Were horse drawn artillery a huge thing in ww1? I would definitely include it a slightly earlier map
I think we need to not make confusion. When I said horse-artillery, I didn't mean horse drawn artillery in general. Most artillery, as well as most logistic stuff, when it is not on a train it is indeed drawn by cold-blooded horses. When it is not a horse, then it is almost surely a mule (mules were very important in the Italian army of WWII, and extremely important in the Chinese one). It is not like the normal artillery the poor guys move it themselves (tho there are some examples, and also in WWII the Japanese had some light artillery to be transported (disassembled) by men).
With horse-artillery (as per how the term is usually used, also for the Napoleonic Empires map) I just meant the very minor part of the (generally horse drawn anyway) artillery that has a fully mounted or transported organic, with reference to hot-blooded horses, and able to almost keep up with the normal cavalry. I didn't mean horse-drawn artillery, which is just almost the entire WWI artillery, as well as most artillery of most armies in WWII, after they leave the trains, like Germans and Russians.
If horse-artillery (meaning not horse-drawned with cold-blooded draught horses for the artillery only, which is almost everything, but fully mounted or horse transported with abundance of hot blooded steeds) was important in WWI, I would say no, but I'm not a WWI expert.
And there is a lot of difference between horses; many you can swap with mules or oxen, but not with chargers.
If infantry cost 3 (which is what I was going to do), 1 PU is a pretty large amount. Have you played around with upkeep costs much? It seems to me that adding upkeep fundamentally changes the game's economy, so yes I would consider that an advanced feature. I don't think unit piling is an inevitable problem, if each turn territory is traded, that kills units. So long as the incomes aren't too much larger than the loses to territory trading, armies shouldn't pile up too much. The only game I've played extensively that unit build up seems to be a big problem is NWO
I can do 2 step building of units, I feel like its easy enough to understand.
Edit- just saw the post on horse artillery. When I think "horse artillery" I'm thinking a mobile unit, faster than infantry. So based on your post, it sounds like it wouldn't be that appropriate for ww1.
These are my opinions about ww1 map if you are interested in.
Shold be full open world map main battle territories for example north atlantic west front east front balkan front etc should have a lot of territory but other territories shold have less territory. Otherwise game would be slow down and central would lose the momuntum. For example in dom 1914 germany can threat 3 entence country with late fighters mass cavalries can go fastly to eastern front from western front or vice versa so central germany central austria central turkey should have less territory for strategic diversity.
Inf cost definitely should be 3
Minumum country would be good for game speed.
Adding sea mine convoy zones german mobile factory in the north atlantic which can product only submarine
You can add "pick tech" options in the game.
Austria and russia have bad colours. Austrians army was blue not yellow.
Movement is before than purchase.
I think all countries should able to continue the war without capital. It would be provide more strategic possibility.
I am fine rising communism from far east idea.
If you care historical accucary. France was strong than russia.
You can add one more small central powers. Allies had fighted against rebels in mexico (usa mexico border war). Dervish state and senussies in the africa. Indian and singapores mutinies bashmaci revolt and jabal state.these goup was pro-central similiar situation as commies.
Or give the territories to germany and turkey.
Use real flags please. I have all real ww1 flags i can give you them.
Thank you for the feedback navalland. I am undecided on whether to make it a global map or not. For the other suggestions I generally agree, but I don't really like the idea of central controlled rebels in entente territory
I am really irritated oversize britain. Britain is too big almost all tripea maps. Normally britain=1/3 Turkey. but britain is important country so 2/3 Turkey would be best dimension for britain
I know that as a map maker the enlargement of certain geographic features
normally comes down to in-game necessities... Britain (and Europe in general) are far too small when you drawn them to scale. With the volume and number of units being produced in those regions in most scenarios... it simply become overly congested and lots of extension bars.
“A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition”― Rudyard Kipling
Since TripleA is digital, you can make a more geographically consistent map in which the European territories are about fine, and the other territories are ridiculously large; then make a mapskin that it is 50% the size of the previous one. People can use one skin when they are looking at Europe and the other when they are looking at the rest; this is also what I suggest instead of having a western front box (just have them as thiny territories, with a skin in which they are big enough). The important part is that first you make the big one, then the small one, as shrinking is almost lossless, the reverse is not.
I also always suggest whatever maps being taylored for 4k monitors. Again, shrinking all to 50% thereafter (to make a skin for 2k) is almost lossless.
Nope. But I surely believe Pulicat should have gone this way, instead of or beside the East box (having a mapskin without the box, in which the East is fine and everything else is ridiculously big).
This may be also redundant if TripleA would have a very good zoom AND customised placement coordinates for each units zoom setting, but you would need to change the units zoom and the general zoom each time, while a mapskin would be a 1 click only.
If you meant maps taylored for 4k monitors, instead, I believe, as now, this is the only one (but it might be argued that Feudal Japan is just fine for 4k, tho the units are 48x48):
Actually, 3 clicks, cause you would need to change the Font Size each time too, but this is true for the mapskin too, sadly, because the Font Size is not skin specific nor skin settable (while it definitively should be).
Or at least make maps that are currently subjectively at about the highest preferable level of territory / units dimensions for HD oriented tastes, so they might at least be inside the lowest one for 4k tastes (which means something like 2 or 3 times more "zoomed in" than NWO, and with 100% 64x64 pixels units, to give an example).
Also, it is really no problem shrinking graphic, while it is not good enlarging it (the result looks bad, in the second case); so, if you make stuff "too" big, you can't really go wrong, cause you can always shrink it, is another point I make.
@cernel-That sounds really complicated. If you can show me a working version of that, I'll consider it, but I wouldn't even know how to begin making the images
Here is a preview of the German-French border (units and PU values subject to change)
The scale is pretty consistent throughout Europe. I think having French territories being smaller than Russian messes everything up, Paris is much closer than St. Petersburg or Moscow and will be represented as such.
If the map has no Japan, I think Russia can have a colour like the one used in WAW for Yamamoto, maybe a little greyed out. France, I would definitively have it as a bit greyed out sky blue, which should also be a nice colour to look at (better than the traditional strong deep blue, like the one of WW2 Global for sure, imo). The communists, if any, obviously brownish dark red.
Of course, it all depends on the relief tiles; what matters is the after effect, not the colours themselves.
For now, I just suggest you making a map in which you are very generous for the smallest territories, even at the cost of having ridiculously big territories for the other ones. Then, in the future, you can always think about making a smaller mapskin for having a better global view. Of course, this needs to be done only after all skin stuff is about definitive, or you will just almost double the effort.
For France, I suggest the colour being lighter and adding a bit of green in it (for example, 8899cc).
The colour you used for France, I would use it for Austria Hungary, instead, but still some lighter, a little more purplish and greyed out (just add more red and green, but more red than green).
Rest I've already written down a bunch of suggestions. Khaki for the British, obviously.
I suggest making the map at least 50% bigger than what I see (more, if you can get to use 64x64 pixels units).
The French were deep blue in 1914, but since 1915 they adopted their famour sky-blue colour, that I think it is also pleasant to look at and fairly distinctive (except being quite close to the Austria Hungary blue, that I would turn a bit purple to differentiate, as I said); so, I suggest going for something on the idea of that, instead of the traditional French flag blue. I also dislike a blue like the one of WW2Global because it makes very little contrast with the sea colour, which I believe is always bad.
The portion of the map created is already almost as large as TWW but doesn't cover the entire world, I don't think I can make it much bigger. Currently overflow is pretty rare, and I could probably improve the place file. I'm going to make base tiles, and after that additional art will be up to volunteers, I just don't have the skills to make a good looking map, much less multiple skins.
I think those colors are just taken directly from Dom 1914
I think it is always a good thing to wait for making the relief till the map is really almost surely at its definitive state.
I hate to see the graphic (or the rulebook!) standing in the way of revisions almost as much as I hate seeing making surgery on finished artwork, to accommodate corrections.
I would just highly suggest you take care avoiding having any tiny connections, like the one you have between those two French territories in the lower part of the image, because they tend to become harder to see with the relief image on top.
Such minimal borders might seem clear enough on the monochrome, but really limit what you can do with the relief, keeping connections clear.
In general, I strongly believe a map should be unmistakably clear when played as a physical boardgame (having no engine-enforced connections and stuff), but also because connection bugs are fairly frequent and, anyway, one should not assume that the game is always right, or we would have a bunch of connections making you able to jump sea zones in 270BC, etc..