Dear Folks,

In collaboration with Roarer, I would like to very briefly go through my comments and possibly implications of these maps, in terms of military logistics or trade in general.

I initially wanted to do an in-dept analysis of logistics, but I soon realised the lack of information (how far can one travel? how many supplies to carry? what about beasts of burden?) limits me, and I cannot do much meaning full analysis except board comments on the maps.

Also, this was initially for military logistics only, but I realise that some of the concepts applies to trade as well.

Regardless, please find below how what think about the issue of logistics (and trade as well), and to give you people something to think about before you finalise your vote.

Military Logistics (& Trade) Military logistics involves three (3) concerns:
A) getting combatants to the desired location,
B) the acquisition of food supplies and necessary equipment, and
C) the transport of said supplies.

A) is accomplished via land or sea. On land, troops may be transport via mounted animals or wagons, which will also be drawn by various animals, and of course on foot.
I assume horses to be the main beast of burden, as I have little information on other animals. Therefore, I will assess the ease of troop movement based on horse-power and walking, relative to the biome layouts of each Map. Mountainous regions, swamp like terrain and dense forests would be considered difficult biomes to traverse, and require very specific means to traverse quickly. Ease of traversing: Easy: Lower Montane, Mixed leaf forest, Shrublands, Semi-arid desert, Shrub steppe, Grassland, woodland savanna Mixed: Taiga (snow in winter makes it difficult), Broad-leaf forest (depends on forest density) Difficult: Alpine forest, Rocky M. Steppe, Marsh, Bog, Salt Marsh, Swamp, Tropical wetlands, tropical rainforest

B) In the past, armies used to acquire food/water (and sometimes equipment too) where ever they camped or pass through, or “living off the land” so to speak.
While I doubt this will be the (primary) method, it ultimately depends on the mechanics of “foraging” and the size of an army; smaller armies may be able to sustain themselves that way. Nonetheless, below are the biomes I believe are conducive to foraging. (though I will appreciate a more expert opinion) Broadleaf forest, mixed leaf forest, Grasslands, Tropical rainforest, Lower Montane, shrublands, Marshes

C) This concerns transporting food and equipment from, say, a distant city centre to the frontlines. It is largely the same as the transport of troops, so the analysis will be the same as A) above. Brief analysis on the stretch of boarderlines between kingdoms, where battlefronts would likely be located (though not necessarily)

Boarders between Kingdoms – military access & trade While there are not rules that battles between kingdoms will be fought at their borders, the boarder lengths will have influence over how easily one kingdom may invade into their neighbors. The relative positions amongst the kingdoms will also affect military access, as when Kingdom 1 wants to invade Kingdom 5, its troops may need to past through multiple other kingdoms.

General Comments • Biomes assigned to each Kingdom are mostly the same across all map, the main difference is what biomes are neighbouring others • Centre of each map is generally very traversable and foraging should not be a problem (Grasslands, mixed-leaf forest, shrublands etc.) • Northern regions are mountainous and southern regions are very wet, providing natural barriers for armies ill prepared for the terrain, or simply slows their advance • Kingdom 3 and 4 generally hold the bottleneck of north-south travel, therefore as stated above they also contain traversable terrain • As such, Kingdoms 3 & 4 may see most conflict, or allied kingdoms passing through their lands to venture further north or south • Once sea travel is developed, most of the "traversability" of the biomes can be ignored to some extent. But then coastlines become an important factor

MAP A • Kingdom 3 controls central bottleneck, and to the lesser extent Kingdom 4 as well • Kingdom 1 is surrounded by rocky/mountainous terrain, making it defensible • Traversable terrain forms a straight chain

MAP B
• Only kingdom 3 hold the strategic bottleneck • It is also notable that Kingdom 3 has four (4) neighbouring kingdoms, while Kingdom 4 has three (3) neighbouring kingdoms. • Kingdom 5 may quite easily completely bypass Kingdom 3 and 4 to reach 2, via sea travel

MAP C • Stacked layout, each kingdom is one on top of the other, this makes military access (and therefore foreign policy) tricky • e.g. Kingdom 1 needs to go through four (4) other kingdoms before they can invade Kingdom 6, instead of two (2) • And due to the shape of the map, sea travel is not necessarily faster

MAP D • Kingdom 3 has 3 neighbouring kingdoms, but Kingdom 4 only has 2 • Sea travel from Kingdom 6 to Kingdom 3 is actually shorter here than most other maps • Very long boarders between Kingdom 4 and 5

MAP E • In my eyes quite similar to MAP A, save for • The central Marsh will pose a natural barrier, slowing now wagons and the supply line • While the Semi-Arid Desert, while easier to traverse, poses difficulties in feeding the troops • And interesting tradeoff between movement and sustainability • Dividing the north and south quite effectively

MAP F • Larger southern kingdoms • Natural barriers here in the form of Salt Marsh and Semi-Arid • Small Kingdoms 1 & 2 • Boarders between kingdoms are generally short there, a good defensible map

MAP G • Interesting coastline on the west coast, the short distance between Semi-arid desert and Shrublands promotes sea travel/invasion • This also bypass the very narrow bottleneck at the centre • Stacked layout (see notes of MAP C) • Marshes natural barrier at the centre • Very small Kingdom 3

MAP H • Large in-land sea/lake, and generally a very long boarder between Kingdom 3 and 4 • Difficult terrain cutting off north-south travel, with the Marsh + Salt Marsh • Almost a stacked map

MAP I • Kingdom 2 has easy sea access to Kingdom 4, and Kingdom 5 has easy access to Kingdom 3, via sea travel • Narrow bottleneck in the centre, but as said above, can be circumvented with sea travel • Kingdom sizes are more balanced, though Kingdom 6 is still the smallest • Long broader between Kingdom 4 and 5

MAP J • Kingdom 1 and 6 appear very small • Kingdom 3 blocks off north-south travel • Sea travel can easily by-pass Kingdom 3

MAP K • Almost a stacked map, very compacted too • Most of the biomes have many other biomes neighbouring it • Should be a very traversable map, as the army has many choices depending on its setup

MAP L • Kingdom 3 blocks off north-south travel • Most biomes have many other biomes neighbouring it • Small Kingdom 1 and 6

MAP M • Kingdom 4 instead blocks off the north-south travel • Kingdom 1 needs to travel at least through 3 Kingdoms to reach Kingdom 6 • A very stretched out Kingdom 4, which has traversable but low food desert, or the difficult to traverse but has abundant food marshes • Narrow point between Kingdom 3 and 5 may see most conflict

MAP N • Kingdom 3 again holds the central choke • Relatively short distance between coast of Kingdom 2 & 4, and 1 & 5, by sea • A chain of traversable terrain

MAP O • Kingdom 4 holds the choke here • Centre of map is blocked with Marsh + salt marsh, a natural barrier • Kingdom 1 & 2 are relatively small, while Kingdom 6 is large

MAP P • Stacked layout (see MAP C) • However, there is a middle point in Kingdom 2, where Kingdom 1 and 3 are very close to each other; • That is likely where army crossings will occur, if Kingdom 2 remains neutral • Map is very traversable; all easy to traverse biomes are connected to each other • Biomes have many neighbouring biomes

MAP Q • Stacked layout (see MAP C) • The central Shrub Steppe is where the bottleneck is located • Kingdom 3 may of course, bypass that bottleneck via sailing to the Semi-Arid desert or salt marshes

MAP R • Small Kingdom 1 • Also a traversable map; all easy to traverse biomes are connect to each other • Sea travel between Kingdom 3 & 5, and 2 & 4 relatively easy

MAP S • Very narrow bottleneck on this map, a strategic point to hold to prevent land invasion • As such, invasion by sea is quite preferred here • Traversable terrains are connected in a chain, aiding movement •

MAP T • Another stacked map (see MAP C) • Notable that Kingdom 2 in the northern most tip, instead of Kingdom 1 • The Shrub Steppe of Kingdom 4 should be the highway between North and South, being the flat steppes and easily traversable

Unfortunately, I do not have much suggestions to give. Instead, I can tell you my preference.

I don't know maps like Map J, that is basically a large nugget of a map, very little character.

I actually like that kingdom 3 and/or 4 has strategic importance on the map, as they hold a bottleneck. This creates an imbalance, and gives incentive for said kingdoms to maintain their advantage, or for other kingdoms to be on good terms politically, or out-right conquer their lands.

I also like the obvious option to sea travel (meaning maps with clear advantages to sea travel, like Map I, B, G etc.), such maps allows the daring to develop sea travel and take on its associated risks.

Sizes of each kingdom is not too important for me, and in fact like the difference, for the same reason of why I like Kingdom 3 & 4 to hold the bottleneck.

That was long winded. If you've gotten this far, thank you for reading, and would like to hear your comments.

Arkkin