Conquer Club

greenoaks wrote:IH, for someone assisting you seem to be doing all the talking. Let Ava come here and post the responses, it is her map.

They are doing it together, but it would be nice to hear from Ava to get a different view.

But here you go into the drafting room.

Yep, I hear ya.

I kee telling her to start posting on the thread, it's HER map idea. But what really happens is that we mostly talk about the map at home and I synthesize our agreed opinions and post them to keep the thread alive.

Industrial Helix wrote:Yep, I hear ya.

I kee telling her to start posting on the thread, it's HER map idea. But what really happens is that we mostly talk about the map at home and I synthesize our agreed opinions and post them to keep the thread alive.

I know its hard but you'll have to let this die, or adopt it as your baby.

At this stage i don't really get the gameplay. I'll need to look at some more. I like the retro appearance though.

Sorry, I've been letting IH do most of the talking, she is kind of the outgoing one and I'm the shy one

Anyway we've been thinking about the map a little more. We wanted to make a relatively simple map so I think adding a bunch of extra territories is going to make it a bit too confusing. The idea of a 1-way airplane link between Kinshasa and the start of the river is a good idea though, just to prevent everybody from fighting over those 1 or 2 territories that can be used to attack most of the map. Also if people want something else to spice the map up a bit we were thinking of adding a win condition, kind of like the Trans Siberia 1914 map which is my new favorite. I suggested holding Kinshasa + 5 cities, she thought holding all territiories that border the river would be better.

Ava and I chatted about the map today, mostly concerning her desire to put in a win condition. Initially she was thinking Kinshasa plus 4-5 cities, but myobjection was that historically, in the Congo wars, holding Kinshasa and a load of cities did not ensure a victor. Additionally, given that there are no land bonuses and the cities are the only means of getting extra troops, then it would be too easy for players to load up stacks on the cities as they autodeploy, then grab Kinshasa for the win. It wouldn't be a fair win condition.

So I'm proposing a couple different win conditions that I'd like for you all to weigh in on:

1) Control all land territories bordering the river - you win.

2) Adding an extra two territories of USA support and USSR support. These territories will be able to bombard cities on the map via their assumed airplanes (which aren't on the ma but support implies military support). The Superpowers would be attacked by Kinshasa and holding international support plus Kinshasa plus x amount of cities gives a win.
2a) Both the US and USSR attack a United Nations territory that represents International support. Holding Kinshasa, the US or USSR, the UN and x amount of cities = win.While the superpowers can bombard cities, the cities can also bombard the UN (which represents that if cities were rioting against a leader, the opinion of the leader in the UN would go down, eventually until the UN is bombarded to a stack of neutrals and no player has it).

Honestly, I favor either 2a) or no win condition at all. As he map is, it feels more like a map about the geographic experience of the Congo Basin and bringing the 20th century politics that have plagued the region into the game just ruins an otherwise beautiful and fascinating region.

You're thoughts are appreciated.

Either 2 or 2a for me - they both add an interesting dimension

I like 2a as a win condition. The international politics/support thing hasn't been done on too many maps and should be interesting to play. I think we should go with that unless everyone thinks it's too complicated.

Don't worry about too complicated. There are plenty of complicated maps about - some players prefer them

I'm leaning towards 2a. but I'm hesitant because I think that throwing in the 20th century politics kind of ruins an otherwise good map.

All of my things right now are graphical, but you have quite a few blunders around the boarders. I assume you will fix those....

Also ditch the flag idea.. It is way too busy for a background image.... I would go with a flat color and some texture..

It would be helpful if you could point out the blunders you see, I see a couple, but not many mote than that.Mostly because I'm biased.

Give me a bit and I will

Here you go... Red circles are areas that need attention... The right side of the map has the texure missing? I assume you will fix that?

Thanks Bruceswar! I'll work on those when I get some time.

By the texture on the right side, do you mean the South where the color changes to a light green. The Congo Map is actually a Satellite image of the DR Congo. So the changes in color are actually changes in terrain. This applies also to the north eastern section along the national border. I'm unsure about changing it because I like how the satellite image reflects the lush rainforest that dominates the country.

Wait, I see it, where the flags lose their texture. I think I meant to crop it but forgot, I'll fix it in the next update. Thanks again for your help!

[Moved]

This map has been moved into the Ideas subforum, as it has not had an update within the time period. This can still be worked on and moved back after an update has been made.

koontz1973

Sorry, I forgot about this little project, but now I've made the necessary update.

You don't really need the arrows going through the water unless it is significant to game play.
The territory lines should not be going through the water.
I like the land texture, pretty cool.

I see that the arrows do have a purpose, but I don't understand what it means. The Areas can attack the areas up stream. Aren't the areas already
in connection with the areas up stream of them.
or are you saying all territories along the river can attack each other?
or are you saying the territories along the river can attack all of the territories upstream but not down steam
or are you saying the territories can attack all of the territories upstream but only the ones connected to them down stream

You might need to reword the Kinsasha bonus a little better.

I will stop by and give more input later

I'm saying that if a territory borders the river it can attack any territory upstream that also borders the river, for example, Shaba can attack Bas-Congo but Bas-Congo can not attack Shaba.

Industrial Helix wrote:I'm saying that if a territory borders the river it can attack any territory upstream that also borders the river, for example, Shaba can attack Bas-Congo but Bas-Congo can not attack Shaba.

why are attacks possible just upstream? it is modern era with diesel engines on boats...
also it is a little confused that Shaba can attacks Bas-Congo - it is far away. maybe attacks could go upstream up to 2/3?

Oneyed

Industrial Helix wrote:I'm saying that if a territory borders the river it can attack any territory upstream that also borders the river, for example, Shaba can attack Bas-Congo but Bas-Congo can not attack Shaba.

So Kafue would be able to attack 11 other territories, but no other territory would be able to attack Kafue.
I love specialty game play, I am just trying to get the game play straight in my head.

How do you get to the three flags on the bottom left? Are they at the end of the river?

Industrial Helix wrote:I'm saying that if a territory borders the river it can attack any territory upstream that also borders the river, for example, Shaba can attack Bas-Congo but Bas-Congo can not attack Shaba.

So can you attack "upstream" or "downstream"? If the arrows represent the direction the Congo flows, then according to the above description you can only attack "downstream" not "upstream" as that would be "against" the flow of the Congo.

isaiah40 wrote:

Industrial Helix wrote:I'm saying that if a territory borders the river it can attack any territory upstream that also borders the river, for example, Shaba can attack Bas-Congo but Bas-Congo can not attack Shaba.

So can you attack "upstream" or "downstream"? If the arrows represent the direction the Congo flows, then according to the above description you can only attack "downstream" not "upstream" as that would be "against" the flow of the Congo.

Gotta love semantics...

Upstream - direction, against the current.
Downstream - in the direction of the current
If the Congo empties into the Atlantic, then I've made a mistake in my use of upstream and down stream

Also it seems I forgot to add the instructions saying Kinshasa can attack the US and the Soviet Union.