Conquer Club

[Nobodies Note]: 19 February 2013 - Approved 1vs1 Map

Map Name:Tank Battle
Mapmaker(s):Oneyed
Number of Territories:44
Special Features:invisible targets, only bombardments of enemy, changed situation on battlefield, conditional borders, blockers. I made it as 1v1 map, but maybe after small changes in gameplay it could be up to 4 players.
What Makes This Map Worthy of Being Made:

Map Image:
new version. the idea was that map should looks as briefing map with Lieutenants notices...

here is updated version.

Oneyed

before I will spend my time, my energy, my electricity - is this possible to do?

Oneyed

Do not know, have you PMed nobodies for permission as per 1v1 map rules?

koontz1973 wrote:Do not know,

hm, so itlooks that there are two questions:
1, if it could be done as 1v1 map.
2, if this could works, if this is possible? I mean hidden targets, only bombardment of opponent, also that in one round player from region X can bombard region Y, but 3 rounds later he can not from region X bombard region Y (because change of situation)...

koontz1973 wrote: have you PMed nobodies for permission as per 1v1 map rules?

I PMed him if this could works. no for 1v1 rules. will PM him ones more.

Oneyed

I'll look at the map this evening, when at home.

Nobodies

There're some elements that are not totally clear to me, but i prefer to post them tomorrow in the morning, with a more fresh brain.
At glance there's nothing that i can see to not allow this map as 1vs1 map.
To be honest, if i got it right, I like the idea behind it!

Just a note, remember that if you want to make it a 1vs1 map it must be just a 1vs1 map so you have to consider some aspects to balance the starting drop and the gameplay, but in the same time you can ignore some other aspects like terminator, assassins and team games which won't be played on this map, being 1vs1.

More thoughts tomorrow, sorry if i have to postpone my thoughts of few hours but it's late and my brain is really off.

Nobodies

@koontz, if you're holding this map into melting pot because you waited a response from me, then feel free to move it into the drafting room.

thenobodies80 wrote:@koontz, if you're holding this map into melting pot because you waited a response from me, then feel free to move it into the drafting room.

No, keeping it in the drafting room as it does not hold all elements to meet draft status. Will move when that happens (Bonuses) or when Oneyed asks for it to be moved.

I like this idea for a map but have found it like nobodies, a bit confusing for my rushed brain.

To move tank, you have to hold entire tank and leader tank.
Only when you hold entire tank can you see targets clearly.
Targets are direction of cannon.

Ok, I have few minutes to post my initial concerns:

1. You talk about invisible targets. I assume it's a creative way to indicate conditional borders. But just to be clear there's no way to have an invisible target apart play a fog game. Certainly with conditional borders you can make impossible to attack a specific territory if you don't qualify for the condition, but in anycase, apart FOW games, the amount of troops there will be visible to the players.
2. Legend. I suggest you to not use the word attack where you explain the connection between tower and chassis of the same tank or again when you say that chassis of the same platoon connetc. In theory it's stupid if you attack your own tank or a tank of your platoon. I would explain the concept saying something like: You can move from the tower to the chassis (and viceversa) of the same tank, and your troops can move from a tank chassis to another of the same platoon.
3. Where do you use blockers?
4. What do you mean with the situation on the battlefield can change, depending what you hold. This is a very cryptic concept.
5. To move tanks? you can't move the tanks! Maybe you mean to move your troops from a tank to another? and in this case if you need to hold the leader...it doesn't work with the fact you can move from chassis to chassis of the same platoon.
6. Another weak concept is "targets are indicated by direction of cannons". I understand what you're trying to do, but listen to me...it will be a big big issue. It's not a clear system, not understandable at glance. You need to find a better system to explain the attack system, otherwise the only way to learn how it works will be play the map. And you know that the player should be able to understand how the map works only reading the instructions, so before playing.

These are my initial thoughts
Said that I like the map and I'm looking forward your next update

Nobodies

thenobodies80 wrote: You talk about invisible targets. I assume it's a creative way to indicate conditional borders. But just to be clear there's no way to have an invisible target apart play a fog game. Certainly with conditional borders you can make impossible to attack a specific territory if you don't qualify for the condition, but in anycase, apart FOW games, the amount of troops there will be visible to the players.

thenobodies80 wrote: Another weak concept is "targets are indicated by direction of cannons". I understand what you're trying to do, but listen to me...it will be a big big issue. It's not a clear system, not understandable at glance. You need to find a better system to explain the attack system, otherwise the only way to learn how it works will be play the map. And you know that the player should be able to understand how the map works only reading the instructions, so before playing.

it is not clear that for example: GPT1 can only attacks B1T2, B1C2, B1T1, B1C1 and not also B1T3, B1C3?
is this only way how to show bombardments?:

thenobodies80 wrote: Legend. I suggest you to not use the word attack where you explain the connection between tower and chassis of the same tank or again when you say that chassis of the same platoon connetc. In theory it's stupid if you attack your own tank or a tank of your platoon. I would explain the concept saying something like: You can move from the tower to the chassis (and viceversa) of the same tank, and your troops can move from a tank chassis to another of the same platoon.

sounds much better.

thenobodies80 wrote: Where do you use blockers?

the main blockers will be holding protuberant tanks (chassis, tower). so if you not hold them you can bombard targets X, Y from tank A (tower) in platoon, but when you hold protuberant tank (chassis, tower) you can bombard targets X, Y from here but not from tank A (tower). I can not write these blockers here, because everybody can read them and knows how game works...

thenobodies80 wrote: What do you mean with the situation on the battlefield can change, depending what you hold. This is a very cryptic concept.

as is written above.

thenobodies80 wrote: To move tanks? you can't move the tanks! Maybe you mean to move your troops from a tank to another? and in this case if you need to hold the leader...it doesn't work with the fact you can move from chassis to chassis of the same platoon.

you are right. here I mean: move troops from chassis in platoon to chassis in (its) protuberant chassis via streak of straps. only for this you need to hold platoons leader tank.

thenobodies80 wrote: These are my initial thoughts

thank you.

thenobodies80 wrote: Said that I like the map and I'm looking forward your next update

update would become only if some things will be clear to me

Oneyed

everything back. forgot the post above, I think I have now what you try to say.

thenobodies80 wrote: [*]You talk about invisible targets. I assume it's a creative way to indicate conditional borders. But just to be clear there's no way to have an invisible target apart play a fog game. Certainly with conditional borders you can make impossible to attack a specific territory if you don't qualify for the condition, but in anycase, apart FOW games, the amount of troops there will be visible to the players.

the targets will be invisible to the time when player conquer Tower of tank, because only from Tower is possible bombard. and player will see only targets which are possible to bombard from Tower X. because there is normal border.

thenobodies80 wrote: [*]Legend. I suggest you to not use the word attack where you explain the connection between tower and chassis of the same tank or again when you say that chassis of the same platoon connetc. In theory it's stupid if you attack your own tank or a tank of your platoon. I would explain the concept saying something like: You can move from the tower to the chassis (and viceversa) of the same tank, and your troops can move from a tank chassis to another of the same platoon.

as in post above sounds great.

thenobodies80 wrote: [*]Where do you use blockers?

there are more blockers as only chassis and towers of protuberant tanks. all except protuberant blockers could me remove, but this depends on:
1, if blockers must be mentioned in legend or if blockers could be as little surprise for players?
2, also if in legend must be mentioned which blocker blocking which target?

here are all bombardments and blockers:

Spoiler

[*]german bombards:
----------------
G1T3 - BPT1, BPC1
GPT1 - B1T2, B1C2, B1T1, B1C1
G1T4 - B1T4, B1C4, (B1T1, B1C1 and not held GPT1, GPC1)
G1T1 - B1T4, B1C4, B1T3, B1C3, (BPT2, BPC2 and not held G1T2, G1C2)
G1T2 - (B2T2, B2C2 and not held GPT2, GPC2), BPT2, BPC2

GPT2 - B2T2, B2C2, B2T1, B2C1
G2T3 - BPT2, BPC2
G2T4 - B2T4, B2C4, (B2T1, B2C1 and not held GPT2, GPC2)
G2T1 - B2T4, B2C4, BPT3, BPT4, (B2T3, B2C3 and not held GPT3, GPC3)
G2T2 - BPT3, BPC3
GPT3 - B2T4, B2C4, B2T2, B2C2

british bombards:
-----------------
B1T2 - GPT1, GPC1
BPT1 - G1T3, G1C3, G1T4, G1C4
B1T1 - GPT1, GPC1, G1T4, G1C4, (G1T3, G1C3 and not held BPT1, BPC1)
B1T4 - G1T4, G1C4, (G1T1, G1C1 and not held BPT2, BPC2)
B1T3 - GPT2, GPC2
BPT2 - G1T1, G1C1, G1T2, G1C2

B2T2 - GPT2, GPC2, (G1T2, G1C2 and not held BPT2, BPC2)
B2T1 - G2T4, G2C4, G2T3, G2C3, (GPT2, GPC2 and not held B2T2, B2C2)
B2T4 - G2T4, G2C4, (G2T1, G2C1 and not held BPT3, BPC3)
B2T3 - GPT3, GPC3
BPT3 - G2T1, G2C1, G2T2, G2C2)

thenobodies80 wrote: [*]What do you mean with the situation on the battlefield can change, depending what you hold. This is a very cryptic concept.

as you can see from bombardments above, the targets for some Towers are different if player holds/does not hold blockers.

thenobodies80 wrote: [*]To move tanks? you can't move the tanks! Maybe you mean to move your troops from a tank to another? and in this case if you need to hold the leader...it doesn't work with the fact you can move from chassis to chassis of the same platoon.

as in post above. hold leader tank valids only for moving troops from chassis of Tank in platoon to chassis of protberant chassis via streak of straps.

thenobodies80 wrote: [*]Another weak concept is "targets are indicated by direction of cannons". I understand what you're trying to do, but listen to me...it will be a big big issue. It's not a clear system, not understandable at glance. You need to find a better system to explain the attack system, otherwise the only way to learn how it works will be play the map. And you know that the player should be able to understand how the map works only reading the instructions, so before playing.

hm. now this looks as the main problem. player ofcourse will see targets when he holds Tower, but not before. so how to explain that cannon "shows" direction of fire? and that there are more targets?

Oneyed

Oneyed wrote: thenobodies80 wrote:[*]You talk about invisible targets. I assume it's a creative way to indicate conditional borders. But just to be clear there's no way to have an invisible target apart play a fog game. Certainly with conditional borders you can make impossible to attack a specific territory if you don't qualify for the condition, but in anycase, apart FOW games, the amount of troops there will be visible to the players.

the targets will be invisible to the time when player conquer Tower of tank, because only from Tower is possible bombard. and player will see only targets which are possible to bombard from Tower X. because there is normal border.

No wait, if you say "invisible" I think about the question mark we have on fog of war games. In that case it's not because of the map, but the game settings.
The fact you can bormbard/attack a territory or not is not directly related with being visible or invisible. Or better they are, but not because the map. So I assume you mean "not accessible / attackable/ bombardable" because the opposite it's not possible if the game is not a fog of war one.

Oneyed wrote:1, if blockers must be mentioned in legend or if blockers could be as little surprise for players?

No surprises. Certainly you don't have to list all the blockers, but you have to write somewhere how the game mechanism works. Players must be all on the same page when it comes to instructions.

Oneyed wrote:player ofcourse will see targets when he holds Tower, but not before. so how to explain that cannon "shows" direction of fire? and that there are more targets?

Targets can be explained with some icons/colors/etc etc...there're various ways. But again or i read your sentences in the wrong way or what you say it's not possible to do. I mean targets not visible to players.

Nobodies

thenobodies80 wrote: No wait, if you say "invisible" I think about the question mark we have on fog of war games. In that case it's not because of the map, but the game settings.

I understand now. so in sunny games will player see all opponents regions or neutral ones. baseless if he holds tower or not...

thenobodies80 wrote: The fact you can bormbard/attack a territory or not is not directly related with being visible or invisible. Or better they are, but not because the map. So I assume you mean "not accessible / attackable/ bombardable" because the opposite it's not possible if the game is not a fog of war one.

yes, in this case bombardable is what only possible to do.

thenobodies80 wrote: No surprises. Certainly you don't have to list all the blockers, but you have to write somewhere how the game mechanism wrote. Players must be all on the same page when it comes to instructions.

then I think it will be clear when only protuberant tanks (chassis, towers) will be blockers.

thenobodies80 wrote: Targets can be explained with some icons/colors/etc etc...there're various ways.

this is what I do not want to do... this is only thing which we could solve...

thenobodies80 wrote: But again or i read your sentences in the wrong way or what you say it's not possible to do.

the error is in my side. I wrong understan game mechanics and also wrong explain my ideas.

thenobodies80 wrote: I mean targets not visible to players.

why? I know what you are trying to say that players must know how game works. when you look at picture I think it is almost clear each direction of each cannon.

thank you for help and patience

Oneyed

I understand now. so in sunny games will player see all opponents regions or neutral ones. baseless if he holds tower or not...

Correct

why? I know what you are trying to say that players must know how game works. when you look at picture I think it is almost clear each direction of each cannon.

Oneyed, when you look at the cannon, they face this way or that, but some players will say, this cannon faces to the top or bottom of the map. Targets must be visible to all, including those who do not speak English. Target symbols are the best way for this.

An idea for you, you have the tanks lined up like cannon. Tanks being mobile drove all around the battle field and never sat stationary. Mix the tanks up a bit. Give the map some feel that the battle is being fought. A couple of burnt out husks would not go amiss as well.

koontz1973 wrote: Oneyed, when you look at the cannon, they face this way or that, but some players will say, this cannon faces to the top or bottom of the map.

? how can cannon faces to top or bottom? it could only faces to top or only bottom, becaue there is tower...

koontz1973 wrote: An idea for you, you have the tanks lined up like cannon. Tanks being mobile drove all around the battle field and never sat stationary.

it would be a WWII battle between Brittish M4 Shermans and German Panthers. tanks had not gyroscope yet, so they fire stationary.

koontz1973 wrote: Mix the tanks up a bit. Give the map some feel that the battle is being fought. A couple of burnt out husks would not go amiss as well.

except some huge tank battles as Kursk, tanks do not fight as cavalry. they attack in formations and it is rare when they mixed. the burn out is good idea, maybe they could decay or something similar...

thank you for advices and some good ideas.

Oneyed

I think it'd look better and be vertigo on the user if the tanks were going east and west.

ViperOverLord wrote:I think it'd look better and be vertigo on the user if the tanks were going east and west.

sorry my bad english, could you explain this more? I do not understand exactly. thanks.

Oneyed

Oneyed wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:I think it'd look better and be vertigo on the user if the tanks were going east and west.

sorry my bad english, could you explain this more? I do not understand exactly. thanks.

Oneyed

Instead of top bottom, left right orientation for the map.

koontz1973 wrote:

Oneyed wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:I think it'd look better and be vertigo on the user if the tanks were going east and west.

sorry my bad english, could you explain this more? I do not understand exactly. thanks.

Oneyed

Instead of top bottom, left right orientation for the map.

thanks.

I have new version in my head, just I need to clear up some things with thenobodies.

Oneyed

I was thinking....what if we make the tanks different enough so a player can distinguish them and into a legend you explain the attacks, maybe using images instead of words ?
Or instead, if you don't want to make the tanks different, why don't you create a set of custom army circles and again explain into the legend how the attacks works using them?
I think it could work, afterall all platoons, battalions etc etc have custom symbols and it seems to me you have good knowledge of history, so it won't be hard for you to find something to use that fits the situation. (e.g. look at wwii ardennes map by qwert)

I still strongly suggest to you to make the attacks very clear, preferably with a visual system. I understand you want to create something different, but like I already said to you, the surprise effect (i.e. the first time you play the map you lose the game) can't be used. I know the connection seems clear to you, but you have to look at them with someone else eyes and some of them are not totally clear.
For example What are the possible targets of G2T3 ? or again B2T4 and BPT3 aim to the same direction, so their targets are the same?

Now, if it was for me this map can be moved to gameplay, but i think it's better you find a system to clarify attacks now than later and find yourself in big big problems when you reach graphics.

Nobodies

thenobodies80 wrote:I was thinking....what if we make the tanks different enough so a player can distinguish them and into a legend you explain the attacks, maybe using images instead of words ?

there are too much tanks to make each other different.

thenobodies80 wrote: Or instead, if you don't want to make the tanks different, why don't you create a set of custom army circles and again explain into the legend how the attacks works using them?

yes the same cloured circles could works. will look at this.

thenobodies80 wrote: I think it could work, afterall all platoons, battalions etc etc have custom symbols and it seems to me you have good knowledge of history, so it won't be hard for you to find something to use that fits the situation. (e.g. look at wwii ardennes map by qwert)

but here we need extra symbol for each tank. army circles sounds the best way, I have also one idea to use fire perimeters...

thenobodies80 wrote: I still strongly suggest to you to make the attacks very clear, preferably with a visual system. I understand you want to create something different, but like I already said to you, the surprise effect (i.e. the first time you play the map you lose the game) can't be used. I know the connection seems clear to you, but you have to look at them with someone else eyes and some of them are not totally clear.
For example What are the possible targets of G2T3 ? or again B2T4 and BPT3 aim to the same direction, so their targets are the same?

I understand what you can say. if somebody will play map for the 10th times and somebody for the 1st time he has huge disadvantage. better say low chance to win.

thenobodies80 wrote: Now, if it was for me this map can be moved to gameplay, but i think it's better you find a system to clarify attacks now than later and find yourself in big big problems when you reach graphics.

Nobodies

will looking for something working.

thanks for help.

Oneyed

Oneyed wrote:

koontz1973 wrote:

Oneyed wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:I think it'd look better and be vertigo on the user if the tanks were going east and west.

sorry my bad english, could you explain this more? I do not understand exactly. thanks.

Oneyed

Instead of top bottom, left right orientation for the map.

thanks.

I have new version in my head, just I need to clear up some things with thenobodies.

Oneyed

I also omitted 'less.' Less vertigo on the user. Less dizzying, less disorienting if the tanks go left and right (east/west) and not up and down (north/south).

ViperOverLord wrote: I also omitted 'less.' Less vertigo on the user. Less dizzying, less disorienting if the tanks go left and right (east/west) and not up and down (north/south).

I am not sure where will be difference. and I need upper and bottom part for legends. thank you for input

Oneyed

new version. the idea was that map should looks as briefing map with Lieutenants notices...

Oneyed

Looks interesting.

Just two remarks at the moment:
- what are the tank barrierrs for? Do they limit the Bombardments to the side (like GFT2 vs BFC2)? Or cant you reinforce between chassis from the same platoon (like B2C1 to B2c4)?
- what mean Platoons (same flag) +3 for each? Or does it mean you get +3 auto deploy (or additional army) if you have the leader of a platoon? you could change the text like leader has two flags and gets +3 autodeploy.

g8k

g8keepr wrote:Looks interesting.

thank you.

g8keepr wrote: Just two remarks at the moment:
- what are the tank barrierrs for? Do they limit the Bombardments to the side (like GFT2 vs BFC2)? Or cant you reinforce between chassis from the same platoon (like B2C1 to B2c4)?

yes they limit bombardments. if you look at the upper legend there are shown bombardments. I will mention this in legend. something like: Tank barriers, limit bombardments.

g8keepr wrote: - what mean Platoons (same flag) +3 for each? Or does it mean you get +3 auto deploy (or additional army) if you have the leader of a platoon?

each platoon has 4 tanks with the same coloured flag. so if you hold all platoon you get +3. maybe I will correct legend here too: Platoon, 4 tanks witht he same coloured flag.

g8keepr wrote: you could change the text like leader has two flags and gets +3 autodeploy.

there are not any autodeploys. the leader is only important for using connection via streak of straps.

thanks for your input

Oneyed