Conquer Club

Version 9
Per ian canton's suggestion, I've set the cell bonus to +1 per 10 cells over 30 (legend says sea cells, will change that with next update)
I changed the grids to 0-9
I've also clarified some things in the legend (no region bonus, ship cells cannot assault each other)



Previous update:
Version 8
Each section of the Destroyer and Submarine on each side one-way assaults the connected torpedo.
Each section of the Aircraft carriers one-way assaults the connected jet fighter.
Torpedoes and Jet Fighters bombard and are bombarded by any ship on the opposite side of the map.
Each section of the Battleship and Patrol Boat bombard the sea cells marked by arrows.
Sea Mines, Torpedoes and Jet Fighters are all impassable by sea. The trails connecting the latter to their ships are normal sea cells. This essentially functions like train connections do on various maps by showing a connection without interfering with the territory.
Toyed with the table background and toned it down considerably.
I lowered the starting # of troops to 10 and the torpedo/jets to 5 to help minimize first-turn advantage.


thenobodies80 note: Map approved for 1vs1 games only


Victor Sullivan and myself are pleased to present Conquer Club's first map designed exclusively for 1v1: Conquership.

Map Name: CONQUERSHIP
Mapmaker(s): Lostatlimbo & Victor Sullivan
Number of Territories: 34 Ship cells (17 each) start with 15, 160 Open Sea cells (divided between both players and neutrals)
Special Features: Receive a bonus for holding ships and sea cells on your side of the map. Hold at least one ship or lose the game.
What Makes This Map Worthy of Being Made: The first map on CC to be designed exclusively for 1v1 play.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q102 ... p1v1-3.png

Ah! Finally, lol. We've been working on this for how long?

-Sully

Victor Sullivan wrote:Ah! Finally, lol. We've been working on this for how long?

-Sully

Haha. Yeah, I am a slowpoke. Those continent bonuses were a P.I.T.A.

lostatlimbo wrote:

Victor Sullivan wrote:Ah! Finally, lol. We've been working on this for how long?

-Sully

Haha. Yeah, I am a slowpoke. Those continent bonuses were a P.I.T.A.

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean it like that. Just thinking about how long ago we started this (and how much longer we're going to be in here and the Workshop, lol). I'm just totally psyched to see a gameplay sketch of mine see the light of day!

-Sully

quench it!

pretty cool, but you can't divide the xml rules for only two player games and multiplayer games with the current xml. You'd have to make two maps each with its own xml and restrict the amount of players on the two person game... for that I think you need special permission from lack or nobodies or both. so you might want to reconsider and find a way to make it a map that works for any amount of players

^ what he said.

Industrial Helix wrote:pretty cool, but you can't divide the xml rules for only two player games and multiplayer games with the current xml. You'd have to make two maps each with its own xml and restrict the amount of players on the two person game... for that I think you need special permission from lack or nobodies or both. so you might want to reconsider and find a way to make it a map that works for any amount of players

Sully came up with a workaround to make this happen. I'll let him explain it as his knowledge of the XML is far superior to mine.

Sully - if you want to type up a brief summary of the XML details, I will add it to the OP to clear up any confusion.

XML Breakdown

Here's how it will all work out. The 'red pegs' and headquarters will be coded as starting positions as follows (note: these territories are coded as neutrals):

Code: Select all

<positions>
     <position>
          <territory>1 Red Peg</territory>
          <territory>1 Headquarters</territory>
     </position>
     <position>
          <territory>2 Red Peg</territory>
          <territory>2 Headquarters</territory>
     </position>

As described in the legend, the 2-player bonuses are connected to the red pegs, like so:

Code: Select all

<continent>
     <name>5 left sea cells [sub]</name>
     <bonus>0</bonus>
     <components>
          <territory>A1</territory>
          <territory>A2</territory>
          ...
          <territory>J9</territory>
          <territory>J10</territory>
     </components>
     <required>5</required>
</continent>
<continent>
     <name>5 left sea cells</name>
     <bonus>2</bonus>
     <components>
          <territory>1 Red Peg</territory>
          <continent>5 left sea cells [sub]</continent>
     </components>
     <overrides>
          <override>5 left sea cells [sub]</override>
     </overrides>
</continent>

Alright, now the next issue: the competing bonuses. In a 2-player game, I'm not supposed to be able to get the bonuses in a 3-8 player game, and vice versa. As for the 2-player bonuses, they are connected to the red pegs, which one wouldn't be able to get in a 3-8 player game, due to the way the starting positions are coded. As for the flip side of that:

Code: Select all

<continent>
     <name>Headquarters</name>
     <bonus>0</bonus>
     <components>
          <territory>1 Headquarters</territory>
          <territory>2 Headquarters</territory>
     </components>
     <required>1</required>
</continent>

The continent above would then be coded to override every 3-8 player continent. Since the Headquarters can't be assaulted, one can't lose it in a 2-player game for the 3-8 player bonuses to be activated. And in 3-8 player games, no one would be able to get a Headquarters. Well, now we run into another issue - if the Headquarters can't be assaulted, then how will a 2-player game end? Losing conditions allows us to work around this:

Code: Select all

<requirement>
     <name>at least one cell</name>
     <components>
          <territory>A1</territory>
          <territory>A2</territory>
          ...
          <territory>J10</territory>
          <territory>Q1</territory>
          ...
          <territory>Z9</territory>
          <territory>Z10</territory>
     </components>
     <required>1</required>
</requirement>

The requirement is set so that you must hold at least one sea or ship cell (basically any other territory than a Headquarters or Red Peg) to stay in the game. The losing condition also does not interfere with 3-8 player games, since no one will be holding anything but sea or ship cells.

And that's how we're able to do this

-Sully

Hm, it might work. I'll have to take a closer look later on...

This sounds pretty cool. I like the idea, and if the XML can work, boons.


--Andy

What Sully said is possible. Just a question, reading your explanation in a 3-8 players game no one will have a HQ and nobody will be able to attack it, right?

thenobodies80 wrote:What Sully said is possible. Just a question, reading your explanation in a 3-8 players game no one will have a HQ and nobody will be able to attack it, right?

You are correct. The HQ cannot be assaulted, nor will anyone in a 3-8 player game start with one. The Red Pegs can be bombarded by the nukes/bombs, but not assaulted. I would be surprised if the bombs ever come into play in a 3-8 player game. Though, I suppose I could code the Red Pegs as neutral 1's for nice, safe carding spots, but it would cost the 10 neutrals on the bomb.

Who's ready for Conquer Club's first 1v1 map?

-Sully

Ok, thanks for your confirmation, in this case we should talk about a thing.

thenobodies80 wrote:Ok, thanks for your confirmation, in this case we should talk about a thing.

-Sully

thenobodies80 wrote:Ok, thanks for your confirmation, in this case we should talk about a thing. ;) :-$

About the map?

i like the idea but wouldn't it be easier to make 1 map for 1v1 and another for 3-8players?
player limitations are possible and have been done in the past so if a map has merit i think it would be done again.

lostatlimbo wrote:

thenobodies80 wrote:Ok, thanks for your confirmation, in this case we should talk about a thing.

About the map?

Yes about the map. But we can continue with PMs or Live Chat, it's better.

original idea to have 2 player mode and 3-8 player mode

I love the idea behind this map and the graphics. Very nice so far, guys!

Sully and I went back to the drawing board to make this map exclusive for 1v1 play.

Map Name: CONQUERSHIP
Mapmaker(s): Lostatlimbo & Victor Sullivan
Number of Territories: 34 Ship cells (17 each) start with 15, 160 Open Sea cells (divided between both players and neutrals)
Special Features: Receive a bonus for holding ships and sea cells on your side of the map. Hold at least one ship or lose the game.
What Makes This Map Worthy of Being Made: The first map on CC to be designed exclusively for 1v1 play.

Map Image:

you need approval to make a 1v1 map:

4. Before posting your map in the drafting room is "highly recommended" to send a PM to Foundry Foreman with a draft of your 1v1 map or, if you don't have a draft, at least a clear explanation of what you want to develop. This is required to make sure that CA's can look at your project before proceeding any further. The CA's will give you a detailed reply as soon as possible. In case of rebuttal they will give you a reason.

plus it was much more interesting as it was before with 2 different gameplays.

DiM wrote:you need approval to make a 1v1 map:

4. Before posting your map in the drafting room is "highly recommended" to send a PM to Foundry Foreman with a draft of your 1v1 map or, if you don't have a draft, at least a clear explanation of what you want to develop. This is required to make sure that CA's can look at your project before proceeding any further. The CA's will give you a detailed reply as soon as possible. In case of rebuttal they will give you a reason.

plus it was much more interesting as it was before with 2 different gameplays.

I requested and received permission to post this update.

I think this gameplay will be very fun and challenging. It offers many potential strategies - both offensive and defensive - and has plenty of features that only 1v1 could accomodate.

ah, ok
but you could perhaps develop the other one too.
i really liked the 3-8p perspective it had.

That's a possibility. We'll see how this one goes.

I'm interested to see what you'll come up with for 1v1. All Your Bases would be a good fit, in my opinion.