Crazy Europe: House of Habsburg

[General_Zod]

I think Austria was not a sole powerhouse of Europe at this time frame. A more appropriate name should be used. This name gives impression Austria will win the war or that Austria is the sole nation to defeat.

[CrazyG]

I'll look to update the flags, thanks for the images guys. Denmark-Norway is in the game! The British aren't, I figured the Brits (and the Germans) get enough face time so I left them out.

@general_zod
There is no nation named Austria. Austria, Czechslovakia, Spain, the Netherlands, part of Italy, and part of France are all controlled by the same nation, the Habsburg monarchy. Its the most powerful nation in income and army size, but the Ottomans aren't that far behind.

[Cernel]

@crazyg
Names changes suggestions, if it is the early XVII century, in my order of preference, left to right:
crossbow->crossbowmen (but, really, from 1600 there should be none; they are almost extinct)
musketmen->musketeers
cannon->cannons
horsemen->harquebusiers/petronels
knights->cuirassiers/gendarmes/reiters/lancers
navy->ships (or man-of-wars and barques, if you split military and transport)
castle is a touch too medieval, and I remember you gave some good suggestions for this time in Age of Tribes

[Cernel]

@crazyg The main things that come to my mind right away are:

1. Genova and Venice were mortal enemies.
2. Prussia as a player.
3. Nogay Horde as a player.

I realise that in a 1v1 it is hard to get all in, especially Genova and Venice.

[alkexr]

@cernel Prussia wasn't yet a thing: http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/germany/brandenbg16181740.gif

[Cernel]

@alkexr There is continuity between the lands of the Teutonic Order and Prussia; I would also add Brandenburg, as part of it, even if the game starting a few decades before that union, but just call it Prussia, for game's sake.

[Hepps]

Since it is 'Crazy Europe' ... will there be mad kings that have erratic support attachments? Maybe having positive support attachments for troops one turn and negative ones the next turn?

[alkexr]

@cernel "By 1643–44, the developing army numbered only 5,500 troops, including 500 musketeers in Frederick William's bodyguard." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Army#Creation_of_the_army
Even the Transylvanian army (6000) was larger in the Thirty Years' War: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War
Prussia started becoming a non-negligible power around the time of the War of Austrian Succession and the Seven Years' War (after 1740).

[Cernel]

@alkexr The Teutonic Knights were very small in numbers too.

[redrum]

Might want to at least let the map be released and play it a bit before getting too carried away with suggestions

[CrazyG]

When choosing what nations to add and what alliance I was mostly looking at the borders created. Looking at the map, England is either enemies with France and basically only attacks France, or is allies with France and only raids the Habsburgs. It seemed to me that England would play the same way every time, so I left him out. The existing nations all have enemies in a few directions so they can explore different options. As for adding someone like Brandenburg, my questions who will Brandenburg end up fighting? Do they spend three turns conquering neutrals? If so I'm going to leave them out.

[CrazyG]

I just successfully downloaded the game from the experimental section. If anyone plays it, please post here! I'd love to get feedback and savegames

[redrum]

@crazyg I like the overall concept. I think the biggest drawbacks are:

1. The map image is pretty rough with very thick territory lines.
2. Gameplay and the unit set are very simplistic.

Seems like there are some interesting potential concepts around coastal areas and the overall alliances seem pretty interesting.

[CrazyG]

@redrum
The map image itself was designed for a very complex WW1 map, but I decided to publish something much simpler as part of the learning curve (f*ck triggers)

The two big cool things of the map are castles and villages. Castles stop 5 enemy units from attacking, which causes a lot of interesting interactions. First of all, you literally have to have 6 units in range to take a castle, which I love. It really helps defenders control more territory through actual defense. It also drastically reduces the amount of times you have to use the battlecalculator.

Villages are interesting two. Especially between Russia and Poland, the early turns have a lot of thought put into taking villages and using them up before my enemy can. I plan to add more villages and make significant changes to the unit set up after more feedback

[CrazyG]

Some planned territory changes. Hepps has expressed interest in assisting me in making this map less ugly.

Swedish coast- I want to extend the coastal zone (light blue) so it meets the northern sea zone.

Southern Turkish coast- Combine these two sea zones.

Southern France- combine the two red territories into a single territory. Combine the two orange ones.

Spanish coast- extend the coastal zone so it meets the northern sea zone. However, it shouldn't connect to that small land territory.

Northern France- extend this coast so that it touches this territory.

Netherlands- I already drew the changes. Extend the coast so it borders the southern most territory of the Netherlands. Slightly redraw so that the Western most territory of Belgium no longer borders the Netherlands.

French-Belgian Border- Make this territory larger, so that it bordered the Belgian coast, while the French coastal territory no longer bordered inland Belgium.

This has the four changes within France highlighted, including the two already mentioned. Two new territories in inland France. I have tested a German-French war briefly, currently France can create a strong 4 territory line and hold it easily. I'm confident that adding these two territories will create more a dynamic movement situation.

The Baltic Sea- I want the coastal zone in the South to border the sea zone in the East. I did it in the picture by moving the dividing line.

[Hepps]

@crazyg Ok the process has begun.

Here is a look at how the base tiles shall change....

BEFORE

AFTER

Then after the fact... this will allow for more freedom to make the relief tiles much much better.

[General_Zod]

@crazyg I haven't played yet. But this map is so large, it is saying to me. Need faster units. So some suggestions are.

1. Make all foot soldiers 2 movement.

2. If 2 movement is too much for you. Maybe add horse pulled wagons for foot soldiers which allow them the 2 movement.

3. Make all cavalry at 3 movement.

4. If all cavalry at 3 is too much maybe consider adding a new light cavalry unit which moves at 3. Or make the horsemen, light cavalry, thus moving at 3.

5. Artillery might need a horse drawn version too if you make any increases.

6. On a side note, this would be a great size for a trains maps.

[CrazyG]

@Hepps
Looks much better already. Feel free to change the shapes of the territories as well so long as the connections remain the same.

@General_Zod

1. I tried this, its weird.
2. I would need art
3. I'm fine with testing light cavalry as a 3 move unit. However its really, really powerful in areas like Russia
4. See above
5. Art. I could borrow art from like Napeoleonic Empires but it wouldn't match. The current art is taken from age of tribes, I'd only add horse artillery if there was an option in that style
6. One day I will publish more scenarios for it

[General_Zod]

@crazyg Maybe someone can give you more units in that style if they not too busy.

Light cavalry would still be expensive, (compared to foot) fast but weaker in general, so Russia and others would not simply mass them. And expect good results, I would think. Ah, I see your cost of cavalry is only 3 more than pike or crossbow. That would have to increase if you did it.

I guess once we play it. You will get more feedback.

[Cernel]

@crazyg Wanted to add that, if this is the early XVII century, Ottomans should have Rhodes and almost all of Crete (Venice holding only on some small outposts), while the Venetians may have the Peloponnese (until 1715).

The one I feel the strongest amongst the renamings I proposed is surely renaming the knights.