[Abandoned] Research & Conquer

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

I had meant what things that need to be discussed, as far as potential changes or gameplay issues (propaganda, doomsday, mining bonuses, etc) go.

As I said, I think we'll start discussing the Open / Secret Conscription techs together with Standing Army and Activated Reserved Tech

I think that 30 and 100 neutrals would be better for Secret and Open Conscription. This would increase their turn count at the 1/6 mark to a little over 6 turns, but at 1/3 the map, it would be a bit about 3 turns and a little more than 2 turns for 1/2 the map. I think given their potential, it would be good to make them have a slightly longer turn value for early game.

Alternatively, Standing Army and Activated Reserves could have a slightly lower cost so that it's turn value is around 4 turns instead of 5. I understand that these are permanent bonuses and hence should have some consideration when compared to the Conscription techs, but at the same time they are very limited in their potential compared to the Conscriptions techs. I noticed that TaCktiX has Activated Reserves as 35 neutral and +8 reinforcements, whereas the XLS file has 30 and +6. I think whatever the neutral ends up being, +8 would be a better than +6, so that it at least is worth a bit more. At 1/6 the map, both Open Conscription and Deep Mining will be 14 or so reinforcements. I would even wonder if having Activated Reserves be at +10 with a 45-50 neutral wouldn't be a bad idea. Of course, on the other side of things, one could consider that it's a permanent bonus, so perhaps +8 would be best.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Does it mean that as soon as we have the XML file ready we can start the test?

I believe the biggest thing we have to do at this point is nail down all the gameplay aspects, including bonuses and neutral values. Once that's done, then the map gets its Gameplay stamp. I don't suspect that the map will spend a lot of time in the Graphic forum, as it's looking pretty darned good as is. Once whatever minor graphical things are taken care of, then it's off to Final Forge which is where the final touches on the XML are done. Once that's taken care of, then it's time for the testing.

I think all in all, if we can keep a good steady flow of conversation going, we may be able to see the map in beta testing by the end of January, which would be really cool

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

At long last, a graphical update!

Version 4
Updates:
- Rearranged and clarified almost every research
- Adjusted spacing of every research
- Added Research headings to aid understanding
- Added frames as background for each research to make them readable
- Added additional pipes as flavor
- Revamped the legend
- Adjusted the bridges on the south side of the map
- Adjusted neutral counts to reflect current progress

Provisional Values
*snip image*
Blank
*snip image*

Gameplay Concerns
- Doomsday at 200/+75 good? I want to strike a balance between "hard to get" and "no one will ever go for."
- Is everything clear? Not "absolutely stark glass" clear, but easily deduced by information presented on the map.
Graphical Concerns
- I hate the bridges. They just didn't turn out as well as I wanted them too and I likely will be going with a schematic-type bridge instead of a realistic one with massive downscaling.
- The geographical map is...tan. No one wants to conquer a desert, so I need to add some color without deluging the map with too much detail. It's on the border of too much already.
- The signatures now stand out too much. I likely will be moving to something that "works into" the background, something like an embossed look.

And for Gee Whiz information, my source PSD has 1667 layers. Yeah.

I like the touch ups that have been done on the menu graphics, they look nice and sharp. Good work!

Doomsday at 200/+75 I think works. We can adjust it as necessary during beta, but I think compared to Open Conscription the 200/+75 is comparable, considering it's bombardment and autodeploy vs. assaulting and deployable wherever. I'm not sure that it's possible to put an explanation on the map, but one thought that I had was having Doomsday be an advanced tech that has TSFs as its "basic tech".

Everything that's listed is clear, though some of it is different from what I thought was discussed and I believe some of it may have been up for discussion still, though I'm not sure. There's been so much discussion over the last couple months that I often lose track of what all had been said.

Propaganda is listed as +4 per foreign homeland in the XLS that Oliver posted, which I think is a better option than only +2. Even at +4, it puts the value of a foreign homeland at 2 less than an original homeland with National Pride.

TSFs I think would be better at +5 with a 25 or 30 neutral, since at +3 it's little better than owning Standing Army. At least if it's +5, then it's between the Standing Army and Activated Reserves bonuses. I believe also that there was some discussion about whether or not the TSFs should attack the advanced techs directly still needs to happen.

For Deep Mining, I think it would be clearer to say +2 per mine or +2 extra per mine.

For the signatures, with how the colouring is in the area, I wonder how it would look if the signatures were swapped in position. The light and dark colours would blend in a bit better, if that's the effect you were interested in, that is.

As far as the geographical map being tan goes, I'm not sure what to suggest doing. I would suggest having the geographical map be a green colour, but that's going to break the colour code. As you had mentioned, adding graphic detail would complicate things, which considering how cramped things are I don't think would work.

The bridges definitely look better than the last version's bridges. Too bad the model that you had didn't shrink down to look as nice as the model that you did was.

[carlpgoodrich]

Fitst, bravo TaCktiX! very nice!

Here are some quick hit thoughts:

The doomsday +75/200 I think is dependent on the final values of the other techs.

The conscription techs use the phrase "regions" and the legend (when talking about the doomsday device) revers to "land regions". I believe these mean the same, and so the language should be the same.

Secret Conscription is the same as is listed. You get 1 guy for every 3 spots normally, meaning you get 2 for every 6. If you add +1 for every 6, you get 3 for every 6, or 1 for every 2.

Except there is a difference. If I have 10 territories, then according to the map (+1 for every 2 instead of 3), I will get 5, but according to what the table says (additional +1 for every 6), then I will only get 4. The latter is less powerful, particularly in the early game, which is where we want it to be a factor. If for coding reasons we have to do "additional +x for every y" instead of "+1 for every x instead of 3", I think it should be additional +1 for every 5 (not 6) to make it more relevant in the early game, and so that the benefit of the two conscription techs come in at different times.

For activated reserves, I think +8 is the sweet spot. The neutral count I'm not as sure about. 35 seems good for now, I would be willing to make that final and wait for beta.

I don't see a need to make the TSF a basic tech for the doomsday device. The autodeploy would be a tip-off to other players that someone might be going for the doomsday device, it might be beneficial to not get the TSF so as to not tip people off, and I want to give people as many choices as possible.

I like TSF's as they are (+3). I could maybe see going as high as +4, but +5 is a bit much IMHO.

I think explanation of deep mining is clear.

[MarshalNey]

I have special clarifications for both of the other Advanced Researches in the legend (Doomsday one is added on my local copy, it isn't on the map above). So with 2 crossed off the list of HAVING a Basic (since I note that a Lab can attack them specifically), two that word-match the Basic, and one that functionality-matches the Basic, we're all out of advanced researches to mistakenly pair with Zeppelin Strikes, National Pride, or Propaganda. I know it's been a trend for other mapmakers to spell EVERYTHING out, but I'm not a fan of that mode of thinking. R&C isn't an easy map to play, and the thought required to decide what stuff to go for will very likely provide the deductive reasoning required to figure out similarities.

Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on this point, but I thought the exact same thing as Ender about Basic Researches attacking Advanced ones.

I am a fan of complex maps, but when the map seems to not care about doing simple, little things to make my life easier, I get turned off. It might be months before I bother with it, if at all. Because there are maps out there that do care and do the simple graphical things that don't detract from the map but make it easier to read.

Just because I can spend five or ten minutes figuring out a vague map doesn't mean that I like to do so. It's frustrating when I don't get a good return on the investment of time I spend comprehending a map. If I spend two minutes to figure out one rule, that begins to look very much like a waste of my time. I'd rather find a map that has a lot of interesting rules that I can digest quickly.

As far as I'm concerned, it wouldn't be too difficult to color-code the basic-advanced pairs, or use icons, etc. to match them. If those simple things make the map look ugly or cluttered, fine. That might be good a reason. But simply saying, "I don't want to cater to idiots", while certainly understandable, doesn't seem like a great reason to me.


Love the map, btw

One other thing that is a little vague to me is this: Why is there a colored mine for each captial? My only conclusion is that the mine counts as a homeland territory, yet there is the flag to specifically represent homelands. So, if the mine is a homeland, then why not just use color to denote homelands and dispense with the flag altogether?


As for graphics, the map is indeed almost too much of one color (tan). It actually makes the font a little hard to read with the added neutral numbers to distract. Adding some terrain pattern like you were thinking should make the land interesting, as long as it isn't too cluttered and it sounds like you're already wary of that.

I really like the title, and the overall feel is quite nice. It would be good to see this map in Beta in a month or two... I was sad when this went to the bin

Marshal Ney

[ender516]

I wonder, with the current ability of CC's XML engine, can you designate a group of 174 territories and call it 'Geographical Map' and then apply the 'Any X' to that group over and over again for Open Conscription and Secret Conscription for whatever the correct adjustment is?

Unfortunately, the list of 174 territories must be repeated in each continent that you use to award the escalating bonus. When you specify that a continent gives a bonus of, say, +1 for any 2, the two are counted from the list explicitly given in that continent, not the implicit list of territories which arises from any subcontinents.

There may be some advantages to an approach like that used in the South Africa map, where the possession of any port or fort (a source of weapons) doubles the bonus for any zone held. So it may be possible to construct the continents for the Open Conscription bonus, and then use a Secret Conscription territory to trigger an additional bonus without listing all the territories in each of the Secret Conscription bonus continents, but instead just listing an Open Conscription bonus continent and the Secret Conscription trigger. (I could type up a quick example if I am not being clear enough, but I haven't got time just now.)

[TaCktiX]

I've taken the critique about the pairs and begun working a solution. I won't be able to finish a preview until tomorrow, but it's getting worked on.

[OliverFA]

I wonder, with the current ability of CC's XML engine, can you designate a group of 174 territories and call it 'Geographical Map' and then apply the 'Any X' to that group over and over again for Open Conscription and Secret Conscription for whatever the correct adjustment is?

Unfortunately, the list of 174 territories must be repeated in each continent that you use to award the escalating bonus. When you specify that a continent gives a bonus of, say, +1 for any 2, the two are counted from the list explicitly given in that continent, not the implicit list of territories which arises from any subcontinents.

There may be some advantages to an approach like that used in the South Africa map, where the possession of any port or fort (a source of weapons) doubles the bonus for any zone held. So it may be possible to construct the continents for the Open Conscription bonus, and then use a Secret Conscription territory to trigger an additional bonus without listing all the territories in each of the Secret Conscription bonus continents, but instead just listing an Open Conscription bonus continent and the Secret Conscription trigger. (I could type up a quick example if I am not being clear enough, but I haven't got time just now.)

I think you are right. Maybe the code could be optimized in that way. Thaks so much for the suggestion! Don't know if it will be possible, but at least I'll try it. I put it in the ToDo list

[OliverFA]

Thanks everybody for the very interesting and useful comments. I have not been able to answer them, but I read all of them and really apreciate them. Those comments are being very useful, specially in the critical stage of the map.

Once again, thanks.

[iancanton]

i'm rather puzzled about the propaganda tech +2 additional bonus for holding a foreign homeland. do u mean +2 additional bonus for each foreign homeland region? if it's only +2 extra for holding all 6 flags of a foreign homeland, then i cannot see how to use this tech to advantage.

ian.

[carlpgoodrich]

i'm rather puzzled about the propaganda tech +2 additional bonus for holding a foreign homeland. do u mean +2 additional bonus for each foreign homeland region? if it's only +2 extra for holding all 6 flags of a foreign homeland, then i cannot see how to use this tech to advantage.

ian.

Somewhat related to this: It doesn't make sense that with no techs you get +2 for a foreign homeland but nothing for your own homeland.

Here is a rundown for bonuses related to homelands (not capitals):

• +1 for every 2 homeland territories (no tech needed)
• +2 for holding an entire foreign homeland (no tech needed)
• +2 for holding an entire foreign homeland (Propaganda, 20 neutral)
• +4 for holding your own entire homeland (National Pride, 20 neutral)

Ian's point is well taken. Spending 20 neutrals on a tech that will only be relevant later in the game (when bonuses are large) and will require protecting 4 land territories for every +2 hardly seems worth it.

Can I suggest the following, which I believe corrects for both mine and Ian's concerns: change the "+2 for holding an entire foreign homeland (no tech needed)" bonus to be "+2 for every entire homeland (no tech needed)" (so that holding your own homeland with national pride gives +6), and then changing propaganda to "additional +2 for every capital" (including your own). My reason for this suggestion are as follows.

• Foreign homelands are never worth more than your own homeland.
• Holding your own homeland is always beneficial even without national pride. This encourages map expansion for people who chose to focus on techs other than national pride. As I've said many times, we want to allow for as many possible strategies as possible while still encouraging both map and tech expansion. This does not in any way detract from the value of National Pride.
• With the losing condition, when someone eliminates a player by taking their capital, they will not want to then kill a lot of possibly large neutral territories and then defend them for a small bonus. If Propaganda gave something like +10 I can see it being worth it, but I think we can all agree that isn't a good idea.
• Historically, propaganda is usually used "against" a country's own people, not just in foreign regions. Changing propaganda to add +2 for all capitals would give it some relevance in the early game and increase the value of holding a foreign capital without requiring that you hold and protect a large region.
• The "+1 for every 2 homeland territories (no tech needed)" bonus will still encourage players to take the neutral territories in a foreign homeland after they eliminate someone. So that aspect of the gameplay is not lost.

What do people think? An alternative to the suggested change in propaganda would be to have an advanced national pride tech that gives an additional +8 or so for every homeland held. This would of course require a very large neutral cost, but might be fun.

EDIT: One other thing I just noticed. Every homeland has 4 territories on its boundary (so you need to protect 4 territories) except the teal region (SE). This is a distinct advantage that should be fixed. I suggest moving the border between SE2 and SE3 further south so that SE2 connects with SF3 and SE3 does not connect with SE1. Then, you would need to divide SF3 into two regions so you can't just protect SG3 SG4 and SF3.

[TaCktiX]

Carl, could you bullet-list your suggested improvements in the same way that you have the present situation? I just want to make sure I write it up properly.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

i'm rather puzzled about the propaganda tech +2 additional bonus for holding a foreign homeland. do u mean +2 additional bonus for each foreign homeland region? if it's only +2 extra for holding all 6 flags of a foreign homeland, then i cannot see how to use this tech to advantage.

ian.

Somewhat related to this: It doesn't make sense that with no techs you get +2 for a foreign homeland but nothing for your own homeland.

Here is a rundown for bonuses related to homelands (not capitals):

• +1 for every 2 homeland territories (no tech needed)
• +2 for holding an entire foreign homeland (no tech needed)
• +2 for holding an entire foreign homeland (Propaganda, 20 neutral)
• +4 for holding your own entire homeland (National Pride, 20 neutral)

Ian's point is well taken. Spending 20 neutrals on a tech that will only be relevant later in the game (when bonuses are large) and will require protecting 4 land territories for every +2 hardly seems worth it.

Can I suggest the following, which I believe corrects for both mine and Ian's concerns: change the "+2 for holding an entire foreign homeland (no tech needed)" bonus to be "+2 for every entire homeland (no tech needed)" (so that holding your own homeland with national pride gives +6), and then changing propaganda to "additional +2 for every capital" (including your own). My reason for this suggestion are as follows.

• Foreign homelands are never worth more than your own homeland.
• Holding your own homeland is always beneficial even without national pride. This encourages map expansion for people who chose to focus on techs other than national pride. As I've said many times, we want to allow for as many possible strategies as possible while still encouraging both map and tech expansion. This does not in any way detract from the value of National Pride.
• With the losing condition, when someone eliminates a player by taking their capital, they will not want to then kill a lot of possibly large neutral territories and then defend them for a small bonus. If Propaganda gave something like +10 I can see it being worth it, but I think we can all agree that isn't a good idea.
• Historically, propaganda is usually used "against" a country's own people, not just in foreign regions. Changing propaganda to add +2 for all capitals would give it some relevance in the early game and increase the value of holding a foreign capital without requiring that you hold and protect a large region.
• The "+1 for every 2 homeland territories (no tech needed)" bonus will still encourage players to take the neutral territories in a foreign homeland after they eliminate someone. So that aspect of the gameplay is not lost.

What do people think? An alternative to the suggested change in propaganda would be to have an advanced national pride tech that gives an additional +8 or so for every homeland held. This would of course require a very large neutral cost, but might be fun.

EDIT: One other thing I just noticed. Every homeland has 4 territories on its boundary (so you need to protect 4 territories) except the teal region (SE). This is a distinct advantage that should be fixed. I suggest moving the border between SE2 and SE3 further south so that SE2 connects with SF3 and SE3 does not connect with SE1. Then, you would need to divide SF3 into two regions so you can't just protect SG3 SG4 and SF3.

I'm confused by some of the parts of your post. In some parts, it seems like in some parts of your post you don't realize that you do already get a bonus for holding your homeland. You get a +1 for every 2 territories of your homeland that you own. This means that, presuming we're going with the flags only version of 'homeland', that you get a +3 for owning your entire homeland without any tech bonuses. A foreign homeland is only worth +2.

I think as is the no tech homeland bonuses are fine, though I am still very much on the side of including the mine and capital as 'homeland' territories. Ottawa is part of Canada. Washington DC is part of the US. Any capital of any country is part of the country, hence it would only make sense to include the capital as part of the homeland. As far as the mine goes, if it's not part of the homeland, then it should not be coloured the same as the remaining homeland territories. I understand that the flags are there to denote homeland territories, but I would challenge anyone to show the map to someone who hasn't been following the development, have them not read the instructions, and ask them what they think the homeland territories are. Intuitively nearly any person would say the coloured territories. It would also raise the no tech homeland bonus to +4 instead of +3, which I think would be better.

Propaganda as it's listed now on the map is useless. I had planned on bringing this up once we got to that point (as I believe we were going tech by tech and were on othe Conscription and Reinforcements techs) , but since it was brought up... this I think really does need to get changed. For a bonus that's only useful late game, the neutral count on it is way too high and the bonus, comparable to what anything else would be worth at that point, is nearly useless in and of itself.

I think Carl's idea of having it provide an additional bonus per capital could work. It would also make it potentially useful early game if someone were to want to focus on a medium research and stack on capital strategy. The one thing we'll need to watch for here is going to be 2-3 player games where a player will start with two capitals. In this case, taking the Propaganda tech would be worth more than National Pride, since it would be an automatic +4 bonus for the two capitals the player starts with, instead of a +4 bonus for capturing and holding a number of territories. Perhaps having it even slightly higher in neutral cost than National Pride would be good. Either by lowering National Pride to 16 netural and/or raising Propaganda to 25 neutral.

Overall I do think that the +2 per capital idea could work for Propaganda. I'm not even sure that raising it to +4 per foreign homeland would be good, because as Carl pointed out, there may well be large stacks of neutrals left over from a killed player which would make it worthless to spend 50-60+ guys on the map to take over the foreign homeland on top of the 20 for the Propaganda tech. At least with giving a bonus for the capital instead of for the foreign homeland, it would see more use and be a relavent tech.

In regards to the teal homeland, nice catch Carl. Was this done on purpose TaCktiX? I know you had said that you were purposely making things asymetrical, so I'm not sure if it may have been done on purpose with teal not having an advantage that other homelands have.

[carlpgoodrich]

Carl, could you bullet-list your suggested improvements in the same way that you have the present situation? I just want to make sure I write it up properly.

Sure.
My suggested improvements regarding homeland bonuses:

• Change "Holding an entire foreign homeland: +2" to "Holding an entire homeland: +2". i.e. make this bonus apply to your own homeland as well.
• Change propaganda tech to "+2 per capital".
• Remove SE3 - SE1 connection and add SE2 - SF3 connection
• Divide SF3 into two territories.

I'm confused by some of the parts of your post. In some parts, it seems like in some parts of your post you don't realize that you do already get a bonus for holding your homeland. You get a +1 for every 2 territories of your homeland that you own. This means that, presuming we're going with the flags only version of 'homeland', that you get a +3 for owning your entire homeland without any tech bonuses. A foreign homeland is only worth +2.

I do realize you get +1 for every 2 homeland territories. I guess the numbers I used in my last post were only the bonus for holding the entire homeland and not including this bonus. Sorry, I should have been more clear. I do have a few more comments on this, so back to my lists

• I agree with you 100% about capitals and mines being part of the homeland. I never realized they weren't, and I don't see a reason why they shouldn't be (if there is, please let me know).
• The +1 per 2 homeland territories applies to all homelands, not just yours. Hence my concern about foreign homelands being more powerful with no techs still holds.
• Here is a bit more about why I think the no-tech bonuses need to be changed: When someone breaks your homeland (i.e. takes just one of your homeland territories), it should be a big deal. If China conquered Oregon, it would be a big deal, even though the US would still have 49 other states. With just the +1 per 2 bonus, having your homeland broken only costs you 1 troop (neglecting techs), while having a foreign homeland broken costs you 3 troops (with the current +2 per foreign homeland and the +1 per 2 bonus). These two situations should be at least equal, if not much more severe when your own homeland is broken.
• I wouldn't be completely opposed to losing the +1 per 2 bonus altogether, although it does help in the beginning and provides a bit of incentive to take over other players homeland territories even if you won't take the whole region. What about making it +1 per 3 homeland territories?

[carlpgoodrich]

Another thing I just noticed. The real power of the Zeppelins is that they can break homelands because every homeland has one mine in it. For me, this is what makes them so cool right now (and worthy of 50 neutral). However, in some homelands, the mine is on the border of the homeland and in some homelands it is not. Homelands in the latter category will have a 5th square to defend as soon as someone researches zeppelins. I know it is important for there to be asymmetries in the map, but I think things like this should be equal.

I have not decided which I like better, mines on the border or mines in the middle. The main difference (other than whether players have to defend 4 or 5 territories) is that if they are on the border than players can coordinate arial assaults with invasions whereas if the mines are in the middle then the main advantage would be breaking people's homelands.

Now that I have written that, having them on the border sounds better

[TaCktiX]

I rather like that asymmetry as it stands. Knowing that Zeppelins is a potential issue for middle grounds will adjust the strategy of a player who's dropped one of the homelands with it in the middle. Similarly, having it on the border will adjust strategy since the homeland loss isn't as likely but the potential for a "softening up" prior to an assault is. The present suggestions (mines, the border) seem to be pointing toward "everyone should have an equal initial setup, and thus the same general strategy at home." I know that research priorities will broaden that a good deal, but that's generic available at all times. While symmetrical start seems like it would be desirable, consider that it discourages a player from trying something different based on starting area.

For instance, as it stands someone in Nar would be encouraged to research Secret Conscription, considering the number of relatively uncontested neutral territories nearby. Meanwhile Segalo and Esternan would want to try for Mining, since they are very close to the mine-rich middle of the map. That same pair would also be likely to research flat bonuses and National Pride to bolster against an early invasion from either (they are the closest to each other compared to the other two pairs). The asymmetry encourages research possibilities.

And now that I've written all this out I notice that it has almost no effect on the actual homelands, only the area immediately outside. Der. Still stuff I've noticed that should make any starting position different from any other. Food for thought. And I can move mines to the outside with minimal work.

[carlpgoodrich]

I agree with the concept of different starting positions favoring different strategies, as long as one starting position does not give a clear advantage over another. I think you have balanced open territories and mines very well. However, most games on this map will end up with players devoting considerable troops to protect their homeland, and when one player has to defend 4 territories and another has to defend 5, it takes the second player 25% more troops to protect the same thing. This is not a matter of differing strategies, this is a matter of players having an equal probability of winning based on their starting position.

Do other people have an opinion on this?

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

I agree with the concept of different starting positions favoring different strategies, as long as one starting position does not give a clear advantage over another. I think you have balanced open territories and mines very well. However, most games on this map will end up with players devoting considerable troops to protect their homeland, and when one player has to defend 4 territories and another has to defend 5, it takes the second player 25% more troops to protect the same thing. This is not a matter of differing strategies, this is a matter of players having an equal probability of winning based on their starting position.

Do other people have an opinion on this?

Without giving it much thought, I would think that having mines in the middle for some homelands and on the border shouldn't be a problem as long as other factors are balanced. For example, if it's easier for the players with the mines in the middle to get bonuses, then they would have an opportunity to get more troops earlier to protect those extra spots.

The other thing to consider is that some people won't devote some much effort to protecting their homelands. Personally, I would be inclined to put minor protection on homeland borders and stack most of my guys on my capital. If someone breaks my homeland bonus, then it's not as big of a deal as the potential of losing my capital.

All in all I don't think it's that big of a deal. Sure, some bonuses rely on the homeland bonus, but strategies can be adjusted accordingly. Nothing says you even have to worry about any homeland bonuses. You could simply focus on Mining and Conscription techs instead.

I think for the time being it can be left as is. If there are major issues with the asymetry of the map, then it can always be adjusted during beta testing.

[OliverFA]

Somewhat related to this: It doesn't make sense that with no techs you get +2 for a foreign homeland but nothing for your own homeland.

It wasn't mean to work like that at the begining. The original idea was that without tech you get the bonus from your homeland (and only form your homeland). National Pride allows you to double that bonus, and Propaganda allows you to get the bonus from foreign homelands. Summarizing:

HOMELAND:
-Basic bonus without tech
-Double bonus with National Pride

FOREIGN HOMELAND:
-No bonus without tech
-Normal bonus with Propaganda

But I don't know how it works at the end. I have added it to the ToDo list to check in the XML when I arrive at home. Thanks for noticing it.

[OliverFA]

Hello all again, I have written down all your comments and will reply them in the next post. But in this post I want to discuss exlusively the Secret Conscription, Open Conscription, Standing Army and Activated Reserves technologies, in order to close them definitively.

Secret Conscription (SC) and Open Conscription(OC)
I do believe that everybody agrees about SC being 1 army per 2 territories and OC 1 army per 1 territory. So I am making a final call. As there has been a high consenses about this, unless anyone gives a reasonable alternative, those techs wil be definitely fixed like this and discussion closed.

As far as I remember, the only suggestion has been from Tanarri, to raise the cost from 5 turns to 6 turns. I happen to agree with this change, so I am implementing it also unless someone tinks otherwise.

Standing Army(SA) and Activated Reserves(AR)
The values we have now, either the ones in my table or the ones in TaCktiX's draft, are a bit arbitrary. I think they should make sense in comparison to the rest of the map.

Those techs work as a floor, a minimum bonus in concept of territories. The standard minium from basic CC rules are 3 armies. Which value assign to he basic and advanced techs? I say let's make them in a way that having the basic guarantees that you will get at least 5% of maximum territories bonus, and the advanced tech guarantees you 10% of maximum territories bonus.

The territory bonus with OC is 174 armies. 10% of this is 17.4. Rounding up, 18 armies. So, what about 6 armies to SA and 9 armies to AR? I'll sumarize in a table:

• Standing Army: +6 armies --> for a total of minimum 9 armies --> 5% of maximum OC bonus
  
• Activated Reserves: +9 armies --> for a total of minimum 18 armies --> 10% of maximum OC bonus

By the way. I also agree to Tanarri's suggestion of lowering the cost of those techs to 4 turns.

Let's discuss about those four techs so their values can finally get fixed and this part considered closed. (After we decide final values, they can still change later during the beta, but only if there is a good reason)

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Hello all again, I have written down all your comments and will reply them in the next post. But in this post I want to discuss exlusively the Secret Conscription, Open Conscription, Standing Army and Activated Reserves technologies, in order to close them definitively.

Secret Conscription (SC) and Open Conscription(OC)
I do believe that everybody agrees about SC being 1 army per 2 territories and OC 1 army per 1 territory. So I am making a final call. As there has been a high consenses about this, unless anyone gives a reasonable alternative, those techs wil be definitely fixed like this and discussion closed.

As far as I remember, the only suggestion has been from Tanarri, to raise the cost from 5 turns to 6 turns. I happen to agree with this change, so I am implementing it also unless someone tinks otherwise.

Standing Army(SA) and Activated Reserves(AR)
The values we have now, either the ones in my table or the ones in TaCktiX's draft, are a bit arbitrary. I think they should make sense in comparison to the rest of the map.

Those techs work as a floor, a minimum bonus in concept of territories. The standard minium from basic CC rules are 3 armies. Which value assign to he basic and advanced techs? I say let's make them in a way that having the basic guarantees that you will get at least 5% of maximum territories bonus, and the advanced tech guarantees you 10% of maximum territories bonus.

The territory bonus with OC is 174 armies. 10% of this is 17.4. Rounding up, 18 armies. So, what about 6 armies to SA and 9 armies to AR? I'll sumarize in a table:

• Standing Army: +6 armies --> for a total of minimum 9 armies --> 5% of maximum OC bonus
  
• Activated Reserves: +9 armies --> for a total of minimum 18 armies --> 10% of maximum OC bonus

By the way. I also agree to Tanarri's suggestion of lowering the cost of those techs to 4 turns.

Let's discuss about those four techs so their values can finally get fixed and this part considered closed. (After we decide final values, they can still change later during the beta, but only if there is a good reason)

I agree with all of the above points, with the exception of Standing Army.

I think that the difference in bonus between the basic and advanced versions of the tech should be more than 50%. Perhaps one way of looking at this could be 5% of the maximum territory bonus without techs (174/3 = 58, rounded to 60 for simplicity sake), which would be 6 reinforcements, and 15% of maximum territory bonus which would be 18.

This would give Standing Army a bonus of +3 (total 6 reinforcement minimum) and Activated Reserves +9 (total of 18 reinforcements). This would make the advanced version worth 3x the basic bonus, which is the same ratio for the Conscription techs. Given these bonus amounts, I think that a neutral value of either 12 or 15 for Standing Army (depending on if you wanted to keep the neutral values rounded off or not) and 35-40 for Activated Reserves. Given the higher bonus value, I would suggest 40.

Regarding neutral values for Secret and Open Conscription, I think 30 and 90 would be good values. This would place both around 6.2 to 6.3 turns for return on investment.

I think once we get these four techs nailed down, it will be a lot easier to finalize the remaining techs.

[TaCktiX]

Version 5

Updates:
- Changed signatures to be more "in" the map
- Added colored pairs for basic/advanced researches
- Revamped Segalo's connections
- Moved all mines to the outside
- Change mine color to be universally gold
- Moved, deleted, and renamed several territories to make Segalo work
- Adjusted neutral values based on discussion
- Added clarification on Doomsday's attackability
- Altered Propaganda's actual bonus
- Changed homeland bonuses around

Provisional Values

Click image to enlarge.

Blank Version

Click image to enlarge.

Large Version
Quite literally, all I did was put a 33% Image Size upscale on the map. DAMN.

Click image to enlarge.

Gameplay Concerns
- Does the new color code work?
- Any further neutral concerns?
- Can we put this thing to bed, when I bash your head open? (bonus points to reference catch)

Graphical Concerns
- Due to timing I didn't work on the terrain or the bridges.

For reference, I'm releasing this now as I am going home for two weeks and will not have access to my massive computer of ownage. Trying to edit the map on my netbook is possible, but horribly inefficient. So I won't. Discuss away!

[carlpgoodrich]

First, Bravo with the new draft. I really like the colors you have added to the tech tree. One comment that I was going to save until later is that the TSF's and the doomsday device are not really advanced techs because there are no "basic" versions of them. The TSF's should probably be located directly under the Labs, since they are more of a spring board to other techs than a tech itself, the doomsday device probably belongs as the last of the basic techs. I think it would look fine to move the thick tube that separates the basic and advanced techs down a bit so that things fit.

Also, I have looked at the territory connections a bit more and I do not see anything else that I think needs to be changed in that regard.

show

I am confused by what is meant by "lowering the cost of those techs to 4 turns," etc. Can someone please explain this to me?

The conscription techs are good.

I agree with Tanarri, 6 is too much for standing army. I think the 3 that is in the current draft works well. For activated reserves, I am good with either 8 or 9.

In terms of the cost of these 4 techs, my first thought is that 30 on secret conscription is a bit high, especially if activated reserves is worth only 40 (you would have to have 6*9=54 territories for secret conscription to be worth as much as activated reserves). I like the idea of secret conscription being a viable option for early game strategies because it favors a more aggressive approach, but if the cost is too high it will be more of a middle game strategy.

Here is a summary of the 4 techs with my current thoughts in bold

• standing army -> +3 bonus ->12 or 15 neutral (leaning towards 12)
• activated reserves -> +8 or +9 bonus -> 40 neutral sounds about right
• secret conscription -> +1 per 2 -> 20-25 (25 seems ok, I would want to hear some more convincing arguments for anything higher)
• open conscription -> +1 per 1 -> 90-100

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Version 5

Updates:
- Changed signatures to be more "in" the map
- Added colored pairs for basic/advanced researches
- Revamped Segalo's connections
- Moved all mines to the outside
- Change mine color to be universally gold
- Moved, deleted, and renamed several territories to make Segalo work
- Adjusted neutral values based on discussion
- Added clarification on Doomsday's attackability
- Altered Propaganda's actual bonus
- Changed homeland bonuses around

I like the new locations of the mines and I also like that they're still asymetical in terms of distance from the capital. Regarding the homeland bonuses, I think that some discussion needs to happen there. As near as I can tell, foreign homelands would be worth an extra +2 without tech and would be equal with appropriate tech (National Pride vs. Propaganda)... I think that your homeland should be worth more than any foriegn homeland. If Oliver could add this to the list of things to discuss, I think it would be good.

Gameplay Concerns
- Does the new color code work?
- Any further neutral concerns?
- Can we put this thing to bed, when I bash your head open? (bonus points to reference catch)

I think the new colour code works great. Perhaps it's my laptop LCD, but the Mining tech colouring could use a slightly different shade, as at a quick glance it's difficult to tell the Mining colouring from the basic only tech colouring. When you take a closer look, you can see the difference, but it doesn't stand out like the other two techs do.

I do have neutral count concerns as far as the techs go, but I think that's a discussion to have tech by tech as we've started doing.

I thought I recongized that reference from a movie, but after Googling it I find that I was wrong. I won't mention the answer here since I didn't get it legimately and wouldn't want to spoil the fun for others

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

I am confused by what is meant by "lowering the cost of those techs to 4 turns," etc. Can someone please explain this to me?

The conscription techs are good.

I agree with Tanarri, 6 is too much for standing army. I think the 3 that is in the current draft works well. For activated reserves, I am good with either 8 or 9.

In terms of the cost of these 4 techs, my first thought is that 30 on secret conscription is a bit high, especially if activated reserves is worth only 40 (you would have to have 6*9=54 territories for secret conscription to be worth as much as activated reserves). I like the idea of secret conscription being a viable option for early game strategies because it favors a more aggressive approach, but if the cost is too high it will be more of a middle game strategy.

Here is a summary of the 4 techs with my current thoughts in bold

• standing army -> +3 bonus ->12 or 15 neutral (leaning towards 12)
• activated reserves -> +8 or +9 bonus -> 40 neutral sounds about right
• secret conscription -> +1 per 2 -> 20-25 (25 seems ok, I would want to hear some more convincing arguments for anything higher)
• open conscription -> +1 per 1 -> 90-100

When I (or Oliver) refer to the cost of techs in terms of 'turns', it refers to the spreadsheet that he did (last posted on Page 43, I think) of the different techs, their average bonuses, and the number of turns that it takes to break even on researching the tech. So, for example, when I suggested reducing the the cost of Standing Army to 4 turns, what I meant is reducing the neutral value on the tech to 12 (it's a bonus of 3, times 4 turns for break even, equals 12 neutral). For the sake of easier reference, I will include the table at the bottom of this post, since it's 4 pages behind and is about to get more difficult to get to.

After some further thought, I think I would like to suggest a different rationale for calculating the neutral values of these techs. One very important factor that I, and perhaps others, have been forgetting about the Conscription techs is that they require you to spend troops on the board in order for you to get the benefit of the tech. For this reason I would suggest keeping the cost of at least the Secret Conscription tech to no more than 5 turns.

Because of this, I would suggest no more than 20 for Secret Conscription, but would even consider saying 16. While I think it's reasonable to expect someone to take 1/6 of the mines by early game, I think that going for straight region count is a lot more costly and we should expect someone to only have acquired around 1/9th of the regions by the same time. Using this logic, assigning a cost of 16 to Secret Conscription would make it a 5 turn break even. For comparison sake, I would suggest 1/5th of the regions for mid game and 1/3 for late game.

Using this logic, I would suggest a neutral value of 50-60 for Open Conscription. A value of 50 would put the break even at 5 turns using the above logic, however I would lean more towards a value of 60, simply because of the sheer potential that the tech has if someoen were to a large number of regions.

As noted previously, the suggested +1 per 6 and +3 per 6 (or +1 per 2) region bonus for these techs is different than a total of 1 troop for every 2 or 1 troop for every 1 region. Whichever direction we decide to go with this, it should be recorded as such on the tech description so that the players are getting the bonuses that they're expecting.

For the neutral values of Standing Army and Activated Reserves, after further consideration I think that these should be raised to 6 turns. While I realize that these do not have the same potential as the Consciption techs, they only cost what the tech costs to research and do not cost any troops on the board to take the regions. They are also permanent deployable bonuses since they cannot be broken. For these two reasons, I think that a 6 turn cost would be more appropriate. This would bring my suggested cost of Standing Army up to 18 and of Activated Reserves to 50 or 55. I think if there is support for my thoughts above on the Conscription techs and we have a 60 neutral for Open Conscription, then a 50 neutral for Activated Reserves would be good since it provides a bit of a spread in costs for the advanced techs. I could even see suggesting swapping the two, since it would make Activated Reserves be around 6.5 turns (still a great deal) and Open Conscription be more in line with the Secret Conscription break even ratio.

I know this reasoning is a pretty big 180 from my previous thoughts, but I think once we consider the sheer number of troops that would be spent in taking territories for the Conscription techs, that it makes a lot of sense. Otherwise the player who stacks and never leaves his homeland can get a pretty big advantage while another player spends tons of troops taking territories and weakens himself while doing so.

Here's the JPEG that Oliver posted on page 43 and below it is the link for the spreadsheet that was posted on page 40, in case anyone wanted to play around with the numbers at all.

Click image to enlarge.

http://www.arrakis.es/~oliverfa/RCDashboard.xlsx