This post was updated on .
Yah a quick intro I think would be useful... the main nations are pretty self explanatory (even for people such as myself with a superficial knowledge of WWI) ... but even what you wrote sets the mood nicely for the conflict.
What I was referring to was more aimed at things like the Mexican civil War... Chinese civil war and why neither of the 2 sides can attack one another... Ottomans situation on turn 1 and why they cannot attack Arabia... and being aware that Britain can declare War on them immediately following their first turn.
I think the addition of these would go a long way to let players know what their long term objectives should be for many of the secondary regional conflicts going on around the Globe.
Otherwise, great work so far.
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
The intro texts are a bit tougher than expected. Writing is not exactly my forte, as I've been cruelly reminded of these past few days. I put in the notification triggers, but commented them out, until I get the text written. That being said, there are some other minor changes that can be pushed...
Decrease some diplomacy costs (Darfur, Kaocen, Asir)
Fix Bolshevik trigger conditions to include Moscow, Saratov
Decrease Amazon to 0
Increase Rio de Janeiro to 3
Change Brazil to start Unfriendly with Neutral_CP
Add 2 Neutral_CP Contestado rebels in Sao Paulo
Remove Brazilian infantry from Sao Paulo, Amazon
Decrease infantry in Rio de Janeiro from 5 to 3
Burgundy downgrade to factory1 (suggestion from Cernel)
Brittany upgrade to factory3
Increased factory1,2,3 damage caps to 6,12,18 respectively (suggestion from Cernel)
v5 AA rules, i.e. limit 3 shots instead of infinite (suggestion from Cernel)
Add fighter to Tsingtao
In reply to this post by Surtur2
Where to download tjis game?
Same way as normal. You may need to delete the existing folder from your downloadedMaps directory and get a fresh copy. I haven't been diligent about updating the .yaml in the main repo.
I finally think I'm through the worst of the writer's block. I think I should be able to finish off the Intros this week. Meantime, I'm tinkering around with other stuff relating to India, ANZAC, Portgual, and Mexico. And I've also done some digging around on Wikipedia regarding dreadnought construction before and during WWI. I've combined the results with some information previously in this thread, and put the results in this handy table. Classes marked as (SD) are super dreadnoughts. And commission dates with asterisks (*) are after the start of hostilities. I may tweak the starting locations/quantities of battleships. And obviously the whole point was to make factory3/harbour placement relatively accurate. So that's going into the next release, hopefully.
I have to ask why increase the cost of units. Now there is no much need for Electrification technology and the number of factories and trains on the map is excessive.
Anyways, the balance of this game seems to favor the Entente too much. Even without the USA, i can easily push back Germans bit by bit. USA may start the war late, but in reality it is buying up weapons. Once war is declared, USA can land on German territories. So if you want to create a what if scenario, maybe throw USA into a separate alliance (with Brazil and Latin America). Or let USA collect income much later in the game (like NWO). Or start with no factories.
Well, the rationale behind doubling the unit costs was to prevent monster stacks. It is more of an experiment and is not set in stone. So far, I'm not sure I like it, but I'll give it a couple more weeks and see if it grows on me.
It is possible that I may have hewed too closed to history, resulting in the tilt towards the Entente. If so, I will try to balance it.
Now, in your games, when you say the Germans always get pushed back, *where* do they get pushed back? Western Front, Eastern Front, amphibious assaults?
Your map suffers the same fate as Blood and Steel. The AI does not know how to handle neutral players like Greece and Romania. So it just stack units against these players. I screw around with Blood and Steel to let these small players join the war immediately, this allows the Centrals to have a better fighting chance as they conquer the Balkans easily.
Start of the game is about the major powers in Europe only:
Round 1) No Ottoman:
248 PU Entente vs 161 Centrals
2)248PU Entente vs 213PU Centrals
283PU Entente vs 213 PU Centrals
This is 30% advantage compared to No Man Land, without USA the Entente only have 10% more income.
Well, this map wasn't exactly designed to be played with AI. There are too many user actions and triggers for a generic AI to handle. A custom AI would need to be written which could properly account for the diplomatic-side of things.
Do you have any suggestions or thoughts on how the macroeconomic field could be more balanced?
1. Would reverting the unit costs accomplish this, do you think?
2. Or do the Central Powers need more initial starting units (further back from the front)?
3. Or instead, do the Allies need fewer starting units?
This post was updated on .
I got slightly sidetracked, as I finally got around to watching The Man in the High Castle. And now it's Thursday... Big-ish change this time around, mostly having to do with navies. I used the dreadnought table from the prior post, and did a 2:1 historical:game ratio to determine how many battleships each power got. I was more generous with the CP, and counted future dreadnoughts that were not fully commissioned in August 1914, and I was more stringent with the Allies, and only counted commissioned dreadnoughts at the end of August 1914. So, for instance, Russia has 0 battleships now, Japan and Brazil get 1 each, etc.
Turn1 intro notifications (suggestion from hepster)
Rename Shammar to Ha'il
Rename Nuevo Leon to Tamaulipas
Add factory3/harbour to East Prussia
Remove transport in SZ 68
Add cruiser to SZ 84
Triple the battleships in the Baltic
Add 2 cruisers, 4 destroyers, 2 submarines to the Baltic
Replace Mediterranean fleet with submarines
Add battleship to SZ 56
Remove cruiser from SZ 90
Downgrade cruiser to destroyer in SZ 127
Add battleship, 3x submarines to SZ 62
Add Hungarian factory3/habour to Croatia
Replace battleship in SZ 116 with cruiser + destroyer
Downgrade SZ 73 battlecruiser to cruiser
Double the number of UK battleships
Add factory3/harbour to England, Cornwall, Scotland
Downgrade Sydney-Canberra, Calcutta to factory2
Bahrain, Ceylon, Oman to UK
Aden, Andaman, Nicobar to India
Samoa goes to ANZAC when captured by UK
Baghdad, Basra, Mesopotamia go to India when captured by UK
New UK user action to purchase the Chilean dreadnought Almirante Latorre
Downgrade battleships to battlecruisers
Add cruiser, destroyer to SZ 8
Add factory3/harbour to Crimea
Add harbour to Vladivostok, Murmansk, Archangelsk, Latvia
Add factory3/harbour to Chugoku, Kyoto, Kyushu
Add battleship to SZ 142
Downgrade SZ 67 battleship to battlecruiser
Add 1 destroyer to SZ 71
New Moro Revolt action for Ottomans against the United States
Add cruiser to SZ 75
Add battleship to SZ 61
Remove infantry from Puerto Rico, Eastern Cuba, Western Cuba
Reduce Nicaragua, Panama infantry to 1
Reduce mainland U.S. Army to 5 units total
Change U.S. Navy to 5 battleships, 4 cruisers, 6 destroyers, 3 transports
Add factory3/harbour to Washington D.C., Hudson-Delaware, New England
Bugfix for Makonbe Uprising notifications
Decrease Lisbon infantry from 3 to 1
Require Portugal controls Lisbon for official declaration of war
New May 14 Revolt event for Portugal
Remove rebel from Oaxaca
Add factory2 to Tamaulipas
Add factory1 to Morelos
South America changes
Add Brazilian battleship to SZ 102
Add trigger for Argentina to contribute battleship if Argentina joins Allies
Ugh. Just realized that some of the factory3's are in territories that are 1-2 production. Will have to fix that next time around by shuffling production around.
Switch Luzon, Mindanao incomes
Move 1 production from Transylvania to Croatia
Move 1 production from England to Scotland
Move 2 production from London to Cornwall
Add 1 production to Holstein
Add 2 production to Crimea
Add 1 production to Galicia
Downgrade Chugoku, Kyushu to factory1
Downgrade Kyoto to factory2
Rebalance U.S. production
Your map does not place emphasis on capitals, that is capitals are just meaningless.
For e.g. Centrals in taking small countries shall be able to capture their PU, this is a minor boost which they need. Bolshevik uprising is a joke, because capturing the capital does not mean a big win, since Russia can just regather and rebuild.
Also, USA although not in the war, it is doing research, buying transports and troops. In contrast, Bolshevik uprising is too late, it needs to be faster, at least by round 5.
This is an interesting point. I specifically removed the ability to seize PU to prevent exploits like capital farming. But from what you are saying, this provides more economic advantage to CP than to Allies. I suppose it would be easy enough to change the settings to seize PU when capturing a capital, but still allow income and production on subsequent turns...
Yes... Just a brainstorm here... How about we get rid of the current US aid system (US pays for infantry, transports), and instead implement the British blockade of Germany like so:
Germany gets a new naval unit, 0/0/2. Call it a blockade runner or something.
Germany has user actions to trade with neutral powers
1. Trade with Netherlands (Netherlands must be neutral): Pay 3 PU to place a blockade runner in either SZ 118, 124, 126.
2. Trade with Beiyang (turns 1-3 only)
A. If control Tsingtao, Pay 0 to gain +20 PU to Germany, -20 PU to Beiyang.
B. Else, Pay 3 PU to place a blockade runner in either SZ 136, 137. Also -10 PU to Beiyang. Can do this 2x/turn
3. Trade with KMT (turns 1-3 only): Pay 3 to place a blockade runner in SZ 129. Also -10 PU to KMT.
4. Trade with USA (USA not at war with Germany or Mexico): Pay 3 PU to place a blockade runner in either SZ 29, 30, 37, 147, 153. Also, -10 PU to USA. Can do this 4x/turn
Blockade runners can be sunk, and must reach drop off zones to gain PUs for Germany. Otherwise, the only effect is to drain PUs from the target neutral country (which can be valuable in itself)
A. SZ 14: Requires control of Hanover. +10 PUs to Germany
B. SZ 76: Requires control of Dar es Salaam. +1 infantry in Dar es Salaam, +4 PUs to Germany
C. SZ 76: Requires control of German East Africa. +1 infantry in German East Africa, +4 PUs to Germany
D. SZ 98: Requires control of German Southwest Africa. +1 infantry in German Southwest Africa, +4 PUs to Germany
E. SZ 100: Requires control of Kamerun. +1 infantry in Kamerun, +4 PUs to Germany
G. SZ 100: Requires control of Togo. +1 infantry in Togo, +4 PUs to Germany
H. SZ 122: Requires control of German New Guinea. +1 infantry in German New Guinea, +4 PUs to Germany
I. SZ 137: Requires control of Tsingtao. +1 infantry in Tsingtao, +4 PUs to Germany
I think this mechanic would improve the game in multiple ways simultaneously:
I. Give Germany a chance for an early game income boost (while its navy is strongest, and has colonies for more choices in drop-off zones)
II. Give those same German colonies some extra longevity from the infantry
III. Restrict production of neutral China, USA
IV. Encourage Allied naval commitment to the Atlantic
V. Encourage activity in the Pacific, specifically around the Dutch East Indies.
This one is a bit more difficult. Moving it earlier becomes ahistorical, as it occurred after US entry into the war. However, if we were looking simply to boost the Bolsheviks even further, we could do one of the following, or a combination thereof:
i. Increase Bolshevik income with (possibly multiple) National Objectives
ii. Create an event for the Kornilov putsch and use it to spawn more Bolsheviks
iii. Slowly spawn Bolsheviks (who start neutral until German activation) over time, either:
iiia. At a constant rate, at all starting factories except maybe Vladivostok
iiib. As a result of Russian unit placement/factory usage. This would mean the more Russia uses a specific factory, the more Bolsheviks accumulate there.
iv. Just spawn more Bolsheviks, nevermind where or why!
Ok. I've worked through a couple of iterations, even attempting some prototypes (which are fully armed and operational) and here's what I've come up with:
New unit: gold
-transport cost 1
-isInfantry (can ride trains)
-cannot be produced
New unit: inflation
-when captured changes to gold
-produces -1 PU/turn
-cannot be produced
New unit: merchant
-cannot combat move
-cannot be produced
New action: print money
-Must have 1+ gold in capital
-Must be at war
-Gain 20 PUs
-Convert 1 gold in capital to 1 inflation in capital
New action: run trade deficit
-Must have 1+ gold in capital
-Must be at war
-Must be neutral vs. target country
-Can only be done X times/turn (haven't decided yet, but should probably between 1-3), or may vary depending on factors like geography
-Gain 1 PU
-Transfer 1 gold from capital to target country
-Potential candidate countries: Argentina, Beiyang, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Denmark, Dutch East Indies, Greece, Italy, Japan, KMT, Netherlands, Norway, Ottoman, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, USA
New action (Germany only): attempt trade mission
-Must have 3+ gold in capital
-Must be neutral vs. target country
-Place merchant in target port neighboring sea zone
-Transfer 3 gold from capital to target country
-Subtract 10 PUs from target country
-Potential candidates: Beiyang, Dutch East Indies, KMT, USA
New trigger (Germany only): complete trade mission
-Merchant ship must reach one of SZ 14, 76, 98, 100, 122, 137
-Gain rewards depending on which SZ is reached
For reference, I looked up various St. Louis Fed reports on historical gold reserves in foreign countries (not all of which agreed), going back all the way to 1900. I assume it doesn't go back farther because the U.S. Federal Reserve system was established in 1913. I always erred in favor of the Central Powers, so I chose the highest number I found across all sources for CP, and the lowest number found for Allies. And for now, 1 ton = 1 unit of gold. This is the proposed starting distribution of gold:
Belgium, 51 => This is controlled/newly captured by Germany, but located in Belgium on round 1.
Dutch East Indies, 15 => This stack is located in Java
Egypt, 16 => This is controlled by UK, but located in Cairo-Suez
New Zealand, 30
South Africa, 30
Based on what I could find, though I find this difficult to believe, China, Mexico, and the Ottoman Empire were bankrupt from a gold reserve perspective. I'm a little iffy on the data for China and Mexico. The Ottoman Empire seems slightly more believable, as I found stats saying the Imperial Ottoman Bank had 45 tons of gold in 1910, but by 1913, it was down to 0.
I think this proposal might change the game and address some of the imbalance issues... Maybe...
1. Gold can only be used in the capital
2. If you capture an enemy capital, you get their gold
3. Gold can be transported, but is useless outside of your capital
4. You can move gold away from your capital to deny it to your enemies
5. Gold can be transported in transports and trains
6. The ability to print money can give a short-term boost to minor countries, at the cost of inflation, which can be punishing later
7. This ability should be used sparingly, especially by countries with low gold reserves, like Bulgaria and Greece
8. Assuming Austria-Hungary takes Belgrade round 1, neither Serbia nor Belgium can print money
9. Trade deficits do not incur inflation, but are a paltry +1 PU (vs. +20)
10. Running trade deficits can backfire if you are trading with a country which will later join the war on the opposing side, as you are feeding them gold.
11. In the unlikely scenario that the war expands everywhere it is possible, the only remaining neutral trading partner is Spain, so that will be the guaranteed sink for gold by trade deficit
12. Trade deficits are more powerful early on, as there are more potential neutral targets.
13. To give CP a leg up, I also gave Germany the ability to attempt to run the British blockade
14. This costs gold, but Germany has plenty, and has the added bonus of draining PUs from Beiyang and USA, to prevent tech/buildup while neutral.
15. The quantity of gold in the game is constant, though its location and distribution may change. Gold and inflation are interchangeable on a 1-for-1 basis.
16. If you build up inflation, and an enemy takes your capital, you lose your inflation, but that inflation is converted to gold and given to your opponent.
Thoughts on this proposal? If we want to proceed with this idea (or a variant thereof), I need unit graphics for gold, inflation, and merchant, as I'm currently using placeholders.
this mod is sounding so cool because I like historical accuracy and realism and its very complex and me and some friends will try this out at some point eventually!
This post was updated on .
I suppose I will leave off implementing changes for a few more days, to keep the window for further comments open. But if I don't see any significant pushback by Friday I will start implementing the changes, though completion could take awhile.
To further expound upon the ideas presented earlier, I'd also propose the following changes:
1. Make the Grand Duchy of Finland a separate, but subordinate power to Russia (like Hungary or British Dominions), as Finland had its own currency and limited autonomy, with starting gold 8.
[Edit: I've reconsidered Finland being a separate power; it will just be a separate gold stack like NZ/Australia, with its own trade relationships, but no units/delegates, and obviously cannot print money. Russia could simply loot Finland's gold, though I don't see why it would want to.]
2. New power with no delegates, Egypt (also includes Cyprus), friendly with U.K. Technically Ottoman vassals, but de facto British protectorates, UK gets no income from Egypt until Ottomans join the war (at which point Egypt changes ownership to British). U.K. can control trade policy of Egypt using gold in Cairo-Suez, but cannot print money using it.
3. Get rid of old foreign aid actions (giving X PUs). Replace with transferring gold to other powers. Must physically move the gold to allied capital, and transfer can be done unlimited times per turn. So Germany could (and probably should) subsidize the economies of its weaker allies (like Bulgaria, Ottoman)
4. Gold can be sunk on transports, so total gold quantity on the map can decrease
5. Great Powers can trade with all neutral candidate countries (Max 21 on Germany round 1)
6. Minor Powers (including Finland and British Dominions, but excluding Hungary) can only trade with neutral Great Powers, Spain, and any immediately adjacent neutral neighbors.
7. I also intend to do some research on gold production/sources in 1914, to see if maybe it would make sense to somehow produce gold over time, but I am already leaning against this idea. We'll see.
I thought of a new unit called Mutiny. It will reflect the mass desertation in the Russian army and to some small extend the French Army. It will be spawn in major Russian cities. It will be a flying and suicide unit with 6 attack 12 movements. So Germany will control these units and kill of say 15 Russian troops even before the Russian revolution.
I mean why should the Russians fight the Centrals when they know the Bolsheviks will spawn? This prevent the Russians from stacking so many troops and give Bolsheviks a chance.
that kind of reminds me I used to play a board game called Stalingrad and only the Russian Troops had a chance to go "Bizerk"
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|