Ideas for combined hex and area maps

[zookeeper]

Now, I went and implemented an area map system in WML (and you can imagine what kind of a pain that was). Mostly for Storm of Steel, but slightly out of curiosity as well. Those unfamiliar with the term, an area map is a map in which the game board is divided into irregular areas that connect to each other in irregular ways (check the attached image). However, in this case, the area maps only exist on top of the hex map, meaning that the hexes are still the basic units of which the map is built of. Adjacent hexes form areas that are irregular, but still conform to the hex borders. So for example it's still the hexes, not areas, that regulate movement and a unit's location inside an area matters.

Now, I don't have any definite ideas of what these areas would do. Currently, the way I've made it in SoS, is that each supply center (the SoS equivalent of a village) is the center of one area. Every area has one supply center, and only one. By controlling the center (which is just like how you control villages in Wesnoth), you control the whole area. Currently the areas are always limited by land and do not extend into water and thus having no effect at the sea, but I might change this.

The obvious gameplay effect that controlling an area could have is a defense boost: fight on an area you control and you get a combat boost. However, I feel this would be a bit too simple (or boring) and might mostly only increase the odds of stalemates, among other things. So, I'm looking for ideas: what other gameplay effects could areas like this have?

[Ultimatum479]

A sort of zone-of-control effect, slowing down enemy units? The defense bonus makes sense if it's WWI due to the trenches you'd have set up in your area, but with the no-man's-land areas of WWI, it'd also make sense that it costs extra movement to safely enter an enemy-controlled area.

[Mist]

Sourging my memory for boardgame experiences I can immediately give you three mechanisms I encountered :

1 : Morale

All areas are initialy owned by one of the conflict sides. Capturing an enemy area gives your forces morale boost (we're kicking their asses!) Loosing yours gives you morale drop (we're having our ass kicked!)
Note that in this system recapturing area initialy owned by an ally doesn't give you morale boost but have an effect both on your ally and your enemy.
Morale should affect whole army and could give any kind of bonus (improved/decrased CTH, defense, hitpoints, dmg, movement) in any combination

2 : Nationalisms

I don't know if you plan to implement nations, but if yes controlng most (90%) of one nations area could give you various bonuses from increased production by increased recruitment to nation specific units (hell he is to strong to have as an enemy, let's tag along and kick some ass)

3 : Transport

Controling an area means you know the transport network layout and it's more or less safe, meaning you can move slightly faster.

[Drake Blademaster]

I agree with Mist.

But for the territory control, will there be one village per territory, or will there be more?

Own only village in territory = own territory.

[Ultimatum479]

Yeah, I'm not sure the idea of having a single supply center per territory will work out. Guess it all comes down to playtesting, but it seems to me that owning the _most_ supply centers in a territory would be a better way to control it...

[Drake Blademaster]

What I was really saying was: can you control a territory, and if so, what are the benefits? More gold, I'm guessing, but anything else?

[Ultimatum479]

...Dude, that's what he was asking US.

[Darn Penguin]

I'm not sure if there's anything I can add. Maybe a diplomacy system similar to AoE would be more appropriate than Wesnoth's "Either it's your friend or another target" approach. You could even have scenarios with two factions trying to get their diplomat to a neutral third party first, and whoever gets there first gets that third party as an ally.

as far as the map system, my fellow council members have stated all there is to be stated. As Drake's avatar says, the council has spoken.

[Drake Blademaster]

Well, What I was thinking was that each territory could have a different bonus. eg. control territory X and receive a fire dragon. Control territory Y and earn +5 additional income. Loss the territory, loose the bonus.

[elricz]

You may have one unit per faction with an ambush like ability, that only works inside controlled areas. It would be some sort of "guerrilla" style.

[Ultimatum479]

I dunno...Guerrila-style warfare is generally when you _don't_ have control of the supply center.

[zookeeper]

Sourging my memory for boardgame experiences I can immediately give you three mechanisms I encountered :

1 : Morale

All areas are initialy owned by one of the conflict sides. Capturing an enemy area gives your forces morale boost (we're kicking their asses!) Loosing yours gives you morale drop (we're having our ass kicked!)
Note that in this system recapturing area initialy owned by an ally doesn't give you morale boost but have an effect both on your ally and your enemy.
Morale should affect whole army and could give any kind of bonus (improved/decrased CTH, defense, hitpoints, dmg, movement) in any combination

Morale is something I've thought about but haven't really decided anything about. A global morale as you seem to be implying would seem to have more problems than per-unit-morale, though: it would be something which would pretty much always favour the winning side, for example. Anyway, as I said, I'm still very unsure about the whole morale thing, so we'll see about that later.

2 : Nationalisms

I don't know if you plan to implement nations, but if yes controlng most (90%) of one nations area could give you various bonuses from increased production by increased recruitment to nation specific units (hell he is to strong to have as an enemy, let's tag along and kick some ass)

I haven't intended to implement nations as such, as the maps/scenarios are supposed to represent smaller battlefields (still, I'll probably end up with a scenario on a big map of Europe eventually) and thus it wouldn't really fit. Besides, I'd like to avoid introducing grand strategy -like stuff, because that would probably lead to both bigger maps and longer playtimes as well as people asking for more and more features (diplomacy, other big decision-making possibilities, etc).

3 : Transport

Controling an area means you know the transport network layout and it's more or less safe, meaning you can move slightly faster.

Good idea. I thought of how this could be done earlier, but the obvious solution didn't really strike me until now: railroads and airfields. I don't think I want to limit the normal movement of most units in hostile territory since that'd again make attacking enemy positions even more difficult than it otherwise will be, but limiting the use of railroads and airfields under enemy control sounds excellent. Of course, currently the only unit that cares about railroads one bit is the railgun, but I suppose I could change things so that every unit would get a movement boost on them (changing to having 2MP on plains and 1MP on railroad). As for airfields, airplanes could not stop to refuel in enemy-controlled areas.

Well, What I was thinking was that each territory could have a different bonus. eg. control territory X and receive a fire dragon. Control territory Y and earn +5 additional income. Loss the territory, loose the bonus.

Sure, could be done. I'd probably prefer it to be rather limited, as in for example areas only supplying you with the capability to build new kinds of units (like control a rare coastal area and be able to build ships). Different area-specific bonuses could be defined on the scenario level, of course. Right now I'm most interested in getting the base system working on top of which I can add scenario-specific exceptions.

[Jetrel]

Wow.

[zookeeper]

Wow.

I'm all wow too when a scenario using that system takes half a minute or more to start. That is, it's not quite perfect yet.

[Ultimatum479]

Don't like the idea of slowing down non-flying enemy units? v_V But...barbed wire! Land mines!