Global Dominance

[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.

[redrum]

@Hepps I like it but you really need a Churchill cigar in the top corner! Also where is the rest of it?!?

[Frostion]

I also like. I think there are some things to improve. You map logo text / the text at the top of the paper. It kind of looks like the logo of a nightclub or Miami Vice TV series. It should rather be made in a darker colour and look less clean. Maybe like something that looks like it is stamped or printed, so it would fit on any background where you needed it.

Also, the paper seems a bit to clean and perfect. It would improve the look if you could have some worn and dirty edges. Like on this picture: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/0b/73/d3/0b73d35fe90fe49db7b514800f5aeeda--old-paper-texture-old-paper-background.jpg

Also, it would be cool with som shadows on the table. Like if everything in the table made the same shadow from the same light source. I think this is possible to make with GIMP drop shadow or something similar.

[Frostion]

If you are using "fonts" when making the logo text, maybe some army looking fonts: http://hans.presto.tripod.com/fonts/stencil2.html

[prastle]

@Frostion im still trying to find the pages underneath

[Hepps]

@Frostion I was wanting a bit of a different look this time around... since the Art Deco movement was still quite strong in this time period I am choosing to use that as the theme from a font stance.

[Hepps]

@Frostion I did this look just for the thread. The table was really just for effect here for this post. I could do the shadows... but I've got beer to drink as well you know. After all it is the weekend.

[Hepps]

@redrum Churhill may have smoked a cigar... but this is from the desk of General Hepps... General Hepps was smoking a Du Maurier... so its a lit cigarette on his desk!

[Frostion]

Now that we are talking drinking, cigars and old tables. How about if the papers got some coffee spil effects? Like the round mark of a coffee cup?

[Hepps]

@Frostion Perhaps in the long run.... but for now I am on a gin phase. That and I just want to get everything done.

[Hepps]

The artistic additions will be made after the game is complete and changes have been made

[Cernel]

@Hepps said in Global Dominance:

@Cernel Either way lets not change this behavior... it creates all kinds of possibilities and makes the engine more versatile. Besides the issue of giving a Carrier unlimited capacity is easily accommodated by playing around with the carrier capacity and the unit capacity cost (as already mentioned).

Instead of looking at it as bug we should simply add a clear explanation to the POS2 XML.

Just a notice, this is the Issue that, if done, would allow to support launching ships properly (and more), without turning the keel into a seaplane, sort of, if you want to go there and give a thumb up:
https://github.com/triplea-game/triplea/issues/461

I've actually some concerns about this carrier cost 0 thing, but haven't tested so far. Also, of course, this won't by itself disallow hulls from flying from territory to territory (I guess you intend it to be user enforced or enforce it via canals or territory effects).