Maps and Provinces

If removing ships will help out the AI and balance trade, then I fully support doing it. :yes: I admit I'll miss them a little, but not so much that I won't sacrifice them to improve gameplay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa

Naples to Epirus will be needed as well as Ireland to Wales/Scotland. Apart from that no more will be needed.

I'm still not sure about the Cordoba to Fes landbridge. It's existence allows for an isolated Granada which is useful and historical (plus there's the fact that we may have a one province faction there in the late era). It may be better to remove the Granada to Fes land bridge, and keep Granada as a defensible province. This way the Castilians could expand as far as Fes but would not need to march through Granada to get there. This will be something to consider for crusades also. Having what will end up as a line of provinces between Castile and Tunisia will mean that any crusade will have to pass through every province in succession in order to reach it's goal.

---

What about a land bridge between Britain and Norway/Denmark? Bad idea?

Connecting Britain to Scandinavia is pushing it a bit. You would then end up with the English surging into that region far too early on.

This is how I see the province and landbridge situation so far:

1) The Flanders/Wessex landbridge restored.

2) Granada to Fes landbridge removed.

3) Ireland to Britain (Wales and/or Scotland?) landridge introduced.

4) Sardinia and Corsica either removed altogether or merged to a single province. If merged then where should the landbridge be to Italy be (Tuscany or Genoa?)?

5) Crete removed or merged to become part of Morea, not too historical but at least it has some pseudo representation. At present it's a useless province, where the Byzantine can become stranded.

6) Cyprus removed or connected to the mainland. Antioch would be the best point of connection perhaps? Connecting Cyprus gives us an additional province in the Levant "crusading region". At present it's totally useless.

7) Siciliy will remain as is - connected to Naples.

In addition to improving connectivity in places, this approach could potentially free up more provinces for use in more important areas (potentially another four provinces could be freed up).

Once this is complete the next region of the map I will be working on will depend partially on what people want? Suggestions for provinces are now welcome. (I need to have a look and see how many free provinces I have left at the moment).

:bow:

Sorry to pipe up -- just chucking my tuppennyworth in -- I'm down with the removal of ships.

Apart from "local colour" they don't really add anything to the game, & if some of the innovative solutions for trade income that have been floated here are implemented I think I for one won't miss them. I hardly ever bother teching up to the tip-top shipbuilders, after all, because there's very little point/no incentive to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turbosatan

I hardly ever bother teching up to the tip-top shipbuilders, after all, because there's very little point/no incentive to do so.

---

True enough. There is no point in teching up to anything stronger than Caravels/Baggalas/Wargalleys. Also once naval dominance is achieved it's game over. There is no point in continuing with such a predictable campaign and bloated treasury. I can count on one hand the times I've teched up to the higher level shipbuilders.

The trade goods could be handled exactly as discussed above. New goods could be added to inland provinces as well as to coastal ones and revenues from these goods increased. Ports could be adjusted to give an income, but would cost a lot more than they do currently. The ports could have one or two upgrades based on the shipwrights or the shipbuilders from VI, inserted at a lower level. Traders would then produce their local incomes based on the goods available in the province.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa

1) The Flanders/Wessex landbridge restored.

---

Why not Normandy/Wessex? It make sense for early period: Anglo-Norman realm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa

2) Granada to Fes landbridge removed.

---

Ok, the sites where Almoravids/Almohads/Marinids disembarked their troops are located in MTW Cordoba region: Algeciras, Tarifa. Although it is also true these cities were in hands of the Nasrids of Granada -and occasionally of the Marinids- during the late middle ages until its capture by the Castilians. But this is only a historical note, I agree about the removal of the Granada/Fes landbridge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa

3) Ireland to Britain (Wales and/or Scotland?) landridge introduced.

---

I personally vote to connect Ireland with both regions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa

4) Sardinia and Corsica either removed altogether or merged to a single province. If merged then where should the landbridge be to Italy be (Tuscany or Genoa?)?

---

Landbridge with both regions, Genoese and Pisans disputed the control of these islands during long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa

5) Crete removed or merged to become part of Morea, not too historical but at least it has some pseudo representation. At present it's a useless province, where the Byzantine can become stranded.

---

Alternatively, Crete could be connected with Morea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa

6) Cyprus removed or connected to the mainland. Antioch would be the best point of connection perhaps? Connecting Cyprus gives us an additional province in the Levant "crusading region". At present it's totally useless.

7) Siciliy will remain as is - connected to Naples.

---

Ok

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa

In addition to improving connectivity in places, this approach could potentially free up more provinces for use in more important areas (potentially another four provinces could be freed up).

Once this is complete the next region of the map I will be working on will depend partially on what people want? Suggestions for provinces are now welcome. (I need to have a look and see how many free provinces I have left at the moment).

---

I think new provinces could be added in Poland (Lesser Poland, Great Poland), Lithuania (Samogitia, Lithuania proper) or Hungary (Upper Hungary, Transdanubia). But gameplay is the main factor to decide where more provinces are needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belisario

Why not Normandy/Wessex? It make sense for early period: Anglo-Norman realm.

---

Yes I've considered that one as well. It also means that the French don't just storm into Britain taking out the English faction's best province and capital in the process. It might be the best approach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belisario

Ok, the sites where Almoravids/Almohads/Marinids disembarked their troops are located in MTW Cordoba region: Algeciras, Tarifa. Although it is also true these cities were in hands of the Nasrids of Granada -and occasionally of the Marinids- during the late middle ages until its capture by the Castilians. But this is only a historical note, I agree about the removal of the Granada/Fes landbridge.

---

From a gameplay perspective it's better to have Granada more isolated in order that could operate as a base for a possible single province faction in the late era. Also it breaks the linearity of Cordoba/Murcia -> Granada -> Fes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belisario

I personally vote to connect Ireland with both regions.

---

I also think this would be the best approach. Otherwise it would be necessary to take Scotland in order to invade Ireland, which would be rather silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belisario

Landbridge with both regions, Genoese and Pisans disputed the control of these islands during long time.

---

I need to look further into this. Though I would favour either making one province of them or removing them altogether. The landbridge triangle between Genoa, Tuscany and Corsica/Sardinia seems like a good idea from a gameplay perspective. Having Sardinia as separate province though would be a blind alley with no advantages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belisario

Alternatively, Crete could be connected with Morea.

---

This would give us another province of little value, out on a limb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belisario

I think new provinces could be added in Poland (Lesser Poland, Great Poland), Lithuania (Samogitia, Lithuania proper) or Hungary (Upper Hungary, Transdanubia). But gameplay is the main factor to decide where more provinces are needed.

---

I've looked at the Poland/Lithuania/Volhynia region in the past and it's a very difficult area to work with. If someone can provide an historical map showing how this should be divided up I will seriously consider at least splitting poland, though I don't mind resizing and moving neighbouring provinces also to get it looking it's best and of course connecting properly. I've not looked into Hungary much, though this is also a possibility if some maps can be shown as to how it should look.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asai Nagamasa

I've looked at the Poland/Lithuania/Volhynia region in the past and it's a very difficult area to work with. If someone can provide an historical map showing how this should be divided up I will seriously consider at least splitting poland, though I don't mind resizing and moving neighbouring provinces also to get it looking it's best and of course connecting properly. I've not looked into Hungary much, though this is also a possibility if some maps can be shown as to how it should look.

---

The best maps I ever saw are the maps from the Euratlas of Christos Nussli, and I think you know them. However if you compare the size and neighbours of a region from the MTW map with the same region in the Euratlas map, you can observe notable differences in some cases. So a certain degree of abstraction is needed to avoid getting frustrating while you draw the new borders in these regions.

Well Euratlas is very good, though for the most parts it shows territory rather than individual provinces within a region.

-Edit: Four unused provinces remain.

With the removal of Crete and the merger of Sardninia and Corsica that will give us six provinces for areas such as Poland (Mazovia, Lesser Poland and Greater Poland) and any other provinces that are needed.

What about in the alpine regions or in Italy itself?

Italy? Rename Milan Lombardia.

And split the Papal States in two, plus give the top of Naples to it. So you have Tuscany (Toscana-Modena-Pisa) opposite the Papal States (Ferrara). And Roma opposite Ancona-Spoleto.

A more gameplay option would be to split Genoa, Milan and Venice into four provinces. Maybe Genoa to the West, Lombardia to the North-East of Genoa, Venice to the East and Verona to the North-West of Venice.

Hmmm... I'll look into that thanks. Do you know of any maps that would show me visually what you're referring to?

:bow:

Don't know if this helps...

http://www.roangelo.net/valente/conquest.html

It does western :medievalcheers:

So that northern part of Naples would become Spoleto with Assisi as it's castle? That would in fact add a worthwile extra province in a decent loction. I'll look into it, thanks.

I also like the idea of moving around/renaming some of the alpine provinces. Any more detailed maps showing that region?

Thanks.

:bow:

Always happy to help if I can.

How about this for some alpine region maps - esp the French one from 1912 (the one about 9 places down - not the first two). It brings out that the biggest omissions are probably Verona (as also shown in the Italy map I posted), Carinthia and the County of Burgundy (as distinct from the Duchy that sits within France). Switzerland doesn't exist yet of course, and a lot of its future territory - Geneva, Berne etc - is within that County of Burgundy. The Burgundian counts were pretty big players at this time - aside from participating in the first crusade and crusade of 1101, and skirmishing with Milan and the free cities, one of the counts made a bid for independence from the empire and had to be crushed by Lothair and Conrad.


http://www.edmaps.com/html/holy_roman_empire.html

Ok I've finally sat down to do some changes and debugging today.

The issue with agents travelling has been resolved. The western med region was not connected to the atlantic. That's one solved.

I got as far a Turks campaign and gave up near to the High Era. Far too easy so far.

It may be because the Turks have vital space now and do grow with time without having to fight for space against teh Byz or Egypts. Perhaps adding factions or calibrating incomes in the area can change that.

:bow:

Well I'm moving around the starting provinces at the moment and have made the probolem worse for now. But I plan to add another faction or two to that region anyway. I now have the "shipless operation", I'm just trying to decide what to do with provinces such as Crete, Sardinia and Corsica.

My suggestion would be to convert them into coastal/inland major Provinces in whichever area you think they are needed (ie is badly represented or will support more factions in the future).

Regarding income balancing - i suggest multiple hubs of good income to be present within all theaters - and these hubs to be surrounded by provinces of relatively low income. I further suggest that even the lowest income provinces to not be completely worthless (as it hampers the AI factions).

Generally speaking i would suggest a small variation of income between fertile/rich and not-so-fertile/not-so-rich provinces. That is for example say; poor apprx 200 flrns on average, medium apprx 300 flrns on average and rich close to 400 flrns on average. The vanilla differences are a big plus for the human player that quickly occupies the rich provinces at the beginning and since the AI factions seem to view them all as equally important (the AI will fight for rich and poor provinces the same sometimes) they end up in great disadvantage. Some variation is good to create competition in a local level - a lot of variation (ie poor 100 flrns and rich 600 plus flrns as in vanilla) is quite bad for AI progress and so challenge imho.

There is a post of suggestions that i wrote in reply to Garnier regarding king influence in relation to AI faction progress and AI personality - its quite relevant for the PoM and i believe it can be helpful - if you wish me to, i can copy paste that post here too.

:bow:

Gah, sounds all good gollum, now all I need to do is quit my job, get a divorce and move into a monastery... I may actually get something done on this mod then... :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Generally speaking i would suggest a small variation of income between fertile/rich and not-so-fertile/not-so-rich provinces. That is for example say; poor apprx 200 flrns on average, medium apprx 300 flrns on average and rich close to 400 flrns on average. The vanilla differences are a big plus for the human player that quickly occupies the rich provinces at the beginning and since the AI factions seem to view them all as equally important (the AI will fight for rich and poor provinces the same sometimes) they end up in great disadvantage. Some variation is good to create competition in a local level - a lot of variation (ie poor 100 flrns and rich 600 plus flrns as in vanilla) is quite bad for AI progress and so challenge imho.

---

Good idea. I might try this out myself.

Ok here it is;

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gollum
One of the things that generally goes unnoticed - is AI factions king influence.

This is one aspect of the game that the GA mode has an advantage over domination in terms of AI performance in vanilla. This is because certain factions (the best example of which is Hungary) get the GA homeland influence bonus every 25 years. Usually even large AI faction empires fall victime to low king influence - and that is a major game breaker (much less challenge).

On top of this the AI faction personnality setting is paramount together with the king influence aspect. The expansionist, naval_expansionist, crusader, crusader_trader, trader for Catholics and the expansionsit, devout for Muslims as well as the expansionsit, stagnant for Orthodox are AI faction killers.

The expansionist AI personalities focuses AI faction on constant attacks - so much so that it burns them out (and also does not leave developed lands behind for the ones that do conquer them eventually).

The crusader AI personalities, are litterally a curse for the long term as they set Crusading as a focus. AI crusades often fail and this in turn instigates civil wars that destroy a blossoming French kingdom or HRE say. This actually is a very significant long term effect and i noticed it while playing vanilla GA camaigns to the end. The end rival whoever i played in GA mode were the Hungarians (unless i played one of their immediate neighbours like the Byz or HRE). This is because the Hungarians are set to CATHOLIC_DEFENSIVE, cannot crusade and do take the homeland GA points (they start with them) that yield influence so they always have the best chances of survival.

Actually the DEFENSIVE AI personnality is the Best for AI factions unless they start too small and/or surrounded (say Turks, Danes, Novgorodians and Aragonese in early). For all other factions that have enough starting land/income DFENSIVE is best long term. In Defensive the AI factions do still crusade, but not as assiduously as when set to Crusader. They use more sense and when they do Crusade they have more focus as it is apparently regarded as a luxury and its done only when the AI is really rich and stable.

For the Turks in vanilla early (as example of situation) EXPANSIONIST is best - time is against them otherwise. They will get swallowed by their powerful neighbours if they just sit back.

For the Danes, Novgorodians and Aragonese (in vanilla early) EXPANSIONIST is also best (otherwise they fade out - too low starting income). Otherwise they get swallowed.

The equivalent of DEFENSIVE for Muslims is PEACEFUL. DEVOUT muslims make too many Jihads that melt them through influence hits. EXPANSIONIST burns them out. For the Almohads and Egyptians PEACEFUL is best in vanilla early.

All in all i suggest to try setting everyone unless too small or sandwitched between powerful neighbours like the Turks in DEFENSIVE, particularly in long games (early/high era) - challenge should rise.

---

:bow:

Thanks gollum. Very useful for me as well. :thumbsup:

Good Smeagal always helps

:bow: