Conquer Club

The Third Crusade [Quenched] Revamping

Care to peruse completed maps? Take a stroll through the Atlas.

Moderator: Cartographers

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: The Third Crusade [BETA] Deciding objectives-Please vote!

Postby Commander9 on Sat Nov 28, 2009 1:36 pm

ender516 wrote:
Commander9 wrote:Well, I've found a bug. During my game I've attacked English Channel and only managed to revert it to 3. However, next turn it didn't revert to 4 and I've still had to take only 3. That's pretty much it.

I don't think I would call it a bug in the map, because I am pretty sure it is not something that the XML could change. Killer neutrals only revert to a fixed number of neutrals when held by a player. If you only kill some of the troops, then the territory is not reverted to its initial troop count at the next turn, and anybody has a shot at finishing the job.


Ah, sorry, my bad. Nevermind then.
But... It was so artistically done.
Lieutenant Commander9
 
Posts: 757
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:51 am
Location: In between Lithuania/USA.

Re: The Third Crusade [BETA]

Postby JustCallMeStupid on Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:02 pm

I have new suggestion. For the starting locations that are normally a 6. When playing 3v3 these territories start with a 6 neutral on them. In one game luckily for me, the other team has the 3 territories west of Castile, but Castile is neutral at 6 units. I see this same issue with Cairo, protecting K of J border if Cairo is neutral. Is it possible to change starting points to only a 1 neutral if no player starts there? They are not worth bonus units and since everyone starts with one at the begging there is almost no advantage to them taking a second starting point.
-js-
User avatar
Major JustCallMeStupid
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:30 pm
Location: OC, CA

Re: The Third Crusade [BETA]

Postby Kabanellas on Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:11 pm

I've had that same experience and I feel the same, could make sense dropping those starting neutrals to 3 or 2 when not attributed to any player. Maybe Andrew can enlighten us about this possibility.
Major Kabanellas
 
Posts: 1482
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:21 pm
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: The Third Crusade [BETA]

Postby eigenvector on Sun Nov 29, 2009 7:17 pm

Hey,

I think I found a small bug: the map says Torlosa while the game log says Torsola (like in game #5973350).

Thanks for the map! :)
Cook eigenvector
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:27 am

Re: The Third Crusade [BETA]

Postby Shrinky on Mon Nov 30, 2009 4:55 am

eigenvector wrote:Hey,

I think I found a small bug: the map says Torlosa while the game log says Torsola (like in game #5973350).

Thanks for the map! :)


bug noted already :) it will be fixed in next map update
Highest Score-2505 (18/07/2010)
Major Shrinky
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 3:02 am
Location: As my flag says

Re: The Third Crusade [BETA]

Postby AndrewB on Mon Nov 30, 2009 3:05 pm

Kabanellas wrote:I've had that same experience and I feel the same, could make sense dropping those starting neutrals to 3 or 2 when not attributed to any player. Maybe Andrew can enlighten us about this possibility.


Yes, it is possible
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant AndrewB
 
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:02 pm
Location: Edmonton, Canada, MST

Re: The Third Crusade [BETA]

Postby keane on Mon Nov 30, 2009 4:28 pm

I'd like to add my thanks to all those who've helped create this map - I've played 20 games already and it's well on its way to becoming my favourite.

I'd also like to add my vote to keeping the objective to either granada tor vatican - i feel this is already difficult to hold for one turn and if you made both necessary, then I doubt it could be done.

Keep up the good work guys!
User avatar
Private 1st Class keane
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 7:48 am
Location: Northamptonshire, UK

Re: The Third Crusade [BETA]

Postby AndrewB on Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:39 pm

Updated XML:

http://bolonniy.com/CC/Third_Crusade_v8.xml

List of the changes:

1. Corrected spelling of Balkan, Tripoli and Torlosa
2. London starting army is raised to 6.
3. decrease Constantinople, Seleucia, Venice, Malta and Krak des Chevaliers neutral troops to 3 only
4. decrease Tyre neutral troops to 4
5. decrease France bonus to +3
6. decrease Kingdom of Jerusalem bonus to +2
7. decrease the Almohads bonus to +3
8. Undealt starting positions are starting with neutral 2 in them.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant AndrewB
 
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:02 pm
Location: Edmonton, Canada, MST

Re: The Third Crusade [BETA] XML UPDATED

Postby snufkin on Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:16 am

Great map..

.. although it´s more than a little weird that Cairo is located on the Sinai peninsula. :?
The comet cometh!
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class snufkin
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 7:40 am
Location: borderland of Ranrike

Re: The Third Crusade [BETA] XML UPDATED

Postby jefjef on Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:19 am

I don't agree with increasing London. You have that killer 4 neutral to go thru.

England/London isn't even critical to win. It's a luxury.

Great map btw.
This post was made by jefjef who should be on your ignore list.
Image
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
User avatar
Colonel jefjef
 
Posts: 6026
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:41 pm
Location: on my ass

Re: The Third Crusade [BETA] XML UPDATED

Postby barterer2002 on Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:58 am

OK I've got 13 games of various sorts under my belt so it seems time to add my 2¢

1). This map should not be available to new players-its way to complicated on that.

2). I don't like the split map insert (but I don't like it in WWII Europe either) but don't really have an option to replace it.

3). I tend to agree with jefjef that London doesn't need the extra armies since nobody can attack it right away anyway. Making it a 6 instead of a 3 means that whoever starts in London can take Wales for a +1 without even having to deploy up there. As a 3, to take wales would at least require a deployment to london.

4). I tend to think the Almohads are overbonused. They tend to be protected by a N5 on Grenada meaning you've only got 3 borders to protect 5 terts (if you take Baloceric) which to me means a +5 is overdone.

5). I don't really like the auto deploy on Venice, Constantonople and Cyprus. Venice particularly bothers me here as I'm not sure why its warrented based on the time frame of the map. Not to say that Venice wasn't an important city but certainly not as much as others of its day. Can't quite figure out why its an autodeploy.
Image
Image
User avatar
Sergeant barterer2002
 
Posts: 6311
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:51 am

Re: The Third Crusade [BETA] XML UPDATED

Postby Kabanellas on Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:49 pm

Thanks Jefjef and Barterer for the critics.

London has definitely a problem staying the way it is now... unless London is a player’s only Starting Position, no one will bother spending a round of deployment there. On the other side I don’t want to make it to appealing.... I do support raising its starting troops to 6, we could of course, raise Wales to 5. Maybe that could even things a bit. Let’s see what Andrew thinks. (btw, 4 neutral killers in the EC are not such a big thing in my opinion)

As for those autodeploys in Venice and Constantinople (Cyprus doesn’t have any) they are much needed. In terms of gameplay Venice can be of great help for the player starting in Ratisbon because that is probably the most difficult position to start on in the map. Having that nearby base to get some much needed bonuses has been proven quite necessary.
The same applies to Constantinople.

K
Last edited by Kabanellas on Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Major Kabanellas
 
Posts: 1482
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:21 pm
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: The Third Crusade [BETA]

Postby eigenvector on Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:54 pm

AndrewB wrote:Updated XML:

http://bolonniy.com/CC/Third_Crusade_v8.xml

List of the changes:

1. Corrected spelling of Balkan, Tripoli and Torlosa
2. London starting army is raised to 6.
3. decrease Constantinople, Seleucia, Venice, Malta and Krak des Chevaliers neutral troops to 3 only
4. decrease Tyre neutral troops to 4
5. decrease France bonus to +3
6. decrease Kingdom of Jerusalem bonus to +2
7. decrease the Almohads bonus to +3
8. Undealt starting positions are starting with neutral 2 in them.


Hi,
Are you sure about #6? I think that the bonus as it stood, chimed with the map's atmosphere and now that you've reduced the neutrals to 2 it'll be probably more difficult to hold the K of J anyway. I'd suggest you consider returning it to +3.

Best wishes!
Cook eigenvector
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:27 am

Re: The Third Crusade [BETA]

Postby MrBenn on Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:27 pm

eigenvector wrote:
AndrewB wrote:Updated XML:

http://bolonniy.com/CC/Third_Crusade_v8.xml

List of the changes:

1. Corrected spelling of Balkan, Tripoli and Torlosa
2. London starting army is raised to 6.
3. decrease Constantinople, Seleucia, Venice, Malta and Krak des Chevaliers neutral troops to 3 only
4. decrease Tyre neutral troops to 4
5. decrease France bonus to +3
6. decrease Kingdom of Jerusalem bonus to +2
7. decrease the Almohads bonus to +3
8. Undealt starting positions are starting with neutral 2 in them.


Hi,
Are you sure about #6? I think that the bonus as it stood, chimed with the map's atmosphere and now that you've reduced the neutrals to 2 it'll be probably more difficult to hold the K of J anyway. I'd suggest you consider returning it to +3.

Best wishes!

I think raising Wales too would be a good move.

Adjustments to any region bonuses also require an update to the legend on the map graphic (unless I've skimmed past them :? )
Image
PB: 2661 | He's blue... If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that
User avatar
Lieutenant MrBenn
 
Posts: 6880
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am
Location: Off Duty

Re: The Third Crusade [BETA] XML UPDATED

Postby Kabanellas on Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:11 am

All done Benn - posted already in the first page
Major Kabanellas
 
Posts: 1482
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:21 pm
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: The Third Crusade [BETA] XML UPDATED

Postby luxCRUSADER on Sun Dec 06, 2009 2:50 am

You'll be happy to know that players are playing for the victory conditions a lot more frequently.

I for one have about 5 or 6 games won on your amazing map visa vie attaining the victory conditions ...

I love you map m8 :)

And I love the changes that will hopefully be applied sooner than later ...

:)
closing down my Conquer Club account due to the WAY 2 RANDOM dice that Conquer Club contracts to 'random.org' :) "I'm done" ! gonna play here: http://sillysoft.net/lux/
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class luxCRUSADER
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:47 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Re: The Third Crusade [BETA] XML UPDATED

Postby jefjef on Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:11 am

Kabanellas wrote:Thanks Jefjef and Barterer for the critics.

London has definitely a problem staying the way it is now... unless London is a player’s only Starting Position, no one will bother spending a round of deployment there. On the other side I don’t want to make it to appealing.... I do support raising its starting troops to 6, we could of course, raise Wales to 5. Maybe that could even things a bit. Let’s see what Andrew thinks. (btw, 4 neutral killers in the EC are not such a big thing in my opinion)

K


Well Kab. When invading London/England From France/Normandy The EC 4 + London 6 is/will be Quite a bit to attack thru. It will require a good # of troops or really good dice. This will make Invasion of England even less attractive.

And if I got London on the start and it had 6 I would for sure attack wales with out dropping on London even if wales is raised to 5.

If you raise London then Wales really needs to be upped. Maybe even consider making EC a 2.
This post was made by jefjef who should be on your ignore list.
Image
drunkmonkey wrote:I'm filing a C&A report right now. Its nice because they have a drop-down for "jefjef".
User avatar
Colonel jefjef
 
Posts: 6026
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 8:41 pm
Location: on my ass

Re: The Third Crusade [BETA] XML UPDATED

Postby AndrewB on Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:11 pm

Lets raise the wales too (maybe to 5-6). And decrease with EC to 2 sounds good too.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant AndrewB
 
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:02 pm
Location: Edmonton, Canada, MST

Re: The Third Crusade [BETA] XML UPDATED

Postby Commander9 on Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:35 pm

I think lowering it to 2 would be too drastic, but I wouldn't mind lowering it to 3.
But... It was so artistically done.
Lieutenant Commander9
 
Posts: 757
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:51 am
Location: In between Lithuania/USA.

Re: The Third Crusade [BETA] XML UPDATED

Postby Incandenza on Mon Dec 07, 2009 10:33 pm

AndrewB wrote:Lets raise the wales too (maybe to 5-6). And decrease with EC to 2 sounds good too.


I like Wales at 5 (only a 50% shot to kill with just the dropped 6 in London) and EC at 2. Don't want to make Wales too tough to take, and besides, there are other places where players can pick up relatively quick +1s.
THOTA: dingdingdingdingdingdingBOOM

Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est
User avatar
Colonel Incandenza
 
Posts: 4949
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:34 pm
Location: Playing Eschaton with a bucket of old tennis balls

Re: The Third Crusade [BETA] XML UPDATED

Postby Kabanellas on Tue Dec 08, 2009 3:56 am

I'd definitely support the idea of Wales having 5. As for the the EC, I think 2 might be low, I'd settle on 3.
Major Kabanellas
 
Posts: 1482
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 12:21 pm
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: The Third Crusade [BETA] XML UPDATED

Postby cutebastard71 on Tue Dec 08, 2009 5:01 am

I am too lazy to go through the whole thread, but I do have one question... in our trips game, everybody started with 30 armies, only teal started with 27 armies ? I think that the problem is that London (which teal got) doesn't start with 6, is this intentional or is it an error ? As far as I can see London should be 6 at the start of the game. Right now it started with 3 which created this inequality in the initial number of armies i.e. teal got 9*3 instead 8*3+6 like everybody else although he got London :)

EDIT: If needed I grabbed the snapshot.
Last edited by cutebastard71 on Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Lieutenant cutebastard71
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:08 pm

Re: The Third Crusade [BETA] XML UPDATED

Postby AndrewB on Tue Dec 08, 2009 2:10 pm

Kabanellas wrote:I'd definitely support the idea of Wales having 5. As for the the EC, I think 2 might be low, I'd settle on 3.


XML Version 9 is created with these changes:

http://bolonniy.com/CC/Third_Crusade_v9.xml
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant AndrewB
 
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 5:02 pm
Location: Edmonton, Canada, MST

Re: The Third Crusade [BETA] XML UPDATED

Postby MrBenn on Tue Dec 08, 2009 4:08 pm

If I've got this right, then these are the updated links for the XML and the images.
AndrewB wrote:
Kabanellas wrote:I'd definitely support the idea of Wales having 5. As for the the EC, I think 2 might be low, I'd settle on 3.


XML Version 9 is created with these changes:

http://bolonniy.com/CC/Third_Crusade_v9.xml

Large: http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af105/Kabanellas/Third_Crusade_CClast.png
Small: http://i998.photobucket.com/albums/af105/Kabanellas/Third_Crusade_small_CClast.png

Could you just confirm that there has been no change to the ordering of territories/continents - and then I'll pop the files across to lackattack ;-)
Image
PB: 2661 | He's blue... If he were green he would die | No mod would be stupid enough to do that
User avatar
Lieutenant MrBenn
 
Posts: 6880
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am
Location: Off Duty

Re: The Third Crusade [BETA] XML UPDATED

Postby cubfanpgh on Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:15 pm

In a game I started recently, it took me 3 turns as London to take Wales. Just so we understand.
Game 5991504
User avatar
Cadet cubfanpgh
 
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 8:59 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

PreviousNext

Return to The Atlas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users