Austria-Hungary I believe was only modestly more powerful than Italy, as a matter of production (not talking about military power at start).
So, from my reprinted-as-original 1920 atlas:
Millions of people in 1914 (homeland + other possessions)
Russia : 149.0 + 37.7
Germany : 67.0 + 12.6
Austria-Hungary : 52,5
United Kingdom : 46.3 + 405.0
France : 38.8 + 53.5
Italy : 37.0 + 1.7
Spain : 20.3 + 1.1
Romania : 8.0
Benelux : 7.5 + 15.0
Netherlands : 6.7 + 48.1
Portugal : 6.2 + 9.8
Sweden : 5.8
Greece : 4.9 + 0.3
Bulgaria : 4.8
Serbia : 4.5
Switzerland : 4.0
Denmark : 3.0
Norway : 2.6
Turkey : 1.8 + 19.0
(not sure what is the homeland of Turkey, as 1.8 million people seems very few for Anatolia)
Steam merchant ships on 1914/06/30
Millions of metric tons (which means Tg or teragrams):
Great Britain : 18.9 Tg
Germany : 5.1 Tg
United States : 2.3 Tg
Norway : 2.0 Tg
France : 1.9 Tg
Japan : 1.7 Tg
British Dominions : 1.6 Tg
Netherlands : 1.5 Tg
Italy : 1.4 Tg
Austria-Hungary : 1.1 Tg
Sweden : 1.0 Tg
Denmark : 0.8 Tg
Greece : 0.8 Tg
Spain : 0.9 Tg
Others : 2.4 Tg
Total : 45.4 Tg
Note: The figure for the United States excludes the ships inside the Great Lakes.
Probably it would be good to get at least the steel production or something, that surely can be found somewhere; of course, Astria-Hungary is not more powerful than France just because it has more people, nor Russia is more powerful than Germany, for the same reason. I recall that France and Russia had about the same steel production, and both much under Germany.
History plays dice
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Navalland
Lot to digest here, so here goes, in no particular order...
This may not make sense from a historical perspective, but from a gameplay perspective, one of the things I decided had to be included was reciprocal declarations of war; that is, if one power can declare war, then the reciprocal should also be possible. The last thing you would want to see as a player is another country massing units, and you *know* they will attack you, but you can't do anything about it. Reciprocal declarations of war prevents this kind of exploit.
Another argument for it is to increase player choice. If players agree beforehand that they would like a more historical game, then they can simply refrain from pressing the declare war buttons anachronistically.
Could you go further into detail as to your reasoning behind this particular cost structure?
Why, yes! Aerial battle is already included in the Interrupter Gear tech. Once that is researched, late fighters can conduct aerial battles (among other things).
Well, I'm not really a graphics sort of person, so I was hoping someone else might help with this part. The baseline changes and custom flag graphics were hard enough for me. I stole unit art wherever possible. For instance, the train graphic comes from the Civil War map.
Regarding Belarus, do you have a suggestion how to divide it?
Thanks! I was unhappy with other implementations or proposed implementations (trains as secret naval units, or lots of triggers). I realized I could leverage the Mechanized Infantry tech, as this was a WWI map, so it would not be used in the time frame. So you might have noticed that all players start off with the Mechanized Infantry technology, trains are flagged as "isLandTransport," and all transportable land units (infantry, artillery, cavalry, tanks, AA guns) are flagged as "isInfantry." While rail transportation could always work better, I think the present implementation is "good enough" for game purposes.
Well one of the diplomatic options I gave Germany was to try to propose an alliance with Sweden. This happened historically, though it was unsuccessful. I put in a sequence of actions/triggers which would drag Scandinavia into the war.
As for the naming, I simply inherited it from the previous map. I suppose it might make more sense to switch the names for Bessarabia and Moldavia, as Western Moldavia was part of Romania.
In addition to the name switch, do you think 1 PU for Bessarabia, and 3 PU for Romania would make more sense?
One concern with this would be what happens when the army moves out of the joint operation area. And depending on the political situation back on the home front, the pressure for independent vs. joint commands changed. If we can think of a way to separate the units once the army moves out of the joint operation area, I think this might be a workable idea.
This was actually an idea I considered, as sea mines played a role in Gallipoli, and closing off the Danish Straits. But the mines would have to be expended first before combat begins, like an AA Gun, except the mines would be gone. And they could only be transported by minelayers, and there would be special minesweepers that could neutralize mines on a 1-for-1 basis (but would not be destroyed by the mines). But I don't think the java code for this exists at the moment.
Do you mean that they shouldn't declare war on one another, or they should never be in a state of war ever? Unfortunately, for ease of coding triggers, I chained alliances (and wars), so being at war with one member of an alliance chains to all. So Ottomans and Japan being at peace is not really a possibility as currently written; there would have to be massive changes under the hood. If the concern is instead of with the historicity of the war declarations, I already explained above regarding my thinking on reciprocal war declarations.
But Austria and Hungary combined have production 51. Are you saying Austria by itself should have greater production than all of Italy?
You are correct. Nepal was a protectorate of the Provinces of India. I will add this into the next release. Nepal worth 1, with 1 starting inf, owned by India. Sound reasonable?
This is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure how much value it would add, as Belgium would has low production, so the max it could produce is 1 inf at a time, which would get immediately slaughtered. Serbia already has a mechanic for resistance, by retreating into Greek or Albanian territory (which it can do), and attacking from there.
The small countries that do not start with factories are:
I believe Belgium is fine, as it forces focus on Africa, which should not start off with a factory. So Belgium can't produce and has to either prioritize capturing/liberating a factory or saving up a long time to build one. I did this by design.
For the Conventionists and Bolsheviks, I wanted to strongly incentivize capturing or building a factory, or else they would be crushed. I did this by design.
The only one I had problems with was Arabia. But I could not justify giving them a factory. So I put them in the same boat as Belgium, the Conventionists, and the Bolsheviks.
Again, you are correct. The Emirate of Najd and Haasa seized this from the Ottomans in 1913. I will update this for the next release.
Well the US units are not allied until the US joins the war. Even though they are coded as Allies, until they enter the war, they cannot interact with any of the belligerents. Are you saying they should not have any units or collect any income until they enter the war?
Believe it or not, this was in a prior version (one of the ones I threw away), but I thought it restricted player choice too much. If the players decide amongst themselves to have a house rule where Italy can only join a particular side if certain conditions are met, they can by all means do so. But I don't think it should be coded into the game itself to force such a condition. Otherwise, if the players want Italy to join the Central Powers, but the Central Powers can never get to the achievement threshold, then Italy sits out the entire game.
Could you elaborate further on your reasoning for this?
Where? I can easily fix those.
Yes, as discussed earlier, this is by design. It forces the Bolsheviks to try to seize or build a factory. Previously, I didn't require Bolsheviks to own a factory to produce, but I felt this was overpowered. If you disagree, I am open to being persuaded.
Is this for gameplay reasons, or historical reasons? Because Tallinn was among one of the first places seized by the Soviets.
Capitals are purely cosmetic in this map, as capturing a capital does not give you any additional PUs, and the countries can still produce. I made sure of this in the properties.
Greece cannot declare war until the following chain of events has been executed:
1. The February Revolution has occurred (Tsar Nicholas was shielding his relative King Constantine from Allied action, even though Constantine leaned towards the Central Powers)
2. France must support an armed coup by the Venizelos government (French User Action)
3. Greece (or Allies) must take Athens to resolve the Civil War
After this, Greece can then declare war. If this is still not possible after the above, please let me know, as that is a bug.
This was yet another thing I considered, as part of the Zimmermann Telegram chain of events. After no German colonies exist in Asia/Pacific, i.e. Japan has gotten everything it wanted, if Mexico joins the Central Powers, then Japan can be induced to switch sides. I discarded this idea, as it was difficult to code, and I didn't feel it was historically likely. I am open to being persuaded on this matter, however.
In reply to this post by Cernel
In 1914 population of Anatolia was approximately 17 million and there were 3-4 million Arab population in the middle east (Syria,Lebanon,Palesrtine,Iraq but not Hejaz, Mecca). So Ottomans were approximately total 21 million but 3 million was non-muslim and conscription wasn't compulsory for non-muslim population.
I think populations do not reflect real powers. Russia was crowded than France but I would say France was slghly strong than Russia. We have to take into account population+steel production+technology+command+morale+Population homogeneit etc...
Merchant ships also don't reflect real powers. Britain had more merchant ships but there were costly and only one sub was able to sink merchant ships. Britain could have lost battle of atlantic if Britain had alone in the Atlantic.
16 is expensive zeppelin cost. for example in v3 maps bomber cost is 12 and has 4 attack power. Also 12 is sensitive bomber cost but bombing cities with zeppelines aren't useful in ww1. So 14 would better.
You can look at it especially flags and colours,
I can help you making real flags arranging units and better colour
Because Belarus is huge and Belarus stack threats both simultaneously Austria and Germany. South Belarus and North Belarus would provide much more strategic options for both sides.
Yes Romania should be more valuable than Bessarabia.
Because these countries had no problem with Bulgaria. If campaign of Gallipoli had succesfull. Bulgaria would have stayed neutral or joined allies in 1915.
Sorry I was wrong I didnt notice Austria+Hungary combine power.
Yes good idea for Nepal.
Belgium has to wait minimum 12 round to place one infantry if Germany holds Belgium. What about Belgium a part of Britain.
If u don't want give factory to Arabs. Would you like to change Arab's placement rule. For example Arabs can put 1 infantry to controlled zones per 2 territories without factory. (Same china rule in WW2v3 map)
If USA is totally neutral country before 1917 ( I really don't know) shoudn't collect any income and shoudn't support to Allies.
Movementing before purchasing is much more sensible, Very hard to choose good units if it before movementing.
Manitoba-Nunavut Manitoba-Missouri, British Honduras, British Guinea Dutch Guinea, Pskov-SZ9 sz8-SZ7, Dutch New Guinea
As far as I know qatar was British territory.
I would prefer october revolution from don,pskov and tver instead of estonia, pskov,dnieper. Because according to Brest-Litovsk agreement, Estonia and Dnieper were German territories.
Yes historically Japan could have switched side. But looks like codding is very hard, Ignorable.
Ok. Unless anyone else has any objections, I will decrease the cost of zeppelins in the next release.
Instead of splitting Belarus into North and South, how about splitting Belarus into Belarus and the Pripet Marshes, which are impassable? I would envision the Marshes severing the connections between Belarus and Ukraine/Dnieper.
While we are in the business of terrain obstacles, how about some Sahara blockages:
Western Sahara (covering parts of Mauretania, Lower Algeria, Mali), severing connections between Mauretania-Lower Algeria, Timbuktu-Mali
Central Sahara (Eastern third of Lower Algeria), severing connections between Lower Algeria-(Fezzan/Tunisia/Tripolitania)
Eastern Sahara (covering northern Chad, southern Kufra, and some of the border between Lower Egypt and Western Sudan), severing connections between Fezzan-Chad, Chad-Kufra, Kufra-Darfur, Kufra-Western Sudan.
How about adding an achievement to Bulgarian entry? Allies must not control Constantinople and/or Dardanelles.
I will fix these for the next release.
True, the Ottomans ceded control of Qatar in 1913, but the British did not officially extend control until 1916. I figured the Ottomans needed the extra income, and since there are no units in Qatar to start, the British can easily take control.
Yes, it was neutral, but there was an asymmetry in commercial shipping. Such shipping was much more weighted towards the Entente, due to the British blockade of Germany. Also, removing the US from the early game also eliminates the U-Boat campaign and the Mexican Revolution, which I believe would be to the game's detriment.
I will think further on these suggestions.
The current changelog stands thus:
Assigned Bolsheviks to Comintern alliance
Added Diplomacy section to Game Notes, detailing Diplomatic states, events, and actions
Decreased zeppelin cost to 14 (from 16) (Suggestion from Navalland)
Changed ownership of Nepal to India (Suggestion from Navalland)
Increased production of Nepal to 1 (from 0)
Added 1 infantry to Nepal
Changed ownership of al-Dammam to Arabia (Suggestion from Navalland)
Increased production of Basra to 3 (from 1)
Replaced 2 Ottoman infantry in al-Dammam with +1 infantry in each of Mesopotamia, Basra
Shifted Arabian cavalry in Najd to al-Dammam
Switched Moldavia and Bessarabia territory names (Suggestion from Navalland)
Increased Romania production to 3 (from 1) (Suggestion from Navalland)
Decreased (new) Moldavia production to 1 (from 2)
Moved Romanian factory to Romania from (new) Moldavia
fixed the following connections (Suggestion from Navalland):
I am also considering the following changes:
Split Belarus into two territories, the southern territory named Pripet Marshes and is impassable, severing Belarus-Galicia, Belarus-Odessa, Belarus-Dnieper. This creates an obstacle to easily shifting troops from the southern axis of advance to the central axis of advance in Russia
New impassable Western Sahara territory (covering Northern Mauretania), severing Mauretania-Morocco, Mauretania-Atlas, Mauretania-Lower Algeria, Mauretania-Timbuktu
New impassable Central Sahara territory (covering Southeastern Lower Algeria), severing Lower Algeria-Niger, Lower Algeria-Agadez, Lower Algeria-Fezzan
New impassable Eastern Sahara territory (covering Northern Chad, Southern Kufra), severing Chad-Fezzan, Chad-Kufra, Kufra-Darfur, Kufra-Western Sudan
This channels North-South movement in North Africa to three main channels, plus coastal naval route, creating chokepoints. I will freely admit that my early 20th Century knowledge of North Africa geography is spotty at best, so if I have the possible trans-Sahara routes incorrect, do let me know.
A once-per-turn 3-cost Belgian Recruitment action which places a Belgian infantry in Normandy (only allowed if Allies still control Normandy). This represents Belgian recruiting for the Yser Front, and the units are placed in Le Havre, where the government-in-exile was located.
A once-per-turn 3-cost Ikhwan Recruitment action which places an Arabian infantry in Najd (only allowed if Arabia controls Najd). This gives Arabia some placement capability, at the cost of pushing a factory further into the future
When Bolsheviks spawn, they are at war with both the Allies and the Central Powers. Once the Bolsheviks seize either St. Petersburg or Moscow, they can sign the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the Central Powers.
I'm the most iffy on this one. It is doable from a coding perspective, but I am unsure whether it would add complexity to the gameplay for no real gain.
I've updated the original post with v 0.2.0
It includes all of the above changes, plus the easy Belgian infantry change, and the Arabian cavalry change.
I think now is a good place to take a breather. I'd like to get more wide distribution of this map, gauge interest, solicit feedback, etc. before I jump in with the Pripet Marshes, Sahara changes, as those require baseline modification, which is quite a bit of work.
Just to confirm... if I wanted to make this map available under Download Maps -> Experimental, would I need to:
1. Go to http://github.com/triplea-maps/Project and open an issue to ask the admins to create a new repo
2. Wait until it gets created
3. Start copying files into the repo 100 at a time
This map is even more complicated than Blood&Steel map. Looking at this map gives me an headache though.
BTW, i recall a WW1 map with aliens, which is just as complicated.
In reply to this post by Surtur2
Ok. Kudos to the friendly folks over at the triplea-maps project on github. The current version should be available to gen pop with Download Maps under the EXPERIMENTAL tab.
Just to compile the list of outstanding un-addressed suggestions. I don't know when I'll have spare cycles to work on this again. I've classified the suggestions as "Pending," "Tentative," and "Moonshot," based on how likely it is I will include them in the next update. This, of course, is subject to change based on whim and/or community feedback.
Cavalry attack/defense change - either 1/3 or 2/3; this would make cavalry more attractive. Not sure which to do at this point. Could use some further input. I'm afraid 2/3 might be OP.
New colors - I'd like to do this, but I could use suggestions on color scheme from someone who is not color-blind
New impassable territories - Pripet Marshes, Western/Central/Eastern Sahara
Change map title - I dunno; I kinda like the Weltpolitik subtitle, as it matches the wikipedia entry. :-P
Change cavalry/tank movement to 3 - I'm afraid this will make breakthroughs much more devastating
Get rid of reciprocal declarations of war - This would be more historically accurate, but would be open to abuse from a gameplay perspective
Make certain declarations of war achievement-based - This would apply to Bulgaria, Italy, Romania, perhaps
Bolsheviks start at war with Central Powers - This gives Bolsheviks even greater incentive to conquer a capital; however, this might open the game to abuse (collusion between CP/Bolsheviks). On the other hand, this is more historically realistic, as the Bolsheviks can later sign the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk
Change Bolshevik spawn territories - This is mutually exclusive with the above change. Changing the Bolshevik spawn territories would favor gameplay over historical accuracy
New cyclist unit (infantry with 2 movement, cost 4) - would only do this if we bump up cavalry/tank movement to 3, and would require new unit art
Joint operation areas - Would require some very creative coding; at this point, don't know how this would work
Don't give neutral powers a turn/income until they enter the conflict - This would streamline the early game (fewer turns), but especially in the case of the US, I think the overall feel of the game would suffer
Ok, I lied. I had time today, so I updated the baseline with the new impassable territories.
Should be available to download. If it doesn't auto-detect the update, you may need to delete your local copy.
Obviously, this is provisional; this is largely for balance testing. The shapes of the territories may not be aesthetic, and it's also missing corresponding relief map changes. My intention is to make all the relief map changes at once, at the very end.
Just uploaded v1.2.0 to github
New Port Edward territory split from Shantung
Shanghai collapsed to a single territory (2 PUs)
Hong Kong split into Hong Kong and Macao
(Old) Macao replaced by Kouang-Theou-Wan
Decreased Nanking from 2 to 1
Increased Hainan from 0 to 1
Changed ownership of Hainan from Beiyang to KMT
Added Kiel Canal
Added Danish Straits (Canal)
Added Chinese Treaty Ports
New bomber unit (roughly corresponds to tactical bomber from WW2V3, except can also bomb ICs)
New naval mine unit (cheap stationary suicide defensive naval unit, with anti-submarine capability)
Remove bombard from battlecruiser by default (to be unlocked by new Cruiser Bombardment tech)
Late fighter +1 movement (from 3 -> 4)
Late fighter and bomber get +1 blockade (have to be on aircraft carrier)
Remove airAttack/airDefense from late_fighter by default (to be unlocked by new Synchronization Gear tech)
Grant airAttack/airDefense to zeppelin by default
(Bugfix) Fix Russia anti-Submarine warfare activation
Re-organize technologies into 3 categories (Land, Sea, Air)
Fill out new techs (from 6 -> 18)
Changed name of "Interrupter Gear" tech to "Cantilevered Wing"
The technologies look like this:
And the Chinese treaty ports look like so:
A brief discussion of the rationale for my changes follows.
Just one more comment...
How in the heck do people come up with these relief maps? I tried doing some surgical touching up on the relief map to accommodate my Shanghai change, but it was extremely difficult. I had to work really hard to get it this bad. Even now it clearly looks like a botched cosmetic surgery.
The production doesn't make sense with the trains.
As France, I can place 10 uints in Picardy and 10 units in Champagne; that is my max production even if I buy all infantry, thus having no needs of trains almost at all after round 1, because, in round 1, I can move all to frontline, but only 2 infantries.
You should have the minor factories limited to 1 production, and the major factories limited to the production of the territories, and placeable only in value 2+ territories. Moreover, only Paris should have a major factory, and rest minor factories (able to place only 1 per territory).
Still, that would not allow for making much sense with trains with France, as what made in Paris would be able to walk to the frontline anyways.
For a quick look, I really hate to see trains in Italian Libya, as, there, there were almost no railways at all; so, remove the trains in Tripoli and Tobruk.
Side note, Alsace was a very valuable territory, because of iron mining. In general, I also suggest to either drastically lower the income (like to 20-40% of current) or, better, leave the income as is, and give all not-infrastructure units an upkeep cost of 1 PUs each. I can see the stacks reaching over 200 units very easily, here, otherwise. Tho, upkeep costs would bring back the issue of not using trains, most likely. Really, trains were not much about transporting the armies, but rather keeping them supplied on the frontline.
History plays dice
Yeah, those Libyan trains end up being fairly useless anyway. Will get rid of them for the next release.
Regarding France's trains, they do have some use early game shuttling the troops in Southern France to the front by the end of F1. And their importance increases by round 3 if we consider the possibility of Italy joining the Central Powers. In such a scenario, the trains would allow France to quickly move forces between the northern and southern fronts.
Yeah, income creep is an issue. The thing is, if Africa and Asia are worthless, then there is zero incentive to fight over them. I tried addressing that by boosting income from those areas, resulting in bloated incomes. Perhaps, yes, we could/should prune incomes globally to prevent monster stacks.
One additional aspect to consider is technology. With the current incomes, technology is a more feasible buy. If incomes contract, then tech investment may no longer be financially justifiable?
I chose the WW2V3 factory model by default, but you may be right that this makes trains somewhat less useful (though trains still seem pretty useful on the eastern front). The factory and income change would likely go hand-in-hand. I'll play around with the idea and see what I can come up with.
Sadly, what trains should do is transporting artillery shells and (but this is minor for WW1) fuel, piling up reserves on the frontline, but this is very hard to hack.
On the factories, as I said, you can easily have the minor factory producing only 1 unit and the major factory producing equal to the production value of the territory; just set it at -1 (instead of current 10), for this.
Also, infantry at cost 2 would help making sense with trains, as, this way, you will be unable to produce a lot on the frontline, but this would necessitate even more income cut, or an upkeep system, to keep stacks down.
How about you steal those machine guns from the new russian civil war map?
History plays dice
Regarding the factories, I believe this map is advanced enough for you to put in place a system like this:
You have factory1 to factory6, and the richest territory is worth 6 (reduce the income a bit from now, with territories going all from 0 to 6 value max, most being 3 or less).
factory1 produces 1, factory2 produces 2, ..., factory6 produces 6.
factory1 placeable only terr 1+ value, factory2 placeable only terr 2+ value, ..., factory6 placeable only terr 6 value.
factoryX+1 are all upgrades of factoryX, with X being 1 to 5 (meaning that in a territory value 4 you will need 4 turns to reach up production 4 as you can't directly place factory4).
the costs are:
factory1 = 8
factory2 = +6
factory3 = +4
factory4 = +3
factory5 = +2
factory6 = +1
(so, for example, a factory that can produce 6 units per round costs a total 24 PUs)
Then you distribute factories here and there (and maybe have the infantry at cost 2) so that the trains, even for small nations like France, have a meaningful reason of existing or even being produced some more after round 1, since you can't place all on frontline or 1 step behind it.
You can also have the trains consuming 1 "use_train" fuel per move, with the ability of purchasing 12 "use_train" resources at 1 PUs (you spend 1 PUs and get 12 "use_trains" resources), as trains were actually a bit costly to utilise (coal didn't cost much, but the machine wears down pretty fast when used, and requires constant care and repairs). To avoid silly micromanagement, of course, you should buy the "use_train" that you are going to use the next round, otherwise it would be just ridiculously tiresome to calculate exactly how much you need to buy on the same turn; just put the purchase before placement (and after all moves), which also makes easier to play, like it works in Total World War (yeah, you lose the element of thinking ahead about what to produce, but if the map is very complex you don't really need to be prompted to think even more).
You can also make a visual railway system and put impassable canals in all land to land connections having no railways, allowing free passage to any units but trains; just open a map of the era and see what connections are lacking railways (then you just need to drop a drawing of the railways system as a decoration over the map; like, you can have them as red lines).
History plays dice
And get downgraded this way upon capture:
History plays dice
This post was updated on .
An intriguing idea. While we're throwing ideas around, how about this?
1. Introduce a new unit below infantry. Stats 0 attack, 1 defense, and cost 2 (Don't want this unit making economic sense. That should restrict usage to desperation or colonial theaters.) Can call this unit "militia" or something.
2. Create a new invisible factory, and place it in every territory with nonzero income.
3. This invisible factory can only produce the new militia unit, and only 1 per turn.
4. Three tiers of factories
4.1 factory_basic: placement 2. Min territory income 1. Can only produce infantry and cavalry.
4.2 factory_minor: placement 4. Min territory income 2. Can produce all non-battleship units not unlocked by tech
4.3 factory_major: placement 8. Min territory income 3. Can produce all units.
5. Factory_(minor|major) downgrade one level on capture.
6. Each factory upgrades and consumes the level below it. The factory_basic consumes the invisible factory.
7. Downgrade most of the existing factory_minor to factory_basic, and most of the factory_major to _minor.
Regarding rail, I'm not sold on the idea of purchasing fuel. Seems like it adds complexity for the sake of realism but at the expense of gameplay... However, your idea of rail lines implemented via land canals seems like an interesting idea. Do you know whether it is actually possible? (I don't have access to the Pact of Steel 2 xml with all the documentation atm)
Why you want to have so much placement? The current placement 10 for major is way too much, as after round 1 you place everything France can produce on the frontline or 1 territory behind, making trains pointless. Reducing from 10 to 8 would change little. If you want 3 factories, make them placement 1, 2 and 3, respectively (instead of 2, 4 and 8).
Also, the British need much more naval units to face the uber powerful German navy. Currently, the British are incredibly weaker than the Germans; not sure if that has some balance reasons behind, but it doesn't feel right.
Yes, as I said, you need to put in all connections not having railways a land to land canal related to an impossible to own territory (you can hack it with a pointless territory owned by Neutral or just say that you need to own all territories on the map for that canal, if you want to be less hacky) that excludes all units but trains (meaning only trains are influenced by it). Theorically, you could also have user actions to add railway lines where they are absent, but this would be a bit of coding, and I think those buttons would be rarely clicked on, anyways, as long as the starting railways situation is realistic.
History plays dice
I can see your point regarding production. How about this:
1. No invisible factories
2. factory_basic: cost 8, placement 1, min terr income 1, can only produce inf/cav.
3. factory_minor: cost 6, placement 2, min terr income 2, produces almost everything.
4. factory_major: cost 4, placement 3, min terr income 3, produces everything.
5. Factory Electrification tech doubles the above placements.
6. Capture downgrades by one level.
With regards to the North Sea navies, I tried to balance the surface fleets such that they were roughly at parity, but I forgot to factor in the German submarines. As a result, as you pointed out, the Germans actually have the upper hand. I will try to balance this such that they are roughly at parity, as was my original intent.
What obstacles would be candidates for rail blockages? I'm thinking geographic obstacles:
Urals (except for Trans-Siberian Railway)
American Cordillera (Canada/US/Mexico, except for historical railways)
Sahara Desert (except for Nile/Egypt)
Russian Taiga (Siberia)
|Free forum by Nabble||Edit this page|