Battle For Iraq! [Quenched]

[Incandenza]

EDIT: I am a fucking retard and shouldn't post things of substance when I've been drinking.

[yeti_c]

well here's an odd thing.

According to the map inspect (I haven't been able to actually try any of this out), the al-qaeda and mahdi army factions of cities can attack the cities themselves, whereas the Baathists and US Army cannot attack the cities themselves. I can only imagine that this is due to the fact that al-qaeda and mahdi can attack other places, and I can't see why this would be a feature (as opposed to a bug) given that there's no indication in the legend that such would be the case.

The rules of engagement state...

Mahdi & Al-Qaeda can attack out from their loyalty square.

C.

[mibi]

well here's an odd thing.

According to the map inspect (I haven't been able to actually try any of this out), the al-qaeda and mahdi army factions of cities can attack the cities themselves, whereas the Baathists and US Army cannot attack the cities themselves. I can only imagine that this is due to the fact that al-qaeda and mahdi can attack other places, and I can't see why this would be a feature (as opposed to a bug) given that there's no indication in the legend that such would be the case.

The rules of engagement state...

Mahdi & Al-Qaeda can attack out from their loyalty square.

C.

it also say in the bonus legend, Al queda can attack sunni cities and madi can attack mahdi bagdad

[MOBAJOBG]

Thanks for making a nicely balance and fairly complex map.

[TAOS1854]

In the key it state that you get 3 armies for every 2 al-Quida but I hold 4 al-Quida and still I only received 3 bonus armies so the map is not calculating this correctly or the key info. should be changed to read 3 armies for 2 or more al-quida.

[mibi]

In the key it state that you get 3 armies for every 2 al-Quida but I hold 4 al-Quida and still I only received 3 bonus armies so the map is not calculating this correctly or the key info. should be changed to read 3 armies for 2 or more al-quida.

you need the four cities too.

[Incandenza]

So I think an argument can be made for reducing the Kurd bonus to 3.

Kurd has 4 terits, 3 of them borders. 5 terits can directly attack from without, including mosul.

Sunni is also a 4 bonus, with 4 terits that are borders, Anbar being a particularly important one. I count 9 terits that can attack Sunni, not including the 7 embedded cities (which themselves are additionally vulnerable, since any city in the bonus can be attacked by al-qaeda, making the continent even harder to hold).

Kurd's simply easier to hold and harder to get to, and with only 4 terits it's reasonably common to see someone get 3 or even 4 on the drop. So maybe we knock off one army/turn...

I wouldn't classify this as high-priority, just an idea to kick around.

[mibi]

So I think an argument can be made for reducing the Kurd bonus to 3.

Kurd has 4 terits, 3 of them borders. 5 terits can directly attack from without, including mosul.

Sunni is also a 4 bonus, with 4 terits that are borders, Anbar being a particularly important one. I count 9 terits that can attack Sunni, not including the 7 embedded cities (which themselves are additionally vulnerable, since any city in the bonus can be attacked by al-qaeda, making the continent even harder to hold).

Kurd's simply easier to hold and harder to get to, and with only 4 terits it's reasonably common to see someone get 3 or even 4 on the drop. So maybe we knock off one army/turn...

I wouldn't classify this as high-priority, just an idea to kick around.

that could work. Kurd is the only territory bonus i've seen held until the end game. I usually hit up al-alqueda if I have a good drop in Sunni territory.

[Ogrecrusher]

I think the "all loyalties" bonus should override all the bonuses you get for city + loyalty, at the moment you get massive bonuses for a city and all it's loyalties, is this what was intended?

[mibi]

I think the "all loyalties" bonus should override all the bonuses you get for city + loyalty, at the moment you get massive bonuses for a city and all it's loyalties, is this what was intended?

originally it was intended to override, so even if you have all the loyalties, you don't get the +1 baathist or +1 US. But I have yet to see a player take allt he loyalties to an advantage since its so many neutrals just to get them all.

[yeti_c]

I think the "all loyalties" bonus should override all the bonuses you get for city + loyalty, at the moment you get massive bonuses for a city and all it's loyalties, is this what was intended?

originally it was intended to override, so even if you have all the loyalties, you don't get the +1 baathist or +1 US. But I have yet to see a player take allt he loyalties to an advantage since its so many neutrals just to get them all.

That's not actually possible with the differing bonuses knocking about.

C.

[mibi]

I think the "all loyalties" bonus should override all the bonuses you get for city + loyalty, at the moment you get massive bonuses for a city and all it's loyalties, is this what was intended?

originally it was intended to override, so even if you have all the loyalties, you don't get the +1 baathist or +1 US. But I have yet to see a player take allt he loyalties to an advantage since its so many neutrals just to get them all.

That's not actually possible with the differing bonuses knocking about.

C.

i know. which is wHY IT is the way it is.

[VermiciousDad]

I have a question about this map. I can attack from a city to a Loyalty (BAATHIST loyalty). However, I cannot fortify or attack from the Loyalty. Why is that? More specifically, I think that tidbit of information would be good to document on the map itself.

[yeti_c]

I have a question about this map. I can attack from a city to a Loyalty (BAATHIST loyalty). However, I cannot fortify or attack from the Loyalty. Why is that? More specifically, I think that tidbit of information would be good to document on the map itself.

This is covered in the rules of engagement...

In fact some of the loyalties can attack out of their loyalty square.

C.

[MOBAJOBG]

It seems to me that Baathist of Nasiriyah does not receive +1 army bonus.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2641034

2008-06-16 03:53:06 - MOBAJOBG attacked Baathists of Nasiriyah from City of Nasiriyah and conquered it from The Weird One

I've attacked and captured it successfully since Round 9 and up until Round 17, I don't get to enjoy its benefits.

Kindly check, regards and thanks.

[mibi]

It seems to me that Baathist of Nasiriyah does not receive +1 army bonus.

http://www.conquerclub.com/game.php?game=2641034

2008-06-16 03:53:06 - MOBAJOBG attacked Baathists of Nasiriyah from City of Nasiriyah and conquered it from The Weird One

I've attacked and captured it successfully since Round 9 and up until Round 17, I don't get to enjoy its benefits.

Kindly check, regards and thanks.

did you hold the city as well?

[yeti_c]

This is in the XML...

Code: Select all

	<continent>
		<name>Baathists Loyalty: Nasiriyah</name>
		<bonus>1</bonus>
		<components>
			<territory>City of Nasiriyah</territory>
			<territory>Baathists of Nasiriyah</territory>
		</components>
	</continent>

C.

[MOBAJOBG]

Apparently, I didn't hold the city ...at least not until the later part of the game in Round 18 where I've received the bonus in good stead.
Wow! my opponent is a better player than I've thought earlier denying me the bonus.

I shall apologize for the false alarm.

[Bboru]

I know this map has been quenched, but after playing the map a few times I've a question/concern that I'd like to raise. I have looked through the previous 30 pages, and didn't see this suggestion, but if it was I apologize for raising it again. Before I do, I want to thank mibi and anyone else that participated for putting this map together. I've played it a few times and I think the city loyalty aspect gives a rich complexity that many maps lack.

In a few of the games I've played, I've found myself left with only a few Baathist and/or US Army loyalty squares. This left me with no way to attack or expand beyond these squares. Each turn the only options available were to decide to either reinforce my remaining loyalty squares with my 3 armies or to choose to allow myself to time out and be expelled from the game for missing three turns. Neither of these feel like good options. One of my games was particularly frustrating because I found myself with the 2nd largest army on the map, split between two Baathist loyalty squares. The other players left me alone knowing i wasn't a threat to them and that it would be too risky to try to take me out of the game while there were other players still on the map. So I'd like to suggest a change to the game play that would allow the Baathis and US loyalty squares to only attack their host cities. Would such a change be too drastic to the game play of the map?

[yeti_c]

I think that this is unnecessary... it is a useful tactic to be able to lock people down into their loyalty areas...

See other maps with similar -
Waterloo - Artillery
San Francisco - Alcatraz

C.

[Bboru]

I"ve played both of those maps a few times. And yes, I agree that the concept is similar and works. I never thought they needed to be changed. I think there is a difference in scope between this map and the other two. With San Fran there is only one territory out of the 42 territories that you re unable to attack out of. With Waterloo the artillery squares are far more numerous 14 (I think), but they are able to attack other territories in their line of sight. With the current map, you have roughly 1/4 of the territories (24) that are unable to attack or expand from. Perhaps instead of allowing them to expand out, they could be changed to be more like the artillery in Waterloo and able to attack the host cities, but not take possession of them?

[yeti_c]

I"ve played both of those maps a few times. And yes, I agree that the concept is similar and works. I never thought they needed to be changed. I think there is a difference in scope between this map and the other two. With San Fran there is only one territory out of the 42 territories that you re unable to attack out of. With Waterloo the artillery squares are far more numerous 14 (I think), but they are able to attack other territories in their line of sight. With the current map, you have roughly 1/4 of the territories (24) that are unable to attack or expand from. Perhaps instead of allowing them to expand out, they could be changed to be more like the artillery in Waterloo and able to attack the host cities, but not take possession of them?

That might be a better modification - ultimately - Mibi will have to arbitrate though.

C.

[mibi]

I will take some time to deliberate and return with my ruling.

[Bboru]

Either way the decision goes, thank you both for the consideration of my request.

[Unbathed]

I like the one-way nature of the U.S. and Baathist loyalty squares the way it is now. It does a good job of modeling quagmire. "Now look what you've done, you careless commander: you have stuck your forces someplace from which you cannot retreat."