Crazy Europe: House of Habsburg


  • Moderators

    On the "castles", that are probably representing these things:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastion_fort
    I don't understand why not using the "Citatel" image of AoT:
    0_1520277085753_Citadel.png

    Or, for a more typical design, the Fortress of Napoleonic Empires can be adapted thus:
    0_1520277168254_Fortress.png

    Also, of course, looking at the map, if 1 turn cannot be more than 3 months, then they should take something like 8 or more turns to build, but I guess you already considered this, and excluded it for personal gameplay preferences (but they can be playable, if instead of costing 30 PUs in 1 turn they would cost 8 PUs over 8 turns, I guess (of course, not sure; it would need to be playtested)).

    If knights is so called because the units doesn't represent, like, a reiter for sure, I can say that unit can totally be representing a "gendarmes", that would be much more fitting than knights, especially since, as you say and Cyprus shows, this map might go as far back as about 1550.


  • Moderators Admin

    @crazyg

    First off, I took another look at the save, and Russia+Ottomans were moving all villages on round 1 as well, I didn't even look further. Village confusion for Hapsburg+Italy all game and partial village confusion for others as well as general noobness to map really torpedos the balance testing aspect on this particular game.

    Although I did make a few observations in other areas.

    Game notes improvements, so one can jump in relatively informed:

    1. Villages lacks mention that only one per territory can recruit pikes, regardless of total number of villages. Also should read, allows one pikeman recruit unit.

    2. Cannons lacks mention on that attacking cannons also get captured if alone. Also the critical point that cannons can never be used as casualties in either attack or defense. This might even screw with bc since it lists hp for them. At the very least confusing for player.

    3. Castle clarification would be nice since this is never been used before in triplea games. Cool feature.

    Suggestions:

    1. Castle cost at 30pu seems low. Also 2 turns build seems right. No triggers needed for this, can create a castle under construction unit for 20pu and a castle for 20pu that consumes it.

    2. Should not remove city build yet. Although a 2 or even 3 turn build time may be prudent.

    3. Allow torch villages. Allow village torch on a 1:1 basis for 6pu, however must own the territory one turn to do it. Can do this by creating a torch unit (0 movement) that is built by a village, it consumes one village on place, then after place phase, it is itself triggered off via a simple <option name="removeUnits" value="all:torch" count="99"/>. This removes all torches from map.

    4. Destroy castle and city. Same general idea as above, but the unit to destroy should cost a lot more (12pu minimum to start). For cities, can build the demo unit in the city. For castles allow build of demo unit in castle (0 movement for demo unit). (also allow demo of under construction castles via same exact mechanics)

    5. Shrink minimap. I don't think many use it anyways. More room for game map.

    6. Consider Hapsburg split into 2 to 3 economies (Spain, Netherlands, Italy, Hapsburg Home) versus beefing up ottomans and others. Look at TWW style minor nations where the minors build german units for Germany. This just doesn't allow Hapsburg to throw all pus in far off areas.

      You can even create a condition and user action that allows Hapsburg central to either receive or send pu from or to the minors. This is a bit more complex, but not too much.

    7. North Africa, maybe add a neutral city somewhere that is relatively easy to capture. In reach of both sides within a couple turns. This can be the key to all of North Africa, so will be desirable to both sides.

    8. Swapping castle for a citadel is not a bad idea. With everything else the same. Exception my above build suggestions.

    9. Naming convention suggestions. The number actually not so good. If you wanna keep it simple use a lot of east, west. north, south and central prefixes to major areas.

    10. Some of the amphibious landing beaches could be drawn more plainly. Meaning the way they don't extend to end of boundaries, or extend into another slightly.

    11. LL may ruin the dynamic for cannons. I think it will stack the 2 rolls. Maybe create a setting that will recognize LL property. Then make a set of units that work for LL specifically.

    12. Consider a victory condition as optional. Maybe vc style.

    Ok, so these were my main observations and suggestions. I like the map a lot thus why I am offering up so much. I would like to see this become a nice Sunday multi as nap once was. Nice job so far. Hopefully improved units images can even be made once it catches on.

    One last thing on adding units for balance. Try to do this very sparingly, as it will diminish the early castle importance and advantages. Lower units counts are good for the game imo.

    Btw, I would be happy to provide you with the necessary units for the above ideas, won't be pretty but will be effective.


  • Admin

    @CrazyG
    I am probably way ahead of your plan, but I could not help myself and wanted to put some Scandinavian names on the territories of Denmark-Norway and Sweden. So here they are. I hope you have the time to plot them in at some point 🙂

    To add to historical correctness of year 1600, Holstein is now danish and the territory east of Christiania (Name of Oslo 1624–1924) is now Swedish, not danish as in your map.
    0_1520287363601_danmarkhist.png
    0_1520287379921_Unavngivet2.png
    0_1520287509964_Unavngivet.png



  • @crazyg CE: HoH Map is a great map with a lot of potential, Congratulations! After an enjoyable probe game with Hepps (Guardian), General_Zod, Prastle and Redrum at the end, this are my suggestions:
    Era is around 1600 (1550 - 1650)

    • Habsburg seat began in the Habsburg Castle, after which the Habsburgs are named, located in what is now the Swiss canton of Aargau, it should be set as part of their territory in Swiss
    • Consider the German Holy Roman Empire as part of the Habsburgs; even they were reformists at that time
    • In Italy as important as Venice and Genoa was the Milan Duchy from where most wars between France and Habsburgs were initiated
    • Maybe instead of name of power and its territory number, could better be to have real names of the lands at that age in each territory, it could make the game more interesting and educational too (I have some maps with those names)
    • Change the flag of Poland-Lithuania to a small circle as the other powers has
    • There where a lot of ottoman pirates in Mediterranean Sea, have this consideration of situation in the north of morocco.
    • Cities should be fixed (they cannot grow so quickly) a not be available to buy and set
    • I saw villages as military camps that could move with the armies recruiting militia instead of fixed Villages (Maybe could have both); it was because they weren't fixed and when moving all troops they came too (thinking as recruiting camps going with the armies)
    • Pikemen and recruits is the same unit in all sense, so why have them different just to set recruits in Villages, it is confused when buying units as they cost and do the same, why don’t just keep one unit as Pikeman and set in the villages as well as recruits
    • Maybe could be archers as crossbowman (was still and important weapon at that time), units to attack and defend as they do in 240BC
    • Cannons were the most formidable weapon of the era, so they are very correct and can be taken if not units around.
    • To cross mountains, Pyrenees and Alps, and even frozen sea in Finland, could be in 2 movements 1 to set and stay still one round, then move at the third round.
      Just suggestions wishing could support in developing a great game, thanks.and great job!

  • Moderators

    @Rerdum
    Ottomans are getting more cities tonight.

    @Cernel
    I've made 1550 the official date listed in the description. Its the date on the map I used anyway and what I should have used from the start. I feel like the idea of a unit that takes 8 turns to build has come up a lot, its just not a good function from a gameplay point of view (this particular map has yet to have an 8 round game)

    @General_Zod
    1-3, Done and I agree. To clarify castles, they usually default to blocking the strongest enemy units (if you have 5 pikemen and 5 knights, they block the knights from rolling), they cause the auto-casualty selector to do weird things (lose muskets before pikemen) and I'm guessing the battle calculator does weird things if the casualty auto-selector is acting up. Neutral castles don't work at all (I cannot give the null player a support attachment)

    1. Yea this sounds good
    2. We can try 2 turn build time for cities
      6+7 I'm not going to enable burning cities or castles. I'm considering the villages thing, however I like the pressure to use villages before your opponent takes them.
      8- Done
      9- This is a ton of work to do, I want to try thinning out units and lowering total income first.
      10- We can try a city in Tunis with some pirate ships starting in the area.
      11-
      12- The naming is a temporary solution, not intended for long term.
      13- Hepps is in the process of redrawing the map
      14- The idea of cannons is to have really high attack but die easily. I think the issue was just that muskets also have really high attack.
      15- The only map I ever played where players paid attention to VC was your FFA. While its hard to take a capital on the map, I leave it to players to surrender

    @Frostion
    Thanks for the help. The maps I saw of Europe in 1550 (this is the new base date) showed Denmark without Holstein

    @Raville

    1. I don't think I can add Aargau as Habsburg controlled without breaking the Alps, which I don't want to do
    2. I don't want the Habsburgs to control all of the Holy Roman Empire. I can make a different start date with the HRE as a nation, just not this one
    3. There is a habsburg territory in northern italy intending to represent Milan (it will be named Milan when I update names). Not sure if it should be a city or villages
    4. The current names are just a temporary system
    5. Flags are just a temporary system
    6. It sounds like people want to Ottomans in the Med, they shall have them
    7. Not sure what you mean
    8. Archers/Crossbows will probably get re-added
    9. Cannons are weak compared to Muskets and will be buffed. I want to keep the idea of a high damage but easy to kill unit
    10. I can't find a way to do this without making it weird


  • 0_1520352605140_europe__ad_1556____the_age_of_habsburg_by_undevicesimus-d60p15l.jpg



  • 0_1520352856541_hapsburg_europe_1550_by_hillfighter-d31z5yl.png


  • Moderators

    @raville Having crossbow / archers would imply adding technology to the map, because, while bows were still important for Ottomans and Russians, nobody would think having or producing any in France or Italy, and even the bow-loving Britain is a few decades from getting rid of them.


  • Moderators

    @raville Nice map this one. Also "Livonia" is preferable a name over "State of the Teutonic Order". I think the tartars should be a power, as they were not passive or neutral. Livonia can be neutral.


  • Moderators

    @crazyg I would add Aland (as an island or even a territory land connected to Finland) and just have it bridged east and west. To be strict, the movement would be possible only in winter, and also in winter you could not use ships in half of the Baltic, but I guess having a simple connection is better than nothing.
    Those times it will matter, since you don't have a clear timeline, you can just assume that the armies took care to do it the right time.
    But, yes, a 1 turn every 4 would be more sensible, but, then, you should have also a progressively not navigable Baltic, and that might be a bit too much for a rather marginal part of the map. But it is doable.
    I'd just keep it as a simple land bridge, like the Turkish straits, for the sake of simplicity.


  • Moderators

    @cernel Alternatively to (and probably better than) technology, an option would be having bows and crossbows as units you cannot produce, but some players have at start of the game, like it happens in Age of Tribes, when you get up with tech. The game is close to the battle of Lepanto anyways, after which even the Ottomans realised the bows were old story (and they have definitely the best bows available).



  • Indeed at that time the crossbowmen were replaced by the musketmen who were protected by the pikemen, but still they participate in some battles as gunpowder could be wet due to rain.


  • Admin

    @raville
    When I was a green recruit in the dansih army, I was part of the Zealand Life Regiment. This regiment was the first Danish professional unit ever, formed in 1614. Before this time, Denmark had no standing army besides Royal Guards. Armies were formed when needed in time of war and were draftees and mercenaries. Anyway, the "Zealand Company" of 1614 consisted of 200 Pikemen and 100 musketmen, and they were paid to practice war every Sunday after church 😉 Here the pikemens sole purpose was to defend the musketmen. The company, and later our regiment, was since the formation referred to as a Musketeer Regiment, even though there were twice as many pikes 😛


  • Moderators Admin

    @CrazyG

    1. Regarding torching villages. Yes the intended village dynamic would still be there, it would be even livelier. Since only one torch per village per territory maximum would be built. And this requires a one turn hold first before the torch can even be purchased (torch = 0 movement). The torch build mechanic would be same as for the current recruit pikemen mechanics. This will add some hit and run tactics to the mix. Plus not like its free (torch=6pu) or an easy decision. The village might be useful to the owner. If anything you might have to add a village here and there to compensate.

      Consider above as a optional game property at least. I bet most would use it.

    2. Imo the game plays well enough without crossbows and archers. They will just clutter the map and slow purchase down. One of the nice things is, that currently it is fast.

    3. Btw, regarding the Baltic ice. You can simply create a new unit and trigger it into and out of Baltic at appropriate times. It would be a sea transport with unlimited capacity 0 movement, just new name and new image of an ice sheet or something. However I don't think the game needs it yet.

    4. Personally I think this map will be more fun with dice. I'm beginning to dislike the micro battle bullshit of LL battles. Board games were never intended to use LL. In short the tactics of dice versus LL are 2 very different tactics. This can affect balance of the game in many unintended ways once you play the map both ways it becomes obvious, imo. Live by the sword die by the sword.


  • Moderators Admin

    @frostion I had no idea we had a Highlander residing in Triple A. Wandering through the ages. Good to know. 🙂


  • Moderators Admin

    @CrazyG and @everyone/anyone. Trying to help with more consistent flags for the flag folder.

    During my research into the heraldry and flags of nations of the period... I am having an issue with hammering down a flag for the Ottoman Empire. References to the red & white flag with the crescent moon and star seems to indicate that particular flag was not instituted until much later in time (1800's if I am not mistaken).

    Anyone have any idea whether it was used and simply not officially instituted as the flag until later. Or is there any evidence of a different flag being used during the 16th or 17th century?

    I don't mind using the accepted flag... as it is very recognizable. Just wondered if there is something more accurate to the time period. Since I am in no way an expert in this era in history.


  • Moderators Admin

    @general_zod I agree that this plays well as a dice game. The unit mechanics are designed to function with dice, and since for the most part you have vast tracts of land... one has the ability to recover from tragic swings in luck.


  • Admin

    @CrazyG
    The history of Slesvig-Holsten, and the question about “German” or “Danish” is complicated. Partly because people at the time did not think much about national ownership, more about "what is a good deal for us?". A lot of maps will show one thing and other maps another. But technically, the Danish king had nearly throughout all history had personal ownership of the two territories, and also he collected the taxes, that again funded his more or less personal wars. The Danish government of the time did not have “ownership” of Slesvig-Holsten as this was the king’s personal property.

    This is a Google-translated outtake of the history of the Slesvig-Holsten duchies from the Danish encyclopedia:
    http://denstoredanske.dk/Geografi_og_historie/Tyskland,_Østrig,Schweiz_og_Liechtenstein/Tyskland_generelt/Slesvig-Holsten(Historie)

    "When Duke Frederik in 1523 became king of Denmark as Frederik 1., the duchies were again gathered under Denmark; a state that lasted only until 1544, where they were divided into three parts between the Danish King Christian 3. and his two brothers Adolf and Hans the Older. A joint project for these became the conquest of Ditmarsken in 1559.

    In 1564, King Frederik gave 2. one third of his inheritance to the brother Hans the Younger."

    So I would still say that in 1550, both Slesvig and Holsten should be Danish 😃


  • Moderators

    @hepps In 1550 stars and crescents were most likely used in Ottoman flags (the crescent was also a common roumanian (meaning byzantine) symbol, as it means Mary, the mother of God) and I think the red background makes sense too. So I guess the Ottomans can have something like the current flag of Turkey, but maybe with a 6 pointed (instead of 5 pointed) star and with a moon more like this one:
    http://midan.aljazeera.net/Service/fullimagearticle?entityId=4b48bc8f-18d3-43b4-a2f3-30f127e89429&resourceId=12779612-3763-4819-a411-7d84e1d04bdf&imageID=5e657dd3-7371-43b9-9bcb-bbe2eb7d02a5
    (14th century depiction of a Mamluk (Egyptian) battle standard)


  • Moderators

    @cernel But maybe having just the crescent without any star would be better for the Ottomans. I'm not sure. Maybe I would go with just a crescent on a red background, and no star.


Log in to reply