@Vendetta said:

Giving the rest of the world map a quick lookover

Morocco/Spanish Morocco is a little too pointy Canary Islands being at the junction of three sea zones is good, but it could be shifted left a bit to put more space between itself and the African coast Algeria is well divided but French West Africa is pretty off - Dakar extends across much of Mauritania, while Dahomey is covering what should be Upper Volta Cairo is a poor label for southern Egypt since it lies in the northeast - Upper Egypt would probably be the best name for the southern region, or Aswan if you wanted another city name Rhodes has a distorted shape, that whole lobe on the left shouldn’t be there - and what if Rhodes were shifted east to lie on that junction point between the sea zones instead of floating within the same one as Crete? The east half of Lebanon should be part of Damascus instead Using the capital city Taihoku as a label for the whole island seems odd if you’re not subdividing it further - why not just Taiwan or Formosa? North Korea and Keijo are a mismatched pair - either North Korea and South Korea, or Keijo and Heijo China’s got a weird mix going on where half the country is labeled with provinces and the other half are cities

Okay here are some map changes.

@Schulz said:

@KurtGodel7 said:

In a normal TripleA type map, it would be, "I have more air than he has ships. Therefore I will kill his navy on my next turn!"

And what makes you think your game will be any better, other than throwing in 'win more' stuff and endless superficial complexity, all while pretending to avoid it?

First off, I will acknowledge that Flames and Steel hasn't proven itself yet.

In my test games, a game round took less long than would have been the case for a round of Domination 1914 No Man's Land or World at War. I've spent the last few weeks redlining my Claude usage, in large part so that players wouldn't feel bogged down by complexity, the GUI, or anything else which might slow or confuse the game.

I've found that research strategy and military strategy are intertwined. A player researches now for the military strategy he intends to implement later.

Air units are specialized for different roles. It's no longer just, "build a fighter, use it against whatever." Now it's, "build fighters to shoot down enemy air. Build torpedo bombers to sink enemy navy. Build dive bombers to strafe enemy land units. Build strategic bombers to wage a strategic bombing campaign."

Will the game work as intended? I hope so, but I haven't gotten past round 7 in any of my test games. In my round 7 test game things seemed like they were off to a good start. But, a lot of what I'd envisioned for the game hadn't yet started happening, or else was only starting to happen. A better test of the map would be a round 15 game or so, with two humans playing against each other. (As opposed to me playing the map against myself.)

@KurtGodel7 said:

In a normal TripleA type map, it would be, "I have more air than he has ships. Therefore I will kill his navy on my next turn!"

And what makes you think your game will be any better, other than throwing in 'win more' stuff and endless superficial complexity, all while pretending to avoid it?

Giving the rest of the world map a quick lookover