[Abandoned] - Trench Warfare!

[Androidz]

Mibi im pretty sure this isint possible in this Xml. But what would be cool is when you've conquered the Machinegun, then all terretories you can bombard with it will turn red as Option B. With this you don't have to add it to Legend.

This would also give it a more warish theme:P

Yeah, I don't think dynamic graphics are possible... besides, even if it were, we'd still need the info in the legend. One could make an argument that the use of the drop-downs and map inspect will make things very clear once a game is in-progress, but official foundry policy has always been (to my knowledge) that all needed information and instructions should be contained in the legend.

Oh, and new update soon-ish!

ok but you have to admit dynamic graphics would be cool:P like when the machinegun bombard a place smoke appear form the terretorie:P and shit like that. Well to bad its not possible:(

Hmm kk, but then Option A would be enough tough. (if dyn..graphic)

Cant wait for the update:P

[ZeakCytho]

One thought about the mg minimap: you could animate it to flip back and forth between the close-in and far-out images. But it would need to be subtle, like the animations in Conquer 4.

[yeti_c]

Not gonna work... GIF's are the only thing that can be animated - and that would utterly destory the GFX that Mibi has here.

C.

[Incandenza]

Okay, foundrarians, here's where we're at:

At this moment in the machine gun inset poll, the wider view (Option B) is narrowly leading the closer view (Option A) 9-7. The poll ends friday, so if you haven't voted, please do so.

Here's the current version of the large map:

Click image to enlarge.

And here is the current version with neutrals:

Click image to enlarge.

So here's what we'd like to know:

How do you all feel about the neutrals? Too hard to get thru No Man's Land? Too easy?
Does the gameplay seem at least somewhat balanced?
Does anyone see a game type that would be difficult or impossible or downright unfun on this map?
Do the instructions make sense? (and by make sense, I mean make sense after a bit of study, as if you were playing on the map and needed to know, not just after a quick first pass)
Any further graphical tweaks?

Personally, I'm excited at the eventual prospect of playing on this map, and as it represents part of mibi's swan song as CC cartographer, I'm hoping to somehow convey that excitement to the rest of ya.

[mibi]

I was wondering is the desirability of the fox holes. once a player reaches af ox hole they have two options take out 10 in a leteral movement and get intoa foxhole, or take out 22 in a forward movement and get into the other players trench. per haps the fox hole should be reduced to 5 to seem more like an oasis from the constant neutral attacking.

I have also noticed that the outer fox holes are much easier to get to from one front. from the allied trench the left hole is 4-10-12-hole, the center holes are either 10-12-15-15-hole or 10-12-12-hole if you leave from the side of a trench.

i think we should attempt to ponder what path a player would take across NML's. I have done this and it seems there are quite a few paths across, each have their own +'s and -'s.

also, i think this map would be really fun as a speed game, a long speed game for sure, but fun.

[Androidz]

kan you move the D2 neatrual to D3? to don't make a confusement there? Or atleast make it clear that their seperate.

[t-o-m]

I was wondering is the desirability of the fox holes. once a player reaches af ox hole they have two options take out 10 in a leteral movement and get intoa foxhole, or take out 22 in a forward movement and get into the other players trench. per haps the fox hole should be reduced to 5 to seem more like an oasis from the constant neutral attacking.

I would play this in speed dubs freestlye, so i would have one person on a machine gun gunning down the neutrals whilst the attacker moves forward keeping his armies.
This would be good for that style of play, however i realise you're looking to evaluate the gameplay for all settings.

[mibi]

I was wondering is the desirability of the fox holes. once a player reaches af ox hole they have two options take out 10 in a leteral movement and get intoa foxhole, or take out 22 in a forward movement and get into the other players trench. per haps the fox hole should be reduced to 5 to seem more like an oasis from the constant neutral attacking.

I would play this in speed dubs freestlye, so i would have one person on a machine gun gunning down the neutrals whilst the attacker moves forward keeping his armies.
This would be good for that style of play, however i realise you're looking to evaluate the gameplay for all settings.

I am thinking that one of the major functions of the machine guns is keeping the other side in its trench, bombarding their machine guns. who ever has control of the guns has a huge advantage and i don't think it will be too likely that both sides with have their own gunner intact for long.

[t-o-m]

If the only bonus is a +3? Apart from auto deploy, i think the strat would be (talking about dubs now) to deploy on each other and either get to machine gun asap, or build up to go to there and kill them off.

Would there be any way to make sure a team gets a drop on the same side?

[yeti_c]

Would there be any way to make sure a team gets a drop on the same side?

No - Again this has been asked for in the XML.

C.

[t-o-m]

Would there be any way to make sure a team gets a drop on the same side?

No - Again this has been asked for in the XML.

C.

I hope it gets through, that would make this map even better than it could possibly get.

[yeti_c]

Would there be any way to make sure a team gets a drop on the same side?

No - Again this has been asked for in the XML.

C.

I hope it gets through, that would make this map even better than it could possibly get.

Yeah - similar on a few maps out there!!

And some maps could be reworked to become proper Team vs Team maps.

C.

[Incandenza]

I concur with the idea of lowering the foxhole neutral (perhaps even substantially), it fits with the whole concept of the foxholes as being safe havens.

And I agree with tom that this map will be highly entertaining in dubs, with quite a few tricks that can be employed.

Androidz, bear in mind that on the map with neutrals, any space that's blank is a starting terit.

[Androidz]

I concur with the idea of lowering the foxhole neutral (perhaps even substantially), it fits with the whole concept of the foxholes as being safe havens.

And I agree with tom that this map will be highly entertaining in dubs, with quite a few tricks that can be employed.

Androidz, bear in mind that on the map with neutrals, any space that's blank is a starting terit.

Oh nice:P

[oaktown]

I'll get right to your questions:

Does the gameplay seem at least somewhat balanced?
I don't see how it wouldn't be... but then, I have overriding concerns (below).

Does anyone see a game type that would be difficult or impossible or downright unfun on this map?
Considering the cost of moving across the no-man's land, I can see a lot of games coming down to two opponents/teams controlling opposite sides and then waiting until they have a big enough stack to move across, and while you're building up your opponent builds up as well and the game just becomes a big boring war of escalation. And since the bunker is the only safe haven from bombardments, there could be a tendency to just build stacks there. As somebody who is stuck in a few dull build-up games, I would be concerned that this map could lend itself to some "unfun." What saves Arms Race from this potential problem is that you can actually eliminate your opponent via bombardments only, and once you hold the warhead you actually get enough armies to do so - but no, I'm not saying this map needs a nuclear warhead.

But nothing would seem to be unplayable... fog games would be especially intriguing on this map.

Do the instructions make sense?
No. They really don't, and I've read the first post. My concerns:
• Alright, it took me a really long time to figure out that the six boxes in the legend are territories. Is there any way they can be somehow better worked into the playable areas of the map - or better set apart from the legend text - because right now they just seem like a confusing bit of legend. Or at least some graphic other than a grey rectangle to draw attention to them??
• "Trenches" and "Foxholes" could be better defined - not everybody who plays this game is a native english speaker; would it kill you to have a graphic next to each?
• "No Man's Land Respawn at half their original strength" means what exactly? That they are killer neutrals that respawn at half their original value, or that when you have been bombarded down to zero they revert back to half of their value? I know, that's not possible given the XML limits at the site, but most players won't know that. If territories are killer neutrals, it wouldn't hurt to say that explicitly.

Another thing I'm failing to understand is the role that the machine guns will play. The first post says that the No Man's Land territories are killer neutrals, so really it would be quite stupid to waste any armies bombarding an enemy in no-man's land since they are just going to revert back anyway. Machine guns would be useful for hitting machine guns, but once you figure that out and you get whacked by the opposing machine gun you'll realize the futility of retaking it.

The only other function I can see of the machine guns would be to soften up territories that your teammates intend to hit, but it would be the same as just giving your teammates those armies to attack with themselves.

And I'd like to point out that the confusion about whether or not the machine guns can attack each other remains valid; it clearly states that the machine guns can attack no-man's land except the trenches and foxholes, by which one would assume that the guns can hit each other since it does not say that they can't. However, there are other exceptions to stated rules in your legend: the no-man's land territories are all killer neutrals, except the foxholes, according to the legend; according to this one would assume that the no-man's land trenches and machine guns ARE killer neutrals, since it doesn't say that they aren't.

So which is it - should we go by the letter of the legend, or trust our instincts based on what we gather by looking at the map? Because my instincts tell me that there are sandbags around the machine guns which protect them from each other.

[mibi]

I'll get right to your questions:

Does the gameplay seem at least somewhat balanced?
I don't see how it wouldn't be... but then, I have overriding concerns (below).

Does anyone see a game type that would be difficult or impossible or downright unfun on this map?
Considering the cost of moving across the no-man's land, I can see a lot of games coming down to two opponents/teams controlling opposite sides and then waiting until they have a big enough stack to move across, and while you're building up your opponent builds up as well and the game just becomes a big boring war of escalation. And since the bunker is the only safe haven from bombardments, there could be a tendency to just build stacks there. As somebody who is stuck in a few dull build-up games, I would be concerned that this map could lend itself to some "unfun."

You just described life in the trenches. Lots of waiting, planning, taking a few pot shots, and more waiting. Yes this map is ABOUT build up games. You build up until you have enough armies to make a stab across NML's or you just wait. I created this map to replicated the feel of Trench warfare, the endless waiting et all. The thing is, you can't wait forever, eventually someone will take over the Artillery and just bombard you back to the stone age, and there is nothing you can do about it except hide in the bunker. This map is slow and methodical, quite the opposite of Arms Race.

Do the instructions make sense?
No. They really don't, and I've read the first post. My concerns:
• Alright, it took me a really long time to figure out that the six boxes in the legend are territories. Is there any way they can be somehow better worked into the playable areas of the map - or better set apart from the legend text - because right now they just seem like a confusing bit of legend. Or at least some graphic other than a grey rectangle to draw attention to them??
• "Trenches" and "Foxholes" could be better defined - not everybody who plays this game is a native english speaker; would it kill you to have a graphic next to each?
• "No Man's Land Respawn at half their original strength" means what exactly? That they are killer neutrals that respawn at half their original value, or that when you have been bombarded down to zero they revert back to half of their value? I know, that's not possible given the XML limits at the site, but most players won't know that. If territories are killer neutrals, it wouldn't hurt to say that explicitly.

We are working on the legend. There isn't too much real estate so we can't get in depth, but there are improvements to be made.

Another thing I'm failing to understand is the role that the machine guns will play. The first post says that the No Man's Land territories are killer neutrals, so really it would be quite stupid to waste any armies bombarding an enemy in no-man's land since they are just going to revert back anyway. Machine guns would be useful for hitting machine guns, but once you figure that out and you get whacked by the opposing machine gun you'll realize the futility of retaking it.

The only other function I can see of the machine guns would be to soften up territories that your teammates intend to hit, but it would be the same as just giving your teammates those armies to attack with themselves.

I think you understand it perfectly. Many people seem to think the machine guns would be used to soften up NML in preparation for an attack. As you suggest, this is a bit silly since those armies might best be used on a large stack since you are going to have to take out those neutrals anyways. Also, if the game isn't fog, you don't want to cut a path for your enemy. The machine guns will function exactly as you suggest, and just the way it works in trench warfare. Usually in trench warfare, one side is pinned down, pop your head up and you risk getting it blown off. If one side has their big heavy machine guns in place, there is little chance to do much. Since the machine guns are a good sized bonus, it will be important to hold them. Now if you are pinned down, how do you comeback? You can just send a few soldiers up there and hope for the best. You have to come with a huge force, take huge losses and maybe just maybe spare enough time, and armies, to take out their guns and set up your own, in which case, the scenario reverses.

And I'd like to point out that the confusion about whether or not the machine guns can attack each other remains valid; it clearly states that the machine guns can attack no-man's land except the trenches and foxholes, by which one would assume that the guns can hit each other since it does not say that they can't. However, there are other exceptions to stated rules in your legend: the no-man's land territories are all killer neutrals, except the foxholes, according to the legend; according to this one would assume that the no-man's land trenches and machine guns ARE killer neutrals, since it doesn't say that they aren't.

So which is it - should we go by the letter of the legend, or trust our instincts based on what we gather by looking at the map? Because my instincts tell me that there are sandbags around the machine guns which protect them from each other.

Once the holes are cut out of the minimap where the fox holes and trenches are, the machine guns spots will remain 'in the red' meaning they can attack each other.

thanks for your comments

[oaktown]

whew! I finally understand this map... i was starting to wonder if I'd lost it completely as a gameplay checker.

I think that you have, indeed, created a map that approximates trench warfare. To that end I salute you.

I'm still not convinced, however, about the play of the machine guns. A manned and armed machine gun was absolutely devastating in the trenches, and with a big bonus the MGs on this would play in a manner that reflected their true significance, but I think only in freestyle games where a n MG could be used to cut down troops trying to cross the center. In sequential games the machine guns play no role whatsoever - if somebody makes it across in their turn they are behind the guns' defenses, and if they don't make it across there's a sort of "auto-machine gun" that goes off and cuts the troops down via the killer neutrals. There's no reason to use the machine gun as a machine gun; it's really only good for the bonus.

Seems like the ideal situation would be play in which the no-man's land spaces bleed a large number of armies instead of killing them altogether, but I believe in that case when your armies are bombarded out of existence the space would reset to only 1... pretty soon you'd have a field of neutral 1s, which isn't what you want.

In my opinion the ideal situation would be if there was an XML update that allowed you to control the number of neutral armies that a territory resets to after it has been bombarded into neutrality - that would allow for an army to advance slowly on its belly across the No Man's land, though it would be at an extremely high cost and subject to annihilation via artillery and machine guns, which I would then say would deserve a signficantly higher bonus.

[oaktown]

may I also put to you that the top and bottom rows won't have very much impact in most games - not the most direct route anywhere, and there are no back-doors to anything.

What if you dropped the top and bottom rows, moved the Bunkers in toward the center one square (which would be really good because it puts the bunker equidistant to more starting territories) and used the extra space on the top and bottom to somehow represent the orders? An artillery battery, a mortar emplacement, and a truck carrying reinforcements? It would give you about 20% more legend space to play with.

[Incandenza]

Wow, I had this whole big response to oak's initial response, but having been fastposted by mibi and oak (twice) I'll just cut to the Cliff's Notes version. There's more to add, but I just want to throw this initial stuff out there.

the game just becomes a big boring war of escalation.

One thing I'd like to add to mibi's point is that there are a bunch of entertaining dirty tricks one can use to turn a "turtle" strategy against someone. I don't see loading up the bunker with a billion armies as a viable approach to success.

As a corallary, do you think the bonus for the artillery should be higher perhaps? iirc the artillery bonus used to be higher during the private development phase of the map, but after talking about it we lowered it to the current +15.

• "No Man's Land Respawn at half their original strength" means what exactly? That they are killer neutrals that respawn at half their original value, or that when you have been bombarded down to zero they revert back to half of their value? I know, that's not possible given the XML limits at the site, but most players won't know that. If territories are killer neutrals, it wouldn't hurt to say that explicitly.

The term "killer neutrals" isn't exactly an unmuddied pond of crystalline meaning though, nor is it particularly well known beyond the foundry. However, if the term "killer neutrals", and all that the term conveys, could be considered to be Common Knowledge in the sense that "bombard" is, then it's a lot simpler, the instruction could read "No Man's Land: killer neutrals that respawn at half their original strength".

Otherwise, I could play with the wording, maybe something like "No Man's Land: Revert to neutrals at half their original value if occupied at start of player's turn," but it's pretty wordy.

And I'd like to point out that the confusion about whether or not the machine guns can attack each other remains valid; it clearly states that the machine guns can attack no-man's land except the trenches and foxholes, by which one would assume that the guns can hit each other since it does not say that they can't. However, there are other exceptions to stated rules in your legend: the no-man's land territories are all killer neutrals, except the foxholes, according to the legend; according to this one would assume that the no-man's land trenches and machine guns ARE killer neutrals, since it doesn't say that they aren't.

One possible solution would be to say that machine guns can only bombard "basic" NML terits and machine guns in a 90-degree arc, and go further to distinguish that only "basic" NML terits are killer neutrals. Though I will say that to assume that NML trenches and machine guns are killer neutrals stretches credibility, since why on earth would said terits have an autodeploy bonus if they're killer neutrals?

So which is it - should we go by the letter of the legend, or trust our instincts based on what we gather by looking at the map? Because my instincts tell me that there are sandbags around the machine guns which protect them from each other.

There's no perfect answer to this. No matter what, even if 90% of the map is given over to the most detailed, easy-to-read, comprehensive set of instructions in the history of the foundry, people (especially new players, who should be steered away from this map as they would from a leper colony, but that's obviously a different thread) are still going to screw something up. This happens on existing maps, sometimes head-clutchingly so (I recall seeing a recent post wondering why, on middle earth, the player couldn't attack from ithilien to mount doom). There is a small amount of trial-and-error necessary with even the most exhaustively explained complex maps. You should see some of the clearly-has-no-idea-what's-going-on play I've seen on waterloo or arms race, and those are finished maps. So we can all agree that at some point the intelligence of the player and the layout of the map have to be taken into account. The question is, where is that line drawn?

[mibi]

whew! I finally understand this map... i was starting to wonder if I'd lost it completely as a gameplay checker.

I think that you have, indeed, created a map that approximates trench warfare. To that end I salute you.

I'm still not convinced, however, about the play of the machine guns. A manned and armed machine gun was absolutely devastating in the trenches, and with a big bonus the MGs on this would play in a manner that reflected their true significance, but I think only in freestyle games where a n MG could be used to cut down troops trying to cross the center. In sequential games the machine guns play no role whatsoever - if somebody makes it across in their turn they are behind the guns' defenses, and if they don't make it across there's a sort of "auto-machine gun" that goes off and cuts the troops down via the killer neutrals. There's no reason to use the machine gun as a machine gun; it's really only good for the bonus.

Seems like the ideal situation would be play in which the no-man's land spaces bleed a large number of armies instead of killing them altogether, but I believe in that case when your armies are bombarded out of existence the space would reset to only 1... pretty soon you'd have a field of neutral 1s, which isn't what you want.

In my opinion the ideal situation would be if there was an XML update that allowed you to control the number of neutral armies that a territory resets to after it has been bombarded into neutrality - that would allow for an army to advance slowly on its belly across the No Man's land, though it would be at an extremely high cost and subject to annihilation via artillery and machine guns, which I would then say would deserve a signficantly higher bonus.

you've almost got it. The MG are not designed to take out people as they cross NML. Your right, that is the job of the "auto-machine-guns" You have an army of 100 and you try to cross NML, maybe you get cut down to 15 by the time you make it. You just lost 85 men in a hail of bullets, barb wire and whatever else kills people in NML. The purpose of the machine guns is to simulate the 'pinning' aspect. They are a +2 bonus and in a slow methodical build game that last for 20 rounds, a +2 bonus per round is huge. So the MGs are EXTREMELY important. Do you get it? If you can get the MG and then pin down your opponent so they do not get their MG's then you have the advantage and as I said before, the pinned down person can either come with an overwhelming force, or adjust their strategy and maybe try for some motar rounds. There are a few ways to get bonus, by snapping up the territories in your 'front' you can get +1 for every three squares, and thats deployable too. There are several options, but having the MG is a big advantage as well as committing yourself to maintaining and defending them.

[Incandenza]

I'm still not convinced, however, about the play of the machine guns. A manned and armed machine gun was absolutely devastating in the trenches, and with a big bonus the MGs on this would play in a manner that reflected their true significance, but I think only in freestyle games where a n MG could be used to cut down troops trying to cross the center. In sequential games the machine guns play no role whatsoever - if somebody makes it across in their turn they are behind the guns' defenses, and if they don't make it across there's a sort of "auto-machine gun" that goes off and cuts the troops down via the killer neutrals. There's no reason to use the machine gun as a machine gun; it's really only good for the bonus.

Also bear in mind that machine guns can be used to break trail thru NML for an invading army, as well as information-gathering organs during fog games. Plus they give people an incentive to not turtle up, to go and try and claim the forward trenches.

In my opinion the ideal situation would be if there was an XML update that allowed you to control the number of neutral armies that a territory resets to after it has been bombarded into neutrality - that would allow for an army to advance slowly on its belly across the No Man's land, though it would be at an extremely high cost and subject to annihilation via artillery and machine guns, which I would then say would deserve a signficantly higher bonus.

Anyone who undertakes a trip thru NML without sufficient force to break thru to the other side and inflict significant, even catastrophic damage, all in one turn, is just as blinkered as the Allied generals that greenlit the Battle of the Somme. Recall that only late in the war did the Germans actually figure out how to run a proper attack on a trench: thru infiltration shock troops that isolated the trenches, a precursor to the practice of blitzkrieg.

[Androidz]

So lets say 3 players start on German side. And 1 player on Allied side will not the allied have a hugh adventage?

[oaktown]

So lets say 3 players start on German side. And 1 player on Allied side will not the allied have a hugh adventage?

Don't see how that could happen. There are 24 starting territories, so in a four player game each player would start with 6... even if all six our your territories were on one side - which would be pretty damned lucky - you have six enemies to contend with mixed in on your side. I guess in a three player game you could start with eight of twelve on one side, but it will happen about as often as somebody starting with a continent in classic. It's a game of luck, and shit happens.

You guys could code the four territories closest to the bunkers as starting positions, which would at least not give any one player unfair access to one or both bunkers - this would be an easy fix to even up the starts, and it would tilt the odds even further from somebody starting with most of one side. (Though I'd still like to see the bunker moved up one and putting it closer to more starting positions.)

[Androidz]

So lets say 3 players start on German side. And 1 player on Allied side will not the allied have a hugh adventage?

Don't see how that could happen. There are 24 starting territories, so in a four player game each player would start with 6... even if all six our your territories were on one side - which would be pretty damned lucky - you have six enemies to contend with mixed in on your side. I guess in a three player game you could start with eight of twelve on one side, but it will happen about as often as somebody starting with a continent in classic. It's a game of luck, and shit happens.

You guys could code the four territories closest to the bunkers as starting positions, which would at least not give any one player unfair access to one or both bunkers - this might be a a deent move to even up the starts, and it would tilt the odds even further from somebody starting with most of one side. (Though I'd still like to see the bunker moved up one and putting it closer to more starting positions.)

ah i tough this was like normal conquest:P

[yeti_c]

Added effect of machine guns is prolonging a path through NML...

Remember that Neutrals respawn at the beginning of the holding players turn...

So if you bombard out those players to neutral 1s then the squares never reset... thus leaving a treacherous path of death - with which you can only close off by committing forces back in (i.e. to remine the area or something if you're looking for a trench analogy!)

C.