CrazyG's Big World War One

[CrazyG]

Big Changes pushed today.

1. Heavy artillery, entrenchments and battlecruisers removed (temporarily).
   These were causing some big balance problems, I want to get the rest of the map in a good position, then I will re-add these units.

2. Gas's function has been reworked. It now kills 1 in every 10 infantry/cavalry in a territory.
   Speeds up combat.

3. Artillery are now isInfrastructure, and die if not protected by infantry or cavalry.
   Helps speed up combat

4. Recon-Planes reworked.
   Give +2 attack or defense to all allied artillery. Speeds up combat
   Now air battle before land combat. Makes fighting for air superiority more interesting.
   Can intercept bombing airships. They are currently the only anti-air weapon.
   Can escort bombing raids.

5. Turn order changed to save Italy.
   Italy now goes after France, but skips the first turn.

6. Serbia starting position changed
   Serbia is overall weaker and can't take Bulgaria's factory easily, but has a more interesting turn 1.

7. Poland repositioned
   Germany now begins closer to the Warsaw factory, so it can be captured more easily.

8. Germany has more units overall
   I felt that Germany was rather weak.

9. Suez canal now gives the UK +30 income for controlling it.
   There is now a reason to fight for Egypt.

10. Ottoman Empire has fewer trains and units.

11. Relief tiles and damaged unit images updated

[Frostion]

@CrazyG In regards to PU markers, I would recommend using small and subtle graphics. Something or the same as in the ancient / BC map maybe? I think it would fit the current territory filling and map style well.

I have not played this map yet, but I think the changes seem to be good calls. I am glad you implemented recon planes as ground support units. Now I hope the normal fighter can get the role of protector and attacker of recon planes, and in battle when that role is mission complete, then the fighters could maybe join in on the normal attack. I think it would be nice if the fighter could be balanced and priced to fill out this role

[Hepps]

@CrazyG Here is a concept draft of what you asked for...

Just let me know.

[redrum]

@CrazyG The changes seem like a step in the right direction and glad to start up another game if you'd like.

@Hepps I like the last draft of the PU markers though personally would vote to make them just a tad smaller.

[Hepps]

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

@Hepps I like the last draft of the PU markers though personally would vote to make them just a tad smaller.

I agree... I am but a simple foot soldier... I am here to follow commands.

[Hepps]

@redrum & @CrazyG Here is slightly smaller for comparison...

[CrazyG]

I agree with the slightly smaller version for the PU markers

[CrazyG]

BTW has anyone tested the download?

[redrum]

@CrazyG Yep. Downloads and starts up fine. You should probably increment the version in the maps yaml though so folks can just update instead of having to remove and download.

[CrazyG]

@redrum
Done

[Schulz]

Any plan to implement upkeep?

[Hepps]

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

I agree with the slightly smaller version for the PU markers

Ask an yeh shall receive...

PUs.zip

[tenchimuyo69]

Couldn't get the railroads to function properly. Is there a way to trains moving in the right direction?

[redrum]

@tenchimuyo69 In non-combat move, you should be able to just select the train and the units to move then move them for as many moves as the train has.

[tenchimuyo69]

It kind of works, but it often wants to take a path where there are no railroads, limiting the trains usefulness as a transport. For example, moving from Germany 32 (Munich?) is not really possible. I had hoped there might have been a function of the game engine to allow me to select the path manually.

[redrum]

@tenchimuyo69 Oh yeah there is. Just hold down CTRL and click the territories along the path you want. You can see help movement hints in Help > Movement/Selection Help.

[CrazyG]

Hello everyone!

After a break, I'm continuing development of this. I have a question about territory names. I'm going through and making overdue revisions to it, how would people feel about the following naming systems? I quite like how the current system makes it easy to find a territory and I'm worried that changing to real world locations would lose that.

Which idea would you like?

1. Paris

2. Paris, France

3. Paris (Northern France)

4. Koenigsburg

5. Koenigsburg, Germany

6. Koenigsburg (Eastern Germany)

7. Izmir

8. Izmir, Turkey

9. Izmir (Western Turkey)

[RogerCooper]

@CrazyG I like real city names and I know my European geography well. Wars generally mean learning new geographical names the hard way.

[redrum]

@CrazyG I don't think there is any reason to include the country or part of country in the territory name. Just Paris, Koenigsburg, and Izmir are fine. You'll probably end up needing to use a combination of cities and province/state/region names given the number of territories that you have.

Might be useful to do say 1 nation and post your recommendations to get feedback.

[Hepps]

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=Let's+go+crazy

Let's go CRAZY!!!