MA Update #2 Discussion

[Lentonius]

nice preview, i take it this is gonna be for medieval 2...

[shifty157]

nice preview, i take it this is gonna be for medieval 2...

Yep. If youre new to the mod I highly suggest you read our aims and goals and our first update to get a much better idea of what we're doing. You can find links at the top of the update.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

nice preview shifty but i was wondering why 'Cornwall' is so big? it only reaches up to the River Tamar should it have a different name? or are your province names finalised?

i moved it from the Mod Discussion to here because as it is a M2TW mod i believe it is more relevant in this forum, so from now on please continue to post updates in here

thank you
GMM

[shifty157]

Well obviously we cant include every single Earldom and province both for hardcoded reasons and for gameplay reasons as well. That just wouldnt be very fun.

So what our mapper did was to take the most important province in the region and name the region after it. So youre right in saying that Cornwall was never nearly that big nor were any of the other provinces.

[iraklaras]

very nice preview

[shifty157]

Thanks.

[r johnson]

Nice preview, i like the idea of England cut up into several different regions rather than just three large provinces.

[shifty157]

Thanks. The nice thing about the RTW engine is that it allows for many more provicnes than the original MTW did. England is one of the areas that very much deserved more regions and I believe it will provide much bettter gameplay because of it.

[cunobelinus]

Nice Work shifty this is looking really good and making me proud to be a part of it

[GiantMonkeyMan]

i still don't like the name 'cornwall' though; as a devon boy i have a severe disliking of the cornish... for some reason but i will just have to change it... unless i am the scots and then take over cornwall.... but why would i want to take over cornwall at all argh! confusing

[shifty157]

lol. Sorry GMM, I cant help you with that one. Perhaps you could force the inhabitants into rebellion and then capture the city and masacre the inhabitants and destroy all the buildings. If you did that a couple of times do you think youd feel any better?

[Ignoramus]

Just give it to the French.

[Herkus]

hmm shouldn't England have more provinces than Scotland? Currently it is 5 vs 5 if we count Isles to Scotland's side.

[shifty157]

hmm shouldn't England have more provinces than Scotland? Currently it is 5 vs 5 if we count Isles to Scotland's side.

Well you dont want to cram too many provinces into too small a space on the map. That would result in a pretty poor gameplay experience. So yes England 'should' have more provinces however there just isnt room for them. Also having too many extra provinces would make England more powerful than it really was.

[econ21]

If M2TW is like RTW, as it presumably will be, perhaps the main effect of province density will be in determining how frequent sieges are. Personally, I like the big open provinces of BI rather than the clutter of RTR, because I like field battles better than sieges. You can always mod the agricultural income to allow big provinces to provide more of a benefit than small ones, so England with 5 provinces does not have to be weaker than England with 10would be (think of the rich Eastern provinces in STW).

I guess the other effects of provinces will be in determining how many rebel or minor faction settlements there are. Here England does not really need many as it was unified in the period.

Factions probably also need a critical mass of provinces for recruitment, especially given the castle vs city bifurcation, but 5 should be enough.

I think the map of the British Isles looks about right from the point of view of number of provinces. Giving Scotland more provinces than in MTW will stop it being steamrollered quite so easily as it was in MTW. But the Scottish provinces should be a lot poorer than those in England given the discrepancy in populations (is it 1:10 now? dunno what it was then).

[Orda Khan]

I agree econ21, I avoided seiges because they were awful. Pathfinding of units around map models has not improved since STW. Individuals get caught up, units go in silly directions, etc, etc. Open field battles have always provided a better experience

..........Orda

[shifty157]

Well sieges did play a huge role in the medieval world. Indeed often times a defending army wouldnt even engage an invading army in the field and instead just retreat into their castle and prepare for a siege.

More provinces would give England an abnormally large recruitment base. Especially considering the new way in which units will be recruited in our mod. But thatll get more explanation in a later update. Its something we've been formulating for months now and itll be quite a nice departure from normal.

Indeed the Scottish will find it difficult to field an army with any hope of challenging the English.

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I would suggest at least one province to the north of england, cumbria on the left of northumberland with say carlise as its castle. The scots had penetrated from the west coast to the cheviot hills and it would represent the border warfare with raid and counter raid between the two kingdoms, a far cry from the border families if later years but important all the same.

[zakalwe]

Hmm i'm not really sure about the division of Scottish provinces. I think 4 would probably do the job fine.

- Lothene - The south-east down to the English border

- Strathclyde - The South-West – the clyde downwards

- The North-West seaboard – Shetland, Orkney, Caithness, the islands and coastal strip stretching down to Ardnamurchan. Under control of the Norse OR a rebel state.

- The last one is basically the rest and can’t really be seen of having a single particular name – it includes the early heartland of Alba – Fife, Strathearn, Angus, Perthshire – and then right up to include the north-east and the central highlands. Having a name for this is most difficult. I'm don't really think Fife works particularly well. You could go with Alba as this area is the heartland. But who knows, it will difficult to avoid this looking a bit weird to people who know Scotland.

For borders kind of like this - https://img143.imageshack.us/img143/...cotland6xw.jpg

For main cities possiblilities it's obviously difficult. Only Birsay is a clear choice for any of the provinces -

Lothene - Edinburgh, Dunbar
Main heartlands - Dunfermline, St Andrews, Dunkeld, Perth
Strathclyde - Dumbarton, Govan, Glasgow
North-west - Brough of Birsay on Orkney


But anyway ... Scotland was not divided into nice clean provinces each with its own nice clear name and nice clear main settlement, so it's impossible to get historical accuracy anyway. So you guys have certainly got leeway to take your pick of names and borders.

[shifty157]

But anyway ... Scotland was not divided into nice clean provinces each with its own nice clear name and nice clear main settlement, so it's impossible to get historical accuracy anyway. So you guys have certainly got leeway to take your pick of names and borders.

Thats for sure. Figuring out names for the Scottish provinces and cities actually held up the update process for a bit.

As to your comments. Ill direct our mapper, Anti_Strunt, to take a look at them. I really know nothing of Scotland so I cant give you a reason for his choices.

[Woad Warrior]

As the Scottish member of the team, I'll give you the basic reasoning behind our choices, and why we need five provinces. Firstly, you really need five provinces to represent the different cultures in Scotland. The Britons of Strathclyde, the Saxons of Lothian (Dunbar), the Scots of Alba (Strathclyde/Argyll), the Highlanders of Argyll and northern areas of Fyfe, and the lands of the old Norse Lords, struggling to hold onto power in the Isles, or Hebrides, and also Orkney, Shetland etc. Strathclyde belongs to the Scots rather than Rebels as it is the centre of the lowland culture and was home of King Malcolm II, where he began his quest to unify Scotland. Also, Dunbar belongs to the Scots, as the Saxons that lived there, particularly around mid-east Lothian, were conquered at the Battle of Carham by King Malcom II in 1018. Fyfe belongs to the Scots basically because its such an important regions for them (Scone etc.).Argyll was left Rebel, as the Highland Chieftains were very much independant from the Lowland Kingdoms, and had a completely different culture. The Isles were also left Rebel as large areas of them were controlled by old Norse Lords, totally independant from the Kingdom of Scotland at the time our mod begins at.

[zakalwe]

As the Scottish member of the team, I'll give you the basic reasoning behind our choices, and why we need five provinces. Firstly, you really need five provinces to represent the different cultures in Scotland.

The Britons of Strathclyde
Strathclyde belongs to the Scots rather than Rebels as it is the centre of the lowland culture and was home of King Malcolm II, where he began his quest to unify Scotland.

Nothing against having this as a province, although 1) I would dispute that it is ‘the’ centre of lowland culture. Also what is your evidence for Strathclyde as 1) the home of Malcolm II? He is named King of Alba from the start of his reign

The Saxons of Lothian (Dunbar)
Also, Dunbar belongs to the Scots, as the Saxons that lived there, particularly around mid-east Lothian, were conquered at the Battle of Carham by King Malcom II in 1018.

It was Angles who settled here rather than Saxons but never mind. Also Edinburgh and parts of Lothians came under control of Alba in the mid 10th century under Indulf. Carham really settles the Tweed/Berwick border of Alba

The lands of the old Norse Lords, struggling to hold onto power in the Isles, or Hebrides, and also Orkney, Shetland etc.
The Isles were also left Rebel as large areas of them were controlled by old Norse Lords, totally independant from the Kingdom of Scotland at the time our mod begins at.

Yup, although you would need to include their control of the mainland from Caithness, Sutherland and the west coast down to around ardnamurchan.

The Scots of Alba (Strathclyde/Argyll)

Don’t think you mean Strathclyde/Argyll here?

Fyfe belongs to the Scots basically because its such an important regions for them (Scone etc.)

Pretty much the heartland of Alba from around AD900 onwards. This is the core of the mormaers and later earls of Scotland – Fife, Angus, Atholl, Strathearn, Mar, Buchan, etc. Difficult to decide which name to use for this as a province though, particularly with the fact that Fife only goes as far north as the Tay.

The Highlanders of Argyll and northern areas of Fyfe
Argyll was left Rebel, as the Highland Chieftains were very much independant from the Lowland Kingdoms, and had a completely different culture.

Hmm yes this is the difficult one really. If you had lots of minor provinces, it would be much easier.

To start, as i said above, the coastal section from around Ardnamurchan north really needs to belong to the Norse. Also large parts of Sutherland and all of Caithness.

Our knowledge of what happens to the old lands of Kingdom of Dal Riata in Argyll from around 900-1150 is such a blank. Much of this was part of the Norse kingdom of Mann and the Sudrejar, but control was very loose, and it would be difficult to define this as a particular area. By 1070 or so there is a very mixed Hiberno-Norse culture in the area.

Further north-east the inland highlands will always difficult to define in the 1st mill and early 2nd mill ad. You could group Moray separately from the rest of Alba or you could include it, but that would in some ways just be personal preference.

I can see why you would want the outlying fringes of Alba and Strathclyde represented as Gael in culture, but remember that much of 11th century Alba was Gaelic in culture anyway – earldoms such as Menteith, Atholl, Mar, Moray, etc being particularly so.

I guess in many ways it comes down to whether you want a 4 or 5 province Scotland (including Alba and rebel provinces). You could really make the case either way – I don’t think there are wrongs or rights here.

If you did decide you wanted 4 provinces (3 Alba, 1 Norse rebel) you could represent the lack of control in the Gaelic fringe areas by placing strong starting rebel stacks in Argyll and Moray. Or you could perhaps script a rebel uprising in the early stages of the game in either of those locations?

Mid 11th century Scotland - https://img136.imageshack.us/img136/...itled11jx1.jpg

[anti_strunt]

Actually, I designed the map primarily with strategic-political needs in mind. Make of that what you will.

[Perplexed]

Should Wessex be in there, or am I an ignorant washout?

[IrishArmenian]

I think Perplexed has a point. I just skipped over it, Wessex is needed.

[shifty157]

I think Perplexed has a point. I just skipped over it, Wessex is needed.

Well we'll bring it to the attention of AS then and see what his reasons are for not including it.

[anti_strunt]

The reason is simple: after the Norman conquest the Earldom of Wessex was fragmented into a host of small Norman lordships and never again formed a politically unified entity - no "Earldom of Wessex" existed post 1066. It must be kept in mind that each province will most probably be tied to a title (eg. "Earl of Cornwall") as in MTW1. The political importance of titles covering the area must thus be taken into consideration too.

[Justiciar]

It was Angles who settled here rather than Saxons but never mind. Also Edinburgh and parts of Lothians came under control of Alba in the mid 10th century under Indulf. Carham really settles the Tweed/Berwick border of Alba

Ta' for pointing that out, it's always been a pet hate of mine when people refer to the Old English collectively as "Saxons", for some odd reason. It's not a biggy, but it gets up my arse.

[Woad Warrior]

He was talking about Scotland.

But indeed pre-Norman Conquest England contained many more cultures than Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon.

[Justiciar]

He was talking about Scotland.

I know. Doesn't invalidate the point though.. he pointed out that the Angles weren't Saxons, which is what I was cheering for.