Flames and Steel (official thread)
-
Claude's take on this:
Posen --> Wartheland
Agree. That’s exactly Reichsgau Wartheland in 1941. It also matches “West Prussia” (Danzig–West Prussia), which already uses the 1941 German name.
Bohemia --> Bohemia/Moravia
Agree. It’s the Protectorate.
Vienna--> Austria
Already done in draft 100.
Silesia--> Lower Silesia
Disagree. German Upper Silesia is in it, so “Lower” would be wrong. Keep Silesia.
Neumark --> southern Pomerania
Disagree. Schneidemühl did become Pomeranian in 1938, but Landsberg and Frankfurt an der Oder were Brandenburg. Landsberg was the Neumark’s chief town. If a change is wanted, “Grenzmark” fits the Schneidemühl half better. Pomerania then needs no “northern”.
Wurttemberg --> Baden
Disagree. “Baden” would drop Stuttgart. The accurate name, Baden-Württemberg, dates from 1952. Keep Wurttemberg.
Hesse --> Rhineland
Disagree, mildly. It’s a mix, but Cologne, the heart of the Rhineland, is in our Ruhr territory. “Rhineland” would mislead, so keep Hesse.
Ruhr --> Westphalia
Either works. Ruhr is the name players know, and it covers Cologne. Westphalia is more “provincial” in style but excludes Cologne. I’d keep Ruhr.
I actually disagree with everything Claude disagreed here except on Baden or Württemberg, as that could go either way. (I've only a slight preference for the former, mostly based on the fact that I assume the territory comprises Alsace too.)
I didn't like the name Bohemia/Moravia. Where possible I'd prefer for a territory to have one name instead of two.
Bohemia - Moravia are not two names: it's one name. The territory itself was called "Bohemia and Moravia" (in German). Do you mean that you want only one word? If only one word, of course "Bohemia" is (by far) the most important one of the two, but it would not be a good name.
It's like calling the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" as just "Britain". You can do that, but it is not a good name because it is as if you are excluding Northern Ireland.
Alternatively, you can split the territory in two west-east and call the western one Bohemia and the eastern one Moravia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravia -
Berlin should not be closer to Krakow than Warsaw is. Either Silesia should be split, or Neumark and West Prussia should be merged.
Upper Silesia (east) and Lower Silesia (west) are the natural divisions if you decide to split Silesia.
Yes, but currently Upper Silesia is practically split almost in half betwen the Silesia and the Krakow territories (or at least looks like to me). Connections wise, it is more like as if it is part of Krakow because the actual Upper Silesia bordered Slovakia.
-
@Cernel The amount of real estate that a name takes up on the map also matters. If the name is too long and ends up bleeding over into neighboring territories or having to be shrunk to a barely readable font size, the result ends up looking ugly.
Bohemia works as a shorthand that was in common use for Bohemia-Moravia. There’s no problem with doing that - notice we’re not obliged to refer to the UK player as “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland” in all contexts.
Hesse actually looks out of place now as Germany’s western border territory - the real state of Hesse doesn’t touch Belgium or France at all. Either Rhineland or Westphalia would be more appropriate for that.
-
The start of round 5 for a recent test game.
Germany built a ton of transports on G1, and conquered Leningrad on G2. After that, however, the northern portion of Germany's eastern front somewhat stalled. Note the massive Soviet unit placement capacity on Archangel and Gorky.
This is the southern portion of Germany's eastern front. It is tempted to unite the Kiev and Vitebsk stacks in Gomel. While the German offensive might stall before Moscow, at least the Germans can add some land before that happens.
Over in the west, the British have been invading France. Germany probably under-spent on that front early game, but is trying to make up for it now.
Germany may have messed up its western front. America Atlantic is starting to behave as you'd expect America in NWO to behave. To push back against that, the Germans should not have neutral farmed Switzerland on G1. Instead they should have gone to Spain earlier, in an effort to prevent the Allies from taking root there.
The east Mediterranean. The British weren't paying enough attention, and the Italians won a crushing victory in the Western Desert. Italy should be in good shape on that front, at least for now. However, problems are starting to appear in the west.
China! China has been a major thorn in Japan's side. Japan has been going south. China has responded by going south as well, and exerting major pressure on Japan. Japan had built a factory + trenches for Tonkin. China took Tonkin with a couple of heavy guns left at the end of the fight. Instead of retaking Tonkin immediately, Japan shipped to Kwangsi, to destroy a large Chinese army there. China responded by building units + trenches for Tonkin. Japan took Tonkin anyway, but it was tough. Due to an error on Japan's part, China destroyed a Japanese army in Western Hunan. China is getting pushed back overall, but it's been tough work for Japan.
The Japanese fleet that destroyed the American fleet at Pearl. 8 torpedo bombers attacked during the air phase, and the rest of the Japanese fleet moved in during Japan's turn to finish off the American fleet.
America Pacific's fleet. It is licking its wounds after its defeat at Pearl. It has also started neutral farming.
Technology
Germany hopes to have SPCs producing Panther tanks, ideally with Speer's Industrialization adding more tanks. It's made some progress towards achieving this, but has yet to unlock Panther tank tech.The Soviet Union would love to have SPCs producing KV-1 tanks. But even more than that, it would love to unlock better recruitment tech. (Of which the Soviet Union has by far the best in the game.) Also it's been having unit placement problems due to too many conscripts and anti-tank guns. Recruitment is the primary focus for a Soviet research center, while tanks tech and advanced are areas of secondary focus. Its other primary focus I think is Innovation, because Industry tech would solve its unit placement problems.
Japan has two research centers. One of them has a primary focus on Japan tech, because that is a good way of increasing its late game income. Already Japan tech has yielded Long Lance torpedoes. It could also envision itself having SPCs, producing fleet carriers. Therefore carriers tech and advanced are among Japan's research goals. It also (accidentally!) got industry tech. That adds +2 to a factory's unit placement capacity, so long as the underlying territory is worth at least 2. That tech has solved Japan's unit placement problems.
Britain also got industry tech, but unlike Japan this was done on purpose. This gives Britain the ability to place more units on India and Africa, should it wish to push harder against Japan or Italy. The extra unit placement capacity is also useful for its war against Germany.
Italy. With just one research center Italy doesn't have much of a research strategy. Its goal is to get free units or resources. With that in mind, it chose innovation as its primary focus and recruitment as its secondary focus. It has yet to unlock any free resource techs, but it is certainly looking forward to doing so.
America Pacific. America Pacific is proud to have already discovered fleet carrier tech. In addition it has discovered advanced 1, allowing it to build one SPC. Receiving a free fleet carrier every other turn will help it in its war against Japan. It is also focusing on USA tech, because that is a good source of added income. Due to making piston air a priority, it received SBD Dauntless tech. At least for now, its dive bombers are better at naval combat than its torpedo bombers.
America Atlantic. Also focusing on USA tech to add to its income. It could envision itself with some SPCs creating Pershing heavy tanks. America Atlantic is the most income nerfed nation in the game. After very minimal income for rounds 1 - 2, it collects 30% of its true income on round 3, 40% on round 4, and so forth. Late game it will be an economic powerhouse. It is planning on using this economic strength in Spain, North Africa, and the Mediterranean. It could envision itself eventually conquering Rome.
-
The end of the game. Round 7. The Soviet Union destroys the German army at Dnepropetrovsk. 76 conscripts to soak up hits, plus 42 anti-tank guns to provide some firepower while soaking up more hits, plus some tanks and artillery to enhance the offensive firepower.
I may need to make some tweaks to help balance this. However, Germany did put up a better fight on the northern part of its eastern front than it did in the southern portion.
The Asian mainland, round 7. Japan would love to just crush China but thus far has been unable to do so. Japan would also like to start pushing Britain out of India, but that hasn't happened thus far. Britain just got Raj tech, which means three free colonial militia for India each turn.
Japan has conquered the Philippines and part of the East Indies. It finally took Hong Kong. Singapore is proving a disturbingly tough nut to crack.
Neutral farming for America Pacific. Also it has been building up its fleet to be able to challenge the IJN. Japan hasn't kept pace with the naval builds, because it's been preoccupied with mainland Asia and the East Indies.
The Soviet Union has been one of Japan's problems. Vladivosok is worth 7. The Soviets recently started placing 9 units a turn there due to industry tech. Japan does not want that war, because it's one war too many.
End of the game tech: Germany had just gotten Speer's Industrialization. It was making good progress with advanced tech. But all that was hollow without Panther tank tech (which it did not yet have). Japan was making good progress with its Japan techs, but the Japan techs it really wanted--the income increasing ones--would not kick in until later in the game. Italy was unlucky with its tech rolls, with nearly everything chosen at random. Britain had made good use of tech (industry tech), the Soviet Union had gotten conscription 1 tech (1 free conscript a turn per factory, so long as the underlying territory is originally Soviet and worth at least 9). Possibly the most successful for tech was America Pacific. It had discovered fleet carrier, it had an SPC, and it had extended range for piston tech. (Allowing its fighters, heavy fighters, dive bombers, and torpedo bombers to have a range of 4.)
Conclusion: I could have played better with both sides. No question there. That said, I believe the map is unbalanced in favor of the Allies. Germany got distracted from its eastern front too quickly. Japan could maybe use a couple extra transports with which to start the game. Britain can exert too much pressure too quickly in France, and it's difficult for Germany to counter that due to Britain's advantage in local unit placement capacity. Italy had some success, but it didn't look as if that success was going to turn into anything decisive. America Atlantic's income grows over time--I think it hits full income on round 10--so it was going to be able to put more and more economic pressure on Italy.
-
@KurtGodel7
Love your effort in trying to balance the game, can't wait to play the definitive release
-
I'd had to take a break from Claude due to being too close to my weekly usage limit. Now that weekly usage is reset, here are Claude's comments on some of the map names:
Hesse → Rhineland: yes. I’ve changed my mind here. Vendetta’s point holds. On your map, “Hesse” borders Belgium, Holland and Lorraine, and the real Hesse touched none of them. The land along that border was the Rhineland (Rhine Province, Saar, Palatinate). My earlier objection was that Cologne sits in your Ruhr territory, but that matters less than the name contradicting the geography a player sees. I’d keep Ruhr as it is: it’s the name everyone knows for that industrial area, and it’s what players will be bombing.
Bohemia: I’d use “Bohemia-Moravia”. Cernel is right that it was one name, and Vendetta is right that label space matters. But Bohemia is one of the largest territories in that part of the map, so the 15-character name fits without crowding (about 150 pixels in a territory roughly 270 wide). If it ever has to be one word, “Bohemia” is a defensible shorthand. I wouldn’t split it into Bohemia and Moravia; that’s a gameplay change for a naming problem.
Württemberg vs Baden: keep Württemberg, low stakes. Both are defensible, as Cernel says. Stuttgart, the region’s main city, is in Württemberg. “Baden-Württemberg” is too long and dates from 1952. If you want Alsace implied, Baden is fine, but on your map Alsace sits inside French Lorraine anyway.
Silesia and Upper Silesia: the split is deliberate, and it’s yours to defend. You drew the Silesia/Cracow line along the 1922 partition so that the Polish-majority part pays Germany no manpower. That’s why Upper Silesia looks cut in half. Cernel’s connection argument is true for 1941 administrative borders (the annexed Żywiec area did touch Slovakia), not for the population line you chose. The German part of Upper Silesia bordered Moravia, and your Silesia does border Bohemia(-Moravia). I’d keep both the name Silesia and the line, and explain the manpower reason in the thread. Splitting Silesia into Lower (west) and Upper (east) is fine if you want more territories there, but it isn’t needed. It also doesn’t fix Schulz’s Berlin-to-Krakow distance complaint, which is a geometry issue, not a naming one.
Neumark: I’d still keep it. The territory east of Berlin, bordering Pomerania, Silesia and Wartheland, is the old Neumark (Brandenburg east of the Oder). “Southern Pomerania” would name the wrong province. Cernel’s reply doesn’t actually argue this one, so I wouldn’t read it as a strong objection.
Budapest → Hungary: yes. It’s a one-territory country, like Austria and Switzerland.
Ruthenia as a 1-PU territory: worth doing, mildly. It’s historically real (Czechoslovak until 1939, Hungarian in 1941, Soviet after). It also fits your population rule neatly: Rusyn-majority, so it gives Hungary/Germany no manpower. Gameplay-wise, it puts a step between Hungary and Lwow, which is the route the Hungarian army actually took in 1941. The cost is one more small territory. It would mean redrawing tiles like France did, but it’s a small job.
-
How strong did you make all the neutral forces on your setup?
-
Neumark: I’d still keep it. The territory east of Berlin, bordering Pomerania, Silesia and Wartheland, is the old Neumark (Brandenburg east of the Oder). “Southern Pomerania” would name the wrong province. Cernel’s reply doesn’t actually argue this one, so I wouldn’t read it as a strong objection.
LOL This is actually the one I've the strongest objection against (though Ruhr is a close second). It is just that it would take quite a lot of time arguing over the various things, so I just didn't do it.
@kurtgodel7 But I'm enjoying the conversation with Claude (I would hate it if I did not know it was AI.), so I might make a full list of counter-arguments (LMAO) if you want to use your allowance to then see what Claude has to counter-counter-argue about it. You tell me.
-
I wouldn’t split it into Bohemia and Moravia; that’s a gameplay change for a naming problem.
I totally agree not drawing territories to accommodate names, but both in case of Bohemia - Moravia (I would leave a space before and after the hyphen.) as well as in the case of Austria I would strongly consider splitting the territories in two east/west both on the account of the relative dimensions as well as on the account of their rough geography (mountains, forests...) which should not make them the easiest routes available and overall would favour front multiplication.
-
@Cernel Why? Northern and Southern Pomerania have never been formal divisions of the province, it was divided east/west (Hither and Farther Pomerania). And Neumark's placement doesn't look wrong to me.
-
Naval invasions being too easy to pull off is perhaps the most unrealistic thing in the standard rule sets.
What about coastal batteries that can destroy the ships
Okay. I agree that naval invasions are too easy to pull off. I've mulled this over, and have come up with a couple different solutions.
- The cool solution. There would be a new unit type: the coastal gun. A coastal gun would be a lot less expensive than a battleship. For a naval invasion the following would happen:
- Battleships and maybe cruisers would fire at the coastal guns. Coastal guns would fire back at the battleships and maybe cruisers. This would last two combat rounds. Destroyed units would be removed from play.
- Any coastal guns which survived the earlier phase would fire at transports. Casualties chosen at random, destroyed units removed from play.
- The simple solution (borrowed from Shogun/Samurai Swords). Units invading amphibiously don't get to fire for the first combat round. If units arrive by both land and sea, the ones coming in from land do get to fire for the first combat round. Those coming in from sea do not. When marines attack amphibiously, they are able to fire on the first combat round. Claude informs me that Japan also had infantry specialized for amphibious invasions: the SNLF. America Pacific already has Marines, and it looks like Japan will be getting a Marine-equivalent unit.
Solution 1) has way more of a coolness factor than solution 2). No denying that. Nonetheless, I'm going with solution 2) for now. I believe the game needs simplicity more than it needs coolness + an extra game mechanic.
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