And if the sea mine perks your interest.... wait until you see how I am handling Naval Bombardment and Coastal Batteries!
True north strong and free
Posts made by Hepps
RE: Global Dominance
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.
RE: Global Dominance
@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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
RE: Iron War - Official Thread
@Frostion If you look at the comparative cost between a Tank Destroyer or an infantry (with their combat values) and an A.A. Gun.... then it should be immediately obvious that there is a valuation issue with the A.A. Gun. Never mind comparing it against a fighter that has a world more combat value and the ability to move quickly between theaters. You are buying them against one another nearly at par.
The one and only advantage it provides is a piss poor 10% chance of registering a hit... then it is simply fodder. To be a viable unit one of three things need to happen: 1 ) it has to have some other role outside of its A.A. ability... 2) or it has to perform dramatically better in its defined role.... or 3) the cost has to played with.
EDIT Obviously the solution could also be a combination of the three things to differing degrees.
RE: Total World War (TWW) 22.214.171.124
@redrum Ok. So if you are learning and want the most broadly accepted standard settings...
National Tech Advancements On
War vs Neutral Only On
LL seems the preferred setting for most players, though truth be told it was designed for dice.
Notifications are generally off as it was really just done for flair... doesn't really matter either way as they are simply aesthetic and don't affect game-play what-so-ever
The choices in the map options are really personal preference...
Select AA casualties is really matter of how much you like randomness since bombing runs can be really premeditated if you get to select your own casualties.
Scramble to any amphibious assault is also just a preference. Once you start playing it really doesn't matter since both sides have to work with the setting.
RE: Total World War (TWW) 126.96.36.199
@Hepps Thanks for all the responses and that helps to understand some of the mechanics as well as your reasoning behind them. And I totally get that after you play a few full games, more things become second nature (just hard to get folks to that point). Looking forward to your setting recommendations and what you see as most popular (I'd be willing to help to help edit the manual to add those in if you want).
Adding it to the manual is easy. No issue there.
Couple of Follow Up Questions
- Did you market/advertise/spread the word around TWW much? I'm guessing folks in the lobby and old dev forum knew about it but beyond that? It could almost be considered a standalone game itself given the quality and depth. I noticed you made a few posts on the old forum under 'L & H Studios' was that just a username or were you looking to create a company around it?
We never did anything other than using the forum and launching games in the lobby. We figured most players would try it based on seeing active games in the lobby and see the merits of the concept... hoping that a core group of players with a deep understanding of gameplay would eventually "pressure" others into learning.
L&H Studios was just for fun. If we had gone into some commercial pursuits we'd probably have used it to create a partnership (discussed at one time). But mostly it was just me being an insomniac.
- At least at a high level, I would be interested in making a 'light' version that's potentially somewhat AI compatible. While there are a number of things higher on my list of TODOs, is it something you would be open to myself or others doing? My thought is essentially use the map, unit set, terrain effects, and nation setup then strip out construction system, research, L&L, Politics (these are the things are very unique and more trigger based).
TWW is as open concept as any other map here... if you want to make a lite version... knock yourself out. I personally think its waste of time making yet another No Name generic vanilla flavour map, since we have 50 or so of those here already that rarely get played... but again... if you have interest... beat it to death like a cheap hooker.
- Theoretical: If you say had a couple of months to change/add/remove things from TWW what would you do? Or if say someone came a long and wanted to 'work for you' to further its vision while you gave them direction.
I am always open to seeing it progress... I am just fully immersed in GD. I put GD aside initially to collaborate on TWW with the understanding we'd develop GD after TWW was complete. Since that never happened I am now 100% about GD. While I love the idea of flushing a few things out that never really came completely together to my satisfaction in TWW... I am simply done with making it a focus for myself until GD is the game to end all other turn-based games. GD has been 25 years in the making... I'm done with distractions and diversions.
- Do you do PBF/PBEM? If so then I'd definitely be open to a game. I don't really play live games much as I don't have the continuous time (often end up with 30 mins here and there rather than a few hours to focus) and play very slowly especially when learning a new map. Otherwise if you know of any folks that do play it as PBF/PBEM that would be helpful as well.
As you can see from a response I already posted... no. I'd rather play a half hour at a time live than by any other method. Just the way I'm wired... I like the chat and the banter since it recons back to a time when I sat with friends around a board and flung verbal poo at each other like really sophisticated monkeys over a "couple" of beers. Alas they are all much too cool and important now (or at least their wives are) to "waste" time doing something we all love. So it's lobby play for me. If I wanted to have a 1 sided experience... I'd spend time with my wife.