HOLYWARS 1250 - VERSION 37

[Woltato]

I like the look of this map although I think the Islamic Caliphates bonus would be too difficult to acquire as its so large and spread out.

[HitRed]

I like the look of this map although I think the Islamic Caliphates bonus would be too difficult to acquire as its so large and spread out.

Taking East Africa area and maybe Jerusalem would be the key. At least a good start.

[Mad777]

good job! I like it as well...I had few comment but after reading all prior posts I have read all got implemented

[DrPsyPhi]

I also like it. It looks playable and distinct. Nice visuals.

I think the addition of the sea-connectors enhances the historical accuracy.
Shetland Islands (North of Scotland) were ruled by Norway until 1266, for example. (I also thought giving Ireland to England this early was a bit much--Erin go bragh!)

But none of this is a deal breaker to me. I think it should move forward in production.

(One more thought--if Jerusalem starts neutral, I'd favor the nicely factor-able 42 other starting territories (43 total) since that makes games so nicely divided for 2, 3, 6, 7, and 14 players without any remainders and 4, 5, and 8 with only 2 extra neutrals)

[Donelladan]

I tihnk the bonus are really bad.

three +8 and four+1 ?

No one ever gonna take the +8, they are just impossible.
I don't see a setting that will make the bonus structure interesting.
As soon as we have more than 3 players the +8 are for sure impossible to take.
So everyone going to fight over some +1.

And as someone said, islamic calphiphate is way way too difficult to hold.
Even compared to the other +8.
It has two +1 inside it ( oriental and indian) and jerusalem bordering him, since +1 are going to be taken first, except if you hold three +1 over 4 it's impossible hold caliphate.

Split the +8 bonus into smaller bonus.
Create some +3 +4 +5 etc

I find territory name too small and difficult to read.

Don't really like the graphic in general. I like way more smthg like Europe 1914, or Baltic State, Eurasia, France.2.1, Mongolia... etc... basically every other map based on the Earth we have on CC except classic.
Color the full area of the bonus with one color, make bonus much easier to read. Map is way more agreeable to look at.

[JESKIER]

Looks as shit as the dice system too me !!!!

[EBConquer]

Maps coming along nicely! I too agree that something's not jiving w/ the graphics. The topographical view like that is somewhat hard to read the colored text. Maybe something a little more stylized w/ all the text having the same color?

here's a quick little dirty thing i did in less than 5 minutes to give you an idea. basically just put an inner shadow on Lithuania and Novgorod to represent the bonus but Donelladan's right, making something similar to Eurasia or France 2.1 would be great and would also take a ton more work but the payoff would be huge.

show

[CHAMPOS]

Updates following comments, thanks...

Armies:
Roman Catholics - 8
Islamic Caliphates - 8
Mogol Tribes - 8
Eastern Orthodox - 1
Oriental Orthodox - 1
Hindu Indians - 1
Jerusalem - 1 (starts neutral 3 troops)
(Historical accuracy, those lands controlled by another Kingdom or territory are included in the territory controlling).

Territories:
Roman Catholics - 14 (4 to defend)
Islamic Caliphates - 10 (3 to defend, 2 to defend with Ilkhanate)
Mogol Tribes - 8 (5 to defend)
Eastern Orthodox - 3 (3 to defend)
Oriental Orthodox - 3 (3 to defend)
Hindu Indians - 5 (3 to defend, 1 to defend with Delhi Sultanate)
Jerusalem - 1 (starts neutral 3 troops)
Total territories - 44

[url][url=https://imgur.com/HKnphir][/url]/url]

[CHAMPOS]

I'm going to advocate changing Hindu Indians back to 2.

Sure, you can defend it with 1 territory, but you have to take 7 territories just to get to that point. Or, you may be stuck in a position defending 6 with 3 borders. ONE is just not enough of a bonus.

Indian Hindus adjusted to reflect territorial control of the south of the region, now 5 regions not 6, this should help keeping bonus at 1. Quite like the smaller ones all having just one (not a massive reward) and the larger ones having 8 (massive reward if you can hold). Indian Hindus are also a bit out of the way of the key action areas, so easier to defend (like Australia in classic)

[CHAMPOS]

This map makes Ethiopia look like a push-over. It was several hundred years until Ethiopia was conquered (and even then they fought the Muslims out, although it ended up destroying all their infrastructure which is why Ethiopia and Eritrea are poor to this day).

Trying to keep the map historically accurate. I suppose it was a bit of a pushover in a volatile region at the time. Did well to hang on. Fortunate the mongols distracted the Islamic Caliphates.

[CHAMPOS]

This map makes Ethiopia look like a push-over. It was several hundred years until Ethiopia was conquered (and even then they fought the Muslims out, although it ended up destroying all their infrastructure which is why Ethiopia and Eritrea are poor to this day).

India would be defended by 18 troops (6 terr X 3 troops on each). You might own some. Ethiopia has 3 terr X 3 troops on each which is 9. Both are worth +1 but India is twice has hard to take. So India +2 AND Iran touches Gujarat so India isn't a one territory defense.

My gut feeling on Jerusalem would be starting 4 or 5 Neutal troops.

Respectfully,

HitRed

note comments on Indian Hindus above

Iran (Ilkhanate) does not touch Gujarat

Happy to consider higher for the neutral troops in Jerusalem (what do people reckon - 3, 4 or 5?)

[CHAMPOS]

Speaking as an Irishman and for the sake of historical accuracy, by 1250, the Norman invasion had still not conquered Ireland fully , with basically most of the west and north still under Family Kingships. To label the entire area as the Kingdom of England is incorrect.
Perhaps Kingdom of England and a separate Ireland would be better? Just sayin'

Looking forward to trying this map out

There is a balance for the smaller regions (who in reality would have been influenced by their neighbours)

I think it is fair to say the Irish lordships loyal to the King of England were a majority at the time, see red areas below. With the other regions fractious. The dominate force 'at the time' was the lordships.

Obviously this was at the time and things did and do change.

(not trying to be controversial!)



[url][url=https://imgur.com/XEKYsG4][/url]/url]

[CHAMPOS]

I like the look of this map although I think the Islamic Caliphates bonus would be too difficult to acquire as its so large and spread out.

I think the Islamic Caliphates would the main target for the larger bonus regions. With Jerusalem and the Oriental Orthodox within their region this can bolster this bonus and be where the player grows from.

With four regions (Delhi Sultante, Ilkhanate, Sulatate of Rum and Marinid) and those regions below the player could control the southern territories (and 11 in bonses), and effectively control the north of the map and the other large bonuses

It is spread out but the tactic would be to do something with other smaller territories....

[CHAMPOS]

I also like it. It looks playable and distinct. Nice visuals.

I think the addition of the sea-connectors enhances the historical accuracy.
Shetland Islands (North of Scotland) were ruled by Norway until 1266, for example. (I also thought giving Ireland to England this early was a bit much--Erin go bragh!)

But none of this is a deal breaker to me. I think it should move forward in production.

(One more thought--if Jerusalem starts neutral, I'd favor the nicely factor-able 42 other starting territories (43 total) since that makes games so nicely divided for 2, 3, 6, 7, and 14 players without any remainders and 4, 5, and 8 with only 2 extra neutrals)

With Jerusalem starting neutral there would be 43 territories to allocate - so pretty much in line with the main 42 (one extra neutral). Could make one of them the Ayyubid Caliphate to make it a little harder to get Jerusalem....

[CHAMPOS]

I tihnk the bonus are really bad.

three +8 and four+1 ?

No one ever gonna take the +8, they are just impossible.
I don't see a setting that will make the bonus structure interesting.
As soon as we have more than 3 players the +8 are for sure impossible to take.
So everyone going to fight over some +1.

And as someone said, islamic calphiphate is way way too difficult to hold.
Even compared to the other +8.
It has two +1 inside it ( oriental and indian) and jerusalem bordering him, since +1 are going to be taken first, except if you hold three +1 over 4 it's impossible hold caliphate.

Split the +8 bonus into smaller bonus.
Create some +3 +4 +5 etc

I find territory name too small and difficult to read.

Don't really like the graphic in general. I like way more smthg like Europe 1914, or Baltic State, Eurasia, France.2.1, Mongolia... etc... basically every other map based on the Earth we have on CC except classic.
Color the full area of the bonus with one color, make bonus much easier to read. Map is way more agreeable to look at.

sometimes its good to be different

there is more of a tactical sample going for the smaller regions (Australia and South America are always the focus for classic). The smaller regions can help build into the larger ones.

or

could spend some time slowly accumulating troops in the periphery of the larger regions, let players battle it out in the middle and then take the spoils.

...

the key for Islamic Caliphates to to incorporate into a strategy with other smaller regions, then this region makes tactical sense

[CHAMPOS]

Maps coming along nicely! I too agree that something's not jiving w/ the graphics. The topographical view like that is somewhat hard to read the colored text. Maybe something a little more stylized w/ all the text having the same color?

here's a quick little dirty thing i did in less than 5 minutes to give you an idea. basically just put an inner shadow on Lithuania and Novgorod to represent the bonus but Donelladan's right, making something similar to Eurasia or France 2.1 would be great and would also take a ton more work but the payoff would be huge.

show

really appreciate the comment, but I could not do this in the package I am working in (powerpoint converted to jpeg)

I write like the simplicity of the map and using the Ariel image.

Tried to make the labelling clearer

I do not mind if anyone else can help with the graphics and do a better job...let me know.

[CHAMPOS]

Thank I have responded to all the comments, thanks and keep them coming.....


Updates following comments, thanks...

Armies:
Roman Catholics - 8
Islamic Caliphates - 8
Mogol Tribes - 8
Eastern Orthodox - 1
Oriental Orthodox - 1
Hindu Indians - 1
Jerusalem - 1 (starts neutral 3 troops)
(Historical accuracy, those lands controlled by another Kingdom or territory are included in the territory controlling).


Territories:
Roman Catholics - 14 (4 to defend)
Islamic Caliphates - 10 (3 to defend, 2 to defend with Ilkhanate)
Mogol Tribes - 8 (5 to defend)
Eastern Orthodox - 3 (3 to defend)
Oriental Orthodox - 3 (3 to defend)
Hindu Indians - 5 (3 to defend, 1 to defend with Delhi Sultanate)
Jerusalem - 1 (starts neutral 3 troops)
Total territories - 44


Neutral territories: Jerusalem - 3 and Ayyubid Calipahte - 3
then there remain 42 territories allocated between the players (easily divisible)


[url][url=https://imgur.com/HKnphir][/url]/url]

[CHAMPOS]

Map Name: HOLYWARS 1250
Mapmaker(s):CHAMPOS
Number of Territories:44 (two start neutral, being Jerusalem and Ayyubid Caliphate, leaving 42 to be allocated, all regions start with 3 troops standard)
Special Features:An historically accurate map, simple map with no gaps, simple gameplay....
What Makes This Map Worthy of Being Made:
There were a number of religions coming together at the same time, 1250AD:
- the Roman Catholics had taken control over mainland Europe from the last Islamic Caliphate holding in Spain,
- the Islamic Caliphates were being attacked from the east by the Mongol Tribes and from the west by the Roman Catholic crusades,
- the northern Eastern Orthodox territories had been taken under Mongol Tribe control,
- the Mongol Tribes had been halted by their leadership changes and power struggles,
- the Indian Hindus were under attack from the Islamic Caliphates and Mongol Tribes,
- the Oriental Orthodox were under attack from the Islamic Caliphates,
- Crusades continued to Jerusalem
Who will prevail...?

LATEST DRAFT

[url][url=https://imgur.com/UXYrWEj][/url][/url]

[Paengars]

I love how you are creating an unique style of gameplay for the map, i don't think it will play like any other map.

here's a quick little dirty thing i did in less than 5 minutes to give you an idea. basically just put an inner shadow on Lithuania and Novgorod

I also think it should be a quick fix that could make the map much clearer without giving you a lot of work and it would make it a bit more colorful, the topographic map look really plain.


You put Lithuania under roman catholic but it was definitely pagan at the time.

Jerusalem is just too good in it's present state a 3 neutral for a +1 is ok in a map were bonus are easy to get. But here for a +1 you need to put troop on 3 territory and face multiple border.

As you suggested before, it need to be at least a 5 neutral and definitely more if you don't adopt my next suggestion of adding a one way attack from the holy roman empire to fit the Holy War theme.


The main issues with the map is that nobody will ever do anything in the top half of the map, you need to add something to keep it interesting, i'm not really sure of what it could be to keep the simplicity of the map. - Maybe a bonus to own some important territory under the silk road.
- An Hanseatic league but it would need some sea access to Scandinavia

[CHAMPOS]

Thanks Paengars, good feedback

Jerusalem Neutral from start with 3. I kept at 3 neutral as the territory surrounding it would also start 3 neutral. This would effectively mean 6 need to be defeated to secure. Do you agree that’s enough

Lithuania. Quite handy in that third king was baptised into Roman Catholicism in 1250, so we could choose either. Mindaugas was the first known Grand Duke of Lithuania and the only King of Lithuania. Little is known of his origins, early life, or rise to power; he is mentioned in a 1219 treaty as an elder duke, and in 1236 as the leader of all the Lithuanians. In 1250, during the course of internal power struggles, he was baptised as a Roman Catholic; this action enabled him to establish an alliance with the Livonian Order, a long-standing antagonist of the Lithuanians.

The north of the map. I agree there is, relatively, not as much going on in the north, particularly the Roman Catholic religion (most Mongol territories are close to the action). I suppose this is why these Roman Catholic territories emerged well placed in the future, they had less threats than those more centrally placed. The Roman Catholic bonus is hard to achieve(14 regions) so it is a quiet area where someone can gradually build while others fight it out elsewhere. At the time all action seemed to be in the centre of the regions, this is where all the religions came together.

Map graphics, I quite like the topological map, hopefully the colours are now clearer. Simple design, simple gameplay, although lots of strategies...

[dakky21]

While I like the map, you can't just steal the satellite image from Google Maps/Earth and make the map on it. I like it's simplicity but if this gets a Graphics stamp then a lot more map projects should already be live.

I really think you should start fresh with your own drawn map now that the concept is approved.

[CHAMPOS]

Having a real world map as a base makes sense on an historically accurate map, it is different and hopefully interesting. I still prefer it to just a few areas with a different colour.

Why not have a simple map with lots of strategies..

[Symmetry]

I'm a bit sceptical of the idea that this was a series of religions fighting against one another, as opposed to empires and kingdoms. I've asked the community to weigh in though.

https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=228386

Hopefully, you'll get some decent feedback on this. For what it's worth, the way you use "Hindu" seems wrong to me.

[CHAMPOS]

I'm a bit sceptical of the idea that this was a series of religions fighting against one another, as opposed to empires and kingdoms. I've asked the community to weigh in though.

https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=228386

Hopefully, you'll get some decent feedback on this. For what it's worth, the way you use "Hindu" seems wrong to me.

Religion was a key driver for war and expansion in the period, as stated in the map intro...

There were a number of religions coming together at the same time, 1250AD:
- the Roman Catholics had taken control over mainland Europe from the last Islamic Caliphate holding in Spain and were repelling Mongol invasion
- the Islamic Caliphates were being attacked from the east by the Mongol Tribes and from the west by the Roman Catholic crusades,
- the northern Eastern Orthodox territories had been taken under Mongol Tribe control and attacked under Roman Catholic crusades
- the Mongol Tribes had been halted in their expansion by their leadership changes and power struggles,
- the Indian Hindus were under attack from the Islamic Caliphates and Mongol Tribes,
- the Oriental Orthodox were under attack from the Islamic Caliphates,
- Crusades continued to Jerusalem
Who will prevail...?


Why not have an historically accurate map with no gaps and missing major regions.

The map is based on the kingdoms/empires at he time (with the areas they ruled/controlled) and then categorised by the rulers religion

[CHAMPOS]

I'm a bit sceptical of the idea that this was a series of religions fighting against one another, as opposed to empires and kingdoms. I've asked the community to weigh in though.

https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=228386

Hopefully, you'll get some decent feedback on this. For what it's worth, the way you use "Hindu" seems wrong to me.

This is the way the map has been categorised....The map is based on the kingdoms/empires at he time (with the areas they ruled/controlled) and then categorised by the rulers religion.

Taking a few comments from your thread (with the above in mind!)....

Mongol Hordes - The Khan rulers at the time were all still Tengrian rulers, so should probably be Tengrian Mongols.

Eastern Orthodox - The Rus Principalities and Novgorod were effectively under Mongol control in 1250, after the Mongol invasions earlier in the century, this lasted a while

Hinduism - This was by far the dominant religion at the time in the Indian regions, which were independent kingdoms at the time ruled by Hindu kings. Buddhism was peripheral in the region at the time

Buddhism - As pointed out this was more dominant in the region of the Empire of the Great Khan, at the time this was under the control of a Tengrian Mongol Khan.