Conquer Club

Suggestion Idea:
KEY/SWITCH Territories

Description:
A territory marked as a KEY/SWITCH territory in the XML would activate map changes to borders or bonuses.

Why It Should Be Considered:
For example imagine a map where two territories are connected by a bridge. Both territories ca attack each other. However, if a player occupies a territory on one side of the bridge and the bridge SWITCH territory, they then control the bridge function. This makes the bridge 1 way in favor of the owner of the SWITCH owner.

This could be used for locking doors, lowering bridges, raising and lowering water levels, or adjusting bonuses for you or opponentsetc.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [Maybe]

Suggestion Idea:
Negative Opponent Bonus Territories

Description:
A territory (or groups of territories) marked as a Negative Opponent Bonus territory in the XML would give negative bonuses to opponents on their turn

Why It Should Be Considered:
Instead of going after a bonus that gives you more armies your next turn you could go after a bonus that gives everyone else less armies the very next turn. The results are immediate.

There would probably need to be a certain group held because if only 1 territory was required to give others negative bonus, the first turn could be the end of the game.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

Suggestion Idea:
"TRUE" Teleport Territories

Description:
A territory marked as a "TRUE" Teleport territory in the XML would provide actual troop movement how a teleport works.
Why It Should Be Considered:
Currently the closest thing we have to teleports is the 1-way border. The issue with this is that if you attack from a 1-way with 18 on 7 and you win, you only need to put 1 army in the conquered territory. This is not how it should be. How did the 18 guys you attacked with get back to the attacking territory if it is a 1-way?

A "TRUE" Teleport territory would allow an attacker to attack but all of the troops sent through would be stuck. So if the attacker had 20 vs 6 and chose to attack with 12. Those 12 would be sent through and there would be a 12 vs 6 auto attack on the other side of the teleport. If the attacker wins the remainder of the troops are now stuck on the other side.


Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

Suggestion Idea:
Simple X for Y Bonuses

Description:
Lets say I have a group of 15 territories, lets call them power plants. I want to be able to do this:
3 Power Plants +1 Army
6 Power Plants +3 Armies
9 Power Plants +5 Armies
12 Power Plants +7 Armies
15 Power Plants +10 Armies

Why It Should Be Considered:
Technically this is possible with the current xml but it is impossible to do without millions of lines of code on our end using combinations of positive and negative bonuses. There should be a better way.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [Yes]

Suggestion Idea:
Bonuses Multipliers

Description:
At present bonuses are whole numbers... the ability to use multipliers (preceded by an x) to multiply reinfocement bonuses.


Why It Should Be Considered:
This could be useful for certain maps - DiM's resource map was looking for this too.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

WidowMakers wrote:Suggestion Idea:
Negative Opponent Bonus Territories

Description:
A territory (or groups of territories) marked as a Negative Opponent Bonus territory in the XML would give negative bonuses to opponents on their turn

Why It Should Be Considered:
Instead of going after a bonus that gives you more armies your next turn you could go after a bonus that gives everyone else less armies the very next turn. The results are immediate.

There would probably need to be a certain group held because if only 1 territory was required to give others negative bonus, the first turn could be the end of the game.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

I actually like this

Looks like we are getting a few good suggestions Keep them up, and thanks for following the form!


--Andy

Suggestion Idea:
Surrounded Attacks

Description: Being able to attack a single individual territory, by more than one. If you have more than one territory around a territory that you are trying to attack you should be ale to use all of the surrounding territories that you own. So to add more power and force. Better odds.

Why It Should Be Considered: In Risk 2 the game for PC you can attack a territory with more than one territory that surrounds it if you owned them. You then got power bonuses to attack. It would make it a little more like a real battle should be...I mean if you attack a person from all angles and surround them. You have a better chance of taking them down, because you can hit them from everywhere.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

*Note: I don't remember what exact bonus or power you gained from the surrounding territories.

Limited Attack Dice

Limited Attack Dice create a more realistic tactical environment in game play by limiting the attacker to 2 dice. Amphibious assaults are a prime example. Imagine attacking North Africa from Brazil but only having 2 dice to roll. You would need many more armies to effect a breakthrough and hope to hold the next turn. Other examples include bridges, storming strongholds, or walls (There is a Castle map in Final Forge where these rules could work due to the nature of the map).

[No]

BONUS SPACES

Having been playing on self-made maps for a few months now I've found a trick I simply call Bonus Spaces. That is certain fixed spaces on the map receive a +1 reinforcement to its owner every turn. The army is placed directly onto the space and cannot be deployed as normal.

This adds an added dimension to the game, imagine if the Middle East received a free army every turn players would attack the owner every turn to deny the bonus. However, hold the Middle East for a few turns and you can tip the balance of power in the region.

Bonus Spaces add a new wrinkle into the strategy involved of dealing with certain regions on maps designed for them.


I put up two maps with a few of these features, please check them out. Also, does anyone know how to covert a .svg file into a CC approved format? Any help would be helpful. Thank you.

JK


Lack Speaks Here ==>: [No]

JupitersKing wrote:BONUS SPACES

Having been playing on self-made maps for a few months now I've found a trick I simply call Bonus Spaces. That is certain fixed spaces on the map receive a +1 reinforcement to its owner every turn. The army is placed directly onto the space and cannot be deployed as normal.

This adds an added dimension to the game, imagine if the Middle East received a free army every turn players would attack the owner every turn to deny the bonus. However, hold the Middle East for a few turns and you can tip the balance of power in the region.

Bonus Spaces add a new wrinkle into the strategy involved of dealing with certain regions on maps designed for them.


I put up two maps with a few of these features, please check them out. Also, does anyone know how to covert a .svg file into a CC approved format? Any help would be helpful. Thank you.

JK


Lack Speaks Here ==>:

Man you fast posted me. I was thinking of this idea this morning. I was going to call them Barracks Territories. Armies are given as a bonus but are deployed automatically into that same space. Same concept different name.

dominationnation wrote:bonus go on specific territorys

It would be sort of like getting a set of cards. When you get certain bonuses instead of putting them where ever you want they automaticly go on a predetermined territory.


That way you could have a training camp and any troops that you get as a bonus for that would automaticly go on the last territory



Lack label:

I posted this last page. isnt this pretty much what you were talking about

...

...

Suggestion Idea: Attack only no advancement

Description: The option to have locations like ranged attacks that can attack ad distant territory while lose the option to advance troops onto that location due to the distance. Only allow fortifications from territories connected to the target after the attack faze.

Why It Should Be Considered: allows options like naval ships, pill boxes and seige weapons to play out in a more realistic manner.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [Maybe]

Suggestion Idea: Paratroopers


Description: territories that allow you to attack anywhere on the battle field. You could also have territories with air defense symbol or something like that so you can control the location of paradrops.

Why It Should Be Considered: Would make things extremely interesting and combined with my max troop limit option it could prove to be a good option to have around without being able to be abused or used as a location to mass troops while having no direction. -(see my max troop limit idea to prevent this from being abused)

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

Suggestion Idea: Defenseless


Description: Locations that can be attacked by adjacent territories, but lose the option to attack back due to them being a seige type of weapon, ranged weapon and or whatever you can think of that might fall into this category. This will give the option to put some key strongholds on the map that hold a lot of importance and make them pay a penalty so it doesn't become overpowering to the map. Giving them a one way attack direction so they don't get trapped.

Why It Should Be Considered: opens the door to allow seige weapons while keeping them vulnerable to anything outside their attack range.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

Suggestion Idea: Max troop limit

Description: Allow the map maker to select designated territories which can only be occupied by a certain amount of troops.

Why It Should Be Considered: It will allow for ideas like my paratroopers idea to exist without being abused. It could be used on maps to prevent a player from sweeping the board in a single round during esc. games. It can also give the option to prevent people from massing up troops and suiciding on somebody.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [Yes]

Suggestion Idea: Capture the Flag?

Description: How about an option to have a set space on the map as a nuetral that must be conquered to win the game. A territory in the center of the map with a predetermined amount of troops on it like 50-100 or something like that. All teams or all players would have to conquer this one territory while defending themselves from the rest of the players. Could expand on the idea and add a few additional nuetral territories of high numbers to be placed wherever and reward those who conquer it.

Why It Should Be Considered: It would give teams or players more than one option for winning a game. I just thought it woudl be a fun idea to go along with all the nuetral territory ideas.

Lack Label (Mod Use): [No]

AndyDufresne wrote:Looks like we are getting a few good suggestions Keep them up, and thanks for following the form!


--Andy

Hey Andy,

When's the review process going to happen?

C.

HighCommander540 wrote:Suggestion Idea:
Surrounded Attacks

Description: Being able to attack a single individual territory, by more than one. If you have more than one territory around a territory that you are trying to attack you should be ale to use all of the surrounding territories that you own. So to add more power and force. Better odds.

Why It Should Be Considered: In Risk 2 the game for PC you can attack a territory with more than one territory that surrounds it if you owned them. You then got power bonuses to attack. It would make it a little more like a real battle should be...I mean if you attack a person from all angles and surround them. You have a better chance of taking them down, because you can hit them from everywhere.

Lack Label (Mod Use):

*Note: I don't remember what exact bonus or power you gained from the surrounding territories.

lol this is the opposit of mine would be nice if both would be accepted then you could combine them

Molacole wrote:Suggestion Idea: Defenseless


Description: Locations that can be attacked by adjacent territories, but lose the option to attack back due to them being a seige type of weapon, ranged weapon and or whatever you can think of that might fall into this category. This will give the option to put some key strongholds on the map that hold a lot of importance and make them pay a penalty so it doesn't become overpowering to the map. Giving them a one way attack direction so they don't get trapped.

This one, to my knowledge, can be done under the current system -- see San Francisco's Alcatraz

HighCommander540 wrote:Being able to attack a single individual territory, by more than one. If you have more than one territory around a territory that you are trying to attack you should be ale to use all of the surrounding territories that you own. So to add more power and force. Better odds.

Some of these seem to be gameplay changes more than they're XML changes... frankly, I think this would overcomplicate the game.

Evil DIMwit wrote:

Molacole wrote:Suggestion Idea: Defenseless


Description: Locations that can be attacked by adjacent territories, but lose the option to attack back due to them being a seige type of weapon, ranged weapon and or whatever you can think of that might fall into this category. This will give the option to put some key strongholds on the map that hold a lot of importance and make them pay a penalty so it doesn't become overpowering to the map. Giving them a one way attack direction so they don't get trapped.

This one, to my knowledge, can be done under the current system -- see San Francisco's Alcatraz

No because that country can defend himself

Wisse wrote:

Evil DIMwit wrote:

Molacole wrote:Suggestion Idea: Defenseless


Description: Locations that can be attacked by adjacent territories, but lose the option to attack back due to them being a seige type of weapon, ranged weapon and or whatever you can think of that might fall into this category. This will give the option to put some key strongholds on the map that hold a lot of importance and make them pay a penalty so it doesn't become overpowering to the map. Giving them a one way attack direction so they don't get trapped.

This one, to my knowledge, can be done under the current system -- see San Francisco's Alcatraz

No because that country can defend himself

To the best of my understanding, this "defenseless" feature can still defend -- it would be better labeled "attackless".

Evil DIMwit wrote:

Wisse wrote:

Evil DIMwit wrote:

Molacole wrote:Suggestion Idea: Defenseless


Description: Locations that can be attacked by adjacent territories, but lose the option to attack back due to them being a seige type of weapon, ranged weapon and or whatever you can think of that might fall into this category. This will give the option to put some key strongholds on the map that hold a lot of importance and make them pay a penalty so it doesn't become overpowering to the map. Giving them a one way attack direction so they don't get trapped.

This one, to my knowledge, can be done under the current system -- see San Francisco's Alcatraz

No because that country can defend himself

To the best of my understanding, this "defenseless" feature can still defend -- it would be better labeled "attackless".

this is what I mean:



I called it defenseless for a lack of a better word. haha lack of attack options to adjacent territories..