Conquer Club

Mod Note:Abandoned - If resurrected, this one must be checked again.



General gameplay notes:
8 Commanders (starting positions).
31 Cities (+1 Autodeploy, Starting neutral 2)
3 Independent States (Neutral 3, Plus 1 for each)
Cities yield +1 per GMD commander (4 Commanders, 8 Cities)
Red territories yield +1 per CCP commander (4 Commanders, 8 territories)
Soviet/USA support adds +5 (neutral 8 )
17 territories that are part of no Bonus

Total 'spaces': 86
Total spaces open to deployment in round 1: 25
V6

show

Cool idea.

You know instead of the typical terts and cities bonuses you could pursue a "resources" type objectives.

Food. Manufacturing. Population. Transportation. Mineral resources. Military bases. Religious temples. Government.

The bonus system is a bit confusing... Also, all starting points can attack each other through soviet or us support? In this case they're going to need a big stack of neutrals... to prevent 1st round eliminations.

But the map looks nice and interesting, I hope you'll finish it.

Jefjef... yeah, that's kind of what I'm going for with the roles of cities and territories. One possibility I'm considering is a bonus for x amount of cities and another bonus for x amount of countryside territories. Stressing the different resources of each area. Obviously, railroad cities are worth even more in terms of strategic value.

Natty - Well, the rest of the map is random deployment, but each player is guaranteed a commander. So if a player dashed through the support and started attacking other commanders, he's probably lost the war on the ground.

I'm trying to emphasize the various factors involved in the Civil War that allowed it to turn out as it did. The GMD emphasized cities too much and the CCP stressed countryside, for the win though. Jiang Jeishi put too many troops towards securing independent areas rather than fighting the CCP. The GMD was also late in securing US support, whereas CCP gained a major advantage by getting Soviet support early on. Interestingly enough, the GMD had Soviet Support early on... I'm thinking about having supports attack each other (No bonus for both supports though) which would allow commanders to "swap sides" which some did and was a major concern for the GMD more than the CCP.

So yeah, as you see, it's going to be somewhat complex of a map.

So... if you lose your commander, but are still alive down in the map, is there anyway to regain a commander, or is the game practically over for you since you can't fully eliminate anyone?

natty_dread wrote:So... if you lose your commander, but are still alive down in the map, is there anyway to regain a commander, or is the game practically over for you since you can't fully eliminate anyone?

Hmm interesting question, I hadn't thought of that entirely.

I did think that once you get eliminated from the commander map thing, then you were in trouble as it was a crucial piece to the game. But you really are SOL cause you can't win, as you've pointed out.

Two ways of fixing this, victory condition of holding China... which is what I'm leaning towards. Or making the commander to cities/territories assault both ways... which I'm not entirely opposed to.

I think it's logical that while civilians might not have a leader that they can still destroy the government, which makes vic conditions seem plausible.

On the other hand, using the people to solicit a leader is also very plausible... thoughts?

I think it would be better if you could regain a commander somehow. In gameplay terms, forgetting realism for now...

See, if you lose a commander, but are very strong in the actual map, then you would have all the remaining players that own a commander harassing you while you're trying to fill the objective, which would make for frustrating gameplay IMO. So maybe some territory that can one-way attack the commanders... maybe a killer neutral... somewhere on the map.

Yeah, actually, that sounds good to me. Put a killer neutral on the map, that resets to a medium-high amount of neutrals, and can one-way attack all commanders. That way no one can stack on it like people stack on PAF in poland. Or maybe one of these territories each for blue and red commanders? That would make more sense, I guess...

To make it even more interesting: the killer n. that can attack red commanders could be in the middle of blue area, and vice versa...

Hmm... I like where you're going and it's given me a few thoughts.

1) What if the Commanders reduced by 1 per round. It's XML possible. Obviously, this puts in a failsafe to allow a player to win on the large map and be able to allow the reduction do its work for him (without territories a player receives no armies). Players would have to be mindful of not getting eliminated by default in the commander thing as it is a valuable resource, it works like having commmanders in real life, you have to keep their loyalty.

2) Beijing or Xhaanxi (need to fix it so it says Shaanxi) attacks CCP and Nanjing attacks GMD. It adds a little more value to each respective capitol but like you said, we don't want the PAF thing going on here. Might be an idea worth coupling with the commander reducers?

3) Adding another territory as a neutral. Maybe below the Soviet/USA support blocks, call it something like "Party/Faction Loyalty" or "Vote of No-Confidence" so it acts similar to the CCP or GMD losing faith or replacing in a commander. The "Party Loyalty" can border the same CCP/GMD territories that the Commanders one way attack.

Industrial Helix wrote:Hmm... I like where you're going and it's given me a few thoughts.

1) What if the Commanders reduced by 1 per round. It's XML possible. Obviously, this puts in a failsafe to allow a player to win on the large map and be able to allow the reduction do its work for him (without territories a player receives no armies). Players would have to be mindful of not getting eliminated by default in the commander thing as it is a valuable resource, it works like having commmanders in real life, you have to keep their loyalty.

Two things: the decay only works until the territory has 1 troop, it will not eliminate the last troops or make the territory neutral. Also, I think the way the XML is currently, you always get at least 1 troop of deployments. So it wouldn't work to just wait for the players to auto-eliminate...

2) Beijing or Xhaanxi (need to fix it so it says Shaanxi) attacks CCP and Nanjing attacks GMD. It adds a little more value to each respective capitol but like you said, we don't want the PAF thing going on here. Might be an idea worth coupling with the commander reducers?

So would you make them killer neutrals? I think that's crucial for the idea to work.

Also Nanjing is on the blue area... It would be more fun if a city in the blue area attacks red commanders.

Make it so that Beijing attacks reds and Xhaanxi attacks blues? Or something.

3) Adding another territory as a neutral. Maybe below the Soviet/USA support blocks, call it something like "Party/Faction Loyalty" or "Vote of No-Confidence" so it acts similar to the CCP or GMD losing faith or replacing in a commander. The "Party Loyalty" can border the same CCP/GMD territories that the Commanders one way attack.

Hmm... I'll need to look at this again when I have the time. Gotta run now...

Ok, I added party loyalty which should add a more circular movement to the leadership graph and the map.

I also added numbers to show how the intial deployment is going to work out. Plus the tentative neutrals. For the record, the Commanders start with 10

Why only one way for Taiwan? How about atleast one out attack from there. Maybe to Shanghai.

The party loyalties should work... but are you going to make them killer neutrals? Because if not I can see people stacking troops on them. If you are, it should be noted in the legend.

Jefjef, Well, because for the GMD Taiwan was like a black hole for troops and money. Jiang Jeishi, quite wrongly imo, wasted a lot of men, time and money securing Taiwan rather than fighting the CCP. Hence one way... we could do two way, maybe make on eor two of the routes two way.

Natty, yeah good point. I need to find space to add that somewhere.

First, I really love this map. You need to clone yourself so that you can churn out more historical maps.

The updated version is much clearer and the party loyalty looks like it should work as long as it's killer neutral like Natty_dread said.

Are you going to have the USA and Soviet Support at 15 neutral? I don't think anyone would bother with it for a +5 bonus. You'd have to hold it for something like 3 or 4 turns just to recoup your investment. Unless, of course, you're playing with Nuclear Spoils.

Also, I think you should still implement the -1 (loyalty) decay to the commanders, as they will be powerful territories to hold. It might crowd the legend, though...

I agree with jefjef about Taiwan. It's never a happy thing to start with a 'dead-end' territory, it really makes the drop a little more unfair. WWII Ardennes has the nortorious 101st dead-end territory which guarantees that someone will have 3 stranded troops right from the get-go. Admittedly, in that map, the dead-end is useless, while Taiwan does have the potential to produce a bonus. But nevertheless I still think it limits the options of a player a little too much. Plus Taiwan makes it so that a player could lose any chance of winning the game yet not be out of the game. The kind of situation that makes people post inanely for a "surrender button" option.

I know it isn't exactly realistic, but could Taiwan maybe only have an outlet through the commanders (make it a blue city)? That would make it somewhat isolated, but not a dead end.

Finally, I know that Pinyin spellings are now mainstream, but for Jiang Jieshi, could you possibly use the more famous Chiang Kai-Shek? Mao is still Mao, but they really changed poor Chiang's name.

Ah Marshal Ney, I was hoping to lure you into this thread, lol. Well, thanks for the praise for my ideas, but I have yet to quench a map. Which is unfortunate considering I've been active in the foundry a year now, but things progress as they do. Hopefully 13 Colonies will be up for Beta soon, shortly followed by the Unification maps. If you like historical maps, Cairns does a nice job as well.

It's interesting you mention Chiang/Jieng thing as I was wrestling with which to use for a while. When I initially researched for a presentation on the war I read a whole chapter of a book on it and was wondering who the hell Jiang Jieshi was and why I hadn't heard of him before. Turns out Chiang Kai-shek actually translated his name to English, which resulted in Chiang Kai-shek. Apparently it was a real bad translation of his name which resulted in a few other translations. Either way, you're right, Chiang Kai-shek is more recognizable. I'll make the change next turn.

As for the decay on the commanders... it's an idea still to be toyed with. What I'm hoping to achieve is something along the lines of the Third Crusade map where each player has a base of men to start with and initially carve out his sphere of influence. However, with Commanders its a little less like carving out space. It gives a player an initial area to make his start on the map of make a run for political influence. I'm worried that decay might encourage a player to move too quickly to a the map and the game turn into a typical conquest game. I think without decay, a player has to be wary of not advancing geographically so much that his political standing is at risk. I dunno, thoughts on this one?

I wonder if a player does abandon his commander if it would even matter.... What about the opposite where commanders autodeploy 1 per turn. This will make them powerful, and given that after 5 rounds a player holds some chance of gaining external support too dangerous to ignore.

The general idea of having commander and map aspects is that I want a player to have to manage more than just a map, unlike most CC games.

As for Taiwan, I'm pretty much sold on making at least one of those routes two way. Though some variance in one way and two way seems intriguing.

Industrial Helix wrote:As for the decay on the commanders... it's an idea still to be toyed with. What I'm hoping to achieve is something along the lines of the Third Crusade map where each player has a base of men to start with and initially carve out his sphere of influence.

...

I wonder if a player does abandon his commander if it would even matter.... What about the opposite where commanders autodeploy 1 per turn. This will make them powerful, and given that after 5 rounds a player holds some chance of gaining external support too dangerous to ignore.

The general idea of having commander and map aspects is that I want a player to have to manage more than just a map, unlike most CC games.

Ah, yes, I see. The commanders are supposed to be powerful, central areas through which offensives can flow... Hmmm, the decay is definitely out then, b/c you're right they would be abandonded after the initial rush. Autodeploy would work very well I think, but then the commanders become very valuable to hold. Am I correct in assuming that commanders can't attack each other except through the relevant support or party loyalty?


Also, I know this is probably intentional, but there does seem to be a lot of variance in the number of cities in a territory. Do you get a +3 bonus for holding 2 territories, even if they have zero cities between them? And I'm assuming that 1 territory w/ 3 cities counts the same as 1 territory w/1 city, yes?


Natty mentioned allowing red cities being allowed to attack blue loyatly and vice versa. This might not be a bad idea, at least for the communists, since their spy network reputedly did a great deal of damage to the Nationalist cause. Just a thought.

Industrial Helix wrote:Yep, you are correct. Hopefully my diagram will help...

Nice diagram ... you should put that on the original post (although maybe show the commanders attacking the cities)

Industrial Helix wrote:...
So yeah, to be honest, I'd prefer blue area attacks GMD party loyalty and Red area attacks red party loyalty. I think I'm goign to have to add three non-city
territories to the GMD though.

Sounds good.

I still think the neutral numbers are a bit high for the loyalty/support dynamic to really come into play, but I could be wrong. Incidentally, did you consider differing neutral values for the USA and Soviet, considering the Soviets were more inclined to help? It might be hard to balance out, but I'm throwing the idea out there anyway.

MarshalNey wrote:

Industrial Helix wrote:Yep, you are correct. Hopefully my diagram will help...

Nice diagram ... you should put that on the original post (although maybe show the commanders attacking the cities)

Industrial Helix wrote:...
So yeah, to be honest, I'd prefer blue area attacks GMD party loyalty and Red area attacks red party loyalty. I think I'm goign to have to add three non-city
territories to the GMD though.

Sounds good.

I still think the neutral numbers are a bit high for the loyalty/support dynamic to really come into play, but I could be wrong. Incidentally, did you consider differing neutral values for the USA and Soviet, considering the Soviets were more inclined to help? It might be hard to balance out, but I'm throwing the idea out there anyway.

Well, keep in mind the commanders are going to be growing with +1 autodeploy. Within 5 rounds if a player doesn't use his men he has a shot at the support. A slim one, but a shot anyway. Perhaps lower it to ten?

Historically Stalin was more supportive of the GMD surprisingly. He didn't think well of Mao or the CCP until the end of World War II when the issue of the US was much more prominent. Then he really did little but allow the CCP to move into occupied Manchuria and collect Japanese arms, which he barely considered a favor anyway. Though I want to keep the support things equal as gameplay wise it needs to be fair.

If this was on facebook, I would like this map. Great idea and good graphics, hope you nail the gameplay.

I really think your map has enough kinks worked out to move forward... what needs to be done in order to accomplish this?

Was there any other aspect to the gameplay that you were searching for (resource gathering was mentioned near the beginning of the thread)?

MarshalNey wrote:I really think your map has enough kinks worked out to move forward... what needs to be done in order to accomplish this?

Was there any other aspect to the gameplay that you were searching for (resource gathering was mentioned near the beginning of the thread)?

I dunno... I'm not really looking to add anything more. i just wanted to make sure that everything I had implemented already was sound. As a few people pointed out, there were a few gameplay problems which I think i addressed.

As for what this needs to move forward... well. There is a 2 map limit for mapmakers and I currently have three in the making (Although two are part of a series). The next one to be moved to gameplay is South Africa 1885, which once 13 Colonies is done (it just hit BETA !! ) And then after that the Chinese Civil War should be moved on through. Though, I'm tossing around ideas for Russian Civil War map and I might couple it with the Chinese Civil War as I did for the Unification maps.

WWII Africa is really Unit_2's brainchild. I've been tossing out historical ideas, but he's kind of running the show. Not sure where that fits in, and speaking of which, I need to get back to him on that.

But yeah... it might be a while before this map sees the gameplay workshop. BUT, on the brightside, mods have been giving the indication that the Unification maps are headed to the FF sometime soon. Maybe not so long after all as it may seem that the foundry is moving quicker than before. We shall see... Also on the brightside, we'll likely get a Russian Civil War map as well.

I think two way commander and territory would be the best. I think it would replicate a lot of the logistical situations that the factions dealt with during the war. From what I've read, much of the warfare was localized to each commander's region and they usually just sprung forth into red territory via rail, often losing as well. The reds, it seems, were the only ones to make major offensives into territory.

So yeah, i agree, two way border is best for this map. Whereas China, one way with party loyalty is the way to go.

As for further reading and what not... wikipedia was my start. I got the basic outline of what happened from there and who the major players were. Then I also relied on what I had learned when I did my MA in War and Society. My supervisor was Jeremy Black and the guy is brilliant... reading on him for info on warfare in general is good and he's written well over 50 books. Though a lot of the content overlaps, so much of it is repetition, pick up any book by him focusing on warfare in the west and it should devote attention to the Russian Civil War. I read about 10 pages on the Russian Civil War in "Warfare in the Western World: 1882-1975" and I bought it for about $3 used off amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Jeremy-Black/e/B0 ... sr=1-2-ent

I glanced through a few of his other books I have and it about said what the first one did, so I moved on. Then I read a "Concise History of the Russian Revolution" which was the only book at the public library even dealing with the subject. It's hardly a footnoted monograph, but the guy makes some decent points. There's very little popular literature on the Civil War itself, most of it gets lumped in as part of the Revolution. Going back to what I read in school, I read an article on foreign intervention in civil wars and the guys thesis was that it only lengthened and overcomplicated them rather than ever resolved them. So hence the limited role of the foreign powers on this map. i have no idea what article that was but once I find my syllabus from that class I'll let you know.

So unless you have access to jstor through a university or something o even a uni library, the best bet it to hit up the public library and read a chapter out of a book on the Russian Revolution.

On a final note... what do you think about throwing the Cuban Revolution into the mix? Of the great communist take overs Cuba ranks pretty high up there given its proximity to the USA. Since I'm going for a communist map pack, it seems appropriate to have more than just two maps. I don't know jack about Cuba so it's gonna take some time for reading, but expect a similar map with commanders but far less territories. Might be a nice compliment to the giants Russia and China.

The final option to making a map pack would be to throw in Vietnam... but I fear that might be such a complicated war to do justice to given the template I've set up for the other communist insurgencies. It's worth looking into at least. Actually... I think Vietnam is a go, though it would only encompass the USA era and not the French, though French would be pretty interesting as well.

So yeah, The Russian Revolution, The Chinese Civil War, Cuban Revolution and Vietnam (USA era). I'd still love to hear feedback on China and Russia. I should get some updated images going as well.

Here's the updated images... I need to figure out some sort of symbol for each commander in Russia... a little help?

Industrial Helix wrote:I need to figure out some sort of symbol for each commander in Russia... a little help?

Sickles & hammers?

Well yeah, but I can't use sickle and hammers for all of them as they don't attack eachother's regions. I figure a sickle and hammer for one, red star for another, latvian flag for Jakums, black or green flag for the anarchists, but the Mensheviks through me through a loop as they all believed they were fighting for the former russian empire.