The Third Crusade [Quenched] Revamping

[00iCon]

I think that the capitals only having 5 troops is too few. Since regions will be distributed randomly, on the first turn, one player can deploy his 3 on a region, 3, next to a capital, 5. 3+3>5 and you can lose your capital on the first turn! Pehaps just one more for each capital. Problem with England getting a bonus of 2 on turn 2 could be resolved by giving London+Wales a bonus of one, then maybe a total of 4 for holding Normandy later.

[Kabanellas]

Yes, I was thinking about it too, raising capitals’ troops.

In a 4 player game you will start, in this map, with 5 troops – 5+3= 8 troops against 5 (73% chance of the attacker winning). Of course that you could, even if you win, end up with just 3 or 4 troops and then become an easy target for the next guy… not winning and just destroy some garrison would just make that capital an easy target to another player. Don’t know if in the end all this would compensate.

Raising those 5 to 6 could mean that neutrals in the holy land had to be revised.

As for England – we could do that, drop the motherland bonus to 1 and give a +2 in Normandy (or just keep that +1). We could, also, drop the London garrison from 3 to 2. Not sure about any of those possibilities yet…

[Industrial Helix]

Haven't checked up on this map in a while... but you've made some nice changes. I like the inclusion of Normandy into England as it helps alleviate the feeling that England was a tad too small. It's dangerously close to Paris though, but between the neutrals and auto deploy it should be alright.

Nice restructuring on the legend.

I also favor raising the starting positions up a tad, maybe 7 or so?

Ok, my middle ages history isn't great... but why does Castille have a Maltese cross on it? I took a quick look through wikipedia and all I can find is that they were linked around the 16th c. I could be completely missing something though.

I have a question about the objective victory... Is your original starting position required for the win or can a player just take any European starting point?

This is more a graphical tidbit, but I think you ought to get rid of the big numbers on the playing map... the legend is pretty clear, especially now that its been reorganized.

But on the whole, looks great. I really want to play it!

[Kabanellas]

Thanks a lot Helix!

Well, the cross represents the Knights Templar. And that was a way of making a connection between Castile and the Holy Land.

One of the initial problems was that Castile (starting position) had no presence where the action is in this map, and was by far the most out placed starting position. It had no connections to the Holy Land, contrary to London, Paris and Ratisbone. After much consideration it came to me that the only way that I could do it without losing the historical perspective was to create a link between the Knights Templar located in the Iberian Peninsula (where they were strong – both in Spain as in Portugal) and the Holy Land.

as for the numbers... the map would look cleaner without them.. that's for sure - but on the other hand they give a clear and easy perspective of bonus distribution.... I might put it on a poll

one of the victory points should be the homeland of each player (his/her starting position). Andrew is the XML man... but I think that this is possibly that way.....

[AndrewB]

I think that the capitals only having 5 troops is too few. Since regions will be distributed randomly, on the first turn, one player can deploy his 3 on a region, 3, next to a capital, 5. 3+3>5 and you can lose your capital on the first turn! Pehaps just one more for each capital.

I don't see it as a big issue? Why someone would attack the capital in the first round while it does not bring any bonuses?

Problem with England getting a bonus of 2 on turn 2 could be resolved by giving London+Wales a bonus of one, then maybe a total of 4 for holding Normandy later.

We can raise a Wales neutrals to 4, but +2 I think +2 is well justified bonus for that, giving the objectives side of the play in the long run.

[AndrewB]

I have a question about the objective victory... Is your original starting position required for the win or can a player just take any European starting point?

Unfortunately the current XML does not support a way of checking for the ORIGINAL starting position.

So any of the starting position will full fill the objective.

[Kabanellas]

Thanks Andrew.

I'm posting Version 11:
-Starting Points' troops increased
-Slight adjustment in Almohad bonus
-Wales now with 4 starting neutrals
-Redone victory objectives legend
-Added a different symbol to all Starting Points

Click image to enlarge.

[Industrial Helix]

Your statemnt about Malta down there... I think attack ought to have an s at the end. It seems kind of ambiguous as I was a tad confused at first. I presume Castille attacks Malta which attacks place in the Holy Land. The directions just need a tad clarification.

I want to suggest dropping Venice down to 3, it's only got a single autodeploy.

You've got the word capitals floating out in the Med... also, should be spelled with an -ol if referring to capitol cities. And I think you ought to start calling the starting points capitols for simplicity's sake. I kind of wonder if anyone is gonna notice that there are starting points as the rest of the map is mixed deployment, they might just notice they landed a capitol on their original deployment.

I also wonder if krak de chevaliers ought to be 5 and Malta 3.

Kingdom of Jerusalem... does it include the city or not... I presume it does but the reds are a different shade and there's room for doubt.

That's all the gp stuff i see atm, I'm really getting anxious to play this thing. I think it's gonna be a real cool map.

[Kabanellas]

Thanks again Helix

Oops… 'Capital' word removed

Btw, isn’t that the correct way of spelling it?:

Capital: A town or city that is the official seat of government in a political entity, such as a state or nation. (quoting the dictionary)

I prefer the term ‘starting position’ because not all those regions were historical capitals, the case of Thessalonica, Amasia or Alexandria.

As for Jerusalem being a part of the Kingdom itself – I’d prefer that it doesn't. I could imagine someone receiving bonuses for holding the Kingdom while making a siege to the city of Jerusalem. Don’t know about the coherence of it though…

..and about making the next step of evolution in the foundry – I just don’t know what more do I need to do to get the Graphics and Adv. Draft stamps….

[Kabanellas]

..referring to the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Actually as it seems... there was a Kingdom even without Jerusalem city itself:

At first the Muslim world had little concern for the fledgling kingdom, but as the 12th century progressed, the kingdom's increasingly-united Muslim neighbours vigorously began to recapture lost territory. Jerusalem itself was lost to Saladin in 1187, and by the 13th century the Kingdom was reduced to a small strip of land along the Mediterranean coast, dominated by a few cities. In this period, the kingdom, sometimes referred to as the "Kingdom of Acre", was dominated by the Lusignan dynasty of the crusader Kingdom of Cyprus, and ties were also strengthened with Tripoli, Antioch, and Armenia. The kingdom was also increasingly dominated by the Italian city-states of Venice and Genoa, as well as the imperial ambitions of the Holy Roman Emperors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Jerusalem

[Kabanellas]

...forgot to comment:

Your statemnt about Malta down there... I think attack ought to have an s at the end. It seems kind of ambiguous as I was a tad confused at first. I presume Castille attacks Malta which attacks place in the Holy Land. The directions just need a tad clarification.

I think that the 'one-way attack' is referred more as an ability that region has, than an occurrence. Like: Castile can 'one-way attack' Malta... well, I've seen it like this in some maps. But like I've said before English is not my first language. So I'm probably wrong

[Industrial Helix]

Hmm... this dictionary you speak of tells me that both capital and capitol are accepted as the spelling fr a capitol city. I was always taught capitol was for cities and capital was for things like capital letters. Did not know they were interchangeable like that.

As for Jerusalem, sounds good. You might want to make it a little more obvious that the Kingdom of Jerusalem is does not include the city. Make the city gold or something?

And for the attack discrepancy, I'd throw an 's' on the end of attack for clarification.

And I think they got rid of the advanced draft stamp, mine being one of the last maps to get it, and they just started moving things wehnt hey felt hey were ready for the jump.

Graphics stamp, I think there has to be a sustained discussion on the graphics as there is a discussion on the gameplay right now. i think your graphics are good, though there's a few tidbits that need cleaning up. Things like the letters in Trebizond crossing over the dotted line, ect.

[00iCon]

With the argument about Capital, how about HQ? I really like the new circles for them.

For a graphics suggestion, pehaps giving all the territories a texture?
And, just being picky, perhaps moving the Coat of Arms on Venice down and right a few pixels so Lombardy looks complete?

This should be finished in no time. Good work!

[AndrewB]

"Capitol" is a building, not synonym for "Capital". http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/capitol

And I am sure that crusaders didn't use "HQ" or "headquarters" for that matter. Way too modern.

"Starting points" serves 2 purposes:

1. Identifies, where people would start.
2. Identifies, what territory is a part of the objectives.

On this map, not every capital is part of the objectives. So we need to differentiate somehow.

[Kabanellas]

Version 11.1 complete.

Helix, I've redone those lines that were overriding the legend and added the 's'

Also, small version completed.

V11.1

Click image to enlarge.

V11.1 small

Click image to enlarge.

[The Neon Peon]

I will say this again, bonus numbers have no place on the main map. Is there any reason you have them there?

P.S. Sorry for being a pain about this, it just ruins the feel of the map for me.

[AndrewB]

i thought there was a poll about the bonus numbers in the map already, wasn't there Kabanellas?

[Kabanellas]

indeed

but if the majority feels different now, I'm open to change it

[Kabanellas]

please comment the small version map, I'd like some feedback.

[00iCon]

When I saw the small version, I thought it was really high quality.

I'd like to repost the suggestion of textures/gradients in the territories.

[ender516]

When I saw the small version, I thought it was really high quality.

I'd like to repost the suggestion of textures/gradients in the territories.

I agree about the small version, but I think that with all the graphics in the oceans and non-playable areas, the plain colours in the territories make a good contrast. Plus, the text stays clear on a solid colour. I recommend that you leave things as they are graphically.

[Kabanellas]

Thanks Icon!

Ender, that was exactly what I’ve felt.

Fireworks, the program that I’ve been using for map-making, has quite a lot of different hatches and textures that you can add on. And actually I’ve tried them at start in this map, without satisfying results.

[iancanton]

I think that the capitals only having 5 troops is too few. Since regions will be distributed randomly, on the first turn, one player can deploy his 3 on a region, 3, next to a capital, 5. 3+3>5 and you can lose your capital on the first turn! Pehaps just one more for each capital.

I don't see it as a big issue? Why someone would attack the capital in the first round while it does not bring any bonuses?

after the game commences, are the starting points treated as normal regions in all respects (no special bonus or auto-deploy for holding them)? if a game has only 2 players, then do u intend the remaining 6 starting points to start neutral?

As for England – we could do that, drop the motherland bonus to 1 and give a +2 in Normandy

Problem with England getting a bonus of 2 on turn 2 could be resolved by giving London+Wales a bonus of one, then maybe a total of 4 for holding Normandy later.

We can raise a Wales neutrals to 4, but +2 I think +2 is well justified bonus for that, giving the objectives side of the play in the long run.

normandy looks a bit better now! i notice that limoges has been kept a non-border region: not historically accurate, but it makes some gameplay sense. i certainly prefer +1 for london & wales, with an extra +2 if normandy is also held. this prevents london from building so easily while gaining a constant +2 in a multiplayer game, knowing that he is safe from attack. obviously, the neutrals for wales and cyprus will need to be reduced slightly if u do this.

the correct spelling of ratisbone is ratisbon. the entire western half of bohemia region was actually part of saxony. can u redraw the borders so that bohemia borders saxony but not lorraine?

the bonus for saladin looks a bit high. does the almohad bonus zone really need to have two sea routes to islands? why not both to tunis?

i rather like the style of the bonus numbers on the main map.

ian.

[Kabanellas]

Thanks Ian!

The idea is that the ‘starting points’ do not hold any kind of auto-deployable bonus. And yes, they should all be coded has neutral.

I know that Normandy alone is not accurate, I know, and actually, I did a version with Aquitaine and Anjou represented, but I ended up losing game-play coherence)

Both me and Andrew would prefer to leave the +2 in London, in the long run would be useful… and with the 4 neutrals and with less troops in ‘London starting point’, things would get even for someone starting in England. Just my opinion though…

Ratisbon – you’re right. I’ll change it.

In the Almohad zone – the route connecting to the Balearic Island makes sense to make a direct connection to France (and it was a possession of the almohads). Directing it from Algiers to Tunis would seem strange in the map, both graphically and geographically….

As for saladin… well I have that same concern. But the player starting there (Alexandria) will face a big challenge with all European powers dropping their armies in the region. Also, Saladin was very strong in that time….

[AndrewB]

I think that the capitals only having 5 troops is too few. Since regions will be distributed randomly, on the first turn, one player can deploy his 3 on a region, 3, next to a capital, 5. 3+3>5 and you can lose your capital on the first turn! Pehaps just one more for each capital.

I don't see it as a big issue? Why someone would attack the capital in the first round while it does not bring any bonuses?

after the game commences, are the starting points treated as normal regions in all respects (no special bonus or auto-deploy for holding them)? if a game has only 2 players, then do u intend the remaining 6 starting points to start neutral?

1. Starting points do not have any special bonuses.
2. In the game of 2 players, each player will get 4 starting positions each.