Crazy Europe: House of Habsburg

[CrazyG]

@Hepps
Looks much better already. Feel free to change the shapes of the territories as well so long as the connections remain the same.

@General_Zod

1. I tried this, its weird.
2. I would need art
3. I'm fine with testing light cavalry as a 3 move unit. However its really, really powerful in areas like Russia
4. See above
5. Art. I could borrow art from like Napeoleonic Empires but it wouldn't match. The current art is taken from age of tribes, I'd only add horse artillery if there was an option in that style
6. One day I will publish more scenarios for it

[General_Zod]

@crazyg Maybe someone can give you more units in that style if they not too busy.

Light cavalry would still be expensive, (compared to foot) fast but weaker in general, so Russia and others would not simply mass them. And expect good results, I would think. Ah, I see your cost of cavalry is only 3 more than pike or crossbow. That would have to increase if you did it.

I guess once we play it. You will get more feedback.

[Cernel]

@crazyg Wanted to add that, if this is the early XVII century, Ottomans should have Rhodes and almost all of Crete (Venice holding only on some small outposts), while the Venetians may have the Peloponnese (until 1715).

The one I feel the strongest amongst the renamings I proposed is surely renaming the knights.

[Hepps]

@cernel Isn't the 17th century.... 1601 to 1700? Just curious since your references seem to off from what @CrazyG has specified he is designing his map around.

[CrazyG]

Images the map borders were roughly based on-
https://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=house+of+habsburg&fr=moz35&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.emersonkent.com%2Fimages%2Fhabsburg_1547.jpg#id=1&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.emersonkent.com%2Fimages%2Fhabsburg_1547.jpg&action=click
https://uk.images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=AwrWnS816JpaszwAtHdNBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTIyM3RkZm1uBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZANhMmMyMDljYzljMjg4OTcwOTE0M2M1NmRhMWE4NWI3ZARncG9zAzEEaXQDYmluZw--?.origin=&back=https%3A%2F%2Fuk.images.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Deurope%2B1550%26fr%3Dmoz35%26fr2%3Dpiv-web%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D1&w=2560&h=1825&imgurl=images4.fanpop.com%2Fimage%2Fphotos%2F20100000%2FEurope-1550-europe-20101490-2560-1825.png&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fanpop.com%2Fclubs%2Feurope%2Fimages%2F20101490%2Ftitle%2Feurope-1550-photo&size=4342.9KB&name=<b>Europe<%2Fb>+images+<b>Europe+1550<%2Fb>+HD+wallpaper+and+background+...&p=europe+1550&oid=a2c209cc9c2889709143c56da1a85b7d&fr2=piv-web&fr=moz35&tt=%3Cb%3EEurope%3C%2Fb%3E+images+%3Cb%3EEurope+1550%3C%2Fb%3E+HD+wallpaper+and+background+...&b=0&ni=21&no=1&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=12an0odbp&sigb=134l2pmll&sigi=12i2ishaf&sigt=12712td5i&sign=12712td5i&.crumb=kAhejFGEiY8&fr=moz35&fr2=piv-web

Year is 1550 to 1650, I select whatever makes for a more interesting fight

[Cernel]

@hepps Yes, it is. So, yes, the mention that it ended in 1715 is irrelevant, as that is the XVIII century.

edit: And irrelevant anyways, since that was conquered by Venice at the end of the XVII century. I guess I got a bit confused there.

[Cernel]

@crazyg Ok; so only Rhodes should be Ottoman, if you want to be strict to the timeline (and, before Ottoman, I think it would be better as Neutral).

[CrazyG]

@cernel I'm giving it to Venice to make that area of the world more interesting. Venice controlled several islands that aren't in the map

[Cernel]

@crazyg Ok, then, since you surely want to have Cyprus Venetian too, I would just suggest maybe changing the intro to:

"A game based on Europe in the second half of the 16th century."

That would be fine with Cyprus Venetian too (because it wasn't in the 17th century), and would help with having the crossbowmen a bit more around.
Reading the intro as 17th century confused me a bit, making me think in terms of 1601 to 1700, but you did clarify in this post that it was around 1600.

[Hepps]

@crazyg All the map changes you indicated are included.

Just hammering away on cleaning everything else up.

Keep me in the loop if there are any other "moments of clarity".

[CrazyG]

@hepps
As a matter of fact there was

Delete the lines I've put in red. They are pointless, there were only 2 sea zones in the picture

I'm looking at maybe changing something in the Romania-Bulgaria area as well

[Cernel]

@crazyg On the graphics, regarding the sea zones, a thing I just noticed is that, if you have your sea zones ending in "Sea Zone", then you can avoid having those lines for the sea zones encircling the islands. That is the normal way to handle it (the method you used is a popular workaround, that works too, but looks strange).
Those lines will become more visible if you thin out the actual borders from current (tho, of course, you plan to cover them with the relief).

[CrazyG]

@cernel
This is good to know. Would it be possible to extend this feature so that territories beginning with sea zone also apply? I find it really useful to begin with sea zone, as it makes sorting the territories to find all the water very easy.

[Cernel]

@crazyg Uhm, as long as the sea zones are numbered and the land territories are not, as it is usually the case, and it is the case in your map too, I actually prefer it ending in Sea Zone, so that the sea zones (being the only territories starting with numbers) are all listed before anything else, instead of in between of the territories starting with "S".
I see this would be the case in your map too, since the land territories don't start with a number.
Anyways, that would be a feature request, I would agree with, but rather it allowing to set priority without depending at all from the name of the territory, which is still hacky.
So, to answer your question, if I'm not missing some recent changes, as it works now, nope; either you have to follow a hacky fixed engine behaviour or use a hacky workaround.
I already mentioned this matter in:
https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/1331

[Cernel]

@crazyg Personally, I'm not big on it, since I tend to think having "10 Sea Zone" is preferable than having "Sea Zone 10". And, if you name it, still I think "Aegean Sea Zone" would sound better than "Sea Zone Aegean Sea".
The only issue I see is only in the case that both land and sea are just numbered (starting with a number), and, in that case, the land and sea territories would end up all mixed up. But this is not your case, as you have "Name Number" for the land territories.
But being obliged to have the name ending in "Sea Zone", to have it deprioritised, is definitely not great, even tho I believe that ending in "Sea Zone" is a good standard itself.

[CrazyG]

@cernel
I plan to change the land names from the numbered version to actual location names

[Cernel]

@crazyg Ok, well, then I don't think having "X Sea Zone", with X being a number, may be an issue, as only the sea zones would still be numbered (thus would be listed before all territories), unless you plan to name the sea zones too.
I guess you are talking about your WWI game, not this one, as that would be a massive effort to find names for everything and checking it being fine for more than 4 centuries ago.
But, as I said, I think you should make a feature request about it, and I agree with it, even tho I've no problem with the standard of ending in Sea Zone, but it shouldn't be mandatory.

[Hepps]

@crazyg

Wouldn't this make more sense? Then you could have the strait represented at it narrowest point.

[Cernel]

@hepps Yah, I'd agree it should be that. Since the late middle ages it is possible to have cannons able to sink ships moving through the Marmara straits, tho it is not a sure thing as a canal blocking.

[Cernel]

Regarding those straits, another advice is allowing normal land movement between Turkey02 - Turkey06 and Turkey03 - Turkey04.
Those straits are narrower than a lot of big rivers; so, in the moment you don't have the Danube, the Dnepr, etc., on the map, then those should be simply land connected too, for coherency.