Put a Fortress in Scotland.
Removed a Chasseur from Navarre.
Added a Russian Barque to SZ103, plus Pirates in the Caspian Sea to limit its movement.
Added one more Chasseur to Tripoli.
Turned Dragoon in Tangiers into a Tower and a Hussar.
Moved one Hussar from Moldovia to Bessarabia.
note to eb:
i believe this map is at least, if not more, balanced as 270bc, middle earth, and pact of steel.
therefore, do you think you could create a category1VeqrynDepot.xml (just like you have with category2, 3, etc.) so that I may upload this single map to the top category of the list?
I believe that the Cavalry in the above structure cost too much. Attack costs too much in general. For the price of 1 Grenadier, i could buy 1 Howitzer and 1 Fusilier, which would have 3/3/1/6 just like the Grenadier, but with 2 hit points.
Comparing this to WW2v2-v3 maps:
2/2/1/4 Artillery (boosts attack)
3/3/2/5 Armor (can blitz)
clearly, everything but Howitzers and Fusiliers costs too much
therefore, things have got to change to one of the below 4 options
In this alternative Genadiers lost 1 cost and defense, Marines gained 1 defense, Artillery lost 1 cost and defense, Mortars lost 1 cost, Horse Artillery lost 1 cost and defense, and the rest of the cavalry lost 1 cost.
1) Fusiliers and Howitzers are still the best buy (but only barely now)
2) A better structure that encourages more offensive purchases
1) Probably not perfect. I am particularly worried about the Horse Artillery. Marines loose some oomph when compared with Grenadiers, and they basically become identical with small exceptions.
In this alternative, everything simply goes up in price by 1. The only special cases are the Tower, which gains 1 defense, and the Fortress which doesn't go up in price.
1) The extra amount to buy a higher cost unit is a small percentage of the total cost. (an artillery is only 50% more expensive than a Fusilier, rather than being 66.7% more expensive)
2) Few units in general on the battlefield. (Now that stack of 50 fusiliers vs 50 fusiliers in austria will become 37 vs 37.... which i think is good in general, and brings down calc times)
3) Less radical of a change than the Top End Reduction Alternative
3.3 has been released.
Unit Prices changed.
Added 1 tower to Prussia.
Added a connection and canal between SZ2 and SZ3 (Neva River, russia can now attack sweden with navy more easily, if they choose to)
(some starting hussars turned into dragoons or horse arty, in order to keep the original balance)
The Chosen Alternative for 3.3: attack/defense/movement/cost .... special
0/2/0/3 Mortella Tower
1/2/1/4 Fusiliers . Supportable
1/3/1/5 Chasseurs . Supportable
3/2/1/6 Grenadiers . Supportable
2/2/1/6 Marines . Amphibious Assault +1 Attack
1/1/1/4 Howitzer . Gives Support (+1 attack)
2/1/1/5 Artillery . Gives Support (+1 attack)
5/1/1/7 Mortars . Gives Support (+1 attack)
1/1/2/5 Horse Artillery . Blitz, Gives Support (+1 attack)
1/1/2/4 Hussars . Blitz
2/2/2/6 Dragoons . Blitz, Supportable
3/2/2/7 Cuirassiers . Blitz, Supportable
Basically the same as the Hybrid above, except that Hussars and Horse Artillery switch places. Horse Arty becomes 5 cost, while Hussars become a 1/1/2 unit (with blitz) (not supportable)
This is still pretty defense based.
Cuirassiers, a 3/2/2 unit, cost 3 more pu's than the Fusilier, a 1/2/1 unit
compared with a tank 3/3/2 unit, costing 2 more pu's than the infantry, a 1/2/1 unit
people will still buy Fusiliers mostly (+ at most 50% Howitzers)
the cheaper units are still the best purchase, because of hit points
I've used the battle calc to determine that:
Fusiliers are a better purchase than Chasseurs
Howitzers are better than both Artillery and Mortars
Cheaper units are better than more expensive ones
Single Move units are better than their 2-Move versions
The game has a TON of choke points. So cav will still be of limited use no matter how cheap i make them. The map just is not open enough that you can completely side-step a stack of fusiliers/infantry. So fusiliers will still be king.
I am a little unsure about these increases to the pricing scheme since it may conflict with the abnormally low (compared to v3, revised) territory values found in NE. What exactly are the ramifications of having expensive fodder at 4 when the vast majority of territories are only worth 1? Only more playing will verify the full implications, of course.
EDIT: For example, consider the Spanish conquest of Africa or the Ottoman conquest of the Middle East. How much more inefficient (and undesirable) is it to risk losing one or two Fusiliers to take a territory worth a mere 1?
similar to rsoc, the territories are small but there are a lot of them. each country is pretty rich, even the poor spanish who start at 23 are ahead of the italians in v3 (10), while 4 of the countries end up pushing past 50 without much fuss.
Play testing will determine if the cost increase is too much to bear, but I think losing a fusilier/howitzer/hussar or two is something spain can risk, especially when we've seen games where spain makes 50+, and can outspend UK because of previous investments they've made into north africa. Ottomons may end up having an issue, but at least this issue effects their Russian enemies equally too. I may remove a neutral Fusilier from Armenia to make up for this, OR shift some of their forces closer to the front. We'll see how it goes.
If it ends up being too much, it is Very Easy to simply decrease the cost of all units by 1. However, I am going to stick with the actual unit stats and the unit prices relative to each other (unless playtesting shows it to be bad). Whether Fusiliers/Howitzers/Hussars start at 3 or start at 4 is not so big to me, as switching to the new stats that bring expensive stuff down a notch in price relative to the base units. (Cuirassiers are no longer the Prohibitively Exorbitant 133% more cost than the Fusilier, and is now just the Excessively Expensive 75% more cost than the Fusilier.)
Version 3.3 - 3.4 changes:
1 Tower added to Constantinople, Candia
1 Marine moved from Candia(Crete) to SZ73
1 Fusilier removed from Candia, replaced with 2 Fortresses (to stop g2 otto take of candia)
Fixed relief tiles to show Neva River Canal (sz2-3)
basically what prompted this change, was flynn had found a g1-2 move that allowed ottomons to take candia/crete no matter what the UK did. this was really bad for gameplay, because uk no longer has the option to build a camp in candia. if they build one turn 1, ottos build 3 marines and a barque turn 1 also, then turn 2, no matter what uk does and builds, ottos can take crete
candia is now much more of a fortress than before. to balance this, some of the uk flexibility in the form of a fusilier was removed, as well as a free tower for constantinople to resist any uk bombardments better.
since 3.3 was pretty much balanced til flynn found this, i am hoping that this will mostly leave the balance of the game unchanged, minus the game-breaker
(note that ottos can still do something with candia. pulicat and i tested and found that ottos building 3-4 marines, and attacking with everything in range, AND getting the bombardment, will weaken candia to the point where a french turn 3 attack will take candia (assuming 2 marines, 1 grenadier, 1 marshal). this is also no matter what uk does, but we feel it is costly enough that ottos will not opt for this strategy often (by costly, ottos lose 8 land units, and french probably lose 1-3, all just to get a free camp where they most likely will not build anything)).
another bug found, meaning a new version of nap emp
3.5 is released
Version 3.4 - 3.5 changes:
Changed Chasseurs in Armernia into Hussars (ottos can take turn1 now).
Added Russian Barque to SZ2 (remember there is a canal there to sz3).
Removed 1 Tower from Prussia to compensate.
Bug in the game engine does not allow Corvettes (submarines) to be supported by Cutters (a non-submarine artillery). Despite being listed in the game and xml as supportable, they have actually not been supported this entire time. Fixed by removing supportable from basetiles and xml. Corvettes are no longer supportable (they never were).
For future reference, in case it should come up, Corvettes are like submarines. If there is no enemy destroyer-type unit (frigate) in the battle, Corvettes can and should be able to: offensive and defensive first strike, offensive and defensive separate retreat (to another sea zone, is not a submerge), and Corvettes may not pass through other Corvettes.
One minor Objection. I know the British base of Crete(Candia) is to threaten the Ottoman Empire, but the island was actually under Turkish control until 1913, as you can see in below. Two IPCs also seems generous.
we had no other way to simulate the English's allied bases in the region. It is for gameplay, and for gameplay only.
(if we gave the english a bunch more boats, some transports loaded with marines, I'm sure they would conquer something else that was unhistorical.... so this just saves the time and guessing)
Since i like Ancient Times (better than 270BC) and First Punic War maps, i also decided to try Napolonic Times and downloaded the latest version (3.5) a few days back..
The Map itself looks nice, some units look familiar and i like the concept of the marines but...
It really plays awkward that way.
Besides, when playing a new map i usually like to study the purchase screen for some time to acquaint myself with the units and their icons.
Really, as a noob to the map that order kind of threw me off and since i couldn't find a reference to the order in this thread, i thought i'd ask.
i decided to change it to that order Because the map was so big and involved, and therefor not noob friendly
Have you ever played NWO? it has the same order....
basically, the reason is because there is soooo much stuff going on and so much movement to make (including moving your factories[generals]) that the game plays a lot quicker with a lot less turning on edit mode, if you do your movement before your purchase
you can basically do all your movement, then see that, hey i will need exactly 4 marines 2 barques and 3 fusiliers... (or whatever)
instead of purchasing the wrong amount, the begging to use edit mode to fix it
(also, the units are actually listed on the right side of the map.... so if you ever get confused or need to refresh your memory take a look at the right side of the map, there is a big panel there with the units)
thx for your interest, I hope you enjoy the map,
"Have you ever played NWO?"
Yes i did, though, regarding your reply, most likely not any of the later versions.
(downloaded and played it in versions 1.7 and 1.8 with personal mods (removed certain units, since the buy screen was far too large for my screens) with TripleA1003, then got confused about which mod on these forums was the "official" new one... thanks for the embedded download button in the v12+ versions!)
I never liked much the changes done to NWO with adding Romania and France as playable sides.
Thanks for telling me about that order-change to NWO too, a shame though imo.
And IF the purchasing should not happen at the turn's beginning, i personally would do
combat move, battle, noncombat move, purchase, place, endturn instead of
combat move, purchase, battle, noncombat move, place, endturn.
i.e. resolve the battles first, and THEN buy+place, even though that does then include the IPCs for the newly conquered territories i think.
I'd still prefer that order, because *IMO* the purchase in between battles interrupts gameplay more than it helps with it as you mentioned.
(also, i NEVER use edit mode in a game, it feels like cheating. And i don't much like games that kind of require it to place buildings)
Furthermore, I actually thought the game order is kind of "official", since it's mentioned in the dev-forums explicitly.
Also, the "mistakenly" or "suboptimal" buying of units happens ofc to me too, but well... war hardly takes place as planned every time, so i feel one should just live with a bad decision, same with mistakes on the move - hands off that edit menuitem! :P
Also, ofc i have noticed the unit pics and stats on the right, they're just not too easy to read (fairly small and ATK,DEF are red on green/blue). At least for me. white on green/blue is better, at least in that size..
But perhaps it's just me needing glasses, and generally spoken i like that trend to display units+stats somewhere on the maps.
Well, i have since edited the XML to revert it to the order i am used to locally, so np...
Special thanks to you for upgrading so many maps from pre-1.2 to 1.2 compliance, it's much appreciated!
This nabble thing kind su**s, the presets cause the format to get lost when editing a post *sigh*
if you unzip the folder (and get rid of the zip so that there are no duplicates), you can mod the order back to the way you like
also, the game takes on the xml features (just the xml, nothing else) of whatever version or mod the HOST is using
so if you host games, everyone in the game will be playing with your version
i probably would not mod anything except for the purchase/combat move turn order since the current version is very well balanced
(if enough people dislike the turn order, i could be convinced to have both versions available in the download, however you are the first to dislike it whereas i have received tons of compliments from people liking the new turn order)
"if you unzip the folder (and get rid of the zip so that there are no duplicates), you can mod the order back to the way you like "
Yep, that's basically what i did, though i also renamed the map to effectively create a 2nd entry in my game list (giving it the map version 3.5.1 locally).
When i mess with the XML i usually - well, at least for several games - do not touch any of the unit's entries, so no worries: the "spirit" of the map is kept :)
That it's dependent on the HOST which XML is used is very good info i've not had before.
I used to mod the XMLs and send them to a friend i play with, since i assumed that all players had to have the same version.
My only issue is I can't tell the difference between the units.
All the different units look so similar I can't really tell what I am moving. Is this a battleship of some kind or a transport? Is this an infantry with an attack of 1 or 2 or 3? Also it is very hard to tell what country a unit belongs to.
Some kind of legend showing the units and their stats would be nice, and maybe little icons so I can see which country they belong to.
Not knowing what is going on has made this unplayable for me.
2 months of play-testing on 3.5 have basically confirmed that the game in really well balanced and pretty dang fun.
still, there is always room for improvement.
3.6 is now up,
here are the changes:
Added 2 Russian Barques and 2 Cutters to SZ2 (remember there is a canal to sz3).
Changed Fusiliers to Chasseurs in Finland.
Removed 2 Spanish Fusiliers, upped Spanish starting IPCs by 7 (to 30) so that they can now choose to purchase new ground units, or instead spend the money on fleet.
Added 1 Tower to Gibraltar, and reduced Gibraltar territory IPCs by 1 (to 2).
Made convoys worth more: each of sz28 uk, sz38 france, sz50 france, sz61 france, sz73 uk Upped by 2 (to 6), and sz46 spain upped by 8 (to 12). This change is balanced out by having some uncontested land worth less for the three nations involved.
To keep income for each nation the same as before, negative national objectives introduced for France (-6), UK (-4), and Spain (-8).
Change in Prices for units: Battleship cost 1 more (21).
Upped Prussian and Swedish starting IPCs by 1 (to 27) so they still purchase a BB + Cutter on turn 1.
Added victory cities victory conditions (12, 13, and 14 vc to win).
What effect do the changes have?
Basically, Russia now has the option of going anti-sweden instead of anti-ottomon.
And UK can now go anti-spain with much more effect due to the spanish convoy being worth more (and hence for spain to lose it would be roughly equivalent to UK taking swedish or french land territory).
And the Med is slightly more important with 4 (2x2) additional IPCs in convoy money down there.
I also created a free-for-all (FFA) version.
Which could be more historical (or less historical) depending on the alliances people make.
I also created a free-for-all (FFA) version.
Which could be more historical (or less historical) depending on the alliances people make.
thnx veqryn!!! very good map! i dont like (as russian) the closed russian fleet in black sea and the neutral crimea (at this time already russian), but the game is really funny, cause you have so many options! THX
what you mean with free-for-all? i dont know it...
edit: what are you think about 2hit-fortress?
Anyone, who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield, will think hard before starting a war.