[Abandoned] Research & Conquer

[isaiah40]

National Pride: +6 armies for owning your whole homeland. OK

the tech description says it's for matched lab and homeland, which is correct at the moment? (for that matter which was intended?)

Thank you for commenting Eric! To collect the National Pride bonus you need to hold for example SW Lab and SW Homeland. The homeland is designated on the map with the outer glow.

[EricPhail]

Glad for that answer Isaiah.

would like an answer on my questions re: territory MH3 not having a number in the 888s on p89s small
and the duplicate entry in the legend if possible though

[isaiah40]

Glad for that answer Isaiah.

would like an answer on my questions re: territory MH3 not having a number in the 888s on p89s small
and the duplicate entry in the legend if possible though

The 888's are only there to show how they fit, so one territory not having it does not matter really. Duplicate entry has already been deleted for the next update.

Provisional Starting Numbers: I think that some of them need to change especially the mines. Some of the mines start at 5, others at 2 or 3. I believe they should all start with the same number.

Click image to enlarge.

[EricPhail]

Drops is beyond my knowledge so I can't really help you there. (but i'd favor ones in a kingdom getting one value all others getting a different one probably 5 and 3 respectively)
However one or two other things:
Legend: Having the lab entry above the researches assualt nothing one seems to make more sense to me

Also it may be wise to allow the researches to assault (or more commonly reinforce) back to the lab for two reasons:
1. avoids troops getting trapped if a basic research kills an advanced one with troops left over (given these locations can't be attacked by foes, or card sets dropping extra troops there
2. allows the possibility of re-taking the library if it gets killed due to nuclear spoils

on that note can certain territories be programmed to never drop as cards as nuking capitals would be instant death in larger games, and nuking libraries very annoying, also nuking the neutral doomsday device would be rather distorting.
(Actually perhaps this map should have a disclaimer: don't play with nuclear spoils)

[ender516]

There is no way currently to restrict territories from becoming spoils.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

National Pride: +6 armies for owning your whole homeland. OK

the tech description says it's for matched lab and homeland, which is correct at the moment? (for that matter which was intended?)

Thank you for commenting Eric! To collect the National Pride bonus you need to hold for example SW Lab and SW Homeland. The homeland is designated on the map with the outer glow.

I'm not sure if it's specified anywhere, but each player starts with a matching capital and a lab. The labs can't be attacked from anywhere, so the lab is used to determine what your original nation is.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Drops is beyond my knowledge so I can't really help you there. (but i'd favor ones in a kingdom getting one value all others getting a different one probably 5 and 3 respectively)
However one or two other things:
Legend: Having the lab entry above the researches assualt nothing one seems to make more sense to me

Also it may be wise to allow the researches to assault (or more commonly reinforce) back to the lab for two reasons:
1. avoids troops getting trapped if a basic research kills an advanced one with troops left over (given these locations can't be attacked by foes, or card sets dropping extra troops there
2. allows the possibility of re-taking the library if it gets killed due to nuclear spoils

on that note can certain territories be programmed to never drop as cards as nuking capitals would be instant death in larger games, and nuking libraries very annoying, also nuking the neutral doomsday device would be rather distorting.
(Actually perhaps this map should have a disclaimer: don't play with nuclear spoils)

First, thank you for the time you're putting into the map Eric, it's always great to see new faces contributing

I hadn't thought of this before and you raise a very good point. When the map's gameplay was originally hammered out, nukes didn't exist so we didn't have to worry about it. I do think it'd be a good idea to allow researches to attack the labs. It would make nuke games playable, since otherwise the loss of the lab would completely kill the research for a player for the entire game.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Glad for that answer Isaiah.

would like an answer on my questions re: territory MH3 not having a number in the 888s on p89s small
and the duplicate entry in the legend if possible though

The 888's are only there to show how they fit, so one territory not having it does not matter really. Duplicate entry has already been deleted for the next update.

Provisional Starting Numbers: I think that some of them need to change especially the mines. Some of the mines start at 5, others at 2 or 3. I believe they should all start with the same number.

Hi Isaiah, a few things that jumped out at me:

* Visually speaking, I think having TSF be the first listed advanced research makes a bit more sense, since to me at least, it more intuitively goes along with it being able to help with the research of advanced techs.

* The neutrals were originally designed to have homelands have a base neutral of 2, the territories bordering the homelands have a base neutral of 5, one more territory out further having a base of 3, the next set out having 2, and the next set 1. Those with mines have one extra neutral troop. The neutrals were laid out this way so it would be increasingly more difficult for someone to get closer to an opponents homeland, thereby making it a bit harder for an early elimination of those who chose to focus more effort on research.

* Mines should be at +2 per mine.

* Open conscription should read +1 troop per region


Hope this helps

[isaiah40]

Hi Isaiah, a few things that jumped out at me:

* Visually speaking, I think having TSF be the first listed advanced research makes a bit more sense, since to me at least, it more intuitively goes along with it being able to help with the research of advanced techs.

* The neutrals were originally designed to have homelands have a base neutral of 2, the territories bordering the homelands have a base neutral of 5, one more territory out further having a base of 3, the next set out having 2, and the next set 1. Those with mines have one extra neutral troop. The neutrals were laid out this way so it would be increasingly more difficult for someone to get closer to an opponents homeland, thereby making it a bit harder for an early elimination of those who chose to focus more effort on research.

* Mines should be at +2 per mine.

* Open conscription should read +1 troop per region


Hope this helps

Yes it does. I can move the TSF up to the top of the Advanced Researches no problem.

The neutrals make sense now, so I have no problem with them.

For the Mines and Open Conscription here is Oliver's post on the values which the current map has. viewtopic.php?p=4150015#p4150015

[OliverFA]

edit: from OliverFAs post
National Pride: +6 armies for owning your whole homeland. OK

the tech description says it's for matched lab and homeland, which is correct at the moment? (for that matter which was intended?)

edit2: wait nevermind works by definition unless labs can be lost

That's right. By definition a player can't lose his lab

[OliverFA]

I hadn't thought of this before and you raise a very good point. When the map's gameplay was originally hammered out, nukes didn't exist so we didn't have to worry about it. I do think it'd be a good idea to allow researches to attack the labs. It would make nuke games playable, since otherwise the loss of the lab would completely kill the research for a player for the entire game.

Despite that's not ideal I agree that this might be the only solution. Let's say that the budget assigned towards a research project that is not used can be reassigned to other project and that would justify researches being able to attack labs.

[OliverFA]

I'd like to say that the map looks really cool. It's pleasant to see and I can picture myself playing on that boards and getting totally immersed in the game. Good work Isaiah!

[EricPhail]

Apologies if this was stated some time ago (long thread) but with respect to starts whilst 4+ players are obvious (1 Capital, 1 Lab), less than 3 players is less clear so:

Do you only start with 1 Capital, 1 Lab even with only 2/3 players
OR
Do 3 Player games start with 2 Capitals each, 2 Player games with 3 each but still only 1 lab
OR
Do small games start with multiple capitals and multiple labs?

[isaiah40]

I hadn't thought of this before and you raise a very good point. When the map's gameplay was originally hammered out, nukes didn't exist so we didn't have to worry about it. I do think it'd be a good idea to allow researches to attack the labs. It would make nuke games playable, since otherwise the loss of the lab would completely kill the research for a player for the entire game.

Despite that's not ideal I agree that this might be the only solution. Let's say that the budget assigned towards a research project that is not used can be reassigned to other project and that would justify researches being able to attack labs.

Or have the Homeland Capital able to reassign men to the lab? I think this makes more sense.

[EricPhail]

Or have the Homeland Capital able to reassign men to the lab? I think this makes more sense.

Perhaps more thematic sense, however, allowing capitals to attack labs brings it own set of problems:

It breaks the seperation of the research from the land (which I found an admirable concept, that lands couldn't directly interefere with research)
AND
It brings with it the concept of multiple labs (which I was coming to obliquely in my previous post about starts, I didn't want to bring it up if not needed) and thus the question of bonus stacking (2x National Pride maybe, but double propoganda, conscription, and mining FEEL silly, even if they're not unbalancing) which complicates things, (even if only to the extent of making the legend say: IDENTICAL RESEARCHES DON'T STACK)

So I feel allowing the researches to counter assault is a better idea (avoiding multiple labs entirely if you force 1 Lab only at the start, well, barring deadbeats in team games that is).

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Apologies if this was stated some time ago (long thread) but with respect to starts whilst 4+ players are obvious (1 Capital, 1 Lab), less than 3 players is less clear so:

Do you only start with 1 Capital, 1 Lab even with only 2/3 players
OR
Do 3 Player games start with 2 Capitals each, 2 Player games with 3 each but still only 1 lab
OR
Do small games start with multiple capitals and multiple labs?

Like any of the other maps that are conquest style, the game will divide the six starting points between all the players with the remaining starting points being neutral and with 1/3 of the starting points being neutral in a 2 player game. What this means is:

2 player games will start with 2 capitals each and 2 neutral capitals
3 player games will start with 2 capitals each
4 player games will start with 1 capital each and 2 neutral capitals
5 player games will start with 1 capital each and 1 neutral capital
6 player games will start with 1 capital each

Each capital will start with its matching laboratory. You still need to hold only one capital in order to stay alive and the research trees are of course treated separately.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Or have the Homeland Capital able to reassign men to the lab? I think this makes more sense.

Perhaps more thematic sense, however, allowing capitals to attack labs brings it own set of problems:

It breaks the seperation of the research from the land (which I found an admirable concept, that lands couldn't directly interefere with research)
AND
It brings with it the concept of multiple labs (which I was coming to obliquely in my previous post about starts, I didn't want to bring it up if not needed) and thus the question of bonus stacking (2x National Pride maybe, but double propoganda, conscription, and mining FEEL silly, even if they're not unbalancing) which complicates things, (even if only to the extent of making the legend say: IDENTICAL RESEARCHES DON'T STACK)

So I feel allowing the researches to counter assault is a better idea (avoiding multiple labs entirely if you force 1 Lab only at the start, well, barring deadbeats in team games that is).

In the original drafts of the map, before even Winning Conditions were around, we had it set up so either the capitals could attack the laboratories or bombard all researches and the laboratories, I can't remember which. As soon as the Winning Conditions feature came along, we completely separated the map and, at the time, made it so if you owned 2/3's of the map or Doomsday Device you would win, which definitely helped part of the problem you're mentioning.

The other part, as you pointed out, is 2-3 player games start with two capitals and laboratories. There was quite a long discussion regarding what to do about this and in the end, we decided only one bonus would apply per tech. At the time I don't think TSFs had auto deploys and Doomsday Device either didn't exist or was a Winning Condition, so the decision applied to all techs. I think it would be worthwhile to reopen the discussion since the techs have changed around a bit since then.

The way the techs and site's code limitations are set up now, both TSF and Doomsday will have to be allowed to give their bonuses twice. Personally I think thematically it makes perfect sense anyway, since city/capital could have its own TSF and building two Doomsday Devices should be fine, though I'm not sure there'd be much of a point unless the game went on a long time and the +75 per turn didn't end up meaning an automatic win.

I also think National Pride should be allowed to be scored twice, since as Eric mentioned, it makes perfect sense for each "nation" under a player's original control to feel pride for their nation. It's also a bonus which is tied to owning the corresponding homeland, which means each bonus could be broken separately. I have some minor concerns about how having the doubled +6 bonus early in the game would affect gameplay on the map.

Again, as Eric mentioned, I think having the mining techs, conscription techs, and propaganda be limited to one bonus makes perfect sense in every way.

The only tech I'm not sure whether it should be limited or not is Standing Arny and Mobilized Army. Thematically I think it could make sense to allow two bonuses, since each nation could be seen as having its own army which it can have on increasing degrees of alert/readiness. Much like National Pride though, I have concerns these bonuses, if allowed to be doubled, could cause gameplay balance problems... especially since they're not able to be broken once they're researched.

The only other tech there is other than those is Sabotage and there's no bonus there, so I don't think it needs to be mentioned either way. I can't see why someone would want to research it twice.

The other problem that I just realized is that nowhere in the legend does it mention you only get one bonus per tech. This is definitely something that should be included, since I'm sure many people will expect to get double bonus on Propaganda, Mining, and Standing/Mobilized Army.

Thanks for bringing this up Eric, it's brought up a couple pretty important points

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Hi Isaiah, a few things that jumped out at me:

* Visually speaking, I think having TSF be the first listed advanced research makes a bit more sense, since to me at least, it more intuitively goes along with it being able to help with the research of advanced techs.

* The neutrals were originally designed to have homelands have a base neutral of 2, the territories bordering the homelands have a base neutral of 5, one more territory out further having a base of 3, the next set out having 2, and the next set 1. Those with mines have one extra neutral troop. The neutrals were laid out this way so it would be increasingly more difficult for someone to get closer to an opponents homeland, thereby making it a bit harder for an early elimination of those who chose to focus more effort on research.

* Mines should be at +2 per mine.

* Open conscription should read +1 troop per region


Hope this helps

Yes it does. I can move the TSF up to the top of the Advanced Researches no problem.

The neutrals make sense now, so I have no problem with them.

For the Mines and Open Conscription here is Oliver's post on the values which the current map has. viewtopic.php?p=4150015#p4150015

Oliver's post actually has open conscription as being +1 troop per region. His post does mention +1 for Mining, but also mentions that it's wrong. At one point we had Mining tech at +1 per mine but decided it would be better if it were +2 per mine, since each mine has to be defended in order to retain the bonus. I'm guessing that portion of the XML was written before we changed the bonus. If you take a look at the last version of the map which TaCKtiX made, you'll see the Mining tech is listed there as being +2 per mine. The post is here: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=62527&start=1194

[ender516]

Just to remind everyone, it is now possible to set a maximum number of start positions per player, so it would be possible to enforce a limit of one capital per player in all games. Also, if we are concerned about allowing players to recover from losing a particular territory (like a capital), the conditional borders feature may allow us to define a route that is only open while the territory is not held, and then closes once the recovery is complete, so it will have a minimal effect on gameplay in most situations.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Just to remind everyone, it is now possible to set a maximum number of start positions per player, so it would be possible to enforce a limit of one capital per player in all games. Also, if we are concerned about allowing players to recover from losing a particular territory (like a capital), the conditional borders feature may allow us to define a route that is only open while the territory is not held, and then closes once the recovery is complete, so it will have a minimal effect on gameplay in most situations.

That opens up a good discussion as well. Would 2-3 player games work better with only one starting point each? It would certainly leave a lot of neutral capitals open. It could cause interesting fog games, since you'd want to make sure your land based troops are strong enough to withstand a counter attack, since if you run into your opponent it means your opponent coming after you strongly and if you don't run into your opponent, it leaves you temporarily weaker for your opponent to go hunting for you. It also means there's more easily captured capital/homeland territories, which by themselves offer a total of +9 troops bonus before any potential research bonuses from Mining or Propaganda.

On the other end, having two capitals/laboratories to start also offers some potentially interesting benefits. For example, early game Propaganda ends up becoming a +4 bonus instead of +2, which makes it a much more valuable tech early on. It also allows for players who want to play research heavy games the chance to take two TSFs and research twice as quickly. It also makes it more difficult to eliminate someone quickly, since you'll know they have another army on their capital.

Regarding the conditional borders, I wonder what the best way to handle that would be. I know a direct 'if you own capital N and you don't own laboratory N, then you can attack lab N' won't work, since as soon as someone loses the capital (unless it's a two player game) they are eliminated and the person who eliminated them could take over the research tree, which we obviously don't want. I wonder if something where if you own the capital, own one of the researches in your research tree, and do not own the lab, you can attack the lab. That would at least eliminate the problem I mentioned above. It however, wouldn't eliminate the problem of losing your laboratory if someone nukes it early on and you don't own any techs. The other way of looking at it is in a nuke game, the nukes are like spies who are killing off scientists. If you kill all the scientists, then you prevent your opponent from researching entirely. Personally I'd lean towards the last option, with the ability to attack the labs from the researches only if you don't own the lab.

[EricPhail]

I rather like the 1/1 only start option with all spares neutral feels more in keeping with the nature of this map.

Conditional borders wrt library:
Capital but not laboratory allows multiple labs (which I'm against in general) not to my taste
Linked capital and research but no lab (has consequence that you must hold your own capital to recover your lab, rather than just any to avoid defeat) playable if complicated (makes an odd message on the legend)
Research but no lab (can only move troops back if the lab is lost) feels a bit silly

I'd rather just have the researches able to assault/reinforce the lab in general (fluff it as the reassigning of resources from completed projects to new ones if you will)

[koontz1973]

Guys, gameplay is never going to get everyone onto the same page. I see that a lot of you have started discussing this again so it might be wise to take a step back and strip this map of the GP stamp. I have had a look at some of the aspects of the map and have asked isaiah to talk me through the map. One of the problems this map has now is that their are so many trying to express what they want and after so many years of being in production, new ways have come along and new players with thoughts.

Going to rehash some information here as the thread has lots of contradictory information from different map makers and players.

I am going to assume all neutrals are correct as of now. But only beta will get them correct.

show: neutrals

Starting positions. Code these as a max of one please. Will make foggy games far more interesting. FOW will also become the default setting for this map as well.

+3 for every capital held, is this auto deploy of deployable?

-=- Tanarri -=- post.
Dealing with the nukes, I am inclined to leave it as it is as I like the way nukes change maps, but that is just me. A way back needs to be added. A simple capital assaults Labs will do it.

Normal - 10 troops
Secret Conscription - 20 troops
Open Conscription - 30 troops

This set up is better. I disagree with the 100%/50% bump. I look at it like you get a 200% bump at the end. But Tanarri makes a good point about OC needing to be nicer to hold. (Neutrals)

[isaiah40]

For the +3 for each capital held, I believe I made a mistake and it should be +3 Autodeploy on each capital. Oliver and/or Tanarri may remember.

[koontz1973]

For the +3 for each capital held, I believe I made a mistake and it should be +3 Autodeploy on each capital. Oliver and/or Tanarri may remember.

isaiah, this is bad and maybe why so much of the info in the thread is contradictory. Please, form now on, treat this map like it is yours, not theirs. Decide on what you want to do. This would never of been posted in fractured or USA 2.1.

I am happy to plough on though as I cannot see any major problems.

Here are some assumptions and questions from me and you will see why it has taken me a long time.
Labs assault all basic research, in turn assault its advanced research.
Why the high neutrals. From the map itself, mines, these give +1 for every symbol and basic research. But you need to go through 35 neutrals to get it. And then deep mining is another 70 neutrals to double basic. Is there a bonus I am missing? Just looking at the map this seems to be high.

You hold a capital +3 and homeland +6. Is that +6 overall with the 3 auto deploy or +9 deployable.

[EricPhail]

Koontz, Isaih as of p89 the map said mining was was +2 per mine, with deep mining doubling that, but the neutrals post on p91 had reduced it to +1 per mine doubled for deep mining. Was that change intended? (Oliver had posted that the XML had +1 per mine on p90, so it may have been) Edit: one of Tanarri's posts on p92 suggests that was an accidental reversion

Also re: the nuke (lab) recovery, Isiah, here is a my quick thoughts on the pros and cons of recovery via capital, vs recovery from research

Capital assaults labs
Pros:
1.Always can regain access to labs and research (since no capitals = defeat)
2.Simple to write, explain and understand
Cons:
Allows multiple labs if you hold multiple capitals (bonus stacking questions, only a con if you think it is)

Researches assault labs
Pros:
1. Feels more thematic as a reallocation of scientists, also allows a seperation of scientists (labs et al) and military (the map)
2. Avoids troops getting trapped when assaulting from a basic research to an advanced one (if you have troops left over after taking eg. deep mining, they are stuck (on mining or deep mining)
3. Means one player, one lab (barring deadbeats in team games)
Cons:
1. Possible to lose research entirely if you had no researches done when you lost the lab
2. Harder to word on legend

but as koontz pointed out it's your map, so your choice (these are just my thoughts - for the record I favor research assaults lab)