Conquer Club

Thanks for your comments and advice. I agree it's not a simple map, but it's also not that complex if one reads the legend carefully. Refineries and tankers, terrorists and revolutions, and US fleets - I think that if you look at it like a real map and think about it, it all makes sense. For those who want simple maps, there are other choices, of course. If those like you who like slightly more complex games like it, then we're happy.

I'm with Marshal Ney on this one, it's a giant improvement and I'm really glad you added the regional bonuses. So without repeating everything Marshal has said... I do have a few minor concerns and thoughts.

Russia is completely indefensible. While you want Russia to have a long border and deal with those sorts of struggles, at the same time you want Russia to play a role on the map. In games, Russia is going to be in complete anarchy with every country taking a little piece of her land. This is undesirable, imo, as I highly doubt this is the Russia of 2020. My advice/solution is to merge 2 or 3 territories, Omsk/Novibirissk/Krasnojarsk and Smarna/Chelybinsk and maybe Kursk/Moscow.

China could use the merging of one or two border territories as well.

Right now, though, it looks like whoever holds the strangely united middle east is going to win, problems in Iraq regardless.

Raise Turkey's bonus to 3.

Is caucascus just not worth anything?

Actually yes, Caucasus is worth 3 Check the title of the third box at the bottom entitled Caucasus Bonus: +3.

I don't think Russia is indefensible, just that it will take a player with a good strategy to hold it. The same was said of Russia in Napoleonic Europe and there players regularly get to hold it. Besides, given its size and bonus, it really should be more difficult to hold Russia.

Also, remeber that the point of this game is not to hold a specific country, but to control oil resources. That's why there will be a fight for the centre (Kazakhstan / Central Asia) where a lot of the refineries, tankers and terrorists are concentrated. Therefore, we have done it on purpose to make it harder to hold whole countries and have players focus instead on strategic assets: Capitals, territories, refineries, tankers, terrorists. We want to move away from country consolidation towards acquistion of strategic assets. From this point of view, your comments are, in fact, positive,

beside merging territories is a problem we would end with les than 52 starting territories
and it was very difficult to find those 52 in this map !

I'm very pleased with this update, but in the interest of full disclosure, I must state that all the work was done by pamoa and Raskholnikov, and very good work it was. I too prefer the first option. I hope to get started on the XML soon.

Industrial and Marshal,

Since you have commented on this project from its very beginning with lots of useful advice, can you please provide us, when you can, with a comprehensive list of all the game play issues you wish us to address, and indicate which ones you see as critical and which as desirable to change but not dealbreakers. This way we will know exactly what absolutely needs to be addressed and where we still retain some discretion in deciding what to change and what not to. Needless to say, all comments will be appreciated and carefully considered, as we have done so far.

Again, many thanks for your ongoing commitment to this project.

R, P, E

Raskholnikov wrote:Industrial and Marshal,

Since you have commented on this project from its very beginning with lots of useful advice, can you please provide us, when you can, with a comprehensive list of all the game play issues you wish us to address, and indicate which ones you see as critical and which as desirable to change but not dealbreakers. This way we will know exactly what absolutely needs to be addressed and where we still retain some discretion in deciding what to change and what not to. Needless to say, all comments will be appreciated and carefully considered, as we have done so far.

Again, many thanks for your ongoing commitment to this project.

R, P, E

Ah dude... I hope this doesn't take too long, while I'm writing I need some thoughts on Cuban and Chinese Revolution and I'd appreciate it if you'd oblige...

So I'll start with the minor concerns and my last one is a biggy.

The bonuses seem fair, though Turkey could go up a notch.

The terrorists seem extremely powerful given their connectivity... I'm uncertain if its too powerful but I think you should consider how this is going to affect the regional bonuses. I think since most terrorists are on the borders, it might be ok because each regional bonus is being stacked on anyway.

My biggest annoyance is the +x for every y system that you've applied to the tankers and refineries. Personally, I hate sitting there and counting what a player has and doesn't have and that facet will play a large role in determining whether I play this map, as I imagine it will with others. Furthermore, this is already a complicated map and players without BOB, the majority I expect, will be at a disadvantage. It's a massively inconvenient way of allocating bonuses as it sucks up time simply counting and looking. The other concern is that they won't play a large role until later in the game, which for a map about oil, might not be desirable.

My solution, its not much better, but maybe making the bonus +1 per tanker and +2 per refinery and each with a capital. That way it keeps it simple because its one for one and it makes each tanker and refinery worth much more, making them continuously part of the game from early on and giving a player a quick shot to make gain some troops.

Revolts... I'd like to see -1 each turn. -2 is too strong of a deterrent against national bonuses.

Unrest areas... make them neutral 1. If they're -1 or -2, plus you have to fight a neutral 3... I don't think a player will ever take them. You want players to be somewhat mindful towards achieving a national bonus because each of these countries depicted are quite sensitive to maintaining their own national integrity.

Remove mongolia... i see no point in it being there as there aren't any other neutral countries on the map.

The big complaint is that nothing is defensible. If you want any bonus at all you're going to have to stack on every single part of it. look at Russia, 10 territories which are all border territories? Ukraine, 6 territories all of which are borders.... in fact... I see three interior territories on the whole map outside of the Middle East.

In fact, whoever drops near the Middle East capital has probably got the game.

It's not so much the number of territories. Looking at Napoleonic Europe I see its at 80 territories as well and I can balance that in my mind quite easily. BUT, all the bonus regions are usually at 4-5 borders, Russia is at 7. I'd favor some sort of emulation of the border arrangements on that map.

My verdict: I'd really favor a reduction in borders, which you can do without cutting territories. Reduce the borders and this map will be playable without becoming anarchy. Throw in mountains, treaty lines, change the territory configuration... whatever. But I think the most pressing issue is that nothing is defensible on this map and most games will be free-for-alls rather than games of strategy and calculation.

EDIT: I'm afraid I might have been too critical, so don't get turned off Rask and Pamoa. I do think the latest changes are a massive improvement and the theme is quite solid. The map has good gameplay concepts, loaning some ideas from Napoleonic Europe I see, and I think it can be quite successful if executed well. Like I said above, its the indefensible borders that is holding this map back.

Industrial Helix wrote:Remove mongolia... i see no point in it being there as there aren't any other neutral countries on the map.

The big complaint is that nothing is defensible ...

My verdict: I'd really favor a reduction in borders, which you can do without cutting territories. Reduce the borders and this map will be playable without becoming anarchy. Throw in mountains, treaty lines, change the territory configuration... whatever. But I think the most pressing issue is that nothing is defensible on this map and most games will be free-for-alls rather than games of strategy and calculation.

Some great points by Helix, this one is the biggie for me - more impassibles would be so much better - mountains, rivers, and Helix's idea of treaty lines would fit well with the map's context.

However, don't feel downhearted, having come back to work on this map and getting a lot of suggested alterations - you have a great setting and it wont require too much work graphically to hammer out the gameplay.

Ah dude... I hope this doesn't take too long, while I'm writing I need some thoughts on Cuban and Chinese Revolution and I'd appreciate it if you'd oblige...

So I'll start with the minor concerns and my last one is a biggy.

The bonuses seem fair, though Turkey could go up a notch.

We can raise it by one if you think it necessary, although I think that the Metropolis is sufficient - plus easy access to tankers, refineries and the Caucasus.

The terrorists seem extremely powerful given their connectivity... I'm uncertain if its too powerful but I think you should consider how this is going to affect the regional bonuses. I think since most terrorists are on the borders, it might be ok because each regional bonus is being stacked on anyway.

Do remember that all terrorists can be bombed by the US fleets, which can be accessed though any of the eight capitals. I think this balances things out. However, I could consider raising the intial deployment on terrorists to neutral 4, same as for Capital cities, as long as I can do the same for Metropolis cities (to make it harder for players to get one from the first turn, and equalize all neutral values on all winning conditions objectives).

My biggest annoyance is the +x for every y system that you've applied to the tankers and refineries. Personally, I hate sitting there and counting what a player has and doesn't have and that facet will play a large role in determining whether I play this map, as I imagine it will with others. Furthermore, this is already a complicated map and players without BOB, the majority I expect, will be at a disadvantage. It's a massively inconvenient way of allocating bonuses as it sucks up time simply counting and looking. The other concern is that they won't play a large role until later in the game, which for a map about oil, might not be desirable.

The problem is that if I give one for one, as soon as a player gets a capital it will significantly increase its armies at the start, when superiority is critical. Later in the game they can all balance each other out, as more players get capitals and bonuses, The system seems to work relatively well with land and sea battles in Napoleonic Europe. However, if this becomes a serious issue, we might consider a 1 for 1 solution, although this really will change significantly the strategy as we envisioned it - but a 1 for 1 with a twist: +3 for every 3 tankers, and + 2 for every 2 refineries. I think this makes the counting much easier, without drastically affecting the strategy.

My solution, its not much better, but maybe making the bonus +1 per tanker and +2 per refinery and each with a capital. That way it keeps it simple because its one for one and it makes each tanker and refinery worth much more, making them continuously part of the game from early on and giving a player a quick shot to make gain some troops.

Revolts... I'd like to see -1 each turn. -2 is too strong of a deterrent against national bonuses.

No problem, will do.

Unrest areas... make them neutral 1. If they're -1 or -2, plus you have to fight a neutral 3... I don't think a player will ever take them. You want players to be somewhat mindful towards achieving a national bonus because each of these countries depicted are quite sensitive to maintaining their own national integrity.

Agreed.

Remove mongolia... i see no point in it being there as there aren't any other neutral countries on the map.

Well, with Mongolia we have exactly 52 territories, so I'd rather keep it. And of course we have neutrals: in the Caucasus, Kaakhstan and Central Asia....


The big complaint is that nothing is defensible. If you want any bonus at all you're going to have to stack on every single part of it. look at Russia, 10 territories which are all border territories? Ukraine, 6 territories all of which are borders.... in fact... I see three interior territories on the whole map outside of the Middle East.

Well, this is done on purpose. This is not supposed to be a traditional country-consolidating map. It's supposed to represent a post-national stage where control of key cities, objectives and capitals is more important than guarding solid borders. This is reflected in the victory conditions, where holding either 5 capitals and 3 metropolis, OR all eight terrorists, gives a win for one side or the other (ie law and order or anarchy and mayhem). I think that moving awasy from the traditional nation-state focused empire-building towards objectives-based strategies is one of the innovative aspects of this map. There are enough bonuses in self-deploys, refineries and tankers to make country bonuses much less critical to have. And I like it that way! If absoltely necessary, we can redraw some Russian borders to keep the 10 territories but have only 7 borders - but it is not my first choice.

In fact, whoever drops near the Middle East capital has probably got the game.

Not really. The Middle East country bonus is only worh +2 - on purpose. Plus it has terrorists and refineries that can be bombarded by any capital seiing a US fleet.

It's not so much the number of territories. Looking at Napoleonic Europe I see its at 80 territories as well and I can balance that in my mind quite easily. BUT, all the bonus regions are usually at 4-5 borders, Russia is at 7. I'd favor some sort of emulation of the border arrangements on that map.

As mentioned, if it becomes a deal breaker, we can reconfigure Russia's borders.... I could reduce them to 7 instead of 10, and also reduce China's, Iran's and Afghanistan's by 1 each without changing the number of territories - or adding mountains, rivers, barriers or treaties, which in the 21st century era of aerial bombardment, guided missles and drones make little sense....

My verdict: I'd really favor a reduction in borders, which you can do without cutting territories. Reduce the borders and this map will be playable without becoming anarchy. Throw in mountains, treaty lines, change the territory configuration... whatever. But I think the most pressing issue is that nothing is defensible on this map and most games will be free-for-alls rather than games of strategy and calculation.

I respectfully disagree.. It will be a different fype of strateggy and calculation, based on objectives held rather than contiguous territories... And that's one of the key aims of this map: to show that in the 21st century, what counts is the ability to gain and control cities, refineries, tankers and neutralise terrorists, rather than defend territorial borders... I think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have amply proven this point.... So please try to look at it this way rather than from the traditional point of view.

Thanks again for the comments. Most will be implemented, as mentioned above. And I will soon make time to comments on your maps, which I think are really well crafted

Thanks DJ.. Good to hear positive comments and feedback from someone used to run tournaments....

Raskholnikov wrote:Industrial and Marshal,

Since you have commented on this project from its very beginning with lots of useful advice, can you please provide us, when you can, with a comprehensive list of all the game play issues you wish us to address, and indicate which ones you see as critical and which as desirable to change but not dealbreakers. This way we will know exactly what absolutely needs to be addressed and where we still retain some discretion in deciding what to change and what not to. Needless to say, all comments will be appreciated and carefully considered, as we have done so far.

Again, many thanks for your ongoing commitment to this project.

R, P, E

Sorry to take a week to respond, but I warned you it might be a little while

As far as I can see, there is only one 'dealbreaker' change for the gameplay-and it's going to be a challenge perhaps to accomodate- and I do have a few other suggestions as well.

Industrial Helix wrote:My verdict: I'd really favor a reduction in borders, which you can do without cutting territories. Reduce the borders and this map will be playable without becoming anarchy. Throw in mountains, treaty lines, change the territory configuration... whatever. But I think the most pressing issue is that nothing is defensible on this map and most games will be free-for-alls rather than games of strategy and calculation.

Helix has a very strong point here. Follow my logic, if you will:

(1) The big change that made this update such a success was the inclusion of 'continent' bonuses. With them, the Terrorists/Fleets and Revolts are meaningful gameplay elements.
(2) However, in order for the continent bonuses to do their magic they must be relevant.
(3) And in order to be relevant, the continent bonuses must be realistically possible- i.e., defensible and desirable from a risk/benefit perspective.

To put it another way, Revolt areas will only be taken if they are necessary for a player to acheive some goal. Since the map is basically wide open, the Revolts won't be choke points and can be avoided. So the only goal that makes them desirable is taking a continent bonus. If the continent bonuses are indefensible and suck up way more troops than they could ever possibly pay out, they won't be sought after- thus the Revolts are back to being a waste of map space. To a much lesser extent, the Terrorist (and thus Fleet) importance will also diminish as their continent-busting ability will be largely worthless- but of course it'll still have a use.

Besides this, however, I hate 'inert' gameplay elements that suck up players' attention but offer no real strategic meaning. If a map is going to have continent bonuses, they should fall mostly in the range of being acheiveable with a modest effort, with a few outliers perhaps in the 'easy to snatch' and 'hard as hell' categories.

Raskholnikov wrote:[in response to Helix] I respectfully disagree.. It will be a different type of strategy and calculation, based on objectives held rather than contiguous territories... And that's one of the key aims of this map: to show that in the 21st century, what counts is the ability to gain and control cities, refineries, tankers and neutralise terrorists, rather than defend territorial borders... I think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have amply proven this point.... So please try to look at it this way rather than from the traditional point of view.

While I'm glad to get a clearer view of your goals for the map- and I'm all for non-traditional perspectives- I also feel that you'll need to go back to the drawing board if you're really set on making a map that shouts that national borders are no longer relevant. Besides that, I'm inclined to think that Oil Power is pursued as a means to an end, and that end is often to preserve national integrity. In fact, the vibe that I get from this map is that there are two 'sides' fighting over Oil that have two antithetical goals- one side wants Oil to build national power, and the other wants Oil to destroy national power. If that's not too far off base, then I think that grabbing a 'national' bonus should be possible. Otherwise who are the terrorists at war with and what are the Revolts trying to accomplish if there aren't any 'oppressive' national entities involved in the gameplay?

My recommendation is to either try subdividing the continents into smaller, more attainable areas, include impassibles or redraw borders to create more interior regions. Any or all of these could work. But it absolutely needs to be addressed I think.
-----------------------------------
OK, beyond that I have some suggestions but nothing critical. I'll put them in another post so that this one doesn't become a novel.

Brilliant analysis... especially your the "two-sides" approach to use of oil and hence, the two winning conditions.

We are in the process of finalising a new draft taking into account most comments so far and incorporating some that deal with yours - especially the role of Revolts. Once the new draft is up, we can then have a new look at the extent to which borders absolutely need to be revised for Russia and a few other countries, or if we can live with what we have. Stay tuned please for Pamoa's soon-to-be uploaded new version. And thanks for the extgremely helpful and appreciated evaluation and advice. It's a pleasure to work with you guys on this map!

Just in case anyone is wondering, I'm keeping an eye on things here, but won't attempt any XML until at least after the update mentioned just above. I know many people say XML should not be started until the Final Forge, but I think it can evolve alongside the gameplay and graphics. After all, I have seen proposals for gameplay which have been pointless because they are simply impossible to implement. Exploring the possibilities early can save pain later on.

new features : bonus structure, al-mahdi (religious leader)

Can the 5th Fleet bombard Tehran? The key says "Indian ocean" but it is within bombard range. How about Ashgabat?

U.S. fleets are pretty powerful, so perhaps 3 neutrals for each is undervaluing them.

The Ashgabat tanker terminal is on the Caspian sea, so it can only be bombarded by the 6th fleet, as per legend. Same goes for the Teheran one. They are both just at the outer range limit of the 5th Fleet, but I prefer to stick with the legend, since having them being bombarded by both fleets would be rather unfair.

We would raise the fleets to neutral 4, same as capitals and metropolis, if you think it necessary; but remember they revert to neutral after each use and this might dissuade players to even attempt to use them. What do others think on this?

well I thought Tehran and Baghdad were both under double bombardment when I draw it

Oh ok. There you go It makes sense then for obvious reasons! Both Teheran and Bagdad are under double bombardment

Hmm... I rather liked the double bombardment area. I'm in favor of keeping it. It kind of makes the middle east a little less easily attainable.

Me too. i simply wasnt aware that such was pamoa's original intention. So I'm all for it! Btw Helix, any comments on al-Mahdi, the new role of Uprisings, the +2 bonus for each terrorist unit as long as al-Mahdi is held, and the addition of a possible additional attack point into the Middle East?

The legend isn't crystal clear about how al-Mahdi works, so let me ask if this is correct:

Revolt regions can one-way attack al-Mahdi
al-Mahdi, if held, gives a +2 bonus per terrorist.
al-Mahdi one-way attacks Cairo and any terrorist.

If this is so, it gives more life to the revolt regions, and overall I like it a lot. But the legend will need to make how it works a little clearer... 'can be activated' and 'takes control of' are much less clear than simply saying '1-way attacks' as in:
"Uprisings 1-way attack al-Mahdi
al-Mahdi 1-way attacks Cairo or any terrorist.
Hold al-Mahdi for a +2 bonus per terrorist."

... or something similar.

-----------------------------

For the victory objectives, I think the terrorist objective is much easier than the capital/metropolis objective. The number of regions to hold is the same- eight- but the terrorists can attack each other, while the capitals are spread across all corners of the map.

To simulate the victory of 'national power', I think a continent bonus plus several captials/metropoli (what is the plural of that word really?) might work- say a continent bonus plus 4 capitals/metropli?

-----------------------------

I like that you've changed the tanker and refinery bonuses to directly being 1-for-1, and I'm sure Helix thanks you as well

------------------------------

While al-Mahdi prevents the lack of impassibles making the uprisings completely useless, it also further expands the avenues of attack on an already wide-open map.

I really feel that Russia, China, India, Kazakastan, Af-Pak and Iran are too open to be worth the attempt. Here's what I'm seeing-
Russia (+6 bonus): 10 regions, 10 borders, 2 bombardable tankers and 2 bombardable refineries, and 1 terrorist
Kazakastan (+12 bonus): 10 regions, 9 borders, 2 bombardable tankers and 2 bombardable refineries, 1 terrorist and 1 uprising
China (+5 bonus): 10 regions, 8 borders, 1 bombardable refinery, 1 terrorist and 1 uprising
Iran (+4 bonus): 6 regions, 6 borders, 2 bombardable tankers and 2 bombardable refineries, and 1 uprising
India (+4 bonus): 9 regions, 5 borders, 1 bombardable tanker, 1 uprising
Af-Pak (+4 bonus): 6 regions, 6 borders, 1 bombardable tanker and 1 terrorist

Furthermore, Kazakastan and maybe Af-Pak with Cashmir are the only two remotely worth the benefit when weighed against the cost.

There just need to be fewer borders on this map, or the lion's share of continent bonuses are just wasted space on the legend. Also consider bumping up the bonuses a bit for the ones listed above, since the bombardments for every continent make it a risk to try to hold.

Good to see overall that the map is progressing forward, keep it up

Marshal Ney

The legend isn't crystal clear about how al-Mahdi works, so let me ask if this is correct:

Revolt regions can one-way attack al-Mahdi
al-Mahdi, if held, gives a +2 bonus per terrorist.
al-Mahdi one-way attacks Cairo and any terrorist.

Yes, this is correct.

If this is so, it gives more life to the revolt regions, and overall I like it a lot. But the legend will need to make how it works a little clearer... 'can be activated' and 'takes control of' are much less clear than simply saying '1-way attacks' as in:
"Uprisings 1-way attack al-Mahdi
al-Mahdi 1-way attacks Cairo or any terrorist.
Hold al-Mahdi for a +2 bonus per terrorist."


... or something similar.

Great. Glad you like it. Will revise the legend wording.

-----------------------------

For the victory objectives, I think the terrorist objective is much easier than the capital/metropolis objective. The number of regions to hold is the same- eight- but the terrorists can attack each other, while the capitals are spread across all corners of the map.

To simulate the victory of 'national power', I think a continent bonus plus several captials/metropoli (what is the plural of that word really?) might work- say a continent bonus plus 4 capitals/metropli?

What about allowing Metropolis cities to attack each other, simulating their importance as financial and economic centres? They are all close to their capitals so that equalizes the playing field between the two victory conditions.

-----------------------------

I like that you've changed the tanker and refinery bonuses to directly being 1-for-1, and I'm sure Helix thanks you as well

Super. See, I'm flexible ... lol

------------------------------

While al-Mahdi prevents the lack of impassibles making the uprisings completely useless, it also further expands the avenues of attack on an already wide-open map.

I really feel that Russia, China, India, Kazakastan, Af-Pak and Iran are too open to be worth the attempt. Here's what I'm seeing-
Russia (+6 bonus): 10 regions, 10 borders, 2 bombardable tankers and 2 bombardable refineries, and 1 terrorist
Kazakastan (+12 bonus): 10 regions, 9 borders, 2 bombardable tankers and 2 bombardable refineries, 1 terrorist and 1 uprising
China (+5 bonus): 10 regions, 8 borders, 1 bombardable refinery, 1 terrorist and 1 uprising
Iran (+4 bonus): 6 regions, 6 borders, 2 bombardable tankers and 2 bombardable refineries, and 1 uprising
India (+4 bonus): 9 regions, 5 borders, 1 bombardable tanker, 1 uprising
Af-Pak (+4 bonus): 6 regions, 6 borders, 1 bombardable tanker and 1 terrorist

Furthermore, Kazakastan and maybe Af-Pak with Cashmir are the only two remotely worth the benefit when weighed against the cost.

There just need to be fewer borders on this map, or the lion's share of continent bonuses are just wasted space on the legend. Also consider bumping up the bonuses a bit for the ones listed above, since the bombardments for every continent make it a risk to try to hold.

Sorry, but i do not agree with your analysis. You still look upon this as a traditional gameplay, while I am trying to inject different strategic options and victory conditions. Cutting and changing borders will not only introduce factual inaccuracies on the map, but also channel strategic options in one direction only - national / regional consolidation. This is something I explicitly want to avoid. I explained at length both why, and also the reasons I think national consolidations will occur much easier than you seem to assume from your quantitative analysis of border / bonus ratios and bombardable territories. Also note that bombardments in this game are much more restrained and focused than, for example, in Waterloo or Stalingrad, where artilery / planes can virtually obliterate the entire map.

In short, I propose that on this one, we agree to disagree and see how it works in Beta testing. If it proves to be a critical issue then fine, I'm open to revisions; but not before this concept gets at least a chance to be tested. This is now a question of gameplay vision and strategic preference, and I truly believe map makers should be given some latitude here. We made all changes required of us so far. This is an important point to us and we expect some reciprocity here, guys. It's only fair...

Good to see overall that the map is progressing forward, keep it up

Marshal Ney

Al Madhi... how'd you come up with the name? What about Al-Qaeda? Rumor has it they're not losing but growin, especially in Yemen and Somalia... plus their sudden appearance in Iraq after the initial invasion. They have a habit to be where they need to be, much like the 'Al-Mahdi' does on this map.

In general i like it. I ignored it because I couldn't find it on the legend though. You should be using the map symbols for the legend explanations on the top. Crescent for Al-Mahdi, Tanker for the tanker rules, Metropolis', capitals and terrorists for the victory condition... in fact. I wonder if the top legend might work better beneath the other legend. Also, bullet points would be cool because I read the rules like a single sentence, but really they're three different sentences.

But yeah, Al-Mahdi. THis will help make the Middle east less of a strong hold. Take that Saudi princes... The arrow indicated to me that it was part of the Egypt territory, not that it one way attacked it. I'd work out a better way of integrating it into the map than the arrow if I were you. The arrow doesn't really work. I mean, it one way attacks Cairo, yes, but it also one way attacks terrorists too and they don't have arrows.

al mahdi is the 12th Shia imam and reputed to return and revive a global Caliphate. He was also a historical character in the 188os in Sudan - a leader claiming to be the Mahdi, who beat the Brits temporarily, took Khartoum in soudan and set up a theocracy there. So it's all factually based, and more interesting than AQ.

We'll try to put the symbol next to the legend (upper right hand corner btw). And yes, it indicates that it can attack Egypt directly, because that comes in the form of conquest. With the terrorists it'sb much more like a non-terrritorial network activation, since each terrorist unit owned whilst controlling al mahdi generates a +2 bonus.

Raskholnikov wrote:Sorry, but i do not agree with your analysis. You still look upon this as a traditional gameplay, while I am trying to inject different strategic options and victory conditions. Cutting and changing borders will not only introduce factual inaccuracies on the map, but also channel strategic options in one direction only - national / regional consolidation. This is something I explicitly want to avoid. I explained at length both why, and also the reasons I think national consolidations will occur much easier than you seem to assume from your quantitative analysis of border / bonus ratios and bombardable territories. Also note that bombardments in this game are much more restrained and focused than, for example, in Waterloo or Stalingrad, where artilery / planes can virtually obliterate the entire map.

In short, I propose that on this one, we agree to disagree and see how it works in Beta testing. If it proves to be a critical issue then fine, I'm open to revisions; but not before this concept gets at least a chance to be tested. This is now a question of gameplay vision and strategic preference, and I truly believe map makers should be given some latitude here. We made all changes required of us so far. This is an important point to us and we expect some reciprocity here, guys. It's only fair...

Perhaps this would work better as a PM, but I want it out in the open that the way that I view my contribution as a Foundry CA is as a facilitator of translating a mapmaker's vision for a game into the most workable and engaging set of rules that can be created within the CC framework. In other words, the key for any discussion of gameplay comes from understanding the mapmaker's topic, vision, and goals for the gameplay, and then working with that and shedding anything that is not central to it.

So... I did hear you about the 'no-borders' idea, and I am not at all opposed to this vision of gameplay. It's not a 'traditional view' that has me recommending fewer borders, it's my concern that with your 'no-borders' concept as the map currently stands, the continent bonuses will be 'inert' gameplay elements, a waste of legend space in an already complex map.

If you truly think that the continent bonuses that I listed will not be as difficult as I clearly feel, I will not hold this map up over it. My judgment is by no means infallible, and I accept that you may be right and I may be wrong. But in order to pass this on in good faith, I need to know that you will be prepared to make the necessary changes in Beta should my advice have proved accurate.

That's the trouble with 'waiting until Beta'- since this is the last step in the Foundry process, mapmakers often feel that the map only needs tweaking at that point. Are you prepared to make what will have to be a major revision to the map in Beta? In order to keep the 'no-borders' idea, you'll have to do something drastic like redrawing borders to make more interior regions or making more continent bonuses thus reducing their size and impractibility. Or, you'll have to scrap the 'no-borders' idea, which as I understand it (now) is central to your vision for the map.

Your point about Waterloo, btw, is completely accurate. In that map, most of the continent bonuses are freaking useless in most game types, which I think is a shame. But the map works alright- it just could have been better perhaps. More importantly though, there are a few impassibles on that map. As for Stalingrad, the bombardment points are focused in a much similar fashion to this map, but it also has impassibles.

I'm not saying that a no-impassibles map couldn't work- in fact my Gettysburg map has exactly that idea- but in this case I think it will be a challenge to pull off along with the other concepts you have in place.

-------------------------

As for the victory conditions, yes making the Metroplises (trying a new plural?) attack each other would help out a lot for balancing the two objectives.

Marshal Ney