CrazyG's Big World War One

[Hepps]

I don't like it at all. It's horrible!

[redrum]

@Hepps Don't be jealous that he finished his WW1 map before you!

[CrazyG]

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

@CrazyG I just downloaded it and poked around a bit. Seems like a great start! Here are some initial thoughts:

• Great variety of abilities across the units. Most of the units feel really unique and seem to have a purpose not just 1 more attack or 1 more defense like many other maps.

Thanks!

• Unit images and the map are really nice. Things that could be improved though are better territory names (not just numbered by region), show names on the map, and better PU map symbol as the black numbers are pretty rough.

Renaming territories is on a long to change list.

• PU placement seems too uniform. Tons of 1s and 2s. Would probably play better to have more variation so it feels like I'm not just conquering another 1 PU territory.

This issue comes down to the sheer number of territories on the map. Initially I wanted all territories to be worth at least one PU, but Russia and the Ottomans end up with way too much income. Even after changing a ton of land to be worth 0, they still have so much that I really couldn't go and make parts of Russia worht 2 or 3. Maybe I could rescale the unit pricing?

• Lots of errors in the notes vs what is actually implemented such as the unit stats/abilities.
• I think naval units need some work/balancing. Cruisers are useless as much better to build subs or battlecruisers.

I'm looking at this now.

• Triggering nations to join certain turns is cool and adding tanks turn 5 is neat.
• You have some unowned territories in Morocco and Syria. Not sure if that is intentional.
• Most of North Africa besides Egypt is pretty much worthless and really feels like it shouldn't even be included.

Would you make them neutral? I can't just not include them on the map if I want Egypt (and I do want Egypt).

• Need to better identify canals on the map.

I agree, but I really don't have the tools to do much with unit images.

• Might want to make the neutral color a bit lighter or more beige so it contrasts more with Germany. Or make Germany a bit darker.

[CrazyG]

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

@CrazyG Sadly, that problem with sounds cannot be solved. Either you set it to NONE, and miss the conquered sound completely, or you can try to switch sounds on, turn on your volume, and skip until Italy, you'll see what I mean.
Here it is needed a developer to fix this problem. I guess I should open an issue in GitHub.

Can't you customize the sounds for your own map?
I could just replace the territory conquest sound with a blank sound file.

[redrum]

@CrazyG I would consider doubling unit costs across the board so you can double territory production which should give you a lot more flexibility while having most/all territories worth at least 1. I'm generally a fan of figuring out the map production to be interesting then using that to drive the cost of units. The other reason this is important is right now there is very few decent places to build factories as so many territories are worth 1.

North Africa (besides Egypt) is tough. I think you go 1 of 2 directions. Either add more production/units to make it a somewhat legitimate theater or consider making them neutral/impassible. Right now its kind of just a distraction and doesn't really add any fun/depth to the map.

[Hepps]

@CrazyG Another way to have some variety is to spread out some of the worthless territories and then create "Regional Zones" that give a PU bonus once all the territories are captured.

The nice thing about this is you can manage the overall PU distribution better and there don't become hugely potent individual territories. So while a nation may get a PU boost... no one territory becomes overly valuable.

The other nice thing is this will give individually worthless territories a strategic value. You may even find players fighting doggedly for worthless territories because of what they represent to the greater war effort.

[redrum]

@Hepps Yeah, I like the region concept as well. Though either way I still think you need to raise the overall amount of production on the map some. But that would allow having more 0 PU territories sprinkled across it since you'd still want to control the entire region for the bonus.

[Cernel]

@CrazyG An alternative solution to that (not talking about gameplay at all, as I've not played it yet) is to make Belgium French. Belgium is culturally and linguistically very close to France.

[CrazyG]

@Hepps
I actually have a rough draft of regional divisions for the map already made. I was thinking if I rename territories, I could include the region they are a part of as well. So a new territory name would be something like

Brussels (Belgium)
Warsaw (Northern Poland)

However, I think to make the region system easy to play with, I would need some help from an artist.

[redrum]

@CrazyG Yeah, that naming would make sense. Agree with needing some artist help on visually showing region boundaries on the map to make it easier on the players.

[CrazyG]

BTW, this map is intentionally designed to have a Play be Email/Forum friendly turn order. Anyone interested in trying one?

I want to hear thoughts on the single round of combat system.

[redrum]

@CrazyG I'm down for a game. Feel free to pick whatever settings you'd like and start it up

[Hepps]

@CrazyG I would be willing to assist with whatever graphical tasks need completing. I helped with HOH on a mere whisper of a promise that this might lead to a well thought out WWI game. I am not about to jump ship now that the dream of a sensible WWI game is coming to fruition.

You just let me know what you need and I will use whatever free time I have over the holidays to make the dreams come alive.

What is it the English say? In for a penny... in for a pound.

[Hepps]

@CrazyG you are missing a connection between SZ 57<----> SZ 58

**** Sorry upon further examination it appears that you have implemented a restriction on air where they cannot move over deep water seazones. Thus making it impossible for Britain to fly over them to get to a coastal French territory.

[Cernel]

@CrazyG I would certainly agree with removing all the impassable Alps territories, but wouldn't it, then, look strange to have the Pyrenees as the one and the only mountain chain in all Europe? Also, the terrain north of Switzerland (or anywhere else in Europe) is much easier than what you get on the border between Italy and France, or in the south of Switzerland itself.

[CrazyG]

@Cernel
Switzerland and Pyrenees are both impassable

[CrazyG]

@Hepps
Only light blue sea zones connect to land, to force players to only use transports in those sea zones.

Britain is able to fly planes across the English channel, they can reach Belgium or some French territories. If Germany advances far enough I suppose they are blocked, but I don't see it as a problem.

[Schulz]

Any plan about adding aerial warfare at least optional?

[Hepps]

@CrazyG I guess I never noticed this by-product of the map since there are few air units in the mid 1400's.

Seems like a bit of an unusual behavior... since it causes some real strange situations when you look a Airships.

[redrum]

Sounds like what you really need is some canals