Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread
-
I think we should have kept the original version separately (beside tech arrangements) because now a lot of strategic options have been destroyed. Like taking risk at fully hit to sz 16, trying to capture Mexico City, As UK trying to sink German navy etc are now disappearad...
Playing with Germany was harder but also more enjoyable. In now its simply impossible to sink German navy. Mexico is guarantee so also SZ16.
Another point is the original game has never been extensively tested yet. I mean of course playing without any rule. Sure playing with Centrals require a lot more skill but it has no effect over the balance.
The new version is also a lot more beginner friendly too. I remember well I though Centrals were incredibly weak in the original one when I had realised that they were not weak as much as I though, because I was unaware of some CP tricks like strafe of Galicia, making deadzone with fighters, Ottoman fighter stack in Sinai, buying 5 gas+1blimp for Bavaria in r1 etc... I miss some aspects of the oginial game. I believe there were reasons that why gas cost was 3 with working women in the original one.
I have the original game too maybe Roger Cooper would want to save it too.
-
I want to share a round 4 load that with the original set up and PUs values.
I am so puzzle how almost its guarantee to lock France in Paris and not letting Russia stacking Belarus at the same time while also protecting German navy in low luck. I have never aware of that it could be possible nor I have ever seen this kind of situation in the lobby.
The first three rounds decides totally everything. If Germany doesn't strafe to Galicia, Austria rushs Serbia instead of Russia, Germany doesn't keep Champagne then Centrals starts immiadetaly losing in the original scenario.
What a great map been playing since 2014 still learning some new stuffs.
-
@Schulz The reason that CPs are doing that well in the save is because G1 was very lucky and Entente didn't play that well and made lots of mistakes. It was possible for CPs to do well before the changes but it depended on them either being lucky in the early rounds, Entente making mistakes, or both.
-
@redrum Not a player of this, but isn't it a tad too off to turn merchant marine into something substantially different? Unless I'm missing something, I don't understand why it is still called merchant marine, as now it is about boosting warships.
Thinking about it off the cuff, a solution may be keeping it at movement 4 for transports, but only for new transports produced since you have the tech active.
Generally this is the ways such techs should work, really. Like, it never made sense that discovering Jet Power would magically turn all your fighters into jets. I can understand if it is a real boardgame, and you wish to keep costs down, but not really here.
-
This tech could increase capacity of transports.
-
@Cernel Yeah, the tech name no longer makes sense. Its was just a quick fix to make it so it wasn't so OP anymore. Given all other techs take into effect for all existing units that wouldn't fit well with the map.
@Schulz Yeah increased capacity or unlocking a new Improved Transport unit with more capacity could work.
-
@redrum Well, it would be the same thing as getting the tank, except that you would also remove the old transport, since, then, it would be obsolete. Tho you could, instead, getting access to a faster transport that is a bit more costly, the old one remaining available.
-
hi all
Redrum thank you for making all the work it is fantastic and have given the map a good boost.
Merchant Marine the name might be good idea to change into maybe fast combat group or something.
for now i belive it is good to wait with more upgrades or changes intill we played the map some more.
i am normal central player an for me it have become easyer to get good opening in the east and if 100% focus on that front ill say almost imposible for Russia to hold central back unless they get lucky in teck. not that russia is easy taken out but they shurely get less importent front fast.
-
I don´t belive in transport capacity for cruisers it will be to much and fast strength for entende.
-
@Schulz said in Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread:
This tech could increase capacity of transports.
In that case, I'd rather keep it simple, and just lower the cost of transports. That should probably be a ww2 tech, thinking about it, to represent the Liberty ships.
-
If Germany doesn't dive for Mexico City; then the US gets to take it, and get a free IC, for a very low cost. while it's not a great position for an IC, it's still somewhat useable.
-
hey, i just realized that hard ai produces arms with italy without any tech or even tech token. also ai moves into sz 8 (that might be legal in new version ...did not test it so far).
greets, epi
i added the file. ai nml 60.tsvg
-
SZ 8 had enabled with the updates and its legal. There are some more things about that I would like to learn from anyone who in charge of AI development.
-
Why didn't the Italian zeppelins bomb Austrian factories even though there was no Austrian aaGun?
-
Who does AI UK have fighter obsession?
-
Why does AI UK buys heavy gun in Bombay. Is AI unable to perceive transporting cost?
-
Why does AI Russia buy so much zeppelin? Does it think it is good tactic buying mass of them and threatening multiple enemy nations at the same time? Does AI perceive their high cost and low attack power?
-
-
British Columbia is not connected to sz 153
-
I still don't have a strong sense of the balance for the current version, other than it seems decent enough, because my strategies keep changing/evolving as I find new things. Here's some of my current thoughts/notes:
-
the US can with high probability prevent german mexico city from happening, which means the US can start investing in their plan pretty fast. It also means the US gets that IC as an extra; US can put quite a solid force to fight the communists due to supply lines to there, or they could just start blimp spamming. I often wonder if the US should just always go almost pure blimp spam.
-
Belarus is overpowered. The particular province that is; it exerts a ridiculously strong amount of control over the area, and controlling it is a huge advantage for whoever does so. In particular, it's very hard to walk past it either on the south or north, and it's not just a single width block like that, it's double width (i.e. in order to walk past you have to go through two provincse before you're past it). Controlling the entire north-south width from a single province is strong.
There are some other provinces which are also very very strong, but it's less apparent because they're less often on the contested zone. Generally things to look for in measuring that are number of adjacent provinces, and how circuitous it is to walk around. -
I haven't found gas to be a problem; but it could be because I haven't had enough games that run really long. The thing about gas is that it has multiple techs that improve it, so there's a mighty big difference between what it can do at the start, and what it can do once you've got those techs. There certainly do tend to be multinational issues on this map (i.e. where multinational forces defend far strong than they can attack), and gas is something that can mitigate that effect, but it also allows for very rapid theater shifting.
-
I've found neutral farming to be pretty weak; in my experience there's only a small number of places worth farming, and even then it's often sketchy. When areas are tightly contested (as a result of good balance), every troop matters, and having troops go off to a side to grab the income can mean a real difference in those areas, enough of one to enable making an area tradeable where it otherwise wouldn't be, which can be as big an income shift as the farming would be.
-
-
Why? Why it is so hard to see the urgency of taking Morocco-Madeira as fast as possible with USA and rapidly reinforcing N.Italy from newly builded Morocco-Madeira factories? There is a really good reason why isn't Morocco showed as part of France though t was in WW1. It is almost game over for Entente if they lost both Piedmont-Marseille and it is one of the most vulverable Entente spot whereas there is absoltely no urgency taking Mexico city. USA should avoid heavy investments against both Mexico city and Commies. Anything that cause delaying USA participating into war in Europe is plain bad.
-
how about you two play each other and then decide if this map needs fixin! -.-
-
@Captain-Crunch the reason, mr. captain crunch is... its more complex. The map is well balanced in my opinion
-
@zlefin said in Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread:
I still don't have a strong sense of the balance for the current version, other than it seems decent enough, because my strategies keep changing/evolving as I find new things.
Yeah, my experience is similar.
- the US can with high probability prevent german mexico city from happening, which means the US can start investing in their plan pretty fast. It also means the US gets that IC as an extra; US can put quite a solid force to fight the communists due to supply lines to there, or they could just start blimp spamming. I often wonder if the US should just always go almost pure blimp spam.
I know we've been advised against using house rules, but we still use a house rule of 2 zeppelin limit per nation to prevent that strategy.
- Belarus is overpowered. The particular province that is; it exerts a ridiculously strong amount of control over the area, and controlling it is a huge advantage for whoever does so.
It's a very strong defensive position, for Russia or for Centrals. For example, let's say you're Centrals and your plan involves going hard against Russia early (capture Belarus), then neglecting Russia to focus elsewhere. Simply defending Belarus will make it hard for Russia to launch an offensive against you.
But, if you're Russia and if you lose Belarus, you can still prevent your western front from collapsing by defending Don. The Central counter to the Don strategy is to use one force to defend Belarus, the other to move to Smolensk to threaten Moscow. If Moscow falls and if Minsk is a back-and-forth battle, it would be difficult for the Volgograd factory alone to supply the units needed to defend Don. Especially if Turkey has a force in Caucasus with which to threaten both Volgograd and Don. If however Russia holds Belarus in force, then I agree that an anti-Russian offensive from the west is difficult.
- I've found neutral farming to be pretty weak; in my experience there's only a small number of places worth farming, and even then it's often sketchy. When areas are tightly contested (as a result of good balance), every troop matters, and having troops go off to a side to grab the income can mean a real difference in those areas, enough of one to enable making an area tradeable where it otherwise wouldn't be, which can be as big an income shift as the farming would be.
Neutral farming is a subject to which I've given some thought. Let's say you spend 15 PUs on tech tokens, and in exchange discover science. Your payback period for that discovery is three turns: which is to say, that in three turns you'll have recovered the 15 PUs you spent, in the form of tech tokens. Now suppose that Britain neutral farms Puerto Rico, losing 2 colonials in the process. That's 6 PUs of units lost, in exchange for a 2 PU income gain. Also a payback period of 3 turns. So, at least in theory, neutral farming should be as viable a strategy as buying tech tokens for income-producing techs.
The key difference is that neutral farming requires an initial investment. You at least need a reasonably large army to take down neutral force quickly. Sometimes you also need transports, or a nearby factory with which to make good your army's losses. Your total investment in neutral farming Puerto Rico isn't just the 2 colonials you lost in the battle itself. It's also all the other units you shipped there, plus the transports you used to ship them. Despite all that, I've had success with neutral farming in the games I've played. My opponents have been good, solid players, but not elite players.
-
Attached is a saved game file. Lafalot controlled Britain and France, I controlled the rest of Entente, and TheKhan controlled Centrals. American neutral farming helped Entente win this game despite the loss of France, Italy, Serbia, and Arabia. Also despite Russia being seriously weakened.
