map ideas

[ike500]

remember the alamo!!!!

star trek planet and ships

military hardware map. planes tanks ect.!

[sinctheassasin]

star trek has already been tried, cancalled due to copyright issues.

I dont think there will be that much interest in the alamo battle,

as for the millitary hardware map, im not sure, if you could develop on that more, it would be great

[the.killing.44]

Star Trek:

As mentioned, copyright issues make this a no.

Military Hardware:

Ehh… seems a bit too generic for me. Not quite sure what it'd go for.

The Alamo:

Previously suggested and IMO a GREAT idea!

.44

[petrie000]

just some thoughts on the Alamo map, one that i've sorta' been bouncing around in my head for a while but have never mentioned until now. i'll just say up front that i've never made a map and i'm not especially good at graphic design, so if this is a very bad suggestion... well, just keep that in mind when you flame me.

for a map like the Alamo, you could base it off the Feudal maps. have the 'Castles' evenly spread between the inside of the building and the territory surrounding it, and tweak the placement programs for Team matches so that one team starts inside and one outside. the goal would be the same, to take and hold all the 'Castles', but getting in and out of the Alamo would be a bit of a gauntlet covered by bombardment territories

the Alamo itself would be fairly easy to take and control, but would give less bonuses, where as the outside territory would give you bigger bonuses but take longer to conquer. Time would be on the side of the player(s) outside, since in the end they would just overwhelm the player(s) inside, who would have to plan a break out as fast as possible. It wouldn't be your standard Risk gameplay strategies, but it might be an interesting change of pace.

[Rabid bunnies]

I was thinking about some similar lines when myself and Selucid were looking at the "Castle Battle" map.

Here was the basic idea.

Much like Feudal (as you described) this game can be played between 2 players up to as many as the map will allow. Each starting player has 1 beginning point, the rest are neutral 3s or 2s or 10s.

For the castle battle map I was reminded of "Helms Deep" in Lord of the rings. The map included infantry territs on both sides, defenders inside the wall and attackers outside. The map included a battering ram outside the wall near the gate, it included charging ropes (same as ladders) that the attacker could use to scale the wall and I believe it also included catapults for bombarding purposes. Oh, they also had towers to try to scale the wall as well.

The defender had infantry of their own inside the wall, they could take to the wall easier than the attacker could, they had access to wall defenses.

I was thinking it would be so cool if 1 player was automatically the attacker and the other player automatically the defender at all times. What if each player was a general unit. The defending "King" or the attacking "king" the player would begin with their 3 on their "king" unit or a base ammount added to their king unit every round, from that, the players would prioritize their strategy.

If you were attacking, would you make a run for the battering ram right away so that you could secure the gate before the defender could capture the gate themselves and defend it. Would you try to mount the walls fast before the defender could or would you conceed the walls to the defender knowing it would be easier for them to get it.

Maybe in the "Alamo" map, the attacking player can start with a "General" unit and expand from that. Maybe outside the Alamo there are 4-5 camps of infantry that if captured by a player, each camp gets +1 auto-deployed. Inside the Alamo there could be 2 or 3 of these infantry camps with the same +1 auto deployed while under control of a player.

This establishes the long-range benifit to the attacking player because after enough time, if they manage to aquire the 4 or 5 infantry units from the neutrals, they are getting 2 more men per round than the Alamo defenders.

Then what if outside the Alamo there were a couple of cannons as well as inside the Alamo. However to keep with the defender basics and realistic advantage, what if the player defending "The Alamo" only has to kill 3 neutrals to take ownership of a cannon on their wall while the attacking player would have to kill 10 neutrals to claim a cannon. The outer camp would have access to an additional cannon but it would still take 10 neutrals to claim it.

As for direct routes, what if the Alamo itself was immediately surrounded by neutral 5s with a neutral 3 only at the gate so that if the attacker were to attack right away, the gate would be the easiest place to access... for the defender this is an easily defensible position. The 5s? They would have "ladder emblems" on them indicating that if the attacker took it, the attacker was going to scale the wall of the Alamo and confront troops along the wall if there were any.


All in all, the attacking camps would have a few more resources than the Alamo defenders but the Alamo defenders would have an easier time accessing their resources inside the walls. Hence the waiting game favors the attackers, but the defenders aren't left in the stalemate of needing to wait to be attacked.


So the basics of the concept:

- Attacking camp has 5 ''infantry" territs that get +1 each round after conquered from a neutral

- Attacking camp has 4 or 5 cannons that they can use to bombard one of 3 Alamo wall segments (do you attack 3 different segments with 3 cannons or do you focus cannonfire on 1 segment of your enemy's defenses)

- Attacking Camp must conquer neutrals to claim ladders adjacent the Alamo Wall territs from where they can mount the wall from whatever ladders they've taken, other than the ladders, only the main gate is available for charge. (note: Alamo defenders could have a 1-way out, say a secret passage out of the base or something so that they can attack early if desired)



- Defending camp has 3 "infantry territs" that get +1 each round after they conquer it from a neutral.

- Defending camp has 2 or 3 cannons that they need only kill 5 neutrals to aquire (50% easier than the attackers). These cannons can attack 1 of 3 enemy camp territs (like the castles in Feudal).

- Defending camp may easily take the wall of the Alamo while the attacker would have to claim the adjacent territs of "ladders" before they could scale. The wall could provide +1 each round to the player holding it. (I envision the wall segmented like the wall in Siege! where each wall segment gets +1 if controlled by a player.)

- Defending camp has a 1-way out "secret" passage that they can strike at the enemy camp. Again, like in Siege where the great-hall can "sneak" into the tunnel but the tunnel can't retaliate against the great hall. This encourages the defender to actually attack because even if their attack is thwarted, they are not immediately screwed if they are still defending their wall and gate.


Jasmine

[petrie000]

you phrased that much more eloquently that I ever could.

the Defender(s) inside the wall would have their 'Castles' fairly close together, allowing them to move troops around fairly easily for defense, but they wouldn't be able to amass large bonus armies per round.

the Attacker(s) would be more spread out, so they would have to take time to concentrate their armies for effective attack, but there would be more territories to conquer and possibly more auto-deploy sites to give them the numerical advantage.

both sides would get Bombardment territories, but how many I think would depend upon the size and layout of the map... it can be used as a way to even out any advantages that swing either way.

You'd have to use attack routes instead of territories, and the routes would have to bottleneck fairly close to the Defenders, both to make it harder to get in and harder to get out.

the Alamo seems like a good place to start, since there's no copy-right issues and it's a theme that hasn't been done to death. Personally my computer cant run java, so i can't really help out in the game design, but if there's enough interest, I'm more than willing to help in any way i can.