Power of Politics 1914 : A WWI scenario

[Hepps]

So here is the plan for the production facilities.

This is a much more simplified version from TWW...

Factory

• Cost 20 PU
• Damage Points 12
• Max Operational Damage 8 (meaning it will operate as long as it has more than 4 DP).
• Damaged upon capture 6 DP.
• Can only be placed in Urban terrain.
• Produces all non-Infantry type units. (available to a specific power)
• May produce up to PU value of the territory (minus any Recruitment Center production).

Recruitment Center

• Cost 8 PU
• Damage Points 10
• Max Operational Damage 8 (meaning it will operate as long as it has more than 2 DP)
• Destroyed upon capture.
• Can be placed in any territory with a PU value greater than 0.
• Will produce infantry types only in Normal Territories.
• Will produce Colonial Infantry only in Colonial Territories.
• May produce up to PU value of the territory (minus any factory production).

[Cernel]

@hepps Unless I overlooked some recent changes, the operational damage is not related to production, thus it would affect nothing for either of those units.

[Hepps]

Here is a view of the new South Pacific. Moved lots of the islands to make it resemble the real world.

[Schulz]

Very nice, could you share whole of the map?

[Hepps]

@schulz Nope sorry. Map will be revealed in its entirety once it is ready for release.

[Schulz]

Why some sea borders are red while some of them are black?

[Hepps]

@schulz When I made revisions to the map I had done all of the Territory and SZ changes red in a different layer of the image as a way to distinguish the existing map from the changes I was making. Other than that they have absolutely no significance.

[Hepps]

So I think I have made the final revisions to the map.

The Pinsk Marshes have been added. they shall be a worthless territory that alternates between passable and impassable on a set turn schedule.

I also changed some of the Western Russia territories.

[alkexr]

@hepps One of the territories is spelled incorrectly.

[Hepps]

@alkexr You will be my proof reader anyways.

[Hepps]

@redrum For your peace of mind...

[redrum]

@hepps Yeah, seems Pinsk Marshes is fairly common in references but Pripet Marshes is used some as well. I think I'm just used to seeing Pripet Marshes but maybe that's because the Germans during WWII tended to use that?

[Schulz]

Zeppelin bombing is generally considered overpowered they are restricted in NML while I think they are even overpriced. You can add radar tech if you wish.

[Hepps]

@schulz Since the air warfare portion of the game has been changed this will play very differently.

[CrazyG]

I'm glad to see this project is still going strong.

I've said this before, but I think its worth repeating for the discussion here. The biggest problem with most of the WW1 maps is that the allies have a lot of different options, but the Central Powers don't. For example you can get NML to be relatively balanced using a bid, however Germany still has basically only one strategy. Meanwhile America and Britain have a ton of different options.

[Schulz]

@crazyg

You mean that the only valid Central strategy is rushing Russia right? I totally agree. The only solution is probably making Western and Italian front more valuable than the Eastern front but in this case a factory limitation will be must in the Western front otherwise Germany can rush Paris.

[Hepps]

@schulz Thinking that a solution is only achieved in one way is like saying artistic expression can only be achieved with an adherence to classical style.

There are in fact, many ways to to make a game fun without a polarized view of what can make it work.

[CrazyG]

@schulz
Those changes wouldn't make a strategy other than rushing Russia work.

Part of the problem is that the Allies coming by sea have enormous mobility and flexibility. Meanwhile Germany's moves are easy to see coming 3 or so turns in advance.

Politics alone should open up a few new options.

[Schulz]

I don't think so it is inevitable feature for all ww1 maps that knocking Russia out of war is always must for Centrals. Even in Great War map which Russian territories are not valuable only valid strategy is still rushing Russia.

Neither Great war nor NML has good well designed Eastern fronts. NML has Belarus stack problem while Great War has Kiev-Warsaw stacks. Both of them is unbreakable unless Germany really focus on Russia. But looks like it will be no longer problem since the new Eastern front look good for me.

[Hepps]

@crazyg said in A WWI scenario design based loosely on NML & TWW:

I'm glad to see this project is still going strong.

I've said this before, but I think its worth repeating for the discussion here. The biggest problem with most of the WW1 maps is that the allies have a lot of different options, but the Central Powers don't. For example you can get NML to be relatively balanced using a bid, however Germany still has basically only one strategy. Meanwhile America and Britain have a ton of different options.

I feel that while it would be a splendid thing for a German player to be able to do anything and everything they desire. The reality is if you are going to make a WW I map that is in any way historically relevant, then Germany is going to have some limits to what is possible. By the very nature of the situation that it was presented with during the war it had fewer options than its adversaries. That is a reality that must be reflected in the game design if it going to ring true at all.

That being said, I am taking steps to give the Centrals more options in an effort to force the Entente to have to react and compensate for Central moves. This is also augmented by having a political component that will add a lot more variability to the game. Finally, doing away with the 100% nonsensical (and seemingly mandatory move of) American-Annexation of Spain will dramatically change some of the late game strategies. In fact most of the political parts are going to have far reaching effects on what is or isn't possible for either side.