Conquer Club

me wrote:the left border

Or do you seriously suggest those forts can bombard all the ships, up to the very northern edge of the map?

The border between Dardanelles & Narrows is clear...

natty_dread wrote:

me wrote:the left border

Or do you seriously suggest those forts can bombard all the ships, up to the very northern edge of the map?

The border between Dardanelles & Narrows is clear...

I really need to sit down and give this map some tender love and care. It was kind of a rush job given that it was a contest... I need a totally overhauled version.

But yeah, the narrowest point between the two land sections is where the border should be.

Alright, updated version with a more complete legend and numbers indicating how the first round of the game should start.

Anything further happening here....i like the escarpments around YXWV beaches.

Well, i'm kind of waiting for some sort of input. I was talking with Evil D about the map actually and I ought to bring it up with him again.

Glad you like the cliffs, I plan on doing that around the rest of the map (as opposed to those attractive brown blobs).

The two things I don't have good feeling about, gameplay-wise, on this map:

1) The closed-circuit BBs... I know, they never seem to sit right with me, and honestly as it stands right now they're better than they were at -2 per round- the Admiral is an improvement I think. Still, I cannot imagine a more joyless experience than trying to attain the nearly-hopeless victory objective in order to get rid of some private who decided that
taking over the BBs would be cool. Is there no way to connect the BBs to the rest of the map, or to simulate their bombardment without having them at all?
Along those last lines, what about a simple decay for the bombardment areas, like on the beaches? And then axe the BBs altogether, since they seem pretty removed from the battle anyway?

2) I'm a bit puzzled by the bombardment instruction for the beaches... they can bombard any landing craft and assault adjacent ones, perhaps? Hmmm, that can't be right. Anyway, I need some clarity there.

I especially love how the land all autodeploys +1. This map has good, solid gameplay elements that come together very well thematically. There's probably some balancing factors that need to be looked at... but I must hie myself to bed.

1) The decay is not a bad idea... the key thing about it that worries me is that then the bombardment becomes uniform rather than relevant to the actual game. I'll give it some thought as I'm tussling with the idea of perhaps having something bombard the ships.

2) I'm a bit unsure where you read that they assault adjacent ones. As I read the map: "Beaches are marked by sand, lose one man per round, can bombard landing craft."

MarshalNey wrote:2) I'm a bit puzzled by the bombardment instruction for the beaches... they can bombard any landing craft and assault adjacent ones, perhaps? Hmmm, that can't be right. Anyway, I need some clarity there.

Industrial Helix wrote:2) I'm a bit unsure where you read that they assault adjacent ones. As I read the map: "Beaches are marked by sand, lose one man per round, can bombard landing craft."

Heh, I didn't read it, I was re-typing in mid-thought at 2AM...

Anyway, yeah, those are the instructions but they surely aren't complete. I mean, can beach Y bombard MS5 in the Dardenelles... and if so, why? Furthermore, if the landing craft can assault the beaches but not vice-versa, then an arrow I think is called for to indicate one-way attack.

Good point, I'll change it to read "can bombard adjacent landing craft"

And arrows would be better too, i think.

Rmmmmm.... haven't seen any movement on this for a while. Is this map still in progress?

For my part, here's how I view this puppy:

Perks

The Theme. It's a generally forgotten war in a generally forgotten theater where hudreds of thousands of soldiers fought in a failed amphibious invasion. It was a defining moment for the ANZAC forces, who gained a reputation for dogged resistance and aggression. Sooo, a plus in the uniqueness department and a plus in the educational department and a bonus for including both land and sea forces.

Mixed Gameplay. Is this a conquest map? Not really... but it's got too many neutrals to be a 'normal' map either. It's got lots of low-level autodeploys as well, and no continent bonuses, which also makes the case for a conquest-type map. Finally, there are killer neutrals and bombardments, so there's a whole lot of variety and options. If done right, the gameplay could give this map a very broad appeal.

Concerns

The BB Merry-go-round. I mentioned it earlier, so I won't repeat myself.

The Mines & the Drop. I'm worried about players getting put into tiresome starting positions, for instance at the back of the "mine train" is a pretty crappy place to be as compared to the front. Also, getting a perponderance of land areas as opposed to the landing craft could be frustrating.

Clarity on the Landing Craft. Also already mentioned.

Very busy with work lately but I've got some time. I'll address the concerns this week.

Sad to think that MarshalNey may be right about this being a forgotten war, but I don't think it is true in Commonwealth countries. As he said, this battle was defining for the ANZAC forces, and Canada will never (I hope) forget Vimy Ridge. (Now there is a battle worthy of a map. I wish I had the skills to do it proud. Maybe someday.)

Hmm... what do you guys think of beaches assaulting both Landing craft AND battleships?

One option would be to make the landing craft that connect to battleships start at a neutral 1 so there isn't any unnecessary conflict between ships and landing crafts.

As for the dardenelles, i hear your point Marshal and I think it could use some simplification. I'm considering dropping a number of the landing craft in favor of putting open deployment positions on the mainland. I expect players are going to sit and stack until they can take out an adjacent battleship and landing craft and then solidify a beach head area with little opposition from the turks. This might be desirable though, I'm undecided.

I'm trying to work out how the games are going to likely play out and then figure out if it will even near resemble the battle. Thoughts?

Another consideration that I am taking is whether the mess in narrows and dardenelles is even necessary. Shouldn't this map focus strictly on the land battle with naval power taking a secondary roll to land maneuvers. Thoughts?

Industrial Helix wrote:Another consideration that I am taking is whether the mess in narrows and dardenelles is even necessary. Shouldn't this map focus strictly on the land battle with naval power taking a secondary roll to land maneuvers. Thoughts?

I dunno... I like the naval aspect. And, to be fair to the history, the whole battle took place with the strategic aim of gaining direct naval access to Russia for supply purposes. Furthermore, the first several months of the battle involved naval forces rather heavily.

(OK... reading....)

The mines did much of the damage to the attacking navy, so they're a good setpiece to include. Apparently submarines and a Turkish torpedo boat supplied the final insult that drove off the BB presence, if the Internet cliff notes version can be credited (?)

From then on, though, the battle was an attritional slugfest on the land.

I like the dual nature of the map, with naval and land portions.

I also like how you're incorporating the BBs more into the map in separate places, rather than as their own special place apart.

I'm going to have to mull over this a bit... my feeling is that some better organization on the part of the mines/landing craft, or maybe changes in deployment could help. The Dardenelles/Narrows area is set up sort of like a gauntlet, which is accurate and also interesting from a gameplay viewpoint. However, having players start with regions at the end of the gauntlet sort of defeats the purpose... why aren't they neutral, for instance?

That's just one thought; overall, I think a lot more could be done to capture the spirit of the naval side. Bombardment from the beaches of the BBs is a step in the right direction, but perhaps makes the BBs a bit too vulnerable. If there was a U-boat pen/torpedo boat/Central Powers navy region(s) that offered bombardments...?

Well, as you've observed, the battle was two phases. Originally, Churchill wanted to send battleships through to Constantinople so he could blow up the Ottoman capital and get them to surrender. But when the Dardenelles turned out to be too dangerous, they opted to go to Constantinople by land. So really, the ships had two purposes: 1) Initially they were to be the main force in making the Ottoman's surrender. 2) But after the failed campaign, they were used in place of artillery for the land invasion.

The difficulty with this map is that it is trying to portray both the Dardenelles campaign AND the land campaign... but the same ships used to go through the Dardenelles were the ones later used for artillery support. I'm losing faith in the idea that both phases of the battle can be accurately portrayed.

Throwing the Dardenelles fiasco into the map also further complicates the problem of getting the turkish starting points over to the European side from the Asian side. It's too complicated, I think no one is going to notice the little docks which traverse the straits.

So, I think the options are to either 1) streamline the straits feature or 2) do away with it and focus on the land battle.

How much has the gameplay changed since Cairns' original draft? I remember pouring over it previously, and would like to know if I can go and pick out some of my old analysis, or whether I'll need to start afresh...

Everything is the same save for the battleships scheme, which we are trying to figure out something satisfactory for.

Industrial Helix wrote:Everything is the same save for the battleships scheme, which we are trying to figure out something satisfactory for.

Coolio. As a matter of administrative ease, please could you add a link to the original cairnswk map thread to the first post. You could also remove the "April Competition" tag from the map title too

Let's resolve this Battleship thing then...

1) So what about this idea? But perhaps extend the Battleships to all the landing craft and make the landing craft a neutral 1 or something. Then the beaches will be able to bombard the Battleships, effectively taking them out of the game.



2) Another option that I've been considering is just having one battleship that operates like Naval Power in Eastern Hemisphere. All landing craft or perhaps all beaches can one way attack it.

The problem if the landing craft attack it is that the landing craft have decay. So essentially a player will off the bat have to decide beach or battleship. OR if the player holds their beach well enough, they can decide at a later time to deploy on a craft, which should still be at 1, and then take the battleship. The only problem is, if all the landing craft are taken out then there is no way to eliminate the battleship.

IH, a copy of the email i sent lackattack yesterday....we can only live in hope.

cairnswk wrote:

lackattack wrote:

cairnswk wrote:Thanks.....
This will be the last, i think, at least for now, until i get re-energised somehow.
I know you are waiting on new images for Stalingrad, so now that my first exams are finished i will get on that later today.
Regards....

Thanks Cairns! I will try to get some map xml updates done shortly to lure you back into map making.

LOL.
.....truthfully...the xml update i would like to see occur is the one for the Gallipoli Campaign, that allows the battleships to reduce to neutral over time by decay of -1 from starting numbers of 20 or so if it is not fortified.

.....

Regards

So ok, let's make that solution number 3. I'd prefer the the third solution, but given the admin's track record with getting XML updates out sooner rather than later, I think we need to ask ourselves whether or not we feel like waiting.

One solution to this would be to use a back up plan, one of the previous ideas I've specified, and if the XML update goes through in the meantime, revert the gameplay to that solution. The benefits of this would be that work can begin on the graphics rather than wait around for XML to be updated and the time waiting won't be put to waste.

[Moved]

It would appear that development of this map has stalled. If the mapmaker wants to continue with the map, then one of the Foundry Moderators will be able to help put the thread back into the Foundry system, after an update has been made.

Industrial Helix wrote:So ok, let's make that solution number 3. I'd prefer the the third solution, but given the admin's track record with getting XML updates out sooner rather than later, I think we need to ask ourselves whether or not we feel like waiting.

One solution to this would be to use a back up plan, one of the previous ideas I've specified, and if the XML update goes through in the meantime, revert the gameplay to that solution. The benefits of this would be that work can begin on the graphics rather than wait around for XML to be updated and the time waiting won't be put to waste.

IH. Bruceswar has just put up a call for this to re-started...how do you feel about that? Can you manage it?

For the battleship dilema....Sully just pointed out to me in Spanish Armada that the losing condition could be the solution to this battleship dilema.
Because all the battleships are not the only starting territories, then the losing condition would be that if a player has no armies left on all the other territories, then they are automatically eliminated anyways, regardless of what is on the battleships.
What do you think?

The losing condition is a brilliant solution and it would solve the whole problem!

This month is a bit crammed full for me with maps though... I could possibly take it up in August.

Industrial Helix wrote:The losing condition is a brilliant solution and it would solve the whole problem!

This month is a bit crammed full for me with maps though... I could possibly take it up in August.

Cool, no worries...when you have time.