The Third Crusade [Quenched] Revamping

[Jatekos]

That was COMPLETELY intentional. When a city is important for geographic and historical regions I chose to name the region after it.

I see, but it is still weird for me to see Budapest and Bulgaria being about the same size. I'd much more like to see only cities / only regions /only countries on the map. Anyways, good luck with your map.

[TaCktiX]

On the XML, the County of Tripoli is typoed as "County of Tripole".

[Incandenza]

I'd be wary of increasing neutral values too much - it usually means that the territory is taken out of play rather than being an inconvenience (depending on card settings, of course).

I think adding territories to the objective makes sense. I wonder if it's worth switching the circles you've used for starting points, so that those on the victory condition have the extra dashed line around them - it would make them look a little bit more important...

Just wanted to second this.

[rabbiton]

I'd be wary of increasing neutral values too much - it usually means that the territory is taken out of play rather than being an inconvenience (depending on card settings, of course).

I think adding territories to the objective makes sense. I wonder if it's worth switching the circles you've used for starting points, so that those on the victory condition have the extra dashed line around them - it would make them look a little bit more important...

Just wanted to second this.

under what circumstance would the current objective(s) (let alone any new more onerous ones) likely come into play without the game being effectively over?

the issues i see cited are with 1v1, unlimited forts... where, yes, i can see how there can be an issue this this specific, rather exotic, setting. it's just a pity that because of that any prospect of having a map with objectives regularly in play appears to be out the window.

[AndrewB]

Indeed, indeed.

When Kab and me were working on this map we really tried to make sure that it is better to win the game by objectives.

In most cases I have played this map i saw it.

But under some specific settings it became a farming ground, which I really really dont like.

From what I see to have a map, were you can have at least a similar chance of victory by conquest and a victory by objectives AND manual deployment seems impossible...

[MrBenn]

I've tried out a couple of 1v1 manual deployment games... So far one of them was a complete walkover, while the other two are being more problematic (not being helped by some inanely bad dice).

My real observation is that Jerusalem and Antioch are fairly close, and that expanding from there to the Vatican would seem relatively easy (if you had a good start in the inset area). It would definitely make it more challenging to change the objectives to require The Vatican AND Granada, rather than one or the other...

[AndrewB]

I will support making both Granada and Vatican part of the objective.

Kab, what do u think?

[Kabanellas]

I agree

[Kabanellas]

I'm summarizing all noted points:

-making mandatory to hold both Granada and The Vatican to achieve victory. One would have to hold 5 regions to win the game now
-increasing starting troops in London from 3 to 6 (I wouldn't touch Wales and Cyprus though)
-decreasing Constantinople, Seleucia and Venice neutral troops to 3 only
-decreasing Tyre neutral troops to 4

-not sure about 'Malta' and 'Krak des Chevaliers', should they both be dropped to 3 as well?

[AndrewB]

I guess so, it makes then more achievable...

[luxCRUSADER]

I'm summarizing all noted points:

.....

-not sure about 'Malta' and 'Krak des Chevaliers', should they both be dropped to 3 as well?

I am presently in 85 active games on your 'historically accurate' map (God bless you man ) and on the last point, in my humble opinion, yes it would make for more spirited efforts to make the mad dash for the Holy Land ! Presently, the neutrals are too high in the early rounds for any real worth while attempt to reach the victory condition objectives ... the vast majority are playing for elimination.

Extremely fair map as you have made the Muslim occupied areas very realistic - a great deal of care and creativity here is appreciated !

I look forward to the new changes and wouldn't care if they were introduced in mid game... I am having so much fun playing on your map, that I have stopped restricting my game play to 'no spoils' game ... your map did that !!!

luxCRUSADER

[JustCallMeStupid]

Read through much of the last two pages or so. first off, this map is very cool. I really like the creativity and the objective seems difficult enough but enticing enough.
I dont play 1v1 games and dont think the map should be moderately changed to accommodate "fairness" in 1v1 where dice can matter more than anything when good players play other good players (I had a 6 beat a 21 today which sucks, cause now I am due to lose about 16 units somewhere)

Thought I would voice an opinion based off of current 2v2 3v3 and 4v4 games just beginning.

Kingdom of Jerusalem is a bit high with +3 bonus there and a 6 border guarding the West 5 gaurding the North West and a 5/2 neutrals on the north. basically, only the 2 neutral is needed to guard for a +3 maybe make it a +2 or see alternatives through cypress below.
Starting positions Definitely isnt too fair starting off england with only a 3 while rest are 6. Also, I almost think a 6 is too high to start with, 4 or 5 on all seems more balanced particularly in France where a 6 can quickly take that bonus area and usually defending the bonus by 2 borders. France might be overpowered with +4 bonus consider +3 bonus on it instead.
Cypress Consider dropping the neutral to a 3 and changing the bonus to +1 when combined with London, this would put some pressure on Kingdom of Jerusalem bonus.
Vatican/Granada win I like the idea of two options for a win option. Objectives are so rarely achieved in most games I think adding more options is a great idea
Iberian bonus Granada could be an autodeploy +1 like Vatican and others. This gives Iberian the +1 for taking it and puts it on par with the other 4/5 stack regions that get an auto deploy bonus. Side note: Iberia bonus with 3 borders is the same as France with 2 borders (I assume a 4 or 5 neutral is a border that doesnt need guarding in most team games)
Jerusalem Nowhere on the key does it say Jerusalem = +1 or does it? On a friends game she is getting + 1 for Jerusalem, how would someone know this? EDIT Noticed its autodeploy. I didnt relate the shield to jerusalem and didnt even see it really until now.
EC Why does this revert back to a 4 neutral? Not sure once it is taken why it would change back. It doesnt seem like an extremely strategic spot like naval superiority in another map that has the same feature.
Hungary Only worth a +1 to defend 4 borders? I understand it might be unimportant in the concept of 3rd Crusade but still it is hard to take and defend that bonus, consider making it a +2?
Principality of Armenia One has to take a 5 neutral that is one way attacked by Ratisbon. Could this bonus be changed to only the two outer territories and it worth +1 or +2 bonus. Otherwise seems a bonus gone to waste on most games?

Hope these thoughts are not redundant on the other 20 + pages I didnt read through. Im sure a lot of my ideas coincide with my name, but maybe 1 of them will be beneficial to the forum. Thanks for an awesome map so far!

[Kabanellas]

You have some good remarks indeed, let’s go through them:

Kingdom of Jerusalem: I have that same feeling, those +3 may be a bit high. Possible dropping them to 2 could do the trick. Don’t know what Andrew thinks about this.....

Starting Positions: Yes, we’re totally for raising London to 6 as well. I’d like the starting points to be recognizable by their troop count so players start their actions by focusing on those areas, that's why the higher numbers.

Cypress: I wouldn’t touch those neutral troops, especially if we’re raising London initial troops to 6.

Vatican/Granada: yes, the idea was to make a map that could actually be won by objectives achievement. We have the problem of the 1v1 games (especially with manual deployment)... That’s the reason why we’re purposing on making both Granada and The Vatican mandatory.

Iberian Bonus: lowering this bonus can be an option to start considering, especially if we make Malta and Krak more achievable by lowering their troop count. As for Granada, I like the idea of making it a part of the Muslim bonus, it makes sense both historically and in gameplay.

Jerusalem:

E.C.: the idea is that the E Channel stays as a buffer to ‘enlarge’ that Paris/London proximity.

Hungary: like Poland and the Balkans, the lower bonus is part of the concept. Those regions are of no interest for the 3rd Crusade scenario though they can be conquered and hold. And I’ve been seeing that happen quite often in this map even with Hungary despite its unfavourable condition

Principality Armenia: think of it as a bonus for the player starting in Ratisbone, we know that holding the Holy Roman Empire is too hard

K

[JustCallMeStupid]

Starting Positions: Ok. Still think 6 seems such a strong start spot. 5 seems more reasonable.

Vatican/Granada: Still think that the current way is better. If someone gets strong enough in a 1v1 to take 4/5 of the objective, they will probably win 99/100 times anyways. Making it more difficult, just means people wont even bother with it.

Iberian Bonus: Not sure what is best here.

France New thought I forgot to mention. France is way over powered at +4 bonus. 3 borders for a +4 bonus and u start with a 6 on one of the territories. This really needs to be turned down to a +3 bonus at max maybe even only a 2. It is really ruining my team games.

E.C.: I get the idea. I just dont ever see anyone attacking through here ever. Assuming France is guarded by 6,6 on the outer borders, who is going to waste attacking 4 nuetrals to brake the third undefended border, only to get pummeled back by france where they can now easily go through the current 1 unit on EC? Unless it somehow resets to 4 units at the end of the players turn rather than the beginning keeping it a 4 always. And if France doesnt have enough units to cross EC, they just stop at normandy, and it resets to a 4. London would now be weak and unable to do it again.

Principality Armenia: I believe in all games except 1v1 this will be a bonus no one will ever waste their units taking. I really think selucia should not be part of that bonus. Also, this would encourage people to brake into Cyprus because they can stack their borders for a round netting a bonus. Makes getting to K of J more viable as well. Even in 1v1 few people would go through the 5 neutral from roman empire. I guess I should play a 1v1 to see what the fuss is about.

Thanks for the quick feedback, I forgot to mention France comment and I think toning that down to +3 or +2 is very important in balance.
-js-

[Kabanellas]

Starting Positions: Ok. Still think 6 seems such a strong start spot. 5 seems more reasonable.

It wouldn't bother me much drooping them to 5 honestly, if everyone feels like it

Vatican/Granada: Still think that the current way is better. If someone gets strong enough in a 1v1 to take 4/5 of the objective, they will probably win 99/100 times anyways. Making it more difficult, just means people wont even bother with it.

I do feel the same......

Iberian Bonus: Not sure what is best here.

again, if we lower the neutral troops to 3 both in Malta and Krak, lowering the Iberian bonus could be an option though you have a lot of regions to conquer here. 7 actually, far more than France

France New thought I forgot to mention. France is way over powered at +4 bonus. 3 borders for a +4 bonus and u start with a 6 on one of the territories. This really needs to be turned down to a +3 bonus at max maybe even only a 2. It is really ruining my team games.

I agree, 4 seems to much.

E.C.: I get the idea. I just dont ever see anyone attacking through here ever. Assuming France is guarded by 6,6 on the outer borders, who is going to waste attacking 4 nuetrals to brake the third undefended border, only to get pummeled back by france where they can now easily go through the current 1 unit on EC? Unless it somehow resets to 4 units at the end of the players turn rather than the beginning keeping it a 4 always. And if France doesnt have enough units to cross EC, they just stop at normandy, and it resets to a 4. London would now be weak and unable to do it again.

well, we could think of dropping it to 3 neutral killers....

Principality Armenia: I believe in all games except 1v1 this will be a bonus no one will ever waste their units taking. I really think selucia should not be part of that bonus. Also, this would encourage people to brake into Cyprus because they can stack their borders for a round netting a bonus. Makes getting to K of J more viable as well. Even in 1v1 few people would go through the 5 neutral from roman empire. I guess I should play a 1v1 to see what the fuss is about.

remember, that we are already purposing on dropping Seleucia neutral troops to 3. That could even things a bit.

Thanks for the quick feedback, I forgot to mention France comment and I think toning that down to +3 or +2 is very important in balance.
-js-

[JustCallMeStupid]

Iberian Bonus: Not sure what is best here.

again, if we lower the neutral troops to 3 both in Malta and Krak, lowering the Iberian bonus could be an option though you have a lot of regions to conquer here. 7 actually, far more than France

Iberian Bonus:Im undecided on the bonus for iberia, havent played enough to make a fair conclusion. At times +4 feels like the right number and at times +3 seems right. If France was as low as +2 bonus then Iberia could be +3 bonus. But if France stays +3 bonus Iberia is fairly difficult to take and hold with 7 territories and 4 seems reasonable. So I am still undecided.

I will try to make sure i check back in here in another week. I hope my Engalnd channel comments make sense. I understand making the difficulty to get through relevant but it wont be used much. Now if France bonus drops as low as +2 then I could see leaving the channel at 4 neutral since it would be a last resort break on france after all other borders are exhausted.
-js

[MrBenn]

There's some good well-reasoned suggestions coming about here... This is exactly what the Beta phase is for

Kabanellas, give me a poke when you've next updated with your thoughts, and I'll try and come back at you with my thoughts

[00iCon]

-not sure about 'Malta' and 'Krak des Chevaliers', should they both be dropped to 3 as well?

reducing Krak would make Antioch and Tripoli easier to capture... so i say no.

Starting Positions: Ok. Still think 6 seems such a strong start spot. 5 seems more reasonable.

It wouldn't bother me much drooping them to 5 honestly, if everyone feels like it

Didn't we discuss that if it was less than 6, they can be easily taken on the first turn.

[JustCallMeStupid]

If they start with a 5 stack there is a 50% chance of taking a spot if they start at 6 its 40%. I mean, if you are really arguing someone might take a starting spot then that start spot should be 7 or 8 or so so it is less than 1/4 chance. Lowering the start spot to 5 helps in no card team games by generally makeing it more difficult to take a bonus or at least have a weaker bordered bonus. In team no cards games with chained forts, which is very common, if a team can grab a bonus in round 1 it can be very difficult to brake that bonus before round 2 or 3.

Anyways, another thought on the map is to make Balearc is connect to Tunis. Tunis is somewhat land locked needing to break through a neutral or go through Cors and Sard to attack or fort. This would also apply slightly more pressure towards Iberian Kingdom and keep that bonus worth a value of 4. Ive seen in two of my games tunisa and Cors & Sard are the same player. I always attack their teammates at Lombardy or Balearc Island forcing Tunis to fort himself. Generally my team will control either lombardy or Balearc most the time, so we only need to take out one fort spot. So I have been using this to my advantage lately. this idea probably only minimally effects game play. -js

[Kabanellas]

updating all noted points

-increase starting troops in London from 3 to 6
-decrease Constantinople, Seleucia, Venice, Malta and Krak des Chevaliers neutral troops to 3 only
-decrease Tyre neutral troops to 4
-decrease France bonus to +3
-decrease Kingdom of Jerusalem bonus to +2
-make mandatory to hold both Granada and The Vatican to achieve victory. One would have to hold 5 regions to win the game now. (I'm still wondering if we really need to change this)

[AndrewB]

Maybe make a poll about last point?

[slowreactor]

updating all noted points

-increase starting troops in London from 3 to 6
-decrease Constantinople, Seleucia, Venice, Malta and Krak des Chevaliers neutral troops to 3 only
-decrease Tyre neutral troops to 4
-decrease France bonus to +3
-decrease Kingdom of Jerusalem bonus to +2
-make mandatory to hold both Granada and The Vatican to achieve victory. One would have to hold 5 regions to win the game now. (I'm still wondering if we really need to change this)

DONT CHANGE THAT YET! Not till I win that game

[Raskholnikov]

Hi Kab,

I absolutely love playing your map. Congratulations on an amazing success!

I would not change the Victory conditions. As it is, a player can legitimately aim to win using the Victory condition without having first to destroy the opponent (1v1). If you will require BOTH Granada and the Vatican, that becomes pretty impossible. One would have to neutralise the opponent to a point where it probably would be easier to just totally destroy him than go for Antioch, Jerusalem, Granada and Vatican (20 neutral armies altogether to kill I think) and have enough left to protect them plus one starting point all for at least one turn from the adversary's attack (at least another 20 armies).

And this is just 1v1. The odds at more than 2 players to win by Enhanced Victory Condition except in the final 1v1 stage of the game become virtually nil.

In short: you have a winner here. Don't change it too much! (Except the London 3 to 6, with which I totally agree).

Once again, congrats on a great game and a stunningly beautiful and historically accurate map!!

R

[JustCallMeStupid]

updating all noted points

-increase starting troops in London from 3 to 6
-decrease Constantinople, Seleucia, Venice, Malta and Krak des Chevaliers neutral troops to 3 only
-decrease Tyre neutral troops to 4
-decrease France bonus to +3
-decrease Kingdom of Jerusalem bonus to +2
-make mandatory to hold both Granada and The Vatican to achieve victory. One would have to hold 5 regions to win the game now. (I'm still wondering if we really need to change this)

Cool changes. I would be interested to hear additional opinions on France bonus being +2. It seems there was not much feedback. I just feel given 1 spot starts a 6 and ultimately it comes down to defending two borders a +2 would be more reasonable. But given the 3 nearby starting spots (assuming they arent neutral) it can be reasonable to break. But I would like to know if anyone else has opinions about france bonus. -js- I hope I get my +4 on France before these changes take place though

[Shrinky]

One minor question.

As part of the balkan states bonuses, we have servia. is this intentional or is it meant to be serbia?