Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread

wirkey

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 attacked

Spain (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/GER

lots of triggerin, i know...

NGMC

@epinikion I agree with this wholeheartedly.

wirkey

This post is deleted!

redrum

@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

Schulz

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

epinikion

@redrum The tons of experience i have should let you answer slower. I know the standard answers, you gave again here. I am not a dice-complainer at all and i know all about confirmation bias.

if you are not interested in dice-server problems: no problem.

epi

epinikion

@wirkey: well thx for the picture, but you really ignoring the problem

epi

Schulz

Germany is roughly %17-%25 stronger than Germany in GW map but relatively very weak compared to its main foes. And taking into account the facts that how big the German navy in GW and easier to protect German coasts.

In GW its not unusual to see France+UK total income is only slighly higher than Germany (%8-%10) while in NML UK can still outproduces Germany alone. That's big issue.

France is also %50 stronger than GW France. The issue is like other major Entente nations you have enogh income to fully place all starting factories. I mean just being able to putting 20 French unit per rounds mean you have no troble to find out your priorities. As Russia you can perfectly keep Commies and Eastern front with conscript spawn. UK also has plenty of income to keep and go everywhere.

redrum

@epinikion I created a separate thread to discuss any dice issues.

KurtGodel7

I have a few ideas on how to address the balance issues Schultz is pointing out:

Add a German factory to Silesia. Add +1 to the value of Silesia. This territory is only 2 steps away from Belarus. A factory here would increase the strength of Germany's early game anti-Russia push. Because the territory does not border the ocean or the Baltic, you don't have to worry about it being used to build transports to zerg rush someone's capital.
Replace merchant marine with a tech called sub. This tech allows you to build subs. Germany (and perhaps Austria) start with sub tech, all other nations must research it.
German neutral farming in South America. This is a renewal of an idea I'd mentioned earlier. With proper starting unit setup, you could ensure that Germany gets a good foothold in South America before the Entente has a chance to do anything. You could even reduce the value of Panama down to 1 PU if necessary to nerf a potential American factory in the area.
Propaganda as a starting tech for communists. Historically, if the communists were good at one thing, it was propaganda. Starting them out with this tech is very realistic and conducive to game balance.

Schulz

What about this set up:

Baluchistan and Formosa become 2. Removing -4 Income from UK, -6 from USA.

-1 tranny from sz 20-21, Removing one units in each of these territories: Algeria; Franche-Comte, Naples, Apulia, Calcutta, Western Australia, Vologda, Naryan-Mar, Petersburg, Scotland, Greece.

Also I liked Silesia factory too.

wirkey

@epinikion there is a huge difference between ignoring a problem and not seeing one. To ignore something to first have to notice that something is there. But i don't want to go into that any further.

epinikion

@wirkey my issue is that i saw one special unit in a lot of games hitting way over average. That might sound silly, but when you answer with the stats for the rolls per nations i dont get how that refers to my issue. I am just saying there is one unit (not one nation) that hits in tons of games over average.

Schulz

Also it would be nice to set up all options ll as default in next update.

wirkey

@redrum said in Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread:

@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

I know it would make a complete or almost complete new game and I know that most likely nobody will make all the work. It's probably the only way to get me to play this map (again). I just don't get over the fact, that those neutrals are not defending themselves. It's the same for NWO and WAW (really bad in South America, too). I've played with house rules and I like that way better.

About your and @Hepps game:
will you have real neutral nations that join others (becoming something like the minors in TWW) or are those just neutral territories, that become "true" german/french etc when attacked?

Cernel

@wirkey Totally inactive but hostile neutrals is a TripleA only feature, inexistent the basic games, that has found a lot of favour amongst mapmakers, and that figures extensively in almost all the most popular custom games.

Regarding its silliness, you would say it about whatever historical modern maps having any of those, comprising Total World War (for example, Mongolia, that should actually rather be a minor of Russia since start game or even just part of Russia) (on the other hand, for example, you would probably agree it is acceptable in 270BC, instead).

wirkey

@Cernel said in Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread:

@wirkey Totally inactive but hostile neutrals is a TripleA only feature, inexistent the basic games, that has found a lot of favour amongst mapmakers, and that figures extensively in almost all the most popular custom games.

Regarding its silliness, you would say it about whatever historical modern maps having any of those, comprising Total World War (for example, Mongolia, that should actually rather be a minor of Russia since start game or even just part of Russia) (on the other hand, for example, you would probably agree it is acceptable in 270BC, instead).

Sure I know it's been an feature for many maps and sure I know it makes a lot of sense in most games. I just don't like it that much...
About Mongolia, I tried to make them a minor in TWW, but I just suck with xml. All I could do was to get Tac Bombers being able to land on carriers. My preferred option for Mongolia would be the same as I suggested for NML: if Axis (most likely Japan) attacks them, all other territories with all other units turn Russian. You have to think twice about that teleporting deep into China (I do that move, too. But I always feel a bit ashamed)

No clue about 270BC. Never played that map (no airplanes...). But just by the name I'd say there were a lot of tribes around, so it seems fine for me

redrum

@wirkey Kind of in between the 2. Each major WW1 power has colonial minors (just like minors in TWW) and the various neutrals will join a designated major or one of its minors through politics or war: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/1063/power-of-politics-1914-a-wwi-scenario/6

Schulz

I've set 60 battles (2 art+1 inf vs 1 conscript) as testing and only 6 times conscript hit while statistically it was supposed to be even slighly closer to 10.

I don't think there is a mechanical issue.

epinikion

ok, thx schulz. we let it be.