Map based on control of resources

[*Wolfman*]

Map Name: Quest for Control
Mapmaker(s): Myself and anyone who'd like to work with me
Number of Territories: Range of 140-160
Special Features: Taking a cue from some of the old-school strategy board games, in this game your troops and bonuses aren't determined by how much territory you own, but by what resources you own.
What Makes This Map Worthy of Being Made: It will make for very different game play and strategy, as elaborated below

No map yet

I'm pretty much a newb on this site, but am a long-time strategy gamer, both board games and computer games. Although just recently arrived, I'd like to contribute to this community, and after looking at the various maps here, felt that resource-based maps were fairly lacking.

The concept is this: have specific resource tiles that, if controlled by you, and connected to your other territories, grant you specific bonuses or abilities. I'll give some examples here, but these are intended only for purposes of illustration and discussion, and are not by any means meant to represent a final concept. I'd propose four different resources: grain, iron, coal, and saltpeter.

Grain is necessary to feed troops...if you don't control grain (or if your armies are not linked to a grain supply), then any territory with more than three troops suffers -1 attrition each round. Control of two or more grains could, on the other hand, provide a +1 bonus. As this map would be intended for a maximum of eight players, there would be eight grain resources on the map, distributed fairly evenly around the map.

Both iron and coal are necessary to build troops. The more iron and coal you control, the more troops you can build each round. Every player will get a minimum of three troops each round, but bonuses will not be based on how many territories you own/control, but rather on control of iron and coal. There would be 16 of each resource located around the map, but ideally never having an iron and a coal resource located too close together. For bonuses, I'd suggest that you get +1 for each un-paired iron or coal resource, but +5 for each paired set (so for example, if you control three iron and one coal, you'll get +5 for having an iron/coal pair, and +2 for the other two irons you control).

Saltpeter is necessary to make gunpowder. My idea would be to have a few strategically placed cannons on the map, that can bombard other positions...but the cannons can only be used if you also control saltpeter. Without the saltpeter, they're useless. In this case, I'd suggest having only four cannons, and four saltpeter resources...obviously having the resources located relatively far from the cannons.

I'd see two ways of doing this. The simpler would be that if you control a particular resource, it benefits all troops you control on the map. The more complicated way -- which would take more complex programming -- would be that resources must be linked to troops in order for them to benefit.

I don't know if the latter option is possible...but if it is, I think it'd provide for a lot more strategy. For example, let's say you control two different areas of a map. In one territory, you control grain; but the other territory has no grain linked to it. Then in the second territory, you'll suffer troop attrition due to lack of food. This option would also be more of a real-world option, in that maintaining supply lines would be crucial to your strategy...you could be advancing a big wave of soldiers, only to have someone sneak behind your lines and cut you off from your resources, significantly crippling your armies.

Even if the linked resources ideas isn't practical, I think that a game like this would still provide significantly different game play from many of the other maps, and would appeal to those who like a real strategic challenge. Maps would probably start with resources all being neutral, to ensure a balanced start for all players (takes away the risk of one player randomly getting several key resources, while another gets few or none).

I could likely do this all myself...albeit it'd be rather slow, as I'd be learning everything from scratch (but I'm quite good with stuff like this). However, knowing that there are a number of experienced map designers and coders here, I was hoping that I could find a few other people to work together with on it.

A final word -- if this has already been done, or if it simply wouldn't work, please refrain from excessive cries of "stupid newb!" On the other hand, if people think that this is a really cool idea that hasn't been done (or hasn't been done really well) yet, and whose time has come, please feel free to heap excessive amounts of praise, adulation, and encouragement upon me.

[sannemanrobinson]

Interesting ideas.

Grain is necessary to feed troops...if you don't control grain (or if your armies are not linked to a grain supply), then any territory with more than three troops suffers -1 attrition each round. Control of two or more grains could, on the other hand, provide a +1 bonus. As this map would be intended for a maximum of eight players, there would be eight grain resources on the map, distributed fairly evenly around the map.

I'm afraid the decay can not be dependent on army size. An automatic decay of -1 or -2 on grain tiles could punish large armies. Having more than 1 grain tiles gives a bonus to support larger armies.

The cannons can work with conditional borders.

[*Wolfman*]

Thanks for the quick feedback...but why would punishing large armies be a bad thing? It just means that you devote more resources to defending your resources and supply lines. And it's offset by the fact that you can get equally large rewards for your armies if you own more grain.

Like I said, I'm not committed to anything above...if there are other ideas, would love to hear them

[isaiah40]

Hello - Welcome to CC and the Foundry

You should find some useful information in the [Official] Conquer Club Mapmaker Handbook
If you still have questions after browsing those topics, feel free to ask any specific questions in the Foundry Discussions subforum - you should find people eager to help and give any advice in there.

Cheers,

isaiah40

If you are interested in doing the graphics yourself a free graphics program you can download and use is GIMP. There are a couple of mapmakers that use GIMP like koontz1973.

In regards to the grain and troops idea, you can give a negative bonus for holding more men than grain. Such as hold 2 armies & 1 grain = -1. Whereas holding more grain than men wouldn't give you a positive OR negative bonus. So in this case you would have more than the 8 grain resources scattered over the map. Instead of armies you would actually have barracks and grain. So holding 1 barrack and 1 grain would net you +1, 2 barracks and 1 grain would net you -1 for example.

[Industrial Helix]

I've thought a lot about this in making my own maps and what I've found is easier to do is to incorporate the value of the resources into the number of troops given for a bonus. for example, on a map of the world, a middle east bonus area would be worth more because it has tons of oil. So start looking at maps that way, do their territories and bonuses reflect the actual value of the land.

[*Wolfman*]

Hello - Welcome to CC and the Foundry

You should find some useful information in the [Official] Conquer Club Mapmaker Handbook
If you still have questions after browsing those topics, feel free to ask any specific questions in the Foundry Discussions subforum - you should find people eager to help and give any advice in there.

Cheers,

isaiah40

If you are interested in doing the graphics yourself a free graphics program you can download and use is GIMP. There are a couple of mapmakers that use GIMP like koontz1973.

In regards to the grain and troops idea, you can give a negative bonus for holding more men than grain. Such as hold 2 armies & 1 grain = -1. Whereas holding more grain than men wouldn't give you a positive OR negative bonus. So in this case you would have more than the 8 grain resources scattered over the map. Instead of armies you would actually have barracks and grain. So holding 1 barrack and 1 grain would net you +1, 2 barracks and 1 grain would net you -1 for example.

Yup, I've already read those resources, thanks...and already have GIMP, have used it for a few other projects.

For the grain idea, that's something I'll think about...and also wait to get feedback from others.

I've thought a lot about this in making my own maps and what I've found is easier to do is to incorporate the value of the resources into the number of troops given for a bonus. for example, on a map of the world, a middle east bonus area would be worth more because it has tons of oil. So start looking at maps that way, do their territories and bonuses reflect the actual value of the land.

Yeah, but that method essentially eliminates the whole need to protect supply lines, which is one of the key aspects of the proposed game that I like. I personally still prefer to see resources linked directly to production and bonuses...although will wait to hear from everyone else as to whether this is feasible or worthwhile.