Conquer Club

Map Name:Democratic Republic of Congo
Mapmaker(s): gameplay and design: Avapocalypse & graphics: Industrial Helix xml: TBD
Number of Territories: Unknown
Special Features:Congo River - 1 way attacking
What Makes This Map Worthy of Being Made: There's not a Congo map yet or that many African maps in general

Yep, I hooked my girlfriend on CC and now she wants to do a map. I'll be guiding her on photoshop and doing some clean up work on the map as well as lending my mapmaking experience to expedite the process. So far it's looking pretty cool. I'll have a draft up tomorrow.

The gameplay is shaping up to look like this: There are the standard provinces on the map, within those provinces are various cities marked by yellow stars. IN place of the standard regional zone bonuses, there is a collection bonus based on the cities, the more you collect, the more bonus you get. Kinshasa, the capital, is an autodeploy outside of the collection bonus. Additionally, the Congo river flows west to the atlantic, any province that is on the river can attack down river, where ever the player deems fit.

Draft tomorrow.

I decided on posting tonight...

It's missing the Key, bridges, title and the arrows indicating the flow of the River... all of which I hope to do tomorrow in the day.

The key will indicate the yellow stars are a collection bonus. I'm debating whether or not the yellow stars ought to be territories on their own or not. The trouble is labeling the cities will be difficult with a small font that fits in nicely. The key will also indicate that the red star comes with an autodeploy of +2. It will also mention the river flows west and provinces along the river can attack each other.

All thoughts and critiques are appreciated!

Yep, I hooked my girlfriend on CC and now she wants to do a map.

Has she got any friends? Send me their numbers

Well, I'm a girl, my girlfriend is a girl, and as you can imagine most our friends are in the dyke brigade, so not sure you want those numbers. lol

Does not matter to me, hope your not against those who are not....
All that matters is that you like a good war game - and you wish to share your ideas of a new map design that might add more spice to the games... Can not wait to see what you come out with - and if your girlfriend comes out with something really good, maybe I'll switch sides and steal her from ya...

With the water being that prevalent, perhaps consider 'rapids' losses or river transits.

Industrial Helix wrote:Well, I'm a girl, my girlfriend is a girl, and as you can imagine most our friends are in the dyke brigade, so not sure you want those numbers. lol

Ok then, just the secret of how to get a girl hooked will do ...

and more importantly, another map on the African continent is a must so thematically a winner.

Maybe some impassables gameplay-wise?

And graphics-wise, maybe there's a font that suggest Congo a bit more? Plus, the green colouring could be a lot lighter and still show the game area clearly in contrast to the outside nations. The labelling space required for the cities could be achieved with numbers / symbols and a key in one of the spare areas on the left? Maybe some images in the other corners?

This may give some ideas for additional features:



Forestation:



Rivers (Congo could be navigable and other rivers an impassable (except for bridges)):

Since Avapocalypse and I pretty much see each other every day we talk about the map a lot. What we're thinking is a no bonus scheme. Only auto-deploys on cities and Kinshasa, so it's similar to you get your guns and troops from the cities now you have to take them to the warzone. at the moment we're leaning towards +2 AD cities and +3 AD Kinshasa. T

As for the Congo river, it is going to be navigable. Basically all territories touching the river border each other, so like one could go down river from Katanga to attack Bas-Congo.

Ok, so I think we have a working draft. You know you are a CC fan when at the club all you want to talk about is the gameplay on your shiny new map idea. So I took the time to turn Avapocalypse's gameplay idea into a graphical reality.

Here's the draft:



As I see it, this map is ready to play, but I know there's a big ole process to go through. Comments and critiques are encouraged. I'll be handling the graphics while Ava will direct me as to what gameplay changes should be made on the map.

Like the idea of all areas attached to the river is connected (one-way down river) buy I think that gives the positions upriver as a prime strong hold for from there you can travel faster and target more areas then any other area down the route...

Maybe - just a suggestion - but to help create a loop factor in travel - Maybe have a two-way connection by plane or helecopter from KSH to Ndola and Kalemie this way the city of KSH can counter the travel route of the river allowing for more of a flow back and forth - instead of a build-up in the areas upriver that will move down river in masses...

Just an idea - if you do not think it will fit, then don't use it....

But over all I like the initial design...

I like the idea and it seems like Ava does too. I'm thinking a airplane e that connects Bas-Congo to Katanga.

Or here's another crazy idea. Certain cities on the Congo River can launch a ship with capabilities to travel upstream. So what it would come down to is:Kinshasa, Lisala, Kindu, Kasongo and Kalemie can attack upstream. Then the map gets a little more mobility and the south won't be such an easy stronghold and Kinshasa will be able to at least retaliate against the south if attacked.

Since you some-what liked my idea about the planes ....
Here is a ruff full view of what I see....
Feel free to use any or none of this advice..



CONGO RIVER - unpassable.
Must cross river by boat or plane.

STARS - are cities
Five stars are adjacent to the Congo River
(KSH, Lisala, Kinda, Kasongo, Kalemie)
All of these are connected one-way from upstream to downstream
Any city upstream can move to any other city downstream - but
downstream cities can not move upstream.
In each city are colored planes. Each city has a two-way connection to any other city with the same color plane in it.

CIRCLES - Forests of the Cango
You can not access the River Route from a forest, you must enter a city or Rebel camp.
Forests are connected to all neighboring forests and to any camp or city with-in it.
Except if the river splits between one forest and another. No one can move from one Forest across the river to another forest, they must cross river by boat or plane.

SQUARES - Rebel Camps "Rebel Camps can be labeled "R1, R2, R3, ect" do not need long names.
Many rebel camps or poachers can be seen along the river bed.
For a price they can take you upriver only to the next adjacent rebel camp or any adjacent river cities.
They can also take you down river to any other Rebel Camp or City.
You can not maintain control of any Rebel Camps - at the start of your turn if any troops left in a rebel camp - they are killed and the rebel camp turns back to neutral.

((Downriver they can go to any city or camp - but using the rebels to move upstream you can only move to the next adjacent rebel camp and/or city for traveling upstream takes longer and is harder.))

I'd also probably add more circles in the areas that are split by the river, have a circle in each section of that forest on each side of the river - For I think it would be cool if the river was unpassable unless by plane or boat. So that any part of the forest can be accessed in some way. They could simply be labeled (A, B, C) of what ever area they are in.

Also maybe 3 or 4 scattered bonuses that might be prime poacher sites or blood ruby mines.

These are just a few ideas - do what you will with them...

Honestly, I think the added territories just make the map more complicated than it needs to be. I want to use something that doesn't add a ton more territories to the map along with a ton more different rules to go with each different new territory. We think that either allowing some cities to travel upstream or doing something like a Jungle route or airplane from Bas-Congo or Kinshasa to the South is a much better route to go in the case of this map because it only slightly tweaks the existing image and doesn't add a load of new territory and rules to the map/

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

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..