USA seemed to move around pretty effectively, and most of the smaller nations got something going. I think Britain's production to fuel ration is still kinda low, since they take a big hit on their reserve once the Middle East is taken. The other dozen barrels are pretty safe in Canada, but they burn through that usually just moving the ships, so I suspect the aircraft that might move on non com just get kinda stranded where they're placed. Anyhow G25. Pretty fun, I'll try switching sides and doing the same tomorrow

2020-10-1-Iron-War 3.0 Hard AI allies +150 bonus G25.tsvg

Yeah it was innovative to use TUV as a means of tweaking the AIs behavior in casualty selection, and targeting attacks.

I can definitely see it going on with the air-transport, since I think that is now the most valuable unit. I've seen the AI take a casualty on a battleship over the air-transport as the attacker. Maybe since the AI already seems to privilege' air over naval for units of equivalent value (which makes sense generally.) I think maybe just making the air transport slightly more badass on attack would be a good way to go. Attack 3 defend 1, still basically just a hitpoint with wings, but more on par with art boosted inf for an independent attack value. The computer uses them strictly like fighters, so at least they'd be a bit cooler sans transportation aspect.

I think the higher TUV value is maybe also what draws the computer to Rally Points? That's cool

I agree that if TUV can be used to coax the AI into regarding territories with resources or factories as being more important, then that would make a ton of sense. As a stat TUV is kind of vague anyway, it gives a sense of the overall unit value in play, but without the nuance, Production Income and total unit number are more useful for the quick read anyway, so TUV value of units could be a cool way to actually get the AI to fight harder on the map.

I think there's a bit of an appetite for cool solo games, so this could be a fun one to try it. Or perhaps instead of meddling too much with the vanilla, we could build out an experimental version and try more of those ideas. With the understanding that the scenario is meant more for that style of play than PvP. Finding a fuel amount that works, or using triggers, whatever makes sense. I think a simplified turn sequence could make it pretty quick even with HardAI, surely with FastAI. Then provide some kind of difficulty setting that can be modified along one dimension or another, to set the play scale. You know, like from "Newb" to "Advanced" to "Wheel of Pain" levels of difficulty heheh, just based on the recommended launch settings/game notes.

@Schulz I agree with @ff03k64 the simplest way to change the challenge scale would be a way to give the AI more fuel. Unfortunately right now you can't do this directly from the launch screen or via the edit mode.

It will allow the user to edit the PUs of each nation, but not the other resources. Same deal at the launch window you can add PUs as bonus income but not steel or fuel. If you change the income percentage, then it will increase all PUs and Resources by that level. So if you just want to add 50% more fuel, you'd have to do the same with Steel and PUs.

You can edit add fuel units manually, but that's kinda cumbersome. I think the AI should just automatically get unlimed fuel on this map, it's the only for their moves not to break down when a lot of fuel units enter play through purchase. If fuel could be made unlimited for the AI, that'd give a baseline challenge level, then adding income % or flat bonus from the launch menu would be an easier way to scale it, since you could go up more incrementally that way. 110% 115% 120% etc or just give a flat bonus. This map doesn't have a bid like some others, instead its a choice of recurring bonus at various levels. A bid might be interesting, but probably the computer would goof it in weird ways and the number would end up needing to be much larger.

For this one I think it becomes kind of unplayable at 150%, because the real determining factor there is whether Russia or Germany is made so strong through a bonus that it can just steamroll everything in its path hehe. But other than that most of the naval powers can still be handled at 150%, in regions where the stack contest isn't as massive its not as big of an issue. Just a longer grind that way. Probably with a bunch of scrub reloads to actually win lol, kinda the way most single player campaign games work in other franchises. Choosing the ultra hard setting probably entails a few re-tries at that level I'd guess. At that kind of income boost, I think any kind of metagaming is chill. A lot comes down to killing some enemy factories really quickly before they can build up out of hand, especially since where the little guys can stack up in concert. Actually I'm kind of curious I might play one out tonight just to see what it looks like now with all the rally points. I think they might make a big difference with helping the AI to manage at a higher overall income level.

Ok here is first attempt as Axis vs HardAI Allies at 150% under the 3.0 set up. I tried for the max pressure possible on Leningrad right here at G3. Round 1 bought 3 additional transports, Round 2 max artillery for the amphib with the remainder of purchase on a fighter and a tank destroyer. For Italy plan was basically to shore up the Egypt and then Gibraltar as main priority round 2. Japan went Philippines and French Indo on J1, Changsha and Sumatra by the skin of our teeth on J2, which I think is about as far as Japan is going to get here, before needing to double back on coverage to secure Manchuria from Soviet aggression. Russia collecting at like 200 per turn after the boost (plus all the extra officers and steel etc) makes for a pretty scary Russian Bear ready to maul! Here they stacked the Leningrad VC with as many tanks as they could for defense, but Germany still has the overall hitpoint advantage. Pretty close so far.... but I think round 3 is the critical round. Either Axis make the big crack here to stay in the running or else AI Allies will stack too heavy to crush with such a high bonus. I think it works in the opener at this level but after the next few rounds I imagine the AI starts to really stack up. I'll keep it going for a few and see what tricks they pull lol

2020-10-1-Iron-War 3.0 Hard AI allies +150 bonus G 3 combat.tsvg

2020-10-1-Iron-War 3.0 Hard AI allies +150 bonus G 3 placement.tsvg

Went for the Moscow snag with Finland but got turned back! Figures hehe. Anyhow here's how AI Stalin chose to counter... Not bad considering.

2020-10-1-Iron-War 3.0 Hard AI allies +150 bonus Italy 3.tsvg

The AI undervalues Arch, but least they attempted re-stack at Moscow. Would have been interesting to see how it would look instead of the Soviets had just withdrawn their Leningrad stack to Arch or Moscow initially. Not sure if the AI was able to parse out the amphib threat? The large battles can have a really dramatic swing, so perhaps its not a bad risk with such huge numbers, but pretty sure we had them smoked no matter what they built at Leningrad with every German unit available for the G3 hit.

Here it is a round later on G4...

2020-10-1-Iron-War 3.0 Hard AI allies +150 bonus G4.tsvg

At 150% the HardAI Allies have been able to move many more aircraft to the front, so its starting to get a little interesting here. The smaller guys that we weren't able to knock off in the opening rounds are starting to build pretty steady. Just saw a South African carrier make a move against Italy off the coast of East Africa hehe. Not bad! At this point its a little tough to say which battle front would be best to focus on. I think G probably has to keeping dumping hitpoints into the fight with Russia or risk getting stalemated on the Eastern Front. But everywhere else I think there are at least 2 or 3 directions one might go from here, which is cool. I'm zorsted for the night, but I'll keep it rolling tomorrow and see what cracks off in the midgame. Catch you guys in a few

Best Elk

woke up in the middle of the night decided to rock a few more rounds haha. Axis took the TKO in the 5th round for VCs, but I'm pressing on because most of the Allied units are just getting into place. Eastern front has been rolled pretty thoroughly by Germany. It took a few rounds to get the Italian and Japanese fronts stabilized, but they're up to snuff on production now. Some of the little guys are still hammering away hehe. South Africa just took Riyadh! Upsetting Iranian ambitions across the gulf just as they seemed to finally be breaking out lol.

I'd say the major dilemma right now is actually getting the German fleet to forward position off Normandy. USA has like 25 aircraft in range to join their fleet, so I just bought a gang of German PT boats and am waiting on to move one spot at a time. I fear the Italian fleet may be vulnerable if I don't get em together pretty soon hehe. Italy can't take that kind of heat yet. Japan last round finally got the production game going after some back and forth mainly with transports. We got the US to break ranks when we repositioned the IJN off coast of Shanghai. I think it might actually be the strongest home fleet position for Japan now that the Rally points at Iwo Okinawa and Changsha allow for builds there. We expanded at Shanghai last round just to ice it for bigger naval spams hehe. USA thus far has only placed transports in the Atlantic theater.

Anyhow, here it is on J6 still going to town. Pretty enjoyable, at least AI has got more stuff moving around feels doable at 150% at least as Axis vs HardAI Allies..

2020-10-1-Iron-War 3.0 Hard AI allies +150 bonus Japan 6.tsvg

Oh just saw USA buy transports for the Pacific. I did a sneaky strike against Truk while we had our guard down. On the Atlantic side they threw some sacrifice transports forward to liberate Normandy and take Morocco with light forces, repositioning their main fleet on Atlantic Sea Zone 3. It may the opening the Kriegsmarine has been waiting for! heheh

2020-10-1-Iron-War 3.0 Hard AI allies +150 bonus G8.tsvg

Night!

I was thinking the same thing earlier tonight, regarding a possible collapsing of minor nations into the larger ones, still retaining a 6 block turn order, but with fewer nations as separate players. I think that might work well for a 1941 scheme where total war conditions and larger break outs would make more sense. The separate smaller nations in this one are a novelty I think, like cool to imagine playing as Free France and the like. But I could also see an advantage to having a single player per turn block, just because it would play faster per round.

One possible idea would be to retain the map and unit roster ruleset etc, but just dime it out to a 6 man.
Germany, USSR, Italy, Britain, Japan, USA using neutrals in such a way that Allies have to bring their territories on board in the opening rounds.

So as an example China/Brazil could be under a US aegis, Free France could be under Britain etc.

The main challenge usually with these games is how to handle the UKs sprawling starting territories and how to balance the production spread off that. One possibility would be to split the UK in two: the British Empire, and the Commonwealth Dominions.

British Empire would be UK home islands + Labrador and Newfoundland in North America, the Atlantic/Caribbean, West Africa, Egypt and India. Using the British unit set

Dominions would basically be the rest, Canada, South Africa, ANZAC/Pacific etc probably using the British Colonies or British India unit set for the most adaptive look.

Then KNIL, France territories could either made neutral or assigned to one or the other British faction depending on the balance and gameplay interest. For turn order I think you could just block them together in the same sequence, so one moves after the other, but with different production to try and maintain the scale by sides.
,
I can also imagine how it might look with all British territories under a single faction like Classic/AA50 etc, but on a map this scale I kinda think a split would work better. I kinda like the division into Empire and Dominions, but it could also go Atlantic/Pacific split along that mid east meridian the way global has it. But even that one threw ANZAC into the Mix for charm heheh.

China I think you could do direct US/Soviet control, by having a pocket territory at +5 and a rally point that each could start out with and the rest neutrals that have to be claimed. US controlled China would represent Nationalist controlled KMT, Soviet Controlled China would represent Communist controlled CCP.

The smaller Axis factions could be split between Germany or Italy, or made a neutral that they can take over and I think you'd have something pretty clean. It would be liked a faster slimmed down primer, maybe easier to pick up, but still using new resources and the roster, the tech, ruleset etc. I'd almost think if going that route where each player/faction is larger in terms of starting territory, that the number of starting units could be scaled down somewhat, or re-distributed to offset whatever change in territory ownership/production makes sense for doing something like that.

Anyhow, I agree that the map would be cool trying to do the original nations. I think I like the 6 block sequence for this one, over the 5 man of Classic. The way the rules work, its better to have another Axis nation in the sequence for can opener disrupting, than it is to have Allied piggyback USA/USSR like the older games so I'd keep Italy in the mix. But yeah, the itself map is rad. I think it could definitely support something like that as a variant, maybe 1941 start date?

ps. Just for a rough estimate, if every sensible Atlantic territory went to Britain for direct control (i.e. all of Africa, France, French colonies etc) its about 140-50 PUs. If every territory in the Pacific is assigned to India its about 80-100 PUs depending on whether of not the Dutch are included or just made neutral. That actually seems like a pretty workable scale to me. The tension on the one side would be between India and the South Pacific, on the other side between Western Europe and Africa basically. I can also see ways that it could be divided up more in terms of who controls what, if doing a Dominions style approach. You could have some areas on either side of the map controlled by one British Factions or the other just for variety, but Atlantic/Pacific might be simpler. Alternatively a single faction where everything is controlled just by Britain also seems workable, provided they had fewer starting units as an offset, and of course assuming Axis will conquer a large part of it in the opening round. That's basically how Classic worked, but of course on a much larger map here haha

Here's a quicky example of how it might look, just using edit mode to clear it down for a draft.

I put some flags in there just for the decorative aspect hehe. Just meant to show how China or France/Vichy and whatnot might be done. I used french colonies flags to show vichy territories under Axis aegis at the outset. Or put them from the just to show which stuff changed hands from one side to the other. This based on the Dec 1941 territorial extent basically, eve of Pearl Harbor. Obviously starting units would need to be reworked for later period, but shows how the territory divisions might break down with a UK faction split Atlantic/Pacific style.

2020-9-30-Iron-War 6 MAN Brit Split with flags.tsvg

Think something with that sort of vibe might work? Might be fun for a spin off

Also just finished another Solo play as USA/China/Brazil. Pretty solid for the entertainment factor. I dig it how the US actually has a reason to try and move on both sides of the board, whereas in A&A its usually optimal to focus on one side over the other. Rally Point had a kinda interesting effect of making the core Japanese territories pretty well stacked for the endgame. Iwo and such sporting like 10 hitpoints a pop, which was cool. We managed to press pretty well into the Med. The rally points there make that front more engaging. I think Spanish landing would probably be fairly standard, since the best +5 other than Norway to try and get something going early on vs Axis. In this one I locked down as soon as I could and then kept gunning on Libya. I enjoy how there are more stepping stones now. Anyhow here it was at the dawn of the nuclear era hehe right before we actually nuked anything.

2020-9-30-Iron-War 3.0 solo USA 12.tsvg

I think in general I've favored adding VCs, just since there are so many possible spots that might make sense historically. But the rally point actually functions more the way I wish VCs did in the regular games. Something that has an in game application beyond just the Win conditions. I kinda just play to watch the map change colors after a certain point though lol. For a PvP type situation it'd be more relevant for sure than it is in the skynet stomp. I definitely dig the latest iteration with the rally point. I think those are definitely a great add

Ok I ran a Japan solo under 3.0 to see how it played. I enjoyed the dynamic much more under the latest build. The introduction of the Rally-point makes a huge difference for the production front, definitely the best thing going on here and most interesting change from the previous build. Japan feels much more realistic for a 1940 start date and really has to make some choices especially about where to send starting transports, and whether or when to buy more transports.

Unfortunatley the HardAI seems not to purchase many transports in Pacific, and there is some oddball behavior leaving them loaded constantly. I don't know if that's map specific or if its maybe transports on the fritz the same way factories are? But in any case, just having the rally-point makes in there makes all the areas where they exist more interesting. The computer spawns hitpoints at them, and seems to target the opponents rally-points so that is great. Air transports I think the computer may be overvaluing, since I recall seeing them sometimes take a hit on a fighter or capital ship before the transport. I almost wonder if the attack value of the air transport should just be raised so that it function a little more like a fighter on attack? Currently they are attack 1 defend 1, but might be fun if they were like attack 3 defend 1. Like a supped up artillery/mech with wings. Anyhow just an idea, for the most part I like the way everything feels. Obviously the computer doesn't transport anything along with their air transports. So right now it just uses air transports as a hitpoint, but I think its TUV value has it remaining as last casualty in the air. This kind of makes sense for a tranport, since the ability to move a hitpoint is huge. But slight attack increase might make that feel more sensible. Right now I'd say the factory bug is the biggest thing, but I wonder if some transport stuff is wonky. Mech fortunatly still transports inf around. I remember redrum mentioned at some point doing air transport for AI, but not sure if that's still slated?

Anyhow here is the Japan solo. I went with the center crush tactic. USA has the Midway rally point stacked pretty heavy, so going high castle seems like a tall order lol. Team Axis took the TKO heading into 10th round, with AI Italy making a cutty blitz vs Moscow. I was pretty pleased with how the computer teammates played. Felt on target and G even went forward vs England on the water which was cool to see.
2020-9-27-Iron-War 3.0 solo Japan 9 victory.tsvg

After that I needed some Russian redemption from my earlier trouncing by the AI hehe. This time I went more KJF attack plan to take Manchuria for the Soviets. It make the balance on Leningrad pretty intense and team Axis pressed well into Stalingrad and Kuyby. There was also more back and forth in the Mid East, since I went light into Iran on the second turn and had to do a lot of trading to staying forward. This one took closer to a dozen rounds before being able to nix the German forward stack. Pretty fun playing France and French Colonies. I went with Madagascar transport and Syria liberation plan. French Indo got dropped after a few rounds, but KNIL was able to maintain at Sumatra, and managed to get some dudes over to the Mid East before their transports were blown up by Italian subs hehe. Good times

2020-9-27-Iron-War 3.0 solo USSR 13 victory.tsvg

I think I'll try Italy tonight

Computer opened pretty nicely as G, this time they reinforced Balkans with fighters. I think because they used the bomber in a raid vs Normandy rather than to sink the Russian fleet in the gulf of Bothnia. Anyhow, seems like a good start there. French-Colonies reinforced Madagascar which seems solid. I think Italy has a hit on British-Colonies fleet in the eastern Med if they send everything and are willing to sac the transport. But its high risk high reward, and seems a bit dicey. I think Greece or Gibraltar is probably the more conservative, and just let the Brit-Colonies fleet escape. Not sure yet, still looking it over hehe.

2020-9-27-Iron-War 3.0 solo Italy 1.tsvg

Took it 7 rounds so far pretty close. I went Western Med with the fleet to try and stop the Atlantic approach, and Soviets almost cracked Iran as a result, but HardAI Germany flew in to the rescue and sank the Caspian transport with a clutch save hehe. We got the Regia Marina prowling Atlantic now. Debating on whether to snake the Guianas or keep up the West Africa campaign. I like it, feels entertaining. The Rally Points give more of a contest. HardAI Japan has been managing pretty well, the managed to keep their starting transports which I think helped a lot. Eastern Front stack contest is pretty is major. Mecha G just cracked Moscow, but Soviets are still pretty deep on Leningrad, I wonder who which of them will prevail? hehe Right then back to Il Duce, catch ya in a few!

2020-9-27-Iron-War 3.0 solo Italy 7.tsvg

ps. wrapped it after dozen rounds. HardAI USA did a pretty clutch move to destroy the Regia Marina and strand my Italian expeditionary force in the Guianas. Axis clinched the TKO in the 12th, but the stack contest between Mecha G and Skynet Stalin is still going. For some reason AI Ruskies gave up a lot of ground off the center. In general I think the Rally Point has improved the game quite a bit, even despite AI deficiencies with purchasing and defending Factories. Perhaps a couple on the East front might be fun. They've definitely made the game a lot more dynamic in spots where they exist. I think the machine would stomp a lot harder if US/Japan were buying more naval transports. Some of the smaller guys buy them, but the US has a ton of ground it could be moving. The computer stacks its fighters in curious places, Brits seem to favor Vancouver for example over London, but maybe those get trapped by fuel after moving air transports or something? Not sure, but anyway on the whole it still feels pretty fun for a solo. Surely Invasion USA will be harder hehe

2020-9-27-Iron-War 3.0 solo Italy 12.tsvg

About to kick it off with the Soviets. I noticed that Russia has a shot on Iran at basically 65-70% if Germany doesn't send any aircraft. So that's something for Axis player to consider. First round hit on Balkans black sea fleet is about the same at around 70%. The other 3 battles up North here are each like 95%, so I could see that as pretty decent. Giving an option to stack pressure eastern Finland with mech from Arch or Leningrad if things go well. HardAI Germany didn't go after Ukraine, so Ruskies got some heat. The Balkans attack here I think is 80%, but the swing it pretty high. Soviet Far East is similar with Soviet odds on for Hailar battle, but again high potential swing. I think more conservative would be to wait until USSR to launch the major attacks and mainly non com, but if playing Machine I think something like this could be fun. I'll be interested to see how France, French-Colonies and KNIL feel, since they have some new options off the rally points in Madagascar, French India etc. Argentina at 5 also seems like it might be a possibility for one the little guys if they can get it before Brazil does haha. Right then, off for a few but I'll post some saves later when I get a chance to run it.

2020-9-27-Iron-War 3.0 solo USSR 1 combat.tsvg

We fought Iran to a draw but failed to take the tile in the opener, should be set for next round though. Other battles went according to plan. Snaked Balkans to drop that stack and kill the factory, but G still has it deadzoned I'd imagine. Far East result in Hailar was pretty solid. Will have to think on where to position and what to buy after dinner hehe.

2020-9-27-Iron-War 3.0 solo USSR 1 non com.tsvg

G reclaimed Balkans and J reclaimed Hailar pretty much as expected. We got Iran dead to rights this time, but Finland is kind of a toss up. HardAI Germany went after the Anglo fleet up by the Soviet convoy, so it's possible. Probably better to wait on it since Leningrad is a little tight, but I'm temped to crush them heheh. In the Far East looks like we might have a chance to go all agro vs Japan with a counter offensive. French Colonies did the PT boat block, and now Soviet subs might make the difference for team Allies if they can smoke the destroyer and kill thosr Japanese transports hanging out by Kamchatka.

2020-9-27-Iron-War 3.0 solo USSR 2.tsvg

Zhukov was killed in the battle for Jehol, down to the last tank. Hard AI Japan pounced hehe. Looks the Germans have arrived at the doorstep of Stalingrad now. We took Iraq and French Colonies is moving HQ to Syria to try and shore it up.
Fun stuff so far

2020-9-27-Iron-War 3.0 solo USSR 4.tsvg

Showdown in South America, Buenos Aires! hehe
2020-9-27-Iron-War 3.0 solo KNIL 4 purchase.tsvg

Defeat! lol

HardAI had me crushed in Leningrad, guess it was a little too fast and loose for Stalin that time. Better luck next round. Well done AI Germany heheh

2020-9-27-Iron-War 3.0 solo USSR 5.tsvg

I enjoyed it! Felt pretty high stakes the whole time and I think having French-Colonies and KNIL in there definitely gives it a nice spin. I'll do Japan for a solo run next I think.

@Schulz cool map concept. I always really enjoy seeing different possible ways the China map geometry/production might work. In the official A&A games up to this point we've seen quite a few different approaches and they've all been pretty radically different. G40 probably comes closest to a somewhat accurate modelling, but there's a fair amount of rules overhead in that one hehe.

@beelee yeah on this map, the other factions that have access to a spam fodder unit are priced at like 6 PUs a pop and they use a recruitment resource to cap the number that can be bought per turn like @ff03k64 mentioned. Currently Italy, France, French-Colonies, British-Colonies, British-India and KNIL all have access to them. I think basically the same unit in China would accomplish something similar to the militia unit concept. Conveniently the recruitment resource is already called CR. The C could be Colonial, or in this case could stand for China. Regular infantry attack at 2 and defend at 3 under D10 combat, whereas the Colonial Infantry, attacks and defends at 2. But they can both be boosted by artillery or trucked along with mech, so the spam units can be pretty effective in combat and a hitpoint's a hitpoint right haha, so I think might work. I guess one possibility, if unit art can't be easily created, might be to just make all of China's infantry at the price point and combat values of Colonial Inf elsewhere, though that could be a little confusing since everyone else has a base 10 inf unit standard. Germany, USSR, and USA also each have a variant type infantry unit on this one.

For production, in the last version China is at around 20-30 PUs depending on whether the USA sends them cash. Japan has about 100-120 PUs after the opener. China has 2 production tiles, at Chunking as the primary with a fall back tile in the far west basically corresponding to Sinkiang on most A&A maps. The way things are drawn Japan is basically 2 moves vs the Chunking Pocket, coastal landing and then 1 move to the production front. So Japan has a lot to work with, and its not too dissimilar from Global in that way, except that here there are fewer total tiles for China. I agree with @Schulz that absent other things going on, the danger with introducing too much production in this area, is that it becomes an all or nothing situation, where Japan either has to totally commit to China (in which case they stomp) or else Japan gets stomped if they don't. And that's not really optimal. I think what we want is a situation where its desirable for Japan to pin China, and to hold the stack at an interior tile, but where its not necessarily worth the cost for them to go for the kill. I think some of that could be handled by the surrounding topography, especially since this game has the impassible mountains and nearby neutrals. A shift in PU values combined with a spam unit I think could do the trick, for a 1941 type game where Japan has supposedly been at war there for 5 years already. I think when the start date is earlier like 1940, then you get a kind of different theme going down. Because historically if there was going to be a big change to the Japanese war plan, say the Army plan to commit vs the Soviets rather than the Navy plan to go after the Dutch Islands and central Pacific, then the earlier in the war the more realistic that becomes to imagine. The front in China would be similar for either date, but the unit compositions or things like that might be changed to account for differences in the opener. I'm excited to check out this rally-point idea, because I think that could make a key change to how some of the production fronts and battle lines draw up. USA aid could also be a thing that's explored, perhaps with an option for Allies to drop more cash into the Chinese coffers once the US is scaled up. The AI doesn't use the resource exchange feature I don't think, so that's maybe a consideration for how heavily to weight it, but I think finding a cool balance for China and also for a Soviet-Japan NAP is always kind of a hidden goal whenever I muse on how it might be set up on whatever map lol.

Hope everyone is having a fun weekend! I'm out walk the greyhound for a few, but sure to cruise back through tomorrow. Catch ya guys then

Best Elk

ps. just got the new one downloaded. I ran a quick Solo for the opener taking over the USA turn block. Pretty nice attack pattern from the HardAI, since they took Denmark and such. I'm feeling the turn order too. Look forward to grinding it out and seeing the rally point in action, teasing out the new playbalance hehe. Nice work dude!

Here it is on USA1 after the machine did its bit. AI Ruskies were having none of Romania, and made a big Balkans blast to kick things off. Looks like France is trying down the fort for at least another turn, and KNIL wants to hold New Guinea which is cool. Italy cleared the Eastern Med and is pressing on Egypt. Brit Block felt solid, Aussies moved to back up Guadalcanal which is cool. Japan took Changsha on the coast and Philippines, they positioned IJN at Wake. I gotta skip out for a few, but I'm sure this will keep me up all night hahah ...

2020-9-26-Iron-War 3.0 solo USA1.tsvg

Oh cool I just saw the rally point come into play. Germany reconquered Romania, and then Balkans was able to place their infantry unit. Nice! If not for the factory bug thing, I bet they'd have rebuilt too. Took me a sec to see where they are but now I see the national flag has a slightly larger gold circle around it where the rally points are, and the AI definitely seems to be targeting them. I dig it!

I just got smoked at by HardAI Japan at Pearl lol. I gotta say I definitely think the transport lowered steel cost is cool, fun stuff! It may make Sea Lion pretty wild, but that can always be handled and clearly they'll have Russia to think about if attempting transport spam for that. I think the PU cost will still cap what G can do, but I really like it for the US and for some of the smaller nations that were struggling at the cost of 2 steel. Transports at 1 steel gives them a way to get on the board. Next time I'll probably have to use a bit more steel for US warships to defend the prize at Pearl I guess hehe. I think we can call this one for the machine after that smack down, but I'll start another when I get home a little later. Well done!

2020-9-26-Iron-War 3.0 solo USA2.tsvg

ps. OK I played the second solo for another 4 rounds. I really like the the Rally Point unit, I think it has managed to activate most of the areas where they exist, and the AI definitely seems to be playing better as a result. Given that AI seems to be targeting them, I wonder if it might make sense to have them at Singapore, Denmark, Gibraltar and Panama? Could help for the computer with canal control, or just to highlight. But so far I love the way they work on the islands. Even the spots that got dropped like Iceland and Morocco seem to work well this way. Its also cool because it creates a capture incentive for all those spots. I like the 1 unit cap, it creates some cool incentives to place high value warships or tanks which I think. I think they will also be kinda cool when it comes to units like Rockets or Kamikazes and the like. Its a great innovation! I think its introduction makes the whole map a lot more dynamic. Nicely done there!

I really find this turn order a lot smoother, and the tension on Italy is nice. In this one I moved USA to activate Spain, old school Classic Spanish landing pad hehe. I actually don't mind it, cause it just sort of feels like an expanded space representing Gibraltar or like the whole Med theater of OPs. On Axis side because of the move through, I'd guess G or Italy would probably want to commit a few units to Spanish defense, just to keep Allies off it in early rounds. In this one G opened the Bosporus so Axis got kinda wily in the Black Sea lol. Overall the AI seems to be playing pretty well, using the Rally Point to place units. The extra German starting factory in Poland also helps, as now they spawn their subs as intended. In this game they used the normandy rally point for that, which was kinda cool. Feels like actual sub pens positioning more on Atlantic that way. I like it a lot so far.
Right then off to eat dinner. Catch ya in a few

2020-9-26-Iron-War 3.0 solo USA4.tsvg

Next I'll prob try a German solo, and see what we're looking at from the other side.

2020-9-26-Iron-War 3.0 solo Germany 1 combat.tsvg

Mass transport spam is still potent, but I like the balance. On G2 I think I got London dead to rights by buying nothing but transports since they can move pretty much all their starting hitpoints this way. With the reduced steel cost I think Germany should probably only have 1 transport for the Kriegsmarine at the start in North Sea Zone? That'd prob still be enough to get them on Normandy or Norway. Otherwise I like it, there's already a tough balance off Leningrad, so going for England is debatable. In this game I went for the opening attack on Ukraine which was a bit more intense with the added units, but I think still worth the hit. I think here the optimal it still G3 timing for Leningrad, over taking London. But the London battle is about 70% to German attacker on G2 here. Prob closer to 85% if I'd landed the fighters in West Germany instead of Poland. Though Leningrad I think the bigger prize, even if using transport spam. Anyhow G2 this was the first one out on Axis solo haha

2020-9-26-Iron-War 3.0 solo Germany 2 combat.tsvg

Pretty massive showdown for the G3 timing. AI Stalin isn't messing around heheh. Still I think it's pretty good positioning to crack the north on G3. I dig it. I think there is probably a sea lion G2 play vs the computer which could be fun too, but I went for more standard set up here. I think the Russia factory at Kuyby will definitely come in handy for Allies to manage the Eastern front. Good times so far!

2020-9-26-Iron-War 3.0 solo Germany 3 combat.tsvg

This is kind of a fun fuel dilemma in round 6, cause like after breaking into Leningrad and chasing the Soviets back all the way to Kuyby, it really forces a choice between returning the fleet to the Channel for defense vs Western naval stack, or using the fuel for the Soviets kill. Cause just not quite enough fuel to do both, but that's the kind of thing I like that the fuel aspect involves.

2020-9-26-Iron-War 3.0 solo Germany 6 combat.tsvg

I went for fleet repositioning as top fuel priority, easier to manage a delay on killing Russia while stacking the channel with carrier drop I figured. I definitely enjoyed watching the attack pattern from HardAI Japan on the team. I think the rally points definitely pull them onto the central pacific which is really cool to see. They have basically conquered most of their island objectives, even taking a little piece of Australia, and the major theater of ops has been more Pacific island hop oriented for Japan which is aces. I think everyone likes that stuff when US/Japan both have a reason to hop around to claim the rally points on the islands. Just makes the naval game a lot more fun there too.

Axis I think are within striking distance now in this one, fun for a G solo and feels like a plausible state of affairs for round 7 of the game early 1943, had things gone very well for Germany on the Eastern front at the outset haha.

2020-9-26-Iron-War 3.0 solo Germany 7 combat.tsvg

I'll prob try one with Italy or the Brit block next. I'm digging the feel though 3.0 definitely has a way more engaging production spread. I like it.

yeah Brits it is hehe. The hard AI opened pretty well for Germany, taking Normandy and such. I think the rally point must be drawing them more on target there which is cool. Excited to see how the Brit turn plays under the new conditions. Maybe later night or tomorrow.

2020-9-26-Iron-War 3.0 solo Brits 1 combat.tsvg

Pretty entertaining so far. We beat HardAI US to Morocco, and managed to take Somalia with South Africa. But British Colonies was just crushed at Egypt. We tried to strafe back from El Alamein but to no avail there hehe. ANZAC feels a lot more interesting with the rally points over there too. We tried in this one to cover the Dutch, but got ejected from Guadalcanal, and stomped at Java. But the home fleet is secure and on target for Norway. I like the sequence, it feels smooth to me.

2020-9-26-Iron-War 3.0 solo Brits 4 combat.tsvg

ANZAC has been pretty entertaining. HardAI Japan came at me in Darwin, but we managed to pull a rescue move for South Africa HQ in Somalia and then reclaim Egypt for British Colonies, so they got a dual front going. British India managed to drop Iran, but Iraq is still kicking about. This time Britain activated the Spanish landing pad, again just kinda feels like an extension of Gibraltar so I dig having a bit more room there to house the units. Morocco has been churning out a tank a round for Monty to hopefully get something going lol. I think Allies are set for Total Victory at the end of the round now.

2020-9-26-Iron-War 3.0 solo ANZAC 6 placement.tsvg

Going to pass out now, but might pick it up tomorrow and try the Soviet turn block. Anyhow, good times so far. Till next round
G'night!
Elk

@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.

@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

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?

2020-9-25-Iron-War 1941 New Draft 0.03.tsvg

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_Fleet

Basically 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.tsvg

Other 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

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 board

Just 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 675

Out 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_Front

The 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_War

In 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-Go

Taiwan/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_Shicai

But 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.

2020-9-23-Iron-War 1941 New Draft.tsvg

@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.

Iron War Hard AI Allies G13 combat.tsvg

Yeah I just ran another vs HardAI Axis, with a similar sort of experience.

In this one Japan bombed the Chinese pretty relentlessly. G did alright with their advance, mainly because I went after the Mid East and then Normandy early, and played it pretty fast and loose with the Russians hehe. Total Victory in the 6th round. You can see from this one how Japan has a way of sprawling across the Soviet far east and its kind of challenge to cover the coast from Irkutsk. It tends to stabilize something like this for me usually, since USA has stronger incentive to cut across the south.

I've noticed the same behavior from Italy placing subs out of Somalia only to get killed by British-Colonies. They kept it up until British-India snaked their factory amphib. Germany I think fails to place their free subs, because the don't have enough production to fill out their buy I suspect. That factory bug is pretty significant for this one.

Anyhow here's another save using the most recent stable vs HardAI Axis
Iron War Hard AI Axis USSR 6.tsvg

I like that idea of using triggers to give the AI opponent more fuel. That would be helpful. More +5 spots would also be killer. You can kinda see from the D-Day ops here, how its difficult to get something going under Frances control. I think if US or Britain could take Normandy and Vichy directly that'd be cool. Or where original ownership reverted to neutral for pretty much everywhere that isn't a VC I think would be coolest, but anyhow it sort of slogs relying on France to do the rebuilding in Normandy. I think it'd have more across the western side of fortress europa punch if Normandy and Benelux could be taken by the larger factions with options to drop a factory and up the stakes.

I think the optimal shuck shuck for USA on this map looks like the above, with transports in Celtic sea zone transporting USA units from Iceland into Normandy, Bay of Biscay transports shucking from Morocco factory into Normandy. But here we won before really needing the set up. Norway I think goes best to Britain for their shuck, but either way its pulling from there into Normandy for team Allies if trying to push the most hitpoints possible, until you can just kill West Germany directly buying a bunch of fighters. Scotland I think could be +5, and Benelux to spice that stuff up. Then France wouldn't really matter as much. But it'd also give G something to go after, and more to defend.

ps. Took it another round since G has been clapping pretty nicely on the eastern front. But West Germany is about to crack to UK/USA double it and then its a done deal pretty much vs Europe since AI don't buy production in last stable.
Iron War Hard AI Axis Brit 7 combat.tsvg

Oh yeah that's a biggie haha. Right on, I'll check it out when I get home later.

I caught Frostion briefly the other night, while doing a big netflix insomniac bender like I tend to do at random hours hehe. He mentioned looking into a possible update in a couple weeks, so that'd be killer. I'm eager to check it out!

I think a cool approach would be to see what that one entails, and then maybe look into cooking up possible alternative start dates, which is something he's expressed some support for as a way to try a different theme or a different unit set up. I think a late 1941 start date, possibly with a Pearl Harbor opener might be cool. Something that kicks off with USA entry, and then gears into like Midway and Guadalcanal on the Pacific side, and Torch/Stalingrad on the Europe side would be fun. This would give a justification for a new starting unit distribution (maybe with larger forces, drawn on different battle lines, or with a different starting production front?) I can think of a lot of possibilities.

There is something really appealing I find about a map with multiple start dates, which is something familiar from AA50, and exists already with G40 some community projects. It was also a feature of other map conquest games I liked such as Medieval TW, where you had a choice to begin in the Early Middle ages or Late Middle Ages etc. So I could see something like that for this one being pretty cool, while still maintaining cohesion.

1941/42 is pretty compelling, since its still early enough in the war to imagine an Axis sprawl, but where USA could still do the build up thing. A late war setting of 1943 is also pretty compelling for a shorter game, but one which featured larger starting armies and more techs unlocked sooner, more advanced production by the front lines etc. I could see a number of themes to open it up for more starts, which would be rad.

Best Elk

ps. I do think there is something interesting in @forthebirds handling of the Soviet vs Japan front. Using a Soviet themed neutral power along the border area might be interesting to achieve something like this...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_Neutrality_Pact

I said in posts above that my preference is for the True neutral mechanics, but there's nothing to say there couldn't be like multiple True neutral factions that all worked in pretty much the same way, while still having the different unit graphics or territory color themes.

Maybe a neutral faction called 'Pro-Soviet' that is more red tinged in color, could work for Mongolia, or like a 'demilitarized' border zone in the Soviet Far East section facing Japan, or some spots near the border with China? If doing that we could use em to create a couple choke points in that broad swath of land constituting the USSR. In practical terms it could be used for geographical stuff, like marshlands of deserts or whatever, or just as an abstraction and a way to spice up the geometry without changing the overall look too much. Basically using stacks of 'neutral armies' that don't move, but which help to shape the look and feel of the play lines across the Russian interior and far flung regions in the extreme east that were less active historically. Either side could attack and occupy if they wanted, but used in that way to create the defensive choke points. This might actually be really helpful for creating buffer zones across Eurasia. I could see it working for Iran/Persia front, or China front, or Far East vs Japan front. Also along the front with Germany just to divide up the lines a bit.

I was just imagining say the space above Siberia called "Ural" as a Pro Soviet neutral stack to create a choke point there, or the space above Irkutsk called "Sakha" same deal. Or maybe Vladivostok, Amur, Kabarovsk, Aldan, Chita etc are all handled in that way to emulate the Non-Agro Pact there. Might be fun. Would still look good if they were like Red colored and such so it doesn't jump out too much, but visually different enough so its not confusing, everyone can see what spots are the open lanes, and which are blocked out as working like true neutrals, and giving a way to create like shields and passes so its less sprawling in some areas between the +5 clusters.

The main prob I see with the current pro-side neutrality system is the aircraft landing exploits it creates in some spots, and the rush through aspect. An example would be like Italy attacking Gibraltar and landing the fighters in Spain. But things of that sort can happen many places. It would be simpler if all the neutrals were true neutral. You could still have Pro Allied or Pro Axis as the name/icons, but just have them work the way True Neutral does rules-wise eg cannot be moved through until occupied or landed in until held for round.

Pps. Actually Pro Allies icons already would look good (I mean they got the star already hehe) maybe just change the territory control color to something reddish to have it work that way?
But all using the same true neutral mechanics.

True Neutral: white
Pro-Allies: I think red or red-orange tinged
Pro-Axis: blue or green tinged

So in the gamenotes would read "can be attacked by both Axis and Allies" for all of the passive neutral factions, and just remove the thing about being "moved through." Functionally they are all the same, the only difference being aesthetic.

Then we could maybe add around armies to the neutral spots that make sense, to shape some choke points.

Anyhow, that's something that could also be explored I think. It might work well as a way to have the campaigns vs Russia work a little differently than they usually do, while still being a total war from the outset scheme, if Pro Allies/Soviet passive neutrals could be used that way. Basically finding ways to use the neutrals from a gameplay perspective, more than a political one. The same thing could be used in Africa, or in North America or wherever, depending on what colors where used for the neutral factions territory color theme there. I think the trick is just figuring out how many neutral armies constitute enough of a pain to deter the player/AI from going all nutso on a neutral stomp there in some spots, but while still allowing it at the player's discretion.

maybe something like...

"It is the year 1941. Japan has attacked Pearl Harbor and is still on the offensive. All Axis nations are now at war with all Allied nations. All eyes are on the United States - What will their next move be?"

Then we could still use the same turn order as whatever 1940 uses (just for consistency) while allowing for a different start position to the turn order. Different starting unit composition etc. I was not particularly fond of the changed turn order in AA50 between 1941 and 1942 scenarios, you know where Germany and Japan switch positions. I think it became confusing once people were used to the 1941 order, and so contributed maybe to less popularity for the 1942 start date. Anyhow, I think it is better to just change the start position, but keep it within the same main turn sequence (whatever that ends up). I still think UK following Italy would be best hehe. Whatever it is, to have that remain the same when moving between start dates on the map. There'd be plenty to do with starting territory ownership, and different starting forces. But yeah, I like the idea of having everything else working the same way, if that makes sense. Keeping the same kind of theme essentially, and the same gusto with a big start, just spinned with the emphasis more on USA1 as an opener for contrast. That might be fun, and popular. I've kind of wished for an A&A or tripleA map that starts with USA on the first turn, right on the eve of entry. Just think it's a cool concept that would make a slick purchasing dynamic, but it hasn't been explored much really. This map would be ideal for it I think.

Right on, next go I'll try it with those ideas. I ended up watching Cobra Kai for like 12 hours last night and blasted through the day snoozing. Didn't get much done beyond walking the hound lol. Damn that's a downpour right there! I think they said we get some at weeks end, which'd be good for the air, but I'll keep it indoors meantime. I updated triplea back to the stable, cause the screen was kinda messing with me map drag cross bars haha. I'll grab 1.9 and have a look at the edit mode at some point though.

Glad you're into some of the added +5 ideas and such. I really think the game would be improved by having a lot more. Even across territories that are currently contested like Western Europe, Med, and Eastern Front, but having factory capable spots along the fault lines I think it ups the stakes. And there'd be more pressure to stack/trade across a broader front, with somewhat less emphasis on the huge transport amphib plays. The reality is that most factions can't aford to fill every factory anyway on a given turn, but just by opening up the possibility to build more factories (which are relatively cheap at 25) I think that enhances both the trading game and the SBR aspect. Right now I feel like the economy and resources are bit on the low side for the scale of the map, especially for factions that struggle to produce a second hitpoint, or have to skip/save for later rounds to get in there. Basically I think everyone could easily see an influx of 5-10 PUs or a bit more fuel and it wouldn't hurt the feel. Some of the smaller nations that struggle to build I think could get a boost. Like China with a second tiger, maybe South Africa has a starting transport, or do things like that around the edges to give the smaller factions more of a role. But having more +5 around that could trade hands would be nice. A little guy like South Africa is positioned in Vanilla to target the neutrals which feels a little off. In reality most nations sent their dudes pretty far afield in transport actions, so I like the idea of that. It could work for ANZAC dudes maybe end up Africa campaigns if they had a transport on the west side of the continent. British India and Colonies as well might benefit from having another transport, to give them more options. Maybe half a dozen scattered around on team Allies would be fun.

Another feature I like a lot of this map is the convoy zone concept. I think more could probably be added and it would be fun. Axis convoys might be cool as well. If trying to build it out for a slightly more high economy feel, that's a cool way to add an extra 5 bucks here or there.
I just kind of went around the map and tried to round out the starting total in increments of 5s or 10s, cause I thought it would look clean for the quick glance. But starting income is different to starting production for many nations already, so that is another way to balance, just by adjusting the starting values there.

Frostion's got a gang of projects cooking up I'd imagine hehe. The guy makes some great maps. I'm sure he'll kick back up again at some point. Meantime I dig having a fun AI map WW2 themed to mess about with! So that keeps me grinning

One last thought. I think it would be cool if Liberated territories did not return to original ownership unless it was a VC, but instead for all the other territories to have control go to the conquering nation. It would vastly change the dynamic, but I think it would be more interesting. Imagining Normandy under British control say, or Algeria going to USA control towards the endgame and things of that sort. VCs would ensure that the minor factions still remain a thing, ever after being conquered/liberated, but some other surrounding territories would open up way more and be a bit more realistic I think. I could imagine like late game German campaigns taking over some territory from Itay or Balkans under their direct aegis, after resting it back from Allied control Or same deal across all of North Africa, Western Europe, the Central Pacific, pretty much across the board. Basically where all the non VC territories can change hands like that. That would be pretty cool don't you think? I wonder if it can be set up that way, return to original ownership only if a VC?

That would open up a ton of the map, to play more in the way that the actual war broke down. So like maybe Japan takes an island from KNIL or British-India, but ANZAC liberates and is in charge of it after. That sort of thing makes sense for how the liberation/occupations actually worked in the real war, with like zones of control, and the major powers directing the war effort from there. So you can imagine D-Day where France is "liberated" at the Paris VC (direct control, reverts to original owner), but if UK or USA take Normandy or some other non VC spots thereabouts, those don't just revert to France's control when taken back from Axis. Original ownership would only be for the VCs. I think it would work nice for the playpattern. It would advantage the larger factions obviously, but hews a bit closer to the reality, and it might help to streamline the play for a more dashing endgame. Any thoughts on that idea?

Best

Thanks man! And you too!

Before diving in I wanted to compile a big list of proposed territory PU changes. So going around the map by Player/Region, starting with their industrial cores and moving out to surrounding spots.

Germany:
Lower the Value of West Germany from 50 to 30 PUs, and instead spread that cash to surrounding spots. For example...
Austria-Bohemia from 4 PUs to 10 PUs
Poland from 5 PUs to 10 PUs
That'd be 80 total production at the start, scaling up to about 100 or thereabouts from the surrounding neutrals or the conquest of France. Here are ways something similar might be done for other areas.

Balkans
Romania lowered from 20 PUs to 15 PUs
Yugoslavia from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
Hungary from 3 PUs to 5 PUs
30 total production at the start

Finland
Finland raised from 10 PUs to 15 PUs
Eastern Finland from 2 PUs to 3 PUs
Lapland from 1 PU to 2 PUs.
20 total production at the start

Benelux from 3 PUs to 5 PUs
Denmark from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
Baltic States from 4 PUs to 5 PUs
Trondheim-Narvik from1 PU to 5 PUs.
Greece from 2 PUs to 5 PUs

Soviet Union
Siberia lowered from 15 PUs to 5 PUs
Moscow from 6 PUs to 10 PUs
Kuybyshev from 2 PUs to 5 PUs.
Central Russia from 4 PUs to 5 PUs
Western Ukraine from 3 PUs to 5 PUs
145 total production at the start

France
Algeria from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
Tunisia from 3 PUs to 5 PUs
Mauritania should be True Neutral -1 PU
50 total production at the start

French Colonies
Syria from 3 PUs to 5 PUs
Madagascar from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
45 total starting Production

KNIL
Western New Guinea from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
Borneo from 2 PUs to 1 PU
30 total starting Production

Italy
Italy lowered from 40 PUs to 30 PUs
Sicily from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
Sardinia from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
Tobruk from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
Libyan Dessert from 1 PU to 2 PUs
70 total starting production

Iraq
Iraq raised from 10 PUs to 15 PUs
15 total starting production

Iran
Khorasan from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
Kerman from 3 PUs to 5 PUs
20 total production at the start

Afghanistan from 5 PUs to 2 PUs
Kuwait from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
Armenia from 2 PUs to 5 PUs

Britain
Scotland from 3 PUs to 5 PUs
60 total Production at the start

British-Colonies
British Guiana lowered from 10 PUs to 5 PUs
Guadalcanal from 1 PU to 5 PUs
El Alamein from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
55 total production at the start

South Africa
South Africa lowered from 10 PUs to 8 PUs
Pretoria from 3 PUs to 5 PUs
15 total production at the start

British-India
Malaya from 1 PU to 5 PUs
Bengal from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
45 total starting production

ANZAC
North Island from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
South Island from 2 PUs to 1 PUs
45 total starting production

Japan
Japan lowered from 40 PUs to 30 PUs
Iwo Jima from 1 PU to 5 PUs
Palau from 1 PU to 5 PUs
85 total starting production

Thailand
Southern Thailand from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
15 total starting production

USA
USA South Atlantic lowered from 9 PUs to 5 PUs
California lowered from 8 to 5 PUs
Southern Alaska from 1 PU to 5 PUs
Midway from 1 PU to 5 PUs
USA Northwest from 3 PUs to 5 PUs
Panama from 1 PU to 5 PUs
Texas from 4 PUs to 5 PUs
USA Midwest from 4 PUs to 5 PUs
110 total starting production

China
Chungking raised from 5 to 15 PUs
Urimchi raised from 5 PUs to 10 PUs
Burma Road from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
40 total starting production. I think that fits the scale of the war there much better, it was massive.

Brazil
Nordeste from 2 PUs to 5 PUs
20 total starting production

Resources in the following neutral regions should be moved elsewhere I think. With the territories lowered in value and sporting larger armies to reflect their neutral status throughout. Where these regions are made up of multiple territories at least some of them should be stacked to create neutrality choke points, with the PUs and resources shifted eslewhere.

Mauritania
Afghanistan
Angola
Mozambique
Sweden, Sveeland, Norrland
Switzerland
Spain, Northern Spain, Portugal
Istanbul, Ankara, Central Turkey
Western and Northern Tibet
Western and Southern Mongolia
Yemen

I think all the other neutrals should be lightly defended or even empty, with higher relative territory values, since they all ended up in the fray before the end and make sense siding with whatever belligerent brings them on board first.

Anyhow, I think that would present a really compelling production spread and fits the historical pattern. Clearly there are many more +5 spots, but I think that is all to the good and will make the gameplay more entertaining, and the trading much more viable. It's cool to insert them near other +5's to create clusters that can be contested by multiple factions at once. Each of those territories listed as +5 candidates are historical, and would round out the starting production for each faction pretty nicely and introduce more cash overall as the game goes on which is fun. A territory at +5 is just infinitely more interesting for the gameplay potential, so I like the idea to spread the money around a bit more, instead of having it quite so concentrated. The production spread here I think would allow for a much more dynamic tug of war, with added springboards or key fall back spots to entice the factory trading game basically. Tried to suggest key factory capable spots in areas where the historical fighting took place. I think Europe and the Med would balance better this way, and esp for a more robust North Africa campaign, since right now it feels really heavily weighted on the south. Same deal more or less with the central Pacific, just trying to fix the locations a bit more on the historical hotspots. I was aiming to keep the starting production levels pretty much on par with the current for each side, just with a few more +5s that made sense to me to put more of that cash in contention. Thoughts?