Conquer Club

You’re right stazn! I haven’t been playing duels for a long time...

Ok.. Eastern European regions are creating a lot of controversy. Understandably, I might add. Being so, I’ve done an all new version without any EE regions. I kinda like it actually... we’ll be losing those northern passages and enclosing the map a little more but conceptually we’ll be making it clearer.
Fixed positions have been updated with more balanced starting numbers, so players won’t be overthrown of their home lands without even making their first move.

I'm going to lean towards keeping the Eastern regions out. I think it looks good without them and keeps the focus on the actual states that mattered.

I'm starting to wonder if the fixed positions should get some sort of auto-deploy, to further encourage a player to develop his holdings closer to his starting point. On the flip side, it might encourage a player to let his capitol build up on autodeploy while he tries and captures another capitol before the next guy gets his turn.

Perhaps you could start the capitols at a higher number, say 5, to prevent an early capitol take over and include the autodeploy.

Also, if I start a two player game with this map, will the other capitols start neutral save the two player's capitols or will they be divided up, ect.?

Kabanellas wrote:You’re right stazn! I haven’t been playing duels for a long time...

Ok.. Eastern European regions are creating a lot of controversy. Understandably, I might add. Being so, I’ve done an all new version without any EE regions. I kinda like it actually... we’ll be losing those northern passages and enclosing the map a little more but conceptually we’ll be making it clearer.
Fixed positions have been updated with more balanced starting numbers, so players won’t be overthrown of their home lands without even making their first move.

Indeed, it cleans up it nicely!

1 suggestion: can we use some other color, not the off-white, please?

Industrial Helix wrote:Also, if I start a two player game with this map, will the other capitols start neutral save the two player's capitols or will they be divided up, ect.?

The game engine will try to divide the starting territories between all the players equally, as many as possible. The remainder of the starting territories will be started neutral.

looks good without eastern europe. and that space might be used to unclutter a bit of the legend?

Well, here it is. Version 9 -

-Fixed positions updated
-No more Eastern European countries
-redone some of the artwork and added some more

V9

[bigimg]http://www.freewebs.com/kabanellas/Third_Crusade_Beta_V9.jpg[/bigimg]

Looks very good.

whitestazn88 wrote:and that space might be used to unclutter a bit of the legend?

i agree with that. You can move the Knights Templar bonus there, into the yellow rectangle. Or maybe even all the one way attack routes. And actually it can fix the problem for the listing the countries in the order they appear on the map...

Industrial Helix wrote:Perhaps you could start the capitols at a higher number, say 5, to prevent an early capitol take over and include the autodeploy.

Helix, We've already set the capitols to 5 except London. Making Wales neutral will take out the risk of that player losing his homeland and not being able to take it back, on the other side not raising his starting number to 5, keeping the usual 3 (or even reduce it to 2), will give him a well needed handy-cap so things won't get too easy for that player.

This map looks awesome.

I have some suggestions about names of some territories (cuz they r not right).
1st : Zara is old name for Zadar and Zadar is a city on Dalmatian coast. So it's wrong to name the whole territory Zara. And Zadar was totally ruined in 1202 (and thats 4th crusade), so if u considered devastation of Zadar like history battle of 3rd crusade it's also wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zadar). My opinion is that the best name for that territory will be Dalmatia (or Dalmacija in native croatian).
2nd: Semlin (or Zemun in Serbian) is a city near Beograd in Serbia. So it's totally wrong to name territory like that. The best name will be Slavonia (or Slavonija in croatian).
That's only suggestion but I think it will be more exact.
Here's the map of 3rd crusade where u can look http://www.emersonkent.com/images/europ ... n_1190.jpg

It seems that every territory border line you have is straight. Use the pen tool to add some curvature by removing the angles. You don't need to do it everywhere, but places like Sicily, Bohemia, etc. really need some work.

Also, remove the numbers of region bonuses from the main map. While you have done one of the best jobs working them into the map, they really have no place there.

You should really redraw The Balkans and Hungary territory borders.
- There is no need for Budapest to extend so far down, cut it off and have Semlin and Transylavania border instead.
- Bulgaria looks like it was rammed into a spot too small for it and distorted shape, I would advise simply putting Bessarabia and Bulgaria side by side where there is more room, rather than top to bottom.

In places like Navarra, most people fade the territory border right where the name crosses over it. Consider doing that as well for Trebizond, and Krak des Chevaliers (definitely).

(with the last adjustment, you would be capable of keeping all names on the map horizontal, but that is really only a personal preference)

The map looks great, I love it! Your style and the gameplay are just what I like. Hope to play on this one soon.

Much better without Eastern Europe in there at all a great improvement.

DimnjacarStef wrote:This map looks awesome.

I have some suggestions about names of some territories (cuz they r not right).
1st : Zara is old name for Zadar and Zadar is a city on Dalmatian coast. So it's wrong to name the whole territory Zara. And Zadar was totally ruined in 1202 (and thats 4th crusade), so if u considered devastation of Zadar like history battle of 3rd crusade it's also wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zadar). My opinion is that the best name for that territory will be Dalmatia (or Dalmacija in native croatian).
2nd: Semlin (or Zemun in Serbian) is a city near Beograd in Serbia. So it's totally wrong to name territory like that. The best name will be Slavonia (or Slavonija in croatian).
That's only suggestion but I think it will be more exact.
Here's the map of 3rd crusade where u can look http://www.emersonkent.com/images/europ ... n_1190.jpg

On that piont Cracow is Kraków in Polish, did u pull gnessen out of your arse? it should be Gniezno (wiki says Gnesen in German), and also Posen is Poznań.
In addition, they're all cities rather than regions, so the middle could be Mazowsze, the north Pomorze-Wielkopolska and the south could be Małopolska. I know in actual fact there are 13 more regions, but those are the main ones, some of the other ones have names derived from them.
With that naming convention though, the borders would have to change, they should all be skewed about 30 degrees anticlockwise. here's an OK reference map from a time a bit earlier: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Polska_1039_-_1058.png

DimnjacarStef wrote:This map looks awesome.

I have some suggestions about names of some territories (cuz they r not right).
1st : Zara is old name for Zadar and Zadar is a city on Dalmatian coast. So it's wrong to name the whole territory Zara. And Zadar was totally ruined in 1202 (and thats 4th crusade), so if u considered devastation of Zadar like history battle of 3rd crusade it's also wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zadar). My opinion is that the best name for that territory will be Dalmatia (or Dalmacija in native croatian).
2nd: Semlin (or Zemun in Serbian) is a city near Beograd in Serbia. So it's totally wrong to name territory like that. The best name will be Slavonia (or Slavonija in croatian).
That's only suggestion but I think it will be more exact.
Here's the map of 3rd crusade where u can look http://www.emersonkent.com/images/europ ... n_1190.jpg

Thanks a lot. Actually the map I’ve used as a matrix is that you’ve shown (I’ve posted it below). As for the cities’ names being represented in regions that’s completely intentional and it happens in a lot of cases ( London, Paris, Ratisbone, Constantinople, Alexandria, Cairo, Damascus and so on….).

Anyway, concerning Zadar or Zara (the city was most commonly know by that time as Zara) I could take your idea of turning it to Dalmatia though Zara/Zadar would be a more ‘unseen’ name. As for Semlin, yes you’re right it’s a bit out of place in that region - I’ll take your suggestion and change it to Slavonia.

Europe in 1190
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/europe_mediterranean_1190.jpg
[bigimg]http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/europe_mediterranean_1190.jpg[/bigimg]

barterer2002 wrote:Much better without Eastern Europe in there at all a great improvement.

Tanks Barterer!

The Neon Peon wrote:It seems that every territory border line you have is straight. Use the pen tool to add some curvature by removing the angles. You don't need to do it everywhere, but places like Sicily, Bohemia, etc. really need some work.

Also, remove the numbers of region bonuses from the main map. While you have done one of the best jobs working them into the map, they really have no place there.

You should really redraw The Balkans and Hungary territory borders.
- There is no need for Budapest to extend so far down, cut it off and have Semlin and Transylavania border instead.
- Bulgaria looks like it was rammed into a spot too small for it and distorted shape, I would advise simply putting Bessarabia and Bulgaria side by side where there is more room, rather than top to bottom.

In places like Navarra, most people fade the territory border right where the name crosses over it. Consider doing that as well for Trebizond, and Krak des Chevaliers (definitely).

(with the last adjustment, you would be capable of keeping all names on the map horizontal, but that is really only a personal preference)

The map looks great, I love it! Your style and the gameplay are just what I like. Hope to play on this one soon.

Thanks Neon, I'll try to improve some of the graphical aspects that you've mentioned. As for the Budapest extending down, it was my intention to leave Hungary with 4 borders facing the byzantines. Concerning Bulgaria - those were the limits (and shape) of that territory by that time, so I'm sticking to it for a question of historical coherence.

The bonuses numbers were up to discussion for quite a long time and in fact they were inserted in a poll - the current option won . and actually IMO they help a lot the player to get an instant perception of the map game-play.

Icon, you’re right it should be Gnesen as it shows in the map not Gnessen - i'll correct it in the next version.

As for the names – for a matter of coherence I’m sticking to the names read on the map I’ve posted above and like I’ve previously explained most of regions do (intentionally) refer to cities. (Paris, London, Cairo and so on…)

K

Greece is much better.
I like this a lot!

captainwalrus wrote:Greece is much better.
I like this a lot!

Thanks a lot Cap.

Version 9.1

some minor adjustments made as requested by some of you guys.

[bigimg]http://www.freewebs.com/kabanellas/Third_Crusade_V9.1.jpg[/bigimg]

Looks awesome, great job Kabanellas!

Thanks! (your contribution just made it better)

This map has made a long way, and we pretty much solved every issue that was raised.
Now I feel that is time to get into a more detailed step like bonus distribution and how does it affect the gameplay.

K

this is a complex map that u've attempted, [player]kabanellas[/player], but it is certainly impressive so far.

barterer2002 wrote:Much better without Eastern Europe in there at all a great improvement.

i have to agree here. no-one wanted much of the action to take place in eastern europe, which was not an important part of the battles of the third crusade. making the area unplayable was the easiest way to solve that problem.

in english, just as in latin, AD is correctly placed before the year, not after it. can u amend the title accordingly?

http://www.catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=31823
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anno+Domini

Kabanellas wrote:We've already set the capitols to 5 except London. Making Wales neutral will take out the risk of that player losing his homeland and not being able to take it back, on the other side not raising his starting number to 5, keeping the usual 3 (or even reduce it to 2), will give him a well needed handy-cap so things won't get too easy for that player.

until his death in AD 1199, normandy was ruled by the french-speaking king richard of england, not by paris. normandy and england were both part of the plantagenet lands (sometimes called the angevin empire, after the city and county of anjou), so normandy ought to be the same colour as england. the london player will therefore receive no bonus unless he holds either normandy or cyprus. this will encourage him to attack something instead of just building.

http://www.allcrusades.com/MAPS/MAPS_IN ... d-map.html
http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~s285238/Briti ... s.html#565

the sea routes look rather messy, with lines that cross each other. i suggest using lines to divide the water into sea regions, similar to those in the land and sea map, with only ports being able to attack the sea and (same as in alexander's empire) islands being able to attack only the sea. as an example, london, crete, cyprus, malta, alexandria, st jean d'acre, tripoli and selinus will all be able to attack the eastern med sea region, with cyprus being adjacent only to the eastern med sea region.

Industrial Helix wrote:Perhaps you could start the capitols at a higher number, say 5, to prevent an early capitol take over and include the autodeploy.

although u've done this already, i wonder if u've considered having conquest-style gameplay that contrasts with the first crusade map that is also making its way through the foundry. u have exactly 8 capitals that are not adjacent to each other, so the map appears to be suited to this.

ian.

iancanton wrote:

Industrial Helix wrote:Perhaps you could start the capitols at a higher number, say 5, to prevent an early capitol take over and include the autodeploy.

although u've done this already, i wonder if u've considered having conquest-style gameplay that contrasts with the first crusade map that is also making its way through the foundry. u have exactly 8 capitals that are not adjacent to each other, so the map appears to be suited to this.

ian.

Probably it is not explained properly on this first page. But this map will have mixed deployed, which will make it quite unique.

There are 8 starting position (to make it conquest-like map) but in the same time, other territories will be distributed randomly.

I dont think turning this map into the true conquest-like map will be it balanced. Some starting positions are dangerously close to each other, which will make early elimination way too possible.

Look for example into the AOR series of map. Even though the starting position are on the relatively same distance between each other, and there was a great deal of balancing going on with the neutrals, there are some better starting points and there are worse. On the such complex map like this it will be even more unbalanced.

Thanks Ian for all that feedback.

Actually, all my study resources, both internet and history books, are not precise when describing England possessions in France. I knew it was so (going back to the Hundred Years’ Wars) but I didn’t know that England already owned Normandy in 1190.

Being so, I’ll make Normandy an extension to England bonus rather than making it mandatory to own in order to get all of those zone-bonus. I’ll need to maintain the English Channel buffer region, being those 2 capitols so close to each other.

As for the sea ways, I took out the Malta-Cyprus connection to avoid intersection lines. I really prefer to avoid sea regions in this map. It just doesn’t seem right to me seeing armies stocking up in the Mediterranean regions. Also, we wouldn't want to create any more regions. We already have 59 deployable regions + 8 fixed starting positions.

Changed Anno Domini location in the title

Like Andrew explained - this will be a mixed deployment map. It was initially intended to be an all fixed position, conquest style map. But after much consideration and facing the apparently impossibility of maintaining a correct balance between players, we've decided to make it mixed. (I have to give credit to Barterer for bringing up this idea)

Ahhh, Andrew, I’ve rearranged the legend – organized countries accordingly to faction and location. Hope it seems better now!

K

Version 10
[bigimg]http://www.freewebs.com/kabanellas/Third_Crusade_V10.jpg[/bigimg]

Starting positions would have given a good difference to Beko's map, but, as you say, establishing some kind of fairness between starts would have been very difficult if the starting positions, bonus system and historical accuracy were to be maintained.

I am assuming the coloured army numbers and values are now irrelevant then?

With mixed-deployment you may need to have some coding for the smaller bonus regions (just the independent ones with 3 regions or less).

Which regions would start neutral? Just those that are part of the objective?

Overall, a nice map, and interesting gameplay with the long-distance links.

Thanks DJ

actually we will have BOTH kind of deployment.

-8 starting fixed positions randomly distributed by players (London,Paris,Castile,Tunis, Ratisbone, Thessalonica, Amasia and Cairo)+ 59 regions to be randomly distributed by players. All regions starting neutral are represented on map with white numbers.