WW1 Map Ideas

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
206 messages Options
1 ... 7891011
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WW1 Map Ideas

Cernel
Frostion wrote
The colors you post Cernel is very identical.
The sensitivity to the green colour varies wildly from person to person; I guess you are very sensitive to the green, as I guess those two green should be fairly distinctive for most people.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WW1 Map Ideas

crazy_german
There are color blind players, I would like to avoid having 2 greens if possible.

I like that slight adjustment to Russia's yellow, but I think Italy could stay green and Germany become grey. Right now I think this would be the only map that exists where Germany isn't dark grey and I don't see a reason to be different here. I don't really care what their uniforms were, I don't think colours have ever or should be based on uniform color, they are based on the flags. The Ottoman uniforms certainly weren't deep red but its still a good color choice because it matches their flag.
Correctly crazy, disingenuously German
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WW1 Map Ideas

Cernel
crazy_german wrote
I don't really care what their uniforms were, I don't think colours have ever or should be based on uniform color, they are based on the flags.
Americans and British blue or red?
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WW1 Map Ideas

Cernel
In reply to this post by crazy_german
But, yes, I agree that gaypride fuchsia is surely distinctive but it's hard to imagine to look good on anyone. First the British got it, then it was dropped on the Germans, and now the poor Italians got it. As I said, if anyone has to be any kind of purple, I guess better the Ottomans. Don't ask me why.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WW1 Map Ideas

crazy_german
In reply to this post by Cernel
Eh, I still don't really care what color the uniforms were, I just want the map to look decent. Brown complements the British flag just fine. Likewise, the green American troops look good next to their flag.

I'm looking at your green suggestion for Germany, its looks really awkward next to flag Frostion created (and I think the flag looks great). It does beat purple though. I see zero reason to create the only map where Germany isn't dark grey
Correctly crazy, disingenuously German
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WW1 Map Ideas

Cernel
On the Americans, while you're at it, why not making the Americans units too? Even if you are sure to never use them, I think it would finish up the main WW1 roster, in case anyone will want to use these units for other WW1 maps, like it happened a lot for the WW2.

I would suggest the Americans cavalry being shown grabbing a pistol at the ready.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WW1 Map Ideas

Cernel
In reply to this post by crazy_german
crazy_german wrote
I'm looking at your green suggestion for Germany, its looks really awkward next to flag Frostion created (and I think the flag looks great). It does beat purple though. I see zero reason to create the only map where Germany isn't dark grey
Maybe the reason is that the Germans were not grey... At this point, we can make whatever players grey as well, and it would make about as much sense. But what makes sense the most is that the Neutral is grey, since grey is a non-colour, thus it is distinctive for a non-player, and I believe hints at neutrality.

However, it's your map, and if you want to see the Germans grey, for whatever reasons, fair enough.

Also, maybe you should have told Frostion which player you wanted to be purple, or if you rather absolutely didn't want anyone to be purple, so to avoid keeping giving purple to this and this other one, endlessly (first the British, then the Germans, then the Italians, then I wonder who is next now...).

Regarding purple, a curious thing is that, in English, purple is a much undefined colour, which is surely used to define only combinations of primarily red and blue, but that can vary a whole lot as being more towards the blue or the red.
My take at defining what purple is for the Englishmen would be that purple can be defined as any combination of mainly blue and red in which one is at least 60% of the other (which is about the minimum to assure purple can't possibly be a spectral colour), which would also assure purple being not normally a spectral colour, as it is normally intended not to be.
Under this definition I invented right now, whatever colour between hue 276 and hue 324 can be defined as purple. Under hue 276 you would have violet and over 324 you would have rose.
So, in my personal opinion, a good interpretation of what is purple in current (English) parlance may be that it is whatever hue in between of this one:


and this one:


A curiosity is that, under this definition, the English "purple" would NOT be the old roman "purpureus" (the English purple derives the name from the roman "purpura"), nor the French "pourpre", nor the Italian "porpora", and not much the heraldic "purpure" either, all being somewhat arguably above hue 324 (tho the heraldic purpure is very disputable, and has also caused, and still causes, severe problems and controversies amongst heraldists in the definition of what is one of its most famous uses, that is the colouration of the lion of Leon, for the current arms).
Going back to the root, the Latin "purpura" or "purpureus" is not really a colour of clear meaning, but the prevailing consensus, currently, is to define it as very close to red, and it may be referred in English as "tyrian red" or "tyrian purple", and would indeed be a hue about at a value for which an English would be very dubious if to call it purple or to call it red! On the other hand, it appears to be very close to what the French still mean when they say "pourpre", but, as said, not really in the range of what the English would consider "purple"; instead, the Italians (here cited as the closest descendants of the ancient Latins) have traditionally came to consider their "porpora" (same root as the English "purple") as a red with mostly yet very scarcely some green in it, similarly to the English "scarlet" or "vermillion" (that also exists in Italian, as "scarlatto" or "vermiglio"); thus, while the English and the French would at least agree that "purple" and "pourpre" are a mix of red and blue, but the French being so generous with the red as to go in the field of what the English would rather call "rose", or maybe even "crimson", the Italians would argue that "porpora" is, instead, a mix of "red" and "green":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrian_purple
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porpora

What said above is meant to be a preamble to a suggestion that I wish to make Frostion.
As I understand it, you want to take the whole hue range and split it in parts, then assign these different colours to the specific players.
This create the problem that, under the above definition I invented, with the purpose of making fairly clear what we are talking about when we are saying purple, spanning for a good many 48 points of RGB based hue, you would end up with at least one of these colours being either purple or rose, both of which tend to look gay / girlish, and just ridiculous as colours for WW1 soldiers.
So, at this point, my suggestion would be, instead of starting from the whole 360 hue range, what about restricting yourself starting only from the, so called, visible spectrum?
The visible spectrum would be something like this:



As you can see, purple or rose are not colours of the visible spectrum, as the lowest you can go is violet and, once you hit the ultraviolet light, you just stop seeing colours, thus you never get to purple, let alone to rose (on the other hand, you stop upon hitting the infrared light (I don't actually know why it is called infrared; I would call it ultrared, since it is after the red)).
Then, since Germans are preferred grey, for some reasons, that I guess it boils down to just games & Hollywood tradition, the colours may be:

=Germans

=Turks

=British

=Russians

=Italians

=French

=Austro-Hungarians

=Neutral

I definitely think the colours above should be well distinct for anyone not having seriously abnormal perception of colours.
Also, the close ones, like Italians and Russians (well, they don't seem that close to me, but it seems they may be for Frostion, but surely they are both shades green, just a bit more distant than my previous proposal) or French and Austro-Hungarians should be players that will almost never have a serious chance to mix up.
Then, you can make the Americans rose (hue 324), and leave them unused in the folder.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WW1 Map Ideas

crazy_german
Cernel wrote
However, it's your map, and if you want to see the Germans grey, for whatever reasons, fair enough.
On every other ww2 map in TripleA the Germans are portrayed in a dark grey color, as well as other strategy games (Civilization)

I would prefer not to reopen the color discussion, its already taken up most of this thread and its a minor detail. I am very happy with Frostion's choices for all the other nations
Correctly crazy, disingenuously German
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WW1 Map Ideas

hepster
OMG!!!!

So many interesting things going on here.  I check-in every time I see a posting... wanting, of course for something more Substantial than the musings on country unit colour.  While a worthy topic for debate... perhaps not 100% relevant to the development to a new MOD or within its thread.

Eagerly awaiting more of the actual game.

P.S. Units look great!



 
“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: WW1 Map Ideas

Frostion
In reply to this post by crazy_german
OK, I made a new unit set … Take a look.
FrostionUnitsV3.zip
• No purple color
• Neutral is a white color.
• Germany is a grey color.
• Factory and harbor is white for all players.
• All units have been edited, like with a bit stronger outline, so you should copy, paste and use the entire new set.

@Cernel
I appreciate the color suggestions, but the most distinct color span possible is actually displayed on page 5 of this thread. I can understand why these colors were a bit plastic and screaming like. But the colors have now evolved into more subtle and toned down colors. This new v3 set has new adjusted colors. Like Crazy German I also think the units are pretty close to acceptable now.

@hepster
Yes, I also am waiting impatiently for someone to reveal more details, and I can’t wait to see when someone starts to work on tiles and other graphics. PS: Are you still working on Edge of Armagedon?

@Crazy_German
Since this thread is named WW1 Ideas, I think it would be fitting to make an entire new thread when you have a bit more to show, like a name for the map! Maybe when you are past this alpha stage  And maybe when some new tiles are made?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WW1 Map Ideas

Cernel
If you want the recon plane, I think you should devise a way to avoid that (since, of course, the recon plane is going to be weaker in combat) recon + fighter works in a way that the recon are just the fodder like the peltasts of 270bc, not a single fighter going down before all recon are lost. That would really make no sense. This is likely to be done with the recon plane having some extensive support that assures, under some conditions, it is convenient to take outh fighters instead of recon, or by having the recon being more costly than the fighter (tho this would look strange).

Maybe the dualism between the Recon-Plane and the Fighter-Plane may be changed (keeping the images as they are, changing names) in dualism between "Fighter-Monoplane" and "Fighter-Multiplane", with the multiplane comprising the biplane and the triplane (you could call it just biplane, since the triplane is rare, and the only fairly successful one was the Fokker Dr.I (made famous by the Red Baron) in 1918).

But, again, also with Monoplane vs Multiplane there is the trap that one might end up being killed all before the other one, but I think it may be better than the recon being the fodder of the fighter.

Here is an example of monoplane vs biplane of same nation and same company (Fokker):
Monoplane:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_E.III
Biplane:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fokker_D.II

I think now the images, as a matter of outline and contrast etc., look perfect.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WW1 Map Ideas

Frostion
In reply to this post by crazy_german
Like Crazy German wrote in the first post, it would be a good idea to keep complexity down. I think it is a good choice to keep red russians and USA out. I would also think it would be acceptable to have all unit types purchasable from start, but personally I would choose to have basic units from start, add more advanced units (but not better game-winning units) come into the gameone by from turn 2 and onward. During testing all units would have to be included to ensure the units are ballanced.

It would make little sense to have a WW1 game without stuff like tanks, gas, airships and so on. But on the other hand it would be strange to have all units accessible from the start.

I think there would be room for both a reconnaissance/support aircraft, that could give attack support to a number of attacking units + room for a fighter plane with normal fighter role. Especially if there would be one or two air combat and interception opportunities. A figther could be launched to attack strategic bombing airships or whatever.

@Cernel
I am glad you like the small adjustments.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WW1 Map Ideas

crazy_german
Alright this weekend I'm going to redo the place file, make some minor map edits, name some of the territories, and write the last few triggers. After that it should be ready to be played. I the current unit set can be the final one. After I release the next steps will be territory names, relief tiles, and of course balance.

I was going to have airships accessible from the start, but none on the map yet. Tanks and fighters purchasable at turn 4. Early on mobile units are pretty weak, later they become more powerful.
Correctly crazy, disingenuously German
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WW1 Map Ideas

Cernel
You can have Fighter purchasable since start game, but noone having it or only a couple of units to represent the very early ones, already flying in 1915; otherwise, fighter can be disposable starting from round 2 to 4.

On the other hand, tank should be disposable only starting from round 24 (my suggestion), or at least round 12. It would make sense that you have a good chance at winning the game before armours show up, and armours being something that you get to play with only in particularly long games may be neat.

Of course, armours should move not faster than infantry.

Anyways, fixed delays suck. If you don't want to have a sensible tech system and, at the same time, want to keep low the impact of luck related to such advancements, my suggestion would be that, instead of the silly "you-get-this-exactly-round-X-because-it-is-destiny", make a random chance roll at the start of each player turn, that if it succeed adds everyone the armour (the one when it happens will have a slight advantage, as just being the first one able to purchase it). The only real balance issue may be that some units are better for an alliance than the other, thus this happening at a random time may alter the balance; in this case you should configure the unit as being fairly useful to both alliances (for example, in the basic games, the armour is much more useful to Axis than Allies, and if you take it out you greatly unbalance the game in favour of Allies, but this is mostly because it moves 2).

Definitely, fighters should be available earlier than armours, unless you have a good tech system, and even so the chance of armour being developed before fighters should be very low, since you start in 1915.

Also, as per always, I advise against using the name "tank", as tank is a silly name that just means a tank, and it was just a cover up for selling this as a mobile tank, not as a fighting vehicle; thus either use "armour" or "landship". I think "landship" would be cool, especially if you have the "airship". If you go with "armour", instead, I suggest "dirigible_balloon" for the other one, which is the most correct term.

Regarding "armour", since anyway you left the Americans out, will you go with the English spelling? Again, I would still suggest using the French for the units of whatever games from the French revolution to the Great War (late modern era), just for flavour (almost everyone in Europe in WW1 learned French, not English, as second language, aside from the French themselves, of course), but since English has to be (you already refused this suggestion, I know), I would say it should be the one of England.

Also, you may want considering having some combat round limit on land, while infinite combat rounds for sea battles; I imagine you already have.

I know he did a lot of works already, but I still much suggest Frostion to make a set for the Americans too. This is definitely the best WW1 set in TripleA, so I can see this becoming the standard for the future, or even Imbaked stealing it for its own map, and it would be harder for anyone else than you adding up the Americans, while keeping the same style as you used (and, for that matter, it would be not possible to do it with the exactly same style, unless you tell exactly what you did with the units). Plus, the American cavalry would be a cool use for WW2 games too (suggest grabbing a pistol), since at start war the Americans had a lot of horse cavalry (the US army was just meant to deal with the Mexicans), and, in those games like WAW with the Americans going conquering Mexico, you should see mostly horse cavalry armies doing that.

The only reason I'm against Crazy German not having the Americans is that this way Frostion didn't make a set for them too.
History plays dice
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WW1 Map Ideas

crazy_german
Cernel, could you find a few savegames of a game, on any map, that play 24 rounds without being decided? Adding a feature at that point is effectively leaving it out of the game.

I was going to add all new weapons at round 4 or 5, keep it simple
Correctly crazy, disingenuously German
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WW1 Map Ideas

hepster
In reply to this post by crazy_german
crazy_german wrote
Alright this weekend I'm going to redo the place file, make some minor map edits, name some of the territories, and write the last few triggers. After that it should be ready to be played. I the current unit set can be the final one. After I release the next steps will be territory names, relief tiles, and of course balance.

I was going to have airships accessible from the start, but none on the map yet. Tanks and fighters purchasable at turn 4. Early on mobile units are pretty weak, later they become more powerful.

Hearing you are so close to at least an Alpha-release is VERY exciting stuff!

Do you have any specifics you could share about how you have dealt with the game mechanics and unit functions?
“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: WW1 Map Ideas

crazy_german
@Hepps
I'm going to have a capped number of combat rounds, either 2 or 3. Railroads give all land units 5 movement during a special NC move, and you can only move into territories with a railroad controlled since the start of your turn (all handled smoothly via triggers).

the really cool unit right now is the entrenchment, its lowers cavalry's attack, buffs infantry defense, but enemy heavy artillery roll 2 dice, which can also double the support bonus from recon planes. I got all of Germany and France working, and played a bit with just those 2, it seems compelling.
Correctly crazy, disingenuously German
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WW1 Map Ideas

hepster
crazy_german wrote
@Hepps
I'm going to have a capped number of combat rounds, either 2 or 3. Railroads give all land units 5 movement during a special NC move, and you can only move into territories with a railroad controlled since the start of your turn (all handled smoothly via triggers).
Sounds good.  So the entire train system is abstracted.  Are the railroads (which I'm guessing is an infrastructure unit) destroyable?

crazy_german wrote
the really cool unit right now is the entrenchment, its lowers cavalry's attack, buffs infantry defense, but enemy heavy artillery roll 2 dice, which can also double the support bonus from recon planes. I got all of Germany and France working, and played a bit with just those 2, it seems compelling.
Looking forward to seeing how it all interacts.  I had been working on a number of different ideas... but I'd love to see how yours is going to play.
“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: WW1 Map Ideas

crazy_german
Railroads are destroyed when captured, but repaired next turn automatically. This is important to stop a player from immediately reinforcing newly conquered territory (otherwise the map was very fast and mobile). Right now I have a flag in every territory to get the triggers. I've found as units they are hard to see, so I was thinking about drawing the raillines in the relief tiles. This would mean no building new lines, but I think I'm ok with that

They work 100% for Germany and France, tonight I'm writing the rest of the triggers, its the biggest piece left.
Correctly crazy, disingenuously German
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: WW1 Map Ideas

Cernel
Also, I still suggest having "machine_gunners" as a unit.
The decision about how much machine guns to produce (thereby much increasing your defence power, but sinking money into something of scarce attack value) was a main element and controversy of WW1.
I definitely think machine guns are more important to represent than trenches (that can be assumed as given, to some extent).

With machine_gunners, better rename infantry as riflemen.

My suggestion:

if riflemen = att 1 def 2 cost 3

machine_gunners = att 1 def 4 cost 4

On the other hand, you may want to have an assault infantry, and this is where sturm-truppen like units would be cool to have; the value may be:

marksmen / elite_riflemen / assault_gunners / grenadiers = att 2 def 3 cost 4

Tho this is more controversial and less defined than machine guns, as those units may either represent picked individuals armed about the same way as common riflemen, but with more grenades, or soldiers armed with assault firearms alternative to the rifles, like shotguns or sub-machine guns or machine pistols, that would fit more as a tech.
Examples of (late) assault / trench guns:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1897
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP_18

So, the attack-oriented infantry may be something to become available later on, more or less like the armour.
History plays dice
1 ... 7891011