Global Dominance

[prastle]

@Zim-Xero I guess i really refer to the scorched earth policy of Russia and her partisans. Realistically tho France was same with the resistance. Jmho. Thus Hepps idea of the dying troop
or partisan perhaps?

[Hepps]

@Cernel This didn't make the cut for my game... but I thought I'd post here just for you...

The dreaded Panzer Radfahrer

[Cernel]

Thanks...

That's kinda cute, but it keeps remembering me that I would wish the version without the flag always be provided in the folders (or here, in this case); having the flag in the image makes it a bit annoying to re-use, by surging it out.

I'm not actually sure if I would have a bicycle_infantry in WWII. And I would be doubtful about the stats.

There is also the volkssturm with that bicycle with the couple panzerfausts:

It would be really good if someone would make a full set of bicycle_infantry and horse_cavalry for the common main players of WWII, as TripleA is sorely lacking in good images variety there.

[Hepps]

@Cernel I put the roundel in just to irk you.

Here you go...

[Hepps]

So here is another little peek at the map setup.

If you look very closely you will see the Nordic Air Wing of the Küstenfliegergruppe 206 using its He 115 naval bombers to mine the Arctic passage.

[Frostion]

@Hepps
Looks better and better all the time. Just a couple questions: What is the light blue german sea mine unit seen inland in Finland? And what does the A and E mean when it is beside the anchor?

PS: I noticed your new map logo on the original post. It looks nice, but have you tried to make a version where the white text is dark brown or some dark brown texture? Maybe it would make it even better looking, maybe not

[Hepps]

@Frostion Thanks. Progress is plodding along nicely.

To your questions...

A) Because sea mines represent a powerful tool to slow the movement of navies... I have designed them (the actual Sea Mines) as a unit that consumes a prerequisite unit called "munition" (the blue circle you see on the map). So it means that (in this case) the Naval bomber has to carry the "munition" to its intended drop point and then the player would have to purchase the actual mine for the SZ during his purchase and placement phase. All of the Mine capable units; Naval Bomber, the Frigate and the Submarine can lay mines.... but they to need to have a munition. I designed it this way because I didn't want the sea units to be able to just lay sea mines every turn willy-nilly all over the map. By adding the munition unit...it achieved 3 things...

1. It means the subs and Frigates have to position themselves in a SZ adjacent to a Naval base before a Munition will automatically generate. For the Naval Bomber it has to be in a terr. with an Airfield.

2. Because the munition is a non combat move only unit. It means that if you are using either of the naval units for mining purposes (or the Naval Bomber) you cannot use them in attacks for that turn because they have to use their movement to get into position to lay the mine.

3. It means that once at sea they cannot just continue to spam mines... they would need to return to a naval base before they can lay another mine.

This allows me to retain some control over the process. Otherwise it would just become an epidemic of mine spamming based on how I have designed the sea mine unit. This control mechanism is of huge importance to the game design because the Shipping Lanes are of huge significance to game-play.... so I don't want... say Germany... to be able to park a sub in the middle of the Atlantic and just pump out mines continuously without having to return to the main land.

B) Because Ports govern the ability for certain units to load/unload as well as other things... I needed a way to define what SZ the port on land is connected to. So each port is designed to be specific. That way I can control what SZ is capable of allowing the functions for each port.

Just drew the logo yesterday... first draft. After looking a the IW threads I needed to come up with something to compete.

[Frostion]

@Hepps
Clever system for mine laying. I would probably just have made very weak mines that a minelayer unit just auto-generated each turn ... hehe. Not very sophisticated I guess.

If it is any help, I have used two websites when making text graphics for my maps. Both small mini text pictures for land territory names like in Dragon War, and also the map logos. After making transparent huge pictures on the website I have fooled around with visual effects of my own and some minor color adjustments, maybe some shadow. I think it is important to have the text somehow match the looks of the rest of the map and the units. Good luck

Iron War text is from this website:
http://www.picturetopeople.org/text_generator/others/3d/realistic/3d_metallic_text_effect.html#metallic034

Dragon War text is from here:
https://cooltext.com/

[Hepps]

@Frostion said in Global Dominance:

@Hepps
Clever system for mine laying. I would probably just have made very weak mines that a minelayer unit just auto-generated each turn ... hehe. Not very sophisticated I guess.

Well originally that was my plan... but after some tests it became apparent that (similar to other games with mines) the sea mines became a huge issue.

I hate spamming... and more so when it involves something that can be used as a blocker unit.

I also hate seeing units do multiple actions in the same turn. Like attacking... then retreating... then laying a mine to protect your new defensive position.

I also don't want to include a new unit that is really just an annoyance and that is fairly useless from a functional standpoint. If I am including mines they need to add value to the game.

[Hepps]

And if the sea mine perks your interest.... wait until you see how I am handling Naval Bombardment and Coastal Batteries!

[Hepps]

And here is a view of part of the new Tech Tree. This is just the Ground Warfare portion. Tech development still includes all 4 of the development categories (Ground, Air, Naval & Production). However, for those of you who might be familiar with the tree from TWW, the Tech Development has undergone some changes. The Ground warfare category has expanded from 10 options to 16 available options. Similarly, the total number of R&D options has increased from 45 to 65. This has been done for 3 reasons...

1. to reflect some of the changes to the mechanics of the game.

2. to increase the breadth of available choices to include new units.

3. to balance the strength of some techs comparative to others.

   

@Redrum I drew in the pop up menus just to inspire you.

[prastle]

@Hepps Wow! Guess ill be buying more legal paper for the printer

[Hepps]

@prastle LOL.

[redrum]

@Hepps Seems like a good start to the tech tree and it would be cool to have a way to easily see what nations had which techs while browsing the theoretical in game tech tree

Couple of questions:

1. Are you going to consider giving nations more than 1 starting tech each, given that there are now more to research? I personally like in TWW having starting techs for each major nation.
2. Do you see Global Dominance lasting more average rounds than TWW? I mainly ask as if you have more techs then you kind of end up needing more time to research the same percentage of them.
3. Have you considered making the tech tree have more tiers? I personally think having enough options at any one time is important but also having more tiers requires more planning to get those strong techs.
4. It seems like at least this ground tree is a little more 'standardized' vs less 'varied' in terms of number of prerequisites and dead ends. I think I personally prefer more 'variety' and having some paths dead end at tier 2, some paths be very fast to get to tier 3, and some paths having lots of prerequisites techs. Then balancing those in different ways to promote short term vs long term gain. Just something to think about.

[Hepps]

@redrum said in Global Dominance:

@Hepps Seems like a good start to the tech tree and it would be cool to have a way to easily see what nations had which techs while browsing the theoretical in game tech tree

Yes it would.

Couple of questions:

1. Are you going to consider giving nations more than 1 starting tech each, given that there are now more to research? I personally like in TWW having starting techs for each major nation.

Yes different nations will start the game with National Tech Advancements.

2. Do you see Global Dominance lasting more average rounds than TWW? I mainly ask as if you have more techs then you kind of end up needing more time to research the same percentage of them.

That is a question that has a multifaceted answer...

A) Yes there are a number of design elements that mean GD should be a longer game than TWW.

B) I have changed how Research Centres (RC) operate... you may now build up to 4 of them (vs 3 in TWW) per Major Belligerent and all Minor Belligerents may build 1. The RC now only produce 2 Research Units (RU) per turn... meaning that while each Major Belligerent is down 1 "token" per turn (at max RC) vs TWW, they now also have the Minors with the opportunity to contribute. So for example, if played right... Germany goes from a total of 9 "Tokens" max per turn in TWW... to now having the potential to go to 14 RU per turn. Additionally I am designing GD so that you can pursue multiple Research paths simultaneously. And finally you can earn additional RU per turn via Techs. So in some circumstances things are going to heat up quickly.

C) There are already some Techs that are easier or harder to achieve if you look at how it works...Just in this first Ground Branch of the tree... look at the different # of techs you have to achieve as prerequisites to achieve the Tier 3 techs...

D) Given that there are 65 techs in total that means I think there should now be a good balance between variety and pace... because with the new system... even if you get 2 per turn... the game still has to go 33 rounds before you are completely through all the techs.

3. Have you considered making the tech tree have more tiers? I personally think having enough options at any one time is important but also having more tiers requires more planning to get those strong techs.

Given how many options there already are... I have not considered adding more tiers. There is already a good amount of challenge to getting through to Tier 3 techs since often you have to change your paths to compete with a nation that might be pursuing a different branch that means your forces will be overwhelmed if you don't react with counter measures.

4. It seems like at least this ground tree is a little more 'standardized' vs less 'varied' in terms of number of prerequisites and dead ends. I think I personally prefer more 'variety' and having some paths dead end at tier 2, some paths be very fast to get to tier 3, and some paths having lots of prerequisites techs. Then balancing those in different ways to promote short term vs long term gain. Just something to think about.

See above. The Tier 3 Techs have been arranged with their power and the number of prerequisites needed taken into consideration. If you have specific ideas or thoughts... pm me or gimme a slap on the lobby. We can discuss.

[Hepps]

@redrum said in Global Dominance:

4. It seems like at least this ground tree is a little more 'standardized' vs less 'varied' in terms of number of prerequisites and dead ends. I think I personally prefer more 'variety' and having some paths dead end at tier 2, some paths be very fast to get to tier 3, and some paths having lots of prerequisites techs. Then balancing those in different ways to promote short term vs long term gain. Just something to think about.

After considering what you said I came up with an idea to foster motivation to pursue multiple Tech Tree's simultaneously.

This would make the most powerful Tier 3 Techs require a Tier 2 prerequisite from another Tech Tree.

What do you think?

[redrum]

@Hepps I like the idea. From a graphical standpoint, I actually think bringing the 4 separate trees into a single tree that just has dividers between the category sections and then a few prerequisites crossing over would be good.

[Hepps]

@redrum The different branches of the tree will be on one big chart once they are all complete... which will almost 100% be by later this evening.

[redrum]

@Hepps Excellent. I'm looking forward to checking it out

[Hepps]

@redrum Techs are all done!

Fresh off the desk of General Hepster.