Conquer Club

ps2civxr20 wrote:

Coleman wrote:

ps2civxr20 wrote: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

Ah, no wonder I didn't get it.

Suzy1 wrote:DIM,
I am an American and have not supported the war in Iraq. However I do support our military completely. They were commanded to do a job and have bravely done so. As in all walks of life, some people make the wrong choices and do dishonorable things. Whether your comments are facts or not remains to be seen. You are wrong in every way though, to talk disgracefully about our military as though all are bad. I have 2 nephews who served in Iraq and neither of them enjoyed being there. I would love for you to sit face to face with either of them and hear their side of the story. You might be surprised at the facts you would learn. Our soldiers were rationing food and water because supplies were limited and they not knowing when more would arrive. Many of Our soldiers did without and gave their shares of food and water, to the Iraqi soldiers that surrendered to them. Would you feed the mouth that bites you? DIM? Of course you wouldn't. We know who you are. You are the oppressor that rants from the back of the crowd and would be the first one to hide behind an American soldier should he be there protecting your country and your sorry ass!

Get out of the foundry, and take it the clubhouse. There is a thread there that you may rant on whenever you like.

s.xkitten wrote:Get out of the foundry, and take it the clubhouse. There is a thread there that you may rant on whenever you like.

While I'd rather we just talk shop in the foundry, I think the concerns were appropriate since DiM started it. In his over-generalization and vilification of all Americans DiM showed that he is capable of the same type of thought that drives people to commit war crimes against people they've depersonalized, so I'll give Suzy a break on this one.

The personal/political reactions to this map may never go away. Could be a constant uphill battle.

I feel CC, and this map, are politically neutral.

I'm not worried about people getting offended, I'll leave that to the other moderators.

Oh, man.... There are hardly any al-Qaeda members in Iraq. The one camp that existed before the war, which the U.S. used in its propaganda, was in Kurd territory - the Kurds who were U.S. allies.

The group calling itself "al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia" has nothing to do with the real al-Qaeda. It didn't exist before the war and the majority of members are Iraqis. It got some kuddos by the real al-Qaeda in the beginning, but it has since been condemned by al-Qaeda because of its many attacks on civilians.

It is of course still used in the neocon propaganda, and in Bush speeches that say "We are fighting them there so they won't come over here". But including al-Qaeda in the Iraq map is inaccurate, no matter what the propaganda line says.

Ok... I haven't read all of the posts as I don't have time BUT!!! The very 1st thing that I can see that I think should be changed is the fact that you have a continent called "Kurd". If you are planing to split up the continents based on religon like you have with "Sunni" and "Shia" then the "Kurd" continent should realy be "Alevi" as it is very diferent to the other forms of Islam, and almost EVERY Kurd I have EVER met has been Alevi.

Gustaf Wasa wrote:Oh, man.... There are hardly any al-Qaeda members in Iraq. The one camp that existed before the war, which the U.S. used in its propaganda, was in Kurd territory - the Kurds who were U.S. allies.

The group calling itself "al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia" has nothing to do with the real al-Qaeda. It didn't exist before the war and the majority of members are Iraqis. It got some kuddos by the real al-Qaeda in the beginning, but it has since been condemned by al-Qaeda because of its many attacks on civilians.

It is of course still used in the neocon propaganda, and in Bush speeches that say "We are fighting them there so they won't come over here". But including al-Qaeda in the Iraq map is inaccurate, no matter what the propaganda line says.

feel free to edit this neocon propaganda site then,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq

yamahafazer wrote:Ok... I haven't read all of the posts as I don't have time BUT!!! The very 1st thing that I can see that I think should be changed is the fact that you have a continent called "Kurd". If you are planing to split up the continents based on religon like you have with "Sunni" and "Shia" then the "Kurd" continent should realy be "Alevi" as it is very diferent to the other forms of Islam, and almost EVERY Kurd I have EVER met has been Alevi.

I thought kurds were sunni, I can change kurd to sunni kurd.

Basarah is British run terroity!!!

hulmey wrote:Basarah is British run terroity!!!

This is a good point, and a good reason to change USA to Coalition, I think. Whatever many Brits may feel about the war, after all, they are still participants alongside the US, and whilst their contribution may be less in numbers, it probably should be recognized.

Rictus wrote:

hulmey wrote:Basarah is British run terroity!!!

This is a good point, and a good reason to change USA to Coalition, I think. Whatever many Brits may feel about the war, after all, they are still participants alongside the US, and whilst their contribution may be less in numbers, it probably should be recognized.

Huh, tough call... you could go either way on this one. Again, it gets political - do you name the US as the main instigator/perpetrator, or do you call it a 'multinational coalition' as the White House likes to?

In addition to the UK, there have been a couple dozen other countries that have supplied troops... some have pulled out, but many are still there. Romania, for example, had over 800 troops there at its peak, currently has around 600, and earlier this month said they have no intention of leaving. Who knew Romanians were so completely behind the war in Iraq?

oaktown wrote: Who knew Romanians were so completely behind the war in Iraq?

DiM wrote:i don't want to see a map of the glorification of innocent slaughter conducted by the americans.

The romanians are definetly behind hte iraq war 100%

mibi wrote:

yamahafazer wrote:Ok... I haven't read all of the posts as I don't have time BUT!!! The very 1st thing that I can see that I think should be changed is the fact that you have a continent called "Kurd". If you are planing to split up the continents based on religon like you have with "Sunni" and "Shia" then the "Kurd" continent should realy be "Alevi" as it is very diferent to the other forms of Islam, and almost EVERY Kurd I have EVER met has been Alevi.

I thought kurds were sunni, I can change kurd to sunni kurd.

It's up to you realy... It wont change the game play... you could be right too... I've only realy met Kurd's from the east of Turkey and so far they've all been Alevi. But I gues it could be diferent in Iraq..... I don't know...

nvm

sorry... double post.

So here are my outstanding issues.

1. Should there be more than 3 combatants? Should I add another, The Mahdi Army or two more including the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party). Right now this looks like a great 3 player map. But once you have 4-6 players it becomes more of a fight to control one combatant rather than combatants against each other. An issue to consider is size, added one or two more boxes to each city would cramp it, as well as extra legend copy.

2. Should the neutrals be in standard 1-3-2 format as they are now, or should they reflect the geopolitics on the ground? for example, the Kurds hate the baathists so to ally a kurddish city with the baathists you would need to conquer 3 instead of 1. Also, al-Queda is more popular in Sunni territory so cities in Anbar would only have 1 neutral on they al-queda square. Some bonus and ability balancing would need to be done if this were the case. The Americas would always be 3 or 4 since no one really likes them.

3. How should multiple combatants in the same town work? For example, I don't like the idea of stackable bonus where if you own the US and al-aeda in one city you get a bonus for each, it doesnt make sense. One idea I had was to make a negative bonus of -2 if you own two combatants in the same city. If neutralize this negative bonus, you would have to conquer all the combatants in the city, which would then be +0. Is this even possible in the xml?

eh?

That's all possible.

I'll let you know when something breaks my mind and/or the xml, it all looks possible still (although I said that for supermax at first...)

What broke supermax was needing more then one territory to trigger a bonus (like 3 of something there are 16 of) and having one of these territories be required in all the collections.

Coleman wrote:That's all possible.

I'll let you know when something breaks my mind and/or the xml, it all looks possible still (although I said that for supermax at first...)

What broke supermax was needing more then one territory to trigger a bonus (like 3 of something there are 16 of) and having one of these territories be required in all the collections.

how do you do, 3 of something = 0

mibi wrote:So here are my outstanding issues.

1. Should there be more than 3 combatants? Should I add another, The Mahdi Army or two more including the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party). Right now this looks like a great 3 player map. But once you have 4-6 players it becomes more of a fight to control one combatant rather than combatants against each other. An issue to consider is size, added one or two more boxes to each city would cramp it, as well as extra legend copy.

2. Should the neutrals be in standard 1-3-2 format as they are now, or should they reflect the geopolitics on the ground? for example, the Kurds hate the baathists so to ally a kurddish city with the baathists you would need to conquer 3 instead of 1. Also, al-Queda is more popular in Sunni territory so cities in Anbar would only have 1 neutral on they al-queda square. Some bonus and ability balancing would need to be done if this were the case. The Americas would always be 3 or 4 since no one really likes them.

3. How should multiple combatants in the same town work? For example, I don't like the idea of stackable bonus where if you own the US and al-aeda in one city you get a bonus for each, it doesnt make sense. One idea I had was to make a negative bonus of -2 if you own two combatants in the same city. If neutralize this negative bonus, you would have to conquer all the combatants in the city, which would then be +0. Is this even possible in the xml?

eh?

1. you wouldn't have the problem of over crampness if you get rid of some groups in places where they were never popular like the baaths in Kurdistan and shia areas. then you could add other groups in its place.

2. i wasn't sure of what the numbers were before but i think it is a great idea. also in al anbar al quida is weakening and is being kicked out my locals.

3. i dont think there should be a negative bonus as much as a decreeing bonus like -1 for each different party you have in a city so that you will still get a bonus but a reduced one.

4. (my own idea) i think to get a continent bonus you should have at least some presence n all of the cities on that contenent

this map is terrible

Goalie wrote:this map is terrible

the expert speaks

i am an expert
ur the loser

Goalie wrote:i am an expert
ur the loser

hows the cooks hat?

1. you wouldn't have the problem of over crampness if you get rid of some groups in places where they were never popular like the baaths in Kurdistan and shia areas. then you could add other groups in its place.

that could work, as long as it wasn't too lopsided. since you seem to be the resident expert, care to tell me which groups are where?

2. i wasn't sure of what the numbers were before but i think it is a great idea. also in al anbar al quida is weakening and is being kicked out my locals.

well the map isn't about Iraq right now or Iraq 4 years ago, its more like Iraq over the past 4 years.

3. i dont think there should be a negative bonus as much as a decreeing bonus like -1 for each different party you have in a city so that you will still get a bonus but a reduced one.

well for this to work the bonus would have to be much higher and then it might get out of control. Like +3 for each allied city, other wise a 'reduced' bonus of +1 wouldn't hold much weight. I do kinda like the idea of having a negative bonus for two enemies, since its like some city conflict. and when you think about it, the only time these bonuses would come up is in the end game, when someone is mopping up the last hold outs of an opponent. I will give it more thought tho.

4. (my own idea) i think to get a continent bonus you should have at least some presence n all of the cities on that contenent

i dunno, i think the contenents will be difficult enough to take, considering the mixed territories and such.