[Abandoned] Research & Conquer

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

Alright, the word is simple: I'm back on the case. The last three months I've had a lot of work (including weekends), and the thing causing it ended last week. So that's time available finally to work on getting some graphical touches on this and making the gameplay extremely readable. If we do this right, you all shall have your R&C by Christmas.

Hurray for the map being back on track Especially if it can be finished by Christmas, that would be one kick ass Christmas present

By the way. This capital/requirement update really is what the map was needing. Solves a lot of problems and helps the map in many different ways.

- Makes the map playable for Assasin.
- Provides a new strategic layer, as your capital is now very important to keep.
- Allows to have completely separate areas between the geographical map and the tech tree. No need to provide acces from the capital now. (But the spy tech will still be able to bombard).
- Also solves the problem of having "double research".

When ender had suggested the new losing conditions code for this map, I had immediately thought about the old debate about what to do about allowing access from the geographical map to the tech map. I think the losing conditions code is a very good solution for this problem.

How does the capital code fix the double research issue? Perhaps it's just been too long since the debate happened, but I can't think of how it would fix this problem.

[TaCktiX]

It wouldn't overtly solve the double research problem, as people can still attack from the capital, unless you're suggesting we completely sever the connection between geographic and research parts of the map, having the loss of your capital being an instant loss and obviating the need to eliminate your research. That would work REALLY well, now that I think about it, and it'd cut out some text I would have to write up otherwise.

[Evil DIMwit]

That doesn't quite solve double research, does it? Because in 2p and 3p games, one player can start with multiple research labs, no?

[carlpgoodrich]

This will also be a problem in team games when one person deadbeats.

[OliverFA]

Hello all. I know it's Monday, but have had a busy day and no time to work here. I'll try to answer everybody tomorrow at work during my breaks.

During the evening after work I presume it will be a more quiet day than today, so probably tomorrow I'll be able to say if the coding effort can be divided among different people, and how much effort it takes.

More in a few hours

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

It wouldn't overtly solve the double research problem, as people can still attack from the capital, unless you're suggesting we completely sever the connection between geographic and research parts of the map, having the loss of your capital being an instant loss and obviating the need to eliminate your research. That would work REALLY well, now that I think about it, and it'd cut out some text I would have to write up otherwise.

i really like the idea of not allowing the capitals to attack the research. It was necessary before in order to allow a player to eliminate another, but with the losing conditions code, it's no longer necessary.

That doesn't quite solve double research, does it? Because in 2p and 3p games, one player can start with multiple research labs, no?

This is what I was thinking as well, which is why I had asked how it would affect the double research debate.

I still think that it's better to not allow the benefits to be multiplied. If a player has two capitals and two tech trees, then they can always choose to research different techs. I can't remember if it's been discussed before or not, but perhaps the map can be set up so that you need to hold the matching colour capital and tech in order to get the bonus as well. This would make it so that in 2 or 3 player games it would still be very advantagous to take out one of your opponents capitals, since they would lose all of the tech benefits that was researched in the matching tech tree.

[OliverFA]

When ender had suggested the new losing conditions code for this map, I had immediately thought about the old debate about what to do about allowing access from the geographical map to the tech map. I think the losing conditions code is a very good solution for this problem.

I agree. The new losing conditions are exactly what this map was needing. Right now we have three possibilities. Each of them are interesting in their own way:

1- Requiring at least one capital to stay in the game
When a player has only one capital, losing it means the end of the game. If a player conquers a second capital, he can lose his original capital without losing the game as long as he keeps at least one other capital.

2- Requiring exactly your capital (possible to code thanks to tech tree territories)
It makes your own capital even more important.
Pro: Your capital is an unique and key territory in the game
Con: It can be argued that at least as you have one headquarter you can continue the fight. Even if it's not the original headquarter.

3- Requiring a capital AND your lab to stay in game
(This option would force to allow bombard from the capital to the lab). The gameplay for this option would be that losing the capital is a big hit but not a definitive one. From the capital, the invader would try to eliminate all armies in the lab, and the defender player would have to place a defensive force there.
Pro: Makes the game more interesting
Con: Complicated game mechanics difficult to explain and to understand.

Currently I am working with option 1, but it would take very few time to change to option 2 and 3.

Independently from that choice, there is another choice about capital adjacencies to tech tree.

I think that attacking the tech tree from the capital makes no sense. Bombarding the tech tree from the capital could be interesting in options 1 and 3. Let's assume option 1. You lose your capital, but are still in the game thanks to the second capital. The invader player can attack all your techs and destroy your advantages. So you'll better hurry and retake your capital back before it's too late.

How does the capital code fix the double research issue? Perhaps it's just been too long since the debate happened, but I can't think of how it would fix this problem.

That's easy, and in fact is not related te the capital code. Each continent can have a number of required components in order to get the benefits. So for example, the Standing Army tech is a continent with 6 components (one for player) requiring only 1 to get the benefits. In 2 and 3 player games you can have 2 or 3 standing army techs, but the benefit will be the same. Plus it's easier to code because we only need to code one continent and not six.

[OliverFA]

It wouldn't overtly solve the double research problem, as people can still attack from the capital, unless you're suggesting we completely sever the connection between geographic and research parts of the map, having the loss of your capital being an instant loss and obviating the need to eliminate your research. That would work REALLY well, now that I think about it, and it'd cut out some text I would have to write up otherwise.

I think that we should completely separate the geographic and the tech tree areas. After all they are suppose to simulate a research mechanic, and for that reason they sould be separated. And if it cuts text in the map, even better

My only doubt is if we should allow invaders to bombard (only bombard, not attack) the techs of the conquered player. In Adjacent Attack games (if it ever gets implemented) it could be interesting because there would be at least one turn between the capital conquest and the tech attack, allowing the defender player to get ready for the defense. Plus in current games it could be also interesting because losing your capital could also mean losing your tech benefits.

[OliverFA]

That doesn't quite solve double research, does it? Because in 2p and 3p games, one player can start with multiple research labs, no?

That problem is solved. In 2p and 3p games, players will get only 1 benefit because the continent the simulates the tech effects is the same.

That contienent has 6 compoenents (the same tech for each one of the 6 players) and 1 required component. Having 1 component provides you the benefit. And having 2 componenets provides you the same benefit as you accessing the same continent bonus and not two different continent bonuses.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

When ender had suggested the new losing conditions code for this map, I had immediately thought about the old debate about what to do about allowing access from the geographical map to the tech map. I think the losing conditions code is a very good solution for this problem.

I agree. The new losing conditions are exactly what this map was needing. Right now we have three possibilities. Each of them are interesting in their own way:

1- Requiring at least one capital to stay in the game
When a player has only one capital, losing it means the end of the game. If a player conquers a second capital, he can lose his original capital without losing the game as long as he keeps at least one other capital.

2- Requiring exactly your capital (possible to code thanks to tech tree territories)
It makes your own capital even more important.
Pro: Your capital is an unique and key territory in the game
Con: It can be argued that at least as you have one headquarter you can continue the fight. Even if it's not the original headquarter.

3- Requiring a capital AND your lab to stay in game
(This option would force to allow bombard from the capital to the lab). The gameplay for this option would be that losing the capital is a big hit but not a definitive one. From the capital, the invader would try to eliminate all armies in the lab, and the defender player would have to place a defensive force there.
Pro: Makes the game more interesting
Con: Complicated game mechanics difficult to explain and to understand.

Currently I am working with option 1, but it would take very few time to change to option 2 and 3.

Independently from that choice, there is another choice about capital adjacencies to tech tree.

I think that attacking the tech tree from the capital makes no sense. Bombarding the tech tree from the capital could be interesting in options 1 and 3. Let's assume option 1. You lose your capital, but are still in the game thanks to the second capital. The invader player can attack all your techs and destroy your advantages. So you'll better hurry and retake your capital back before it's too late.

I prefer option 1, though if someone could make a good arguement for option 3, I think I could possibly support that one as well.

As far as bombarding from the capital to the techs (and/or lab), I'm not sure which way I like better. I like the idea of providing incentive for someone to retake their capital in the event that someone else has taken it. If you allow bombarding from the capital, then the player themselves can 'research' from the capital as well by bombarding the techs. While this could in theory make sense, I really like the idea of not allowing this, as it forces the player to balance their research and their conquering, which is the entire point of this map and it's main charm.

I think the best way to handle this would be to force a player to have the matching capital in order to gain the benefits of a researched tech. This would force a player to retake their second capital, lest they lose all of their tech benefits from that capital. It would also keep the tech tree and geographical map separate, which I think would really work well.

[carlpgoodrich]

I think the best way to handle this would be to force a player to have the matching capital in order to gain the benefits of a researched tech. This would force a player to retake their second capital, lest they lose all of their tech benefits from that capital. It would also keep the tech tree and geographical map separate, which I think would really work well.

+1. I agree with this 100%. I don't like the idea of assault/bombarding the tech tree from the capital, but there has to be a major consequence to losing a capital when you have two, and a reason to take it back.

[Victor Sullivan]

You think you could get a draft up with at least some of the edits? The current draft isn't up-to-date enough to reference, if that makes sense.

[ender516]

In light of MrBenn's post here, indicating that larger map images may possibly be permitted, should a debate be (re)opened here about making this an eight-player map?

[OliverFA]

Good news and bad news.

First the good news. I have made progresses with the XML

Click image to enlarge.

The bad news are the size of the XML. Right now, 243Kb! Not sure how this would affect performance. The reason is that for the Secret Conscription tech I have to create 84 continents each of them with 175 possible components. You have the XML here in case you want to check it

http://www.arrakis.es/~oliverfa/ResearchAndConquer%20v%200.06.XML

[OliverFA]

I prefer option 1, though if someone could make a good arguement for option 3, I think I could possibly support that one as well.

As far as bombarding from the capital to the techs (and/or lab), I'm not sure which way I like better. I like the idea of providing incentive for someone to retake their capital in the event that someone else has taken it. If you allow bombarding from the capital, then the player themselves can 'research' from the capital as well by bombarding the techs. While this could in theory make sense, I really like the idea of not allowing this, as it forces the player to balance their research and their conquering, which is the entire point of this map and it's main charm.

I think the best way to handle this would be to force a player to have the matching capital in order to gain the benefits of a researched tech. This would force a player to retake their second capital, lest they lose all of their tech benefits from that capital. It would also keep the tech tree and geographical map separate, which I think would really work well.

Thanks for the feedback. I also think that option 1 is the simpler one. And is the one that I am using now.

I think that capitals should not be able to ATTACK the tech tree. Maybe bombard, but not attack. So there will not be any way to move armies from the goegraphic map to the tech tree or viceversa. I think it's better, because they represent different things.

The question is if it would be interesting enough for the capital to bombard its techs.

[OliverFA]

In light of MrBenn's post here, indicating that larger map images may possibly be permitted, should a debate be (re)opened here about making this an eight-player map?

The 6 players thing was considered not only for graphic space, but also to make easier to balance gameplay.

Howeverm now that I am constructing the XML I see that adding 2 new players would not affect it much, because of the way I have structured it.

But maybe this would require TaCktix to change too much of the map. Not sure if it's worth the effort now that a draft has made some progress.

Anyway, I think this map is already too ambitious. Adding two more players can make it even more ambitious My opinion is that we should stick with 6 players. It will be a lot easier to release the 8 player version later than to create it as the first version.

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

I prefer option 1, though if someone could make a good arguement for option 3, I think I could possibly support that one as well.

As far as bombarding from the capital to the techs (and/or lab), I'm not sure which way I like better. I like the idea of providing incentive for someone to retake their capital in the event that someone else has taken it. If you allow bombarding from the capital, then the player themselves can 'research' from the capital as well by bombarding the techs. While this could in theory make sense, I really like the idea of not allowing this, as it forces the player to balance their research and their conquering, which is the entire point of this map and it's main charm.

I think the best way to handle this would be to force a player to have the matching capital in order to gain the benefits of a researched tech. This would force a player to retake their second capital, lest they lose all of their tech benefits from that capital. It would also keep the tech tree and geographical map separate, which I think would really work well.

Thanks for the feedback. I also think that option 1 is the simpler one. And is the one that I am using now.

I think that capitals should not be able to ATTACK the tech tree. Maybe bombard, but not attack. So there will not be any way to move armies from the goegraphic map to the tech tree or viceversa. I think it's better, because they represent different things.

The question is if it would be interesting enough for the capital to bombard its techs.

And that is the question that I had addressed in the post you responded to. IMO the capitals should not be able to bombard the tech tree. If you let the capitals bombard the techs, then the troops on the capital would be able to be used for research, since they could knock the tech neutrals down. I think it would make for much better gameplay if you force someone to choose whether they want to devote their reinforcements towards research or more troops on the geographical map to focus on offense or defense.

IIRC you were suggesting the bombardment of techs from the capitals as a way to force players to retake their lost second capital in 2-3 player games, hence making the game more interesting. The solution that I had mentioned above was to force players to have the matching capital be required to get the benefits of a tech. This would force players to retake their lost capital, making gameplay more interesting, while keeping the tech tree separate (no bombardments) so that the capitals can't 'research'.

[TaCktiX]

I'm going to agree with Oliver in saying that we're going to stick with a six player version. If CC's policies change, we'll certainly look into putting out an 8 player version, but I can guarantee that this map will be a beta balancing nightmare. It's just too Not That Hasbro Game for there to be too much we can honestly do before releasing it to a playtest. With the kinks worked out of the six player version, it should be even easier to expand it to 8 players, though I'll need to do some crazy graphical glitz to make it possible. All hail the fact that the source PSD has well over 1000 layers, it should make that bit not that hard.

Now to just get the motivation to make some steam gauges...

[ender516]

... the source PSD has well over 1000 layers, ...

[TaCktiX]

Photoshop's only using 1.2GB of RAM when I have the map open. Not that bad, considering. And this is why I have a ridiculously powerful computer. What's even scarier is I have another image file that's not CC that weighs in at 1.5GB.

[OliverFA]

And that is the question that I had addressed in the post you responded to. IMO the capitals should not be able to bombard the tech tree. If you let the capitals bombard the techs, then the troops on the capital would be able to be used for research, since they could knock the tech neutrals down. I think it would make for much better gameplay if you force someone to choose whether they want to devote their reinforcements towards research or more troops on the geographical map to focus on offense or defense.

You are right. I completely forgot that possibility! Thanks so much for pointing it. I agree with you. Troops in the capital should not be used towards research. The point is to force the player to choose between dedicating his resources to military or research. So the capital bombard idea is not a good thing because it would be a safe bet with ployers both protecting their capital and researching at the same time. Thanks so much for your help!

IIRC you were suggesting the bombardment of techs from the capitals as a way to force players to retake their lost second capital in 2-3 player games, hence making the game more interesting. The solution that I had mentioned above was to force players to have the matching capital be required to get the benefits of a tech. This would force players to retake their lost capital, making gameplay more interesting, while keeping the tech tree separate (no bombardments) so that the capitals can't 'research'.

Yes, Now that I have finally understood the issue of "capital research" I agree with your solution. It's easy to code and keeps games more interesting.

[carlpgoodrich]

Cool, I agree on both points (techs being completely separate, and needing the capital for the benefit). One interesting thing on 2-3 player games is which tech line you chose to research a particular tech. Maybe you want to even them out so if one of your capitals gets conquered you still have some bonus. Can't wait!

[-=- Tanarri -=-]

You are right. I completely forgot that possibility! Thanks so much for pointing it. I agree with you. Troops in the capital should not be used towards research. The point is to force the player to choose between dedicating his resources to military or research. So the capital bombard idea is not a good thing because it would be a safe bet with ployers both protecting their capital and researching at the same time. Thanks so much for your help!

I am glad that I could help. I'd like to help as much as I can with this map because I can easily see it becoming one of my favourites once its released.

[natty dread]

Right now we have three possibilities. Each of them are interesting in their own way:

1- Requiring at least one capital to stay in the game

2- Requiring exactly your capital (possible to code thanks to tech tree territories)

3- Requiring a capital AND your lab to stay in game

How about simply:

Require any 1 territory in the geographical (conquest) area to stay in the game. Ie. You can lose your capital and stay in, so you still have a chance if you have some troops, but if all you have is research, then you're toast.

I think this would be the most realistic solution: the research part is supposed to represent "abstract assets", while the conquest side is supposed to represent actual troops & conquered lands. So having only research would mean that all your actual troops are killed, therefore you lose.

Of course to achieve this, you'd need to add all the conquest territories in the losing condition, with a "required: 1" tag. And this of course would again increase the bulkiness of the XML.

[ender516]

I am not completely up to speed on this map yet, but I hope you have some game play that reflects the reality that research has to take place somewhere in a geographical context. The Allies attacked the German-held heavy water facility during WWII, and that was important. Imagine what might have happened if the Luftwaffe had flattened Bletchley Park? The Conquest side of things has to be able to damage the Research, even if it can't eliminate it.