Best posts made by Argothair

@randyshervandyke That is profoundly weird and possibly the most effective/exciting new strategy to hit the meta-game since Dark Skies, and I am really looking forward to your video. Happy Holidays and good luck with the overtime!

@Karl7 It was an interesting game! Germany helped Italy take a pair of British factories in the Middle East with an airbase in Yugoslavia, and was able to take Leningrad early by sending two transports into the White Sea. Almost immediately after we switched to in-person play, I missed an American can-opener in trans-Jordan, with the American transport coming from Gibraltar and the American bomber coming from India to let British tanks from Egypt into Iraq, shutting down the factory. Meanwhile, the Russians went south to help make sure the Middle East fully converted to the Allied point of view.

Germany attacked an Allied beachhead in Normandy with 3 inf, 1 mech, 2 art, 2 ftr, 2 tac, and 1 strat bomber against 7 inf, 3 aaa guns; my battle calculator says that’s an 88% win chance for Germany…but the Allies scored 3 hits on their AAAs and then hit with 5 out of 7 infantry, virtually wiping out the German forces in one round. The Germans only scored 4 hits on 11 dice, so the Allies survived with a large beachhead.

That left very few options for the Axis – I tried hitting a Russian squad in Vologda with 1 mech, 1 tank, 1 ftr vs. 3 infantry, but that also got wiped out in one round, with all 3 defensive infantry hitting. That stopped me from moving in a stack of mechs, which stopped me from threatening Moscow.

I also tried hitting the main US Pacific fleet with the Japanese, probably at somewhat below 50% odds, but that was also a disaster on the dice – sometimes the dice just hate you!

I had fun anyway, and I will always cherish the opportunity to have repaired a damaged Italian battleship at the captured naval base in Singapore.

This was the last league game that I intend to play for quite some time; daily sessions of 1940 Global have been fun, but have been chewing up much more of my time and attention then I prefer to spend. If you’re passing within an hour of San Francisco and want to play a game in person on the weekend, let me know, and otherwise I hope to see some of you at Bloodbath 2020, the Bay Area Invitational Tournament (BAIT), and/or Gencon 2020. Thanks for all the games, and have fun!

@vodot Gorgeous! I love the way the Aleutians bridge the two sea zones and have a land connection to Alaska. Really gives the Japanese a reason to play in the north Pacific – not only can you now realistically capture a total of 3 IPCs, but the Aleutian landing zone poses a danger that fighters built in Tokyo can land on carriers, while fighters taking off from carriers can land in the Aleutians – in other words, if America loses the Aleutians, they might also lose control of the San Diego sea zone. Chef’s kiss

OK, an alpha version of the 1939 map is now available for download! You’ll need to unzip the folder at the link below and put it in C:/Users/[your name]/triplea/downloadedMaps. I’m still working on this, but it’s very much playable (I finished one game with each side), and I’m excited to share. Let me know if you give it a try, or if you have any feedback, or if you want to help with graphics or playtesting – it’s easier to change things now that it would be after it gets more polished.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RTTR2kzgPeV82avij5ZI6mXuN5M9ezmi/view?usp=sharing

After watching the YouTube video, I think this variation is a very interesting series of traps for an unwary Axis player. The Axis can’t profitably attack Egypt on I1; you’re setting them up to trade the Italian fleet and the Italian expeditionary force for the expendable ANZAC infantry, and you can immediately and safely retake Egypt on UK2, so that’s all fine. Likewise, the Axis can’t profitably attack SZ 93 (Southern France) on I1 and/or G2. The Germans can’t afford to spend that much of their air power attacking Mediterranean boats that aren’t an immediate threat to any vital German interests, and the Italians are simply outclassed; if the Italians attack the combined UK / French fleet then, as Randy says, you essentially achieve the objectives of Taranto, but with the Allies rolling defensive 4’s instead of the Axis rolling defensive 4’s.

Instead, Italy should either (a) go for the New Roman Empire objective (one transport to Gibraltar, one transport to Greece), or (b) send both transports to Syria with the idea of getting into Iraq and making it unsafe for the British to build an early factory in Persia, or © send one transport to Jordan and one transport to Alexandria, stacking Alexandria from Tobruk, with the idea of setting up for a strong I2 attack on Egypt, or (d) use both transports to pick up the land units from Tobruk and bring it north to the Balkans so that you will have a huge can-opening force available to pressure Russia. Any of these plans will likely work out moderately well for Italy and Italy is not going to be under any special pressure from the Allies compared to the pressure Italy would feel from a modestly successful Taranto raid. Italy’s not going to run away with the game, but they get to keep their air force, they get to keep a big part of their fleet, and they’ll remain relevant and dangerous well into the middlegame. In exchange, the Allies save the French Med fleet, save a couple of British fighters, and pick up a couple of bucks in the Middle East / East Africa a couple of turns earlier than they otherwise might. This seems like a basically neutral exchange – I don’t see that either the Axis or the Allies come out noticeably ahead in the European theater. It’s sort of like trading a bishop for a knight…they each have advantages and disadvantages, and you can make that trade if you feel like it; there’s nothing wrong with that trade.

The problem is that you’re severely weakening your Pacific theater as Britain to make this neutral exchange happen: you don’t pick up Java, you are no longer threatening to pick off Japanese transports in the money islands, you are no longer seriously threatening to hold Yunnan, and unless those planes in British Somaliland turn around immediately and head back east toward India on UK2 and UK3, you are allowing Japan to take India on J4 without forcing Japan to commit 100% of its resources. Japan could easily wind up sitting in India, the money islands, and central China at the end of J4 while still having a substantial air force.

As a result, I’m really skeptical that Randy’s overall strategy is actually stronger than orthodox play. The stuff you’re giving up in the Pacific just seems more important to me than the ambiguous gains you’re making in the Med and the Middle East. I should note that I still don’t understand what the point of building three destroyers near Britain on UK1 is or what it is that Randy hopes to achieve in the Atlantic; I could potentially be convinced that this strategy is worth playing if those extra destroyers turn out to accomplish something impressive. Otherwise, this looks like a fun gambit that would be worth trying once to shake things up and play mind games with your opponents, but it doesn’t appear to be strong enough for me to want to use it as my new go-to opening.

I’m still very grateful to Randy for sharing and carefully describing this interesting new opening. Even if I don’t think it’s literally the best option available, I still think it’s well-considered, creative, forceful, and conceptually elegant. I may be able to apply some of the concepts described (retreat from India and Egypt and set up for counter-attacks) in some of my games even if I don’t wind up following Randy’s exact script.

@mikawagunichi Thanks, problem was on my end. For some reason my computer is still loading the older version of TripleA by default when I click on tsvg files.

@vodot One thing to keep in mind while considering which French territories to add is what kind of role you envision for France in your game.

Is the narrative focused on Free France and its small but cumulatively important efforts to build up from a colonial remnant and turn into a force that can potentially liberate part or all of metropolitan France? If so then you need some kind of reasonably secure rear area (e.g. French Equatorial Africa) that’s not too far aways from some relatively soft Axis targets (Vichy Algeria, Italian East Africa, etc.).

Or, is the point of France to create a neutral or pro-Axis “buffer zone” that deemphasiszes the western Med in the middlegame by nudging most of the territories and sea zones in the region toward neutrality? If so then you might want to carve out a neutral territory in southern France, but you probably don’t care much about French possessions in Africa.

You can have both in the same game if you insist, but I’m skeptical that France is interesting enough to justify both sets of changes in a mediumweight map. Better to save some ammo for other ideas, imo.

Good, glad to hear it. And thank you, that’s super-valuable feedback!

I also feel awkward about the income imbalance between UK and US. I agree with you that that’s a problem. I’m not sure how to solve it, and I’m open to advice. My difficulty is that I don’t want fewer territories in, e.g., Australia because I think it would make the combat less interesting, but I also don’t want the average Australian territory to be worth less income, because I want some variation among the territories (they shouldn’t all be worth just $1). Same issue with Canada, India, etc. – it’s not that I consciously decided that Britain should be earning $88, it’s just that I gave them what I thought of as their minimum income for their minimum set of territories for the kind of game I wanted to design, and I was already up that high. There’s a little bit of room to reduce the income of some of the territories in the UK proper – I could make, e.g., West England worth $2 or $3 instead of $4 – but I don’t think it would help enough, and I don’t want the UK proper to be worth less than, e.g., India. Right now the UK proper is earning $20, which only makes it first among equals compared to India, Canada, etc. – if I reduced UK any further, it would be earning less than a commonwealth.

You mentioned that places like Canada or South America are non-combat zones, but I don’t agree – the cruiser can transport commandos all the way from Normandy to Quebec (or vice versa) in one move, and Germany starts with a toehold in Argentina that can grow if the Allies aren’t careful. They’re not usually major combat zones, but the possibility for conflict exists all over the globe, and that’s on purpose.

I could increase the US income, but then the overall Allied income would be too high. I could increase German-Italian-Japanese income to compensate, but then French and Russian income would be too low…you get the idea. So I’m not thrilled with the way that shook out, but I don’t see how to fix it, either.

I like combat move first just fine; I can make that available.

Thanks for explaining about Western Russia. I guess I see Western Russia as being the direct approach to Moscow. The northern strategy is to go Lithuania -> Karelia -> Archangel -> Moscow. The central strategy is to go Belarus -> West Russia -> Central Russia -> Moscow. The southern strategy is to go Kiev -> East Ukraine -> Caucasus -> Volga, which doesn’t get you Moscow, but does get you rich. That said, I suppose there would be room for 1 more territory if I really wanted – the line could be Leningrad-West Russia - East Russia - Caucasus, with East Russia bordering West Russia, Central Russia, Caucasus, East Ukraine, and perhaps Stalingrad. Would that make things better? Why or why not?

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by saying the Middle East looks squeezed. In terms of total number of pixels, its territories are some of the largest in the game – Persia, for example, is almost the same size as all six mainland French territories. Syria is a bit small, but I don’t know how to fix that; I already got rid of Lebanon and Trans-Jordan and Cyprus. It gives the French a presence in the region, which I think adds interest.

Are there any specific changes you would recommend in the Middle East?

Hi Randy,

I believe that there is a larger plan here, and when you have more time, I look forward to hearing your explanation of how it’s supposed to work. I know you’re working at UPS during the holiday season, and looking after your family, and that’s fine and I don’t mean to pressure you to spend more time on A&A than you want to, but when you’re able to film it or type it up, I think your full plan will be very interesting and worthy of more discussion.

For now, I will just point out that if the USA and UK both evacuate the Pacific and go 100% in the Atlantic for the first four turns, then Japan will win quite easily. You’re calling for the starting US Pacific fleet to move into the Atlantic to prevent a Sea Lion – but, taken literally, that means that Japan can build a couple of loaded transports on J3, divert one carrier group, and have 99%+ odds to take Hawaii on J4. If Japan also takes India on J4, the game ends after ANZAC’s 4th turn – Japan wins with Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Manila, Honolulu, and Calcutta.

Taken less literally, and assuming that the USA leaves enough material behind to secure Honolulu against casual attacks, you still have to worry about losing Sydney (and thus the game) on J5 or J6. Given that you’re proposing to move 6 units out of India on UK1 (infantry, artillery, transport, cruiser, fighter, tac) and then continue moving units out of India as they’re built to overpower Italy in North Africa, Japan can take and hold India with its starting units plus two turns of builds – everything built on J3 and later can be devoted 100% to taking Sydney. That means the J3 build can reach the Caroline Islands on J4 and Sydney by J5. If you wait until J6, many of the Japanese aircraft that survived the attack on India can also reach Sydney using airbases and/or carriers. Meanwhile, US forces built off San Francisco on US5 can make it to Honolulu on US6 and Queensland on US7 – far too late to stop a J6 attack on Sydney.

I do give you a lot of credit for looking for a way that the Allies can reliably win G40 without a bid, and I think you’re making great progress, but unless you can also explain how to stop Japan in the Pacific, then the strategy isn’t really a Global strategy.

You were kind enough to show me your strategy in the video, so I thought I’d better give you something interesting in response. :)

The North Sea battle was a disaster (Cunningham is fired!) but otherwise I am satisfied so far.

@vodot My pleasure! Thanks for asking.

Unit mix is very similar to the standard ww2v3 game; I didn’t want people to feel the units were unfamiliar. The only changes are that naval units are now cheaper, there is an option to build a minor factory called a ‘barracks’, and there are a few 2-hit bunkers starting on the map at setup. You can’t build any new bunkers.

Here is the map; it’s less exciting than Vodot’s gorgeous artwork, but it should be functional enough for online games. You can see that I’ve added Free France as a playable power (in light blue), and that there are new territories in the Med and the south Pacific. If anyone cares to make a skin or if there’s anything I can do to help with that, I’d love to hear about it.

European setup:

Pacific setup:

And, finally, the reworked national objectives. These are easier to keep track of than you might think, both because the game automatically scores them for you, and because the oil derricks and Flying Tiger drop-off zones are marked with symbols on the map.

@Navalland OK, thank you; you’ve convinced me. I’ll split up the Caucasus as you suggest. I’m also going to see if I can create a ‘land canal’ blocking movement from North Caucasus to Volga unless you control Stalingrad (or have a boat on the Caspian Sea and use that). That way players will face a historical choice of whether to attack Stalingrad to penetrate into the somewhat-rich Volga region, or turn south, away from Stalingrad, to soak up the very-rich oil territories (but no victory cities). I may have to tinker with the IPC values a bit, there, too. Maybe 1 for North Caucasus, 5 for South Caucasus, 2 for Armenia, 2 for Stalingrad, and 3 for Volga. That way S. Caucasus + Armenia is worth $7 compared to Stalingrad + Volga’s $5.

If you have specific advice about Persia’s borders, I’ll consider it, but I honestly don’t know what about the Middle East you’re finding unrealistically proportioned right now. I know it’s not perfect, but I don’t see any glaring flaws. Can you point them out for me?

@randyshervandyke All right, I’m starting to get a sense of your overall plan, and it sounds promising. If I understand you correctly, the central idea of your opening is to contain the Axis within as wide of a perimeter as possible for the first few turns in order to conserve material, force the Axis to make unfavorable trades, and set up for a devastating Allied counter-attack in the middlegame. Instead of fighting over Java, Yunnan, and the central Mediterranean, you’re inviting the Axis to come fight you in Cairo, West India, and Queensland. Most openings advise the Allies to fight the Axis as far “forward” as possible to minimize the Axis income, but your advice is to fight the Axis as far “back” as possible to minimize Allied losses.

@simon33 I agree with you; if you leave Japan completely alone, then sooner or later Japan will take the 6th victory city, even if you turtle in Sydney and Honolulu. You have to offer Japan at least some resistance in order to keep the Pacific alive.

I like this idea, and I think it’s potentially revolutionary – this could be the equivalent of the ‘modern’ opening style in chess, which shifted emphasis from fighting directly for the center by advancing center pawns two spaces and placing pieces in or very near the center (classic) to fighting indirectly for the center by advancing flanking pawns one space and placing pieces on the flanks (modern).

That said, I think you’ve overestimated how far the Allies can afford to retreat without losing the game. For example, you can’t “give up Hawaii” to reinforce Sydney, because Japan will usually hold four victory cities quite easily: Tokyo, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Shanghai. From there, they only need two more victory cities to win. You and I agree that Japan will be taking India at least temporarily in this opening, so that means Japan only needs one more VC to win. If Japan takes Sydney OR Honolulu before losing India, and the Allies don’t immediately take it back, then the game ends and the Axis win.

Similarly, if you build nothing but infantry with ANZAC starting on turn 1, then that will certainly protect Sydney through turn 5, but it gives Japan a still yet easier time of capturing all of the money islands, all of China, etc, because after they sink the first Australian transport, Japan doesn’t have to worry about any further interference from the Aussies. I’m uneasy about the options this will create for Japan – Japan might be able to launch an attack in great force against Honolulu, or take all of China and start menacing the Russians from behind, or even allow the primary Japanese air/sea group to continue onward toward the west after taking India to successfully capture your Persian factory. By turn 5, Japan should be earning 80+ IPCs per turn and can afford to drop a fleet into the Pacific each turn that’s roughly the same size as what the Americans can build – even if you pivot to 100% Pacific with the US starting on turn 5, you may wind up never retaking any ground in the central/south Pacific, and Japan may continue eating into your possessions in Egypt, the Middle East, Kazakh, and Siberia. Even with a strong UK/US attack on Germany, that’s not really a position I want to be aiming for as the Allies.

Relatedly, I think routinely building 3 destroyers for the UK on turn 1 (let alone on turn 2) is overkill. Taking control of the Atlantic is a good idea, but Germany usually only has about 2 subs left in the Atlantic after attacking the UK home fleets on G1, and 1 or 2 British destroyers will usually survive in the Atlantic (Canada, Wales, etc.). The destroyers aren’t going to directly threaten Germany and it just doesn’t feel like the top priority purchase to me.

So, here’s how I would adapt and re-imagine your plan. I’m trying to be faithful to what I see as the core concepts (retreat deeply in the opening to save Allied resources; focus your first Allied counter-attack against Germany) while tweaking the details to yield better odds of Allied victory.

UK 1 Purchase:
2 infantry, 1 fighter, 1 destroyer for London
Save 4 IPCs in the bank in Europe
2 inf, 1 tac for India

Allied Strategy turn 1:
Stack up the combined fleets in SZ 93 as outlined by Randy
Do not attack Ethiopia at all – instead, use one transport to claim Persia and one transport to claim Sumatra
March the entire Egyptian army to Sudan so they can attack your choice of Ethiopia / Kenya / Egypt on UK2
March the South African troops to Rhodesia.
Put the entire US build in the Atlantic, but leave the entire US Pacific fleet in place to defend Hawaii / ANZAC.
Leave two planes (the Burma fighter and the newly purchased Indian tac) in India to harass the Japanese.
Fly two planes from India to Tanganyika (not Somaliland) where they can still hit east Africa and/or Egypt.
Take Java with one infantry and the ANZAC transport, and build a transport and an infantry in Sydney.

UK 2 Purchase:
Minor factory for Persia (assuming no Sea Lion)
1 Carrier, 1 transport for London
Infantry for India

Allied Strategy turn 2:
If the SZ 93 fleet survived, bring it to SZ 91, west of Gibraltar
Counter-attack Egypt if necessary; otherwise attack the largest group of Italian troops in East Africa
Consider returning the two planes from Tanganyika to West India if they are not immediately needed in Egypt
Leave all new Indian purchases in India (or Burma / Yunnan) to make life moderately challenging for Japan
Take Dutch New Guinea with one infantry and the remaining ANZAC transport.
Build only infantry and fighters in Sydney from now on until the Americans arrive to reinforce Australia.

UK 3 Purchase
2 inf, 1 art for Persia
Transports and Fighters for London, with 1 more destroyer if there are still Axis subs near the Atlantic
Infantry for India

Allied Strategy turn 3:
Unite the SZ 91 fleet with last turn’s carrier + transport purchase to begin assaulting Normandy / Norway / Denmark.
Use Red Sea transports to attack any remaining Italian troops in East Africa
Attack Cairo if necessary
Attack Iraq if resources allow
Turtle in India and Sydney and Honolulu
Continue building American Atlantic fleet, including transports, to set up for an early serious attack on West Germany

Commentary
The overall idea here with this modified ‘rebound’ strategy (anyone have a catchier name?) is to abandon the Mediterranean Sea to Italy while still fighting hard for Gibraltar, Cairo, Ethiopia, and Iraq – Italy will have some income, but the UK will have even more income based on holding the Middle East and sweeping the Axis out of the Atlantic and launching very early, successful assaults on Axis territories on the Atlantic seaboard. Japan can take India early if it commits 100% to the endeavor, but will typically not wind up with enough spare resources after the India attack to make a serious attack on Sydney, Persia, or Honolulu…and if Japan waits to take India until later, then American can pivot to the Pacific and start giving Japan some real problems. If Germany ignores the Atlantic threat and blitzes straight for Moscow, then the large supply of British fighters (about 7 planes) can fly to Scotland on UK3, Archangel/Nenetsia on UK4, and Moscow on UK5, in time to stop a G6 attack on Moscow.

@Stucifer I would like to formally protest a flaw in the PTV game design, which is that (a) Germany had absolutely no capability at all of invading the mainland US in 1940 or 1941 and could not have acquired one, and (b) if that were somehow not the case, then there’s no way in hell that in real life a German transport sitting on the west coast of a German-occupied Gibraltar doesn’t trigger a US declaration of war.

The fact that I have to defend Washington against a German attack while the US is still at peace is ridiculous.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

@vodot said in [AA50/Anniversary] Modular Map Overlays - Splitting Australia, the Balkans, and Sea Zones; adding Cairo, Malaya, Singapore, Rio, Cape Town, Recruitment Centers and tons more!:

even more just enjoy the outlet for my creativity in the service of this community.

I’m really glad you’re enjoying it. I’m enjoying your outputs. :)

Yeah, no complaints on Ladoga, man. I’ve enlarged dozens of my territories for the same reason. What’s the balance concern? You could make a canal attachment so that the Germans can’t move ships through Ladoga until after they take Leningrad. You could even have the canal be Russian-only, I think, simulating the Russians blowing up the locks as they retreat.

@randyshervandyke Can you say a little more about that? What does it mean to “declare” London off limits? It sounds like you’re advocating for sending a chunk of the US Pacific fleet into the Atlantic in order to intimidate Germany and psychologically deter them from making any moves into the Atlantic and/or intimidate Germany into calling off Sea Lion.

If so, I’m not sure that’s the right way to think about it. I’m less interested in making it psychologically impossible for Germany to invade London, and more worried about making sure it’s not a winning strategy for Germany to invade London. If Germany invades London and takes a huge loss in so doing, that’s fine with me. Even if Germany captures London for a turn or two, that’s fine with me as long as Germany pays such a high price that the Allies wind up in a winning position.

Well, the dice swung back a bit the other way in Soviet Far East. Glad I sent more than looked necessary to that one.

Please use second save; I moved a cruiser because I think I need it there to allow for a scramble to protect the transport.

Hello fellow developers. I made a custom TripleA map from scratch using the map creator tool, and then edited the xml file appropriately, and all of that is going reasonably well. I can see the game in the list of maps available when I run TripleA. However, I can’t actually launch the game to see what the map looks like, because I’m getting the following error box:

I assume I’m just putting my map files in the wrong folder or something, but it’s in the same folder as all of the maps that I’ve downloaded, and I don’t know where else to put it. I could try uploading the map to the github repository and then downloading it from there, but I’d rather not upload it until I’ve tested it at least a little bit on my harddrive and it’s ready for other beta testers. The folder I’m using is C:/users/Jason GL/triplea/downloadedMaps. Within that folder, I’ve tried putting my xml file in /Argo/map/games and in /Argo/games.

Anyone have any suggestions? Thanks in advance for your help. :-)

Here’s the full error message:
Mar 24, 2019 2:19:37 PM games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.LocalLauncher loadGame
SEVERE: Failed to start game
games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.MapNotFoundException
at games.strategy.triplea.ResourceLoader.getMapResourceLoader(ResourceLoader.java:60)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.HeadedUiContext.internalSetMapDir(HeadedUiContext.java:75)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.AbstractUiContext.setDefaultMapDir(AbstractUiContext.java:107)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.TripleAFrame.create(TripleAFrame.java:232)
at games.strategy.triplea.TripleA.startGame(TripleA.java:105)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.LocalLauncher.loadGame(LocalLauncher.java:60)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.LocalLauncher.launchInNewThread(LocalLauncher.java:39)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.AbstractLauncher.lambda$launch$0(AbstractLauncher.java:51)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source)

Mar 24, 2019 2:28:18 PM games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.LocalLauncher loadGame
SEVERE: Failed to start game
games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.MapNotFoundException
at games.strategy.triplea.ResourceLoader.getMapResourceLoader(ResourceLoader.java:60)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.HeadedUiContext.internalSetMapDir(HeadedUiContext.java:75)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.AbstractUiContext.setDefaultMapDir(AbstractUiContext.java:107)
at games.strategy.triplea.ui.TripleAFrame.create(TripleAFrame.java:232)
at games.strategy.triplea.TripleA.startGame(TripleA.java:105)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.LocalLauncher.loadGame(LocalLauncher.java:60)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.LocalLauncher.launchInNewThread(LocalLauncher.java:39)
at games.strategy.engine.framework.startup.launcher.AbstractLauncher.lambda$launch$0(AbstractLauncher.java:51)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source)

@flyingbadger Yup, I checked the XML. It’s a bug; the territory is being assigned to Europe instead of Pacific. The maintainers need to add

<option name="changeUnitOwners" value="British"/>
<option name="whenCapturedByGoesTo" value="British:UK_Pacific"/>

to the Kyushu territory attachment.