Global Dominance

[Hepps]

Here is another little peek at a section of the unit chart...

More to come.

[Hepps]

And another tantalizing morsel....

[prastle]

@Hepps jesus civil unrest ... escort carriers from trannies? omw

[Hepps]

@prastle omw?

Is that supposed to mean oh my word?

[prastle]

@Hepps yup exciting stuff

[Hepps]

@prastle

I wanted civil unrest as a method to achieve 2 goals from a design stand-point...

1. Reduce the financial gains of back and fourth terr. exchanges. This means that real progress for a nation will only be measured in its ability to maintain a sustained offensive. Similarly, pursuing a back and fourth strategy will also cost warring factions more the longer a war of attrition and constant terr. exchanges continues.

2. To give the game a greater feel for the devastation inflicted upon a region when it is the battleground between two armies. In current games there is absolutely no negative effects to either side of a conflict when a territory is or has been the frontline of the war. As though the moment the guns stop, people immediately go back to work in factories or tending fields. Or that invading armies do not pillage the countryside they just captured.

Escort Carriers have always been an addition I have wanted... however, with this game design I really wanted to add in an ad-hock unit that would fill the gap for navies since Capital Ships will have much longer build times. So I made these as a conversion unit ONLY to enable navies to get some air support at the cost of maintaining supply lines or ability to invade.

[prastle]

@Hepps both great ideas like it!

[Hepps]

@prastle Then you should like this one as well...

[prastle]

@Hepps yes I always liked the sub pens in the old xeno expansion.

[Hepps]

And here is a peek at how the Political landscape shall be dealt with...

"This is a throw down, a showdown, hell no, I can't slow down
It's gonna go down, first offense on the mix down, go on and break down
Okay, party people in the house, may I have your attention, please?"
Maestro Fresh Wes

[redrum]

@Hepps Looks cool. Though I guess friendly nations shave their eyebrows

[Hepps]

@redrum LOL. No brows... same when they join a defensive pact... just a big smile.

[Frostion]

Nice looking. It reminds me of the commander rank ssystem I made on the star trek map. Are these "thumbs-ups" something you get by investing money or some other resource?

[Hepps]

@Frostion Sorry I still haven't downloaded Dillithium Wars so I honestly can't say how similar the concepts are. (Not much of a Treky)

I developed this system after we tested using politics with TWW. In TWW we found it problematic at best based on how we had incorporated the existing diplomacy structure into the game. It was simply to immediate and there was no ability to counter your opponent in the diplomatic arena before it caused massive shifts in gameplay. I want something that takes effort and can be achieved but at the same time is expensive and can be countered by your opponent. In short I don't want neutrals to change the sway of a game in 1 or even 2 turns... if you are going for neutrals it is going to be in stiff competition with what you need on the battlefield.

This design is meant to have 'a game within a game'

The idea is that there are only 3 purchasable units in the diplomatic field. All Diplomacy units cost both PU (Production Unit) and PI (Political Influence) resources of differing amounts with Treaties being the most expensive.

Diplomat 1/2/1
Spy 3/1/1 Supports Diplomat +1 Def.
Treaty allows you to develop stronger ties with a nation up to Alliance.

Diplomats are moved into a Neutral nations Political Territory (Labelled Political Action) If the territory is empty and the country is void of any support for an enemy (thumbs up icons) the Diplomat will automatically generate 1 support (Thumbs up Icon) each turn. If the territory had already been pursued and there was national support for your enemy within the country, then the Diplomat will reduce support by 1 each turn until the country is returned to pure neutral. At that point it will begin generating 1 support each turn for your own nation. Each Nation may only have one Diplomat in a neutral nations Political Action Territory. However Allies of yours may also move a single Diplomat into the terr. with you.

The Spy unit is superior for attacking Diplomats of the opposition when they enter a Political Action territory of a Neutral Nation being pursued by your enemy. Similar to the Diplomat you may only have 1 Spy in a Political Action territory of any given nation but allies can also move 1 in just the same. Spies will also give a +1 def. bonus to Diplomats of your own side. Lastly, a spy will also assist a Diplomat in if they are in an uncontested Political Action Territory for a Neutral Nation. Either adding an additional support for you... or removing an additional support of the opposition, each turn. However a Diplomat must be present.

Treaties can be purchased once you have gained enough support within a nations Diplomatic Attitude section. Each Treaty allows you to continue to gain support in the subsequent Diplomatic Attitude section. Once you have all the support slots filled in each section you must purchase a Treaty in order to continue gaining support in the subsequent section.

The steps are...

Neutral Impassable
Friendly Impassable
Open Borders Units can move freely into neutral Territory
Defence Pact No change
Alliance Nation joins your side

You may also declare war on a neutral nation providing you have a completely neutral stance towards them. The cost in PI for this shall be high.

[Cernel]

@Hepps
I strongly suggest always to avoid crossed borders or drawing looking like crossed borders, unless between no more than two each of land territories or sea zones.
For example, in this case, it makes not clear if all 3 land territories connect with each other and, in general, I think it is not realistic having infinitesimal points as borders (probably not the case here), between territories being both land or both sea.

My take here, actually, is that there is not a crossed border, and all three land territories are indeed connected with each other, as there is a substantial line between the sea and the territory not touching that sea zone, but I'm mostly saying that it would be nicer if is clearer.
Sadly, I've a cople of cases in my MEAD too, since they seemed clear enough before making the relief, but not so clear after them, and I don't want to remake them...
You can see an example of a similar case in World War II Global, for the Central America, Colombia, Venezuela, 89 Sea Zone territories.
I suggest always avoiding such a drawing, in this case not having an infinitesimal point setting apart Central America from Venezuela. Since there is exactly 0 distance between Central America and Venezuela, it makes no sense that I need to go back and forth in two moves, having to pass through Colombia, unless the distance between Central America and Venezuela is not 0, but, in this case, then, Colombia should connect to 89 Sea Zone.
On the other hand, I believe cases like Venezuela, British Guiana, 88 Sea Zone, 89 Sea Zone are fine, because it is a case of two adjacent land territories beside two adjacent sea zones, which I believe is clear enough, and meaningful.
In cases like Global, I think I would actually allow moving from Central America to Venezuela, but not from Colombia to 89 Sea Zone, as this is what would be realistic the most, in my mind, but main suggestion is just avoiding such territory drawings.
Again, in your image, I'm really not sure, but I believe it is not a case of crossed borders, just of a border being very small; anyways, suggestion is still avoiding having too small borders that might look like points. For example, in World At War, I've widened the border between 55 Sea Zone and Palestine, to make unmistakably clear that they are indeed connected (not that clear in the old WAW, as well as many other cases). Alternatively, it would be also fine to have small borders, but having no crossed borders at all, and stating it in notes, so everyone knows that such cases must be actual borders granting connection (this is what I intend to do in my MEAD, since after the relief I have some small borders, and I don't want to remake the relief).

[Hepps]

@Cernel Yah its a bit more obvious that it is a land connection at 100% resolution. Looks more deceiving than it actually is in the shrunken image... but it could stand to be even more obvious. Thanks

[Hepps]

Here is another little teaser... this time a view of the eastern front. Looking at the desperate situation for poor Stalin in the area around Leningrad.

More to come as I get all the starting unit placements worked out.

[Cernel]

@Hepps Can you provide all light mortar units without the flags for anyone else to use? I think having a mortar unit is an interesting concept; in particular, the Japanese should have a high ratio of those units, to represent the Type 89 Grenade Discharger. But I'd say the same thing for a bunch of other stuff you are making (I know you already said that most is imported from TWW, and you don't have the basic images of those).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_89_grenade_discharger

[redrum]

@Hepps Looks pretty good. Wondering if you'd consider lightly shading territories based on ownership (gray and red in this case). Just thinking at a glance it would be easier to see ownership (also lots of folks like to have the sense of 'painting' the map their nation's color).

[Hepps]

@Cernel The infantry unit was designed a while ago. You can find copies of it on the old forum.

http://tripleadev.1671093.n2.nabble.com/A-few-scratches-I-was-putting-together-tp5804645.html