I'm having a really hard time getting started & wondering how everyone else is doing...  Individual battles just don't seem to translate well in my mind to wargear.  We need that movement counter system that M57(?) was always talking about.

I almost feel like it will have to be a SimulGear board to get the feel of tactics that seem like they'd be critical to any battle themed map.

I've been thinking about this too, and I tend to agree.  The main issues (for me at least) are unit autonomy and terrain.  The neutral wall solution is cumbersome and inelegant, and quite frankly, players don't like it ..I don't, and I make 'em to play 'em.  The MovementCount system I proposed addresses both aspects of the issue, but it never really gained much traction.  To be fair, it would need some TLC and could be challenging to code ..there were people who thought it would be too confusing without a separate and dedicated visual counter (basically a second number) on each relevant territory.

The recent addition of AutoNeutralReset factories promises a number of possibilities that I think are relevant for creating the kind of game-play you and I are envisioning when it comes to maps in this genre. (I'm exploring a few with my most recent map, "Renaissance Wars"). What's been frustrating is that the ANR factory comes Soooo close to offering a fairly elegant (if not still cumbersome) solution for the terrain issue - I'm pretty confident that the addition of Real-Time factories would make a pretty big difference, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

I really wanted to enter a map in this competition - I love this genre, but I put a lot of work into my maps and at this point I'm only going to make one if I think the game-mechanics do the battle scenario justice. Appomattox and Waterloo are examples of attempts I've made, and their inadequacies are just too apparent to me.  Appomattox was a pre-factory attempt and it's horrible.

Unfortunately, I don't like Simulgear at all. I didn't like it on ToS and I don't like it here.  I'm not ashamed to say I was disappointed that the site went with it as an alternate engine.  The good news is that the default engine is so strong and has even more potential if we (and Tom) stay with it.

I've poked around at it a bit. I have an individual battle started that's not going so great, but then I'm also pulling back the lens a bit and looking at trying to do a map that's not necessarily a single battle but a more complete military conflict.

What I see as the biggest problem with trying to take a historical approach is that I have been through lists of well over 100 famous or significant battles, and they are basically all two sided. That ties my hands into either making a duel board or a two-team board. Neither are ever particularly well received by the wider public. I made Remember the Alamo a while back, which would have been pretty spot on for this contest, and while it got pretty good critical acclaim, the Simulgear nature puts it out of most peoples' interest.

So, I'm thinking I'm just gonna play the theme a little fast and loose. It will be historical, and battle, but I'm looking for an event where there might have been more than two factions going at it.

i thought about the fast and loose part...does historical fictional battles count?

weathertop wrote:

i thought about the fast and loose part...does historical fictional battles count?

I think in the past we've looked at that as an issue for the voters to decide. You certainly run an increasing risk of voters not giving any credit the further from the heart of the topic you are. There is no set guideline for how close to the topic you have to be.

As for my own opinion on it, I try to stay near to the spirit of the idea. I personally won't submit any battles out of literature or the future.

• As an eventual voter, I can say that if someone were to submit a board based on a sci-fi/fantasy literature or video game/movie world, I would likely give it no votes. GoT, LoTR, WoT, Nintendo, etc
• If a map were based on classical literature but fictional I won't write it off entirely at this point, but I give no guarantees.
• Moving along the spectrum to a real setting but a fictional battle, say you come up with your own battle site set in the American Civil War, that would probably fly in my eyes but in a close race a map that did a better job applying the topic might get the edge rather than a tie vote.
•  Then come the real battles that are considered historical but are more myth than history at this point: think The Illiad or Mel Gibson's take on anything. I think maps coming from here would probably be considered equal unless someone goes way out of their way to make a history-book accurate rendition of something.
• And finally, honest to God historical battles set on maps that could have been taken from the 1990's History channel WW2 specials as what I interpret as the primary intent of this theme getting the edge in any close/tie vote situations and probably a slight voting edge even if the gameplay or graphics aren't quite as good as another less strict interpretation.

Basically, it's all really subjective. Make what you can be happy with and see how democracy works.

>i thought about the fast and loose part...does historical fictional battles count?

I asked this exact question a few months ago, and got no response, which I took as not too encouraging.

Like Cram said it's up to the voters.  This might be a not very popular theme, so a fun map that does not really strictly fit the theme could still do quite well in the prize money.

I might end up doing historical fictional also, because like Cram I have gone over tons of lists of battles and found them all 1v1.  Between that and the difficulty capturing tactics in a game where any player can move as far as they want on one turn, I'm having trouble.

I figure I have about another month to decide on a theme & then I really need to get to work on it if I want to have time to finish before the end of the year.

Battles in RL boil down to 1v1, whether it's mano a mano or axis and allies.  Everyone chooses a side at some point.

This is probably a question for another thread, but in A&A games where two battle three, how are the points divided?  No doubt, this has been suggested before but it would be nice if a player could play multiple Generals/Countries on separate turns.  E.g I play Germany, Ozyman plays France, then I play Italy, then O plays Russia.  OR

O plays the Axis, I play France, O plays Axis, Cram plays Russia, O plays, I play..

M57 wrote:

Battles in RL boil down to 1v1, whether it's mano a mano or axis and allies.  Everyone chooses a side at some point.

This is probably a question for another thread, but in A&A games where two battle three, how are the points divided?  No doubt, this has been suggested before but it would be nice if a player could play multiple Generals/Countries on separate turns.  E.g I play Germany, Ozyman plays France, then I play Italy, then O plays Russia.  OR

O plays the Axis, I play France, O plays Axis, Cram plays Russia, O plays, I play..

I'm pretty sure it has been suggested and seems like a fun idea to me.

M57 wrote:

I've been thinking about this too, and I tend to agree.  The main issues (for me at least) are unit autonomy and terrain.  The neutral wall solution is cumbersome and inelegant, and quite frankly, players don't like it ..I don't, and I make 'em to play 'em.  The MovementCount system I proposed addresses both aspects of the issue, but it never really gained much traction.  To be fair, it would need some TLC and could be challenging to code ..there were people who thought it would be too confusing without a separate and dedicated visual counter (basically a second number) on each relevant territory.

Just to resubmit my idea on this (which I think is simpler and easier to represent visually), for terrain/movement restrictions I would propose that each border can be set to use up a certain number of attacks (in a board with a limited number of attacks of course). This could be represented to the player next to the dice mods. Example: 8 attack maximum, most of the map defaults to 1 attack being used per attack made, an open area that uses up 0 attacks (yay, free attacks!),  a road that uses half an attack, a fortified area that uses 2 attacks, a long range artillery that uses 4 attacks, and an airdrop that uses up 8 attacks.

M57 wrote:

The recent addition of AutoNeutralReset factories promises a number of possibilities that I think are relevant for creating the kind of game-play you and I are envisioning when it comes to maps in this genre. (I'm exploring a few with my most recent map, "Renaissance Wars"). What's been frustrating is that the ANR factory comes Soooo close to offering a fairly elegant (if not still cumbersome) solution for the terrain issue - I'm pretty confident that the addition of Real-Time factories would make a pretty big difference, but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

I really wanted to enter a map in this competition - I love this genre, but I put a lot of work into my maps and at this point I'm only going to make one if I think the game-mechanics do the battle scenario justice. Appomattox and Waterloo are examples of attempts I've made, and their inadequacies are just too apparent to me.  Appomattox was a pre-factory attempt and it's horrible.

Unfortunately, I don't like Simulgear at all. I didn't like it on ToS and I don't like it here.  I'm not ashamed to say I was disappointed that the site went with it as an alternate engine.  The good news is that the default engine is so strong and has even more potential if we (and Tom) stay with it.

For factories, I would like to see a setting for: trigger at start of turn, trigger on capture, and trigger at end of turn.

I think you are a little harsh on yourself for the Waterloo map. It is one of my favorite maps on this site. Just finished a great game against BlackDog.

I keep trying Simulgear (I have greatly enjoyed other games with simultaneous turns) but still haven't managed to enjoy it.

Korrun wrote:

For factories, I would like to see a setting for: trigger at start of turn, trigger on capture, and trigger at end of turn.

This is basically the current proposal for Real-Time Factories.

I think you are a little harsh on yourself for the Waterloo map. It is one of my favorite maps on this site. Just finished a great game against BlackDog.

Thanks.  It is an attempt to create more of a sense of unit autonomy by limiting movement, and the result is some pretty decent game-play, but it does not come anywhere near achieving the autonomy goal.

I keep trying Simulgear (I have greatly enjoyed other games with simultaneous turns) but still haven't managed to enjoy it.

I think we could have done quite a bit better, but site was young, and I don't think enough of the active forum participants at the time could be bothered to work something up from scratch. They were mostly refugees from ToS, so when the bones of a familiar system was suggested, the decision was pretty much a foregone conclusion.  

Nevertheless, I put my money where my stubborn mouth was, offering an engine idea that I even play-tested.  Unlike SimulGear, which requires special boards and customized mods, my iidea would have worked (and potentially still could work) with existing boards, even those that use the latest and greatest factory gadgets.  I'm no longer advocating it, in part because I can envision the current engine eventually evolving to support something like it.  It is unlikely to happen, but I'm satisfied to know that it can.  Besides, the current WarGear engine has so much upside potential, not to mention that it is pretty amazing right now.

Tom has so much on his plate just managing the site and dealing with the 'real' customer base; that I think its imperative that us designer types (a small number indeed) keep a sharp focus on our goals and do whatever we can to maintain a consensus opinion so that things are very clear to Tom whenever he gets around to throwing us a bone.

Korrun wrote:

Just to resubmit my idea on this (which I think is simpler and easier to represent visually), for terrain/movement restrictions I would propose that each border can be set to use up a certain number of attacks (in a board with a limited number of attacks of course). This could be represented to the player next to the dice mods. Example: 8 attack maximum, most of the map defaults to 1 attack being used per attack made, an open area that uses up 0 attacks (yay, free attacks!),  a road that uses half an attack, a fortified area that uses 2 attacks, a long range artillery that uses 4 attacks, and an airdrop that uses up 8 attacks.

I think yours is an excellent solution, and though I'm not convinced, I wouldn't be surprised if it is easier to implement.  Let's do a comparison..

• I'm not sure about one being better than the other visually.  Both of our systems don't HAVE to have a visual counter - mine could work just by hovering over the attacking territory - not to mention that with both of our systems the information could be displayed in the attack pop-up window so players could be sure of conditions before they roll the dice. There could be cues like the dots used in Simulgear to warn players when units can no longer move due to terrain restrictions, etc (although that feature would probably be much more relevant with my system).
• Mine involves the target territory while yours involves each individual border.
• Yours keeps a global count of how many 'attacks' that can be made (this requires a limited # of attacks allowed), while mine keeps individual track of the 'movement' cost of any given piece on the board (attacks are not counted), in effect restricting the range of each stack on an individual basis, all the while not requiring a global limit on the number of attacks that can occur.
• With yours a player could use all of his movement count to run a single stack quite far, whereas with mine a player can move every stack on the board with no restrictions on the number of stacks that can be moved, but each stack's range would be limited by the set MovementLimit  and terrain restrictions.  Mine simulates time. If you have "Back to Attack ON and enable MovementCount in the Fortify phase, you have a sophisticated mechanism that requires players to consider both 'timing' and 'terrain' when fortifying mid-turn.
• Yours uses a per/attack count (right?), while mine uses a per/BorderCrossed count.  Yours better represents time and unit autonomy related elements in the sense that it counts each roll as an 'event.'

Summarizing:

Because yours works on a border basis, it offers a more sophisticated and higher degree of control over terrain related costs. Because it uses a per/attack count, yours offers a better sense of time and unit autonomy than mine at the micro-battle level.

Because mine works on a territory basis with a per/BorderCrossed counting system, it offers a better sense of time passage and unit autonomy on a macro scale. It doesn't restrict the number of stacks that can use their full movement range, and prevents players from blitzing a single stack.

Oh, and I love your idea of the option of a 0 cost border/territory.  I just added it to mine ;)

@Korrun, I just copied the above post to the Wiki page called "Unit Range Limits," lthough perhaps it should be called "Movement Count."

Back On Topic..!  In my research for my next historical battle board  (Like I said, I doubt I'll get around to making one for this competition) I've been looking at sieges. I really like the idea of separate objectives, and the new Win Conditions feature will make a world of difference in that regard.     Tweaking a board for fairness can potentially be much easier. For example consider a board where the player with superior fire-power must capture 90% of the territories to win, while the other player only needs 60%.  Obviously, the designer is pulling these number out of their butt.  Generally, it's just an educated guess, but over time, as the stats and game-play begin to suggest an advantage, fixing things can be as easy as nudging the victory condition percentage numbers.

would the taking out of bin ladin count?

j-bomb wrote:

would the taking out of bin ladin count?

Small Covert operations are an interesting twist on the theme. I suppose an attack on a compound could be construed as a skirmish of sorts, though I doubt it will fare well as a 1v1 in the competition unless you give BL a few more guards, etc.  I doubt military strategists and historians would call the event 'battle,' but then summarizing Cram - it's all in the eye of the voter.

I'd count BL in before a made up battle because it actually happened. You should do it J

ratsy wrote:

I'd count BL in before a made up battle because it actually happened. You should do it J

+1

Not sure what you mean, MB.  "Historical" implies a well-known battle that has actually occurred, or been written about, either in RL, fiction or in the movies, etc.

The emu battles sounds like fun. How would you go about implementing it?