nice preview, i take it this is gonna be for medieval 2...
Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lentonius
nice preview shifty but i was wondering why 'Cornwall' is so big? it only reaches up to the River Tamar :inquisitive: 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
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.
very nice preview
Thanks.
Nice preview, i like the idea of England cut up into several different regions rather than just three large provinces.
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.
Nice Work shifty this is looking really good and making me proud to be a part of it
i still don't like the name 'cornwall' though; as a devon boy i have a severe disliking of the cornish... for some reason :dizzy2: 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 :juggle2: argh! confusing :laugh4:
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?
Just give it to the French.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Herkus
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).
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
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.
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.
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. :bow:
Thats for sure. Figuring out names for the Scottish provinces and cities actually held up the update process for a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by zakalwe
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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 reignQuote:
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.
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 AlbaQuote:
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.
Yup, although you would need to include their control of the mainland from Caithness, Sutherland and the west coast down to around ardnamurchan.Quote:
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.
Don’t think you mean Strathclyde/Argyll here?Quote:
The Scots of Alba (Strathclyde/Argyll)
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.Quote:
Fyfe belongs to the Scots basically because its such an important regions for them (Scone etc.)
Hmm yes this is the difficult one really. If you had lots of minor provinces, it would be much easier.Quote:
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.
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
Actually, I designed the map primarily with strategic-political needs in mind. Make of that what you will.
Should Wessex be in there, or am I an ignorant washout?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by IrishArmenian
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.
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. :2thumbsup:Quote:
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
He was talking about Scotland.
But indeed pre-Norman Conquest England contained many more cultures than Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon.
I know. Doesn't invalidate the point though.. he pointed out that the Angles weren't Saxons, which is what I was cheering for.Quote:
He was talking about Scotland.
Nor were the Picts, Jutes, Celts, or Romans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Justiciar
Any thoughts on having Huscarls as mercenaries on the mainland or rebels units in the north? After 1066 the Huscarls that escaped went east to become mercenaries or become part of the Varangian Guard. Although I understand they were probably on the way out at this stage.
Youre right in saying that they were on their way out but they were still around. Denmark may be given an actual Huscarl unit but other than that youll find them only as mercenaries and rebels.
I suppose the map has been finalised by now...but in the hope it hasn't...
First,a question..what are the current province numbers in the game?
Second..Regarding the British Isles...fair enough that Scotland has 5 provinces under it's cultural umbrella...but...what of Wales?
Wales may be seen as a rebel nation and insignificant...but...for the first 200 years or so of the game..while Scotland was technically a vassal state of England...Wales was oft in rebellion.
Personally..I would like to see...If Scotland get 5 and Ireland 3...Wales also get 3 provinces...North,South and East...North would be Gwynedd which was the heartbase of Welsh resistance.....South Deheubarth...and the East,quite convenient in game terms due to the mountainous division in Wales(In game at least)...Could be the much disputed marches...
The marches were almost constantly at war and many great Lords cut their teeth in battles in this Geography.
With regard to England...I would be hopeful that the team rethink their Geographical mindset and perhaps divide it as follows....Cornwall(Wessex),Kent,EastAnglia,Mercia,Lancaster and York....this gives 6 provinces...with the potential for the quick acquisition of a 7th in the Welsh March..although the march and Lancaster/York would be rebel at the start..to replicate the harrowing that took place,the rebellions and to limit English Power to an extent.
Perhaps some scripted uprisings,if possible,from the Welsh....?
Some may complain there is too much emphasis on England etc. in the Medieval period..but She had a massive influence on it....and the 100 years war is one of the most recognised of all the medieval conflicts...this of course leads us to look at how France and England,and their environs should be divided up...and,although technically,France is outside the scope of this discussion..I shall touch on it...as it goes hand in hand with England due to their rivalry.
Lands on mainland france should try to include,where possible,as may of the following....Brittany,Normandy,Maine,Anjou,Poitou,Guyenne,Gascony,Toulouse,Champagne,Burgundy,Orlean s,Blois....and possibly others...along with some fringe areas that played roles..such as Flanders etc.Perhaps Calais should be included as a small city state..under French control but a goal of the English(granted,lmid-later medieval...but a major event in 100 years war.)
That map has yet to be finalized. THe recent confirmation of a higher than expected faction limit (30 as opposed to originally believed 20) has sparked some debate as to whether to increase the scope of the map farther east. Thats still under debate though. Aside from that, redoing province layouts of already established areas is an ongoing process in an effort to better represent the area.
As to the province limit. This has not yet been confirmed for MTW2 so for the moment we are creating the map under the assumption of the RTW province limit which we currently have maxed out.
There are many reasons that we cant/wont divide Wales into three seperate provinces. Most important among these is the fact that it would make the british isles much more powerful than they actually were historically. SO many provinces in such a small area would give the conqueror an substantially higher income per turn. COmbined with the capacity for increased unit production it would make the conqueror entirely too powerful.
As to your proposals for England and France ill direct our mapper to have a look at your post.
Hmm..
Ok..in reply to your response...so..in a mod that points towards historical accuracy..you,to all intent and purpose,emasculate Wales and the effect it has on English policy?
Edward the First and his Castle building becomes,effectively,a sideshow?
You mention that having too many provinces in such a small area will make England overly powerful(looks to Scotland that now has 5 proposed provinces..plus 3 Irish provinces)...
So while England is probably occupied in France...Scotland will become a great medieval power..erm..right!
If Wales..which...Should be split into North,South and East provinces...East being the marches...(Even the MTW2 map cries out for this)..would unbalance things..then why does Ireland have 3 projected provinces?Ireland in Medieval times had little influence on the development of any major policy..aside from the limited intervention of the Normans....led by a Welsh landholder...
If you are worried about economics or military power being unbalanced then reduce the income and resource wealth accordingly...limit the recruitment using your new system..or via the ZoR system if it's along Rome TW lines game mechanics for recruiting troops from areas.
Also..make the rebel provinces stronger and,especially in terms of North Wales..should it ever be included..(Gwynedd)..more likely to rebel if captured etc...The south was more easily subjugated....although the marches also posed problems.
Glad to see you're considering the French situation...as it does have a huge influence on the period and,as it currently stands in game...tends to have the wrong feel for what was a very long and bitter rivalry...lasting a lot longer than the Hundred Years War.Technicaly..England and France were at each others throats from the Conquest onwards...even,in attitude at least,going beyond the medieval period.
As far as extending the map further East goes..can't see a lot of point..better to concentrate on what we have and try to make it as good as possible.Got a map off the net showing dispositions of nations etc. circa 1100..which shows a lot of states and also defines a lot of possible provinces including the many themes and Ducal states of the Eastern Roman Empire.Your mapmaker probably has this already..but if needed I could email it to him?
Now for a couple of quick questions..
1/Will you be trying to accurately model unit sizes for the mod?Within the games limits of course..i.e 1 man equals 5..10 etc.Would be good if this could be modelled as often..eg Crecy,Agincourt etc. there was a huge disparity in numbers between opposing armies that the game..in current form..can't accurately portray.
2/How will you represent,especially as the period progresses,that the National characteristics play some part...eg England technically having the best trained and ,possibly first,professional national army..or the disorganised and arrogant nature(With regard to the lower classes) of the French etc...As these factors played a large part in their conflicts?
For a pap with 30 factions I would want to have about 300 proviences, if that is possible.
Hey. Im out of town at the moment and i dont have time to give a decent answer to your post. If you want to hang on a few more days when i get back ill sit down and reply.
I'm afraid that the province limit is just that, a limit, therefore we are forced to make judgements and generalise about different areas even though we would love to be able to have a lot more provinces if we could.
I don't think we're going to "emasculate Wales" however as they probably aren't going to be a playable faction at this stage we cannot afford to divide those provinces up any more.
Who knows maybe the province limit will be higher than expected and there may be some changes, however I daresay that we would probably add more provinces in the middle east if we can. Even if we don't extend the map east, there are some quite large provinces that our map maker said he'd like to divide if he could.
As far as increasing unit sizes, I don't think that's on the agenda at the moment. It's very true that it would be great to have much bigger armies as that would be more realistic, however the MTW2 engine just cannot handle it unfortunately.
Thanks HZ for addressing these questions and suggestions.