Global Dominance


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @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.


  • Moderators

    @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.
    0_1496857639579_20170607_Global_Dominance_suggestion.png
    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).


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @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


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    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.

    0_1496943299973_Eastern Front setup Lenningrad example.png

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


  • Moderators

    @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


  • Admin

    @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).


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @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


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @redrum Yah the map details and relief layer are still in the works down the road. But by the end of the process the beige colour will be slightly transparent and the edging will have a fade out effect.


  • Moderators

    @Hepps said in Global Dominance:

    @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

    I've used your Long_range from there for the latest world_at_war:
    0_1497333181033_L.Fighter.png


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    And here is the final Infantry unit.

    0_1497376168348_German Waffen SS example.png


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    And here is the resource make up for the game...

    0_1497376799156_Resource List.png

    Beyond that there are a couple of other things that will be fixed settings within the game...

    1. This will be exclusively a DICE game based on how the units are designed and interact.

    2. All air combat is separated from ground combat. Air providing a supporting role in ground warfare once air combat is resolved.

    3. Combat rounds will be limited to 3 volleys per side.

    4. Resources will be tradable. (All except MP)

    5. Global diplomacy system for 20 neutral nations. (Entirely new system)

    6. Dynamic unit production systems. (Changed from TWW)

    7. Expanded R&D tech tree. (Changed from TWW)

    8. Redesigned terrain modifiers. (Changed from TWW)

    9. New Convoy system for movement and resource acquisition.

    10. Seasonal events altering movement and combat. (If I can make it work as envisioned)


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @Hepps WOW!


  • Admin

    @Hepps I'm intrigued. Out of curiosity how similar to you see this being to TWW and what things will be fairly similar vs drastically different?

    Also if there are specific systems that don't work quite as you'd like then please let me know so we can consider enhancing them. I know you are considering using fuel for movement and fixing that system is already on the list somewhere 🙂


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @redrum Overall it retains, in spirit, a wide number of things from TWW. However, most everything is altered in some way...

    Examples include...

    1. The "is destroyer" function is completely eliminated from the game. There will be no way to stop subs from submerging at any point in the game ever. Instead specific surface units will excel at sub hunting as the game progresses.

    2. Far more units have the ability to strike other specific units during battles. Similar to how AT Guns functioned in TWW. Now units such as tanks will have the opportunity to strike other armoured vehicles (units with higher combat values) prior to being forced to have their attacks simply gobbled up with Inf. fodder. This will be for both Att. & Def. units and is present in all land, sea & air units.

    3. In the Tech tree things have been retained but also altered... such as the Special Warfare tech branch is retained... except that in GD all Infantry units will be capable of doing an amphibious assaults from the outset of the game. (Whether sending them on an amphibious assault is in your best interest is a completely different matter)

    4. While terrain will remain a major factor in combat values, some aspects have been changed based on what we found in TWW. Such as the Coastal terrain has been changed and its effects are altered dramatically to reduce its impact where it made little to no sense.

    5. Defensive structures still provide support but have no defensive rolls of their own and can be captured.

    As far as things that would be ideal for this MOD that don't function as I would wish...

    1. Intercepting ability being governed by airfield. Set up exactly as scrambling is done.

    2. Submerge capability for land units.

    3. A simplified property or unit attachment that specifies "allows/permits unit to move"

    4. The creation of a "When damaged turns into" feature.

    5. Multiple relief layers within a map.

    Not sure what else... I shall think on it.


  • Admin

    @Hepps Thanks for the insight. I guess that means I should give TWW a real go as I've downloaded it a number of times over the years but never had time to power through more than a few turns. Do you still see a decent following around TWW?

    Good suggestions on things to improve/add:
    1/2/4. Makes sense and are pretty straightforward.
    #3. Can you provide an example of how you are looking to use this?
    #5. I know very little on how the map images actually work so no clue on how difficult this would be.


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @redrum said in Global Dominance:

    @Hepps Thanks for the insight. I guess that means I should give TWW a real go as I've downloaded it a number of times over the years but never had time to power through more than a few turns. Do you still see a decent following around TWW?

    You should have long since tried it. 🙂 Just come on the lobby anytime and gimme a slap. People still play regularly... but since all the big swinging *icks in the lobby never took to it... it is a cult following for live play. Just remember it cannot be played by the AI. So a human opponent is 100% required. Also, if you are going to play it.... do yourself a favour and read the game manual.... it is a PDF inside the map folder.

    Good suggestions on things to improve/add:
    1/2/4. Makes sense and are pretty straightforward.

    I figure if I just keep saying the same suggestions in every thread I can find where it is applicable... sooner or later you'll be forced to code them. 😉 I am adopting the Shawshank Redemption tactic... I shall make a suggestion each week until you cave.... then I shall start making two a week. 🙂

    1. Can you provide an example of how you are looking to use this?

    0_1497398808240_Rail and train.png

    So the idea is to have the ability to design a unit ( the rail in this example) that would allow a unit (train in this example) to move in and out of the territory. If there is no (functional) rail then the unit would not be capable of moving into or out of the territory.

    The xml might look something like this...

    <attatchment name="unitAttatchment" attatchTo="germanrail" javaClass="games.strategy.triplea.attatchments.UnitAttachment" type="unitType">
    <option name="isInfrastructure" value="true"/>
    <option name="movement" value="0"/>
    <option name="attack" value="0"/>
    <option name="defense" value="0"/>
    <option name="canBeDamaged" value="true"/>
    <option name="maxDamage" value="4"/>
    <option name="maxOperationalDamage" value="2"/>
    <option name="canDieFromReachingMaxDamage" value="false"/>
    <option name="isConstruction" value="true"/>
    <option name="constructionType" value="rail"/>
    <option name="constructionsPerTerrPerTypePerTurn" value="1"/>
    <option name="maxConstructionsPerTypePerTerr" value="99"/>
    <option name="requiresUnits" value="germanCombatEngineer"/>
    <option name="consumesUnits" value="1:Material"/>
    <option name="allowsmovement" value="99:germantrain"/>

    1. I know very little on how the map images actually work so no clue on how difficult this would be.

    Thought I'd ask.... since this would allow a map-maker to create more visual interest while also allowing players to achieve a minimalist style should they desire it.


  • Moderators

    @Hepps
    What are you thinking for trains? Landtransport, airtransport, or other? All of the current implementations have limits, I'm surprised to see something about that didn't make your list


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    @CrazyG Well Redrum asked about what would be helpful to get this MOD working to my desired satisfaction... for that reason I tried to keep my list to things I imagine are not overly difficult to code into the engine.

    While changing the way land transport functions would be tremendous.... it seems to me over the years that changing it means a major overhaul of the engine as I remember Veq saying it touched so many different things in the code. On the other hand, if we can implement something like "allowsmovement" (which I imagine could be added much more easily), then I can make trains a simple land transport unit. While it still means they can only carry 1 unit at a time, I can make that work by giving the train increased range. But without a way to restrict trains to only territories with rail... trains become a... err... train wreck. 🙂


  • Donators Moderators Admin

    Just for a little perspective...

    Phew... just finished the North & South Atlantic Oceans....

    362 sea zones (not including any in-land lakes, Seas or waterways)
    61 shipping lanes

    Now onto the Indian Ocean and the vast expanses of the Pacific.



  • @Hepps Congrats on another milestone. I am more excited to try this game than I was TWW. Beautiful map and great concepts. ....'crossing fingers that it plays well'. Good luck.


Log in to reply