Uhm... Maybe better to give up with the railroad idea, as now I'm fearing that you may make the game more unhistorical, if not made cautiously and insightfully enough.
What I meant is that you should take a map of 1914 and have trains able to move only between territories that had railroads connecting them, as shown in said map.
But, beware, a lot of maps are badly made, and present only a few railroads; so, if you take some maps, you run the risk of not having railroad connections that actually existed, just because that map is missing to show them. Also, frequently maps show only the most important railroads, not rarely not making that clear enough (of course, all railroads should be counted, not just the most important ones, as you can move near to infinite quantity of trains with 1 line only); so it is important to be careful taking good quality / highly detailed maps only, preferably printed in 1914 or shortly thereafter.
That impassables-like suggestion is definitely not the right way to go and, regarding the Alps (but not only the Alps!), that is surely wrong, as mountains do not "block" railroads (nor the absence of major physical obstacles assures their presence!); they just make them some harder to be built, and the Alps had a bunch of railroads connections; for example you should be surely able to move trains between Rhone and Piedmont, as, there, you have the famous Fréjus Rail Tunnel!
https://www.google.it/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi0homV2uvSAhVLVhQKHeJ4DVYQFggjMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFr%25C3%25A9jus_Rail_Tunnel&usg=AFQjCNE0zMrInrh78z65MYWrwCHUnrMe1w The tunnel opened for traffic on 17 September 1871, thus making it the oldest of the large tunnels through the Alps.
For example, this looks like a good map that shows you all the railroads in France and nearby (you can see the above railroad, connecting Chambery to Turin (Chambery was the (since medieval) capital of the Kingdom of Sardinia, that back then was not yet a Kingdom, but part of the Kingdom of Arles, in turn part of the Holy Roman Empire, and that later changed its name in Kingdom of Italy, after having conquered most of Italy, tho not yet Roma, before the capital was transferred to Turin, and that railroad was actually started, in 1857, when Chambery and Turin were still both part of the Kingdom of Sardinia, thus connecting the old to the new capital (Chambery before 1563, and Turin thereafter till 1865, when the capital was moved to Florence, but at that point it was the capital of Italy, not of Sardinia, as the name was changed to Italy in 1861), but during its construction Chambery was given to France, in 1860)):
As you can see, you should not be able to move trains between Franche-Comte and Alsace, but you can move them between Franche-Comte and Switzerland, if both are friendly (after Switzerland being conquered), according to the above map. Also, you would not be able to move between Franche-Comte and Rhone, if we assume that the in-game territory called Franche-Comte is all on the left bank of the Saone river, as the railway runs on the right bank of it, as, of course, I tend to think that like Dijon is in the territory called Burgundy, as it was the capital of the actual Duchy of Burgundy, rather that in the one called Franche-Comte, and, for a wargame, I would assume the border between Burgundy and Franche-Comte exactly on the river anyways.
So, what I'm saying, either you do it using a good map of 1914, showing all railroads in the world, and look for each connection if you see or do not see a railroad there on the map, or better just letting the trains moving everywhere; guessing wildly about where the railroads may or may not be, as it seems from your latest post, is NOT something I'm suggesting you to do.
And, yeah, on the submarines, actually, they should not really boost your fleet, but this is a long story and problem of TripleA, that it sucks at representing submarines properly, as they should not really be part of your "battle" fleet, and not make like here the Germans able to just push the British back to Canada (LOL), but more like a thing sort of like AA guns of the sea. Submarines rules / representation has always been a weak point of Axis & Allies games, sadly, on multiple levels.
As I said, assuming rail connections everywhere is not too bad, as probably a realistic representation would allow you to perform over 90% of the moves that you would want to do, in the course of the game, and just obliging you to take an alternative route, maybe just a little longer, for most of the remaining part.
As I've said in pretty much all the discussions on railways we had (m3tan, crazy_german...) the main limit was trains, not railways, in most theatres. Thus, a map with trains and not railways is better than a map with railways and not trains, unless maybe if the trains limits are somewhat abstracted with resources and fuel costs.
And, of course, railways limits are influent the least in Western Europe and North America.
However, even such an advanced country like France was not 100% connected to everything, as I've already given a couple of cases of no connections and, while arguable, I would say that the following territories, comprising a French one in France, should not allow train movement:
For example, if I want to go from Rennes to Granville, I have to go all the way to Versailles, that here I assume being part of the Paris territory, thus making a 3 territories movement, instead of only 1, which means that if I want to go from Brittany to Picardy with trains, it would take 3 moves instead of 2, the same for going from Aquitaine to Normandy. Of course, chance are that in France the very few limits will never actually matter for gameplay, and this is true for most main theatres, and this is why I said that no railroad limits is fairly acceptable.
All the rest is connected, which means that, for the France national territory, over 90% of the connections have railroads, which means that you are likely able to execute 99% of what you would want to do (since at 90% you will probably find optimal alternatives very easily). This is about the same in all main theatres of war and, coupled with the fact that in most case you would be able to take a different route with no or little waste of movement, having no railway system is fairly acceptable and almost surely preferable to a badly representative one.
Of course, railroads would be a more interesting element in China (why China has no trains at all, not even 1 in Peking?), but, sadly, the territories and, even more, the namings on the Domination map are very bad for 1914 (but horrible names everywhere is indeed a TripleA tradition...), and even worse for 1900! I'm particularly upset by the presence of Nanking and the absence of the so much more important Hankow, that in WW1 and before was the biggest city of China, more peopled than Shanghai and Peking, and much much much more so if you consider that a "Hankow" circle would really be representing at least the sum of Wuchang, Hankow and Hanyang (that is actually currently a single city called Wuhan and were so important in the revolutions starting from 1911), while Nanking was just the 12th city of China, and not the capital of it (the capital was Peking in 1914, as correctly shown, tho Nanking has been the capital for a short time before, and I guess it is acceptable having it on the map, but not if Hankow is missing!). Here it is a shitty image I've found around; the situation of railways in China actually improved very little from WW1 to WW2:
p.s.: Very good you have removed the terrible Four Seasons Pizza Shanghai, btw.
Cernel the only reason I did the overlay was as an example... the main argument against limiting rail movement in France is because most of the time (as you pointed out) limitations of perceived movement restrictions is purely based on the resolution of the reference map you choose to use. I have numerous maps of regions of France from the period that show rail lines that are completely omitted from the map you used in your example. Pretty much all of Europe can be considered linked by rail, especially when you look at the scale of the Domination map.
The much bigger issue is the rest of the map. Africa... Many parts of Russia... South Asia...etc. etc.
The thing you guys have been discussing that is of greater importance is the need to reduce production... and limit the number of units that can be generated in a single territory. Being able to drop your entire production capacity out of a single factory is one of the main issues that plague this and Domination. The ideas you two have been discussing regarding production would stand to be a marked improvement to this game.
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
I have numerous maps of regions of France from the period that show rail lines that are completely omitted from the map you used in your example.
I'm not surprised as, as I've said, it is very common that, for reasons I don't really understand, ways are wildly different from one map to the other, nor the maps tell that they are showing only some of them, and with what criteria the others are excluded, and I've experienced that maps omitting some of them are very frequent. That is why I said it is needed some high quality matherial, not just a random map.
Also in atlas I tend to see that more zoomed out maps of the same atlas have less railway lines than the same territories in more zoomed in ones, without explanations about how the "selection" was made.
It is very hard to guess why maps have different ways so easily, but it is very common, and it's a bit annoying, because you never know if the one you are using is really good or not.
I'm almost sure the Chinese ones should be correct, tho.
Anyways, for the Alps, I've taken a look at a reprinted-as-original atlas of 1904 and it looks like that, already 10 years before WW1, all Alpine connections on the map had at least 1 railway each, if we assume that the one passing through Pontebba is cutting the small in-game Venice - Carinthia border, as it looks like. So, assuming the railways of 1914 have at least all those of 1904, zero limits on railways for the Alps.
So, as I said, unless you get a very good and complete railway map for all the world (which would be cool), it is fine and probably better to just assume trains can move everywhere, as most likely that covers over 90% of wherever you want to go (just try not having trains at start where there were no railways but local ones, like having no trains in Libya, as we already talked).
China should have a few trains, or maybe only one in Peking.
I took a look at my original 1922 atlas and I've found the above image for China mostly confirmed, beside some minor railway lines more here and there (either small or flanking others), adding nothing, plus the following two main differences:
1) The two main north-south railways (Peking - Hankow and Peking - Nanking) are connected 100-200 km north of the Yangtze river, by a west-east railway, from Xinyang eastward (called Hsin-Jang in my atlas).
2) The Chuchow - Shiuchow trait (here just taking the names given in the above map I found in internet) is given as already completed (thus Peking - Canton connected) (I'm guessing that here my atlas is wrong).
And I confirm that there are no railways at all in China anywhere west of the 110 meridian east nor anywhere in Mongolia (some under construction in Mongolia).
Hopefully I'll get to the next release this weekend. For the next release I have:
1. Remove Libya trains
2. Add Peking train
3. [bugfix] Remove once-per-turn restriction on US aid
4. Sever Morocco-Lower Algeria connection
5. Balance North Sea fleets
6. Factory overhaul
7. Add Sea of Marmara (to eliminate alpha strike vs Constantinople from Aegean)
8. See whether we can fit in Hankow, either as a new territory, or simply replacing Nanking (and modify concession triggers accordingly)
I just had a crazy idea:
-Harbor can produce 1 extra naval unit (assuming there is at least a factory_minor)
-Airfield can produce 1 extra air unit (again, assuming there is at least a factory_minor)
Might make these more attractive buys. Combined with the previously discussed changes, the max production would be 8 (3 from factory_major, +3 from Factory Electrification tech, +1 from harbor, +1 from airfield which itself requires Air Traffic Control tech). Thoughts?
Alternatively, to make these more "attractive," we could instead REQUIRE harbors for any naval unit (no extra production). But then we can't do the same for airfields, since those are currently unlocked by tech. Thus at the start nobody could build planes. So that would be kind of ugly (asymmetry between harbors/airfields).
Honestly, I just despise tech and haven't looked at it, but I get that you like it and, anyways, letting it out in a WW1 game is not as easy as in a WW2 game.
For the electricity, two points:
- I would prefer it giving +1 placement to all, instead of doubling placement only.
- Electricity is mainly about hydroelectric, thus it is really a production value for territories next to mountains, like northern Italy or Norway; and I want to point out that it was already very important for Italy, with close to no carbon, but next to the Alps (most of what Italy produced was hydroelectric based, also known as white carbon).
I tend to think that it would be better not having such tech and, generally, I don't like techs changing hard elements like placement allowances; I would rather suggest a tech like this reducing the cost of new factories and upgrades.
p.s.: I see you got rid of that silly working women; good call.
Or you can have that tech reducing the costs of all factories and unlocking another upgrade of placement 4 factory that costs like the old factory3 (while now the factory3 is as cheap as the factory2), but without effect on the factories already on the map. Also, you may call it just Electrification and have it cut the cost of new trains.
But the problem I have with techs in general and with production related techs like these ones in particular is that things like electricity are taking like tens of years of development and progressive innovation, and it is really silly to have them appearing at full effect in a turn, that on this scope can't be representing more than 1 month. If tech has to be, I would try hard to limit it to the stuff that makes sense it appears and it is fully effective in a few months since it can be firstly deployed, while never existing before (for example, the german ballistic rockets).
If you could offer pointers/tips it would be much appreciated! The toughest part for me has been the graphical aspect. Like this latest set of changes I'm hung up on the icon for the new basic factory (and the damaged version). Not quite the relief map, but not xml, either.
First thing I would do (purely as a suggestion) would be to use 2 completely different images for the small and large factory. It makes it very clear at a glimpse for a player to distinguish between them when they are different images.
Here is what I will be using for Global dominance...
Major Factory... (creation of Sieg I believe)
I put these here as examples... but feel free to use them if you wish.
As far as the hit versions I can provide you with hit versions of each as well.
When it comes to the map let me know when you are ready and I will walk you through the steps.
One other thing... as Cernel mentioned it is nice to see the pizza pie Shanghai gone.
Good work so far. Can't wait to see the next rendition.
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
Just merged 1.3.0 to github. Had to do some additional balancing of the early Paris defense due to the new production regime. My guess is this map is now grossly unbalanced, so feedback would be appreciated.
Changelog 1.3.0 ==========================================================
Production Changes New factory_basic unit with cost 8, production 1, producing only infantry/cavalry (Suggestion from Cernel) Decreased production of factory_minor to 2, changed cost to 6 (Suggestion from Cernel) Decreased production of factory_major to 3, changed cost to 4 (Suggestion from Cernel) Restricted tech unlocked units to factory_major
Zeppelin can now be built with factory_minor
Various factory location/type changes
Convert Conventionist aid to +3 PU instead of +1 infantry
Factory Electrification technology now provides a flat +1 production for all factories (Suggestion from Cernel) Map Changes Rename Nanking to Hankow (Suggestion from Cernel) Sever Lower Algeria - Morocco connection
New Sea of Marmara territory
New Dardanelles canal
Unit Changes Remove Libya trains (Suggestion from Cernel) Add train to Peking (Suggestion from Cernel) Remove German submarines in SZ 12, 13, 14 (Suggestion from Cernel) Remove 1 German field_gun in each of Alsace, Rhine
Bugfixes Remove US aid action-per-turn restrictions
Now, with placement 1-3, you can seriously try to cut down the income, at least by 40%, as I suggested (and distribute factories accordingly), to limit stacks. Like, if you can manage to lower that production 110 of Germany to 80 "only", and lower accordingly the other productions (Austria 20, Italy 24...), that would help.
Regarding the production of Battleships and Cruisers, maybe it would be preferable restricting it having both a major factory and a harbour (I would say you should surely need a harbour for producing Battleships or Cruisers).
I just noticed that Italy can place Battleships from Rome, which is totally wrong (if I'm not missing something, I think Rome, or anything nearby (which means Castellamare), never produced any battleships or cruisers). Battleships should be producible only from Piedmont and Naples (Naples is just a WW1 thing, btw, since, by WW2, Naples didn't build battleships anymore).
I'm thinking to require both a major factory and a harbour for both Battleship and Cruiser and add Harbour for Italy in Piedmont, Apulia and Naples (at the very least), add major factory in Naples (or whatever it is needed to be able to build Battleship) and remove Harbour from Rome (or leave it, but make Rome unable to produce Battleship). That way, you would be able to place Battleships and Cruisers only from Piedmont and Naples, as you should, since those would be the only territories having both factory major and harbour.
You might want to do some research around, like reading where all battleships and cruisers for each player were produced shortly before and at the start of WW1, and make sure that, at start game, players can produce Battleships and Cruisers there only. For Italy, I can tell you all battleships were produced only and exclusively in Genoa, La Spezia (both in Piedmont, in game) and Naples, plus Livorno, Venice and Taranto for cruisers, with the Dante Alighieri being the last battleship ever produced in Naples (after WW1 Naples didn't produce any battleships anymore; Caio Duilio (to be read as Gaio Duilio, the use of the "C" to mean "G" being an archaism) being the last Napolitan battleship)). However, you might add Livorno (in game Tuscany) as another place for building major ships, as, there, it was laid down the Francesco Morosini, of the Francesco Caracciolo class, or even Venice, as there the Ammiraglio di Saint Bon was completed back in 1901 (but no more battleships were ever built again in Venice thereafter).
San Francisco is good for building battleships in WWI, as it built the California (1916-1919) (the only one battleship ever built on the west coast after 1907) and, before that, the Wisconsin (1897-1901) and Ohio (1899-1904);
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_California_(BB-44) however, Seattle (in game Oregon) built the Nebraska (1902-1907).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nebraska_(BB-14) Having Oregon able to build Battleships might be too much for WWI, but you might want to somewhat allow Cruisers.
Also, I suggest lowering to 0 to value of Fezzan and Italian Somaliland; those were worth nothing. Eritrea might have a factory1 (factory basic), to represent the Ascari, and for sure like 1 infantry there at start game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrean_Ascari Also, the Italians in 1914 didn't factually control most of Libya, but were almost entrenched in the circles only (side note, I would surely change Tobruk to Derna, or maybe even Benghazi); duno if you want to represent that, as well as the more general Senussi rebellion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senussi_Campaign http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campagna_di_Libia_(1913-1921) (sorry, haven't found an English article on the Libyan Campaign)
Also, I advise you never having crossed borders on land only or sea only (they are good, and traditional, only between land and sea); for example, that Tripolitania, Cyrenaica, Fezzan and Kufra has this thing (you can solve by just moving the Kufra - Cyrenaica border a bit down, so that Fezzan and Cyrenaica are connected). Crossed borders are hard to justify realistically (how can territories be separated by an infinitesimal point?) and are just bad for gameplay.
Hey, I think it is a smart enough idea to distinguish factories based on the chimneys (I was thinking about using roman numerals beside, when I suggested the 4+ different factories), but I think those factories with none don't look quite right, and it is a bit hard to tell them apart from the minor ones; since it is 1, 2, 3, I would give them 1, 2 and 3 chimneys, as well, thus here they would be:
I would call them just factory1, factory2 and factory3, really; distinguishing between basic and minor, as terms, is somewhat confusing.
Also, think about adding some factory_basic in France; realistically, probably every territory in France or Germany should have at least a factory_basic, but this might be not that good looking, as too much factory spam, but at least add up a factory_basic in Aquitaine.
As said, Naples with not even a factory_basic in it is unbelievable: the battleship Caio Duilio was produced there in WW1 (and for sure Naples should be able to at least produce something).
To make it clearer, here it is what it should be producible:
Apulia: maybe cruisers, maybe not
Tuscany: battleships or cruisers or nothing (I suggest nothing, because of the issue that it connects to the Adriatic)
(Tuscany is problematic, because it never finished any battleship, but it was building, or rater just barely starting (and I'm not sure), a battleship in WWI (never finished, and hardly even started); also, while Livorno was very important for the production of cruisers and minor ships, Tuscany should be able to build ships only in 57, not in 62; since, in game, Tuscany would allow you to place in 62, which is wrong, I'm thinking better maybe having it just unable to build battleships or cruisers, as it is now, to avoid it being used to place in the Adriatic, that would be totally wrong)
While the ports, aside from production considerations, should be in Apulia, Naples, Piedmont, Tuscany, Sicily and Venice, at least (you can have more than those, actually, but I guess, for gameplay nicety, you don't want to have ports everywhere (if you want to restrict even more, I would say the 3 foremost territories for ports are Apulia, Naples and Piedmont)). I guess you can leave the port in Roma, as well, as long as it doesn't allow to place battleships or cruisers from there; Apulia should not be able, as well, tho it may be acceptable allowing cruisers, there. Apulia must absolutely have a port in WWI, because it houses Taranto and Brindisi! On the other hand, the biggest ports for commerce, in WWI, were Genoa, Naples, Livorno and Palermo (in game: Piedmont, Naples, Tuscany, Sicily).
p.s.: Also Yan'an is quite bad to look at, but I don't want to start talking about all the bad names. If I can name a winner, I would say that Volgograd is the worst of them all (not really your fault, as this is from the original).
Regarding +1 infantry to Eritrea, that seems like an interesting idea. My only concern is that if Italy goes CP, then there is nothing the Allies can do to prevent the infantry from non-combat moving into Abyssinia and capturing the 8 inf + factory there. Currently there are no CP infantry units around it, and between turns 3-5, Ethiopia is effectively Neutral_CP. I guess we could call it a feature and not a bug, giving the Central Powers that extra punch if Italy joins.
Regarding the Senussi, there is already an action/event in round 4 which spawns them, assuming Italy joins the Allies. That's also the reason why I gave Fezzan 1 production instead of 0, despite not being realistic, as it technically allows a factory build there, to give the Central Powers some options to punish the Allies if they simply ignore the spawned units. Same goes for Agadez and the Kaocen Revolt action/event in round 6.
I'm not happy with the Sahara region in general, which is why I've been tinkering with it. In addition to the four-points in Libya, I've just introduced one in Morocco (Morocco - Atlas - Algeria - Lower Algeria), to prevent the Moroccan cavalry from reaching Mali in 1 turn. I've been trying to make traversing the Sahara more difficult/realistic, but there's only so much complexity I can add before I start getting diminishing returns. For instance, trains can traverse the Sahara, even though the only rail route across was in Egypt, if I'm not mistaken. At this point in history, I believe there were only four routes across:
1. The coastal route via Rio de Oro, Mauritania, which I had no problem blocking off because Rio de Oro was Spanish, a.k.a. neutral.
2. The Algeria-Mali route, which I'm still not happy with. Perhaps I should add more territories to make the traversal more painful.
3. The Fezzan-Agadez route, following the chain of oases. I think this is fine, as during the early game (before Italy joins the war on either side), this route is blocked due to game mechanics pertaining to neutrals.
4. The Nile route. This route is fine as-is, I think.
However, there are other features, like the Libyan desert, which, if added, would complicate the Senussi scenario, etc. If the Libyan coast is blocked off from Fezzan/Kufra by the sand seas, then the Senussi can't really threaten them. Argh!
And just to keep track, here's the running list of other changes which I don't have concerns with, which I intend to include in the next release:
-Change nomenclature to factory1,2,3, and use your nifty images (thanks!)
-Require harbour for cruisers, battlecruisers, battleships
-Add harbour to Piedmont
-Remove harbour from Rome
-Add harbour, factory_major to Naples
-Add harbour, factory_minor to Venice
-Add harbour to Apulia
-Decrease Italian Somaliland to 0 from 1
-Add factory_basic to Aquitaine