The Great War, new gameplay and advices needed

[iancanton]

if we add Ireland (and Wales) to United kingdom then Egypt could be neutral. and it brings bonus for everybody who holds it because Alexandria (town) + Egypt (its region). please lets make any decision

sounds good.

however, it is still too quick and easy to move troops from london to malta to alexandria. i propose that we add a killer neutral sea region beside london, called one-way route to malta, just like the other sea regions, except that only london can attack it.

ok, but I would rather add this Sea near Malta. so London one way attacks that Sea region and Malta will be connected with this Sea region by route. ?

agreed.

if we have only 2 non-neutral united kingdom regions and someone starts with both scotland and england, then this is a big advantage because london and edinburgh are relatively safe corner bonuses from which reinforcements can be sent to malta. having 3 united kingdom regions means that a player is likely to have to fight to gain london and edinburgh.

ok. just United Kingdom will have only 1 town (so only one bonus for "town and its region").

yes, that's correct. in fact, if egypt is neutral, then the british empire needs to be scotland, england, wales, ireland, london, edinburgh and malta.

in stage 2, we need to add a mediterranean task force fleet region beside london, plus either scotland or ireland, to slow down the completion of the powerful british empire corner bonus.

yes, similar as Sea regon in stage2. but I am not sure with Ireland or Scotland. do not forget that in stage2 player will holds only capital. and no bonus, just +1 autodeploy in capital. I do not think it will be so easy to take all United Kingdon in stage2. all the more if we add fleet near Malta, so London can not attacks Malta directly. and yes, Great Britain is in the corner, but it also means that player will has harder way to Europe.

it's true that the london player cannot expand easily. however, when one player goes to stage 2, most of the others are likely to follow immediately because they suddenly lose all of their stage 1 bonuses. the most likely surprise win by objective is for an entente player to take all 4 central capitals because it's difficult to attack both london and petrograd in the same turn.

remove minsk to reduce the russian empire total bonus, since the russian empire is a corner power.

then better to remove Moscow (in map1). Minsk is train station, while Moscow has no role in map1.

accepted. let minsk be part of russia, to bring russia closer to the action? if u do this, then rename the western part of west russia, which currently has a very strange shape, as baltic provinces.

make ukraine much smaller so that sevastopol visibly becomes part of russia (sevastopol was not part of ukraine)? this brings russia closer to the ottoman empire.

remove bohemia and merge it into austria, so that the austria-hungary player has a chance of defending his bonus.

I am not sure with this. it is not harder to secure Austro-Hungaria as secure Germany. and Bohamia is also there because Berlin and Vienna are not so close.

alternatively, put mountains between bohemia and germany, which increases the distance between berlin and vienna as well as letting austria-hungary defend more easily? remove krakow? remove the railway between budapest and belgrade? anything else to reduce the difficulty and size of this bonus? austria-hungary is probably the second-hardest bonus because of the number of regions, number of borders and central location. the central location means it will be unpopular in multi-player games, so it needs to be an average or easy bonus, not one of the most difficult. as thematic justification for an easier bonus, austria-hungary had a weak army and was not heavily-industrialised, in contrast to germany.

in escalating games, it's possible for one person to remain in stage 1 when everyone else has gone to stage 2, so that his opponents cannot kill him. he simply lets everyone else break enemy bonuses while the value of spoils continues to increase. finally, he breaks through to stage 2 and kills one player, which allows him to cash spoils and kill repeatedly to win the game in one turn. is it part of the design of the map to allow this strategy or do u want to stop this from happening?

ian.

[Lord Arioch]

Lovly work man! Finish it and then we hit up on Yggdrasil:)

[Seamus Corrigan]

I love the clean, slightly retro look to this map. It needs to be made!

[Oneyed]

thank you guys for your kind words.

ian, sorry for delay, I have some rl things to finish. I need larger flat.

Oneyed

[iancanton]

take ur time, oneyed, even artists need to find somewhere to live!

ian.

[Dukasaur]

A month since the last post?

Come on guys, this is the single most important map in development right now.

[waauw]

for some reason clicking on "enlarge picture" doesn't work on this map
I can't see the map in decent size

[iancanton]

this is because it fits the small map standard maximum width of 630 pixels. oneyed has not yet made the large map.

ian.

[riskllama]

oh my heavens! it does look interesting. here, have a ribbon candy...

[Oneyed]

....

[iancanton]

in escalating games, it's possible for one person to remain in stage 1 when everyone else has gone to stage 2, so that his opponents cannot kill him. he simply lets everyone else break enemy bonuses while the value of spoils continues to increase. finally, he breaks through to stage 2 and kills one player, which allows him to cash spoils and kill repeatedly to win the game in one turn. is it part of the design of the map to allow this strategy or do u want to stop this from happening?

NO! it is not part of design. this is very good point ian. I hate spoils games, so I forgot this. I thought that we can cancel that after entering map2 player can not play in map1. so this will allow to control somebody who just deploy and deploy and wait. and maybe add any extra bonus for holding capital (all state) in map1 and "the same"capital in map?

a player can always deploy on any region where he has troops. we cannot prevent this. it is possible to add a bonus for holding the "same" capital on both maps. it is also possible to apply an exclusion, so that escalating spoils are not allowed (though i dislike this idea).

ian.

[Oneyed]

a player can always deploy on any region where he has troops. we cannot prevent this.

there is rule on map, that when player take capital in map2 all his regions on map1 revert to neutral (99 or 999). because my idea is to enforce players to play on the map2. maybe we could do that on map1 could be almost impossible to win...?

it is possible to add a bonus for holding the "same" capital on both maps.

yes. or any negative bonus without capital on map2. for example hold entire state on map1 without the same capital on map2 -2 troops?

it is also possible to apply an exclusion, so that escalating spoils are not allowed (though i dislike this idea).

ian.

I do not like spoils games, but me too

Oneyed

[bigWham]

a player can always deploy on any region where he has troops. we cannot prevent this.

there is rule on map, that when player take capital in map2 all his regions on map1 revert to neutral (99 or 999). because my idea is to enforce players to play on the map2. maybe we could do that on map1 could be almost impossible to win...?

it is possible to add a bonus for holding the "same" capital on both maps.

yes. or any negative bonus without capital on map2. for example hold entire state on map1 without the same capital on map2 -2 troops?

it is also possible to apply an exclusion, so that escalating spoils are not allowed (though i dislike this idea).

ian.

I do not like spoils games, but me too

Oneyed

Hey everyone... just popping in to promote the idea of getting a functioning version of this on Beta, so we can play on it! There are so many things that are difficult assess in theory, whereas I think we can fast-track development if we can start playing on it.

[Oneyed]

Hey everyone... just popping in to promote the idea of getting a functioning version of this on Beta, so we can play on it! There are so many things that are difficult assess in theory, whereas I think we can fast-track development if we can start playing on it.

I think map is prepared for testing on 70%. I will check if everything fits (888 numbers), but what is still problem is gameplay. the rule of entering to map2, the rule if we allow to play also on map1 when player will enters map2, how to reduce what ian wrote about escalating games when one player can just deploy, deploy and then attackand so on.

so please I will be happy for every input and ideas.

Oneyed

[Oneyed]

some graphic changes made.

[iancanton]

a player can always deploy on any region where he has troops. we cannot prevent this.

there is rule on map, that when player take capital in map2 all his regions on map1 revert to neutral (99 or 999).

the legend does not say this. the legend says that, if a player holds a stage 2 capital, then all stage 1 regions of that state change to n99 and all of his stage 1 bonuses are lost, but it says nothing about what happens to that player's other stage 1 regions.

because my idea is to enforce players to play on the map2. maybe we could do that on map1 could be almost impossible to win...?

earlier, u said that u wanted it to be possible, some of the time, for players to be able to win without going to stage 2. have u changed ur mind?

it is possible to add a bonus for holding the "same" capital on both maps.

yes. or any negative bonus without capital on map2. for example hold entire state on map1 without the same capital on map2 -2 troops?

both of these ideas almost force a player to go to stage 2 immediately he holds an entire state. instead, do u think letting stage 2 capitals bombard all stage 1 capitals will work?

ian.

[Oneyed]

the legend does not say this. the legend says that, if a player holds a stage 2 capital, then all stage 1 regions of that state change to n99 and all of his stage 1 bonuses are lost, but it says nothing about what happens to that player's other stage 1 regions.

then I forgot to edit legend. it would be that after capturing capital on map2 all players regions on map1 become 99 neutral. but this could blocks another player to capture bonus in map1... will think about this.

earlier, u said that u wanted it to be possible, some of the time, for players to be able to win without going to stage 2. have u changed ur mind?

I said that I want that players will play on map1 (for bonus, for entering to map2) and not just deploy and deploy (especialy in escalating games). ofcourse if any player is able to finish game on map1 we can not disallow this.

both of these ideas almost force a player to go to stage 2 immediately he holds an entire state. instead, do u think letting stage 2 capitals bombard all stage 1 capitals will work?

ian.

I like bombard idea.

what is wrong by me, is that there are too much game settings. it is hard to find good rules for all settings. almost impossible, especialy on map such this one...

Oneyed

[Dukasaur]

How dropping the idea that all map 1 terts go neutral when map 2 is entered?

When map2 is entered, no tert on map 1 can attack any other tert on map 1, but all terts on map 1 (not just capitals, but all terts) can attack their analogue on map 2. (Munich on map 1 can 1-way attack Munich on map 2, Ionian Sea on map 1 can attack Italian Fleet on map 2, etc.) In this fashion, a player could gradually bring all his troops from map 1 to map 2 (representing the gradual change from peace-time economy to war economy).

This would be more intuitive to most players, require less complex rules, and would give players proper credit for the work they did in building up their empires on map 1 before the war.

Some terts could go more than one way. (Black Sea could one-way attack both Russian and Ottoman fleets.)

[Oneyed]

How dropping the idea that all map 1 terts go neutral when map 2 is entered?

it is still needed any rule when/how/where/who can enter map2.
and do you mean that when the first player enters map2 all regions in map1 become neutral? or just all regions of this player in map1 become neutral?

When map2 is entered, no tert on map 1 can attack any other tert on map 1, but all terts on map 1 (not just capitals, but all terts) can attack their analogue on map 2. (Munich on map 1 can 1-way attack Munich on map 2, Ionian Sea on map 1 can attack Italian Fleet on map 2, etc.) In this fashion, a player could gradually bring all his troops from map 1 to map 2 (representing the gradual change from peace-time economy to war economy).

this sounds much better. so after the first player enters map2 all other players must follow him. and when we will hold rule that "only if entire state in map1 is held it is possible to enter map2" this will enforce players quickly conquer state in map1 and move this bonus to map2. because the rest players will enter map2 without any bonus from map1.
no all regions in map1 have their analogues in map2, but this is just small thing...

This would be more intuitive to most players, require less complex rules, and would give players proper credit for the work they did in building up their empires on map 1 before the war.

well, sounds good.

Some terts could go more than one way. (Black Sea could one-way attack both Russian and Ottoman fleets.)

not sure with this. but I like the core of your idea. this is why more people are needed in foundry (especialy in the advanced stage of map) - you see the map from another perspective.

ian, what do you think?

thanks Dukasaur. do you think about become blue guy

Oneyed

[Oneyed]

thinkign about Dukasaur proposal.

once the first player (player A) captured entire state in map1 he can as the first entered map2 and it will be also impossible to make any attacks in map1 and regions from map1 can attack their analogue in map2.

then I can reduce bonus for town+its region in map1, so bonus for state will be more important.
because regions in both maps are too different, only towns and capitals from map1 could attacks their analogue in map2.

Oneyed

[iancanton]

When map2 is entered, no tert on map 1 can attack any other tert on map 1, but all terts on map 1 (not just capitals, but all terts) can attack their analogue on map 2. (Munich on map 1 can 1-way attack Munich on map 2, Ionian Sea on map 1 can attack Italian Fleet on map 2, etc.) In this fashion, a player could gradually bring all his troops from map 1 to map 2 (representing the gradual change from peace-time economy to war economy).

this sounds much better. so after the first player enters map2 all other players must follow him. and when we will hold rule that "only if entire state in map1 is held it is possible to enter map2" this will enforce players quickly conquer state in map1 and move this bonus to map2. because the rest players will enter map2 without any bonus from map1.

once the first player (player A) captured entire state in map1 he can as the first entered map2 and it will be also impossible to make any attacks in map1 and regions from map1 can attack their analogue in map2.

a player can make conditional attacks from one of his own regions, with conditions based on other regions that he himself does or does not hold. can u think of a way to code conditional attacks based on a region that an opponent holds? if not, then it's impossible to prevent map 1 regions from attacking other map 1 regions with a condition that an opponent has a map 2 region.

I can reduce bonus for town+its region in map1, so bonus for state will be more important.
because regions in both maps are too different, only towns and capitals from map1 could attacks their analogue in map2.

ur modification of dukasaur's idea is that players can enter map 2 through any town or capital when holding an entire state and holding a map 2 region does not make all of a player's map 1 regions turn neutral, am i right? if so, then we can try this.

how can u kill the last player on map 1 if he refuses to move to map 2? we might have to force everyone to move to map 2 by coding a transformation of all map 1 regions to neutral at the start of, say, turn 11.

ian.

[Dukasaur]

how can u kill the last player on map 1 if he refuses to move to map 2? we might have to force everyone to move to map 2 by coding a transformation of all map 1 regions to neutral at the start of, say, turn 11.

ian.

Alternatively, you could make it so that a certain number of turns after map 2 is breached, you must hold at least 1 tert on map 2 or be eliminated. Sort of the same way as Gallipoli does it with land/sea terts, except that it doesn't start from the beginning.

[iancanton]

we cannot specify conditional losing conditions. however, as i understand it, we can code a transformation of all map 1 regions to neutral after, say, 5 complete rounds following any player taking any map 2 region, which has a similar effect.

ian.

[Dukasaur]

Well, are we trying this?

[Oneyed]

ian, Dukasaur,

I have no time now to work on map. I have no energy to work on map. I have no energy to work for CC. and if I will finish this map it will be only because you and some people who posted here they support.
CC made nothing to become better, more attractive. I can not see anything new in CC. I spoke with bigWham about this several times, but to be honest I do not know CCs plan to future.

maybe one time, when I find more time, more energy and any future in CC I will finish it. thanks to everybody for help and support. and special thanks to iancanton and Dukasaur, I like you guys and I wish you better mapmakers as me

Oneyed