[Abandoned] Research & Conquer

[isaiah40]

Map Name: Research and Conquer
Mapmaker(s): OliverFA, Tacktix, isaiah40
Number of Territories: 243
Special Features: Collections, Conditional Borders, Bombardments
What Makes This Map Worthy of Being Made: "Civilization meets Conquer Club". A map in which you will be able to research new and better ways of destroying your enemies. But also a map in which you don't need to kill everybody else to win, as you can win by researching the ultimate technology.

Starting Regions:
You will start with the same Homeland Capital and Laboratory. Example, you will start with SW Lab and SW Capital.
Laboratories - 3
Homeland Capitals - 3

Starting Neutrals:
Homeland regions - n2
Mines (except in Homeland) - n4
All other regions on main map - n3
Standing Army - n15
Mobilized Army - n60
Secret Conscription - n30
Open Conscription - n90
National Pride - n20
Mining - n35
Deep Mining - n70
Sabotage - n50
Propaganda - n20
Top Secret Facility - n45
Doomsday Device - n200

Autodeploys:
Top Secret Facility +6
Doomsday Device +75

Reinforcements:
There is no standard reinforcements except for the bonuses you hold.

Bonuses:
+3 for every Capital held
Hold entire homeland - +6
Standing Army - +3
Secret Conscription - +1 for every 3 regions
Mining - +2 per mine
National Pride - +6 for holding same lab and Homeland
Propaganda - +2 per Capital held
Mobilized Army - +12
Deep Mining - Doubles Mining bonus
Open Conscription (over-rides Secret Conscription) - +3 for every 3 regions

Bombardments:
Sabotage --> Mines
Doomsday Device --> land regions, not any of the labs, basic or advanced researches
Top Secret Facility --> all of it's homeland researches. i.e. SW Top Secret Facility can only bombard any SW research

Large
[bigimg]http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/7496/srw8.jpg[/bigimg]

Small
[bigimg]http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/9194/3l99.jpg[/bigimg]

[spoiler=Previous Large Versions]Version 17
Version 18
Version 20
Version 22
Version 23
Version 24
Version 25
Version 26
Version 27
Version 28
Version 29
Version 32
Version 33
Version 34
Version 35
Version 36[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Previous Small Versions]Version 1
Version 2
Version 31
Version 32
Version 33
Version 35
Version 36[/spoiler]
[spoiler=Color Blind Checks][/spoiler]
[spoiler=888 Checks][bigimg]http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/8374/jlnw.jpg[/bigimg]
[bigimg]http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/8839/qj6h.jpg[/bigimg][/spoiler]
[spoiler=Provisional Starting Numbers][bigimg]http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/8873/researchandconquerprovi.png[/bigimg][/spoiler]

[Androidz]

Sounds nice, think some maps are pretty close those idea's tough. And tech should lead to anotehr tech. And if you choose one tech you cant choose another etc.

EDIT: I don't like the winning tech.

[RjBeals]

Sounds interesting. I'm not sure you can change the general reinforcements though with the current xml. Like a minimum +3 bonus could not be changed depending on if you own a region or not. I'm not sure though - someone else will have to chime in. As far as the concept - i really like it. Like 2 maps in one. Nice thinking outside the box Oliver. Are you willing to start a map using this concept? I say go for it.

[OliverFA]

Sounds nice, think some maps are pretty close those idea's tough. And tech should lead to anotehr tech. And if you choose one tech you cant choose another etc.

There are different ways to make the tech tree:

1 - Simple line in which you have to research all the techs in order. Starting tech attacks tech 1. Tech 1 attacks Tech 2 and so on.

The goo thing about approach 1 is that it is simple. The bad things is that all players are forced to research in the same order, and gives the players less freedom.

2 - Basic techs can be researched in any order, with advanced techs having basic techs as requisite.

This is what I proposed. I think this is better because gives players more freedom. The bad part is that a player that does not understand the rules can attack (research) many techs at the same time. But I think that if rules were clear enough, taht would not happen.

In my opinion this opens more possiblities. Player A can research the tech to enhance territory bonus while player B can research the tech to enhance continent bonus and player C researchs the "research speed" tech so he can always deploy on the geographical map and not have to deply on the research map. Each player will have a different strategy, which I think is good.

3 - Complex tech tree, with some techs acting as requsites for others and so on. Like a compromise option between 1 and 2.

This could be good, but even if we are creative and use imagination, looks like we are limited in the number of possible techs and don't know if it would work with so few techs.

EDIT: I don't like the winning tech.

As I said, the concept is borrowed from Civilization like games. And such games always have a Winning tech. That is why I included it. But of course this is an idea and is open to debate about how to make it better and possibly implement it.

I think is nice to have an alternative way to win. If a player sees that he is doomed on the geographical map he could concentrate on research with what he still has and try to win anyway. On the other side, the winning player would have to speed the conquest to win before research is finished, not having the luxury of consolidating what he has already conquered.

Of course, the cost of winning tech would have to be high enough to ensure it is not the easiest way to win the game. So it would have lots lots of neutrals in it.

Thanks for your comments, Androidz

[Androidz]

Sounds nice, think some maps are pretty close those idea's tough. And tech should lead to anotehr tech. And if you choose one tech you cant choose another etc.

There are different ways to make the tech tree:

1 - Simple line in which you have to research all the techs in order. Starting tech attacks tech 1. Tech 1 attacks Tech 2 and so on.

The goo thing about approach 1 is that it is simple. The bad things is that all players are forced to research in the same order, and gives the players less freedom.

2 - Basic techs can be researched in any order, with advanced techs having basic techs as requisite.

This is what I proposed. I think this is better because gives players more freedom. The bad part is that a player that does not understand the rules can attack (research) many techs at the same time. But I think that if rules were clear enough, taht would not happen.

In my opinion this opens more possiblities. Player A can research the tech to enhance territory bonus while player B can research the tech to enhance continent bonus and player C researchs the "research speed" tech so he can always deploy on the geographical map and not have to deply on the research map. Each player will have a different strategy, which I think is good.

3 - Complex tech tree, with some techs acting as requsites for others and so on. Like a compromise option between 1 and 2.

This could be good, but even if we are creative and use imagination, looks like we are limited in the number of possible techs and don't know if it would work with so few techs.

EDIT: I don't like the winning tech.

As I said, the concept is borrowed from Civilization like games. And such games always have a Winning tech. That is why I included it. But of course this is an idea and is open to debate about how to make it better and possibly implement it.

I think is nice to have an alternative way to win. If a player sees that he is doomed on the geographical map he could concentrate on research with what he still has and try to win anyway. On the other side, the winning player would have to speed the conquest to win before research is finished, not having the luxury of consolidating what he has already conquered.

Of course, the cost of winning tech would have to be high enough to ensure it is not the easiest way to win the game. So it would have lots lots of neutrals in it.

Thanks for your comments, Androidz

kk np i may comment further on this later today im a bit busy now.

[OliverFA]

Sounds interesting. I'm not sure you can change the general reinforcements though with the current xml. Like a minimum +3 bonus could not be changed depending on if you own a region or not. I'm not sure though - someone else will have to chime in. As far as the concept - i really like it. Like 2 maps in one. Nice thinking outside the box Oliver. Are you willing to start a map using this concept? I say go for it.

Thanks for your comments, RjBeals

Yes. You can change the minimum reinforcement bonus, by using the <minreinforcement> XML tag. Or at least so it says in the XML tutorial here viewtopic.php?t=23382

Anyway, it would not be needed to change the minimum reinforcements. For example, let's suppose that there is a tech called "Raise minimum reinforcements limit" that raises it from 3 to 6. Just by making the territory that represents this technology a 1-territory continent that gives a +3 bonus, the effect would be accomplised. If there is an "Advanced raise minimum reinforcements limit" tech that raises it again from 6 to 12, it would be enough to make this new tech another 1 territory continent giving a +6 bonus.

I really would like to start a map using this concept. But I thougt it would be better to discuss the idea a little bit before actually starting the map project. Or do you think I should start the map project right now? Also, despite I could do all the XML coding, I am not very good at graphics. So I would need someone to do the graphics (of course he would be considered co-author of the map and receive full credit for it) or spend a lot of time learning how to do the graphics myself (most likely the first option. Plus is nice to work in team).

[Winged Cat]

Why bother with the geographical map? Just go for the winning tech, possibly going through research boosts if those would help more than the effort it takes to get them.

I'd say put the objectives on the geographical map - but then, one could have an 8 player game in which 6 players are reduced to research-only, and the other 2 take a long time to knock each other off the geographical map.

[yeti_c]

I love the idea - mainly because I love Civilization!!

XML critique.

Research Boost: Yes and No... Autodeploy bonuses are strictly hold territory get auto deploy (at the moment - a few maps are crying out for continent autodeploy)

Minimum reinforcements increase: Can't do subject to Continent/territory ownership - can do as a whole for a map.

Reinforcements per territories held: Can be replicated by creating a lot of continents.

Increase continent bonuses: Yes.

Winning tech: Yes.

C.

[OliverFA]

Why bother with the geographical map? Just go for the winning tech, possibly going through research boosts if those would help more than the effort it takes to get them.

I'd say put the objectives on the geographical map - but then, one could have an 8 player game in which 6 players are reduced to research-only, and the other 2 take a long time to knock each other off the geographical map.

thanks for your comments Winged Cat.

The winning tech, if there is finally one, is supposed to be an alternative. And for that reason has to be balanced with the "traditional" victory. If one victory was easy than the other, all players would only go for it.

As I said, I envision it more like an alternative. Do I attack and try to conquer all the map? Or do I fortify now that I have a decent empire, boost my economy through research and try to win the game "peacefully"?

[t-o-m]

Would this be like a tech tree on one part of the map and a land based part the other?
If so i full ysupport this, if there was a little example i think it would explain itself a little better - but i didnt fully read your first post - as i was in a rush.

[OliverFA]

I love the idea - mainly because I love Civilization!!

XML critique.

Research Boost: Yes and No... Autodeploy bonuses are strictly hold territory get auto deploy (at the moment - a few maps are crying out for continent autodeploy)

Minimum reinforcements increase: Can't do subject to Continent/territory ownership - can do as a whole for a map.

Reinforcements per territories held: Can be replicated by creating a lot of continents.

Increase continent bonuses: Yes.

Winning tech: Yes.

C.

Hey Yeti_C! Is an honour to have you commenting on my idea

Research boost: I have seen many maps that autodeploy troops to some territories (like the castles in the feudal map). In that case, the armies would be autodeployed directly to the Research Boost technology, and the player could fortify to the Starting Tech Territory (Maybe "Lab" or "Research Center" is a better name?) and attach from them to other techs (aka "research the other techs). Of course, that would not work well with adjacent reinforcements, but it would work with unlimited reinforcements, and would create an interesting dilemma in chained.

Minimum reinforcements: Yes, I know it cannot be subject to a territory ownership. What I am saying is that if you make the techs 1-territory continents and give bonus for holding those continents, the effect is the same.

Reinforcement per territories: Yes I was thinking about that. Removing real reinforcement bonuses per territories and then simulate them with a lot of continents.

Again, thanks for the comments. Is an honour!

[OliverFA]

Would this be like a tech tree on one part of the map and a land based part the other?
If so i full ysupport this, if there was a little example i think it would explain itself a little better - but i didnt fully read your first post - as i was in a rush.

Tom, it is exactly as you say. Both areas of the map would be completely separated.

Basically, when you use your reinforcements each turn you have to decide if the reinforcement will be used to create an army (deploy in geographical map) or a research unit (deploy in the tech tree area of the board). As both areas are not connected, there is no way to reinforce from one area to the other.

I will write an example to make it easier to understand.

And thanks for your comment!

[t-o-m]

It sounds great!
What sort of land layout are you thinking?

I used to love Civ - mainly because of the strategy, but i havnt seen it in a while.

This would truely be an interesting map.

[RjBeals]

I must say OliverFA - you deserve a great welcome to the foundry. fresh Ideas and good attitude - exactly what we need around here. I'm partial to classic style gameplay, but have been wanting to broaden my range. I'll try to think through what you've posted so I can grasp the idea better. I hope you stick around here

[Androidz]

Don't mean to be the badass here but, do you know how small the map is gonna be?

Lets say 8 players..8 tech trees?

One small map?

[t-o-m]

Don't mean to be the badass here but, do you know how small the map is gonna be?

Lets say 8 players..8 tech trees?

One small map?

It'll be fine i think.

[Androidz]

Don't mean to be the badass here but, do you know how small the map is gonna be?

Lets say 8 players..8 tech trees?

One small map?

It'll be fine i think.

Maybe, maybe not only time will show:)

[eigenvector]

I like this very much. Great idea!

I was just thinking of something a bit similar. Will post more tech ideas later..

[yeti_c]

Another thought I had - Spies could perhaps bombard the tech trees too!?

Problem with that - is that you could grab the opposing spy - and bombard your tech tree - which can reduce the amount of research you can do.

C>

[eigenvector]

Another thought I had - Spies could perhaps bombard the tech trees too!?

Problem with that - is that you could grab the opposing spy - and bombard your tech tree - which can reduce the amount of research you can do.

C>

Wouldn't these be saboteurs rather than spies?

[OliverFA]

Ok. There is an example. To make it simpler let's suppose just two techs. The geographical area is just a normal map, so I won't represent it. As colour codesr don't work with the Code tag, I will use blind colour codes.

Turn 0
That is the starting deployment. Each tech has neutrals equal to its difficulty.

Code: Select all

+----------+ +---------+ +---------+ 
| Red  Lab | | Tech 1  | | Tech 2  |
|    r1    | |  n100   | |  n500   |
+----------+ +---------+ +---------+ 

+----------+ +---------+ +---------+ 
| Blue Lab | | Tech 1  | | Tech 2  |
|    b1    | |  n100   | |  n500   |
+----------+ +---------+ +---------+ 

Turn 1
Red decides to turn 10 of his reinforcements into research units and deploys them in the lab.

Code: Select all

+----------+ +---------+ +---------+ 
| Red  Lab | | Tech 1  | | Tech 2  |
|   r11    | |  n100   | |  n500   |
+----------+ +---------+ +---------+ 

+----------+ +---------+ +---------+ 
| Blue Lab | | Tech 1  | | Tech 2  |
|    b1    | |  n100   | |  n500   |
+----------+ +---------+ +---------+ 

Red now attacks Tech 1 from Red Lab (aja researchs Tech 1) with the following result:

Code: Select all

+----------+ +---------+ +---------+ 
| Red  Lab | | Tech 1  | | Tech 2  |
|    r3    | |   n87   | |  n500   |
+----------+ +---------+ +---------+ 

+----------+ +---------+ +---------+ 
| Blue Lab | | Tech 1  | | Tech 2  |
|    b1    | |  n100   | |  n500   |
+----------+ +---------+ +---------+

This turn, Red scientifics have progressed 13 resarch units towards Tech 1. Next turn red can deploy more reinforcements in red lab and try again. Once Tech 1 is conquered, Red will enjoy its effects.

Hope this example makes thing clearer.

[OliverFA]

It sounds great!
What sort of land layout are you thinking?

I used to love Civ - mainly because of the strategy, but i havnt seen it in a while.

This would truely be an interesting map.

To be honest, I have not decided yet. I think that maybe we could decide it all together. The two possibilites are:

Classic like map: A map representing a geographical area with no unique or special features on it.

Feudal-like map: A map which is almost all of it covered by neutral armies, with just the starting points ocupied by the players at the begining. The good side about this second option is that it allows for unique features. But the bad side is that it could make the map even more complicated. Not only for new players (disencouraging them to play) but also more difficult to develop.

Maybe it would be a good idea to stick with something not too complicated for starters. And if the concept works, there can always be a second version with enhanced more complex concepts?

[OliverFA]

I must say OliverFA - you deserve a great welcome to the foundry. fresh Ideas and good attitude - exactly what we need around here. I'm partial to classic style gameplay, but have been wanting to broaden my range. I'll try to think through what you've posted so I can grasp the idea better. I hope you stick around here

Thanks so much At last I have realized that this place is a better place to release creativity than the suggestions forum!

I truly hope we can finally develop an entertaining and interesting map

[OliverFA]

Don't mean to be the badass here but, do you know how small the map is gonna be?

Lets say 8 players..8 tech trees?

One small map?

It'll be fine i think.

Maybe, maybe not only time will show:)

Excuse my ignorance. But: Which is the size for the board image?

I think it could work because you don't need to make the tech trees are very big. In fact that is why I proposed the "can research any basic tech" focus instead of a true tech tree to avoid having to draw all the arrows.

If it was needed, we could cut it to 6 players to make room, but I think we can make with 8.

[Androidz]

Don't mean to be the badass here but, do you know how small the map is gonna be?

Lets say 8 players..8 tech trees?

One small map?

It'll be fine i think.

Maybe, maybe not only time will show:)

Excuse my ignorance. But: Which is the size for the board image?

I think it could work because you don't need to make the tech trees are very big. In fact that is why I proposed the "can research any basic tech" focus instead of a true tech tree to avoid having to draw all the arrows.

If it was needed, we could cut it to 6 players to make room, but I think we can make with 8.

not sure myself 640pix height and 600 widh or something.

Anyway i retought, this thing and all can use the samce tech tree just divide in colour boxes in 8. so may have right.