Battle For Iraq! [Quenched]

by **yeti_c** on Sat Nov 17, 2007 1:57 am

Loving the new look...

C.

by **benjikat** on Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:23 am

yeti_c wrote:Loving the new look...

But One thing that really bugs me is your sudden use of the exclamation mark in the title - trivialises a very serious map IMO.

by **owenshooter** on Sat Nov 17, 2007 3:17 am

*yawn*... agree with DiM on this one...

by **yeti_c** on Sat Nov 17, 2007 3:22 am

owenshooter wrote:*yawn*... agree with DiM on this one...

DiM!?

You mean Benjikat...

C.

by **yamahafazer** on Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:25 am

Looking VERY VERY good... and I finaly understand the city loyalty thing...

by **mibi** on Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:33 am

benjikat wrote:
yeti_c wrote:Loving the new look...

But One thing that really bugs me is your sudden use of the exclamation mark in the title - trivialises a very serious map IMO.

I see your point. Exclamation points are like my map signature, since I have too maps that already have one, and supermax does as well. It also helps elongate the second line of text but I will mull it over.

by **mibi** on Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:35 am

owenshooter wrote:*yawn*... agree with DiM on this one...

so you agree with this...

DiM wrote:
it would be interesting but (imho) inappropriate because to be honest i don't want to see a map of the glorification of innocent slaughter conducted by the americans.

by **yamahafazer** on Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:27 am

mibi wrote:
owenshooter wrote:*yawn*... agree with DiM on this one...

so you agree with this...

DiM wrote:
it would be interesting but (imho) inappropriate because to be honest i don't want to see a map of the glorification of innocent slaughter conducted by the americans.

ALL wars have had innocent slaughter... in war there is never a goody and a bady there just bouth bad cos bouth sides do terible things and kill innocent people... that is a fact of the world we live in... and as long as people are in power wars will NEVER end.

by **spinwizard** on Sat Nov 17, 2007 1:10 pm

So working on dim's point...

I think eastern front should be taken off the site as the number of civilians killed there was terrible, the Ukrainians lost the 3rd most ppl in the war, most of these civilians. Both Russian and German troops raped, plundered, Kidnapped (I have relatives) and pillaged there way through the Ukraine and is it mentioned on the map...no!

(I don't think eastern front should be taken off but this was comparing what DIM said with another example)

Also I love the map mibi

by **mibi** on Sat Nov 17, 2007 4:05 pm

Ok, I think this map is pretty near to completion but I still want some feedback on a few things.

Also, given that many of this maps graffics needed to be done on a rastered and flattened layer, I would prefer to get as many updates in at one time, rather than make a change and update, change and update. The lighting effects had to be done on a fully flattened image so I would rather not do that 20 times either. Bottom line, this map is a pain to update.

So here are some things I would like feedback on...

Here is the map with the proper neutrals in place.

1. Bonus balancing of the ethnic region.

Some of these bonuses are high, but I am assuming that they would be hard to hold also. Here is the list,

Kurd - 4 territories - 4 borders - 4 bordering territories
all Kurds - 6 territories - 5 borders - 6 bordering territories (including 2 in baghdad)
Sunni - 4 territories - 4 borders - 8 bordering territories (including 1 in baghdad)
all Sunni - 7 territories - 7 borders - 11 bordering territories (including 3 in baghdad)
Shia - 6 territories - 5 borders - 5 bordering territories (including 1 in baghdad)
all Shiites - 8 territories - 4 borders - 8 bordering territories (including 3 in bagdad)

So do the current bonuses sound accurate or not? Also, to throw a wrench in there, keep in mind unrest can come from with in. Even if you have the 4 borders of 'all Shiites' wrapped up with 20 armies each, a player can go from Karbala to Nasirlyah via the road and strike at Dhiqar, so they maybe be more than the stated borders. Also al-queda can attack any sunni city. its complicated.

2. Baghdad bonuses

These seem pretty average. I didn't want to advantage anyone group since they all are 3 territories, 3 borders. As for the a'' Baghdad" bonus.. you guess is as good as mine. It might just be impossible to hold Baghdad as its 10 territories, 8 borders, 8 bording territories +12 potential mahdi army borders too. I figure 10 would be enough incentive.

3. City loyalty bonuses.

Now this gets tricky... as there are several things to balance out here, like the actual bonus and abilities, and the level of neutrals on each loyalty.

Right now it works like this,

Mahdi Army, they are strong in numbers, you need 4 to get a large bonus. They are strongest (neutral count of 1) in Ramadi, Karbala, and Umm Qasr, THey have a total resistance of 28 neutrals, with a break down of 1-2, 2-2,3-7 (number of neutrals)-(number of squares with that number of neutrals). Total maximum bonus +24. They can also attack Sadr City, which is like their home base of sorts.

Baathist, their bonus is low, but they are weak all over and can be snapped up easily. They have easily available loyalties all over. A total resistance of 28 and a break down of 1-9,2-0,3-3, with a maximum bonus of +12.

al-Qaeda, strongest in Rutbah and Hiditha and in Sunni territories in general. They have a total resistance of 24 with a break down of 1-2, 2-8,3-2 and a maximum bonus of +18 with their +3 for every 2 cities. They can also attack any sunni city which is big because there 7 of them.

United States, it doesnt come easy for these folks with a resistance of 48. A maximum bonus of 24 is possible but success depends on holding the greenzone. A break down of 1-0, 2-0, 3-0, 4-12 makes every city rather hostile, however with the greenzone, they have the most effective bonus ratio of +2 for every city.

So those are the parties involved... how do the bonuses look? Is the Mahdi army too strong? Too much resistence to the US, too little to al-Queda? There is lots to ponder, please give it a look.

4. The instructions.

I know this map is more complicated than many people are used to, but are the bonuses, and the instructions (rules of engagement) clear and accurate, would a first timer be able to figure out the basic play relatively easily. I am sure it will take a while to master the complexities of a region like this, but basic gameplay should be established quickly.

5. Graphics

I am very happy with the graphics at this point, I love the shadows

. I will take every suggestion into consideration although radical changes probably wont make the cut.

Thats all!

now get your thinking caps on!

by **yamahafazer** on Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:42 am

EEEEeeem... as fare as bonuses go... I don't know it seems good to me...
The instructions aren't easy to get but I can't see any way of making it any more obvios as it's a compleatly different kind of playing stile.

Only one other thing I just thought of... I have to play with the colour blind seting on cos I cant see the difference between the teal of the 5th player and newtral teritorys...

you might run into problems with this in the city loyalty boxes... as the numbers of the armeys will prabably run into each other.

I don't know what you could do about this, but I think you need to do somthing.

by **edbeard** on Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:07 am

with 4 neutral armies on every territory, the Americans are useless in Iraq

I will say this again.. The Americans are useless in Iraq. The Americans are useless in Iraq.

OK. I don't see anyone going after their bonus needing to neutralize so many...neutrals.

Enough jokes.

1. Overall I'd say more of them should have 1 neutral on them. Just to encourage taking them over. Americans should have more with 2 and 3 than the others probably.
2. But, I'd like to see a couple Baathist territories with 2 neutrals to have more armies. Seems like +1 on almost all of them.
3. On the main legend, you might want to say something like cities are not needed for these bonuses just to be very clear (can't hurt)
4. You spelled al-Qaeda different on the Rules of Engagement legend

When people look at the map, I think they'll be intimidated. But, once they play, they'll realize it's really not THAT complicated

I think the other bonuses are fine. There's a lot of ways people can go about this map. But, with the amount of neutrals in the Loyalties right now, they won't take advantage of that option.

You could consider opening up some of them to not be neutral? especially in the Mahdi army since you need so many territories for a relatively small bonus (8 territories for a +4)

by **mibi** on Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:34 am

edbeard wrote:with 4 neutral armies on every territory, the Americans are useless in Iraq

I will say this again.. The Americans are useless in Iraq. The Americans are useless in Iraq.

OK. I don't see anyone going after their bonus needing to neutralize so many...neutrals.

Enough jokes.

1. Overall I'd say more of them should have 1 neutral on them. Just to encourage taking them over. Americans should have more with 2 and 3 than the others probably.
2. But, I'd like to see a couple Baathist territories with 2 neutrals to have more armies. Seems like +1 on almost all of them.
3. On the main legend, you might want to say something like cities are not needed for these bonuses just to be very clear (can't hurt)
4. You spelled al-Qaeda different on the Rules of Engagement legend

When people look at the map, I think they'll be intimidated. But, once they play, they'll realize it's really not THAT complicated

I think the other bonuses are fine. There's a lot of ways people can go about this map. But, with the amount of neutrals in the Loyalties right now, they won't take advantage of that option.

You could consider opening up some of them to not be neutral? especially in the Mahdi army since you need so many territories for a relatively small bonus (8 territories for a +4)

thanks for the feedback ebeard. I think you right about the US neutrals. its too much. i think 3 on each would be a better option.

the rules say the city is needed for the bonus tho, so you are mistaken. and i might beef up the baathists, but i wanted them to act kind of like bonus bait. the thing people will learn with this map is that once you start with a loyalty, you really need to stick with it. you can grab some baathists, some US and some mahdi because you wont end up with much, and if you try to specialize at that point, the negative bonuses will kick in. so the baathists can be for the weak player who takes the easy bonus, but doesnt go far in the end.

also I dont want to have the loyalties be anything other than neutral, it would be unfair to have a player start with al-qaeda on their side if they didnt want to.

thanks.

by **Joee** on Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:05 am

Have a British army too!

by **bloknayrb** on Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:14 am

I can only comment on the graphics right now, but let me say that this sets the bar for all future maps of its kind. Really professional work, its awesome.

by **yeti_c** on Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Joee wrote:Have a British army too!

An interesting point - they could be similar to the american army - but the british army has less neutrals to overcome - as they seem to be a bit better at this - probably primarily as they were bassed in Sunni areas - who were more oppressed than the Shia's...

C.

by **mibi** on Sun Nov 18, 2007 3:07 pm

yeti_c wrote:
Joee wrote:Have a British army too!

An interesting point - they could be similar to the american army - but the british army has less neutrals to overcome - as they seem to be a bit better at this - probably primarily as they were bassed in Sunni areas - who were more oppressed than the Shia's...

C.

the britts are less than 3% of coalition forces and not much of a factor. also, I cant fit anymore combatants in there.

by **yamahafazer** on Sun Nov 18, 2007 3:42 pm

mibi wrote:
yeti_c wrote:
Joee wrote:Have a British army too!

An interesting point - they could be similar to the american army - but the british army has less neutrals to overcome - as they seem to be a bit better at this - probably primarily as they were bassed in Sunni areas - who were more oppressed than the Shia's...

C.

the britts are less than 3% of coalition forces and not much of a factor. also, I cant fit anymore combatants in there.

I go with mibi on this one

by **edbeard** on Sun Nov 18, 2007 4:59 pm

mibi wrote:the rules say the city is needed for the bonus tho, so you are mistaken.

I mean for the Kurd, all Kurds, Sunni etc... bonuses. You don't need the cities for those right? People might think you do need them as part of those bonuses since they are in those areas.

by **Qwert** on Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:48 pm

Graphic opinion-
I think that down part of map is to dark,
-Can title go down a litle
-Can you move a litle "to Faliujah" and "to Anbar" its very close to edge of map.

by **mibi** on Sun Nov 18, 2007 7:24 pm

edbeard wrote:
mibi wrote:the rules say the city is needed for the bonus tho, so you are mistaken.

I mean for the Kurd, all Kurds, Sunni etc... bonuses. You don't need the cities for those right? People might think you do need them as part of those bonuses since they are in those areas.

yeah you dont need cities for the province bonus, i might put that in the rules somewhere.

by **yamahafazer** on Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:49 am

Very little thing I've only just seen: on your "holding allloyaltys" bit... I think it could do with another space between all and loyaltys.

by **yeti_c** on Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:04 am

mibi wrote:
yeti_c wrote:
Joee wrote:Have a British army too!

An interesting point - they could be similar to the american army - but the british army has less neutrals to overcome - as they seem to be a bit better at this - probably primarily as they were bassed in Sunni areas - who were more oppressed than the Shia's...

C.

the britts are less than 3% of coalition forces and not much of a factor. also, I cant fit anymore combatants in there.

Are less than 3% -> but they weren't less than 3%...

I meant more that the US army - be Allies or something... and Basra and similar - could be less Neutrals...

Either way - it's not a major difference - do what you feel... i.e. ignore it if you like.

C.

by **Rictus** on Mon Nov 19, 2007 11:02 am

On a personal/aesthetic level, I would only reiterate my view that 'American' should be replaced by 'coalition forces' or similar. The map looks great though, and I love the loyalty bonus idea...

by **mibi** on Wed Nov 21, 2007 7:53 am

yeti_c wrote:
mibi wrote:
yeti_c wrote:
Joee wrote:Have a British army too!

An interesting point - they could be similar to the american army - but the british army has less neutrals to overcome - as they seem to be a bit better at this - probably primarily as they were bassed in Sunni areas - who were more oppressed than the Shia's...

C.

the britts are less than 3% of coalition forces and not much of a factor. also, I cant fit anymore combatants in there.

Are less than 3% -> but they weren't less than 3%...

I meant more that the US army - be Allies or something... and Basra and similar - could be less Neutrals...

Either way - it's not a major difference - do what you feel... i.e. ignore it if you like.

C.

well i wil be reducing all of the US neutrals to 3 so I think that will be more fair. I could make basra 2, but it would add a bit of uneeded consistency i think.

Battle For Iraq! [Quenched]

Who is online