Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread
-
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.
-
ok, thx schulz. we let it be.
-
@wirkey said in Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread:
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.
I've been working on a rules set for a WWII map, and have combined that work with historical study of the war itself. During WWII, military aircraft production was a fairly decent proxy for overall military production. Between 1942 and 1944, the United State doubled its production of military aircraft. The Soviet Union almost doubled its production. Germany nearly tripled its military aircraft production, and Japan more than tripled its production.
Dramatic increases in military production also occurred during WWI. During the first five months of the war Britain produced an average of 100,000 shells per month. In 1916 it produced an average of 1.37 million shells per month. Increases in French shell production were even more dramatic. Germany produced four times as many shells in 1916 as it had in 1915.
Granted, these increases were not achieved by neutral farming China, Central or South America, the Caribbean, or the South Pacific. As far as I know, the TripleA engine does not (yet?) support a mechanism to allow nations to increase their production over time, as happened in both world wars. In the absence of such a mechanism, neutral farming allows nations to achieve a steady increase in their income over time.
-
@KurtGodel7 You could easily simulate increased production over time in TripleA in a variety of ways.
You could have triggers that actually just increase territory production values by a certain amount in certain rounds or even just give a certain flat amount to each nation. You could create a building system like in Civil War to simulate building up of industry/factories. You could decrease unit costs or have new units be more cost efficient.
-
v1.4 is now released
- Reorder tech display to match new categories
- Allow Germany easier capture of Mexico City (replace inf with field gun on Caroline Islands)
- Update AA gun cost from 6 to 5
- Change Working Women gas reduction from 1 to 0.5
- Remove several Russian units (Bessarabia, Nizhni-Novgorod, Pskov, Volgograd)
- Remove several Italian units (Rome, Naples)
- Remove several UK and Greek units (Scotland, Calcutta, Western Australia, Greece)
- Increase several German territory production (Munich, Nassau, Posen, Westphalia)
- Decrease several UK territory production (Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan)
- Adjust several neutral territories
Goal was to nerf strat bombing and late game gas a bit as well as buff CPs vs Entente.
-
@KurtGodel7 As you are hinting, the biggest purchases were for artillery shells (meaning overtime the shells your artillery is firing will cost you much more than what you paid for the artillery itself), and there is no ammunition consumption system in TripleA, so anyways in the moment you don't even get the main production item to start with, decreasing costs or increasing productivity are of secondary concern, I would say. A similar matter is for infantry, where maintaining them for years will cost you much more than the cost of the rifle they are wielding and what little else they got, but here at least TripleA roughly supports upkeep.
-
@redrum and thats alltogether is not more than 1-2 central starting techs? i doubt its balanced now. Centrals should be ahead. Thats, why i said, don`t change too much. But we will see. However, thanks for all your work on updates.
-
@epinikion I don't think so. I think the changes counter the no free techs for Germany, WW gas cost change, and no house rules on farming. Essentially the changes are +4 production for Germany, -3 production for UK, and -25 TUV starting units for Entente (in non-border territories that don't really impact the game til round 3-4). It looks like more on paper then it is when you play the game. If I hadn't pointed out the removed starting units, most players wouldn't even notice.
But the only way to tell is on the battlefield so hopefully folks play some games (preferably with no house rules) and upload the saves here.
-
ok, thx for your answer redrum. I misunderstood your line "removed several units". It is in fact only one unit per ter and you are right: its not near first rounds frontline (except bessarabia, but thats only 1 conscript. So still more or less first view: probably its well done. Thank you.
-
Split Belarus into 2 territories: Yes
Add German factory somewhere in eastern Germany: In Silesia
No teching for Italy: No idea
Additional balance around round 1 sea battles: Depends on the proposal
Increase neutral strength in Mexico: Mexico is fine right now.
Provide path to German neutral farming in South America (remove 1 infantry from Peru, add 1 factory for Bolivia, etc): Its not historical and there would be no way for entente to counter Germany in the area.
Have each major nation start with a different tech: Depends.
My proposals would be:
-Setting all options default low luck.
-Moving Mindanao and Luzon units to Manila
-Moving Hawaii units to Honolulu.
-Moving Cambodia and Annam units to Cochinchina
-Moving Malaya Cavalry to Singapore
- Making East Prussia 3 and West Prussia 3 (With Industry Tech, East Prussian fac would become more viable to press Russia if Belarus will be splitted)
-Making Bulgara German territory, -2 Income from Brandenburg +2 Income to Vienna for maintaining the same Production Powers, These units will be remain as Austrian.
(Goal is giving Germany more strategic options such as Helping Turkey against possible rushes in Anatolia. Building ships to protect Turkish fleet, Invading Russia, helping against Serbs etc.-Adding newbie guide to notes (for to attract more player).
-
i vote for no more changes. We need games, not more ideas, to balance.
-
I've played quite a few games on this map. These changes are nice but I still don't think its well balanced.
I think many Entente players are making some mistakes with the amount of farming and early purchases. I find that just maximizing the number of units purchased forces central powers to spread very thin. Russia can threaten to stack Belarus on round 3, and in order to stop this the Central Powers have to send so many early resources.
With that said, Germany taking Mexico city wasn't something I ever came across. I really think the Central Power player has to outplay the other guy, the only wins I've seen involved clever use of gas or taking switzerland and the Entente being totally unprepared for it.
-
I think its well balanced right now, having testing a game up to round 9 without any rule. Centrals and Entente have almost the same Income power.
So game is good with the latest update. Please not nerfing more Entente. With that game I am agree with epinkion anymore. No more changes (besides adding newbie guide to notes and setting default ll to all options)
-
To balance a map like this is really difficult. Therefore we need more games. I am currently playing vs NGMC. My centrals got 1 starting tech plus Italy is not allowed to go into tech. Thats the two remaining rules. So you see i think its still a bit in Ententes favor. We will see how it goes.
-
I know there's already too many changes to test; I just wanted to note that in the long run, it feels like some improvements to the tech balance could be made. Certain techs/categories are just a lot better than other ones, and it'd be nice if there was more diversity in the choices.
-
@zlefin Open to suggestions. I've made a few tweaks to the techs that were clearly very OP as well as divided techs into 6 instead of 3 categories.
-
I'm not really sure what to suggest exactly; the first set (science, victory bonds, working women) seems to be almost always taken first by every nation.
Then a mix of categories 2, 4, and 3; categories 5 and 6 are almost never taken until very late, if at all.
It's no surprise the first set is taken, as every ability in it is strong; whereas most of the other categories have at least one weak tech. categories 5/6 techs trend to be weaker, and it's compounded by the central powers just not being well-positioned to aim for naval dominance.
I'm also reminded of another tech note: working women reduces regular fighter cost, but not late fighter cost. I guess there's no good way to handle that. so once you have both techs regular fighters are 7 while late fighters are still 10.
-
Actually rolling economy first is not always good.
-As Germany, Innovation is more important for getting Late Fighter-Industry.
-As Austria, you can rush to Russia or Italy with researching offense first,
-As Turkey there are huge benefits getting bunker tech or late fighter immiadetaly.
-As UK naval techs can cause serious troubles for Germany to keep its navy.
Also I agree that there are only 2 really weak techs which are mobile warfare and merchant marine.
-
@Schulz said in Domination 1914 No Man's Land - Official Thread:
Actually rolling economy first is not always good.
-As Germany, Innovation is more important for getting Late Fighter-Industry.
-As Austria, you can rush to Russia or Italy with researching offense first,
-As Turkey there are huge benefits getting bunker tech or late fighter immiadetaly.
-As UK naval techs can cause serious troubles for Germany to keep its navy.
Also I agree that there are only 2 really weak techs which are mobile warfare and merchant marine.
I agree with all of the above, except the part about mobile warfare being weak. I've seen that tech used to devastating effect. Granted, that was in games which had a gass limit. Now that redrum wants us to play without house rules, you could argue that the effect of that giant cavalry stack (movement 3) could be replicated with a giant stack of gass instead.
But . . . there are still some circumstances where cavalry would be significantly better than gass. To give one example: suppose Russia has deployed a massive conscript stack. Sure, you could gass the stack. But, each gass costs 3.5 - 4, and kills slightly less than one conscript (cost of 2). Better to use creeping barrage + mobile warfare against a force like that. Mobile warfare allows cavalry units placed in Vienna the opportunity to attack Belarus the very next turn.
-
I have some questions about tactics, wanting to learn your opinions;
-
As Germany is it better to strafe to Galicia in r1 although Russia can retake Belarus with correct purchasings in r2.
-
As France should you move your western Med. fleet to Atlantic to help uk to keep the channel if Germany ignores to hit Russian fleet?
-
As Turkey when should you take Arabia? Is taking it in r3 bad?
-
As Russia totally ignoring Commies is good startegy and which territory is the best for additional Russian factory.
-
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login