Conquer Club

No need to apologize, but you shouldn't confuse new mapmakers - if you give advice about the foundry protocols you need to be sure it's correct.

As the map is currently, it would likely require some supersize. And the supersize guidelines aren't very strict anymore - maps have been given supersize for purely graphical reasons, it's always judged on a map-to-map basis.

Anyway, you do have a point, in that there are ways to make the map size more comfortable - overly long maps are annoying in that they require scrolling up & down... rotating the map slightly would get rid of this problem.

Hey, pitrules,

I've got some gameplay suggestions:

1) If one holds all the Palestinian terries, they get an extra bonus.

It might make the gameplay more interesting for 2-4 player scenarios.


2) If not all Palestinian terries, how about giving an extra bonus for holding an incremental amount of cities? (+2 for 3 cities, or something like that)?


3) Perhaps, have the Sinai Desert be represented by a "Bedouin base," which connects to all terries bordering the Sinai Desert?

That might make the map less static, or bottle-necked.


4) This one might be crazier, too complicated, or not useful enough:

Have checkpoints in between each territory. If you control the checkpoint, you control access in between the two territories.

For example, player 1 holds Hebron, and the Hebron-Shemesh checkpoint. Player 2 holds Dimona and the Dimon-Hebron checkpoint. Player 1 can only attack Shemesh (via the checkpoint), but can't attack Dimona from Hebron--unless Player 1 controls the Dimon-Hebron checkpoint.

BigBallinStalin wrote:For example, player 1 holds Hebron, and the Hebron-Shemesh checkpoint. Player 2 holds Dimona and the Dimon-Hebron checkpoint. Player 1 can only attack Shemesh (via the checkpoint), but can't attack Dimona from Hebron--unless Player 1 controls the Dimon-Hebron checkpoint.

If I read this right, you'd want the borders between territories to be dependent on holding a checkpoint. This would require conditional borders which are not possible as of yet.

Or if you mean that there's simply a checkpoint between each territory and the territories don't border directly but only via the checkpoints, then that's doable.

First off, Ya'll do know that im doing the grafics for this map, right? and i like the checkpoint idea, ill run it by Pit

natty dread wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:For example, player 1 holds Hebron, and the Hebron-Shemesh checkpoint. Player 2 holds Dimona and the Dimon-Hebron checkpoint. Player 1 can only attack Shemesh (via the checkpoint), but can't attack Dimona from Hebron--unless Player 1 controls the Dimon-Hebron checkpoint.

If I read this right, you'd want the borders between territories to be dependent on holding a checkpoint. This would require conditional borders which are not possible as of yet.

Or if you mean that there's simply a checkpoint between each territory and the territories don't border directly but only via the checkpoints, then that's doable.

This.

But it means that a checkpoint counts as a terry. And each original territory (before this checkpoint idea) should be represented with a central "checkpoint HQ," so to speak.

I like the checkpoint idea, we'll see how it looks printed out. Crazymilkshake has taken over the design work as I think I ran into too many small issues along the way that would take a lot of time to correct - and as natty pointed it, it was too narrow and when I rotated it the whole thing it looked horrible. So basically I would have had to start from scratch with all the labelling. As I said, very time consuming, but I think crazymilkshake is on the right track.

pitrules88 wrote:I like the checkpoint idea, we'll see how it looks printed out. Crazymilkshake has taken over the design work as I think I ran into too many small issues along the way that would take a lot of time to correct - and as natty pointed it, it was too narrow and when I rotated it the whole thing it looked horrible. So basically I would have had to start from scratch with all the labelling. As I said, very time consuming, but I think crazymilkshake is on the right track.

Not sure which solution you're going to end up using, but I would like to weigh in from a player's point of view: a map that requires scrolling is always annoying. Whatever you need to do to get it to fit on one screen, do it!

Dukasaur wrote:

pitrules88 wrote:I like the checkpoint idea, we'll see how it looks printed out. Crazymilkshake has taken over the design work as I think I ran into too many small issues along the way that would take a lot of time to correct - and as natty pointed it, it was too narrow and when I rotated it the whole thing it looked horrible. So basically I would have had to start from scratch with all the labelling. As I said, very time consuming, but I think crazymilkshake is on the right track.

Not sure which solution you're going to end up using, but I would like to weigh in from a player's point of view: a map that requires scrolling is always annoying. Whatever you need to do to get it to fit on one screen, do it!

or buy a bigger screen

So, any update on the Israel project?

Not yet mate, I'm in the process of moving currently, so i dont have much time to do anything. sorry.

This map would really benefit from some texture!

Why was this stickied?

because it's an awesome map idea

I sent pit the next version... just waiting for him to post it...

I have posted on the first page.

So the next question, is how should we do the blockades?

pitrules88 wrote:It won't be easy to hold any of the bonuses because holding land in Israel has never been easy, just ask the Palestinians.[/b]

What do you mean just ask the Palestinians? If you're the one making this map, its probably best that you leave it up to someone who understands the history of the region. The Palestinians have never, not once, not for a second been in control of even several feet of land. The Jews on the other hand are the ones you should ask how difficult it has been to hold land. Israel was once called Israel before. But the Romans came in 70AD and destroyed Jerusalem, banished all Jews, and changed its name from Israel to Palestinia. Jews since then have often been called Palestinians. Legally in by documents, passports and ID cards. And by the obvious name change of the land. In fact Arabs refused to be called Palestinians and demanded they be called Arabs, not Palestinians until about the early 70's when they realized they needed a stronger cause to fight their position.

Also the Roman invasion of Israel in 70AD was not the first time the Jews have forcibly been taken from Israel. The Babylonians also came and destroyed everything taking during which the Jews of the ancient Kingdom of Judah were captives in Babylon—conventionally 587–538 BCE.

So in short. Lets ask the Jews how difficult it has been to hold on land. And is there someone more capable of contributing to the creation of this map than pitrules88?

Sure joabl, sounds like you're a candidate. If you want to write the xml for my map idea I am all for it. Go ahead and send me a paper on the history of Israel and we will try to include the key elements in the map.

If anyone has any suggestions as to how to improve this map for conquerclub gameplay, or changes in the graphics, we are very open to hearing this.

Thank you!

joabl wrote:What do you mean just ask the Palestinians? If you're the one making this map, its probably best that you leave it up to someone who understands the history of the region. The Palestinians have never, not once, not for a second been in control of even several feet of land. The Jews on the other hand are the ones you should ask how difficult it has been to hold land. Israel was once called Israel before. But the Romans came in 70AD and destroyed Jerusalem, banished all Jews, and changed its name from Israel to Palestinia. Jews since then have often been called Palestinians. Legally in by documents, passports and ID cards. And by the obvious name change of the land. In fact Arabs refused to be called Palestinians and demanded they be called Arabs, not Palestinians until about the early 70's when they realized they needed a stronger cause to fight their position.

Also the Roman invasion of Israel in 70AD was not the first time the Jews have forcibly been taken from Israel. The Babylonians also came and destroyed everything taking during which the Jews of the ancient Kingdom of Judah were captives in Babylon—conventionally 587–538 BCE.

So in short. Lets ask the Jews how difficult it has been to hold on land. And is there someone more capable of contributing to the creation of this map than pitrules88?

The Romans invaded Israel long before 70AD. They were in control of the area as early as 330 BCE, it was during the Great Jewish Revolt from 66 AD to 70AD that lead to the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans. But that is aside from the time frame and theme of this map. As was suggested earlier, it would be a good idea to have the West Bank, Golan Heights and Gaza not part of Israel, but make them as decaying neutrals - from fighting. Make sure that you have West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem to denote the Israeli-Arab division.

error

isaiah40 wrote:The Romans invaded Israel long before 70AD. They were in control of the area as early as 330 BCE, it was during the Great Jewish Revolt from 66 AD to 70AD that lead to the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans. But that is aside from the time frame and theme of this map. As was suggested earlier, it would be a good idea to have the West Bank, Golan Heights and Gaza not part of Israel, but make them as decaying neutrals - from fighting. Make sure that you have West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem to denote the Israeli-Arab division.

Yes, Romans came into Jewish lands long before, I never said they didn't come before 70AD. I only stated they destroyed Jerusalem and banished Jews in 70 AD, and that Palestinians have never in the history of the region had control of even an acre of land. It was in response to the historically incorrect assumption that pitrules88 had made. Plus I wasn't writing it in a negative or aggressive manor, or in any way of demeaning pitrules88, I was just stating fact.

I think that this region is a tough one to map out. But when anyone things of the land of Israel, they think of Jews.
Jews first came into the region in 1300 BCE after their Exodus from Egypt. Jews have had continuous presence in the land of Israel for the past 3,300 years. The rule of Israelites in the land of Israel starts with the conquests of Joshua (ca. 1250 BCE). The period from 1000-587 BCE is known as the "Period of the Kings". The most noteworthy kings were King David (1010-970 BCE), who made Jerusalem the Capital of Israel, and his son Solomon ( 970-931 BCE), who built the first Temple in Jerusalem.



What I think might be cool, and a good way to look at this map when drawing it up is the difficulties and challenges Israel deals with on a daily basis. Israel's struggle for "defensible borders" is unique in international diplomacy. It emanates from both the special legal and strategic circumstances that Israel faced in the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day War, when the Israel Defense Forces captured the West Bank and other territories in a war of self-defense. The previous armistice line of 1949 that separated the Israeli and Jordanian armies was only a military boundary and not a permanent political border, according to the armistice agreement itself. The Jordanian occupation of the West Bank occurred in conjunction with its illegal invasion of the State of Israel in 1948. In fact, Jordanian sovereignty in the West Bank was not recognized by a single Arab state. This provided the background for UN Security Council Resolution 242 of November 1967 which concluded that Israel would need "secure and recognized boundaries" that would necessarily be different from the 1967 lines. The previous status quo was not to be restored.

Terrorism is a huge factor in which all these check points and security barriers were built. This could be an aspect as in how to look at certain territories. Since construction of the fence began, the number of attacks has declined by more than 90%. The number of Israelis murdered and wounded has decreased by more than 70% and 85%, respectively, after erection of the fence. So ares with a fence or wall should be harder to get at, and easier to defend.

ok... we could go on about history, anything about the epic map?????

Yes...what I just added to my previous post up above. Forget the past and the history. If we are making a map of Israel, lets look at Israel today. Lets take into account the daily security challenges that Israel has to deal with on a continual basis and work that into the defence and offence aspect of the map.

Israel is considered to have one of the best and largest airforces in the world. Much of Americas jets run on Israeli navigational systems, and sophisticated missile systems. Areas of Israel the are known for having large air force bases could maybe have a wider range of attack. Israel is small so maybe they can attack anything within a certain range, without exaggerating.

I found this map of at least what Israel allows people to know are military bases.
http://www.iaf.org.il/Sip_Storage/FILES/7/45227.jpg

Here's some ideas that I have after reading the posts:

- Every region that is held in Gaza gets a -1 at the start of each turn for fighting, as isaiah40 mentioned. Though we can increase the bonus of it to make it fair. We could do the same for West Bank.

- Jerusalem can be a totally seperate part of the map. Kind of like the map Battle For Iraq that has Baghdad as its own area, that could be the same for Jerusalem and we could divide it into many territories. We may also have Jerusalem as an "air-flight" condition, where if you hold all of it you get a big bonus and can attack any region on the map from the air.

- Tel Aviv is totally blockaded except for 1 border. If you hold all of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv it could be a victory condition.

pitrules88 wrote:Here's some ideas that I have after reading the posts:

- Every region that is held in Gaza gets a -1 at the start of each turn for fighting, as isaiah40 mentioned. Though we can increase the bonus of it to make it fair. We could do the same for West Bank.

- Jerusalem can be a totally seperate part of the map. Kind of like the map Battle For Iraq that has Baghdad as its own area, that could be the same for Jerusalem and we could divide it into many territories. We may also have Jerusalem as an "air-flight" condition, where if you hold all of it you get a big bonus and can attack any region on the map from the air.

- Tel Aviv is totally blockaded except for 1 border. If you hold all of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv it could be a victory condition.

You have some good ideas, but by creating the illusion that Israel isn't already in control of everything makes no sense and not very accurate. Gaza terrorist and militant groups for example shoot into Israel a barrage of different rockets from home made Qassams, to anti tank missiles they manage to smuggle in from Egypt through tunnels. Some rockets gettings as far as 22 kilometers in. What we could do is take away Gaza's bonus if someone else has control of all other areas bordering Egypt. Since Israel will then be able to intercept smuggling operations from Egypt.

I like the idea that Jerusalem can be a totally separate part of the map. That could be a bit complicated but I like where you're going with it. Jerusalem can separately be zoomed up on the side. In theory we could do that for all three of the disputed areas. Gaza, the Golan Heights and the West Bank. Just saying....could be interesting.