Baltic Crusades

[MarshalNey]

Good heavens!!!

I take a week of vacation and now two of my favorite maps are dying or dead!

I have a great deal of interest in this map, if it matters TB. I haven't commented a lot on this one in a while I know, but really I only comment when I feel I have something to contribute.

If you needed me to pop in and say, "Looks great! Can't wait to play it!" then by all means I will do so in the future, and it will be sincere. Incidentally, I haven't commented on Northwest Passage, Russian Revolution, Orient Express or De Bello Gallico maps either, and they are ones I eagerly await as well.

Anyway, if you feel as though the map is grinding forward too slowly and you want to do other things with your life, I certainly understand. But if you think there's just no interest in these maps, *think again*.

[theBastard]

Good heavens!!!

I take a week of vacation and now two of my favorite maps are dying or dead!

I have a great deal of interest in this map, if it matters TB. I haven't commented a lot on this one in a while I know, but really I only comment when I feel I have something to contribute.

If you needed me to pop in and say, "Looks great! Can't wait to play it!" then by all means I will do so in the future, and it will be sincere. Incidentally, I haven't commented on Northwest Passage, Russian Revolution, Orient Express or De Bello Gallico maps either, and they are ones I eagerly await as well.

Anyway, if you feel as though the map is grinding forward too slowly and you want to do other things with your life, I certainly understand. But if you think there's just no interest in these maps, *think again*.

no, no I do not need "it looks great", "wooow, superb" and so on . I´m new, I do not know much about GP and balancing so I wait some advices. how much guys were here? 3? except Helix who helped me from start...

I realy now have not interest to work on this map. I know that you are one of few who helped me and have interest, thank for this.

[theBastard]

only for interest. could somebody comment numbers of starting postions?

Click image to enlarge.

[Industrial Helix]

The only thing that concerns me is that the castles or towns might be too high as a starting position. If a castle autodeploys on up to six then it has a very strong starting position to grab a smaller bonus, like Rugen or take another town. I would suggest starting castles at 2... maybe. I'm not 100% sold on either two or three.

Why are some of the neutral regions at 1, 2 or 3? Rather than the same number across the board?

[theBastard]

The only thing that concerns me is that the castles or towns might be too high as a starting position. If a castle autodeploys on up to six then it has a very strong starting position to grab a smaller bonus, like Rugen or take another town. I would suggest starting castles at 2... maybe. I'm not 100% sold on either two or three.

each castle lies in territory with 3 neutral armies, so at the start of the first turn player will hold 6 in castle. but at the first he must conquer the territory with neutral armies.
but yes, we can add to all starting positions less armies - 2 as you wrote looks fine...

Why are some of the neutral regions at 1, 2 or 3? Rather than the same number across the board?

because if in territory lies castle with 3 auto-deploy it has 3 neutral armies, if in territory lies city/town with 1 auto-deploy army it has 2 neutral armies. and I could do something as real world - some countries/territories are more populated or saved...

my idea is that in the first turn nobody can go far as one territory...

[Industrial Helix]

Ah ahh... i see now. Yeah. That makes sense.

Are all castles, towns and h-towns open to be a starting position or will some start neutral?

[theBastard]

all white numbers are neutral. so yes, there are any neutral castles and towns and from h-towns only Visby.

[Industrial Helix]

And how did you determine that they should start as neutrals?

[theBastard]

And how did you determine that they should start as neutrals?

there are 8 marked castles - 4 as Teutonic strongholds and 4 as Polish-Lithuanian strongholds - so these are starting positions, the rest are neutral.
there are 8 marked towns - 4 as christians and 4 as pagan - these are starting points and rest neutral.
Visby is the nineth Hansa town, so it is neutral and ofcourse due its importance.

only this was why I add any settlements as neutral. you ask me because balance of start, yes? do you think it could be not balanced? therefore I also add higher number of neutral armies somewhere...

[Industrial Helix]

I was just curious as to how it worked out. To be honest, it looks decent. I'd have to take a closer look at the distance between starting points, which should be more or less equal.

[theBastard]

I was just curious as to how it worked out. To be honest, it looks decent. I'd have to take a closer look at the distance between starting points, which should be more or less equal.

to be candid, I do not understand you. "it looks decent", "more or less equal" - you mean it is good?

about "equal" I played/saw many maps where were starting positions set up much more not equal...

[Industrial Helix]

"looks decent" is my way of saying it looks good, but my opinion may change if someone points out an obvious flaw that I missed.

"more or less equal" meaning the territories between starting points shoudl have the same number of neutrals in between them. For example, some castles have 5 neutrals between them and another castle. Others have 6 neutrals between them an another castle. there should be an equal number of neutrals between castles so as to not make dropping one castle more advantageous than another.

Older maps with starting positions are a little unequal, but the rules of the forum as of now is that it should be as equal as possible.

[MarshalNey]

only for interest. could somebody comment numbers of starting postions?

They look good overall.

My biggest worry is the neutrals between Gniezno and Mazovia. I think Leezyea should be beefed up to a 2.

Reval seems to enjoy a bit of isolation up in the north, Konigsberg only slightly in the middle. The others all look good.

"more or less equal" meaning the territories between starting points shoudl have the same number of neutrals in between them. For example, some castles have 5 neutrals between them and another castle. Others have 6 neutrals between them an another castle. there should be an equal number of neutrals between castles so as to not make dropping one castle more advantageous than another.

There is a bit of a qualifier needed here, however. 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 for neutrals is not the same as 2 + 2. The 2 + 2 is stronger. Similarly, odd numbers are slightly less defensive than evens when talking small numbers like 3 or even 5. So, 3 + 3 is not as good as 4 + 2, for instance, but this is a smaller thing than the neutrals involving 1's.

Anyway, in this map it mostly isn't an issue, since anywhere there are neutral 1's, it looks like there are more regions to cross and/or more neutrals that balance things just fine.

[theBastard]

to Helix, hm when I look at map you are right. there are some advantages for any castles... I will change some numbers of starting points.

to Marshal, it is impossible to have the same position for each territory/settlements. also Stettin seems a little isolated, but Reval and Stettin have way to Visby.
maybe as Helix said, the same numbers of all neutrals will be better. we will see when I change some of them.

thanks guys for help.

[Evil DIMwit]

There is a bit of a qualifier needed here, however. 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 for neutrals is not the same as 2 + 2. The 2 + 2 is stronger. Similarly, odd numbers are slightly less defensive than evens when talking small numbers like 3 or even 5. So, 3 + 3 is not as good as 4 + 2, for instance, but this is a smaller thing than the neutrals involving 1's.

I'm wondering, do you have hard numbers for these? Those would be useful.

The starting position and neutral distribution seems pretty solid, actually. Maybe give Ragnit, Dunaburg, and Narva a little bit more (I'd say 4) since they give such a high auto-deploy.

You've got a four-way corner where Pomesania meets Prussia, which is bad. It's also not clear whether castles, towns, &c. border just the ground they're built on or any territory they graphically touch.

Finally, you might want to drop the army shadows. There shouldn't be a problem letting the army numbers just sit on these territories.

[theBastard]

The starting position and neutral distribution seems pretty solid, actually. Maybe give Ragnit, Dunaburg, and Narva a little bit more (I'd say 4) since they give such a high auto-deploy.

agree with this.

You've got a four-way corner where Pomesania meets Prussia, which is bad. It's also not clear whether castles, towns, &c. border just the ground they're built on or any territory they graphically touch.

how to resolve this corner? because I want to have attack "routes" how they are with corner... add trees here?
which settlement has not clear borders, you think? there are maybe Riga and Marienburg, but for me are rest clear...

Finally, you might want to drop the army shadows. There shouldn't be a problem letting the army numbers just sit on these territories.

you mean shadows under army numbers?

thanks for help.

[Industrial Helix]

In regards to your 4 corner border, just extend the tree line further south but not enough to cover up the entire border with Kuyavia and Deumark.

[Evil DIMwit]

You've got a four-way corner where Pomesania meets Prussia, which is bad. It's also not clear whether castles, towns, &c. border just the ground they're built on or any territory they graphically touch.

how to resolve this corner? because I want to have attack "routes" how they are with corner... add trees here?

Just put a couple of trees in the corner. You have space for them.

which settlement has not clear borders, you think? there are maybe Riga and Marienburg, but for me are rest clear...

Those, and Fellin looks like it might be touching Livonia.

Finally, you might want to drop the army shadows. There shouldn't be a problem letting the army numbers just sit on these territories.

you mean shadows under army numbers?

Yeah, those little circles wherever you have the numbers. I don't think you need them.

[theBastard]

Just put a couple of trees in the corner. You have space for them.

o.k. undestand.

Those, and Fellin looks like it might be touching Livonia.

you think that each settlement would lie in one territory? so has no more borders?

Yeah, those little circles wherever you have the numbers. I don't think you need them.

o.k.

[Evil DIMwit]

Those, and Fellin looks like it might be touching Livonia.

you think that each settlement would lie in one territory? so has no more borders?

If that is the case, just move Riga and Marienburg a pixel or two to the left (or move the corresponding border a pixel or two to the right) and move Fellin up so it's clear that it doesn't border Livonia.

[theBastard]

this is not realy case. the idea was not to do that each settlement must lies in one territory. but now it looks that it will be better...

[Evil DIMwit]

I'm not sure whether it's better or worse but the vast majority of settlements do only sit in one territory anyway. The only exceptions I see are Schlochau and the borderline cases that were mentioned. I do think it would be less confusing if players never had to ask the question.

[amazzony]

I realise I'm a stranger hopping in but just wanted to point out that the 2 islands at the top of the map (part of Estonia) should be written with a weird letter "ö". So, instead of Dago and Osel, they should be Dagö and Ösel. I understand that the font that you are using might not even have these letters but I thought that I'll mention it just in case and maybe they can be written grammatically correctly

Map is looking great, well done so far!

[theBastard]

I realise I'm a stranger hopping in but just wanted to point out that the 2 islands at the top of the map (part of Estonia) should be written with a weird letter "ö". So, instead of Dago and Osel, they should be Dagö and Ösel. I understand that the font that you are using might not even have these letters but I thought that I'll mention it just in case and maybe they can be written grammatically correctly

there are more names which need "ö" (Konigsberg), but I´m afraid that used font have not this letter. I forgot...

Map is looking great, well done so far!

thanks, I want finished it, but my Photoshop crashed me...

[theBastard]

guys, my Photoshop CS2 was crashed. I must wait for guy who gives me it, but I do not know when I will be able to contact him.
is here anybody who can help me? maybe I could use another Graphics program, or somebody could do a little correstions...

thanks.