Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[maxicaxi]

Sheesh guys, I said I wasn't starting until I was ready. Very soon I'll have the unit chart and the size group maps up.

I'd like to keep it down to six players for my first run through.

@maxicaxi- Could you please pick a different one? I tried to keep as many microstates as I could, but having one inside of a city... That's just a bit of a stretch.

EDIT: Finished sea zone map. If a country borders a sea zone, it can place ships in it.

EDIT EDIT: Finished Size Group map. This will determine how much effort it takes to move through a country. more will be described in the OP. This is completely separate from the income map, which is coming soon.

  okay ill take andorrra lime green

[Cheddarius]

The sea zone map is quite ambiguous. For example, 56 - does it touch that red country above it? And so many others end right on the border.

[Wimdit]

Eh, I might as well jump on the bandwagon and say I'm in. Even though that's already six, I think.

By the way, the sea zone map seems pretty simple, if a bit haphazard. It won't make much difference if one country barely borders or doesn't border a zone. 56 definitely doesn't touch that red country. Madagascar bordering 39 is a bit of a grey area, for another example, but they probably shouldn't be able to deploy there. Just use common sense, even though there may be disagreements ocasionally.

[Heron TSG]

Yeah, that's just a rough outline. Later today I'll go in and fix the zones you guys have been talking about. If you have any more, I'll fix those too.

[Cheddarius]

28/29 with Alaska/Canada, 31/69 with Mexico/Red, 32/under32 with purple/orange, 64/65 wwith brazil/blue, 63/75 with brazil/orange, 57/59 with purple/blue, 20/above20 with green/orange, some stuff on east hemisphere.

Some of these are pretty easy to tell apart but it'd be better for them to be clearer so as to not require you to inspect it for a bit every time you needed to look at it.

[Canalan]

Y'know, I'll just take Russia. Crimson.

[Heron TSG]

28/29 with Alaska/Canada, 31/69 with Mexico/Red, 32/under32 with purple/orange, 64/65 wwith brazil/blue, 63/75 with brazil/orange, 57/59 with purple/blue, 20/above20 with green/orange, some stuff on east hemisphere.

I'll work on that. In the meantime, an Income map is being worked on. The countries shall be sorted by GDP. #1-25 are in red, #26-50 are in orange, #51-125 are yellow, and the rest are green. These are according to the CIA world factbook, although tiny nations such as Mauritania have been removed. I'm doing some research on all the new countries to place them in a group.

[Heron TSG]

All previously existing maps have been updated, as well as an income map being posted. Working on the combat system.

[Cheddarius]

Excellent, excellent. Did you read my post about simplifying strengths?
Also, maybe you could have RPSLS, but instead of each one defeating two others, each one could have 2x damage against one, and 1.5x damage against another? That could add an interesting layer of strategy to the game.

Tinypic.com is an awesome upload site full of awesome.
If it won't accept huge pics either, have you considered not putting "4"s and "3"s and such and just flood filling the nation? That could be easier to see, too.

Once you decide on the system, I'd be happy to provide unit names (Light Fighter or whatnot) or more specific ones (US: M1 Abrams Tank, Britain: Challenger 2 Tank)

[Heron TSG]

I'm going to go back in and flood-fill the size group map, but here's what I think the land combat network

Each unit will have a 3, two 2's, and a 1. For example, rocketeers are good vs. Heavy Armor (3), normal vs. light armor and heavy infantry (2) and weak against light infantry. (1)

Then, I will roll a 6-sided die to see if the attack kills the foe. Rolling under the stated number provides a hit. The above numbers are for offense, so I still have to figure out a defense system, as well as finding a way to make land, air, and sea units interact.

[Cheddarius]

Do you mean under or equal to? I expect rocketeers would have at least some chance to blow up some dudes...
I think the offense system should be strong and the defense system relatively simple. What's the point of saying "Rockets are strong vs heavy armor" and "Heavy armor is weak to rockets" when you can just say the first one and have it just the same?

[Heron TSG]

Aye. Equal to or under. Good point on the simplification. Half the text, same information.

[Heron TSG]

Air and Land units added to the OP. Working on Naval units, followed by the interactions between the 3 groups.

EDIT: Naval Units added.

[Wimdit]

Wait, what? This air unit thing is a bit screwy. You're saying bombers can destroy gunships easily? And gunships can destroy fighters? How do air and land units interact? And air and sea units, for that matter. Modern navies don't really use battleships either, it's all about aircraft carriers.

I assume the difference between light and heavy infantry is that the latter has more support weapons...

Hm. I think a more intuitive system would be something like this. I propose having three land units: infantry, support, and armour. Armour is good against infantry and bad against support, and infantry is good against support and bad against armour. That's not much of an improvement if we're only talking land units, but aircraft would be overhauled like so: gunships are good against infantry and armour and moderate against support, bombers are moderate against infantry and armour and bad against support, but neither of them has any real chance of being destroyed except against support. Fighters are good against them both and are bad against ground units and, again, cannot really be destroyed except by support. Which has a moderate chance of destroying them.

Support needs a better name. Anyway, support is good against cool mechanical stuff but can easily be destroyed by infantry, which is the cheapest unit.

...I'm not really sure whether this stuff would work out. Anyway, just a suggestion.

[Cheddarius]

Erm. A gunship seems to be a plane. Crazy, I know.

I would guess light infantry would be less armored and powerful in general.

I think the current system is good. Of course more powerful units are good against less powerful units, and rockets beat tanks. But a tank isn't extra good against, for example, light infantry, because what is it going to do? Shooting them with a giant shell won't really kill as many as just heavier infantry gunning them down. Like catapults, they're good against walls but don't kill very many troops for a huge cost.

Barbarossa: For transports, I don't think we need a triangle - just different sizes and capacities. Also, remember I'm willing to scrape Wikipedia for unit names, though that could be complicated.