There was some discussion about making a new WW1 map yesterday via the lobby.
I have given it more thought.
GW is a good map but there are those that don't like the "box map" of GW and Lebowski's NWO WW1 is a good mod but WW1 can be done on a grander scale.
If the Domination map in used I think the place for a box for the western front is the "Domination" tile in the south pacific not over existing territory.
Honestly I don't think the Domination map should be used for a 1914 start.
For a 1918 start with Bolsheviks modding the Domination map will work.
I like that, since that's what I personally want to do ;)
A brand new map with a better western front territory layout and better Baghdad/north of there for a Baghdad Railroad conflict would a good direction for 1914 IMO.
It would be good to have railroads. Historical.
Africa should be "boxless" as the idea would be to make a map for folks that complain about GW's boxes.
Japan should be an independent production linked to the British like India in TWW.
There could still be the Pacific and Atlantic corridors and a simplified Pacific like in GW as there isn't much going on there historically.
There would need to be enough PU there for Japan to send navy to the med regularly.
Also if Edwin's territory effects movement restrictions gets committed to the engine the corridors can be shorter with use of a "high seas" territory effect.
Pyngot's map has a bunch going for it with the number of territories.
At first glance i thought there was too many here and there then I rethought it and figured that the extra territories would help slow the advance and help keep the pace of ww1 ie no bypassing the trench warfare.
I don't see how it can work though. Some reasons...
There's no America on the map.
No Japan and the Pacific.
No India (local skirmishes with neutrals? on triggers) which you'd need for Baghdad rail reinforcements.
Germany in Africa (maybe stormtroopers/commandos)
Not that I think it's necessary but there's no possibility of Brazil bring in some navy or the Mexican proposition either.
I like that there's some new to me unit art and colors ;)
And he has some good idea's that can be implemented with the engine now.
Thanks for referring it.
any bigmaps gets my interest, not the larry harris ww1 though....
Im maybe an oldschool guy but i always recommend people to keep it simple, you had allot of awesome ideas but probably too much to fit into 1 map at same time...
if we take a look at 1 of the most succesful mapmakers so far: seig, he started with something very basic called new world order (after a few other maps iirc), and this first version was what u can download under nwo 5 nations. he took revised rules wich people where very fammiliar with, a bigger europe map, and he added some units. in a new version he added more units, then more nations, then triggers etc
what im trying to say, he introduced an easy to learn map, got allot of feedback because people are lazy and like stuff they already know, then he used other ideas, new ideas to expand his map and the comunity had to learn 1 thing at a time.
then came the rising sun and world at war, using the same rules, same units (almost) and he added some rules as he went on, in the end he got a massive waw map that is played regularly compared to most other maps with same quality who never get played. ofcource nwo is maybe the most played map on aaa.
thats my 2 cents, and hope people agree and use this kind of formula before starting another huuuuuge unplayed map.
I'm not so interested in the L. Harris WW1 map either.
I do think the 1 round battle is a interesting way to simulate trench warfare on a smaller map.
I would not use it on a bigger map.
Ice, I definitely see your point about people liking to play games that they are familiar even if the map is new. And I see what you mean about the progression in Sieg's maps.
Take a look at the new TRS AA Boats edition. A few changes (maybe too many all at once) but still not where I want to end up with the mod. First the need to balance the navy/air with the new changes, then move to changes in the way inf and air interacts. Balancing needs PvP play IMO. See that thread...
My goal is to focus on a large ww1 world map with a basic ww2v3 rule set and move it forward from there, adding more and more just like you're suggesting. Eventually modding it into a 1918 scenario with as much of my ideas as the engine will support.
With TWW in the Triplea game base, and some folks really liking it, I think that once we have a WW1 map that is boxless and worldwide we can move it forward and fill it out or start anew on a new base AND have a big map that folks still play.
I think that there's enough folks that would want to play a big boxless WW1.
I have not started working on it at all. I'm still in the brainstorming stage and bouncing ideas around to see what folks want out of a new map to start with.
Plus I'm hopeful that someone with the skills will do a bit of engine work to get things moving towards some of my ideas... so that I won't have to rewrite anything while developing. It's one thing updating and another working from scratch and then updating.
I don't mind updating old maps that I think are worthy though...
If the unstable is heading for something drastic let me know about it. I'll prep some maps...
I really want sub carriers to be a possibility and everything that will follow.
Meanwhile I'm getting the skills together to make the WW1 map and do it well.
Would you be willing to work on it some more and help make a "Domination like map" with a WW1 theme and room for expansion?
Quite honestly I have very little experience with graphics and it would be great to go at this as a group and split up some of the tasks.
Good to start by working on areas with easy agreement, after a little discussion identifying those areas.
I like the way Domination handles Africa. I'm not so fond of the way Shanghai is.
Most of the Pacific could just be impassable territories, worthless or 1 PU and the PU scale adjusted to make a capitol 50 if necessary. That would leave plenty of room for expansion of the map with mods for 1918, ww2, cold war, whatever.
What about strategic cities? I like them. I think that having them in the map is what will set it apart from TWW and maintain a player base.
How far should we go with triggers and such. Should India have the neutrals triggers that I mentioned in a earlier post?
Should we keep it simpler and leave the historical triggers for a future TWW WW1 mod to help in the defining of the player base?
What do we want out of this new map? What's the roadmap we want to follow?
I don't think that there is the need to have as big of a western front as GW.
It definatly needs to be bigger than any other existing maps though IMO.
Hmmmm... if there was a territory effect that switched all units to 1 round attack/defence AA rolling at their normal values, that would make the map have some trench areas without having to be as massive of a download or memory hog.
yeah i can help not sure how much bandwidth i have at the moment ill have to better familiarize myself with what maps we are talking about but yeah love to help however i can. i think having more territories is a good way to make the game a little slower pace then a ww2 game especially in the seas. it also makes the main fronts a little more realistic and not such a drastic difference from other areas of the map.
I think it would be great to keep things simple. As for the units, keep them as is but add cavalry units. No need for more than infantry units, half tracks, cannons, and light tanks. Adding zeppelins and fighters would be good too, but zeppelins not so much needed.
I like the territories on Larry's Map for Great War but the two fronts could use more territories.
As for Italy, they should remain neutral at the start of the War like they did in real life. There should be a roll of the die to see which side they take during the war, like in round 4 for example. The die roll should not be 50/50% either as Italy was looking to go Allies more so than not. So I'd make it 1 thru 4 Italy goes Allies and 5 & 6 they join the Germans ottomans Austrians.
Also, politics should be added like they have them in Europe 1940 and Global 1940 for neutral countries.
Sea units should be optional as I have explained before. I think they just ruin the game really and unbalance it.
Keeping it simple unit wise to begin with is a good idea but not the goal in the end IMO.
Limited tech progress would be cool.
Nations need some special units (Paris Gun, Gas, ect)
The unit list size to start should be small but should grow IMO
Look at GW TLS March 1918. Units could be similar, but slightly simplified from the start then teched....
No sea units?
Integral part of the war.
I think uber will back me on that one since he mentioned redrawing sea zones.
Think Japan (who should have land clashes in China too, ect).
Naval mines in the harbors...
Politics is a must in a ww1 xml.
That is where the complexity really comes in. It's gonna get complex with all the triggers.
I'm for making things closer to the TWW politics example only WW1.
Percentage rolls for politics are engine supported and can/should be done.
I think LH WW1 or a classic set up is way too basic.
It's too small no matter what. It doesn't allow for expansion.
I'm thinking that it would be good to make this "the big map to conquer all big maps..." and make it work for whatever world scenario that you want to mod it to. Flexibility is good.
Once the LH WW1 gets finished there will be a simple WW1 to play.
Let's make this a bit more complex, not too much so, and leave it open for complex modding.
Think a NWO style (strategic city circles) world map made for WW1 and further expansion.
Xml with a smaller TTW style tech system, politics and not so "Lebowskiized" for the first run.
It can be modded from there.
Sounds to me like what your really wanting to play is more like a big simple trench front map with no sea zones.... which could be done but is not the goal of this project.
"Sea units should be optional as I have explained before" Hmmm.... Who is this first time poster? lol
converted svg file from wikipedia the map file contains every province from every country as of a 1998 so for the most part the territories can be broken down to represent almost if not every territory from GW in Europe or any other game for that matter. the sea tile i added compensate semi precisely for the curve effect of the miller projection map, meaning the squares are relatively the same width in real distance on the earth.
happy to do some more work on these as well if theres continued interest in developing the game.
Unless a large map with a more elegant system can be designed, I think the simplest way to simulate the effect of trench warfare is to have 'trench' territory effect in a few entire territories. Infantry would be +1 att/def in trench territories. Having a map combat limit of two to four rounds would also help. By boosting infantry att and def, it will not be a permanent unbreakable trench.
I think placement limits and maintenance both fall short in TripleA of capturing manpower/resource limitations. A better way would be to have a max number built total units from the start of game, have a regeneration rate, and once the limit has been exceeded all units go up in cost by 1 PUs each.
For instance, once Germany reaches 100 units built, with 5 subtracted per round, then each of its units goes up by 1 PUs.. which would affect infantry the most.
That is what I wish we had the ability to set with xml code.
'thats the way it is' makes it neither desireable nor inevitable