The Third Crusade [Quenched] Revamping

[Kabanellas]

Guys, ‘Version 7 – random deployment’ referring to option B, as posted before, is ready.

Changes:

-Previous starting locations changed to neutral
-No negative effects between HRE-France-Iberia
-English Channel dropped from 10 to 3 neutrals
-One more region given to France that resulted in less borders facing the HRE
-all non-bonus regions (gray scale) start neutral (have some doubts here, I’ll maybe change them to 2 neutrals)


[bigimg]http://www.freewebs.com/kabanellas/Third_Crusade_BetaV7.jpg[/bigimg]


We have now 2 options – either we take option A – fixed starting positions and we try to balance the game-play and I’m totally available for discussion or we go for option B with random deployment.

[barterer2002]

Well the random deployment fixes my concern with starting position.

A question. Is it possible in the XML to use the starting positions as you'd intended with each player getting an equal number of them and then fill in the rest of the map randomly? Call it option C. Not sure if its doable or even preferable but wanted to throw it out there.

A question I hadn't raised earlier but which will raise now is why does London/Cyprus have a +3, Paris/Tyre +2 and Ratisborn/Selucia a +1? If you take one of the connections away from Cyprus and add two to Selucia then they'll be even. This can be done by fudging the borders a little to allow Konya to attack Selucia and drawing the line from Tripoli to Selucia rather than to Cyprus. This will take some of the power away from Cyprus but still leave it as an important piece and also make the Paris-Seleucia attack line a viable way into the field.

I'm tired tonight and may not be thinking straight so if I'm not making sense just say so.

[whitestazn88]

i like option b. makes it much better

[Kabanellas]

Barterer, I needed to differentiate them for 2 mainly reasons:

Historically makes sense than England gets more reinforcements than the French, and the French more than HRE, in the Middle East. On the other hand it will balance the game a bit more with England receiving (in Europe) less than France and France less than HRE.

Also, Cyprus will be a crash point for the Byzantines (aiming for the Cyprus extra bonus) and for Saladin. Seleucia gives less at start but has a big potential of establishing the Armenia Cilicia Bonus which are +2, making a total of +3.

As for the XML question... might be interesting. Maybe Andrew could answer that

[Industrial Helix]

Hmmm... I typed a huge reply and now its gone...

Well the gist of it was that I prefer random deployment, bonus for holding dual shields, lower neutrals on the shields, easier to attain bonuses in the Holy Land to drive the game there rather than in Europe, removing the neutrals from the Russia area, keep the one way attacks from Europe to the Holy land.

I say, set it up based on random deployment and make progress slowly from there, addressing gameplay aspects one by one.

[AndrewB]

A question. Is it possible in the XML to use the starting positions as you'd intended with each player getting an equal number of them and then fill in the rest of the map randomly? Call it option C. Not sure if its doable or even preferable but wanted to throw it out there.

Yes you can:

viewtopic.php?p=1666582#p1666582

Any territories not in <position> tags, and that do not have <neutral> starts, are divided equally amongst players (with 1/3 neutral in 2-player games)

[Kabanellas]

Thanks Andrew.

Barterer’s question raised an interesting new option that could spice things a bit.

Let’s see:

-We could keep those starting positions, letting all other regions (apart from the neutral ones) be randomly assigned to players.

-we could make some of those fixed positions start with more or less troops, depending on how we feel that they start in advantage or not. (in this case I would raise the Iberian starting position -Leon- to 5......

Helix, I’m thinking on it too – maybe drop a bit those neutrals standing in Cyprus, Tyre and Seleucia.

[AndrewB]

We had nice long discussion with Kabanellas about this map.

Here is the list some of the suggestions/topics:

1. Make Leon connect to holy land easier (through the Malta-Antioch for example)
2. Make objectives easier to hold. By
2.1 Reducing the number of neutrals in them (to 3 neutrals in the bonus baring ones and to 2 otherwise)
2.2 Reducing the number of countries per objective. For Example:
2.2.1 Home Land + Landing point + Jerusalem + (Vatican or Granada)
2.3 Increasing the number of the objectives. For Example:
2.3.1 Jerusalem + (Vatican or Granada) + (2 out of 5 important territories)
3. Review Bonuses for the eastern Europe (+1 is way to low)
4. Add Year label to the title (1190)
5. Make whole Edessa to fit on the inset map (reduce Rakka a bit, move whole Edessa down)
6. Legend needs to be re-think. Way too busy.
6.1 Diagonally hatched territories need better explanation/marking.
6.2 Reduce number of word in the legend. For Example. instead of Kingdom of England - Just say England.
6.3 Reorder the bonuses, so they are listed accordingly to the map layout (Clockwise or top to bottom, left to right)
7. I am still not convinced about the purpose of Russian territories. I doubt anyone will ever attack them. Make them ones, and people can think about bulking up on them.
8. Water link between Venice - Apulia - Larissa is inconsistent as comparing to Crete - Sicily - Malta. (One is just a 3 lines connected together, the other one has nice, curved connections).

[Kabanellas]

Right, after a long chat with AndrewB some points did start to clarify. So here is version 8 of the map, with the mixed deployment option as suggested by Barterer.

- We have now mixed deployment: 8 fixed starting positions with the rest unmarked regions (not neutral) being randomly assigned to every player.
- This map is intended to be won by objectives achievement rather than by conquest. Being so the numbers of objectives were reduced and made more accessible to every player.
- Leon starting position changed to Castile, were a one way attack could take this player to the centre of the action in Malta and consequently to the ‘Krak des Chevaliers’ (Templars/Hospitaliers) stronghold.
- Edessa is now entirely represented in the inset map.
- Added the year of the Crusade to the title.
- One less region in the Almohad zone bonus, making it more balanced for someone starting in Tunis.

Still not convinced on raising the eastern countries bonus (Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria).... As I’ve said before, I don’t want to make this area too appealing.

[bigimg]http://www.freewebs.com/kabanellas/Third_Crusade_BetaV8.jpg[/bigimg]

Those are the changes that, I believe, conclude this phase of development. I pretty much would like to step to the next level now

[eigenvector]

Hey!

This map keeps getting better

Two questions for now:

(1) Are you sure about the Trebixond spelling? I used to think it was Trebizond (or in some translliterations Trapezund).

(2) Can you change the AD to CE? I hope I'm not starting a flamewar here...

Keep up the good work!

[Kabanellas]

thanks Eigen!

You may be right.... In the 1190 map I have, and which I've used as a matrix, it spells Trebixond. though, that in a quick google look you can't find nothing related to it. On the other side tribizond appears quite well documented...

as for C.E. --- i didn't catch it... Hebrew related ?

[thenobodies80]

thanks Eigen!

You may be right.... In the 1190 map I have, and which I've used has a matrix, it spells Trebixond. though, that in a quick google look you can't find nothing related to it. On the other side tribizond appears quite well documented...

as for C.E. --- i didn't catch it... Hebrew related ?

Read here
I think A.D. is better. we are talking about crusades....

[captainwalrus]

I don't want to create tons of work for you, and I think on a whole it is getting quite good, but the coastline of greece really bugs me. Italy seems pretty precise, with all the little bumps there, but then greece seems all willy-nilly thrown together quckly with just a bunch of jagged lines. The greek coast could be improoved a bit. Just put a map of greece in behind it and make the layer tranceparent, then trace!

[whitestazn88]

so whats the point of even having a whole field of neutral in the top right? just a waste.

[Kabanellas]

Nobodies – I see… Common Era. Anno Domini makes more sense indeed

Captainwalrus – I’ll try it.

Whitestazn – They are necessary unless we want the HRE to have no eastern borders and the Byzantines and the Seljuks no northern borders. Having an all blank impassable area would just close the map to those regions and that’s something I prefer not to do.

[Incandenza]

Whitestazn – They are necessary unless we want the HRE to have no eastern borders and the Byzantines and the Seljuks no northern borders. Having an all blank impassable area would just close the map to those regions and that’s something I prefer not to do.

Well, then, why not open 'em up, get rid of the neutrals, assign the various areas bonuses, and actually use that part of the map? Otherwise you could have a solitary "trade route" or some such terit that replaces many of the existing neutrals. 'Cause as it stands, no matter what the reason for the neutral terits, it'll be rare indeed to see anyone take them.

[Kabanellas]

I could do that... assigning them to players. But what if a player gets so unlucky that the random engine massively deploy him in those areas. They hold no bonus... He/she would be left out of play.

[barterer2002]

Sometimes you lose on the drop, it happens on any map

[AndrewB]

I'd suggest keep them neutral. but neutral 1's, not two's. And give +1 bonus for each 3 held.

[whitestazn88]

I'd suggest keep them neutral. but neutral 1's, not two's. And give +1 bonus for each 3 held.

or even +2 for every 3 held. there's currently no incentive to go to that area of the map.

[barterer2002]

I don't know that bonuses for that region is necessary. That part of the map is really, as I understand it, is really just there to allow for a counter attack. It doesn't need to be used in most games.

[Kabanellas]

Barterer pretty much said my intentions…. The game just isn’t meant to be played in that area, though it can be used for strategic purposes. So I’m not totally sold out to that idea of Eastern Europe giving bonus. ….BUT, democratic as I am , if the majority feels that a bonus should be added I’ll do it… Not more than 1 per 3 regions I think, and no less than 2 neutrals each so it doesn’t get too appealing.

Anyway, I want you guys to check this version with the zone bonus appearing directly in the map. Please share your opinion with me. Should I keep the ‘clean’ version or this one?:

[bigimg]http://www.freewebs.com/kabanellas/Third_Crusade_BetaV8_B.jpg[/bigimg]

[thenobodies80]

I prefer bonuses on the legend, the number on regions doesn't work with Poland/Hungary/Serbia-Bulgaria. Maybe a player will think +1 for all regions by making a comparison with other zones.
About bonuses, i think you have to fix some...

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?
.

Still not convinced on raising the eastern countries bonus (Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria).... As I’ve said before, I don’t want to make this area too appealing.

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

People gave you some suggestions for the big neutral zone....try to work on it, I think it is the weak point of your map.

On the whole the map is really good.

Carpe Diem!
thenobodies80

[Kabanellas]

Thanks nobodies

The thing with Saladin and England bonus is that both of them will be expecting big clashes…

Saladin will have to face all those European drops in the Holy land and fight for it (historically he was very strong in the area, and possessed it). I could drop from 6 to 5 but less than that would be compromising the game-play for that starting position...

London will be quite closed/trapped in England itself, being Cyprus the only way out (other than overrunning the English Channel and the French). Cyprus as far as I can see will be a merge point that everybody will want to take especially the Byzantines for that extra 1.... Being so England will have to protect Cyprus, invest in the Holy Land and defend, London – hard I think.... More, the eastern bonus will be little bit harder for this player - 6 neutrals in Cyprus. Concluding, I’m not that keen on dropping those bonus......

Summarizing everybody’s intentions on 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)

How’s it going to be?

Should we make a poll? For this and for the bonus appearing represented in the regions ...

[AndrewB]

8b for me

and option C regarding the Russian neutrals