Land of Rus'

[b]1)[/b] Alright, bishop made the proposal to post the map with new style borders on forum, so that he can reply. [spoiler][img]https://i.imgur.com/mkGv6NB.jpeg [/img] [/spoiler] Basicly, i changed the border shapes to make them look more realistic, but the border connections remain the same for the exeption for elez-mokshiy-kursk part. I also made sure, the circles fit in neatlesly. I can post a version with circles later. Bishop didnt like the new changes and prefered old round borders, but Hoodlum and I preferbthe new ones. Hoodlum said the following in PM: "yup the borders/territories look better, they always caught my eye of being rounded and smooth and not a suitable style for this map. [...] map is coming along visually." Whats your opinion on the border shape, round or edgy? ... [b]2)[/b] I also asked for feedback in PMs to players that participated in the test games and/or currently participate. To get a structured feedback, i sent out a special questionnaire. So far i recieved answers from [b]maafi, lubi, calebdecker, among others[/b]: [b]My message[/b]: "Hello, i am writing to you because you are participating in the test games on the new map „Land of Rus‘ „ The reason for this writing is my aim to get your opinion/feedback/thoughts on this new map. Please tell me your thoughts/opinion on the following topics: Gameplay (the map intended to be large (a bit lke the Texas map) and be played by multiple players simultaneously); Design (colors, textures, layout etc.); Additional bonuses (they are intended to add complexity and variety to the game; add more tactical choises; displacing the cards as the dominant way of getting troops and thus making the map more interesting to play on capped and no cards games; and they are intended to shape the movements of players (without prohibiting movement as mountains and rivers do it) through incuring „opportunity costs“ on the movements – you can read more in the forum) Topic (historical setting in eastern europe) Feel free to add feedback to things not mentioned in the questions. And finally please tell me something about yourself 1.Do you prefer 1) increasing, 2) capped or 3) no cards? 2 Do you prefer games with 1) 7p+ or 2) rather 2-3, max 4p games? 3 Do you like 1) fast games or 2) slow ones? 4 Do you like 1) large/very large, 2) medium or 3) small maps? Thank you for your feedback! PS: If your games just started and you cant say much about the map/gameplay, then feel free to wait few days/weeks before submiting the feedback!" [b]calebdecker said: 19 Feb 2025, 21:25[/b] There is a lot to like on the 'Rus map. 1) the art of the soldiers mixed in is great, 2) layered territory bonuses is next level thinking, love it. 3) it is a giant map, so probably a long game. Don't love those so much, not for me anyway. My preference on large maps, and probably most maps is advanced cards/increasing with fog. Don't love small maps much. Good map! Thanks Side note to the admins and innovators out there.... where is the best place to post feedback? I feel there is a ton of untapped data out there... starting w game summary (dice outcomes by player, statistics on battles/wins, cashing w 3 cards)... could also be pivoted on map size, length of game, player size (for Dima). [b]goryh said: 19 Feb 2025, 23:18[/b] @Dima, This is great and I generally like it. Though that might not be obvious as my feedback focuses on the things I would change. I would change the right side information so Regions are on top and Sections are on bottom. On the Super-Regions, I would move the +1 on the Budjak shaded region a little. I couldn't tell it was the same thing at first as the boundary between Ak-Kerman and Barlad is almost completely obscured. On colors I would make the Regions not part of Super-Regions or Sections a different color than the unplayable part of the map that appears in the north. Did you purposely have Sections cut up Super-Regions? It seems odd to me. I would love to hear the thought process (and play a few games to try it out). I love when regions have names so I am glad you named the Regions and Sections. I am curious if there is a reason the Super-Regions don't have names. Lastly, there is a lot to take in here. You have presented it pretty well but it did take some time for me to fully understand. I am wondering if you have tried any ways to use the regions and super regions? I have lots of (probably terrible) ideas, but I will wait to hear about what you have already considered before typing any of them up. I love this idea and I am excited to try it out in a couple of games. Can anyone start a game with this map or how would I go about it if I wanted to try it with some of my regular players? 1. Capped is my top choice 2. I generally prefer larger games 3. Game speed doesn't matter much to me as long as people aren't missing turns 4. Medium to Large is probably the sweet spot for me. [b]Dima said: 22 Feb 2025, 13:56[/b] guys, sorry that it took me a bit longer to reply, had not much time lately. i am glad that i got this feedback! and i woukd he happybif others would give their feedback as well! also of you want to give feedback on maps/talk aboit maps/make your own maps, then you should vision the "map crearion" section of the forum and discus the maps publicly. i also started with a new map (germany) and you can find a thread there and leave comments if you like. moreover i will collect the feedback from you and the ones who have not replyed yet and then reply & make changes. cheers! [b]Dima said: 22 Feb 2025, 13:58[/b] ps: regarding laking names of suoer-regions: well one thing is to safe space and dont overload the map with info. second is that the names arent very spectacular. murom-ryazan, galych-volyn, susdal-vladimir and so on. these are the real historical names lol. other super regions dont have real names, i made them for the sake of gameplay, for example mordva + saksin. [b]lubi40 said: 19 Feb 2025, 17:34[/b] Good morning Dima, I have already played 1 game and another in progress, interesting map and for many players (as I like it), interesting, but the 3 levels of bonus cards confuse me and the conquest of an area is sometimes very difficult (Hungary) for example, the entire map I think is +100 more territories ? , perhaps too many, and games too long, in conclusion the bonuses are always good, medium-large maps, 24-36 hours, 9 players not more it s enough, Thank you and good work [b]03 Feb, 14:18 ENGELBREKT[/b]: Its interesting to play a historical map in east europe. I visited many places on this map 1995 so I remember many names. Makes the map even more fun! [b] 19 Feb, 03:05 bcolem924[/b]: I like the complexity. The colors are slightly hard on the eyes though, IMHO [b]20 Feb, 20:36 maafi:[/b] I think it’s really interesting map Dima. I also find the colours difficult though. It’s not easy to differentiate some of the regions.

PS: the players complained about colors BEFORE i changed them.they also did see the new edgy borders. as i expected the opinion on additional bonuses is slightly divided. Some players love it (i do it aswell), some people find them a bit complicated at the beginning. I really want to keep them because i like additional complexity and also some people like it aswell. i think it could be a feature that makes this map something standing apart from other maps and give a bit different gameplay amd complexity. ProblemChild96 was so far the only one who didnt understand them at first, i dunno if he understood it by now. [b]PS[/b]: Here is the version with new borders & circles; the minimaps are not updated and have the old round borders. [img]https://i.imgur.com/HGi5Zor.jpeg [/img]

had a chance to play a game on this, i liked the gameplay a lot. ill be playing it more. i wasn't paying too much attention to the super regions, and the sections bonus, but more interested in the normal region bonus firstly which i found i had to scroll down. no big deal, but i felt like it probably should be at the top, while the sections bonus should be at the bottom. typically you'd read something from top to bottom, and you wouldn't achieve the super regions /sections till later in the game.

@Hoodlum, thank you for your comment! its always good to recieve positive feedback from experienced players & mapmakers. also, i have tested a new cloth texture as addition to the currently used textures and decided to post it here. doesnt make the map better or worse, just interesting change. [spoiler][img]https://i.imgur.com/9DDg1FZ.jpeg [/img] [/spoiler]

[quote=Dima said:]Basicly, i changed the border shapes to make them look more realistic, but the border connections remain the same for the exeption for elez-mokshiy-kursk part. I also made sure, the circles fit in neatlesly. I can post a version with circles later. Bishop didnt like the new changes and prefered old round borders, but Hoodlum and I preferbthe new ones. Hoodlum said the following in PM: "yup the borders/territories look better, they always caught my eye of being rounded and smooth and not a suitable style for this map. [...] map is coming along visually." Whats your opinion on the border shape, round or edgy?[/quote] Round or edgy more-or-less are equal for me. I liked the territories smooth and rounded, I called it "cartoon style", now yes, they look more realistic, but still they are made-up borders not actual borders... It has been a shocking change for me but well, now I'm getting used to the new version, so I'm neutral: it's just a matter of style. I liked your questionnaire idea and I have carefully read all the answers. I like the new color scheme, it looks better to me. I have some technical things to point out: first of all LITHUANIAN is misspelled. Note about text: I criticized the use of asterisks for the regions named after a territory, being confusing used together with apostrophes, but then you removed both, not only the asterisks but also the apostrophes. Now I don't know what is better, perhaps they can stay without apostrophe but confirm me when the name are correct please, so I'll fix them also in the game log. Second, in the second minimap the only contested area that I recognize very well is the Pskov region because the stripes are of 2 different colours, one dark and one light, so there's a clear contrast. Not so in the South where the 3 contested areas are a bit hard to be seen. In the South things are more complex and they need to be graphically more clear. I would like to try that pale light-green colour that you put in the Northern most super-region to be used (also) in the South for the Aeditch'Kul--Nogai super-region. You should probably play with colors a little bit in the second minimap. Note about minimaps: I do not understand the idea of reverting the mini-maps order, almost equal for me, but I think when you play it's more practice the way it is. Third, I forgot to mention before: the added part (next to the frame) has to be textured as well, it doesn't look nice without texture. The one you have just shown is not bad but it makes the map a bit too dark in my opinion. You can also chose to add a texture only for that part I mentioned, different from the rest. I don't know: you will play with it and see.

[spoiler][img]https://i.imgur.com/KQp3UST.jpeg [/img] [/spoiler]

Great, good job Dima! Last detail from me (about gameplay). I see the Western part too poor and the Eastern one too rich. I don't know if it is by intention or by mistake. To make the balance I would give +3 to Hungary-&-Poland-&-Walachia , and +6 to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (double in size compared to the other Sections). Then it's up to you, it doesn't change so much in the end.

Well, I've just updated the map with the new image.

Alright, I have recieved some more feedback after sending out my questionnaire. Most people are ok with the changed, also one survied is sceptical towards the consted areas. [b]DarkErik[/b] said: 06 Mar 2025, 20:39 I like the newness of any new map. I traditionally play smaller maps with my 2 friends though and hate big ass maps like Texas. However, I do appreciate the ingenuity of new borders, textures, multi-bonuses, etc. this is the type of creativity we need to pump life back in this game. The UK x 3 map was a bust though in my opinion (not sure if that was yours). I remember when the Hawaii cross parallel territories came out, that was a cool concept. Always love new concepts aka new strategies required for risk. [b]Zlatan44[/b] said: 07 Mar 2025, 17:55 I like this map. The super regions require a little more strategy and I like the bridges they are key real estate in this map. Ill certainly play this one again. [b]Pntbttr[/b] said: 07 Mar 2025, 23:01 I don't think the contested areas really add that much. I have, for the most part, only held the contested areas for most of the game without much resistance from those holding the adjacent super regions [b]lubi40[/b] said: 07 Mar 2025, 06:04 you did a good job . have a nice day [b]maafi[/b] said: 07 Mar 2025, 10:47 looking good Dima. thanks for all your work on the map.

Re-updated again with the last changes made by Dima. Please check this [i]always-updated[/i] link to see the Land of Rus' map: https://dominating12.com/assets/img/maps/94.large.jpg @@Dima you mentioned my help in the development, so would I deserve a spot in the stats as a secondary author of this map? We have the "secondary author" option, which I never used, so I don't know exactly what changes from ordinary author. It would be honorable for me and also it would help to raise my map count a little bit. ;)

sure! ps: i see the old version and i dont have ctrl here

Ok thanks... If there is a way to refresh than do that! Or shut it down and restart, I don't know. I see the new version here

found connection issue. sarkel and kuban weren't connected. fixed now