This map is currently available from "Download Maps" -> EXPERIMENTAL
Been working on this for quite awhile. Went through multiple drafts, and had to start over a few times. This is the very first full cut, and it hasn't been balance tested at all. There may also be bugs.
The goal here was to make a global-ish WWI game with a focus on diplomacy; specifically, German diplomacy. What if everything had gone Germany's way on the diplomatic/espionage front?
For kicks, I decided to add the Mexican Revolution (to give the Zimmermann Telegram some additional context), the Chinese Warlord Era to spice up East Asia maybe, and also the Spanish Influenza pandemic.
If the Constitutionalists win in Mexico fast enough, then Mexico can join the Central Powers. If the Southern warlords win in China (simplified in-game to the KMT), then China can join the Central Powers instead of the Allies. Italy has a choice which alliance to join, and Romania follows wherever Italy goes. Additionally, the Germans can support all sorts of insurgencies/rebellions throughout the globe.
I chose to use units for the Great Powers to represent rebellions, as in a previous iteration, I had each insurgency as a distinct player (with its own units/flags), but this quickly became unplayable (too many turns per round). So I streamlined it, to keep it thematically close enough, without bogging down the gameplay.
-Fix map colors! (Need help with this, as I am red-green deficient)
If there is enough interest in this, it can go in the repo. Otherwise, we can just ignore this map and pretend it never happened. :-)
I realize I just posted this with little preamble and little in the way of explanation, so here goes...
Central Powers: Austria, Germany
Allies/Entente: Russia, France, UK, Serbia, Belgium
Portugal begins in a state of de facto (colonial) war with the Central Powers
Mexican Revolution: Conventionists vs Constitutionalists
Rough Timeline of events
Ottoman Empire (Central Powers)
Maritz Rebellion (South Africa)
Italy (can join either side)
Ghadar Conspiracy (India)
Bulgaria (Central Powers)
Senussi campaign (Libya)
Warlord Era begins (China)
Portugal (officially joins Allies)
Sultanate of Darfur joins the Jihad
Easter Rising (Ireland)
Romania (joins whichever side Italy joined)
Kaocen Revolt (Niger)
October Revolution (Bolsheviks)
Spanish Influenza pandemic
Other design notes:
Austria-Hungary is deliberately divided to weaken this empire, to make it more difficult to steamroll the Balkans
The British Empire has semi-autonomous Dominions (Canada, South Africa, India, ANZAC) to weaken it, and to force more action in secondary theaters (or at least, that's the theory)
Italy (and Romania) start off as members of the Triple Alliance, and I wanted to give them the option of jumping into either side.
Belgium and Portugal are separate powers to further hobble the Allies in Africa. The Entente powers have to defend their territory while the forces they can contribute do not offset this strategic cost
Similarly, Persia is even worse of a strategic liability, as it does not even contribute offensive units, but still must be defended.
Greece enters a state of civil war after the February Revolution (as King Constantine, despite his support for the Central Powers, was shielded by his relative, Tsar Nicholas). After Venizelos is victorious, Greece can join the Allies.
Poor Albania can be occupied by anyone at the start of the game, including powers which begin neutral (i.e. Italy, Greece)
The Ottoman Empire called for a jihad against the Allies; in game this is represented by support for insurgencies.
The US cannot declare war while at war with or occupying Mexico (though the Central Powers can declare war on the US). Once the US is at war, Brazil can join the Allies as well, and Siam, Liberia, Central and South America flip to Neutral_Allies. While at peace the US can purchase infantry and transports on behalf of the Entente powers; this makes the U-boat campaign extremely important if the US goes all-in with this strategy.
Mexico begins with the Mexican Revolution already in progress. The US still occupies Veracruz (leftover from the defeated Huerta regime). The Conventionists (Pancho Villa and Zapata) are fighting against the Constitutionalists (Carranza and Obregon). If the Conventionists win, they will join the Allies. If the Constitutionalists win fast enough, they can join the Central Powers. If the Constitutionalists take too long, Obregon stages a coup against Carranza, and Mexico stays neutral.
In China, after Yuan Shikai declares himself emperor, the southern factions revolt (simplified in game as the KMT). Germany can support the southerners, and if they are victorious, China can join the Central Powers. If the Northern Beiyang government wins or draws, then China can join the Allies, as per the history books.
Initially the Neutral_CP territories represent the Emirate of Jabal Shammar (allied to the Ottomans), the Atlas region of Morocco (representing the ongoing French colonial war against the Zaian Federation), and the Dervish state in the Horn of Africa, which was in a long-running conflict against the British.
Also, for realism, I think the trains should move more than 4; you can transport multiple units consecutively; so more movement is not going to be wasted, and trains should be able to easily not stay on the exposed territories where they likely transported the infantry.
For realism, I would suggest giving something like movement 12 to trains (for example you can use movement 12 to make 2 times back an forth from a 3 movement distance, transporting 2 infantries to the frontline and going back to the starting position).
For example, if you give train movement 12, then Germany on round 1 can:
-move 1 infantry and 1 train from Saxony to Belgium
-move the train back to Saxony
-move 1 other infantry and the train from Saxony to Belgium
-move the train back to Saxony, ready for transporting more stuff next turn
This would feel more like what trains should be supposed to be; they should actually be able to make many back and forth, realistically, in the time in which an infantry advances to Paris.
Side note, maybe consider having a cyclist unit moving 2 and make the cavalry move 3. Also, maybe cavalry at defence 3.
Did you calculate early Paris defence?
The Italian fleet is totally all over in the wrong positions; it should be over 90% in 61 Sea Zone (where there are no ships!), and almost only a few torpedo boats elsewhere; like, here, 2 destroyers in 62, 1 destroyer each in 59, 58, 57, 1 submarine each in 62 and 57, everything else (comprising 3 or 4 destroyers, but no submarines) in 61.
The colours are not bad. Just Conventionists / Portugal and USA are too similar; just up the hue of the Conventionists etc. to 140 (from current 120).
Romania is definitely distinctive, but it looks very unmatching with the other colours. Also, are you sure that the Romanians are going to do whatever the Italians do?
Japan is too bright; that is going to be tiresome to the eyes to look at overtime, especially since it is yellow (anything from yellow to green is tiresome to the eyes if too electric, as long as you perceive it normally).
It's always something; I'll try to 1.9-ify the map for the next iteration.
Your idea with increasing the movement of the trains is a good one. For the cavalry, I guess I was thinking along the lines of mounted infantry that just used horses to move around faster than marching, hence the stats.
Nope, I haven't calculated the Paris defense; I haven't done any calculations or balance testing at all yet... Good thing, too, as making the trains more powerful would have thrown off the calculations anyway!
The Italian fleet can be consolidated, sure; Italy doesn't enter the war until T3 anyway. It was my intention to prevent the Romanians entering the war on any side the Italians are not on. If Italy is not at war, nobody can declare on Romania. If Italy is at war, then only the opposing alliance can declare on Romania. And Romania can only join the alliance Italy is in. If that is not the case, then that's a bug. Now, whether this makes sense from a historical and/or gameplay perspective is another matter...
Not sure what you mean about the hue for Conventionists/Brazil/Portugal. I usually think of colors in RGB hex terms, i.e. fire truck red is 0xFF0000. In that vein, if you have any suggestions on better colors schemes, I'll likely defer to you, as colors are most certainly not my thing.
Lots of really neat things going on here. Particularly like the way you incorporated some of the other conflicts into the game.
Not real useful being written for 188.8.131.52. ;)
Trains can get really confusing once you have multilateral forces in territories.
Might want to take a look at how the blockades are functioning... saw many summary windows that said a nation had lost income but then the total PU earned was still the same. Didn't look in-depth at it though.
otherwise very good work so far.
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
If there is enough interest in this, it can go in the repo. Otherwise, we can just ignore this map and pretend it never happened. :-)
I'm not sure, but, despite what was said, I believe (I may be wrong) that there is not anyomore anyone uploading maps like in the past, but everyone needs to get around pushing the stuff on GitHub himself.
For the cavalry, I guess I was thinking along the lines of mounted infantry that just used horses to move around faster than marching, hence the stats.
I actually think that if infantry is cost 3 att/def 1/2, then cavalry should be cost 5 att/def 2/3 (both supportable). It makes sense that a lot of infantry and very few cavalry is a bit better than only infantry in attack. Since that would mean cavalry being worse than the typical armour (which is fine), you can then consider giving cavalry movement 3, as the movement 2 is already lowered in importance by the fact that there are trains, which should be a much more cost-effective way to hastily reach the frontline, rather than producing cavalry instead of infantry, to that aim (which is what you do in Great War, and makes absolutely no sense).
Yes, cavalry was mostly mounted infantry (even tho there was an unrewarding tendency to overuse it as charger, and many nations, like Germany, entered the war with a cavalry arm supposed to be employed mostly in mounted charges with lances), but, both in WW1 and WW2, cavalry charges had a value, especially in defence (counterattacking advancing forces on exposed positions and already pinned down by the infantry).
I don't like to have to reload the game to assign a player to this or that other player, and I think that Italy would be fine at either remaining neutral or joining the Entente, as I believe Italy would join the Alliance only on a GG situation.
I always suggest having a machine-gunners unit (in this case, infantry will need to be renamed to riflemen), but you would need some images for that.
Well I for one would still like to check it out :)
Just browsing randomly on my phone, and saw this.
Lately I've been trying to come up with a universal ruleset change for v5 and global code named "San Francisco" so I've mainly been at a&a.org trying to drum up interest over there. All my thoughts of late have been consumed by the cost 5 SBR only strategic bomber to fix the official games haha, but I do love it whenever I see this map creep out of the woodwork! Haha
I think the politics and events are a cool concept. I'd be down for a repo.
You make a persuasive case for your cavalry. We can try it out in the next version. (Hopefully I'll get it done tonight)
Though, thinking about it more, changing the cavalry movement to 3 could make breakthroughs fairly devastating, given the blitz ability. Not sure whether this would be considered a "bug" or a "feature". Perhaps pre-emptively take away blitz to compensate?
Regarding Italy, I did it the way I did to maximize options. So the players could:
1. Decide beforehand that Italy/Romania will be Allied, and never change it again for the duration of the game
2. Decide beforehand that Italy/Romania will be going Central Powers this time, and never change it for the duration
3. In a 3+ multiplayer game, actually have the Italian player make their own judgment, kind of like in Diplomacy
4. Do that thing you hate
Basically on T3, if you want Italy going into a certain alliance, just don't click the declare war button against that alliance
Regarding checking into git, the last time I looked at the various sticky threads, there were broken URLs. What's the latest authoritative thread for info on uploading maps?
I've just updated the download link in the original post.
Changes I decided to include (as specified in the changelog of the game notes):
Upgraded map to 184.108.40.206
Increased train movement from 4 to 12
Consolidated Italian fleet to SZ 61
Moved Austrian cruiser from SZ 136 to SZ 137 as part of no overlapping fleets on T1 policy
I just realized that I didn't update the version in the Game Notes (as that is just text). Oh well. I'll get it next time around, hopefully.
Even though there are some overlapping ground units on T1 (*cough* Belgium *cough*), I wanted to avoid it where possible everywhere else.
I decided against making cavalry changes this time around, as increasing movement to 3 might prove catastrophic in case of a breakthrough. In any front with two attacking players and a single defending player, if the first attacking player initiates a breakthrough, the second attacking player can potentially blitz 2 territories beyond the breakthrough using 3-movement blitzing cavalry/tanks (tanks would probably need to have their movement increased to match cavalry). Getting rid of blitz might resolve this issue, but would tanks still have blitz? Maybe? Might increase incentive to research tanks, so tanks can wreak this breakthrough havoc, but cavalry cannot? Dunno. Haven't fully thought through the implications, so I decided against changing anything for now.
I also still did not do any Paris calculations, partly because the cavalry issue is still unresolved, and partly because I'm feeling lazy right now.
I've updated the previous post with more information, which will be included in the next version.
I've also run through the numbers on early Paris defense for low luck. Due to map topography, Germany can merge 3 stacks to attack Champagne. In the initial attack, Germany can throw:
France only has:
Assuming the dice go in Germany's favor, Germany only loses 2 inf.
-I assume the Air units land within striking range of Paris
-I assume Germany builds 3x cav in each of Belgium, Alsace, as with control of Champagne, they are within striking range of Paris
-I assume Germany flies the remaining fighters into striking range
-I assume Germany moves cavalry from the backline into striking range
-I assume Germany uses trains with movement 12 to ship as many artillery and infantry to Champagne
All told, these reinforcements sum to:
So that's a pretty monstrous stack. However, assuming the Allies go all-in defending Paris, we have:
France moves (including trains):
Assuming Germany runs its stack into the Allied Paris stack, the Germans will be annihilated in ~4 combat rounds. So I think the Paris defense is ok?
Though, thinking this through, one thing we could do is reinforce the German right wing (in Belgium) instead, shifting the troops from the left wing in Alsace and Rhine. That might add more historical flavor, as per the Schlieffen Plan, and also have the effect of making the first round Champagne attack harder to pull off.
Thanks for your mod. I would say it's a very good experiment for people who like historical accuracy. Lets have a look.
-Central powers had no problem with Japan so Central powers shoudn't declare war on Japan. If I am wrong, please tell me.
-14 would be better zeppelin cost also I would prefer 7 (or 8) destroyer cost.
-Do you have any plan adding aerial battle.
-I like new territories. Is there any way to adapt relief tiles to the new map. Belarus also should be divided
-I really like trains.
-I think Sweden should be Impassible territory.
-Bessarabia was part of Russia not Romania. Why is Bessarabia much more valuable than Romania. 1 Pus can't represent Romania. This country was granary and oil region.
-Would you want adding joint operation areas? Central (Germany-Austria) and Entente armies (UK-France-USA) were fighting jointly. I mean for example when any British or USA unit invade France, These units transform to French Units.
-Would yo want to add sea mines?
-France shoudn't declare war on Bulgaria
-I really like blockade zones. That will provide reducing huge unit stacks.
-Austrian product power 32. Italian product power 36. Austria was defintely much more strong than Italy in 1914.
-Nepal had joined the war side of Entente.
-UK shoudn't declare war on Bulgaria
-Belgium should put its units into Belgium even if Belgium don't control Belgium to represent Belgian resistanse. Also it can be implement for Serbia.
-Russia shoudn't declare war on Bulgaria.
-Ottomans and Japan shoudn t declare war on each other.
-Some small countries can't placement. Maybe they should start with one small factory.
-al-dammam's original owner might be arabia.
-I dont know was USA hidden allies country in 1914 like to before Pearl Harbor or completely neutral country? If USA was neutral, so USA unit's shoudn't transform to allies units until 1917.
-I think situation of Italy and Romania should depends on achievents. For example; If Central Powers can capture 6 of 8 specfic territory. Italy and Romania join Central.
-Purchasing of UK and colonies should be after than combat move
-USa shoudn't declare war on Ottomans and Bulgaria
-there are connection bugs
-Bolscheviks can't placement.
-It would be better rising october revolution from don,pskov and tver instead of estonia, pskov,dnieper.