The Third Crusade [Quenched] Revamping

[AndrewB]

+1 each poland,etc,etc is a strange call, in this way some players will have a +1 bonus in the first turn, Appealing?

It is not for each region in Poland.

In Poland country, there are 3 regions. U need to hold all 3 to get +1

[AndrewB]

England +2? is too easy (and if i think about a lucky drop), and it isn't fair compared with norman kingdom. +1 england/+2 norman?
Saladin, 4 regions, 3 to defend=6 and almohads, 4 regions, 4 to defend=4 ? i think they are both +4.
iberian, 7 regions, 3 borders, maybe only +4?

England should not be compared to the norman kingdom. England is part of the objectives, Norman countries are not.

And as per other bonuses, please understand that this is a conquest map, and it is desired a victory by the objectives. So the higher the usual bonuses are justified.

[Fireside Poet]

The font, the subtlety - map B is the choice.

[Kabanellas]

Ok, I guess we have a winner!

We'll be keeping option C with the bonus marks appearing on regions.
I’ve done some extra art on Version 8 as well, hope you like it.

I’ll be making a poll concerning the Eastern Europe bonus that we all so much talk about.

[thenobodies80]

No reason to hold this map in the drafting room. We have a good map, but certainly the gameplay guys will help you with the big neutral zone and other small tweaks

I am pleased to issue this map the draft stamp on behalf of the foundry community


Welcome to the foundry proper!

thenobodies80

[Kabanellas]

Yupiiii (drinks are on me)

Thanks!!!

Now getting back to work - people don't forget the European Bonus discussion.

Concerning the gray Eastern European regions, we’re stuck with the following options:

a) Leave it as it is – an out of map area though passable for strategic purposes
b) Keep them with those 2 neutrals but giving a 1 troop bonus for each 3 regions
c) Make all them assignable to be distributed by all players, giving the same bonus as in option (b)

[AndrewB]

Great job, Kanabellas! Congratulations!

[barterer2002]

I kind of like A since you really don't want the crusades to be fighting in Poland as much.

[Kabanellas]

yes, that makes perfect sense... Well I'm just waiting on the mods to end the last poll so I can start a new one.

[captainwalrus]

If you just change the question and options a new poll comes up.

[Industrial Helix]

I'm in favor of leaving Eastern Europe open to random deployment... eastern Europe has little relevance to the game objective and not a terribly good position towards gaining an advantage of the game objective. I can't see any reason to use it if it's all neutrals because if it was a good option towards getting to the mid east, the amount of men needed would be better used working on defeating a player directly.

I think in keeping it open to random deployment, the area will come into more use and have some potential as a base from which to work with and also to attack the mid east from. As for no bonus for it, I say keep it that way as it wasn't terribly important to the Third Crusade but was still present; the no bonus reflects that. And being able to use it to get your 1 man for every three terrs expresses the usefulness of controlling the region, just like it would be useful to control the same amount of terrs in any other part of Europe.

So, random deployment, no bonus, regular reward system for holding those territories and I hope my explanations made sense

[whitestazn88]

I'm in favor of leaving Eastern Europe open to random deployment... eastern Europe has little relevance to the game objective and not a terribly good position towards gaining an advantage of the game objective. I can't see any reason to use it if it's all neutrals because if it was a good option towards getting to the mid east, the amount of men needed would be better used working on defeating a player directly.

I think in keeping it open to random deployment, the area will come into more use and have some potential as a base from which to work with and also to attack the mid east from. As for no bonus for it, I say keep it that way as it wasn't terribly important to the Third Crusade but was still present; the no bonus reflects that. And being able to use it to get your 1 man for every three terrs expresses the usefulness of controlling the region, just like it would be useful to control the same amount of terrs in any other part of Europe.

So, random deployment, no bonus, regular reward system for holding those territories and I hope my explanations made sense

thats what i was thinking as well. there's no point in saying "it can be used as a counter attack route" because there would be too many neutrals to go thru to even be worth it... most people will go straight in.

[Incandenza]

I agree with most of Helix's thinking, tho I think that there should be a +1 for every 3 EE terits held. Unless you're playing 1v1, if you end up with a bunch of EE terits, you're going to be very very weak elsewhere, and that extra bonus could keep you in the game after such a basically shitty drop.

[Kabanellas]

I kind of like A since you really don't want the crusades to be fighting in Poland as much.

Barterer made a point there... and that was indeed my original intention - passable for strategic reasons, but of small importance for the game-play itself. And I'm not feeling very comfortable on someone being over deployed in that area...

But, I'm completely whiling to change it. I'd just like to put it up to vote, but first the last poll needs to be reset.

[AndyDufresne]

Poll issues may be fixed now, give it a try.


--Andy

[whitestazn88]

I kind of like A since you really don't want the crusades to be fighting in Poland as much.

Barterer made a point there... and that was indeed my original intention - passable for strategic reasons, but of small importance for the game-play itself. And I'm not feeling very comfortable on someone being over deployed in that area...

But, I'm completely whiling to change it. I'd just like to put it up to vote, but first the last poll needs to be reset.

it doesn't matter what the intentions are, and what the historical significance is. if it makes gameplay imbalanced it should either be removed or have a bonus added to it.

[Kabanellas]

ok... then they could start neutral but keeping those 3 regions/1 Troop bonus that we've been talking about, up to total of 4 troops (being a total of 12 grey regions)....

well Stazn don't forget to vote

[AndrewB]

voted C for me, agree with Incan reasoning...

[00iCon]

I voted for A&B because it should start neutral and also maybe +1 for 4 regions.
OH! stroke of genius. make East E some large territories with excellent tactical advantages(like good routes on ships from the coastal terits) but you lose troops for holding too many.
wait... I'll draw something

[00iCon]

My suggestion was to penalise the players for using Russia, perhaps -1 for holding 2, because there's 8. Then perhaps reduced to -3 for holding all 8.

Ok. here's an idea:

Cossack Communities are impassable.

I left some country names so there are 2 in some territiories

I dont' know what I could name the added yellow country, I'm not a historian.

Some suggestions for sea routes were drawn in red. Actually, the one between Angora and Kassogs should change to one way, attacking Angora from Kassogs. The one to somewhere would probably end near the holy cities themselves.

NOW YOU APPRECIATE THIS! All I did was waste precious study time half a week before my EFFING HSC TRIALS! (please pity me and pm me some luck)

This is a just suggestion and I expect the country sizes, sea routes and Cossack placements to change, and the Bulgaria suggestion I don't mind if it's ignored.

[Kabanellas]

Icon – good luck for your trials!

About the map -remember that everything further (including rules /concepts and even art) that we make concerning Eastern European regions, would be giving to much importance to that area of the map. And that’s the opposite from what I want. Like I said before: The Third Crusade is not meant to be fought there (as it was not)

I must say that I do incline for option B after much thinking: neutral area but giving a 1 tr. per 3 regions bonus. People won’t have to fight in those areas, so it could just be left there ‘forgotten’ and ignored. But if by any strategic reason you need to go through them, you can do it. And get a bonus for it. Plus we have already 58 regions to be distributed by players. i.e. in a 3 player game you'll get a starting bonus of 7 troops [(58/3) + 2 (starting positions x 2 for each player) = 21. 21/3 = 7 that's seems enough.

Also, we need to think about the number of starting troops in the fixed positions. 3 is way too low; a player would be able to, in the first round, wipe another player from his home land (starting position). I’m considering an initial 5 troops for every starting position, except London that should remain with 3 but with Wales starting with 3 neutrals.

K

[whitestazn88]

Icon – good luck for your trials!

About the map -remember that everything further (including rules /concepts and even art) that we make concerning Eastern European regions, would be giving to much importance to that area of the map. And that’s the opposite from what I want. Like I said before: The Third Crusade is not meant to be fought there (as it was not)

I must say that I do incline for option B after much thinking: neutral area but giving a 1 tr. per 3 regions bonus. People won’t have to fight in those areas, so it could just be left there ‘forgotten’ and ignored. But if by any strategic reason you need to go through them, you can do it. And get a bonus for it. Plus we have already 58 regions to be distributed by players. i.e. in a 3 player game you'll get a starting bonus of 7 troops [(58/3) + 2 (starting positions x 2 for each player) = 21. 21/3 = 7 that's seems enough.

Also, we need to think about the number of starting troops in the fixed positions. 3 is way too low; a player would be able to, in the first round, wipe another player from his home land (starting position). I’m considering an initial 5 troops for every starting position, except London that should remain with 3 but with Wales starting with 3 neutrals.

K

if you make eastern europe open for all players, then in a 2 player game, peoples bonuses won't be broken as easily. you'd have to take 3 territs from someone to drop them to 6 if there were 23 starting territs per person...

[Kabanellas]

Well stazn, in a 2 player game you’ll have 58 terts. divided by 2, which would be 29 plus 8 starting points divided by 2, making a total of 29+4= 33 regions each player. Holding a bonus of 11 troops…. With the EE terits(we’re talking of 12 terits here). You would have 11 + 2 (from 6 more regions) + 2 (from EE bonus – 1 for each 3 terts), making a total of 15 troops – Way too many I think.

Of course this map is better suited to be played by 4 or more players, but anyway…..

[whitestazn88]

Well stazn, in a 2 player game you’ll have 58 terts. divided by 2, which would be 29 plus 8 starting points divided by 2, making a total of 29+4= 33 regions each player. Holding a bonus of 11 troops…. With the EE terits(we’re talking of 12 terits here). You would have 11 + 2 (from 6 more regions) + 2 (from EE bonus – 1 for each 3 terts), making a total of 15 troops – Way too many I think.

Of course this map is better suited to be played by 4 or more players, but anyway…..

actually, in a 2 player game, there are 58 terrrits divided by 3 because 1/3 of them are neutrals. plus 8 starting points divided by 3 which is 2 each w/ 2 more neutral. that leaves you at the 7 you stated would be put in a 3 player game. if you have 12 EE terits, yeah, that might be a little much, but you could make it into 8 or 9 territs which would even things out a bit.

[AndrewB]

If the Third Crusade were not fought in Eastern Europe, then remove them altogether.

Your point about strategic path is a bit flawed.

The only person who could use it as a strategic path is HRE trying to break in some one holding the objectives.

But HRE have already several paths to do that...