Conquer Club

Okay what I was thinking for game-play is this. What if I use the conditional borders feature and say in order for you to gain access to the bombers, you have to hold a factory? Also if you hold a city and infantry you gain an extra X amount of men from conscription? Any thoughts ideas etc.?

isaiah40 wrote:Okay what I was thinking for game-play is this. What if I use the conditional borders feature and say in order for you to gain access to the bombers, you have to hold a factory? Also if you hold a city and infantry you gain an extra X amount of men from conscription? Any thoughts ideas etc.?

You have no factories but adding some would look nice. But instead of factories, airfields. Hold the city to get to the tanks. Hold an airfield to get into bombers. Infantry and fighters are non conditional border territs.

I'm working on this still. I am probably going to use factories, and use them to be able get a hover-tank or fighter. The runways just aren't working out, they look more like roads than a runway. But I'll keep on looking for something suitable.

[Moved]

isaiah, one month has passed since ur last update, therefore the map is considered to be stalled. if u want to continue with the map, then one of the foundry moderators will be able to return the thread to the main foundry workshop, after an update has been made.

ian.

The six months of vacation has expired, for this reason this topic is now labeled as [Abandoned]. If the original mapmaker wants to continue this map project it's fine but a real update must provided. From this moment anyone else is free to continue this project without the original mapmaker permission, but it has to be started from the scratch.

Okay I decide to bring this one back to life!

Changes done:
1. Added in factories, which when you have secured one, you can build more fighters, bombers and hover-tanks. Placed a +1 Auto-deploy on them. This can be remove if anyone feels that there are too many auto-deploys around.
2. Changed the wording for the bombard features for the fighters and bombers to read " Bombards "x" regions away" instead of "Bombard range of "x""

That is it for now, soooooo ....

[bigimg]http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/3933/74v2.png[/bigimg]

isaiah, everything looks pretty solid at first glance. But before I take a bigger look, any thoughts on any restrictions you might like to apply to this one.

koontz1973 wrote:isaiah, everything looks pretty solid at first glance. But before I take a bigger look, any thoughts on any restrictions you might like to apply to this one.

This is a good thing. As far as restrictions, the reason I brought it back was to possibly limit this to 4 players, but with the current layout. maybe even restrict zombie spoils on this as well. Just a couple of thoughts right now. I would leave it open for play on the rest of the settings.

isaiah40 wrote:limit this to 4 players

4 with a single starting point or double?

isaiah40 wrote:restrict zombie spoils

Why do this? I see no reason to.

koontz1973 wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:limit this to 4 players

4 with a single starting point or double?

Well each wave is a starting set, so I see it as each player starts with 2 waves. Example, player 1 gets Waves 1 and 2 and so on. The US player would get all regions annotated on the map. The 888's represent the starting regions. If it doesn't make sense, then we can just restrict this to 8 players.

koontz1973 wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:restrict zombie spoils

Why do this? I see no reason to.

This was just a thought, and I don't really see a reason to do it either.

Gonna bump this so koontz can see this again!

isaiah40 wrote:Gonna bump this so koontz can see this again!

isaiah, once again I cannot see anything fundamentally wrong with this. Some things can be moved a region but that does not change the GP as it is in any way so it is not really needed.

As for limiting the game, I was wondering if you think it might ok if we stated this is only a doubles (2/4 teams) map or large game (8 players) only. Playing this as 1v1 would be ok, but 3,4,5,6 & 7 player games, you could end up with a player in the middle surrounded. Not a very good thing to have in normal games. As soon as we get the limits settled I will awake the sleeping beast that is ian.

koontz1973 wrote:we stated this is only a doubles (2/4 teams) map or large game (8 players) only.

Let's go with this idea!

isaiah40 wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:we stated this is only a doubles (2/4 teams) map or large game (8 players) only.

Let's go with this idea!

So noted. Noted in the first post and ian has been woken.

you will only recieve 3 men ought to be you will receive only 3 men.

emtpy regions (i.e P1) can attack any adjacent region This includes those with factories in them ought to be empty regions (e.g. P1) and factories can attack any adjacent region.

units within the same region ought to be units within the same wave.

bombard's 2 regions ought to be bombard 2 regions.

isaiah40 wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:we stated this is only a doubles (2/4 teams) map or large game (8 players) only.

Let's go with this idea!

koontz1973 wrote:Playing this as 1v1 would be ok, but 3,4,5,6 & 7 player games, you could end up with a player in the middle surrounded. Not a very good thing to have in normal games.

i presume that we'll have 8 random start positions, with 6 for waves 1 to 6 and 2 for the usa. 4-player and 7-player singles are fine too. to avoid the issue of the usa defenders having the disadvantage of being stuck in the middle, perhaps they can start with 3 troops per region, while the attacking waves start with 2 troops per region plus ease of mobility within the wave. 3-player, 5-player and 6-player games might start with no-one defending the usa and i agree that this is not appropriate, given the title of the map.

ian.

iancanton wrote:you will only recieve 3 men ought to be you will receive only 3 men.

emtpy regions (i.e P1) can attack any adjacent region This includes those with factories in them ought to be empty regions (e.g. P1) and factories can attack any adjacent region.

units within the same region ought to be units within the same wave.

bombard's 2 regions ought to be bombard 2 regions.

I'll get these done in the next update.

iancanton wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:we stated this is only a doubles (2/4 teams) map or large game (8 players) only.

Let's go with this idea!

koontz1973 wrote:Playing this as 1v1 would be ok, but 3,4,5,6 & 7 player games, you could end up with a player in the middle surrounded. Not a very good thing to have in normal games.

i presume that we'll have 8 random start positions, with 6 for waves 1 to 6 and 2 for the usa. 4-player and 7-player singles are fine too. to avoid the issue of the usa defenders having the disadvantage of being stuck in the middle, perhaps they can start with 3 troops per region, while the attacking waves start with 2 troops per region plus ease of mobility within the wave. 3-player, 5-player and 6-player games might start with no-one defending the usa and i agree that this is not appropriate, given the title of the map.

ian.

I have planned that each wave and USA player will start with 1 Infantry, 1 Hover-tank, 1 fighter and 1 bomber as starting positions as I have shown on the map with the 888's. So since a player would start with, let's say, Wave 4, that player would start with all units in that wave. Right now I believe that restricting this to a doubles map and to 8 player only games, while leaving all other game types open, is the best way to go.

what i meant to say was that i presume we'll have 8 start positions that each consist of 1 infantry, 1 hover-tank, 1 fighter and 1 bomber, representing waves 1 to 6, midwest and rockies (the 8 sets of coloured troops on page 4). these 8 positions will be randomly allocated and not grouped, am i right? my suggestion was that the midwest and rockies positions start with 3 troops on each of their 4 regions, while the attacking wave positions start with 2 troops on each of their 4 regions.

unless i'm mistaken, u also propose that the only selectable game types will be 2v2, 2v2v2, 2v2v2v2 and 8-player singles. 2v2v2, being a type of 6-player game, might start with the usa positions both empty, which isn't what we want.

ian.

iancanton wrote:what i meant to say was that i presume we'll have 8 start positions that each consist of 1 infantry, 1 hover-tank, 1 fighter and 1 bomber, representing waves 1 to 6, midwest and rockies (the 8 sets of coloured troops on page 4). these 8 positions will be randomly allocated and not grouped, am i right? my suggestion was that the midwest and rockies positions start with 3 troops on each of their 4 regions, while the attacking wave positions start with 2 troops on each of their 4 regions.

unless i'm mistaken, u also propose that the only selectable game types will be 2v2, 2v2v2, 2v2v2v2 and 8-player singles. 2v2v2, being a type of 6-player game, might start with the usa positions both empty, which isn't what we want.

ian.

The mid-west and rockies positions will be set up the same way as the waves. We would restrict this to 2v2, 2v2v2v2 and 8 player singles, so in this way the usa positions would get handed out - at least I hope so, lol!

As for the usa players starting with 3, and the waves starting with 2 sounds good to me.

Any other game-play related comments, ideas, suggestions??

Edit: OP has been updated with the starting number of men on each of the starting positions as suggested by iancanton!

You got ian happy and that makes me happy. Here you go and have fun.

The only two things I have about this map are the black lines. Seems lazy and I am sure you can come up with something better. You also say that this is in the future, but all the jpegs in the background are of today military. Try to find something a bit futuristic for this.

show

koontz1973 wrote:
You got ian happy and that makes me happy. Here you go and have fun.

The only two things I have about this map are the black lines. Seems lazy and I am sure you can come up with something better. You also say that this is in the future, but all the jpegs in the background are of today military. Try to find something a bit futuristic for this.

show

WOOT! WOOT!

Yea I can look around for something a little more futuristic for the background images.

:pokes: any progress on that background there isaiah?

Oh and I'd think about some kind of barrier instead of "black line" barbed wire/sea mines or something futuristicy like a laser grid/fence/force field.

RedBaron0 wrote::pokes: any progress on that background there isaiah?

Oh and I'd think about some kind of barrier instead of "black line" barbed wire/sea mines or something futuristicy like a laser grid/fence/force field.

YIKES!!!! I lost track of time on this one! I'll get something up in the next couple of days.

isaiah40 wrote:

RedBaron0 wrote::pokes: any progress on that background there isaiah?

Oh and I'd think about some kind of barrier instead of "black line" barbed wire/sea mines or something futuristicy like a laser grid/fence/force field.

YIKES!!!! I lost track of time on this one! I'll get something up in the next couple of days.

Fail.
Bin.
You sank my battleship.
err... wrong game.

And you're lucky I'm counting from when you got the stamp instead of the last "official" update.

Okay here is the way past due update!

Changes made:
- made the corrections iancanton mentioned
- moved a couple of region names
- replaced the solid black line with barbed wire

The story in the OP has been updated. I will keep the background images as I could find any futuristic images that I liked and were in the public domain.

[bigimg]http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/6586/g3g9.jpg[/bigimg]