CrazyG's Big World War One

[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!!!

[CrazyG]

Alright, this map is being updated in a big way. First and foremost, I'm going to do a TWW style renaming of units and introduce a big new tech tree. There are going to be a lot of options to help you move units around more easily, with or
Minelayers and sea mines are to be temporarily removed, until they start behaving like I tell them to.
Gas is going to be reworked to be an anti-stacking weapon. Kills in one in every 20 units in a territory (the number will be flexible).
I'm working on a new territory name and income system involving regions. If a nation controls all territories within a region, they get bonus income (risk style). Territories will have their region in their name, for example Scotland will be a region, and the territories would have names such as "Edinburg (Scotland)". I hope this naming system will make the regions clear and easy to understand, and I think it will make it much easier to adjust the balance of starting income.

[Cernel]

@CrazyG Things like gas would probably need a new AA system in which you can have each AA hitting all targets and rerolling a number of dice for each target equal to as many AA you have (that at 1 hitpoint equals saying rerolling the dice). For example, with 1 AA on 10 targets you would roll 1/6 per target, while with 3 AA on 10 targets you would roll 3 dice at 1/6 per target. I think this would be a cool feature, that is currently not disposable.

I suppose you, instead, are going for a system in which you can use only 1 gas unit each time? Sort of the reverse of how the basic AA gun of v3 work?

[CrazyG]

@Cernel
Is it not just a straightforward AA attachment? The common AA guns kill 1 in every 6 planes.

It rolls a 20 sided die for 1, able to target 100,000 targets. I might make aa guns low luck by default to reduce the variance on this. It probably should be limited to 1 per territory. It would cost as much as 2.5 infantry, so its only cost effective against stacks of 50 or more units. Paris can get end up with a huge stack on it, and I want to encourage spreading out units a little bit.

You are right about limiting the number per territory. A stack of 10 gas could be gimmicky.