Conquer Club

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_ ... ly_battles

In May the British naval artillery advantage was diminished following the torpedoing of the battleship HMS Goliath on 13 May by Turkish torpedo boat Muavenet-i Milliye. Shortly after German submarine SM U-21 sank HMS Triumph on 25 May and HMS Majestic on 27 May. Following these losses much of the battleship support was withdrawn and those remaining would fire while under way, reducing their accuracy and effectiveness.

.44

the.killing.44 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallipoli_Campaign#The_early_battles

In May the British naval artillery advantage was diminished following the torpedoing of the battleship HMS Goliath on 13 May by Turkish torpedo boat Muavenet-i Milliye. Shortly after German submarine SM U-21 sank HMS Triumph on 25 May and HMS Majestic on 27 May. Following these losses much of the battleship support was withdrawn and those remaining would fire while under way, reducing their accuracy and effectiveness.

.44

Yes, that is so. but this map is not set in May. It's set in April that's why there is a landing at Anzac Cove 25th April on the map.
And that withdrawl of battleship capacity was what i was hoping to achieve with the per turn reduction in numbers on the battleship if players didn't use them.
I will still follow up and do some more research to see if the Turkish had capacity to reach the battleship way out to see.

Cairns, I have to say that this is my favourite of your maps currently in development.

There have been several changes since I last poured over the gameplay with a fine tooth-comb, so I won't pass comment on anything until I've properly re-familiarised myself with it

The key concern that I anticipate, will be the unattackability of the battleships (which I'd prefer to see relabelled as HMS Whatever as opposed to BS Whatever) in conjunction with an incredibly difficult objective.

I don't recall the exact conversation about starting positions here, but you will need to consider that in a 1v1 game, 4 starts will go to p1, the other 4 to p2 - this could potentially give an incredibly unfair start to p1, depending on the bombard targets. As for alterations to XML, while I am a fierce advocate of alterations being made, XML amendments are not at the top of lackattack's to-do list... I think that what you want to (currently) achieve is do-able, but I'd rather not see another map stall because of impossible features

sorry for popping in so late.

The looks of the map is beautiful and I like the mechanism of auto losing troops on the ships (here it makes sense ).
I gave it a quick look:

++++++++++++
There are landing beaches a,b,c etc. that auto lose -1 .
fine. I don't foresee if this could lead to "unfair" entrapment for players that have/had a bombardment ship, doing a landing , getting ripped of all other terr. on land in the mean time and then see their numbers dwindling by opponent attacks AND these two auto reduction kills.
A few rounds of playing is needed.

++++++++++++++++++++++
The X and V and S are not clear enough visible on the map.
I was looking for D and E after B..but then I see Z ? And below i see s,v,w, and then x, y, ...(far away).. z ?
Doesn't look sensible.

But why is Suvia Point not being auto -1 reduced ? and nibruseni point ? and Anzac point ? and Chanak Kale (in face of guns at F7) ?

If there is no particular reason why the mentioned landing points are safer than the a,b,c, etc landing points, then why not REMOVE all the A,B,C ,X,Z markers and simply state in the legend that ALL landing points (recognizable by the dotted sea connection) suffer -1 attrition per turn.


+++++++++++++++
the YELLOW player has no 9 starting field on the right coast.
(Erinkeui looks like the place for it..oh no that is grey!).

GREY has no 9 starting field on the peninsula

+++++
keep up the works

MrBenn wrote:Cairns, I have to say that this is my favourite of your maps currently in development.

Phew, that's nice, at least i can do something that has appeal your you guys LOL.

The key concern that I anticipate, will be the unattackability of the battleships (which I'd prefer to see relabelled as HMS Whatever as opposed to BS Whatever) in conjunction with an incredibly difficult objective.

I don't recall the exact conversation about starting positions here, but you will need to consider that in a 1v1 game, 4 starts will go to p1, the other 4 to p2 - this could potentially give an incredibly unfair start to p1, depending on the bombard targets. As for alterations to XML, while I am a fierce advocate of alterations being made, XML amendments are not at the top of lackattack's to-do list... I think that what you want to (currently) achieve is do-able, but I'd rather not see another map stall because of impossible features

Yes, i agree, we don't want another Das Schloß on our hands, so i am working on those aspects.

lt_oddball wrote:sorry for popping in so late.

Goodness, lt...you're not late, this isn't in Final forge yet.

The looks of the map is beautiful and I like the mechanism of auto losing troops on the ships (here it makes sense ).

Thanks.

++++++++++++

There are landing beaches a,b,c etc. that auto lose -1 .
fine. I don't foresee if this could lead to "unfair" entrapment for players that have/had a bombardment ship, doing a landing , getting ripped of all other terr. on land in the mean time and then see their numbers dwindling by opponent attacks AND these two auto reduction kills.
A few rounds of playing is needed.

Yes maybe some adjustment would be diesireble during testing there.

The X and V and S are not clear enough visible on the map.
I was looking for D and E after B..but then I see Z ? And below i see s,v,w, and then x, y, ...(far away).. z ?
Doesn't look sensible.
But why is Suvia Point not being auto -1 reduced ? and nibruseni point ? and Anzac point ? and Chanak Kale (in face of guns at F7) ?
If there is no particular reason why the mentioned landing points are safer than the a,b,c, etc landing points, then why not REMOVE all the A,B,C ,X,Z markers and simply state in the legend that ALL landing points (recognizable by the dotted sea connection) suffer -1 attrition per turn.

There isn't any D, E, etc after B, that's the name of the exact beaches, and i wouldn't change that for historical accuracy.
I initially had the beaches listed from the top of the map down. until someone suggested they go in the legend as they are now, so let's see if there is any other objections about this.
Suvla Point etc, ader marked as being with sand in the legend and represented as "others".
Chanak Kali, Kehlia Beach and Madios are not part of the "makred" initlal landing beaches, they have to run the gaunlet of the sea mines, and i think it would be unreasonable to giove them -1 per round lose after traversing the sea mines and the fort guns.

the YELLOW player has no 9 starting field on the right coast.
(Erinkeui looks like the place for it..oh no that is grey!).
GREY has no 9 starting field on the peninsula

Yellow, i missed him, will fix.
He'll take over one of those grey neutrals.
Thanks lt_oddball.

Good Idea, good map.
My only concern is about the actual gameplay that makes impossible win an assassin game killing your target...this map is only an objective one.
But you can discuss about your gameplay in the main foundry



thenobodies80

Can't wait for this map. Whats the projection at this point?

istanbul39 wrote:Can't wait for this map. Whats the projection at this point?

Oooh... long way to go istanbul39, thanks for dropping in for comment though.
I have to find out if there were any large guns on the peninsula that could have taken out the battleships, as a way of "destroying the enemy" so that this game doesn't remain an unachaiveable objective game.

thenobodies80 wrote:Good Idea, good map.
My only concern is about the actual gameplay that makes impossible win an assassin game killing your target...this map is only an objective one.
But you can discuss about your gameplay in the main foundry
....
thenobodies80

Thanks thenobodies80, research being conducted

Current Version 18

It's not showing up again.
it just shows the red X with the word image next to it

captainwalrus wrote:It's not showing up again.
it just shows the red X with the word image next to it

What's not showing up again, captain?

for the past two versions, the map isn't showing up at all.

The most fantastic museum I have ever been to is the war Museum and Anitkabir in Ankara. In one section, you walk through a simulated Geibolu. Absolutely amazing! The sound system gives you the sense that bullets are whizzing past your head and the mortar exploding at your feet. You can walk through the medic tents as the Red Crescent attend to the wounded. Make your way to the attack hills and hear the "Mehmets" chanting "Allah, Allah, Allah..." as they go find their bullet. Can not visit there enough.

I'm sure nothing you have not seen already but this is an interesting web site.

http://www.byegm.gov.tr/yayinlarimiz/ki ... libolu.pdf

istanbul39 wrote:The most fantastic museum I have ever been to is the war Museum and Anitkabir in Ankara. In one section, you walk through a simulated Geibolu. Absolutely amazing! The sound system gives you the sense that bullets are whizzing past your head and the mortar exploding at your feet. You can walk through the medic tents as the Red Crescent attend to the wounded. Make your way to the attack hills and hear the "Mehmets" chanting "Allah, Allah, Allah..." as they go find their bullet. Can not visit there enough.

Excellent! I have also been through the Australian War Memorial in Canberra where this is also a whole section devoted to Gallipoli Campaign, but i guess largely from the ANZAC perspective.

istanbul39 wrote:I'm sure nothing you have not seen already but this is an interesting web site.

http://www.byegm.gov.tr/yayinlarimiz/ki ... libolu.pdf

No i had not seen this document/site. Thank-you for that.

I am far from happy with the map. There are aspects of it that i would like to enhance and improve greatly.
The main battle concern is that the xml doesn't allow for natural decay to neutral for the batteships. Here's hoping!

captainwalrus wrote:for the past two versions, the map isn't showing up at all.

captain, it must be your browser/software somewhere.

cairnswk wrote:

captainwalrus wrote:for the past two versions, the map isn't showing up at all.

captain, it must be your browser/software somewhere.

all the other versions worked fine.

Current Version

I got firefox and I can finally see the last few updates. It is looking really good.
The shadow is a little much on the impassibles at the edge of the peninsula but I think that the other ones should be a little darker.

Its looking like the 'decay to 0' is way beyond the horizon at the moment.

With the objective being tricky it may be worth investigating some way of attacking the battleships - maybe something with a reasonably-sized neutral so that your original gameplay-idea for the battleships would still happen.

DJ Teflon wrote:Its looking like the 'decay to 0' is way beyond the horizon at the moment.

With the objective being tricky it may be worth investigating some way of attacking the battleships - maybe something with a reasonably-sized neutral so that your original gameplay-idea for the battleships would still happen.

Mmmmm. with the Turks not having firepower that could hit the battleships, i am reluctant to introduce anything other than what happened less it make it NOT Galipolli.

On Vacation.
If the mapmaker wants to continue this map, a CA will move the thread back to the main foundry after an update is posted.

[moved]

How about bringing this back with supersize?

Bruceswar wrote:How about bringing this back with supersize?

Bruceswar...i think IndustrialHelix had taken over this map and had started doing something on it...but we're waiting on lackattack to do something for the XML so that the battleships can reduce to nil by 1 per round.
Having said that, i believe there may be another solution with the losing condition for the xml regardless of the battleship armies.
Stay tuned.