MTW Pocket Mod: General

The Kievian/Novgorod problem could be resolved by using the original Novgorod faction and the Russian faction. They are identical in almost all respects, including faction color and flags, so a little work in that area is going to be a must. Also, I my self have never played Byzantium long enough to know (I get bored after killing off the Egyptians), but do they have REAL glory goals besides homelands? If they don't, or you don't care one way or another, use one of the FREE# factions to replace Byzantium, as this should get rid of the hard coded influence bonus, since they are no longer officially "Byzantine". This would work espescially well during High, when they are left with Nicea only. Again, this would require a little more work then you are looking for. I treid this with the HRE and France, which cuased everyone to go after the French (obvoiusly~:rolleyes: ), but was rather humourus when the French had to reunite the Holy Roman Empire, and the HRE had to make a cathedral in paris:laugh4: .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

The Kievian/Novgorod problem could be resolved by using the original Novgorod faction and the Russian faction. They are identical in almost all respects, including faction color and flags, so a little work in that area is going to be a must.

---

That's what I was thinking of doing, but the difficulty will be the faction shields and other graphics. Also without new units, they will be effectively clones of each other, though the Aragonese and Spanish are to all intents and purposes exactly this of course.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

Also, I my self have never played Byzantium long enough to know (I get bored after killing off the Egyptians), but do they have REAL glory goals besides homelands? If they don't, or you don't care one way or another, use one of the FREE# factions to replace Byzantium, as this should get rid of the hard coded influence bonus, since they are no longer officially "Byzantine". This would work espescially well during High, when they are left with Nicea only. Again, this would require a little more work then you are looking for. I treid this with the HRE and France, which cuased everyone to go after the French (obvoiusly~:rolleyes: ), but was rather humourus when the French had to reunite the Holy Roman Empire, and the HRE had to make a cathedral in paris:laugh4: .

---

I was also thinking of doing that (did you see the other thread where I had posted about this? :laugh4: ), the problem is that I'm worried about messing up the GA game. I don't play it myself but would like to retain it's functionality for those that do. I wonder about CA's reasoning behind the Byzantine influence and command bonuses. :inquisitive:

Note: Summary (finally) updated to 1.0.6b - see first page of thread.

Yes, about 15 minutes ago. I even posted in it!:laugh4:
Anyway I have another update, and its about your mod this time. It appears that with the landbridges available, the Danish end up in a war with the Novgorod 6 times out of ten (although this is playing only ten times in early for 30 years). I added a substanial navy to all factions (about 8 ships for those with a historical background for naval travel, 5 for those that don't). It actually helps get the AI every now and then, but I have no I dea if it is historically accurate. I attempted to curb the AI gang attacking the HRE by increasing the Infrastructure overall (as each "province" was in fact a pricipality, and there for self sustaining) and added a few more units. I ended up with the exact opposite of what I hoped for, with everyone still ganging up on the HRE, but losing horrible in the process. I could attempt to create another "HRE" faction, but that would kill the GA part. Looks like its back the drawing board.

The way to treat the Spanish Aragonese roster sounds good Cambyses II.

Also, my opinion relative to "twin" factions: it doesn't matter. Its better having them like this and without adding new units as: in most cases factions that are presenting this problem represented vaguely the same "ethnicity" (Rus and Spain). On top of this it may limit the fighting "styles" that you may be creating along the way for factions. One per faction is too much and probably you'll never cover it as their is a ceiling on how many units you can get in the game. One per geographical area though (roughly: Russia/steppes, Iberia, North Italy, South Italy/Sicily, Greece/Asia Minor, The Balkans, The Middle east/Egypt, North Africa/Southern Spain, Eastern Europe,Germany/France/England and Scandinavia).

In the practical level it also helps with creating more restrictive homelands for factions even to their simpler units and introduce the parameter of logistical strength for factions.

Many Thanks

Noir

I'll be having a go at the rus and Novgord using the Russian And Novgorod factions respectively as a basis soon. I may also try adding some factions, but bear in mind that they will be unfinished. I'm pretty sure that FN_FREE21 through FN_FREE30 are the only new factions that can be added? I will first work on disabling face shields first as they are hardcoded to certain unit graphics folders and crash when used with new factions.

The Spanish are set usually by default to catholic expansionist and that 160 (almost) is quite high.

Just to add a comment on something from your earlier posts Cambyses II. Develop provinces to a certain degree at the beginning of the early era is a welcoming addition gameplay wise; it will also help the AI factions to perform better as well as your self to "regulate" better initial conditions for them more effectively. You can make also for more historical conditions examples from my home mod of MedMod IV:

1. The walls of Antioch (fortress in Antich)
2. The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem (large Mosque in Jerusalem)

Many Thanks

Noir

Regarding the Russians and Novgorod. It seems to me that the best approach is to include "Russia" in the Early and High eras as the Principalities under the Kievan Rus holding the core provinces. In the high period this would be extended to cover Volhnya and others, though Novgorod would emerge as a stronger independent faction - using the Novgorod faction of course. In the late period there would be two factions, the Russians in Muscovy and the Novgorodians. The rest would be again rebels, Golden Horde and Poland/Lithuania. I believe that this will handle the eastern rebels problem well.

Sounds good to me.

Many Thanks

Noir

Another dilemma is Lithuania. During the early era in the game this would have been mostly part of the Principalities of Polatsk and Kiev. The Lithuanian state would not have existed as the superpower it was to become. It may be a good idea to place this province under the Kievan Rus with Pagan religion. It's rebelliousness will provide quite a challenge.

Its much better than having Lithuania as a rebel province.

On the other hand, its also worth consider to adding them as a faction as they did became a superpower in that very less populated map area. This will give some challenge to the Polish game too, as they'll be squashed between HRE, the Lithuanians and the Steppe factions - currently they are invading HRE in a form of an inverted Blitz, most of the time.

Many Thanks

Noir

I would prefer to have a Grand Duchy of Lithuania faction and separate Poland faction in the Late era only and have Lithuania as a Kievan Rus possession in early and rebel in high - avoiding the earlier Pagan Lithuanians altogether. he problem with this is that correct representation would need more provinces in that area and would need the Teutonic Order to be added to the Late era to complete the whole scenario. In the high era a separate Pagan Lithuanian faction might be an idea, but I'd prefer to avoid all of this for now.

So for the time being I would go with:

Early Lithuania: Kievan Rus
High Lithuania: Rebels
Late Lithuania: Rebels

Note that the HRE could have the Teutonic Order crusade against a rebel pagan province. Or Orthodox Rus, for that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

The Spanish are set usually by default to catholic expansionist and that 160 (almost) is quite high.

Just to add a comment on something from your earlier posts Cambyses II. Develop provinces to a certain degree at the beginning of the early era is a welcoming addition gameplay wise; it will also help the AI factions to perform better as well as your self to "regulate" better initial conditions for them more effectively. You can make also for more historical conditions examples from my home mod of MedMod IV:

1. The walls of Antioch (fortress in Antich)
2. The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem (large Mosque in Jerusalem)

Many Thanks

Noir

---

Wouldn´t this conflict with some GA goals?


Regarding the Jinetes, I didn´t mess with the priorities (I didn´t dare, either), I took an approach to checking the Malthusian problems they generated.

On possible info about the Kingdom of Granada: this month´s National Geographic History magazine came with an article about the muslim taifas kingdoms in Spain (previous to the Almohad assistance/invasion cocktail), but no cigar about their military, other than it was a mercenary force, which they could afford because as a general rule their lands were wealtheir than those of the christian kingdoms in the north, but despite all it was weaker than theirs, and in fact began to pay these first to avoid wars, then to hire them as thugs to maul their muslim enemies.

I remember an article concerning Boabdil in an older issue, but I can´t find it right now...

Quote:

---

Originally pposted by The Unknown Guy
Wouldn´t this conflict with some GA goals?

---

Most likely the walls of Antioch wouldn't - its a citadel in Tripoli for the kerak GA goal of the French, i think. I've never played Egyptian GA, however i have a hint that they need a Grand Mosque in Egypt (although i might be wrong).

Many Thanks

Noir

yes, those two are the ones I have in mind.

Edit: how goes the tweaking of the Rebel faction´s cash?

(Suggestion for finding out whether they really have an inbuilt bankrupcy: isolate some province, give it to them, and give it a huge income)

Oh, I don´t know if I mentioned: perhaps give trade goods to ALL islands? so that a beaten-back faction can still make up enough cash and resurge? This applies particularily to Italy, Sicily, and Byzantium, but any faction could end up like that. Once I played a game where France was mainly Cyprus.

edit:
A last note concerning the Taifas Kingdoms: apparently there was woe in muslim Spain when Toledo fell to Castile, as it was the former capital of the visigoth kingdom (thus kind of pointing out that things had taken a turn for the worse for them, and them beseeching almohad help). A historical insight I just found in the formerly mentioned NGH magazine, I don´t know if it will help in any way with either the Almohads, or a long-run Granada.

The issue with Navarre, Aragon, Leon, Castile, Portugal and Granada is that in order to do the region justice provinces need to be altered and new factions need to be added. This in itself is not the main issue however. Concentrating over much on one region is. There are very many inaccuracies that need addressing and fixing these would be much more conducive to good gameplay than adding many small one province factions to Spain and altering all of the provinces.

First of all if we look at this circa 1100 map:

http://www.euratlas.com/time/sw1100.htm

The Taifa kingdoms are represented in the game as being under Almoravid Suzerainty, and this is probably better as it is. Barcelona would be too complicated to represent and would again be another one province faction, which leave only Navarre and Aragon. To be continued...

In MedMod IV, there are 3 Christian factions (Cast/Leon - Portugal - Aragon) and two Muslim ones (Almoravids weak but rich in Spain - Almohads strong but less rich in North Africa).

This gives a better combo of possibilities and interactions in the area IMO, for whenever you go introducing factions. It also works as 3 more provinces are added one of which (Castile) is completely internal.

With the present No. of provinces and their arrangement the 3 factions there work well i find.

Many Thanks

Noir

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

In MedMod IV, there are 3 Christian factions (Cast/Leon - Portugal - Aragon) ...

---

The problem with this is that, though Castile and Leon may have been united at the start of the early era they would not have been in high era for some time, though to all intents and purposes they are best represented in the game as the Castilian-Leonese. Portugal would not have appeared as an independent kingdom until the 12th century - thus a high era faction. Navarre, pretty much always independent during the timeframe of the game probably needs to be added as an independent faction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

...and two Muslim ones (Almoravids weak but rich in Spain - Almohads strong but less rich in North Africa).

---

This seems pretty ahistorical. Almoravids would be early era only, controlling Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Sahara (i've never been sure about Cyrenacia, a small western part perhaps but not the whole province) and Granada, Cordoba and Valencia in Iberia. Personally I see the representation of the Cid's occupation of Valencia as an irrelevance. He would only have held Valencia for a matter of years before his death. It was back in Almoravid control quite quickly.

Portugal fits the bill as an emergent faction for the 12 century, as it cannot be represented in any other way that i can think of other than being present from the early period. In that way it adds to the complexity that characterised the Christian kingdoms, as it was uncertain as to who will emerge as a unifier. In addition, later on in the campaign the Spanish after having vanquished the Moors need to fight for the control of the eastern Iberain lands (as it was historically), instead of establishing unopposed a superempire.

The Almoravid/Almohad, as "ahistorical" as it may be, it represents well the state of the Northern African Muslim kingdoms that did not comply to the Moroccan/Iberian main rule and may well have challenged it and also at the same time adds greatly from a gameplay persepective to either playing as an up and coming Almohads or an established but two way threatened Almoravid.

Again, we differ in the "historical accuracy" view - i believe that it is possible in a more abstract way that would also serve gameplay while you are more sensitive in preserving it in a more absolute sense.

As always you are the boss and this is your mod - my suggestions were more in the direction of indicative numbers of factions and provinces that would give an interesting interaction IMO. You may add a North African Dynasty and call them Hammadids

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/maps/1090map.htm

Many thanks

Noir

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

Portugal fits the bill as an emergent faction for the 12 century, as it cannot represented in any other way that i can think of other than being present from the early period. In that way it adds to the complexity that characterised the Christian kingdoms, as it was uncertain as to who will emerge as a unifier. In addition, later on in the campaign the Spanish after having vanquished the Moors need to fight for the control of the eastern Iberain lands (as it was historically), instead of establishing unopposed a superempire.

---

It makes sense to add Portugal to the early era as a county, not as a kingdom, though in the high era they could be added as a kingdom. To represent this fully one would need to add an Algarve province however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

The Almoravid/Almohad, as "ahistorical" as it may be, it represents well the state of the Northern African Muslim kingdoms that did not comply to the Moroccan/Iberian main rule and may well have challenged it and also at the same time adds greatly from a gameplay persepective to either playing as an up and coming Almohads or an established but two way threatened Almoravid.

---

The Almohads pretty much swept away the Almoravid Dynasty from within as what was effectively a large scale Islamist rebellion. Representing them as two sovereign nations is pretty flawed. The last remnants of Almoravids became effectively rebels. If you want to think of this in game terms, think of a civil war perhaps where the player backs the rebels.

In the early era there needs to be one main Muslim faction based around Morocco that faction being the Almoravids. The high era needs to have only the Almohads additionally in possession of Valencia. The late era would need an extra faction. The Nasrid Kingdom of Granada, and possibly three muslim factions along the North West African coast, though I would include only the Marinid Sultanate in Morocco for now, though the provinces as they are in the game would lend themselves to the implementation of Zayyanid Algeria and Hafsid Tunisia very well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

You may add a North African Dynasty and call them Hammadids

---

During the early era Tunisia should probably be Fatimid lands to represent the Zirids - Fatimid vassals. Cyrenacia again, is another problem. This land would have been mostly populated by nomads and would never have been claimed by any dynasty for long. It should probably always be rebel anyway. Whichever sources you consult many will show completely different versions, and maps so it is not easy to paint a clear picture. Algeria could indeed be the base of a Hammadid faction also.

I have considered removing Cyrenacia, and Indeed Sahara (again) already as I feel that these would have been areas of non conquest. This would also split North Africa in two giving two separate regions. This would also free up two provinces to be reallocated elsewhere if it ever came to adding provinces. If I were to do this though I would extend Morocco province to the south and west to the edge of the map.

Thanks for all the historical info it added certain points to my existing knowledge. The civil war from whithin you mention may be two factions too, because the player may play so as it never happens.

"Portugal" as a kingdom or county was not my point but how that actual faction (and any of its future evolutions/incarnations may be added to the game).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cambyses II
I have considered removing Cyrenacia, and Indeed Sahara (again) already as I feel that these would have been areas of non conquest. This would also split North Africa in two giving two separate regions. This would also free up two provinces to be reallocated elsewhere if it ever came to adding provinces. If I were to do this though I would extend Morocco province to the south and west to the edge of the map.

---

I am certainly glad to hear this, have you playtested it? It worked well when i did!

Those two provinces are very well used elsewhere and the divisoin between east/west in North Africa, "pay dividens".

Many thanks

Noir

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

Thanks for all the historical info it added certain points to my existing knowledge. The civil war from whithin you mention may be two factions too, because the player may play so as it never happens.

---

At present the Almohads in the early era are renamed as Almoravids, and in Late Marinids.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

"Portugal" as a kingdom or county was not my point but how that actual faction (and any of its future evolutions/incarnations may be added to the game).

---

My point was that Portugal could be added in earl as "County of Portugal" and in High and Late as as kingdom. It is fairly easy to do this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noir

I am certainly glad to hear this, have you playtested it? It worked well when i did!

Those two provinces are very well used elsewhere and the divisoin between east/west in North Africa, "pay dividens".

---

I would like to eliminate this area as a crusade route to the east. I haven't tested it as yet, nor am I certain about it. The immediate problem would be the sea zones, many of which would have to be merged. I would like to eliminate this area as a crusade route to the east. Cyrenacia is a pretty poor and redundant province anyway. Part of Eastern Cyrenacia was annexed by the Fatimids and it would probably be an idea to extend Egypt to this small area - as far as Benghazi - or leave it as it is rather than create another province there.

Another province to remove would be the Sinai, annexing this to Egypt, creating a larger Egypt in the process. This was always part of either Fatimid, Ayyubid or Mamluk Egypt anyway (I know there is a mod that has done this but can't remember which). This would free up three provinces in total. Egypt and Sinai combined seem to be representative of the core of Fatimid Egypt around the early 12th century.

The Levant is also incorrectly occupied by the Fatimids in 1087. The Early era setup is more reminiscent of early Fatimid or the earlier Tulunid Dynasty of Egypt. Antioch should be Seljuk in the early era and not Fatimid. Tripoli should also perhaps be Seljuk and Palestine should probably remain Fatimid - for the lack of any other faction to give them to and to avoid making them rebel. The provinces are really rather too large and unsuitable for the era. The Fatimids were in decline in that period and the Seljuks were on the up, the game doesn't reflect this at all in it's vanilla state.

Kiev:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...%3D1%26hl%3Den

Many thanks

Noir

Hi Cambyses II,

I have read some interesting things. I have some free time this night and tomorrow and I will provide info for Kievan Rus' kings and heroes and perhaps some info about the Almoravid/Almohad matter.

If you are rigorously historical I would say that Almoravids were not established in any Andalusian province in 1087. Yusuf ibn Tashufin (1061-1106), the greatest Almoravid amir, made his first crossing of the Strait of Gibraltar in 1086 and defeated the Castilian-Leonese at the battle of Zallaqa/Sagrajas, near the city of Badajoz, but he returned to Morocco afterward. In 1088 made his second crossing and it was a failure (siege of Aledo) but at least it served to awaken him to the disunion of the Andalusian rulers. He embarked for the third time in 1090/1091 and this time he arrived in Algeciras with a precise plan: to put an end to the Andalusian taifas.

In past I took part in the Almoravid/Almohad scenario in early for the Medmod, but at present I would prefer an Almoravid/Taifas scenario. In this case we could add an Andalusian faction ruled by al-Mu'tamid of Seville, "the epitome of the cultivated Muslim Spaniard of the Middle Ages—liberal, tolerant, and a patron of the arts" according to the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belisario

Hi Cambyses II,

I have read some interesting things. I have some free time this night and tomorrow and I will provide info for Kievan Rus' kings and heroes and perhaps some info about the Almoravid/Almohad matter.

---

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belisario

If you are rigorously historical I would say that Almoravids were not established in any Andalusian province in 1087. Yusuf ibn Tashufin (1061-1106), the greatest Almoravid amir, made his first crossing of the Strait of Gibraltar in 1086 and defeated the Castilian-Leonese at the battle of Zallaqa/Sagrajas, near the city of Badajoz, but he returned to Morocco afterward. In 1088 made his second crossing and it was a failure (siege of Aledo) but at least it served to awaken him to the disunion of the Andalusian rulers. He embarked for the third time in 1090/1091 and this time he arrived in Algeciras with a precise plan: to put an end to the Andalusian taifas.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Belisario

In past I took part in the Almoravid/Almohad scenario in early for the Medmod, but at present I would prefer an Almoravid/Taifas scenario. In this case we could add an Andalusian faction ruled by al-Mu'tamid of Seville, "the epitome of the cultivated Muslim Spaniard of the Middle Ages—liberal, tolerant, and a patron of the arts" according to the Encyclopedia Britannica.

---

I wouldn't say rigorous but I would like to get it as close as possible. Though if for (fictional) example some faction or other was holding a certain province between 1086 and 1089 after which time it returned to the previous owner, I would prefer to omit this kind of thing. The Almoravids occupying the al-andalus in 1087 is fine by me, but adding the Taifa kingdoms is in interesting prospect.

I have been looking into the map around the north african region, and am still perplexed over the Morocco province. The castle location for Marrakech in that province is much too far north. It looks to be in the approximate location of Fes. The answer seems to be to remove Sahara and extend the Morocco province southwards so that it encompases more truly Almoravid territory at the time.
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~rs143/umayyad.jpg
http://content.answers.com/main/cont...ire-en.svg.png
The issue is editing the lukmap to do this. In the past I have had no luck with the LBM files in PSP (through versions 4, 5, 7, X and XI), as it seems to change the palette no matter what. The only solution appears to be the LMM editor which I have downloaded and have it running but it seems rather complicated. I don't want to set castle positions I just want to move some province borders!? If anyone has any ideas about this I'd appreciate it. I also need to merge Sinai and Egypt together into a single province and perhaps extend Egypt's western border slightly and tweak Algeria and Tunisia perhaps. :dizzy2:

I have been testing with Sahara and Cyrenacia disabled and it appears to work well. I gave 9000 each income to both provinces and it keeps the rebel economy afloat. This will be a temporary solution however as I may use those provinces elsewhere on the map if I can actually get a working lukmap. Thanks to CA for using a file format that went out in the dark ages. :thumbsdown:

Three main protagonists of the Kievan Rus' scenario at the beginning of the Early Era

Vsevolod I Iaroslavich

born 1030
died 1093

Grand prince of Kiev from 1078 to 1093.

Vsevolod was the son of Grand Prince Iaroslav I the Wise (ruled Kiev 1019-54), and brother of Iziaslav I Iaroslavich (ruled Kiev intermittently 1054-78) and Sviatoslav II Iaroslavich (ruled Kiev 1073-76). To ensure the unity of the state, his father Iaroslav I introduced primogeniture, according to which his eldest living son, Iziaslav, was to succeed him as grand prince and ruler of the Kiev and Novgorod lands; Sviatoslav would rule the Chernigov land to Murom-Riazan', and Tmutarakan'; Vsevolod, the Pereiaslavl' and Rostov-Suzdal' lands; Igor', the Volhynia land; and Viacheslav, the Smolensk land. However, as a result Kievan Rus' state began to fall apart.

At first the three oldest sons of Iaroslav ruled in harmony; they defeated the Pechenegs in 1060, but in 1068 they took some losses from the Cumans on the Alta River near Pereiaslavl', and the Kievans dethroned Iziaslav I. Iziaslav with the help of Poles took Kiev a year later and overrode the rebels, but events of 1068 became an important turn in history. With Vsevolod's help Sviatoslav deposed Iziaslav in 1073 and took over as grand prince of Kiev. When Sviastoslav II died, Vsevolod inherited the Kievan throne but ceded it to the banished Iziaslav I (1077) in return for Chernigov. But Oleg Sviatoslavich, son of Sviatoslav II, was not willing to compromise. In the subsequent war Oleg and his Cuman allies were defeated, but Iziaslav I died in battle and Vsevolod succeeded him as grand prince of Kiev (1078). During his reign, Vsevolod managed to maintain control of most of the central region of the Kievan state, but he was continually pestered by his nephews seeking more lucrative towns to rule. He was assisted by his capable and popular son, Vladimir Monomakh, who followed his father's lead and did not contest the throne, inviting Iziaslav I's son, Sviatopolk II Iziaslavich to rule (1093-1113).

Vladimir II Monomakh

born 1053
died 1125

Grand prince of Kiev from 1113 to 1125.

Vladimir was the son of Grand Prince Vsevolod I Iaroslavich (ruled Kiev 1078–93) and Irina, the daughter of the Byzantine emperor Constantine IX Monomachus. He became active in the politics of Kievan Rus', helping his father and uncle Iziaslav I Iaroslavich (ruled at Kiev intermittently 1054–78) defeat his cousins Oleg Sviatoslavich and Boris Viacheslavich at Chernigov (1078) and succeeding his father as prince of Chernigov when Vsevolod became grand prince of Kiev. While his father was alive Vladimir ruled Smolensk (from 1067) and Chernigov (1078-94), he led successful military campaigns in his father's name, and participated in diplomatic missions. After his father's death he became prince of Pereiaslavl' (1094-1113) and assuming a leading role among princes of Rus' at the conferences held to avert perpetual warfare among themselves and to unite the princes against the Cuman threat (Liubech 1097, Vitichev 1100, Dolobsk 1103). When his cousin Grand Prince Sviatopolk II Iziaslavich (ruled Kiev 1093–1113) died, the city council of Kiev named him successor.

During his reign, as prior to it, Vladimir was almost constantly involved in wars, fighting primarily the Cumans, who had settled in the steppe region southeast of the Kievan state and had been raiding the lands of Rus' since 1061. In addition to his martial qualities, Vladimir Monomakh was known as an adept administrator, whose ability to curtail the internecine warfare among his princely relatives revived, if only temporarily, the declining strength of Kievan Rus'. He was also noted as a builder; he founded the city of Vladimir on the Kliaz'ma River in northeastern Russia, which by the end of the 12th century replaced Kiev as the seat of the grand prince.

Oleg Sviatoslavich

born circa 1050
died 1115

Oleg was the son of Grand Prince Sviatoslav II Iaroslavich (ruled Kiev 1073-76). After his father's death in 1076, Oleg inherited Chernigov, but the new grand prince, Oleg's uncle Iziaslav I Iaroslavich (ruled at Kiev intermittently 1054–78), gave Chernigov to another uncle, Vsevolod Iaroslavich. Instead Oleg ruled Volhynia, but he was driven out in 1078 by Iziaslav and sought refuge in Tmutarakan', a Chernigovian domain on the Black Sea shore. In 1078 Oleg and his cousin Boris Viacheslavich tried, with Cuman help, to regain his patrimony in Chernigov, but they were defeated by Iziaslav and Vsevolod's army. Oleg returned to Tmutarakan', where he was captured by the Khazars in 1079 and handed over to the Byzantines. He lived in exile on Rhodes until 1083, when he returned to Tmutarakan'.

In 1094 Oleg took Chernigov, after his Cuman allies had ravaged it, from his cousin Vladimir Monomakh. He was driven out by Monomakh in 1096, and then took Murom and Rostov from Monomakh's son Iziaslav. Oleg then attacked Iziaslav's brother, Mstislav I Vladimirovich of Novgorod, but was defeated and forced to attend the Liubech congress of princes in 1097. There Oleg forfeited Chernigov, Murom, and Riazan' but was given Novgorod-Severskii (in the Chernigov land), which he ruled until his death. Because of his enduring ties with the Cumans (he also married a Cuman princess) Oleg refused to join Kievan Rus' military expeditions against them. Oleg's descendants, the Ol'govich house of Chernigov, struggled for control of the Kievan state against the descendants of Vladimir Monomakh.

Quote:

---

I have been testing with Sahara and Cyrenacia disabled and it appears to work well. I gave 9000 each income to both provinces and it keeps the rebel economy afloat. This will be a temporary solution however as I may use those provinces elsewhere on the map if I can actually get a working lukmap.

---

Well, on the bright side: then it is something amiss with the buildings, right?
I´ve seen the AI build inns in the last version of the mod. There was one in Norway, at least. Maybe the cathedral income is grossly limited? (maybe it could be made so that inns added to rebel provinces an obscene "harvest cash bonus", on the order of 500%?)

Another note (concerning Varangian Guard):
How about implementing the "Early" and "High" versions, since it´s already there?

Early would be the Varangians more or less as they are in-game right now, 60 men units. Using the "early" pic, and maybe removing the "bonus vs armored troops bonus", and having them wield a sword (following the pic. style)

High would be 30-sized axe-wielding units, maybe with a small armor bonus.

This would reflect both the integration of the VG in the imperial household, and the lesser avaiability of far-away mercs for Byzantium from High&onwards.

@Belisario: Thanks for the info, I'll get onto that later. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

Well, on the bright side: then it is something amiss with the buildings, right?
I´ve seen the AI build inns in the last version of the mod. There was one in Norway, at least. Maybe the cathedral income is grossly limited? (maybe it could be made so that inns added to rebel provinces an obscene "harvest cash bonus", on the order of 500%?)

---

Well, the income is there, on the treasury parchment, as clear as day, but for some reason the AI doesn't get any of it. I will have to try LEV1_INCOME instead of CATHEDRAL_INCOME and see if the AI get's an income from that. I'm not sure about FARM_INCOME, which is a percentage (120%, 140%, 160%, 180%) of the provincial income set in the starpos file. Only one structure has FARM_INCOME type and that is the Improved Farmland, that structure is upgraded so it is really unique in a province. If a province has two or more of such structures stating different percentages it may not know which percentage to use, unless it can somehow add them together (which would be ideal).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

Another note (concerning Varangian Guard):
How about implementing the "Early" and "High" versions, since it´s already there?

---

The problem is that after the loss of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade in 1204, that the Varangian Guard pretty much disappeared from history. The unused early VG you're referring to seem to be classic 9th - 11th century VG and look much more like those I have seen in old paintings, textbooks etc. The ones that appear in the game currently are a representation of VG using Byzantine equipment as opposed to their own equipment, though I'm not entirely sure how accurate this is. As with the Byzantine Infantry, the equipment they are using is very dressy and may only have been worn by nobility. I have read somewhere that they were painted like that in the roman tradition but seldom if ever wore that kind of gear. I believe the axes were always retained. From what I have seen and read they are synonymous with axes.

I had commented before about reducing their numbers, and that seems a good idea - I'm thinking a 20 man scalable unit. Basically I don't want to turn the Byzantines into a force that can spam these "Vikings", I prefer to have the main Byzantine Force as the main focus with their combined arms of Skutatoi, Kontaratoi, Psiloi as the main Infantry force and Pronoiarioi Kavallarioi, Pronoiarioi Stratiotai, Armenian Heavy Cavalry and various Steppe Mercenaries as the main cavalry force. The Kataphraktoi and Varangian Guards will be much harder to obtain and only in the Early era. In the Vanilla game the Byzantine are a mish mash of ineffective, overpriced strangely named and ahistorical units combined with 2 highly overpowered units. Fixing this may have temporarily turned them into a juggernaut, but that is being remedied (less provinces in early and starting command stars lowered for faction leaders). The Vanilla Byzantine, were all about VG, Byzzie Infantry and Kats - this is what we need to get away from.

Unfortunately, the LMM requires you to redraw the borders of EVERY province and sea I'm afraid.