Conquer Club

Edit: I started work recently and have a very hard time finishing the map. Does anyone want to offer his/her help to take-over the project and finish the map? It will look very nice at the end! The project is in Photoshop.
If someone is brave enough, pls contact me and I will pass you the Photoshop Project


I want to do the historic map of Romania (and its counties) when it was invaded by the ottoman empire and Vlad (Dracula) Tepes was defending it (and impaling the Turks hence the Dracula story).

Map Maker: feyerv
Thread Link: none yet
Map Name: Romania
Map Size: 41
Regions: 9
Aims: Design a (classic) map that is historically accurate and fits the Risk gameplay. By historically accurate I mean not negleting any county or capital city of a county and also respect the historical regions (i.e. Transilvania, Moldova etc). When a historian looks at this map he can be satisfied that everything is correct, from regions to historical names and major cities in every county. This will add a historical accuracy to the gameplay (makes it more fun for people like me).
Experience: First-time map maker.


I am open for suggestions on how to divide bonuses including major cities.
It is extremly important for this map however that the regions (Transilvania, Moldova etc) stay as they are otherwise they defeat the purpose of it being a historically accurate map.



All the best,
Gabriel.

Latest Update:

First post, first map and now first reply!

First, welcome to the foundry!

Don't have a lot to say, though. I like the map on the face of things and think the idea of a bonus for holding both those important cities is fine. The exact bonus should depend on how much the other bonus areas will yield.
You mention cities, maybe we can come up with something interesting for them to do, so we don't have just another real-world map with standard gameplay?

Hi and thanks, this is my second post

I was thinking to let the players start in the regions with 2 territories (e.g. Banat, Crisana.. etc there are 5 of those) and then they move their way into the center.

I was also thinking to give +1 bonus to these regions (the start zones) then +4 to Oltenia & Moldova and +6 to Transilvania and Muntenia.

What do you think?

Best,
Gabriel.

I was thinking to let the players start in the regions with 2 territories (e.g. Banat, Crisana.. etc there are 5 of those) and then they move their way into the center.

Do you mean that each player get a whole region? That might work well, but you'd have to come up with 3 more such 2-territory regions (for the 8-player games). Perhaps along the south of the map, to keep it balanced.

I think the bonuses sounds fair. Might need some tweaking when mountains and rivers (impassables) are introduced.

Oh yes.. you're right... I need 8 players at the beginning.. I don't want to give too much advantage to the one player that ends up in corner right while the others fight each other..

In that case they will start randomly on the map (the 8 players) (?)

I will probably have to add some important rivers.

How many should there be ? 1-2 big ones? Mountains?
What happens if there are no barriers and it's a free-for-all attack in nay direction map? Will that work?

Best,
Gabriel.

re: River & Mountains:
Well, how many are there? We have no rivers here in tiny Denmark, so I'd be hard pressed to put in any.

If you wan't a historically accurate map, I think it would be in line with the theme to have the landscape accurate as well (i.e. mountains and rivers).

That said, and I think some would probably disagree here, but I think a map with no impassables would work well enough, at least.

I would definitely add the rivers and mountains from an aesthetic viewpoint, but I would not make them impassable. None of them really were. The Carpathians are gentle mountains with numerous gaps and passes, and most of the rivers were/are easy to ford. The Danube is unfordable, of course, but for the most part it runs along the outer edge of your map, and it was always rather densely populated anyway, so invaders rarely found a shortage of boatmen for hire.

Dukasaur wrote:I would definitely add the rivers and mountains from an aesthetic viewpoint, but I would not make them impassable.

If they are not impassable, there's no point in putting them on the map.

What you include on a map always depends on the application. For example, if the application of the map is to serve as a political map of some kind, or a simple road map, things like mountains or rivers are not usually included by the mapmaker. This doesn't make the map any less accurate, just that the scope of things the map represents does not include mountains and rivers.

So if you're not going to have the mountains & rivers serve a gameplay purpose, there's no point in putting them in just for having a more "accurate" map.

But I would say that this map does need impassables anyway. A totally open gameplay like the current map has doesn't make for a very good gameplay. It makes it too hard to defend any of the bonuses and takes away strategy, making the map more luck-based.

So if you're not going to have the mountains & rivers serve a gameplay purpose, there's no point in putting them in just for having a more "accurate" map.

One word: Penguins.

You go ahead and include the rivers and/or mountains as you see fit feyerv.

But I would say that this map does need impassables anyway. A totally open gameplay like the current map has doesn't make for a very good gameplay. It makes it too hard to defend any of the bonuses and takes away strategy, making the map more luck-based.

Not true at all. It makes for different gameplay.
If anything, a more open map makes for a map less dependant on luck, as there's less dependency on the initial drop (providing an easily taken and thereafter defensible bonus).
Having more paths of attack and thus more territories to defend makes the map a much longer game, where the strategy is different - not somehow lessened - and it certainly does not make the map more luck-based.

Totally open gameplay doesn't work, it has been tried before. The map needs impassables.

You mean, it didn't work for you?

Where is this previous try?

Don't listen to him mate, no need for impassables if you don't want them. You could find something else to spice the gameplay up a bit.

Riskismy wrote:You mean, it didn't work for you?

Where is this previous try?

Don't listen to him mate, no need for impassables if you don't want them. You could find something else to spice the gameplay up a bit.

Riskismy, you seem to be intent on giving piss-poor advice to new mapmakers. That's ok, but maybe you could put a disclaimer to your signature that says "Hello, my name is Riskismy and I know jack squat about mapmaking and following my advice will likely get you nowhere". Ok?

You want to ignore the advice of experienced people on your own map, and have it stuck on the drafting room forever. That's fine, that's your own decision. But for f*s sake, DON'T recommend the same line of action to others!

Lastly, you're again making silly assumptions. I've never tried making a totally open-gameplay map. Cause, you know, I actually LISTENED to the more experienced guys when I started my mapmaking career. But it has been tried. Have you ever played, say, England by MrBenn? Everyone, even MrBenn, agrees that the totally open gameplay was a mistake. It was tried back then, so by now we know that a totally open gameplay does not work, players need to have defensible areas.

Riskismy, you seem to be intent on giving piss-poor advice to new mapmakers. That's ok, but maybe you could put a disclaimer to your signature that says "Hello, my name is Riskismy and I know jack squat about mapmaking and following my advice will likely get you nowhere". Ok?

I'm intend on it? Where is all this bad advice, then? Rather, it looks to me like you're the one intend on putting me in a bad light whenever you can.
I'm the only one around here who actually takes the time to give the newcomers a minimum of attention, and it's not bad advice just because you don't agree with it.

You want to ignore the advice of experienced people on your own map, and have it stuck on the drafting room forever. That's fine, that's your own decision. But for f*s sake, DON'T recommend the same line of action to others!

I fail to see how claiming that a map does not need impassables has any bearing on how long the map will stay in any given forum. Plenty of maps around without them.

Lastly, you're again making silly assumptions. I've never tried making a totally open-gameplay map.

Never did make silly assumptions, though you should feel free to keep repeating it. I'm sure people will start believing it sooner or later. However, you are assuming I meant you. Silly you.

But it has been tried. Have you ever played, say, England by MrBenn? Everyone, even MrBenn, agrees that the totally open gameplay was a mistake. It was tried back then, so by now we know that a totally open gameplay does not work, players need to have defensible areas.

Everyone, eh? Talk about making assumptions.
With more than 18k games on the map, some people apparently don't mind the openness at all. I'll agree that the gameplay on that map is very bland, and you'll note that I didn't advice Dukasaur to make another ordinary map. I told him to 'spice up gameplay' - and you don't need impassables for that.

Now, if you'd like to discuss the merits of impassables or the lack thereof, I'd be happy to oblige. But if you merely have another batch of personal bashing that you simply have to vent, please PM me or make another thread, so Dukasaur can get back to making his map.

Hello guys,

Personally, I would prefer not to have impassables because I don't want this map to be like NYC ( noone eliminated, everyone has atleast 1 territory, and there are stacks of 30-40 troops on entry points, noone attacked for the last 3 rounds) basically a stalemate.

I would prefer a game where the offensive is the driving force and not defending the regions (stacking 30 troops on one key point is just sad). Also I think for a political map it's fine without mountains and rivers (since it is not a geographical map).

The main point is to decide how to split the players at start-time: each player holding a region of 2 (which have a +1 bonus) or randomly on the map.

Let me know,
Gabriel.

One more thing: since this is my first map, I would like making it for a classical game, that was my original intention. If this map works out good, I can make others with spices and whatever else might be interesting. But for the moment, I'm a fan of classical games and would like for me and others like me to enjoy playing on it

What you guys think?
Best,
Gabriel.

feyerv wrote:Hello guys,

Personally, I would prefer not to have impassables because I don't want this map to be like NYC ( noone eliminated, everyone has atleast 1 territory, and there are stacks of 30-40 troops on entry points, noone attacked for the last 3 rounds) basically a stalemate.

There are many problems with a totally open gameplay. It has been found out from past experiences, and I strongly suggest you take these experiences in account. No one is a master gameplay designer at birth (despite what some people seem to think about themselves) and it is good to listen to the advice of people who have seen many maps succeed and fail. If you don't trust my word, play a few games on the England map, and ask MrBenn, the maker of the map, what he considers the biggest failing of that map.

I would prefer a game where the offensive is the driving force and not defending the regions (stacking 30 troops on one key point is just sad). Also I think for a political map it's fine without mountains and rivers (since it is not a geographical map).

The CC gameplay model (I'm avoiding using the R-word here) is already inherently rewarding offensive play. You get better dice odds when assaulting, the game rewards you for holding more land, etc... With a totally open gameplay, you don't encourage offensiveness, you will simply grant the victory to whoever manages to get the best dice/drop and grab the largest swath of land.

Even the classic map has impassables - the oceans. Ever wonder why? Why didn't they just let all land areas assault other nearby land areas oversea? Constricting the gameplay somewhat, providing various assault routes, but not allowing every place to assault every other place, creates more opportunities for strategic play.

I'm not saying you should choke the map with too many impassables. Don't think extremes here. I'm saying that you should seek the balance between totally open and too constrained gameplay. A balance where there's an ample amount of assault routes and various possibilities for a player to expand, but not a too open, go-berserk-free-for-all-battlefield...

The main point is to decide how to split the players at start-time: each player holding a region of 2 (which have a +1 bonus) or randomly on the map.

I'm not exactly sure what you suggest. Do you mean that every player would already hold a bonus area from the start? You only have 5 2-territory bonus areas, and the map must support 8 players...

Ah, but you're still a new recruit so you don't know we have 8 player games, do you? When you have finished 5 games, you will be able to play 6-8 player games, assassin games and team games.

If you're going for classic gameplay, go with a random drop.

Lastly... as a sort of footnote, even...

Riskismy wrote:I'm the only one around here who actually takes the time to give the newcomers a minimum of attention, and it's not bad advice just because you don't agree with it.

Yeah, I guess I never give any advice to new mapmakers or anything. It's not like I spend hours writing tutorials for them or anything. It's not like I comment on each and every new map thread or anything.

Oh, and your advice is not bad because I disagree with, your advice is bad entirely on it's own merits.

First, sorry for confusing you with Dukasaur (and to Dukasaur for confusing you with feyerv). I simply looked for the first non-riskismy/natty person, forgetting that we weren't all alone.

Now, as for the bonuses. If you want to go with the players holding a 2-territ bonus area, you will need to find those additional 3 bonus areas. That seems like a tall order if you still want to have strict adherence to the historical counties.
I think it might be interesting, though, to have a 'ring' of starting positions all along the outside of the map, meaning the players will have to decide between a drive for the middle or an assault on the neighbour, leaving him weak for the other neighbour.
Not having the slightest knowledge of the geography at the time (or today, for that matter), you might consider using cities for starting positions in stead, making them 'extra' territories within the county.
That's what I think!

There are many problems with a totally open gameplay.

Nope. There isn't.
You have yet to provide evidence or even argument of even one problem.

It has been found out from past experiences, and I strongly suggest you take these experiences in account. No one is a master gameplay designer at birth (despite what some people seem to think about themselves) and it is good to listen to the advice of people who have seen many maps succeed and fail. If you don't trust my word, play a few games on the England map, and ask MrBenn, the maker of the map, what he considers the biggest failing of that map.

Just because you and MrBenn and a few of your lapdogs think that the map isn't fun, doesn't mean that other people feel like you. There are plenty of room for niche maps, and the 'classic' gameplay maps have a huge following.
Also, I must add that I find it odd that people like Helix can disregard the experiences of Doodle Earth when making the Cairo map, while people like feyerv must by all means take heed of every little failing of every conceivable map ever made. Did someone say nepotism?

With a totally open gameplay, you don't encourage offensiveness, you will simply grant the victory to whoever manages to get the best dice/drop and grab the largest swath of land.

First, I didn't realize we were required to encourage offensiveness. Care to elaborate?

Second, it's not as clear-cut as 'simply granting the victory to the best drop/dice' - quite the contrary in fact. With many paths of attack, you'll have to think hard on where to focus your forces. Indeed, there's a lot more strategic choices involved here. You have to decide where to place your armies over several territories, not just the 2 or 3 that makes out your bottlenecks.

Thirdly, people are normally awarded the victory if they manage to grab the 'largest swath of land', yes?

Even the classic map has impassables - the oceans. Ever wonder why? Why didn't they just let all land areas assault other nearby land areas oversea? Constricting the gameplay somewhat, providing various assault routes, but not allowing every place to assault every other place, creates more opportunities for strategic play.

This map wouldn't allow 'every place to assault every other place'. The oceans are simply a means to create the 'outer rim' of a map that isn't circular. For example, it's impossible to attack from Transilvania to Drobogea.
You might come close to a point if we were discussing my Constantinopolis map, but that has other gameplay elements to enhance strategic choices.

I'm not saying you should choke the map with too many impassables. Don't think extremes here. I'm saying that you should seek the balance between totally open and too constrained gameplay. A balance where there's an ample amount of assault routes and various possibilities for a player to expand, but not a too open, go-berserk-free-for-all-battlefield...

I haven't played on the England map (yet), but I'm sure there haven't been many 'go-berserk-free-for-all' games on this map. Quite the contrary, I imagine this map is quite slow to develop, with players being very careful what to attack and defend.

Yeah, I guess I never give any advice to new mapmakers or anything. It's not like I spend hours writing tutorials for them or anything. It's not like I comment on each and every new map thread or anything.

Well, you do post in many newcomer's threads. It's just that the quality and tone of those comments are often so poor that you would do better not to post them at all.
I went looking for such a post I remember, and while I didn't find that exact post, I happened upon a treasure-trove of condescending, dismissive and snide remarks:

cauliflowers

wishful thinking

No more luck

Taking place here

Oh, and your advice is not bad because I disagree with, your advice is bad entirely on it's own merits.

Prove it.
At the very least, argue it.
But please do so somewhere else. This isn't the right place for you to vent frustrations or compensating for personal shortcomings.

Wow, way to spam someone's map thread, Riskismy.

I'm not arguing with you, I'm giving advice to the mapmaker. Go bug someone else, I'm tired of your pointless diatribe.

heh. fool. At least a majority of my posts deal with the issues at hand

Ok, here's my suggestion on the impassables...



You can leave out the rivers imo... with the mountains in these positions, Muntenia & Transilvania are no longer impossible to hold, although they will be hard to get, so I suggest high bonuses for them. Moldova also becomes a feasible bonus area, with good expansion potential to Bucovina. Oltenia + Banat is a strong combination on the other side, making the map balanced - both sides having good starting areas.

In my opinion the map is fine the way it is now. I agree..some maps are way too defensive. Even though I think defense is part of the game, having a nice offensive map would be great.

thunderstrk wrote:In my opinion the map is fine the way it is now. I agree..some maps are way too defensive. Even though I think defense is part of the game, having a nice offensive map would be great.

Making a map totally open is not the way to achieve that. Without bonus areas that are defensible, there's no element of strategy, and games will degenerate into mindless hack'n'slash across the board.

There are ways to encourage offensive play and reduce stagnation. For example, you can create overlapping bonus areas, that rewards assaulting neighboring players.

Changed pass from Valcea-Sibiu to Brasov-Arges (the famous Transfagarasan road is there) at least I have some accuracy left.

How's this? is everyone happy?



gabriel.

feyerv wrote:Changed pass from Valcea-Sibiu to Brasov-Arges (the famous Transfagarasan road is there) at least I have some accuracy left.

That works.. it still maintains the border count (how many territories you need to defend to keep a bonus) of each bonus area so it's ok like that. It makes Oltenia slightly easier to hold since you can now only assault it from Muntenia or Banat, but that's not a big deal.

You should start thinking about graphics a bit. You don't need to (and shouldn't) do the final graphics at this point, but a start towards creating some actual map graphics would be good. What software are you using?

You should also consider bonus values. Here's a summary of your current bonus areas:

Code: Select all

Name - Territories - Borders
Crisana - 2 - 2
Maramures - 2 - 2
Bucovina - 2 - 2
Banat - 2 - 2
Dobrogea - 2 - 2

Transilvania - 10 - 6
Muntenia - 10 - 6
Moldova - 6 - 4
Oltenia - 5 - 4


Now, based on this, I'd suggest +2 for each of the small ones, and for the rest...
Transilvania: +8
Muntenia: +6
Moldova: +4
Oltenia: +3

Transilvania gets more because it's in the center, therefore hardest to hold. It will probably still stay as a wasteland in most games, but that's ok... it's not detrimental to the game since you already have enough small bonuses.