Charles, the crusades maps are not "yet another map variant".

They are made specifically for royale play, and they were designed by someone who previously had, out of the first 7 royale games, played 3 and gm'ed 2.

I have the impression you analyze the Crusades maps and pure map variants. You have to look at them as royale map variants. I will not list here all the special conditions that make a royale game different. If you consider them, then they are among the best.

Royale games tend to be longer in real-time span (twice more turns per year); at the same time, after just a few game years (decades, in the case) the players are already playing a mid-to-endgame situation. The map must be small. The powers must be small. The neutral SCs must be few.

I don't know of any other map suited to play the clergy papacy rules. And, having learned potential flaws of royale, the clergy and the papacy rules were made to improve playability, specially regarding the acceleration of the shift of alliances. It avoid early loss of interest by players who find themselves unable to change course of things in the short-term, as they are used to do in any Diplomacy game.

Usually, the crowd get very interested in the Crusades map. In any case, if you point some maps that can be used to play a royale game with its most developed rules, great. In the end, among the options given, the players can chose what map they prefer. THe game is for the player, not a property of the GM.

Each Royale game ever played by the core developers of the rules (John Pitre, Jeff Ladd, Tommy Larsson) presented rules evolution from the previous one. It would be a pity everything experience taught them not-to-do get repeated, to be learned again. We must restart from the point they were, and this is why the only thing I define as potential gm of a royale game is that it must include Clergy rules, from Priest to Pope. Do you want to play?