Conquer Club

Battle of Culloden, near Inverness, April 16, 1746. British Government army defeats Scottish Jacobites, led by Bonny Prince Charlie, pretender to the throne.

Does it explain itself?

And with all the arrows, it's a bit of madness. Where arrows touch points, means those two can attack each other. For example, Perth and the 10th Dragoons at the top.

Some would start with neutrals, like Shea (protecting Prince Charlie). Might have to reposition so that an extra foot or horse troop can defend Charlie (who escapes in the end anyway.) Prince Charlie and Cumberland start neutral.

The attack method is explained back at Balmerino (blue X's O's), it should make it harder to sweep a whole army. Does the explanation and quick example make sense? I'm trying to prevent friendly fire incidents, here.

All I got to say is OMG nice... could be the next waterloo?

I like it a lot.

Looking pretty cool... I'd like to see it explained a little more clearer but its a great start.

This is looking really nice.

I wonder if the Redcoats should be able to attack diagonally, rather than front-to-back, to simulate their bayonet drill innovation, whereby they would attack the enemy on their right rather than straight in front of them (bypassing their shields):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bayonet_drill_%28Culloden_comparison%29.svg

It was also be nice to have a different attack range for the cavalry (something akin to the cavalry on Waterloo)

I tried to emulate the diagonal attacks of redcoats a bit, but could certainly refine it more. Straight attacks like Barrel's are not quite what I want, since you need to go back into the second row to turn around, and only one one side (red).

I agree, the cavalry need to be a little more chesslike. I can agree with Waterloo's 1-2 square rule, with the exception of fellow horsemen. For example, Elcho can attack Avochie, Appin, Cameron, and Cobham's Dragoons (via Avochie), and Fitzjames. Cannot reach Shea. This way, the Prince's closest guards aren't skipped over.

Having had another look at it, I wouldn't worry too much about adding diagonal attacks. The attack rules you've explained with the X/O makes sense, but is actually going to be very confusing unless there's a method of border demarcation to indicate where they do/don't connect. The long range attacks in particular would be difficult to represent without the long-ranging lines... It might be easier to add some more territories and assign bonuses for particular groupings??

The artillery (let's use terms that will be familiar to players of Waterloo) could possibly have a slightly longer range than you have currently given them; and may be slightly overpowered with the +2 autodeploy. By bulking out territories (by adding I & II per army, for example) you could give the artillery slightly longer reach than their operators.

On a side-thought, swamp territories could be added to the top-middle; perhaps some sort of tiny killer neutrals or decaying terrs to help simulate the difficulty of attacking in that area?

In which things become even more complicated.

Bonus groups hard to capture, but you will likely capture two at once as you zig-zag back and forth. Could just do right-left-centre flanks instead, but likes brigades.

Is this map going forward, shakeycat?

Yes, of course. I'm playing with it right now. I'm seeing if it can work without the conventional territory squares. I want it to at least LOOK easy, while still being clear and appealing.

This is by no means a proof:



It's messy and has some layers turned off. Work in progress. Gameplay is still the same as the "ugly" version at the top. (Wolfe's extra arrow should meet Avochie's, since I didn't seem to clear that up the first time.)

Heh, I like the way you've made shadows into territory connections. Clever.

I love the little men, I really like where this is going.

One question though... are you really supposed to deploy cannons at the front?

Natty - thanks, it seems subtle yet effective. I've run into problems trying to make the more complicated connections now, and feel a bit stuck.

Industrial Helix - I thought I'd try something a little different and see if it could fly. Waterloo is so hard to visualize, I thought little tin soldiers would help with that aspect.

And where should the cannons be? beside the front line? behind? in the second? I just placed them where I had seen them in the maps. I'm kinda clueless otherwise.

Now that I've seen a real map of the battle it all makes a load more sense.

I got the impression that the battle was much smaller based on your map... lol, I just realized this is a tourist map as that car park was likely not there at the time. But the map still gives you an idea of the scale of the battle.

Lol, include the car park!

Only if I can put the Gift shop in too.

Yeah.. one little dude is actually representing about 200 dudes.

Well, I kind of wish there was a way to increase space between the two armies. I like the idea of the tin soldiers, but it looks like a two gangs rather than two armies.

from the post, I was under the impression that the picture is just a rough draft. I'm waiting to comment until the work in progress gets posted proper.

I agree that the armies look too close together right now, but just scaling down the men and cannons will fix that to a large degree. As for the representations, I think the cannon and cavalry icons would work as they are, seeing as they are usually pretty few in number anyway. The infantry... well, three guys per icon would probably do the trick?

Any chance of an update? This is on the verge of stalling...

It has stalled, just like the other one. I may have lost interest, for the time being. Summer is awesome !! If you want to recycle it until I update, I'm totally cool with that.

[Moved]

It would appear that development of this map has stalled. If the mapmaker wants to continue with the map, then one of the Foundry Moderators will be able to help put the thread back into the Foundry system, after an update has been made.