Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread
-
@redrum said in Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread:
@KurtGodel7 Interesting idea. Though I think it would probably make level 2 techs appear in much fewer games as you'll probably only see them in games lasting over 10 rounds. I think that's probably a bit too extreme.
TheKhan_Entente.tsvg
TheKhan_Entente2.tsvgI have attached two saved games. In the first of which the game ended in round 46. The second of which merely lasted until round 42. These are extreme examples I'll admit. But, the vast majority of games I play on this map last at minimum until round 20, and it's perfectly normal for a game to last until about round 30.
With the rules modification I proposed, a player would be allowed to research level 2 industrial techs once he'd researched all level 1 industrial techs. The same applies to land and naval techs. This means that it's possible for players to start acquiring level 2 techs as early as round 4. By round 10 the major powers should have all level 1 and level 2 industrial techs researched, and they should have a few level 1 land or naval techs.
The goal of my tech system is to prevent ultra-good tech rolls from having an overpowered effect on the game. If (for example) Germany gets industry tech on round 1, it could potentially put Paris in danger. You don't want the fate of a major capital to ride on the luck of a tech roll, which is why I made industry a level 2 tech. I also made propaganda a level 2 tech, because Serbia getting propaganda tech on round 1 makes it too difficult for the Centrals to capture it. Creeping barrage makes a land offensive much more threatening and powerful. If I'm Austria, I want creeping barrage more than I want all other land techs combined. I made creeping barrage a level 2 tech, because it's not good for a key Russian or Italian territory to fall too early, based on a lucky Austrian tech roll. Conversely, the defender getting a very good tech roll (rail guns) can delay conquest by a number of turns. That's why I made rail guns a level 2 tech as well.
-
Kurt I've looked the load games and Entente player had made serious mistakes in initial rounds like not rolling in Northern Mexico with USA cavalries in round 1, USA atlantic navy, Buying England Factory instead of 5 sub/fighter in London, allowing Germany to stay in English Channel, Buying Volgograd factory too early instead of trying to recapture Warsaw, not trying to capture Switzerland in initial rounds with Italian cavalries, not staying in Milan. Had Entente done somethings differently game wouldn't last longer than 15 rounds.
Any game can last even more with such a defensive playstyle. But the most critic rounds are indeed the initial round between 1 and 5.
With your tech system, Germany will never have Late fighter in initial rounds and immiadetaly lost its navy and with Scandinavian incomes Entente will start heavily outproduce Centrals.
Lack of Creeping Barrage/armour/industry in initial rounds is huge punishment for Centrals. It will significantly weakened Centrals. There is no reason for Entente to fear offensive techs/units of Central powers. Centrals have absolutely zero chance to take Paris even with early industry tech which is nerfed.
No industry and no late fighter for Germany means having almost zero chance to take Marseille,Piedmont, Losing Scnadinavia and delaying Austria pushing Russia, Italy. And finally guaranteeing to keep Northern Italy/Southern France with USA reinforcements via Morocco,Spain.
-
I agree Serbian Propaganda is too annoying. I would prefer removing all Serbian techs though.
-
West Prussian factory would be nice imho but I would have some concerns about it due to being able to purchasing up to 10 naval units (14 with industry). Russia will need carefully calculate Petersburg if there are so many Stormtroopers in Berlin for preventing rush.
Another things that should really be discussed that how aleatory British having %50 chance taking Mexico city in round 2. And how easy and effective to rush Commies with USA via Eastern Russia due to very close distance.
-
Example of current house rules for experienced players:
- 18 gas max per player
- nothing south of panama, no japans, no spain except top 3, china open only if centrals open it
- no teching of italy and serbia
- victory bonds for germany and a choice of industrial tech
Other considerations:
- AA vs zepplin balance (maybe decrease AA cost to 5?)
- Moving UK fighter from London to Ireland
- Additional balance around round 1 sea battles
-
Here are the proposed tech category changes to 6 instead of 3:
- Economy: Victory Bonds, Working Women, Science
- Innovation: Late Fighter, Armour, Industry
- Land Offense: Mustard Gas, Creeping Barage, Mobile Warfare
- Land Defense: Railway Guns, Bunkers, Propaganda
- Screens and Subs: Sub Warfare, Convoys, Merchant Marine
- Capital Ships: Dockyard, Fleet Action, Aircraft Carrier
-
I'd prefer decreasing mainland income of US rather than limiting farming too much if maintaining balance would be still possible. Because these restrictions just remove a lot of strategic options of US and dictates it a straightforward strategy which include Atlantic only.
I'd be okey banning Japan and S.America. I have mixed feelings about Spain and I'm definitely oppose banning China.
I approve removing Serb techs, German starting Victory bonds, moving UK fighter to Ireland.
-
I'd like to put some ideas onto the table.
- Minor nation techs (for Serbia and Italy). Technology works the same way as for all other powers, except:
- Tech tokens cost 2
- Propaganda produces 1 infantry per turn
- Victory bonds gives you one die roll of added income per turn
- German neutral farming in South America
- Remove 1 infantry from Peru
- Add 1 factory for Bolivia
- Replace existing units in sz 106 with 2 battlecruisers and a sub
- Move British ships in sz 104 to sz 96
- Unit limits
- Gass limit of 15 per nation
- Zeppelin limit of 2 per nation
I like Redrum's proposed tech system, and his idea of moving a UK fighter to Ireland instead of London.
-
I'd like to explain my reasoning behind the above-listed suggestions.
Minor nation techs for Italy and Serbia
As Redrum pointed out technology is sometimes denied to those two nations completely in an effort to promote game balance. Instead of getting rid of their technology completely, I've nerfed it to take away most of the economic boost technology provides. But, there's still enough left on the table (especially at the reduced cost!) to make it worthwhile for them to do technological research. Now the players controlling Italy and Serbia have a strategic choice to make about tech spending, instead of having the one option of 100% units/0% tech for their spending.German neutral farming in South America
If this map were played without any house rules at all it would favor the Entente. There are three ways of addressing that:- Restrictions on neutral farming.
- Facilitate Centrals' Zerg rush.
- Facilitate neutral farming for Centrals.
The outcome of a Zerg rush is typically binary: the capital you're gunning for either falls or it doesn't. If the target capital fails to fall at all, then often the game is over with an Entente win. But if it falls too quickly, to the Zerg rush of an expert player, then that can spell a very quick win for Centrals. It's difficult to balance that in a way that ensures the capital lasts just the right amount of time, especially if you're trying to ensure the map is balanced for expert-vs-expert matches, and also balanced for intermediate-vs-intermediate matches. Also this map has excellent potential for very deep, long games. That potential is lost whenever the outcome is decided in the first few rounds.
Neutral farming for Germany in South America is a non-binary way of helping the Centrals. Facilitating German neutral farming in South America would potentially allow Germany access to a large source of additional income. This would allow the Centrals more staying power in a longer game, and would address the concern Schultz raised about Britain's income becoming higher than Germany's. It's also worth pointing out that there's a strategic choice involved for Germany here. Yes, Germany can neutral farm South America (long-term gain), but to do so it needs to buy units for the Bolivia factory (short-term pain).
-
-Defending Paris in unlimied gas scenario-
The highest rush chance to take Paris is round6. Typically Germany will buy 20 stomtruppen+10 field gun. And Austria will buy 20 Gas.
As France you should send all N.African cavalries to Cairo. Don't buy any naval vessel, don't farm anywhere. Need to buy cavalries for Brittany and fighters for Marseille in r4 (if possible) for quickly moving them Paris.
As Italy buy 6 cavalry in Rome, 1 figher+1 field+1inf in Piedmont. Send Cavalries to Rhone in r4 and buy 3 fighter in Piedmont than send all of them to Paris.
As Britain buy 5 fighter in London, 1 destroyer in Canda and a few land units for Cario only in r1. Build England fac in r2. If Germany hits Belgium in r1. Try to stack Picardy if Germany ignore Belgium in r1. Keep Belgium as much as possible. Buy 8 fighter in r4 in Britain.
As Russia minimum investment against Commies, Ottomans and recapturing Warsaw, taking Scandinavia and Gas Rush to Galicia in r4-r6.
As USA not buying S.Fransisco fac in r1 and sending troops to Paris.
-
v1.3 is now released
- Remove Serbian tech
- Increase neutral strength or reduce territory value of South America, Japan, Spain, and China (Hebei, Canton, Shangtung)
- Move UK fighter from London to Ireland
- Decrease USA turn 1 chance on Chihuahua to avoid turn 2 capture of Mexico City
- Remove connection sz21 to sz29
- 6 instead of 3 tech categories:
- Economy: Victory Bonds, Working Women, Science
- Innovation: Late Fighter, Armour, Industry
- Land Offense: Mustard Gas, Creeping Barage, Mobile Warfare
- Land Defense: Railway Guns, Bunkers, Propaganda
- Screens and Subs: Sub Warfare, Convoys, Merchant Marine
- Capital Ships: Dockyard, Fleet Action, Aircraft Carrier
-
Ladder created here: https://triplealadder.com/tournamatch.php?file=ladders&mode=moreinfo&lid=9
I would encourage folks to join the ladder and post final save games here in this thread to discuss further balance changes. Also with v1.3 now released, I'd like to see folks play with no house rules to see if any are still needed.
-
Well great update, overpowered farming issue seems solved. But I personally think a decent entente player is still close to be unbeatable.
The problem is Centrals can't get enoght extra income from territories to compete with Entente when USA entirely join the war (roughly after r7-8), Usually Germany varely holds western front, grabs Switzerland, Stockholm, Poland a few African territories and Mexico city unless Entente has done serious mistakes roughly 32-37 more incomes from startup but also losing some pacific and african colonies roughly 13 incomes so only +20/+24 more income before usa enitrely joining war (total 132-135 incomes) unless early breaking Belarus which is almost impossible without entente mistakes.
While UK stucks mostly in 113/117 which is only slighly lower than Germany. (It was easy to outproduce Germany with Mexico City factory). While still high enogh to presurre both Ottomans and Germany and easier exceeding this limit compared to Germany with Middle Eastern territories.
Also game is a bit fail to project Cp gains in eastern Europe; Russia is like UK a bit strong to me. Conscript is too powerful and Capturing Eastern Europe is alot harder than Capturing the Middle East. In my most games Ottomans start losing in the Middle East before Russia starting to lose in Europe. Russia eventually start losing in far east strong Commies isn't as useful as Strong Germany, they suffer logistic issues and Germany actually needs more these incomes than Commies.
To me at least 8 UK inf/cav 2 French inf, 2 Serb inf, 4 Italian inf/artillery and 4 Rus inf/conscript should be removed from set up.
-
@Schulz So I agree that Entente are probably a bit stronger right now and the house rule to give germany war bonds plus another tech was an attempt to address that. I think we do need to either adjust some unit placements or adjust production a bit. But I'd like to see some save games between experienced players and some suggestions on the best way to bring a bit more starting balance.
Your suggestion around removing some Entente units is probably a bit too far IMO as that's like 60 TUV but I think we could consider a step in that direction.
-
We have one more really annoying unbalancing issue, that is not really related to the map or the rules. Its a statistically impossible hit result of conscript defending that hurts centrals so much and same time also statistically impossible how often high number token rolls (4 or 5) fail. I really dont speak about 1-5 games. its the result of more then 50 games. You can ask all experts to this topic. Its really there. I am not psychotic
There must be a program bug at dice server... -
what's annoying most and the reason I'm not playing this map is the unrealistic farming. I'd really like to see a mechanism where neutral territories join the opposing side if any of the territories of that "country" are attacked.
own Countries would be:
Mexico
Cuba
Brasil
Argentina
Venezuela
Peru
Bolivia
they would go to either US or Germany if attackedSpain (with colonies) -> US/GER
Portugal (with colonies) -> UK/GER
Persia -> Ottomans/Russia
China -> that one is difficult
Dutch -> East Indies stay neutral if Amsterdam falls but it becomes opposing to the attacker if Amsterdam and/or Holland attacked and not occupied. If East Indies are attacked the entire Dutch join the opposition.
Norway -> UK/GER
Sweden -> Rus/GER
Denmark (Iceland/Greenland) -> UK/GERlots of triggerin, i know...
-
@epinikion I agree with this wholeheartedly.
-
This post is deleted! -
@epinikion @NGMC There are no issues with the randomness of dice and every map/nation/etc uses the same dice roller... You can literally read through the open source code for the dice roller. You've played TripleA long enough that you should know that some games you get lucky and some you don't and it averages out over time. In case you want the details as this has been asked before: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/890/show-code-for-dice-algorithm
@wirkey While I agree that the mass neutral farming feels a bit strange, its essentially a core part of this map and creating lots of small countries would really turn this into a complete different map. That being said, your exact idea is what @Hepps and I are working on for the new WW1 map: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/1063/power-of-politics-1914-a-wwi-scenario
-
In my experiences; The best Central strategies are either quickly capturing Belarus and siezing Moscow, Volgograd Caucasus or Taking Switzerland and capturing Piedmont and Marseille and possibly taking Rome before USA start to reinforcing these areas. Still need enormous entente mistakes to win as Central though.
First time I've tried Switzerland push, If France move its troops to Rhone from Paris and Brittany instead of pushing Belgium, neither Marseille nor Piedmont fall. Germany can't keep Belgium and Champagne at the same time too when Britain and a few French troops hold Picardy. Germany stuck in Switzerland and loss Poland due to Russian counter assaults. Russia becomes unbetable in this scenario, Rhey become unable to destoy mass spam conscripts.
Rushing Russia is for me the best strategsy as Centrals, only marginally better than Switzerland push. Still requires tons of Entente mistakes to work.
Today I had tried the second one by playing with myself. The same scenario occured and Entente won in r6.
entente_victory.tsvg
