Conquer Club

Name of the Map: The Afghan Campaign
Total number of territories: 30
Total number of regions: 5 (continues territories)
Name of Mapper: Gharanai

***Note: "Names of territories (provinces will be available on the finalized work, I just went with numbers so it would be easier for discussion about regions."

This is a unique idea that I haven't found on Conquer Club's servers.
A complete presentation of 34 Afghan provinces divided into 5 regions:
1-Western Zone (with +2)
2-Southern Zone (with +4)
3-Central Zone (with +3)
4-Eastern Zone (with +5)
5-Northern Zone (with +7)
It could be a great map for team games with 30 regions to conquer and hold (all playable, non Killer Neutral).
As it is my first map that I am submitting, so please guide me with any mistakes that I come across and I would be glad to take suggestions and other feedbacks from fellow members and moderators (whose guidance and help would be most required with this first work).

For the Graphic section I would be using Adobe Photoshop CS2 while for XML as usual I would be using Notepad.

--
Gharanai

- The map needs names of states and maybe even cities ***(later to be finalized)

- Perhaps it would be an option to cut the Northern Zone province into 2 territories (eastern and western) similar to this map in the link:

http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/inet/images. ... stan-e.gif

- I would make the reward for holding the Western Zone worth 3 spoils instead of 2

Aside from that it looks fantastic!

good work gharanai

,Seko

gharanai wrote:

Click image to enlarge.

Name of the Map: The Afghan Campaign
Total number of territories: 34
Total number of regions: 5 (continues territories)
Name of Mapper: Gharanai

***Note: "Names of territories (provinces will be available on the finalized work, I just went with numbers so it would be easier for discussion about regions."

This is a unique idea that I haven't found on Conquer Club's servers.
A complete presentation of 34 Afghan provinces divided into 5 regions:
1-Western Zone (with +2)
2-Southern Zone (with +3)
3-Central Zone (with +4)
4-Eastern Zone (with +6)
5-Northern Zone (with +5)
It could be a great map for team games as well with 34 (all playable, non neutral) regions to conquer and hold.
As it is my first map that I am submitting, so please guide me with any mistakes that I come across and I would be glad to take suggestions and other feedbacks from fellow members and moderators (whose guidance and help would be most required with this first work).

For the Graphic section I would be using Adobe Photoshop CS2 while for XML as usual I would be using Notepad.

--
Gharanai

Thanks dear Seko for the tips.
-Naming provinces is on the list and it was just there so it would be easier for members to point out, once things get going it would be there.
-The map you provided is the correct Zonal map of Afghanistan (while both Western and Eastern North comes under single Northern Zone). I had divided the zone differently because of the game play. In the map you provided East comes with only 4 provinces (territories) while for gameplay I have adopted more territories for that region since in real it's hard enough to keep that region under control (I kind of want to give it a bit of realistic feel). Same goes with South where I have included Nimroz (23) to it while in real it's more of West.
-West is with only +2 because there are only 4 territories and in real life it's more of a peaceful region and has seen very few trouble time. If I increase that to +3 then South would also have to increase meaning all the regions will have to increase at least +1 and that way a region with +7 (Eastern) would be way to beneficial for a single player to hold and could unbalance the gameplay.

Anyways those were some crucial points you came up with and for sure I will try to capitalized on them, thanks for sharing.

for XML as usual I would be using Notepad.

This is a bit premature, but I'd suggest the XML wizard.

Anywhoo... it looks like a solid first draft, although your image is way too big (maximum size is 840x800 for the large version and 630x600 for the small)... which makes me worry, if all the territories will fit. Particularly when you shrink it down to the small version... you need to make sure the army numbers fit in all territories, and that the map is legible even with the army numbers, even in the small version.

The gameplay, well, all of your bonus areas look very hard to hold. You might want to move those impassables around, so that you have less territories to defend when holding a bonus - right now the map is extremely imbalanced, there's one bonus area that's easy to hold and thus the game would be decided by whoever manages to grab and secure the dark green bonus.

Also, and this is just my opinion and others will likely tell you otherwise, but I'd like some more jazz in the gameplay. Perhaps you could do something similar as in Battle for Iraq? You seem to be going for a similar theme... the gameplay should complement the theme.

natty_dread wrote:This is a bit premature, but I'd suggest the XML wizard.

Thanks for that, I will surely keep that in mind.

Anywhoo... it looks like a solid first draft, although your image is way too big (maximum size is 840x800 for the large version and 630x600 for the small)... which makes me worry, if all the territories will fit. Particularly when you shrink it down to the small version... you need to make sure the army numbers fit in all territories, and that the map is legible even with the army numbers, even in the small version.

Well since it's just the draft and that I am new to map making, I wanted to present it with a bigger image. I knew about the size for the small map and will try my best to make it hold the army numbers while the name of the territory will be outside with a point on it.

The gameplay, well, all of your bonus areas look very hard to hold. You might want to move those impassables around, so that you have less territories to defend when holding a bonus - right now the map is extremely imbalanced, there's one bonus area that's easy to hold and thus the game would be decided by whoever manages to grab and secure the dark green bonus.

Well about the Eastern Zone with +2, I guess you are right but what would you suggest: Shall I include another territory to it or just move away the impassable from it.
About the other impassables, if you mention the specific one to be moved, would make things a bit easy for me and would be appreciated.
Actually I intentionally wanted the gameplay to be a bit hard and give it more of realistic feel depending on regions.

Also, and this is just my opinion and others will likely tell you otherwise, but I'd like some more jazz in the gameplay. Perhaps you could do something similar as in Battle for Iraq? You seem to be going for a similar theme... the gameplay should complement the theme.

That is a good idea but right now (since it's my first map) I would like to keep it the simplest of all and once I find a bit more of expertees I may make another map with something like The Afghan Invasion theme where the allied forces would be represented and all those other 'jazz' gameplay like in the Battle of Iraq (I checked that one and it looks just a bit out of my touch for the time being).

Overall thanks for your advice and guidance, those tips surely will come in handy.
Chao
Gharanai

Gharanai I would cut down on the number of countries in the Eastern Zone from 9 to 7

- Next, as another member already mentioned, move some of the Mt range impasses out to the borders.

- Remember, not only does the number of countries effect the bonuses but the number of entry points as well.

Good luck

,Seko

Actually I intentionally wanted the gameplay to be a bit hard and give it more of realistic feel depending on regions.

Making the gameplay hard is ok, but it can't be imbalanced. When you make one area much stronger than others, the games are very likely to be decided by the drop, especially on a small map.

It's a bit late here now, but I promise I'll take a look at those impassables tomorrow.

Also, it's not smart to make your draft oversized: you can't easily see if your territories will be too small, will your fonts be legible, etc... it's best to do it in the size it's going to be right from the start.

As for the gameplay, I'm not asking you to do a super-complicated mind boggling mess like battle of iraq, but something that would reflect the theme of your map.

Think of the story of your map. Who's fighting who, for what reason, when? You already have the where, so that's one checkpoint cleared

Then when you have those things figured out, start thinking how you could implement these in your map, how to create a theme that reflects this background story of your map. And more importantly, how to create a gameplay that supports this theme.

Let's use feudal wars for example.

Let's say for example that you were making a map where 6 warlords who live in their castles wage war to each other. This would be your theme, so you would draw a map with 6 kingdoms, with a castle in the middle of each realm. The castles would be places of power and thus they would receive an autodeploy. Also the castles rule their empires with an iron hand, thus the castles can bombard all their empire territories. Also when you secure your own homeland, you get more troops for all the land you hold, thus the +1 bonus for every 2 home territories.

See? That is what I mean by a gameplay that supports the theme.

Seko wrote:Gharanai I would cut down on the number of countries in the Eastern Zone from 9 to 7

What do you say if I had 16 and 28 to Central region?

- Next, as another member already mentioned, move some of the Mt range impasses out to the borders.
- Remember, not only does the number of countries effect the bonuses but the number of entry points as well.

What about moving the mountain range from 15 in southern zone to the border between southern and central zones covering 34 and 25?
But that way won't it make it a bit easier to hold Southern zone?

natty_dread wrote:
Making the gameplay hard is ok, but it can't be imbalanced. When you make one area much stronger than others, the games are very likely to be decided by the drop, especially on a small map.

It's a bit late here now, but I promise I'll take a look at those impassables tomorrow.

Also, it's not smart to make your draft oversized: you can't easily see if your territories will be too small, will your fonts be legible, etc... it's best to do it in the size it's going to be right from the start.

That I will take notice of for sure and would be waiting for the mountain tips tomorrow.

As for the gameplay, I'm not asking you to do a super-complicated mind boggling mess like battle of iraq, but something that would reflect the theme of your map.

Think of the story of your map. Who's fighting who, for what reason, when? You already have the where, so that's one checkpoint cleared

Then when you have those things figured out, start thinking how you could implement these in your map, how to create a theme that reflects this background story of your map. And more importantly, how to create a gameplay that supports this theme.

Let's use feudal wars for example.

Let's say for example that you were making a map where 6 warlords who live in their castles wage war to each other. This would be your theme, so you would draw a map with 6 kingdoms, with a castle in the middle of each realm. The castles would be places of power and thus they would receive an autodeploy. Also the castles rule their empires with an iron hand, thus the castles can bombard all their empire territories. Also when you secure your own homeland, you get more troops for all the land you hold, thus the +1 bonus for every 2 home territories.

See? That is what I mean by a gameplay that supports the theme.

The feudal wars is exactly what was on my mind while making the map.
It's a map of Afghanistan during the 1992-96 where civil war broke in entire country after the withdrawal of the Soviets and the power hungry warlords divided the country in exact 5 zones (that is actually why the provinces in the zones differ from the real Afghan zonal map).

That idea of a power center in each zone which would be able to attack other regions is great and for sure I am going to adopt it, in the mean while I would also like to know if your take on what if I merge some smaller regions to make it both a bit better visually and play wise.

Minor point: you may want to add the years to the map to highlight what period of Afghanistan we are talking about.

Just a crazy thought, what if there were caves you could hide your troops in. Actually that's an XML question?? Is it possible to have fog of war territories. As in even in a sunny game troops assigned to a certain territory are invisible??

The Bison King wrote:Just a crazy thought, what if there were caves you could hide your troops in. Actually that's an XML question?? Is it possible to have fog of war territories. As in even in a sunny game troops assigned to a certain territory are invisible??

Nope, not possible.

That's too bad that would be so cool!

Ok here is a modified version of the map with both exact Small (630x600) and Large (840x800) sizes.
Small Map


Large Map


Key Changes:
-Total number of territories: 30
-Regions (territories) altered to show the correct provincial look of Afghanistan during 1992-96 (the only exception being the combination of Logar and Nangarhar which were two separate provinces but for the sake of map visibility are now joined)
-Name of the provinces available
-Zonal and Country capitals added where Zonal Capital may bombard on any region in that specific Zone and Country Capital able to bombard any Zonal Capital in the country
-Mountains (impassables) moved a bit (still not sure if it's accurate enough)

What do you guys think of it now?

I see that Badakhshan (North East most bordered with China) provicne's name is missing so don't mind that please.

The capital & zone capitals are a nice twist. I suggest making Kabul not part of any bonus area, and it probably needs to start neutral, otherwise whoever gets it in the drop will have a big advantage. The zone capitals probably as well...

Unfortunately the Kabul feature makes the bonus areas even harder to hold. Perhaps if Kabul was a killer neutral with a suitable amount of neutrals, it could be balanced... it's worth consideration.

natty_dread wrote:The capital & zone capitals are a nice twist. I suggest making Kabul not part of any bonus area, and it probably needs to start neutral, otherwise whoever gets it in the drop will have a big advantage. The zone capitals probably as well...

Unfortunately the Kabul feature makes the bonus areas even harder to hold. Perhaps if Kabul was a killer neutral with a suitable amount of neutrals, it could be balanced... it's worth consideration.

Starting Kabul with neutral of at least 10 is a good idea (which would mean difficult to take straight away at start) but making it a killer neutral won't be take great for the game play I guess where it won't fall to anyone through out the campaign, while in reality in Afghanistan it's like if you take Kabul you control most of the country, that's exactly why I wanted it to be able to attack any zonal capital.

Beside that I really don't want the gameplay to be easy at all, and since Kabul has such a value everyone will try to keep it while others would try to not give it to others so the struggle for Kabul will keep right till the end of the game making it just that little more difficult.

About keeping the balance I guess I will go with starting Kabul as a neutral with high number of troops which will make it a bit difficult to take.

So what you say now, how does that sound.
I am really learning more and more from each comment of all of you guys so thanks for pointing out stuff and keep the good work on.

ambitious project man. Ive been to afghani for a bit, map looks good.

lol, see you are from UE ... Id rather like to see a dubai map someday

Looking good.

Some additional gameplay features would be cool - maybe auto-deploys on the capitals (neutral starts though) - or, how about, as per the Iraq map, having city loyalties? That would be cool

Well, you don't need to make Kabul a killer neutral, but you should at least make it not part of any bonus area.

army of nobunaga wrote:ambitious project man. Ive been to afghani for a bit, map looks good.

lol, see you are from UE ... Id rather like to see a dubai map someday

Thanks dear,
I am from Afghanistan but currently in UAE so I really don't know much about UAE but yet I guess that's also not a bad idea, maybe I could represent the 6 Emirates fighting for financial stability or taking over businesses and stuff...a good idea I may work on it once this one gets done.

DJ Teflon wrote:Looking good.
Some additional gameplay features would be cool - maybe auto-deploys on the capitals (neutral starts though) - or, how about, as per the Iraq map, having city loyalties? That would be cool

The neutral start for the capitals are on the list but going for a city loyalties and stuff will make it a bit complex and I want to keep it a bit simple for this first map of mine but yet that could be implemented on a 2nd version or something like that where I could come up with the concept of "Allied Invasion of Afghanistan" setting year to 2001.
There I could use some city loyalties and stuff.
You see I have so many ideas but right now I just want to go on with a simple one and experience the map making for the first time and if I like it interesting (which I am till now) maybe I would work on more stuff.

natty_dread wrote:Well, you don't need to make Kabul a killer neutral, but you should at least make it not part of any bonus area.

Don't you think it would bring a bit of twist with the Central Zone while capital stays part of it and even if Kabul is kept a sovereign region what would be the benefits of it?

No, if Kabul gets a high amount of Neutrals, I'd find it better to have it not a part of any bonus areas. Whichever bonus area it is part of would basically stay untaken because people would not be attacking Kabul until they have enough troops, so that's one bonus area out of the game at least for the first half. On the other hand if Kabul is not a part of the bonus area, the bonus area will be available, and it will also be highly sought after since whoever holds the bonus area has a good access to Kabul. Players will have more bonus areas that can be taken and that will give more options to the players, making the gameplay more dynamic.

natty_dread wrote:No, if Kabul gets a high amount of Neutrals, I'd find it better to have it not a part of any bonus areas. Whichever bonus area it is part of would basically stay untaken because people would not be attacking Kabul until they have enough troops, so that's one bonus area out of the game at least for the first half. On the other hand if Kabul is not a part of the bonus area, the bonus area will be available, and it will also be highly sought after since whoever holds the bonus area has a good access to Kabul. Players will have more bonus areas that can be taken and that will give more options to the players, making the gameplay more dynamic.

That's sounds reasonable to me.
So Kabul taken away from Central Zone leaves it with 4 regions, now is the +3 bonus ok for it or shall it go to +2?

i say +2 because i HAAATE high neutrals... slows down gameplay. I guess its fine for people use to 60+ rounds games though

army of nobunaga wrote:i say +2 because i HAAATE high neutrals... slows down gameplay. I guess its fine for people use to 60+ rounds games though

Yah a +2 is better I guess about neutrals that's the fun of the game since everyone would be trying to take Kabul with it's capability of attacking any zonal capital. Think about it in a team game a couple of teammates could easily take over it in 2-3 turns so that's why setting high neutral is necessary I guess.