Power of Politics 1914 : A WWI scenario
-
@schulz Nope sorry. Map will be revealed in its entirety once it is ready for release.
-
Why some sea borders are red while some of them are black?
-
@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.
-
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.
-
@hepps One of the territories is spelled incorrectly.
-
@alkexr You will be my proof reader anyways.
-
@redrum For your peace of mind...
-
@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?
-
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.
-
@schulz Since the air warfare portion of the game has been changed this will play very differently.
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
@hepps The Germans in WW1 had assumed that they could knock France out of the war quickly (like 1870) but attacking Russia's vast territories was pointless (like 1812). The reality was opposite, greater firepower meant that the French could hold (and French generalship was much better than 1870), while the backwardness of Russia meant that their armies were much weaker relative to the advanced nations than in 1812.
This is a common problem in war games, that the historical strategies were misguided, so either you compel the player to execute historical strategies or have a war very different from the historical struggle.
-
@rogercooper Correct. Both of which can be taken into consideration.
-
Are concessions of Tianjin represented?
What about Sahara desert? I have mixed feelings since Sahara is impassable in most maps while Siberia or other deserts-mountainous areas are passable. It does not really make sense.
-
@Schulz What is really virtually impassable are the sands (the so called "sand sea" or "erg"), not really the desert, that is rather particularly friendly to movement, where there are no sands. However, the logistic possibilities for the rest of the Sahara are so limited that it can be argued having it totally impassable is fair enough. For example, while in WW2 the Italians fought the Free French in Fezzan and the British in and around Kufra (conquered by the British early in the war), the forces involved in such operations were virtually insignificant, as well as the value of the contested territories. Something that is very hard to use in deserts, anyways, is cavalry, as it would be too difficult to water the horses, that is also relevant for artillery, as most artillery was horse-drawn.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login