Domination 1914: Weltpolitik

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
119 messages Options
123456
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Domination 1914: Weltpolitik

Cernel
Ah, forgot. Milan and Lombardy were the economically most important city and region of Italy, thus Milan should have a Factory3.
Also Hanover, Holstein and West Prussia should all have Harbours, and you should be able to produce battleships in all of them. A reworking there is needed anyway if, as I understand, now you would need both Harbour and Factory3 to produce a battleship; thus, with the current setup, the Germans would be unable to.
Consider having at least a Factory1 in any territory of the German Empire, tho I understand it would not look very good seeing factories everywhere.

While I'm looking at the Baltic, maybe you should have some additional rules for the Danish Straits because:
- They can be mostly blocked only if Denmark does it and more so if Sweden does too (minefields).
- The British passed through with submarines (don't know where).
- All ships may pass through if only one of Sweden or Denmark is ok with that, in its territorial waters.
In particular, as per current rules, you can pass through only if both Denmark and Sweden are friendly, while, realistically, if only one of them is ok with it or under your control, you should have no problems, no matter the other one. It would look particularly silly that if you have Denmark but not Sweden then you can't pass.

I've no idea what they were doing during WW1, but I guess Abissinia should be a pure Neutral?
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Domination 1914: Weltpolitik

Surtur2
I can straight up open the Danish straits for subs, no problem. I'll see if I can hack an "OR" instead of the default "AND" condition for the canal attachment...

At the start of WWI, Abyssinia was ruled by Emperor Designate (he hadn't been formally crowned yet) Iyasu V. After the start of hostilities both the Allies and Central Powers courted Abyssinia, but after the Ottoman Empire entered the war the plots kicked into high gear. The Allies feared (perhaps accurately, it is unknown until their intelligence archives become public) that Iyasu was about to declare for the Central Powers, so:
-the British claimed Iyasu was smuggling guns and supporting the Dervish in Somalia
-the French claimed Iyasu had traveled to French Somaliland under mysterious circumstances and met with unspecified shady individuals
-the Italians claimed that Iyasu had secretly converted to Islam

Under that cloud of suspicion (the charge of conversion to Islam was particularly damning), the nobility deposed him and declared his aunt as Emperor with the backing of the Church, starting a civil war, which she won. After that, Abyssinia stayed neutral for the rest of the war, though they joined the British in finally crushing the Dervish later, I think in 1920.

So my thinking was, after the Ottomans join the war, if the Central Powers get actual troops to Abyssinia before Iyasu is overthrown, that can tip the scales and get Abyssinia to join the Central Powers.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Domination 1914: Weltpolitik

Surtur2
Thinking about this some more, I'm inclined to view this Eritrea -> Abyssinia move as a feature, and not a bug. That would make Italy being CP even more impactful, making for a very different game.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Domination 1914: Weltpolitik

Cernel
In reply to this post by Surtur2
I really hate to see crossed borders and I believe they should never exist, but where the land touches the sea.
Realistically, there is no way to justify the existence of an infinitesimal point that touches 4 different territories, while impeding two couples of them to connect to each other, despite being, at that point, at 0 distance from one another. Crossed borders, if of all land or all sea, are absurd.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Domination 1914: Weltpolitik

Cernel
In reply to this post by Surtur2
I've no idea what was going on there, but it just doesn't feel right to me that, under any circumstances, anybody can walk 1 dude into Abyssinia and instantly take full ownership of it and its units.

But, in general, I'm not a fan of this walk into with 1 and take all instantly kind of thing, aside from this case.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Domination 1914: Weltpolitik

Surtur2
@Cernel
I was working on the next version of this today when I realized that I don't have "hit" versions of the nifty factory images you provided. Would you happen to have those lying around?  Otherwise I can try to apply my meager graphix skillz to the task...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Domination 1914: Weltpolitik

Cernel


History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Domination 1914: Weltpolitik

Surtur2
I tried incorporating as much as possible what we discussed. Also threw in some changes to the Sahara region that I've been ruminating over.

==========================================================
Changelog 1.3.1
==========================================================
Map Changes
Rename Western Sahara to El Djouf
Rename Central Sahara to Grand Erg Oriental
Rename Eastern Sahara to Tibesti
Rename Lower Egypt to Western Desert
Rename Upper Egypt to Eastern Desert
Rename Western Sudan to Kordofan
New connection between Atlas, Algeria
New territory Ifni from El Djouf
New territory Great Sand Sea from Kufra
New territory Erg of Bilma from Niger
New territories in Lower Algeria: Grand Erg Occidental, Tademait, Tanezrouft
Decrease Italian Somaliland production to 0 from 1 (Suggestion from Cernel)
Made Danish Straits traversible by submarines (Suggestion from Cernel)
Added new Oresund canal to make Danish Straits traversible if either Denmark OR Sweden is friendly, instead of both (Suggestion from Cernel)
Production changes
Rename factory_basic, _minor, _major to factory1, 2, 3 with new unit art (Credit to Cernel for unit art)
Require harbours to build cruisers, battlecruisers, battleships, carriers (Suggestion from Cernel)
Unit Changes
Add harbour to Piedmont, Apulia, Naples, Venice (Suggestion from Cernel)
Remove harbour from Rome (Suggestion from Cernel)
Add harbour to West Prussia, Hanover (Suggestion from Cernel)
Add 1 infantry, factory1 to Eritrea (Suggestion from Cernel)
Add factory1 to Aquitaine (Suggestion from Cernel)
Add factory1 to Wurttemburg, Brandenburg
Add factory2 to Venice (Suggestion from Cernel)
Add factory3 to Milan, Naples (Suggestion from Cernel)
Add factory3 to West Prussia, Holstein (Suggestion from Cernel)
Diplomacy changes
Senussi Revolt can now trigger even if Italy joins CP
Revamp Czechslovak Revolt
Remove factory triggers for Estonian Independence
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Domination 1914: Weltpolitik

Frostion
Interesting map. I have not tried it out, but it looks worth it. I haven't read this whole thread either, but want to ask,  have you thought about player friendliness when you rename for example Egypt and Sahara to names that are not that well known? Its cool to have historically and precise names, but its also a balance between confusion and simplicity IMHO . I also have a "world" map in the works (Iron War) so I will have to try Weltpoitik. Nice name BTW o
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Domination 1914: Weltpolitik

Surtur2
tbh, player friendliness was not a primary concern when I did the renaming, no.  But that should be on the radar.  Perhaps it would make sense to have the more well known names as decorations.  Will have to think on it.

Btw, as one of the very few posters on the new forums, do you know whether there is a concerted push to get everyone migrated?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Domination 1914: Weltpolitik

captaincrunch
@Surtur2 I'm glad you asked because I'm quite content to stay here (interesting mod discussions!) and I think the world can handle 2 or 3 Axis and Allies forums!

Really though, I'm watching for redrum's actions and where he posts AI updates -.-
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Domination 1914: Weltpolitik

hepster
In reply to this post by Surtur2
Lot of great changes that are going to elevate the map to a whole new level of WWI gameplay experience.

Congrats.
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Domination 1914: Weltpolitik

Frostion
In reply to this post by Surtur2
I don't know if/when the new forum is officially open for business and recommended as the place to post. But I recall that it would be announced and that the new forum's "play by forum" should work 100% before the new forum was recommended. Maybe this has already happened? The main page of this sourceforge site does say that this forum is "retired".

No matter what, I would recommend that new threads be made at the new forum only.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Domination 1914: Weltpolitik

captaincrunch
I'm only going to re-register somewhere else when I'm forced to
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Domination 1914: Weltpolitik

Surtur2
In reply to this post by Surtur2
It seems my testing was not rigorous enough, as the changes made to the Danish Straits do not, in fact, function as advertised.  Even with my changes, you still need both Denmark and Sweden to pass through.  Not sure how to get it to work as desired.  It would be great if there was an "OR" condition allowed for the canal attachment.

Options going forwards:
1. Revert the change for simplicity (i.e. 1 canal that needs 2 territories, as opposed to 2 canals that need 1 each, but which do the exact same thing, only more complex)
2. Make passage solely contingent upon possession of Denmark.  Not as cool, but still only requires 1 of the territories.  Sorry, Sweden.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Domination 1914: Weltpolitik

Cernel
In reply to this post by Surtur2
My main suggestion, at this point, is still to cut the total income at about half the current level, really.
Another possibility would be doubling all units costs; since here there are factories production 1, 2 and 3, as long as those are making sense with the production situation, that would work (in normal games, it would be not advisable, because infantry at 6 PUs would make for too much TUV spam with placement = production).
I don't know what other people think, but, at this point, what would make myself cautious to play this map is the so massive production and future stacks to manage that starting a game of this would imply (also since you don't have a western front like in Great War).
I suggest you double all units costs, and maybe try to reduce a bit the placement at start (having more factory1 and factory2, and less factory3, and see how it feels). As now, it looks like France has big placement limits, which is a good opportunity for going in the direction of either cutting income or increasing units costs, to reduce units.

p.s.: Parallel canals work; look at WAW or AOT. Also, I'm thinking best maybe would be that there is Gotland, Zealand and Jutland, and you need:
1) Jutland + Zealand + Gotland to fully block.
2) Jutland + Zealand to block anything but submarines.
(so, not like AOT; because if you have only Zealand, but not Jutland, then you can't block anything)

p.p.s.: So, I don't really want to enter in the names discussion, but if you are changing any names at all, get rid of Volgograd, then. That's the worst.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Domination 1914: Weltpolitik

Surtur2
For the next iteration I will try to do something with the income/production situation. Not sure what at this point, but we probably have a few days before I'll have time.

I'll take a look at the parallel canal setup in those other games you mentioned, thanks.

What would be your preferred rename for Volgograd?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Domination 1914: Weltpolitik

Frostion
If you are looking for the historical name of the same city, it is Tsaritsyn. Maybe you could call the territory by this name?
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Tsaritsyn
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Domination 1914: Weltpolitik

lordbevan
In reply to this post by Surtur2
if canada or austrlia wants to build a big ship, it needs a harbor. and all harbors belong to UK and all new produced harbor are changed to UK.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Domination 1914: Weltpolitik

lordbevan
also noted ur factories are hard to distinguish. so i suggest u rotate factory 2 until u can find a better picture.
123456