Battle For Iraq! [Quenched]

[AndyDufresne]

As mibi mentioned, and I will mention once more, lets keep politics out of the Foundry. Keep those in the Flame Wars and Off Topic forums.

I think one of the most difficult things about this map will be that it is about an 'ongoing' war/conflict/what-have-you. Because it isn't a part of the past yet, I think it will be harder to get some people on board with this idea.


---Andy

[Coleman]

I'm on board. That shouldn't shock anyone though.

[cairnswk]

Mibi, I'd be lying through my teeth if i didn't say to you...this is too close to home and country at present.

I would like to be on board with you on this one, but I think you'd need to remove the Americans from the map and make the map more based around internal conflicts within Iraq rather than involve a country like the USA, Australia, or any other that is receiving current pressure from home to withdraw troops on all fronts; maybe something back as far as Sadams' days and the Iraq/Iran conflict without the USA would be more appropriate...still hot, but a little less sensitive.

[jasnostj]

I like the idea.

I say you add more parties to it. It's not only Americans, Baath and Al Qaeda linked insurgents fighting - the latter two rooted in the Sunni community - but several Shia and Kurd factions as well. Like this the conflict is represented too simplisticly, and from an educational point-of-view (my idea of a good map is that you can learn something from it as well) that's not helping people to understand it.

Also, what to do with the (vast) mixed areas?

[mibi]

Mibi, I'd be lying through my teeth if i didn't say to you...this is too close to home and country at present.

I would like to be on board with you on this one, but I think you'd need to remove the Americans from the map and make the map more based around internal conflicts within Iraq rather than involve a country like the USA, Australia, or any other that is receiving current pressure from home to withdraw troops on all fronts; maybe something back as far as Sadams' days and the Iraq/Iran conflict without the USA would be more appropriate...still hot, but a little less sensitive.

Thanks for you comments cairns but I like the fact that this is a current war and an incendiary topic. like how all good maps on this site try to capture the ethos of their subject, i too will try to do this with this map, inciting moral ambiguity and confusion. I think this is a map that needs to be made. One thing i would consider in response to your suggestion is to replace the US with the "Coalition" although I am no too keen on this since i feel it absolves the US of its role, but if other people have problems with the US being involved in this map I will consider it.

[mibi]

I like the idea.

I say you add more parties to it. It's not only Americans, Baath and Al Qaeda linked insurgents fighting - the latter two rooted in the Sunni community - but several Shia and Kurd factions as well. Like this the conflict is represented too simplisticly, and from an educational point-of-view (my idea of a good map is that you can learn something from it as well) that's not helping people to understand it.

Also, what to do with the (vast) mixed areas?

yes I would like to add more combatants, like the Mahdi army, can you suggest others? Also as i mentioned earlier the mixed areas will be territories like Ninawa which will be required for both the Kurd and Sunni bonus, meaning both bonus can't be had. So there will be lots of fighting over the mixed areas.

and yes I agree this map could be very educational to the uninformed masses.

[Coleman]

I'm not understanding how this is controversial. It isn't any secret what all is going on over in Iraq. This is a true to present geography/war map with involved sides represented. There is no bias I see except for that the US isn't the sole combatant that is not a part of the other two groups.

I'd recommend the use of Coalition, although I personally don't have a problem with USA.

[mibi]

I'm not understanding how this is controversial. It isn't any secret what all is going on over in Iraq. This is a true to present geography/war map with involved sides represented. There is no bias I see except for that the US isn't the sole combatant that is not a part of the other two groups.

I'd recommend the use of Coalition, although I personally don't have a problem with USA.

just wait until i add the bonuses. +10 for the Americans and -2 for being non-white. Aww yeah we gunna kickass all over dis map yo!

[mibi]

Changes:

1. Ta'am and Muthana are mixed ethnic territories so you will need them to hold either bonus.
2. Netruals are in the ally boxes. With US being hardest to take but with the potential biggest bonus.
3. City bonus have been updated to reflect the geopolitics, sort of.

[ps2civxr20]

1. also make nafja and salahaddan mixed
2. maybe make a small bonus for having all the non mixed teritories for one ethnic group and another for all of the terretories
3. Make it so that if you hold bagdad and eather the sunni or shia contenent that you get a bonus
4. possibly make the rivers kind of like a railroad in that tere are stations (ports) that you can attack along the river. Some ports could be cities

[ps2civxr20]

also minor spelling problem "new bahgdad"

[mibi]

1. also make nafja and salahaddan mixed
2. maybe make a small bonus for having all the non mixed teritories for one ethnic group and another for all of the terretories
3. Make it so that if you hold bagdad and eather the sunni or shia contenent that you get a bonus
4. possibly make the rivers kind of like a railroad in that tere are stations (ports) that you can attack along the river. Some ports could be cities

I like the first two suggestions, but i think the last two would add some unnecessary complication. There is already a road which follows the river mostly.

[mibi]

Changes:

1. Added another mix territory
2. Added seperate bonuses for mixed and non-mixed terrirotes

[suggs]

Hopefully the Yanks will be out soon. They've never been keen on extending thier empire "extra-Monroe" as it were.
So take the Yanks out of it.
And put in a load of bonuses for oil, as thats why its been fought over for the last 100 years. (Dont see the US invading Zimbabwe, do we....)

But cool idea. Nice and contraversial, which in itself is a good thing. Its only through the dialectical exhange of thoughts that we get anywhere at all.
Good work.

[ps2civxr20]

1. also make nafja and salahaddan mixed
2. maybe make a small bonus for having all the non mixed teritories for one ethnic group and another for all of the terretories
3. Make it so that if you hold bagdad and eather the sunni or shia contenent that you get a bonus
4. possibly make the rivers kind of like a railroad in that tere are stations (ports) that you can attack along the river. Some ports could be cities

I like the first two suggestions, but i think the last two would add some unnecessary complication. There is already a road which follows the river mostly.

more suggestions yaa

1. Since the baathists were never too strong in kurdistan or shia areas because they oppressed them so i think you should take it out of kurd and shia dominated areas same with al-qaeda in shia area. you should replace the baathists in kurd area with some group for kurdish independence. Also replace the baaths and al-qaeda with some shia groups. Maybe the iraqi government in all places.

2. Still think you should mix nafja and salahaddan

3. Also maybe add other countries as one or two territory places because this isnt happening in a vacuum. Maybe give a bonus if you control southern iraq and iran or bonus if you have the kurdish parts of iran, sirya, and turkey along with kurdish iraq. Also if you implement this make it so that they all are neutral with a 10 garrison

4. Maybe have a small bonus if you control shia or sunni parts of bagdad

5. add arbil as a city

6. Not to get political but if this seems unnecessarily complicated it because the whole thing is unnecessarily complicated.

[mibi]

1. Since the baathists were never too strong in kurdistan or shia areas because they oppressed them so i think you should take it out of kurd and shia dominated areas same with al-qaeda in shia area. you should replace the baathists in kurd area with some group for kurdish independence. Also replace the baaths and al-qaeda with some shia groups. Maybe the iraqi government in all places.

Sorry, I am not quite sure I understand this suggestion. Are talking about adding more combattants or more bonus rules? or something else

2. Still think you should mix nafja and salahaddan

While I wanted to make te ethnic mix totally acurate I had to keep an eye out for playabilty. If Najaf and Salahaddan were mixed it would leave the Suni area with just 2 territories, which is real small for a bonus espeically since its more than half of the map. Currently its 4 territories with an extra 3 mixed so I think its a good comprimise between playability and accuracy.

3. Also maybe add other countries as one or two territory places because this isnt happening in a vacuum. Maybe give a bonus if you control southern iraq and iran or bonus if you have the kurdish parts of iran, sirya, and turkey along with kurdish iraq. Also if you implement this make it so that they all are neutral with a 10 garrison

I was also considering this, but I am afraid there really isnt much room, as you can see. The country of Iraq already poses difficult because many of the privinces are all squashed and Anbar is just huge no to mention the long names so the map cant get much small in the space, nor can i fit surrounding countries.

4. Maybe have a small bonus if you control shia or sunni parts of bagdad

which parts are those?

5. add arbil as a city

Arbil wasn't really a scene of any major fighting. why should i add it?

6. Not to get political but if this seems unnecessarily complicated it because the whole thing is unnecessarily complicated.

I agree... but while the map should convey the complexities it must also have a balance with playability.

[ps2civxr20]

1. i meant get rid of some groups in areas where they were never srong or liked and replace them with new ones though if you want to cange the bonus it is up to you.

2. you could make it so that to hold a ethnic group you haveto have a presence in the provences cities

3. Understandable, though it would be nice if they changed the map size limit

4. not exactly sure which parts are which but there is probably a map of it somewhere

5. it is still a major city but you dont realy have to add it

6. no you shouldn't make it playable at all, you should make it so everyone can do anything and it is confusing what you can do.

[Coleman]

6. no you shouldn't make it playable at all, you should make it so everyone can do anything and it is confusing what you can do.

I found this statement more confusing then the map by far.

Explain please?

[Elijah S]

...

[Rictus]

Question - are the city bonuses 'stackable'? If I control two cities and have captured both the Sunni and American neutral areas, do I get both bonuses? I really like the idea of allied cities, but I’m unsure how this is gonna work in a practical sense… Also, I assume these territories are one way? Because otherwise, my opponent takes the city, then I come piling out of the ‘neutral’ flag area to take the city back, which seems at odds with what these areas are meant to represent… or am I missing something? I really really like the idea of aligning the cities, which is why all the questions about the mechanism. Good luck with this one, I hope it goes somewere.

[mibi]

Question - are the city bonuses 'stackable'? If I control two cities and have captured both the Sunni and American neutral areas, do I get both bonuses? I really like the idea of allied cities, but I’m unsure how this is gonna work in a practical sense… Also, I assume these territories are one way? Because otherwise, my opponent takes the city, then I come piling out of the ‘neutral’ flag area to take the city back, which seems at odds with what these areas are meant to represent… or am I missing something? I really really like the idea of aligning the cities, which is why all the questions about the mechanism. Good luck with this one, I hope it goes somewere.

No they are not stackable, there will be a negative bonus for owning two oposing sides, but i still need to work out the logistics of this. and yes the territories are one way, except al-queda which connect out the other way to sunni cities, I guess thats also one way tho.

[Rictus]

Question - are the city bonuses 'stackable'? If I control two cities and have captured both the Sunni and American neutral areas, do I get both bonuses? I really like the idea of allied cities, but I’m unsure how this is gonna work in a practical sense… Also, I assume these territories are one way? Because otherwise, my opponent takes the city, then I come piling out of the ‘neutral’ flag area to take the city back, which seems at odds with what these areas are meant to represent… or am I missing something? I really really like the idea of aligning the cities, which is why all the questions about the mechanism. Good luck with this one, I hope it goes somewere.

No they are not stackable, there will be a negative bonus for owning two oposing sides, but i still need to work out the logistics of this. and yes the territories are one way, except al-queda which connect out the other way to sunni cities, I guess thats also one way tho.

Thanks. That Al Qaeda idea is very interesting - I think you're right and one way will have to be the way to go on those attacks. Still, whilst it fits with the 'reality' of the war (i.e. the idea that any Sunni city could have an al-qaeda attack/takeover) I'm not sure what it does for balance - after all, I'd be inclined to always chose Al- qaeda because of the additional attack options it gives me, as well as a bonus. Anyway, it's a really interesting wrinkle in game play, and I hope it makes it to the final forge in some form..

[t.e.c]

i like the idea mibi, keep up the good work

[s.xkitten]

it looks good...but i won't play it for a long long time.

I like the graphics, and how semi-complicated it looks.

[ps2civxr20]

6. no you shouldn't make it playable at all, you should make it so everyone can do anything and it is confusing what you can do.

I found this statement more confusing then the map by far.

Explain please?

it was a joke