Conquer Club

How no war was ever really fought like these games of risk we play act out? In real wars, most of these strategy decisions are made closer to the ground. Occasionally a leader may look at the map like we do and make a strategic objective of a certain province or city, but most of the time its not like this at all. Or so I think... thoughts?

I think this connects with the question of whether using famous battles as maps is respectful.
I don't think it's supposed to actually represent the battle...
Thanks IH, I'd like to know what people think about this.

Well, I suspect that the fog of war option was added to make things more real. No wars prior to the advent of flight were fought with anything like the amount of intelligence we have about enemy positions in a sunny game. Currently, drones and satellites can gather a lot of information, but the enemy works hard to camouflage his placements, so there still is some "fog of war" in the real world.

I thought IH meant the way troops conquer regions on this site.
An entire area, sometimes a huge area, is all taken at the exact same time. Maybe it's possible to make it a bit more realistic. Here's a suggestion:
Let's say depending on how large an area is, it takes x amount of turns before that region can be assaulted from by the new owner. So taking control of an area is different from defeating the armies on it. First you need to take down the enemy troops, then you have to excert control over the region. The area can not be assaulted during this time (or maybe it should) and the new owner has to wait x number of rounds to be able to assault from his new position.
Just a suggestion from General Gillipig lol.

Interesting concept. What about requiring more than one troop to hold a territory, say, one per border? Once you have that, then you can strike out.

ender516 wrote:Interesting concept. What about requiring more than one troop to hold a territory, say, one per border? Once you have that, then you can strike out.

That would also make it a bit more realistic. Areas with many borders are harder to defend than areas with few.

makes sense.. could also be an idéa to have several mini-maps connected to a territory.. so when you conquer a territory you are brought to the minimap where you have to clear that to own/hold the main territory.. kind of like the guardhouses in bamboo jack or the priest/boxer-bonuses in forbidden city (either a room to clear or a corridor to fight through).
this to simulate a team breaking in and taking/securing a building in urban warfare or bit by bit securing/holding key areas of a territory on a map..

dont know how it would work coding-wise.. or if it could work at all but maybe adds some realism..

to add to the fun a condition could be that all rooms but one are 1 neutrals and that your opponent can choose t deploy a nest somewhere in the "house" so you never feel secure trying to take over a house (you never in real life will know whats on the other side of the door)

maybe something like a tree-structure so when you take the main-area you connect to minimap-area 1.. minimap-area 1 branches of in 3 directions 1-A1 1-B1 1-C1 and these connects to 1-A2, 1-B2, and 1-C2.. the person holding the area gets the option to place a stack of 3 on ONE of the 1-A2, 1-B2, and 1-C2 areas all other regions in the "house" are 1 neutral.. once "house" is cleared the new owner get a bonus of 3 troops that can only be placed in the mini-map and the new owner now holds the area on the main map..

a bit intricate maybe but i think it could make for a cool concept.. conditional borders on the main map states that you cannot attack out of that region unless your "house" is cleared by all troops that are not the same colour as the player owning the main area..

this would also give incentive to the primary owner (the one who got attacked) to quickly get back his territory..

maybe even make all neutrals in the house killer-neutrals except the door if "new attacker" and kill all troops but 3 everywhere if held by same colour..

OR even -1 on all areas in the house and killer neutrals in the A1 B1 C1 so a person holding the territory could sacrifise some troops to hold 2 rooms and make it harder to take over..

got a bit complicaated there but you guys are all smart you get what im trying to describe im sure

/

Gillipig wrote:Let's say depending on how large an area is, it takes x amount of turns before that region can be assaulted from by the new owner. So taking control of an area is different from defeating the armies on it. First you need to take down the enemy troops, then you have to excert control over the region. The area can not be assaulted during this time (or maybe it should) and the new owner has to wait x number of rounds to be able to assault from his new position.
Just a suggestion from General Gillipig lol.

Hmmm ... I'm thinking the coding for this might be that each "region" is actually a set of hierarchies. You attack into the "base level" of the region. But you can only attack out of the "top level" of a region. Maybe each region has 3 levels. Perhaps 2 of those levels are killer neutrals ... or maybe one is a decaying neutral.

ender516 wrote:Interesting concept. What about requiring more than one troop to hold a territory, say, one per border? Once you have that, then you can strike out.

You could simulate this by having the region decay by the number of borders it has. It's not perfect, but you would basically keep having to replenish the "fronts" or else you would lose the territory. Better yet would be to have it decay by the amount of enemy borders, so you wouldn't have to "defend" (i.e. lose troops) in territs that you completely surround. I think this could be done with the new conditional bonus things. Each territ would have to be written to decay by the number of borders, but you would have a conditional autodeploy (can autodeploys be conditional?) that add +1 for each bordering territ. You would have to make sure the operations are performed in the right order (i.e. positive autodeploys before negative ones).

I just noticed that anonymous posted something similar ... or at least I think it is.

agentcom wrote:Each territ would have to be written to decay by the number of borders, but you would have a conditional autodeploy (can autodeploys be conditional?)

conditional autodeploy is not possible. I think conditional autodeploy would brings realy new dimension to maps and gameplay. also conditional decay would be great...

Oneyed

Gillipig wrote:I thought IH meant the way troops conquer regions on this site.
An entire area, sometimes a huge area, is all taken at the exact same time. Maybe it's possible to make it a bit more realistic. Here's a suggestion:
Let's say depending on how large an area is, it takes x amount of turns before that region can be assaulted from by the new owner. So taking control of an area is different from defeating the armies on it. First you need to take down the enemy troops, then you have to excert control over the region. The area can not be assaulted during this time (or maybe it should) and the new owner has to wait x number of rounds to be able to assault from his new position.
Just a suggestion from General Gillipig lol.

But it is realistic, when conquering a certain castle/town/bridge/whatever you gained a control of specific area.

Sometimes even like acquiring a specific resource you controlled even bigger area.

The way risk is played is realistic and yes simplified way of how wars are ran.

benga wrote:

Gillipig wrote:I thought IH meant the way troops conquer regions on this site.
An entire area, sometimes a huge area, is all taken at the exact same time. Maybe it's possible to make it a bit more realistic. Here's a suggestion:
Let's say depending on how large an area is, it takes x amount of turns before that region can be assaulted from by the new owner. So taking control of an area is different from defeating the armies on it. First you need to take down the enemy troops, then you have to excert control over the region. The area can not be assaulted during this time (or maybe it should) and the new owner has to wait x number of rounds to be able to assault from his new position.
Just a suggestion from General Gillipig lol.

But it is realistic, when conquering a certain castle/town/bridge/whatever you gained a control of specific area.

Sometimes even like acquiring a specific resource you controlled even bigger area.

The way risk is played is realistic and yes simplified way of how wars are ran.

If you say so .

I mean it kind of is though.

In a lot of areas once you take the capital or major city, you then control the rest of the nearby smaller towns by virtue of controlling the government. Some maps do over exaggerate a certain city's influence (especially global and continental maps - giving you an entire country or even half a continent just for winning one battle) but if you get down to the point of a single region like Iberia or USA Great Lakes then I think those are pretty accurate. I dunno about "Cambridge" (never heard of it, is it suppose to be Youngstown?), but if you took that as well as Toledo, Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati then I think it'd be fair to say you have complete control over Ohio. I think it's nitpicking if you want to say "well, there's still Dayton and Zanesville and whatnot" - well, sure, but those are not major areas and it is reasonable to assume they would eventually fall in line with someone holding all of the other major cities.