CrazyG's Big World War One


  • Moderators

    I am pleased to present a large world war one map, using the same map as House of Habsburg.

    Notable features

    • Europe and North Africa only. The USA is not part of this game.
    • A big variety in unit types, including new features.
    • Trains and railroads (it will require the pre-release to use)
    • Some nations begin the game neutral, but slowly join the war

    It should be available for download on github soon. This is still in Beta, I am planning on adding additional weapons and events later on. If you do download and play, please provide balance feedback in this thread.

    The map has two known visual problems. One, I don't have a train icon. I'm using armored cars as a placeholder. The other is the relief tiles. Some territories have an impassable shade on them, even though they can be walked through. To be clear, moving units into France 48 and France 49 is allowed.

    0_1544403579107_WorldWarOneOverview.png


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @CrazyG I still have all the files... so if you want the reliefs changed to reflect different passibility variances from HOH.

    Otherwise I am just excited to see what you have in store for us!


  • Moderators

    @CrazyG While you wait for a good WW1 train, here are some less cringy (than an armored car) placeholders for you (tho they are all WW2):
    0_1544246453205_train.png
    0_1544246471528_train.png
    0_1544246487909_train.png
    0_1544246505559_train.png
    0_1544246519210_train.png
    0_1544246538541_train.png
    0_1544246553618_train.png
    0_1544421118483_train.png


  • Moderators

    @Cernel Not sure if you plan to put anything else on rails, tho.
    0_1544246798278_railGun.png


  • Moderators

    This post is deleted!

  • Moderators

    @Cernel
    Can we post that chart in a different thread? Its really not relevant to this map project. Most of those countries are not represented in a Europe only map.

    On realism vs gameplay, I'm picking gameplay. For world war one, its just really hard to make a realistic starting position, especially because the Central Powers historically really blundered communication initially. If you use historical income values, either the starting armies are enormous or Germany can't win against Russia and France.


  • Moderators

    @Cernel
    Those trains look good enough to me. Where are they from?



  • @Cernel

    Really GDP values is really nothing to do with the real powers of combatants. It is really easy to prove that by giving these values to the countries and making a ww1 scenario. Entente would crush the Centrals within a few round right? But actually Entente won ww1 barely after 4 years later and without USA the Centrals would have won definitely.

    Combine British Empire should be less valuable because wars are won by mostly ground units so having 10 more battleship wouldn't change anything drastically but even having one more division would change somethings.

    Russia was weak country compared to Germany, France and British Empire. I would say Russia was only %30-%50 stronger than Austria-Hungary and at least 2 or 2.5 times weaker than Germany. France was slighly stronger than Russia


  • Moderators

    @CrazyG Uhm, I'll cut the non European/North African/West Asian countries then. Tho, I don't think this really makes sense: even if the map is almost Europe only, you would want to consider what the powers have outside of it, wouldn't you (like the UK power would have to be increased by all its possessions, also those not in the map)?


  • Moderators

    @CrazyG I dunno. They have been collected by a user in the old developer forum. I don't think he's registered anew. Joe Pants (if I recall correctly).


  • Admin

    @CrazyG Sounds cool. You might want to think of a better name for the map though 🙂


  • Moderators

    @CrazyG @Schulz Well, of course, it is virtually impossible for wars to be well balanced, as that would be an exceptional coincidence. It is well known that WW1 was greatly unbalanced in favour of the Allies, and just the great effectiveness of defence kept it going for so long, after the first shot at rapidly taking Paris failed. The main rebalancing element would be the political/moral fragility of Russia, but I'm not even sure that can be decently represented under the current constraints of the TripleA engine (I would think like accounting Russian TUV losses, then an increasing chance of collapsing after they are above a level). Also the Germans could have had a much better shot at the west if they were not so greedy in wanting to have territorial gains in Russia, but would have accepted a separate peace or armistice at the current borders (or maybe only demanding the Kingdom of Poland).

    The other element is that you can sum the rich Belgium to Germany. You cannot sensibly do the same with the Netherlands, because they have colonial territories about as much as valuable, so you would not take their homeland just to gift your opponent a same or bigger value of territories (if the territories outside the scenario are not represented in any ways (convoy zones?), the Netherlands can be impassable).

    Maybe WW1 would have been fairly balanced if Italy would have fought on the side of the Alliance (it was actually part of).

    Instead of representing the US Americans, you can have some Allies victory condition that would represent the joining, very late, of the US America, and simply tell the players that, at this point, the Alliance is doomed and the Entente wins the game (kinda like the multiple victory options of Civil War). I believe this would be totally fine, as when the US Americans joined Germany would have lost for sure, even if they hoped to still have any chance (at those times not everyone was well aware of the actual power of this ex colony, not even the taking of Paris could have offset).

    In my opinion, the biggest inconsistency in WW1 maps is that they tend to make the Ottomans way too strong or, anyways, not weak enough, maybe also because of the Gallipoli debacle. Whatever the metre, the Ottomans in WW1 were less than 1/10 the power of Germany. On the other hand, Germany can be able to give PUs to the Ottomans, if they want.


  • Admin

    @Cernel If you really want a map that uses real world numbers, GDP, war expenses etc. then you should maybe start building a map from scratch, as I think this would be required to ever get a map like that to work. And if you ever get that map up and running, I am sure you will at some point have to compromise and balance according to game play needs. But a project like that would be really interesting 😊 Maybe you should then factor in aspects (special resources?) Like public support, dedication, moral etc. as I can't see a war in real life being won with money or production alone.

    @CrazyG Post some previews! 😁 I am happy that you finally got around to do the WW1 map. Will you use the old unit and flag artwork posted on the old forum website? I am sorry you do not have trains. I can't help you there as I have way to little time atm. Can't even find time to work on my Warcraft map atm. When folks get access to you map and get to see the units and their coloring, I am sure someone can fine tune some good looking trains for you to use. 👍



  • Actually ww1 was more balanced than ww2 and it is possible to make relatively balanced and historical great war scenario. The Centrals would have won if Germany had taken Paris regarsless of date. Even If Germany had knocked France out of war in 1918, Allies would sue peace since Normandy style liberating France would be unimaginable. The Allies did even fail to knock out the Ottomans out of war by naval invasion.

    Even Italian neutrality could bring Central victory. With Italy, Centrals would achieve definitely total victory.

    Another problem is Italy and Romania could have joined the Centrals and hard to represent it in Triplea Engine. But USA would always join Entente regardless of the Zimmerman telegram or unrestricted submarine warfare.

    I agree the Ottomans are represented way too strong. But the problem is if you make the Ottmans 1/10 Germany then Entente would take the Ottomans within a few rounds but in reality they would only do it after 4 years with Arab rebels. In this scenario you will have to give thr Ottomans so much defensive bonuses since Gallipoli isn't the only Ottoman victory. Ottomans did win more battles such as First battle of Gaza or battle of Kut etc.

    Simply taking the Ottomans should not be too easy realistically.


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @Schulz said in CrazyG's Big World War One:

    Actually ww1 was more balanced than ww2 and it is possible to make relatively balanced and historical great war scenario. The Centrals would have won if Germany had taken Paris regarsless of date. Even If Germany had knocked France out of war in 1918, Allies would sue peace since Normandy style liberating France would be unimaginable. The Allies did even fail to knock out the Ottomans out of war by naval invasion.

    Even Italian neutrality could bring Central victory. With Italy, Centrals would achieve definitely total victory.

    Another problem is Italy and Romania could have joined the Centrals and hard to represent it in Triplea Engine. But USA would always join Entente regardless of the Zimmerman telegram or unrestricted submarine warfare.

    I agree the Ottomans are represented way too strong. But the problem is if you make the Ottmans 1/10 Germany then Entente would take the Ottomans within a few rounds but in reality they would only do it after 4 years with Arab rebels. In this scenario you will have to give thr Ottomans so much defensive bonuses since Gallipoli isn't the only Ottoman victory. Ottomans did win more battles such as First battle of Gaza or battle of Kut etc.

    Simply taking the Ottomans should not be too easy realistically.

    Slow clap for @CrazyG 🙂


  • Moderators

    @Cernel @Schulz
    I am aware of the GDP as an income discussion thread, let's take the conversation there.

    @All
    I am open to a better name. I really think the best names for World War One would be Great War or No Man's Land, both already taken. I thought about something else, such as "Home by Christmas". I'm not married to including CrazyG in the title either. I though about calling it "bigass world war one". Is there a rule for cussing?



  • Aggression 1914


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @CrazyG 1914: The Age of Insanity

    (Trying to give a knod to the author's unstable nature.... as well as the era) 🙂


  • Moderators

    @CrazyG Wait, Home by Christmas? That sounds like the name of a 1914 map. I recall you said the starting date was 1915?

    Personally, I believe no maps should be allowed to have simple names like "Great War". That is an event, that several maps may be about; so why there must be a map that takes it for itself, like it is "the" map about it?

    Instead, I would be in favour of a format like:

    "Great War: Something", with multiple totally unrelated maps starting as "Great War", but noone having it only.

    The problem, in this case, is that if you go that way people will kinda think this is a mod or a variants of the map called "Great War".

    So, if the presence of a map called "Great War" rules out using it simply of with specifications, maybe, depending on seriousness level:

    Joking:
    "Second Greatest War"
    "Crazy Great War"

    Serious:
    "Great European War: Time of Greatness"
    "World War: Time of Greatness"

    Simple:
    "Alliance & Entente"
    "Aggression 1915" (or whatever the year)


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @CrazyG Or rather... 1914; Edge of Insanity
    (Afterall... the creator is crazy... no one said he was actually insane)