The Third Crusade [Quenched] Revamping

[Industrial Helix]

The Kingdom of England (London) - Take Wales for the bonus and invest all in securing Cyprus.
The Kingdom of France (Paris) - secure France and hope HRE doesn't attack, then go for Antioch
The Holy Roman Empire (Ratisbone) - Go for the Kingdom of Two Sicilies bonus and focus my efforts on getting the Vatican... then going for Selucia, presuming other players havent made great strides there in which case, I would make a move to Selucia sooner.
Iberian Kingdoms (Leon) (This is one of the worst positions to get, imo.) Go for the Spain bonus and try to kill the Fez player... Try to hold at Toulouse.
The Almohads (Fez) Try to kill the Leon player while maybe securing Tunis.
The Byzantine Empire (Thessalonica)- Secure Servia-Bulgaria Bonus, go for the Holy Land
Saladin’s Dominions (Cairo) - Go for Saladin bonus, Then Jerusalem bonus
The Seljuks (Amasia) - Go for Seljuk bonus.

Ok, after that theory exercise, I think the player of Fez should be moved to Tunis. It will threaten the HRE a bit more and leave Leon a chance to not get killed within the first few rounds.

[mattosaurus]

I really like the look of this map, simple, but with a lot going for it. A couple things: Its a bit hard to get the bonuses. but I don't think there's much you can do about that as it is. Also, there are two countries called Tripoli. Not that its that confusing, but you might need to alter the name a bit, especially for the XML. Other than that its a great map.

[Kabanellas]

Ok, that makes perfect sense Helix, coming to think of it – I’m moving Almohad starting position from Fez to Tunis.

Tripoli region in North Africa changed to Sirt (thanks mattosaurus for that remark), there really were two Tripoli. Actually there still are.

Click image to enlarge.

[whitestazn88]

Hey, whitestazn88 here for the preliminary review. I think this is the first time i've looked at the map, and its definitely pleasing to look at. Here's the things that i've noticed:

- the legend is a mess. I am not a fan of it at all. instead of all those words, a minimap might help.
- the knights templar bonus is out of place for me, and should be placed either closer to the actual places where those territs are so they can be easily found or in the legend.
- i like all the small bonuses and such, but are the 1 territory +1 bonuses going to be neutral starts? because this could lead to a huge discrepancy at the start.
- i don't like the positioning of the inset, but i understand that is the only place it can go... wish that could be changed some how... maybe make it smaller and put it under the actual place on the map if possible? (ie. switch it with the legend. that might give you more room to make a minimap legend with extras like muslims and knights)
- i just noticed the victory conditions.. i feel like that would be better suited in a larger area, it should be prominent, as that is the victory condition...
- good colors used

all in all, it is a nice map, i like the gameplay. but if you want me to approve of this getting forged at any time, that legend needs to be uncluttered.

[Danyael]

This map is look very nice
i agree with whitestazn88 about the legend it being very busy
as a colourblind some of the region colour samples in the legend look the same but have the areas name makes the confusion alot less of a factor
this being said i think better organized legend and the right size of font may do wonders in clearing up the legend

I'm still wrapping my head around the game play but i believe some single region bonus need to start as a neutral
to lessen the chance of awesome drops

graphically it looks awesome
but Prussia's outline is a little wonky
and is there any reason that the principality of Armenia Cilica doesnt match all the other thicker outlines
or are you still working on matching them up with the rest

keep up the good work

[barterer2002]

OK, I've been asked here for my thoughts so lets look at a few things.

1). It seems to me that whoever deploys in London gets a huge advantage. How, really would anyone attack London here. While I realize that there is some historical basis for this, in a CC map it needs to have some balance. Whoever gets London takes Wales and then just can move everyone to Cyprus secure in the 10 protection from the Channel. I don't see any of the Europeans attacking across that early in the game. On the other hand, the other players will all have to protect their home bases throughout.

2). IMO you've got way way way too many bonuses here. I count 17 different bonuses not even including the extras one gets for holding something plus another something (i.e. HRE plus Corsica and Sardinia).

3). Why does the Vatican start off as N6 and not Grenada. In terms of game play they're both important as either one or the other is necessary for the conquest. Historically speaking they're also important as Grenada is the choke point for the Med and the Muslim control limited what fleets of ships could sail through.

4). Since you're seeming to intend this to be a conquest game rather than a defeat your opponents type of game for the most part (see comments on London also you're earlier comments that it won't work for Assassin) are you providing a different advantage to the holder of Cairo who goes through two terts to get to Jerusalem over a starting point like Tunis which has to go through 5.

I guess my main concerns here are that the game play is fairly unbalanced with different starting positions having clear advantages over others.

[samuelc812]

Hey Kabanellas,

Your map looks great in my opinion, you shown great use of colour. I have a few suggestions that would improve your map.

1. I'm not sure why you have used diagonal lines on territories such as Cyprus, Granada, Cherson and Trebixond. As far as i can see there is no need for them, but forgive me if they do mean something. However if they don't then i would reomve the lines.
2. The attack routes are a bit clumsy as dashed lines, perhaps try a dotted line or some other type of line. I don't believe the dashes really fit in, in this case.
3. The bold borders seem to dissapear in the North East of the map?

Overall nice work, that's all i have right now, but i'll be back at some point in the future

Kind Regards,
Sam

[cairnswk]

Kabanelles. here for the preliminary review.
Your maps looks great and I can see there has been strict effort towards giving it a great appearance and legibility.
1. the colours are not distracting but pleasant and eyecatching
2. personally i find that image in the middle of the Med Sea distracting from trying to follow the gameplay.
3. you may have think about some of the cross-over routes between some terts as some players might see the crossing sections as confusing, i don't but others might.
4. Lot of suitable size bonuses for gameplay which everyone seems to enjoy as it provides opportunity for players to battle over and build up their armies.
5. my main concern comes from the image i scaled down below. I have reduced this map to the required 600px high version and i think you might have some issues with fitting some terts in particularly in the insert. You will see i have placed 22px army shadows on some of those terts.
When producing any map, i always do the small version first, and then upscale. While we still have size-restrictions, it's the small map that matters most as this appears to the default that is given us from the site with the large version our choice to use. But a small version must be produced and i think you might have challenges that will need to be overcome in these areas.

Good luck, I think you have a good map and something many will enjoy. I am sure you can also oversome the small map challenges.

[lostatlimbo]

OK, I've been asked here for my thoughts so lets look at a few things.

1). It seems to me that whoever deploys in London gets a huge advantage. How, really would anyone attack London here. While I realize that there is some historical basis for this, in a CC map it needs to have some balance. Whoever gets London takes Wales and then just can move everyone to Cyprus secure in the 10 protection from the Channel. I don't see any of the Europeans attacking across that early in the game. On the other hand, the other players will all have to protect their home bases throughout.

2). IMO you've got way way way too many bonuses here. I count 17 different bonuses not even including the extras one gets for holding something plus another something (i.e. HRE plus Corsica and Sardinia).

3). Why does the Vatican start off as N6 and not Grenada. In terms of game play they're both important as either one or the other is necessary for the conquest. Historically speaking they're also important as Grenada is the choke point for the Med and the Muslim control limited what fleets of ships could sail through.

4). Since you're seeming to intend this to be a conquest game rather than a defeat your opponents type of game for the most part (see comments on London also you're earlier comments that it won't work for Assassin) are you providing a different advantage to the holder of Cairo who goes through two terts to get to Jerusalem over a starting point like Tunis which has to go through 5.

I guess my main concerns here are that the game play is fairly unbalanced with different starting positions having clear advantages over others.

I completely agree with everything barterer has said.

Your bonus structure is also perplexing - I'm still trying to figure out what the bonus is for the maroon-ish territory group surrounding Kiev is. I've looked over your legend a dozen times and I'm pretty sure it has been excluded. I wonder if I'm just missing something here, because I can't see that anyone else has mentioned this oversight.

Additionally, many of the bonus values seem off:
1 terit Antioch is +1 bonus (plus potential for Templar bonus)
2 terit Edessa is +2
4 terit Hungary (with no safe terits!!!) is +1????

I think this has already been said, but all the solo terits that have no purpose - Prussia, Alans, etc - just cut them out, make them a neutral gray or assimilate them into nearby territories. it makes no sense to have all these solo terits with different colors when you already have a map full of color issues and bonuses. visually, those terits make me expect a purpose, but they're just filler. imo, they need to look as irrelevant as they are.

I also second the re-organization of your legend. Having the Edessa green directly under France and England, creates the illusion of it being the Iberian bonus. The order of these is jumping all over the map. Instead, pick on corner of the map and start there, then work your way clockwise (or counter-) around the map. This and better colors (and maybe continent names on the map) will do wonders.

Constantinople needs to be a +6 neutral to coincide with the Vatican, Jerusalem, etc.

Overall, I really like the visual style you've chosen for this, but there are a couple places that look a little sloppy - primarily the Templar image that is seen in the Mediterranean. You can see a straight, hard line coming down vertically, just below Sicily and another horizontal edge between Apulia and Larissa. If you take a little more there and maybe fade both of these (the NW bckgnd image as well), I think it will look great.

The lone ship just above West Egypt, however, is out of place. I'd suggest dropping it altogether, but if you have your heart set on a ship image, try to find something that fits in visually with the other two images - something you can slip into the background of the sea. As it is now, I don't think it suits your theme.

Personally, this map simply has too much going on. Too many bonuses and color codes that are difficult to discern - even on the large map. Too many combos and one way attacks and a subset map that is extremely difficult to determine what borders what between it and the main map.

In some ways this reminds me of the Iraq War map, but something about its inset map of Baghdad worked where this one is lacking. I'd have to compare the two side by side, so maybe I'll leave some additional feedback when I have the time.

Long story short - nice visual effort, but I hope you can eliminate some of the excessive/filler elements and lay everything out in a way that's a tad easier to digest.

[Kabanellas]

Thanks a lot guys, for all those precious comments!

A lot of questions have been raised and I’ll try to summon all up in the best way I can. And forgive me, as you’ve probably noticed English it’s not my mother/first language.

First of all let me ask you for some patience and historical comprehension when approaching this map – this is intended to be a little less ‘flat’ than the classic -straight and simple- map design. Also, please read all the past posts carefully – some of what has been said now was explained and debated before.

Whitestazn – I’ve tried the minimap feature before to avoid legends – but I couldn’t make it. I just couldn’t find the space. As for the 1 territ bonus -this is a positional map – people will start in those positions marked.

Barterer – well the game is not intended to be fought over Central/Northern Europe – those 10 neutrals in the English Channel are there to emphasise that. Remember victory points are in the Mediterranean- Middle East. And the Third Crusade was fought there.

Bonuses appear to give that extra flavour to the game and in many cases to force the game-play to actually resemble the wars fought in the Third Crusade time frame – I know that in a first approach they will seem a bit confusing, But I’m sure that by the second time that people get a good look at the map and familiarize with it, they will all be pretty self-explanatory.

Good point there in the Granada situation – I’ll change it to 6

As for the assassin game – yes, it’s not a map intended to be played in Assassin mode – the concept itself doesn’t lead to it..... (can be played though.. as long as Killers and Victims don't appear right close to each other)

As for Cairo... well they are near Jerusalem (in the first crusade they actually owned Jerusalem), and they surely need some starting advantages they will face all European powers at their doors. France, England (and HRE) will have good auto-deployed bonuses in the area.

Samuel – those diagonal have been discussed before with Helix.... I’ve already simplified all naval pass ways. But I’m afraid that I’ll really need those crossing lines in the Black Sea.

No bold borders in the East European countries because they give no bonuses (the intention of those territories was widely explained before)

Cairnswk – I’ll definitely start working on the smaller version now.

Lostalimbo – Crusade kingdoms (Antioch, Armenia, Tripoli and so on...) are not intended to be self sustained zones by themselves... They should be what they really were – territories protected by the intervenient powers. Their bonuses should be low.

Hungary/Serbia – will always be a buffer for the Byzantine Empire. A Player that starts there could move (or not) his/hers borders a little further to central Europe without having a real big benefit for it. And again, this was debated before..... I’ll try to repost everything concerning this matter below.

The map of Jerusalem – I’ve tried the first and obvious position – near the middle East. Couldn’t make it fit there - it turns out that I kinda like the way it appears now
Good point there, I’ll redo the art work in the Mediterranean, the picture frame is appearing. And I do have the same feeling about that lonesome cog – I’ll try to make it smaller just to see what happens (but I’ll probably end up to just sinking it)

[barterer2002]

Barterer – well the game is not intended to be fought over Central/Northern Europe – those 10 neutrals in the English Channel are there to emphasise that. Remember victory points are in the Mediterranean- Middle East. And the Third Crusade was fought there.

Bonuses appear to give that extra flavour to the game and in many cases to force the game-play to actually resemble the wars fought in the Third Crusade time frame – I know that in a first approach they will seem a bit confusing, But I’m sure that by the second time that people get a good look at the map and familiarize with it, they will all be pretty self-explanatory.

)

But here's the problem, In a game of risk while you don't want the battle to be fought in Northern/Central Europe because you're putting players there it will get fought there. It may be nice to say that the battle needs to be fought in the middle east but you're really giving great advantages to those who get London IMO. I realize that you're pushing the game to be objective based but you've created it so that certain starting points really can't be eliminated early while others are at immediate risk and can be taken on the first turn if the dice fall great. To me, that's a major design flaw.

As for the bonuses it seems to me that you're adding them in to cause people to want to move into areas such as Prussia and yet consistently stating that you don't want the battles fought in Europe but rather in the Middle East. It strikes me that this is contridictary.

I have a couple of solutions.

Solution 1). Instead of making the map neutral except for 8 starting points, distribute the players around the map. Remove the 10 Killer neutrals on the English Channel, historically speaking its unrealistic for the English to believe that the French (or the Spanish or the Dutch) wouldn't be invading. While they sent armies on the Crusades they also keep the home front protected which isn't something that is necessary here. You can make the Channel a killer neutral, and start it as a neutral because there is something to be said for that but 10 just serves to keep the English alive more than they deserve.

Solution 2). Keep the map as a conquest style map with just 8 starting places but adjust those positions so that each starting position is reachable by 1 other starting position in the same number of moves. i.e. if you want to keep 2 terts of 3 neutrals between Paris and Lyon then keep that same spacing between each of the others.

[dolomite13]

First I should start by saying that I really like this map.

I read the comments since the preliminary review was sent around and I happen to agree with the comments from the other reviewers. If we could make maps that remove game types such as assassin we would be able to make much more complicated and focused maps however when the maps work well in all of the game types there is a broader appeal and more people will get to experience them.

I noticed the map dimensions of 800px × 840px and believe that you have the height and width reversed from what the foundry lists as max size. 840px × 800px. You can probably chop 40 pixels the height without much issue.

I noticed you list an autodeploy bonus for holding two territories (london + cyprus), I was unaware that you could assign the location a bonus goes to like that. I thought you needed to assign autodeploys to a single territory and that a bonus for two territories would be assigned as though you were holding a continent and the bonus would be a generic bonus that could be dropped anywhere you control. Perhaps you could ask an XML expert thought as I looked through the XML samples and can't find any code that would do it as you have it listed.

Looking forward to this one =)

==D

[Kabanellas]

Barterer, It’s not like those 10 killer neutrals are an impassable region... and they are not so very hard to beat. But the fact of those just being there gives a chance to England not to be wiped out in one round... if you escalate in Normandy preparing to overrun the E.C. to get to London, you’ll be giving a warning to the player starting in London that an imminent attack will come.

I just feel that England can fall very easily without that buffer.

But I got your point, I’m saying that the (real) war should be fought in the Near East/Mediterranean but I’m giving plenty to fight for in Europe. But I just didn’t want to go in the way that the ‘New world’ map went, having the European powers in a small frame without connection between each others.

I want Europe to participate in the map, rather than just making a map of the Near East. A lot of interesting things were going on in that time frame. The Byzantines fighting to regain their lost influence; the appearance of the Seljuks that will later become the Ottoman Empire, over the ashes of the Byzantines, the struggle of the Holy Roman Empire over the Papal States to force recognition as heirs of the Charlesmagne empire; the war fought by the Iberian kingdoms against the almohads that eventually ended up with Granada being a vassal to Castille.

Well....enough of History

As for the game-play, I think that everybody has a fair chance of making it through the game.

A player starting in:

Paris, will try to secure France – he should make it in 3/4 turns and then turn his attentions to Tyre and its Eastern bonus.

Ratisbone, will most definitely (I would) try to take Seleucia and the eastern bonus in maybe 2 turns. With those auto-deploy bonus he would secure Armenia-Cilicia, and with the rest he could start by making the HRE bonus (supported with the Armenia-Cilicia bonus).

Leon, (and this one, yes, it seems a little handicapped) will try to make the Iberian Kingdoms bonus and secure the Balearic isl. and/or Granada without having to worry about his northern borders because of the Paris/Iberian effect. This will take him 5/6 turns... which seems an awful lot.... this must be revised.

Tunis, will try to take the Almohads bonus and secure Granada for the extra Muslim bonus. 5 turns here. I predict a fight for live between Tunis and Leon. With Tunis starting with the upper hand.

Cairo, will make the Saladin’s dominions bonus in 3/4 turns and then turn his attentions to the Jerusalem kingdom and Jerusalem itself. This player has a big bonus potential. Players starting in France and England (and others) must definitely unite to avoid a big bonus clash from this player.

Amasia, will make the seljuks bonus in 3/4 turns secure it and probably take the
Edessa bonus and go for Rakka for the Muslim bonus. All done in about 7 turns...

Thessalonica, will go immediately for Constantinople a/d bonus and try to secure the border at Nicomedia, and hopefully make the Byzantine bonus in 5 turns. Starting here could be fun, despite the fact of being between powers it sure has a lot of directions to expand.

(at last) London, this player will play in important role, along with the one starting in Paris. They should avoid Saladin’s expansion. He will make England bonus, and then assault Cyprus taking it in the 3rd or 4th round. I may reduce England bonus to 1.....

Honestly the position that most concerns me is the one starting in Leon, and for this one I’d like some solutions.

[Kabanellas]

Thanks very much Dolomites for you comment. You are indeed correct – I mixed up. I’m working on it now.

As for the XML question, it’s well put. If some XML expert could advise I’ll appreciate:

Can we have an auto-deploy region that is triggered by possessing another region?

[lostatlimbo]

Hungary/Serbia – will always be a buffer for the Byzantine Empire. A Player that starts there could move (or not) his/hers borders a little further to central Europe without having a real big benefit for it. And again, this was debated before..... I’ll try to repost everything concerning this matter below.

Okay, I went back and read your posts about this. It doesn't quite make sense to me to have no man's land bonuses and simply make them not worth holding onto - especially when we're talking about 12 territories. I appreciate the historical aspects of the game, but since this is a map that people are playing a game on, gameplay should be a high priority.

That said, if you keep those 'no-man's land' territories, I still think you need to change the colors or otherwise signify that they do not belong to any bonus. The slightly darker borders don't cut it. THe colors themselves need to look neutral.

It is simply too confusing for a new player trying to spot all the numerous color/bonus connections on the map, only to find out that several of the colors don't exist in the legend. If you had a 5 bonus map, it would be no big deal, but with so much going on, you need to make your legend as clear as possible.