Crazy Europe: House of Habsburg

CrazyG

@hepps
I have a half way done WW1 thing, but I want to get a grip on this first.

I've fixed bad connections in Sweden. Send me any others you find.

My testing is showing that Sweden is now favored over Denmark in a true 1v1, so how much Sweden invests in fighting Russia should be a good source of variety.

Hepps

@crazyg I was just kidding. Got see this through to the finish line now.

Hepps

@CrazyG Quick check update...

Missing connections

SZ 127<-> SZ 134

Connections needing to be removed

France 06 <-> Belgium 06
Netherlands 04 <-> Belgium 01
SZ 128 <-> SZ 109

Just what I checked this morning. But I had still noticed issues with Eastern Turkey and some still missing connections in that area.

CrazyG

I found a file on my computer with all these missing connections. At some point, I think I updating with the wrong file and removed them.

The problems all seem to be in the areas that we made changes to in the second wave of map creation.

I'm fixing now, will update sometime today. The update will only have connection fixes

Hepps

@crazyg Funny you say that, because I remember already doing this exercise with you once before.

Glad you were able to find the file. Should make our lives easier.

Hepps

@crazyg Also when you integrate the new file you may want to look at the connections in Sweden that surround Lakes Vanern & Vattern. there are several connections there that currently shouldn't exist.

CrazyG

@hepps
Those were also fixed in the old file

wc_sumpton

@crazyg
Hope these will help you with the connection problems:
1_1531421604908_connections_new.txt 0_1531421604907_connections.txt
The connections file is the one with your latest download, removed and sorted. The other file is a new run from the polygons.txt file. All Sea Zones that have connections to land were marked with an 'x' prior to running so any that didn't connect were removed. Those were the only changes. Load both into notepad++ so that they can be compared side by side.

Hope this helps in your efforts.

Cheers...

Hepps

Don't know if this has come up... but @CrazyG what did you envision as the default way this game should played? Dice or Low Luck?

CrazyG

@hepps
Dice. I have LL on as default for early testing purposes

Hepps

@crazyg Good to know.

wc_sumpton

@CrazyG
One of the things that I really like about this map is the absents of clutter. With the amount of territories, leaving the names off makes this map seem 'roomier'. But I would think about adding the city names to give a feel of location.

Also I would think about splitting up the 'Navy' unit into two different units. A Caravel used to transport troops and receive the movement tech. The other a Galleon that would attack like Cannon (two dice, and added to the supportAttachmentCastleRolls) and receive a bombard tech, but not movement.

I would increase the transport cost of Knights and Cannon to 3 and set canInvadeOnlyFrom to none. The Caravel's transportCapacity could be set to 3 (maybe 4, or set it to 4 as a tech) and isCombatTransport to true.

Any way to both you and @Hepps this is a very nice map.

Cheers...

Hepps

@wc_sumpton This was all @CrazyG . I just drew some pretty pictures. The real beauty of this map is in its design.

Frostion

If not splitting up the "Navy" unit, I would recommend the unit be renamed "Fleet". I feel it is more appropriate to say "I am attacking with two fleets" than say "I am attacking with two navies". A nation only has one navy as far as I know.

Cernel

@frostion That'd be surely an improvement but, still, "fleet" is a concept that doesn't envision an unitary or quantitative distribution, but, rather, a strategic one. Likely, game wise, a stack of sea units in the same sea zone would be a fleet (while, of course, the navy is the whole for the potentate).

Why not just "ships"?

Anyways, I suggested to change navy, as well, way back:
@cernel said in Crazy Europe: House of Habsburg:

@crazyg
Names changes suggestions, if it is the early XVII century, in my order of preference, left to right:
crossbow->crossbowmen (but, really, from 1600 there should be none; they are almost extinct)
musketmen->musketeers
cannon->cannons
horsemen->harquebusiers/petronels
knights->cuirassiers/gendarmes/reiters/lancers
navy->ships (or man-of-wars and barques, if you split military and transport)
castle is a touch too medieval, and I remember you gave some good suggestions for this time in Age of Tribes

CrazyG

@wc_sumpton
I won't be adding new types of ships unless I get art for them that matches the current style. I'm at the mercy of an artist to volunteer on this.

I had the same thought about cannons and knights invading from sea, and having techs that improved capacity. I'm leaving it as is for the moment for two reasons

I'm hardly ever seeing those units used amphibiously anyways
Without cannons, its almost impossible to take castles by sea. You need at least 6 navies to do so, which seems like too many.

Hepps

@crazyg I'm sure if you asked @Frostion REALLY nicely you could probably use the Battleship image from the Caribbean Trade War game with very little effort to adjust it slightly to match HOH.

Frostion

I will see what I can do in regards to making a new and bigger ship image for a new unit type.

Cernel

Personally, I'm confortable with a single ship unit, even tho it makes sense to have the choice to focus on a transport or warring navy.
In TripleA, I always had issues with warships and transports, as the old rulesets have fodder transports and the new have defenceless transports, and I don't like either.
At the end, it all depends on what is gonna be here.

Frostion

Here is a battleship type unit. I hope I have hit the mark in regards to the right player color. Otherwise, please adjust them: