MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

As far as I can understand, these are the current factions in game/in development/being considered

Catholic
English
French
Spanish
Aragonese
Portugeuse
HRE
Danish
Burgundian
Polish
Hungarian
Italian
Papal States
Sicilians

Orthodox
Kievians
Rus/Novgorod
Byzantium
Nicaeans

Islamic
Moors
Tiafa Kingdom
Egyptians
Turks

Pagan
Golden Horde

Looks good to me, but I would make a suggestion(s)...

Catholic
Scots - They were an actual faction during these times, and I think they should be represented as such. It may also be a little bit of pride in having Scottish blood for wanting them in.

Genoans or Milanese - The Italians were quite divided, and this isn't reflected in game. The were constantly fighting each other and everyone else.

Orthodox
Empire of Trebizond - The were actually 2 factions competing for the Imperial crown after the sack of Constantinople. This may curb the Byzantine Juggernuat completely though.

Kingdom of Cilicia - The "Byzantine" controlled Lesser Armenia in early wasn't even under thier control, and was nearly an autonomous. By High, they had sided with the Crusaders, something that isn't reflected and can't be done.

Islamic
Mali or Ghana - They were an actual empire, not just some rebel kingdom. Ghana was more or less pagan, true, but had very strong islamic influence and I think could thus qualify as a islamic faction. Mali on the other hand was a very influental and powerful Islamic kingdom, again not reflected.

Volga Bulgarians - If only to curb the wolrds slow slide into catholic christianity, The Volga-Bulgarians were quite the faction and hiers to the the fallen jewish kingdom of Khazar (Which would be interesting to play as, BTW).

Pagan
Cumans - They fought the Hungarian Empire, and lost, but nonetheless was a kingdom in its own right. If you don't mind tearing apart the viking campaign, you could use the FN_07 faction for these guys to reflect thier conversion to catholicism in the 13th century.

Lithuanians - These guys were involved in tons of things, more specifically all things involving Poland and the Tuetonic Order. They don't need a conversion event, becuase a Polish (?) king assumed the throne and converted the country.

I think this may be more work then what you are looking for, but I would do the work myself if you want.

A few corrections best made within the general flow of the thing:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

As far as I can understand, these are the current factions in game/in development/being considered

Catholic
English
French
Spanish Castile-Leon
Aragonese
Portugeuse
HRE
Danish
Burgundian
Polish
Hungarian
Italian
Papal States
Sicilians

Orthodox
Kievians Kievan Rus/Russians
Rus/Novgorod Novgorod Republic
Byzantium
Nicaeans Empire of Nicaea: As Byzantine

Islamic
Moors Almoravids
Almohads: As Almoravids
Marinids: As Almoravids
Tiafa Kingdom Nasrid Granada only (Personally I think the Medieval Iberian situation would merit a smaller map, like the VI map to do the thing some justice.)
Egyptians Fatimids
Ayyubids: As Fatimids
Mamluks: As Fatimids
Turks Seljukid Empire
Seljuk Sultanate of Rum: As Seljukid Empire
Ottoman Empire: As Seljukid Empire

Pagan
Golden Horde

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

Looks good to me, but I would make a suggestion(s)...

Catholic
Scots - They were an actual faction during these times, and I think they should be represented as such. It may also be a little bit of pride in having Scottish blood for wanting them in.

---

I agree with the Scots in the VI camapaign but on the world stage no. Other smaller factions such as the Aragonese, Danes and Sicilians were important factions and did go on to conquer other lands, the Scots did not. In the Pocket Mod I could see them ending up as a token faction with only highland clansmen (the laughable Braveheart Infantry) as a unique unit, and not an historically accurate one. Also if Scotland were to be added that would give equal weight (ok perhaps not equal but almost) to Wales and Ireland being added.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

Genoans or Milanese - The Italians were quite divided, and this isn't reflected in game. The were constantly fighting each other and everyone else.

---

And Venitians? The problem I can see with this is that, like the Iberian Peninsuala the Italian city states thing warrants a mini campaign to itself. Alot of small one or two province factions would just add more weak factions to be swallowed up. Venice would be difficult in that many of their key territories were small areas not represented as provinces, this would mean adding many extra provinces to do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

Orthodox
Empire of Trebizond - The were actually 2 factions competing for the Imperial crown after the sack of Constantinople. This may curb the Byzantine Juggernuat completely though.

---

My one argument against this is that they would be duplicate faction. There was also the Despotate of Epirus, the third successor state. Trebizond never actually returned to Byzantine (Nicaean) control and eventually fell to the Turks, but it did hold out as an independent state for longer than Constantinople. May be a worthwhile faction in the high era, if we were to go down that route.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

Kingdom of Cilicia - The "Byzantine" controlled Lesser Armenia in early wasn't even under thier control, and was nearly an autonomous. By High, they had sided with the Crusaders, something that isn't reflected and can't be done.

---

This is why I've made it rebel in all eras, as it was never a Byzantine province. They would be an interesting faction, would need a lot of work and research though. At present we have Armenian Heavy Cavalry and that's it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

Islamic
Mali or Ghana - They were an actual empire, not just some rebel kingdom. Ghana was more or less pagan, true, but had very strong islamic influence and I think could thus qualify as a islamic faction. Mali on the other hand was a very influental and powerful Islamic kingdom, again not reflected.

---

Off them map, so can't be done. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

Volga Bulgarians - If only to curb the wolrds slow slide into catholic christianity, The Volga-Bulgarians were quite the faction and hiers to the the fallen jewish kingdom of Khazar (Which would be interesting to play as, BTW).

---

I agree, and they could make use of the steppe cavalry types that are already in existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

Pagan
Cumans - They fought the Hungarian Empire, and lost, but nonetheless was a kingdom in its own right. If you don't mind tearing apart the viking campaign, you could use the FN_07 faction for these guys to reflect thier conversion to catholicism in the 13th century.

---

Possible, again a lot of work but the possibilities are there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

Lithuanians - These guys were involved in tons of things, more specifically all things involving Poland and the Tuetonic Order. They don't need a conversion event, becuase a Polish (?) king assumed the throne and converted the country.

---

The issue with these is that to add them means adding the Teutonic Order and adding them means adding more of the Baltic States. It's a runaway train of adding factions from then on. As I've said I don't mind adding factions if I can get the historical input and graphics in order to do it, but I don't want to end up just copying the other major mods. Belisario has helped enormously with the graphics and other aspects, hopefully he will be kind enough to produce other faction shield/flag graphics when needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

I think this may be more work then what you are looking for, but I would do the work myself if you want.

---

Any help will be greatly appreciated. You would have to have some knowledge of the scripting involved, or some artistic talent. Adding factions is no easy task neither is adding units. EVen startpos editing can be a minefield. It's not difficult in terms of complexity, but it is tedious, error prone and tiring. Every change has to be tested in order that untraceable errors don't creep in. A tab out of place in the unit or build prod files causes havoc. A mistake in the startpos files causes the era to simply not show up in the game. LBMs and BIF/BUFs the main formats that MTW uses for images are difficult to work with, save, create and convert.

For now, as I've said on numerous occasions so excuse the repetition, I'm more interested in getting a working framework that plays well, before adding more general bulk.

:bow:

Understood. For the Ghana/Mali problem, I am in fact modding a MTW2 map for use within MTW, and this should help in that regard. As to the Other factions, maybe some good criteria would be the following to see if it gets added and to prevent the runaway effect:

1) Faction must be unique
2) Faction must have been A "world" player in politics
3) Faction must have existed longer than a century
4) Faction must not create overcrowding (i.e. 4 surrounded by 4 or more factions.)

Quote:

---

And Venitians? The problem I can see with this is that, like the Iberian Peninsuala the Italian city states thing warrants a mini campaign to itself. Alot of small one or two province factions would just add more weak factions to be swallowed up. Venice would be difficult in that many of their key territories were small areas not represented as provinces, this would mean adding many extra provinces to do that.

---

The problem I see with Separating Genoa and Venice is that it would make them too weak. Particularily Venice. So it can't be made quite "Historical" (there would be Florence and others to deal with). However, if it came to that, maybe it could be split into Venice and Genoa, with Venice getting the alps provinces and Florence, and Genoa getting Genoa, Corsica, and Sardinia? Plus, having Genoa and Venice start off as more developed to offset their lack of provinces
EDIT: how about elective monarchies, whether an addittional italian faction gets added or not? Doges were elected.

Quote:

---

Nasrid Granada only (Personally I think the Medieval Iberian situation would merit a smaller map, like the VI map to do the thing some justice.)

---

I don't know if a "small map" campaign, but certainly more provinces would be in order: as it is now the "glorious Reconquista" usually ends up in less than fifty years, one or other way...
BTW: methinks Navarre would merit a place among the northern kingdoms, along with Aragon and Portugal :p
PD: (more about units, but on the same topic: My experiments nerfing Spanish Jinettes: raising the upkeep to 90 gp/turn per unit sort of controlled their spamming)
BTW: What is the conceptual rooster for Granada as of now? (Also, is there a flag? I know that nowadays it's shield is a Pommengranate, but I don't know how "historical" that is)

On the naming of "The Empire of Nicaea": doesn't it look a bit ugly? I mean, chances are that it retakes Constantinople as one of it's first moves. Personally, I think that they should remain dubbed as "Byzantines". I would support the Trapisond faction idea, but I think that would be faction spamming a bit too much, considering the province layout on that zone.
(on this same topic: I tried to alter the default Byzantine flag into something more akin to the "Basileus Basileon" flag (as in MTW2), but failed due to very small sprites being required)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

Understood. For the Ghana/Mali problem, I am in fact modding a MTW2 map for use within MTW, and this should help in that regard.

---

I'm not sure how that would work. The M2TW/RTW maps are angular tiles maps and not really suitable for MTW. Also a map of that scale would be a waste because there are simply not enough available provinces inside MTW's hardcoded limit to take advantage of a bigger map. You'd have a lot of dead zones. It's one of those things that we have to live with. :thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

As to the Other factions, maybe some good criteria would be the following to see if it gets added and to prevent the runaway effect:

1) Faction must be unique
2) Faction must have been A "world" player in politics
3) Faction must have existed longer than a century
4) Faction must not create overcrowding (i.e. 4 surrounded by 4 or more factions.)

---

1) Unique as in not effectively the same faction under a different dynasty?
2) That criteria effectively rules out the Taifa Kingdoms, Navarra, and Nasrid Granada among others.
3) I agree with this, which is why I'm not really prepared to try and represent the shorter Taifa period in Spain between the Almoravids and the Almohads.
4) This is not so much a concern. If the faction is an important faction I don't mind it being surrounded by three or four neighbours.

Some ideas I have thought up as of right now:

1) Cambyses II mentioned that the Trebizond faction would be identical to the Nicaean one. I think this could be solved by simply by changing the unit rosters, so that one has a more western feel and the other a more eastern feel. On a side note, I suggest using the original Byzantine faction for Trebizond, and the new one for Nicaea.

2) Just using the Genoese Sailors for the Italians could solve the Archer problem. They could have the following stats: 2 Charge, 2 Attack, 0 Defense, 1 Armor, 2 Morale. This could also help the AI, as it seems confused as to whether to build the sailors or vanilla archers (who I think should be called foresters, as they wear a uniform almost identical to a woodsman, with an actual “professional” archer available to catholic factions later). They could even be renamed “Italian Light Infantry” (and obviously the Italian Infantry would become something else).

3) Make the Gothic units (Sergeants, Foot Knights, Knights) into an Imperial line for the HRE. Turn the badly named “Lancers” into “Gothic Knights”. The Imperial units could be available from High to Late, have high building requirements, and be the cream of the crop. I have the following suggestions for unit stats for the units: “Imperial Guard” (Gothic Sergeants) – 60 man unit, Elite, Disciplined, good speed (they use gothic armor, which supposedly was very light and durable, compared to conventional armor of the day), 2 Charge, 3-4 Attack, 5 Defense, 4-6 Armor, 4 Morale, Bonus attacking Cavalry, AP attack. “Imperial Men-At-Arms” (Gothic Foot Knights) – 60 man unit, Elite, Disciplined, decent speed, 4 Charge, 4-6 Attack, 5-6 Defense, 4-7 Armor, 6-8 Morale, AP attack. “Imperial Knights” (Gothic Knights) – 60 man unit, Elite, Disciplined, Elite, Impetuous, Bodyguard, good speed, 6 Charge, 4-6 Attack, 6-8 Defense, 6-10 Armor, 8 Morale, AP attack, dismounts into “Imperial Guard”.

4) Why NOT include the Scots? I think the English need a thorn in their side, and the Scots could do it. They don’t have to be very strong, just annoying. If you want, make them unplayable. But if you do make them playable, a few unit suggestions: Scottish Pikemen (Robert the Bruce used these BEFORE the Late period), Highland Rabble (or some other suitable name: An excellent way to make use of the peasant unit, with of course better stats). You could even convert some units from the Viking campaign for use within the normal campaign. On the plus side, there is already a pre-made Scottish faction!

5) If I can import the map from MTW2, then we would need some graphics (units, shields, colors, etc.) for the Mali and Ghanaian Empires. I still think that it should be done, considering the importance of Timbuktu. Anyway, any volunteers? (I think we could give them the Sahara; yes I know, very ahistorical, but come on, why not? I'd love to see Africans overrun Europe).

6) On the previous subject, the expanded map plus the addition of the Ghanaian or Mali Empires might curb the Spaniards from using the North African coast as a Crusade “Gateway”.

7) On Crusades and Jihads: Is there anyway to change the Zealousness of a province? I’ve seen far to many Jihads die before reaching the objective province.

8) On the “Islamic” UM and MS, why not give them to the Sicilians too, if not exclusively? This could reflect the fact that the Sicilians had quite the mixed culture.

9) On the Criteria for factions, it was hastily thought up. Sorry if it was confusing or self-contradictory.

10) You don't really need to add the Tuetonic Order to add the Lithuanians: They would be effectively fighting 2 German factions. Just leave it as is. It also wouldn't make sense to have the Tuetonic Order conquer the HRE and the Russian steppes, as they are apt to do in XL and BKB.

Don’t worry, I will be back every now and then to harass you with more insane, loony, useless, and vexatious ideas. I will never go away, unless of course a final version of the Pocket Mod is ever produced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

The problem I see with Separating Genoa and Venice is that it would make them too weak. Particularily Venice. So it can't be made quite "Historical" (there would be Florence and others to deal with). However, if it came to that, maybe it could be split into Venice and Genoa, with Venice getting the alps provinces and Florence, and Genoa getting Genoa, Corsica, and Sardinia? Plus, having Genoa and Venice start off as more developed to offset their lack of provinces
EDIT: how about elective monarchies, whether an addittional italian faction gets added or not? Doges were elected.

---

The whole Italian situation is even more complicated than the Iberian one. Genoa and Venice were much smaller than the provinces in the game, basically only city states, and for a large part of the early and high eras most of Italy was part of the HRE, so in early and High I would compromise a bit and perhaps have Genoa, Venice and Pisa, the three most important of the time. When it comes to late it gets much more complex and personally I just don't think it can be done. For Venice a lot of the Mediterranean islands need to be added as they made up most of their territories, and for the rest the provinces of Italy in the game are not correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

I don't know if a "small map" campaign, but certainly more provinces would be in order: as it is now the "glorious Reconquista" usually ends up in less than fifty years, one or other way...
BTW: methinks Navarre would merit a place among the northern kingdoms, along with Aragon and Portugal :p

---

Navarra is viable but would be a one province faction. Historically Navarre was there for the duration of the game's time frame but lost a lot of territory over the centuries. The problem with this is, that if Navarra are added then why not Wales? Why not Bohemia? What about Savoy, or the Hafsids? It goes on and on. There are simply too many factions to include.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

PD: (more about units, but on the same topic: My experiments nerfing Spanish Jinettes: raising the upkeep to 90 gp/turn per unit sort of controlled their spamming)
BTW: What is the conceptual rooster for Granada as of now? (Also, is there a flag? I know that nowadays it's shield is a Pommengranate, but I don't know how "historical" that is)

---

No idea of the Roster for Granada as yet, as I haven't thought about it. They will probably need their own cavalry anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

On the naming of "The Empire of Nicaea": doesn't it look a bit ugly? I mean, chances are that it retakes Constantinople as one of it's first moves. Personally, I think that they should remain dubbed as "Byzantines". I would support the Trapisond faction idea, but I think that would be faction spamming a bit too much, considering the province layout on that zone.
(on this same topic: I tried to alter the default Byzantine flag into something more akin to the "Basileus Basileon" flag (as in MTW2), but failed due to very small sprites being required)

---

I will not be using the name "Empire of Nicaea" and have never had the intention of using it. If Trebizond were added then it may be necessary though.

I wouldn't worry too much about flags. The sprites are indeed so small that you can't achieve any detail, so small coats of arms are just a waste and lack definition. It is better to use something symbolic of the faction with an associated colour if possible. The historicity of the faction flags is something that I'm not overly concerned with, the ability to tell them apart and their visual clarity is. On a coat of arms for example it is better to take the key feature, separate it and make it a single colour and superimpose this on a background coloured to roughly represent the faction in some way.

A stretch, but would it be possible to use the MedMod map permission? It has excellent province distrubution, which could make previously unstable factions more stable (particulary for the Italians). I understand if you don't want to, but I think it would give you a better base from which to begin your own map at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cambyses II
I will not be using the name "Empire of Nicaea" and have never had the intention of using it. If Trebizond were added then it may be necessary though.

---

Not neccassarily; just make Trebizond the "Empire of Trebizond".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

A stretch, but would it be possible to use the MedMod map permission? It has excellent province distrubution, which could make previously unstable factions more stable (particulary for the Italians). I understand if you don't want to, but I think it would give you a better base from which to begin your own map at least.

---

The problem with using the medmod map is that I'd still be editing just as many provinces in order to remove the ones we don't want. Also the Pocket Mod would end up as being called a mod that is "based on medmod", which I don't want. I am prepared to do the graft, and sit down and reposition borders and add a few provinces if people will only supply the maps and info for reference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

Not neccassarily; just make Trebizond the "Empire of Trebizond".

---

I was thinking more of "Empire of Nicaea" and "Empire of Trebizond"? As they are at present I would leave it as "Byzantine", though both of the former are actually more accurate. It would be nice to divide up Greece and add the "Despotate of Epirus" also. In the Early and Late eras they could be renamed as "Eastern Roman Empire", just to get rid of the "Byzantine" word, because, as I've argued, countless numbers of times, "Byzantine" is the name applied to the Eastern Roman Empire by latter day scholars and historians. The Eastern Romans did not ever refer to themselves as "Byzantine", which means "of Byzantium" and thus "Empire of Byzantium". This actually means in simple terms: "Empire centred on the old city of Byzantium". Byzantium, first renamed as "New Rome", was known as Constantinople after the death of Constantine, it's founder, so in reality historians have applied a name for convenience and differentiation with the Western Roman Empire, a name that has stuck, but is not necessarily accurate. This is why I would have no hesitation of losing the Byzantine name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

I tried to alter the default Byzantine flag into something more akin to the "Basileus Basileon" flag (as in MTW2), but failed due to very small sprites being required

---

Don't worry, the new Byzantine flags and shields are flying to Cambyses II PC!

As far as Byzantines are concerned, I don't support their split into three factions in high and late. If you add the Empire of Trebizond you musn't forget the Georgian Kingdom (particularly Queen Tamar of Georgia was instrumental in the establishment of the Empire of Trebizond), and if you add the Despotate of Epirus you musn't forget the Bulgarians (remember the figure of King Kaloyan) and the Serbians (remember King Stephan Dushan). We run the risk to go in a spiral of multiple possible factions and we must be cautious.

If you are interested in new factions I propose to follow the example of the ever-mentioned MedMod of WesWhitaker. He begin his mod for the late era, then launched the early era, and the high era was not released. Well, we need a bit of order here: Early, High, and Late :beam:.

I am ready to listen your proposals for new factions in the early era and begin graphic shields work.

Cheers

I already have suggested my ideas and thier refinements to Cambyses II, although he has not commented on my second post, so I have no idea what to suggest or where I should go. My original proposals are at the top.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

Some ideas I have thought up as of right now:

---

Sorry, YourLordandConqueror, I completely missed this post! :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

1) Cambyses II mentioned that the Trebizond faction would be identical to the Nicaean one. I think this could be solved by simply by changing the unit rosters, so that one has a more western feel and the other a more eastern feel. On a side note, I suggest using the original Byzantine faction for Trebizond, and the new one for Nicaea.

---

If we were to add Trebizond, why the use the original Byzantine faction for them and not for Nicaea? Could you define "eastern feel"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

2) Just using the Genoese Sailors for the Italians could solve the Archer problem. They could have the following stats: 2 Charge, 2 Attack, 0 Defense, 1 Armor, 2 Morale. This could also help the AI, as it seems confused as to whether to build the sailors or vanilla archers (who I think should be called foresters, as they wear a uniform almost identical to a woodsman, with an actual “professional” archer available to catholic factions later). They could even be renamed “Italian Light Infantry” (and obviously the Italian Infantry would become something else).

---

Most western european archers were foresters and hunters anyway, hence the "peasant tunic" look, so your idea is a good one. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

3) Make the Gothic units (Sergeants, Foot Knights, Knights) into an Imperial line for the HRE.

---

How would three types of units constitute a royal line? Also since gothic armoured units belong near the end of the late era, they could not be added in early.

There is also an unused "Gothic Men at Arms" info pic which could perhaps be used for the third level (late) of men at arms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

Turn the badly named “Lancers” into “Gothic Knights”.

---

Lancers are currently the "Knights of Calatrava", an order type Knight trainable only in Castile. This is not that much of a problem as I do have another unit icon (Late Ghulam Bodyguards) which is a knight in Gothic Armour that I can use if necessary. The info pic will have to be a duplicate of Gothic Knights, Lancers or Late Royal Knights though.

There is also an unused "Gothic Men at Arms" info pic which could be used for the third level (late) of men at arms. (I believe CA initially intended to add Feudal, Chivalric and Gothic levels for the three eras but it didn't happen.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

The Imperial units could be available from High to Late, have high building requirements, and be the cream of the crop. I have the following suggestions for unit stats for the units: “Imperial Guard” (Gothic Sergeants) – 60 man unit, Elite, Disciplined, good speed (they use gothic armor, which supposedly was very light and durable, compared to conventional armor of the day), 2 Charge, 3-4 Attack, 5 Defense, 4-6 Armor, 4 Morale, Bonus attacking Cavalry, AP attack. “Imperial Men-At-Arms” (Gothic Foot Knights) – 60 man unit, Elite, Disciplined, decent speed, 4 Charge, 4-6 Attack, 5-6 Defense, 4-7 Armor, 6-8 Morale, AP attack. “Imperial Knights” (Gothic Knights) – 60 man unit, Elite, Disciplined, Elite, Impetuous, Bodyguard, good speed, 6 Charge, 4-6 Attack, 6-8 Defense, 6-10 Armor, 8 Morale, AP attack, dismounts into “Imperial Guard”.

---

The naming is a concern to me. Firstly there were no "Imperial" units as the HRE was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire (how many times have you heard that one?) but more so a confederation of Germanic (eastern Franks) states. "Gothic" is simply a style of armour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

4) Why NOT include the Scots? I think the English need a thorn in their side, and the Scots could do it. They don’t have to be very strong, just annoying. If you want, make them unplayable. But if you do make them playable, a few unit suggestions: Scottish Pikemen (Robert the Bruce used these BEFORE the Late period), Highland Rabble (or some other suitable name: An excellent way to make use of the peasant unit, with of course better stats). You could even convert some units from the Viking campaign for use within the normal campaign. On the plus side, there is already a pre-made Scottish faction!

---

Yes, there is a pre made faction but like any other it's too early. The units from VI would be wrong for the 1087 - 1453 campaign. The clansmen are also wrong in that they wear kilts, a 16th century garment. Other types of units would be needed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

5) If I can import the map from MTW2, then we would need some graphics (units, shields, colors, etc.) for the Mali and Ghanaian Empires. I still think that it should be done, considering the importance of Timbuktu. Anyway, any volunteers? (I think we could give them the Sahara; yes I know, very ahistorical, but come on, why not? I'd love to see Africans overrun Europe).

---

Unfortunately ahistorical means it's not going into the Pocket Mod, sorry. Timbutu is simply too far south to be on the map, and extending the current map would not be possible as the engine does not allow enough extra provinces. :no:

I have other plans for the Sahara already. I would support your ideas regarding the extension of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia and the removal of the existing Sahara province. Particularly Morocco, roughly equivalent in the game to the kingdom of Fes, doesn't actually cover Marrakech at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

6) On the previous subject, the expanded map plus the addition of the Ghanaian or Mali Empires might curb the Spaniards from using the North African coast as a Crusade “Gateway”.

---

The removal of Cyrenacia and the cutting in half of North Africa should curb the Spanish expansion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

7) On Crusades and Jihads: Is there anyway to change the Zealousness of a province? I’ve seen far to many Jihads die before reaching the objective province.

---

In the vanilla game Inquisitors and Grand Inquisitors increase the zeal of Catholic provinces, and Imams do the same for Muslim ones. Orthodox have no equivalent. In the Pocket mod I have altered to this to Imams and Cardinals increasing zeal. The zeal increase factor is also much less, as per Noir's recommendations. Zeal is not the core issue with failed Jihads, it is troop quality within the Jihad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

8) On the “Islamic” UM and MS, why not give them to the Sicilians too, if not exclusively? This could reflect the fact that the Sicilians had quite the mixed culture.

---

Possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

9) On the Criteria for factions, it was hastily thought up. Sorry if it was confusing or self-contradictory.

---

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

10) You don't really need to add the Tuetonic Order to add the Lithuanians: They would be effectively fighting 2 German factions. Just leave it as is. It also wouldn't make sense to have the Tuetonic Order conquer the HRE and the Russian steppes, as they are apt to do in XL and BKB.

---

Historically I can't imagine a Grand Duchy of Lithuania without a Teutonic Order. It would just be wrong adding one without the other, like adding Byzantines without Turks or English without French. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

Don’t worry, I will be back every now and then to harass you with more insane, loony, useless, and vexatious ideas. I will never go away, unless of course a final version of the Pocket Mod is ever produced.

---

Keep the ideas coming, but try to remember that i cam trying to be as historically accurate as possible.

:egypt:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel
If we were to add Trebizond, why the use the original Byzantine faction for them and not for Nicaea? Could you define "eastern feel"?

---

Trebizond was still ruled by the Comnenos dynasty. I would have though thats were most of the power shifted. What I mean by eastern and western feel is the style of play. One could make more use of Horse archers, good tactics, guerilla warfare, etc., while the other could have more direct approach, similar to haw the catholics go to war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel
How would three types of units constitute a royal line? Also since gothic armoured units belong near the end of the late era, they could not be added in early.

---

I didn't mean a royal line, sorry if I confused you. What I meant was that they would be the exclusive units to the germans, representing thier most trained and professional soldiers. "Imperial" can be ignored or replaced, it was their only to tie them closer in with the "Holy Roman Empire" theme. I didn't want them availabe during the early period, and high was just a possability, But definetly during the late (hey, by the way, has anyone noticed that the sword the GFK are wielding looks like a pre-zwiehander?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel
Lancers are currently the "Knights of Calatrava", an order type Knight trainable only in Castile. This is not that much of a problem as I do have another unit icon (Late Ghulam Bodyguards) which is a knight in Gothic Armour that I can use if necessary. The info pic will have to be a duplicate of Gothic Knights, Lancers or Late Royal Knights though.

---

Sorry, thought you were going to give all Catholic factions access to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel
Yes, there is a pre made faction but like any other it's too early. The units from VI would be wrong for the 1087 - 1453 campaign. The clansmen are also wrong in that they wear kilts, a 16th century garment. Other types of units would be needed.

---

I would problably argue this do death normally, but I concede to your opinion (and historical accuracy).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel
Historically I can't imagine a Grand Duchy of Lithuania without a Teutonic Order. It would just be wrong adding one without the other, like adding Byzantines without Turks or English without French.

---

Why not remove the French?:smash: Really though, Lithuania was extremely important, and I think we need to have them be thier owwn faction jsut for the sake OF historical accuracy. Think of this; if they had not existed, the wouldn't have been a Wdalysaw Jogaila, the Tuetonic Order would have never been defeated, Poland would ahve been conquered by the Germans, maybe even the Rus princes would have been toppled! Such a travesty to history cannot be allowed. Not to mention they had the largest land empire in europe during the 13th and 14th centuries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

Trebizond was still ruled by the Comnenos dynasty. I would have though thats were most of the power shifted.

---

A good point. I think you may be right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

What I mean by eastern and western feel is the style of play. One could make more use of Horse archers, good tactics, guerilla warfare, etc., while the other could have more direct approach, similar to haw the catholics go to war.

---

Homelands should take care of that. Trebizond is closer to provinces that can train steppe mercenaries. Some new units may be added also, or exisitng ones renamed. Homelands for steppe units may have to be extended, as at present they don't provide enough coverage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

I didn't mean a royal line, sorry if I confused you. What I meant was that they would be the exclusive units to the germans, representing thier most trained and professional soldiers. "Imperial" can be ignored or replaced, it was their only to tie them closer in with the "Holy Roman Empire" theme. I didn't want them availabe during the early period, and high was just a possability, But definetly during the late.

---

Well those units are already HRE only, apart from the Gothic Knights which are all factions. I have to rethink the Gothic issue, because a) I'm not entirely convinced this type of armour was very widespread during the game's time frame, and b) I'm not sure about them being available to every faction. I'm thinking moreso the French, Germans and Italians only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

Sorry, thought you were going to give all Catholic factions access to it.

---

Well this is another thing I need to rethink. The Knights of Calatrava are really too early for the Lancer units armour (both man and horse) so I need some more input on this. The Lancers may be a good subsitute for Gothic Knights for those factions that cannot train the Gothic Knights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

Why not remove the French?:smash: Really though, Lithuania was extremely important, and I think we need to have them be thier owwn faction jsut for the sake OF historical accuracy. Think of this; if they had not existed, the wouldn't have been a Wdalysaw Jogaila, the Tuetonic Order would have never been defeated, Poland would ahve been conquered by the Germans, maybe even the Rus princes would have been toppled! Such a travesty to history cannot be allowed. Not to mention they had the largest land empire in europe during the 13th and 14th centuries.

---

Agreed, in principle but I still think we can get carried away here with adding factions.

Sorry to interrupt here, yet may I suggest, should you wish to not include certain factions, that you make a "virtual faction", pardon me if there is a correct word for this sort of this, in their place. The concept it that such provinces which would be controlled by a borderline in/out of list faction could have highly powerful rebels in them that, although they may not do any conquering, they are very tough to take over - compensating for their discoordination.

Sorry, cheers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites

Sorry to interrupt here,

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites

Sorry, cheers!

---

You're not interrupting anything, and there is no need to be sorry.

:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites

yet may I suggest, should you wish to not include certain factions, that you make a "virtual faction", pardon me if there is a correct word for this sort of this, in their place. The concept it that such provinces which would be controlled by a borderline in/out of list faction could have highly powerful rebels in them that, although they may not do any conquering, they are very tough to take over - compensating for their discoordination.

---

This is a good idea, and one which I have been working on but with little success so far. Historical leaders and correct culture names need to be added to some of the rebel provinces in question, and the correct units also have to be added, otherwise they don't last too long agains the factions. The addition of extra units and buildings to the province is not really an issue, that can be achieved quite easily.

:bow:

Thanks very much for the confirmation/response and good luck with all your brilliant work, cheers!

Following Omanes's comments, with the Trebizond issue I'd leave them as "strong rebels", as to keep them from Ottoman/Byzantine hands, or at least make the occupation costly. It would historically fit their role, as, despite maneuvering towards trying to reclaim the throne, they never did much territorial expansion, they mostly "remained there". In fact, I recall that one of the things that the Paleologus had on their agenda when they retook Constantinople was the settling of the issue with Trebizond (which indeed had a better claim to the throne due to direct descendency from the late Emperor, but by that point all "big families" were related), and eventually managed to settle for a peace in which Trebizond was left with Trebizond (AKA: the right corner of the in-game province), and in return they didn't challenge their rights to the Imperial Diadem (I think that their wipe-out by the turks was partially prompted by a post-Paleologus attempt to take over Constantinople, with backing of some nomadic tribe from the east. I might be wrong, through: apparently some turk Sultan managed to get married to a Komnenos princess and gain some legitimacy for his son, and in an Opsrey book I have around there's an account of a Trapeouine historian flattering Mehmed II by recognizing him as "the true Roman Emperor")

Quote:

---

In the Early and Late eras they could be renamed as "Eastern Roman Empire", just to get rid of the "Byzantine" word, because, as I've argued, countless numbers of times, "Byzantine" is the name applied to the Eastern Roman Empire by latter day scholars and historians. The Eastern Romans did not ever refer to themselves as "Byzantine", which means "of Byzantium" and thus "Empire of Byzantium". This actually means in simple terms: "Empire centred on the old city of Byzantium". Byzantium, first renamed as "New Rome", was known as Constantinople after the death of Constantine, it's founder, so in reality historians have applied a name for convenience and differentiation with the Western Roman Empire, a name that has stuck, but is not necessarily accurate. This is why I would have no hesitation of losing the Byzantine name.

---

Indeed. Byzantine is a misleading word, in fact, methinks. I've heard that it was pushed foward by Greek nationalists in the Romantic period as to make emphasis on it being a Greek empire and not the E.R.E. (whereas, in fact, the historical rulers of Constantinople insisted on their rights, and got called "Greek Emperors" by Western Europeans). Thus, most "common" books nowadays take the fall of Rome as in the city as the fall of the whole Roman Empire, ignoring altogether that a good chunk of it remained intact (and managed to rally under Justinian, and retake Rome, which by that time was a mess)

Sorry to disagree, but I personally, would prefer another "Byzantine" faction, just to add a little bit of interest in that area during High/Late and to be a thorn in the side of the Turks/The Niceans - it would also be highly pleasant to see another almighty almighty Orthodox faction to play with - The Orthodox factions are something very unique and individual in their fighting tactics. It would also be nice to have a choice to either continue the true Byzantine royal line or the false group of rebellious nobles!

(Confession: The main reason I dislike Trebizond as a playable faction is that it leads to the "Ugly Empire Name" problem, even through geopolitics in Asia Minor are also to be borne in mind. As in Spain, there are too few provinces to represent the existing factions -where are the Ak-Koloyun supporters of Trapisond, for instance?-, and the existing provinces don't represent those faction's territories either -The Empire of Trebizond was far smaller than the province of Trebizond. And one-province nations, unless heavy tweaking of neighbours, invariably lead to early wipeouts -see, for instance, the low survival rate of Aragon in Early and High[sidenote:they lack the Balear islands, but can't be added, despite being more important than Rhodes :( ]- and in that particular region is very hard to tweak, as Constantinople starts off with a huge infrastructure and income, which is precisely what is needed to support Byzantine armies through the High and Late periods: lots of projectile weapons, heavy PKT cavalry, as well as standard PK cavalry, to keep being able to handle Western Knights and Turkish Janissaries -if Turkey remains alive. If not, to handle Mongol cavalry and Egyptian hordes, even through they are arguable far less troublesome than the turks due to the limited Mongol rooster, and the Egyptians relying on mass cheap-troops, their most troublesome unit combo being Sarracen infantry + Desert Archers [which have compound bows, as do the Psiloi, the Turks, and the Mongols])

(Sidenote: in case it comes to it: posible sidestepping of the "Ugly Name Problem": renaming to "The Komnenian/Paleologian" Empires, respectively.)


BTW: I´m not profficient on a "legitimate" imperial royal line. historically the Paleologous, who arguably were the "treacherous rebels", gained the upper hand, but they were related to the late Emperor, as well as the Kommenos, even if not that closely. The latter, on the other hand, were not the "royal line" either, as they had gotten overrun centuries before by the Angeloi dinasty-the last Kommenos Emperor was Alexius II.

I don't see a problem with the names but the word "Empire" is redundant for a faction reduced to one province. Simply "The Trapezuntines" or "The Nicaeans" may be more suitable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

I don't see a problem with the names but the word "Empire" is redundant for a faction reduced to one province. Simply "The Trapezuntines" or "The Nicaeans" may be more suitable.

---

I'm very sorry to notify you of this, yet, in some of the books I have seen, one of which shows the world in 1453, when the once great Byzantine Empire was reduced to a small area of Greece and Contantinople after the Ottoman Invasion, the remainder of the Byzantine land is still labled "The Byzantine Empire". I'm not quite sure why this strange, and quite illogical name is still held, yet I think it may be because their now humble leader is still known as, and holds the title of, "Byzantine Emperor". I'm not too sure, but if their leader at this time was to have a different title, for example, that of Duke of Nicea, or Duke of Trezibond, then based upon the map presented in the book I have seen, they could, from a political term, no longer be called an empire and would have to be considered to be a Dukedom.

However, that said, I do most humbly agree with you in logical terms to a certain extent, and am not too concered over whichever path you may take in this naming regard. Either one of the two, both valid, logical and correct, paths would be perfect, in my extreemly humble opinion. Thanks, cheers!

They fancied themselves "Roman Emperors", by virtue of holding Constantinople. For the record, the Turks regarded themselves as the actual Romans, or heirs of the Romans, and regarded the Byzantine Emperors as "dukes", or somesuch. After the fall of Constantinople they took up the "Roman Empire" mantle.

The claimants to a throne in exile often style themselves "kings" or "Emperors". The courts in Nicaea, Trapisond, and Epirus, certainly did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites

I'm very sorry to notify you of this, yet, in some of the books I have seen, one of which shows the world in 1453, when the once great Byzantine Empire was reduced to a small area of Greece and Contantinople after the Ottoman Invasion, the remainder of the Byzantine land is still labled "The Byzantine Empire".

---

On a map yes, but with respect you seem to have missed the previous point entirely, and that is that the word "Byzantine" is a later word applied by historians and scholars. The Eastern Romans (Romanoi) did not call themselves or their empire "Byzantine". Also if you refer to maps you will be heading for mass confusion. I've seen maps in several book and on the net that all seem to conflict with each other and with historical texts. The things to remember is that those maps are never accurate geographical boundaries, but approximate territory and there are differing opinions as which small parts of territory was held by who, when and for how long. Many of these naming differences are in essence the same thing, for example, the "Seljuk Sultanate of Rum" would be the same as the "Roman Sultanate". The use of "Byzantine Empire" on a map is there for uniformity and for the purposes of identification only. The correct name would be "Eastern Roman Empire", but this is almost never used on maps depicting Europe after the fall of the western empire. After 1204 most maps show clearly the "Despotate of Epirus" (Epirian Despotate), "Empire of Nicaea" (Nicaean Empire) and "Empire of Trebizond" (Trapezuntine Empire). My point is that all of these have been prefixed (or suffixed) either "Despotate" or "Empire", but are these scholars terms added for classification purposes or are they the true names of those lands?".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites

I'm not quite sure why this strange, and quite illogical name is still held, yet I think it may be because their now humble leader is still known as, and holds the title of, "Byzantine Emperor". I'm not too sure, but if their leader at this time was to have a different title, for example, that of Duke of Nicea, or Duke of Trezibond, then based upon the map presented in the book I have seen, they could, from a political term, no longer be called an empire and would have to be considered to be a Dukedom.

---

The titles on the MTW map are not historically accurate and refer to a mish mash of provincial governors and monarchs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites

However, that said, I do most humbly agree with you in logical terms to a certain extent, and am not too concered over whichever path you may take in this naming regard. Either one of the two, both valid, logical and correct, paths would be perfect, in my extreemly humble opinion. Thanks, cheers!

---

Personally these are my proposals for the High era Byzantines:

Three factions:

Trapezuntine Empire (possibly a smaller Trebizond)
Epirian Despotate (possibly break up greece to form more realistic provinces)
Nicaean Empire


One Faction:

Eastern Roman Empire holding only Nicaea


One Faction:

Eastern Roman Empire holding Nicaea, smaller Trebizond, new Epirus province.

I prefer the three Byzantine factions to the one. UG, the Trebizond Empire (misnomer) DID conquer Armenia and annexed Georgia. It eventually lost these to the Ottoman Empire obviously, but it was far more active then other factions. I don't support the "virtual" faction idea, mainly because the AI uselessly expends troops in that direction, builds up massiveborders to said rebelsm, and almost exclusivly attacks them. It creates a situation in which there is total peace. I in fact think the rebel AI should be crippled, so that the actual factions within game expand and stand a chance against the much more intelligent Human.

On factions though, I really want more religions represented then just Catholic christianity. I'm sick of having catholic revolts in EGYPT for the love of Allah the merciful. I champion more Islamic factions or Pagan ones specifically.

I agree with YourLordandConqueror. I would find three Byzantine factions very interesting to play with/fight against. It would be very interesting to watch them play it out against each other - especially if their tactics are all slightly different.

I'm sorry to go off topic, yet I just decided to start a Byzantine campaign in High and I have found that it was a simple bribing game. After bribing Constantinople, I could afford to pay off the Greeks, Serbians and Wallachians with ease. After twenty turns, the Byzantine Empire was almost as good as it was at the beginning of Early. I think that the rebel factions have some sort of hard-code behind them which prevents them from having a highish bribing cost. If there were to be "real" factions there instead, it would be almost impossible to simply "go bribe", something which I cannot resist doing, which is an additional reason as to why I would prefer three factions.

I had this nutty idea.... adding an eçuivalent to the papacy for muslims. That is, not as in excommunication, but as a "keep reappearing" faction, with the Nizaris. My idea was giving them Syria, or a piece of Syria, at least, and making Nizari units exclusive for them, plus using the Grand Inçuisitor to allow them to build a super-assasin. Ideally they'd start messing up with their all Nizari footsoldiers/Fedayeen forces, and harassing and assasinating people, until the factions around them wiped them out, after which they'd have a resurgence, and restart the cycle (pay no attention, I am just toying around with the concept :p)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

I prefer the three Byzantine factions to the one. UG, the Trebizond Empire (misnomer) DID conquer Armenia and annexed Georgia. It eventually lost these to the Ottoman Empire obviously, but it was far more active then other factions.

---

I agree with adding the other two Byzantine faction in the High era, though I have other reasons. Extra Byzantine factions would serve to add some balance to the region, effectively keeping the Byzantine lands divided and weakened. Real factions instead of just rebels would also present more of a challenge to other factions in the area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites

I think that the rebel factions have some sort of hard-code behind them which prevents them from having a highish bribing cost.

---

The rebels are cheaper to bribe mainly because their generals are usually 0 loyalty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

I had this nutty idea.... adding an eçuivalent to the papacy for muslims. That is, not as in excommunication, but as a "keep reappearing" faction, with the Nizaris. My idea was giving them Syria, or a piece of Syria, at least, and making Nizari units exclusive for them, plus using the Grand Inçuisitor to allow them to build a super-assasin. Ideally they'd start messing up with their all Nizari footsoldiers/Fedayeen forces, and harassing and assasinating people, until the factions around them wiped them out, after which they'd have a resurgence, and restart the cycle (pay no attention, I am just toying around with the concept :p)

---

You mean a real "Assassins" Faction? This could be done in fact, and small province could be sandwiched between Antioch and Tripoli. A Muslim Inquisitor agent may be possible but may also start carrying out Inquisitions using the same info pic and text as the Catholic Inquisitors.

Quote:

---

You mean a real "Assassins" Faction? This could be done in fact, and small province could be sandwiched between Antioch and Tripoli.

---

Yes, pretty much what I meant. A resurging, harassing, assasin-using "Assasin" faction. I think it would add an addittional interest point in "Holy Land Troubles" besides crusades, Jihads, and hypothetical Byzantine reemergences.

Quote:

---

A Muslim Inquisitor agent may be possible but may also start carrying out Inquisitions using the same info pic and text as the Catholic Inquisitors.

---

Now that wouldn't fit too well, would it? :/.
How big is the Syrian Assasin bonus? Maybe it would suffice by itself to make them a threat. If they got conçuered, it could be assumed that the conçueror's hired assasins were actually putting funds for the warchest of the eventual "Hasashini reemergence", which would take place eventually, making it necessary to retake the province again, thus avoiding explotation of the bonus by long periods of time (if they had a comeback timer like the Papacy)

I have taken this information from the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I hope it helps to resolve some doubts.

Empire of Nicaea

Independent principality of the fragmented Byzantine Empire, founded in 1204 by Theodore I Lascaris (1208–22); it served as a political and cultural centre from which a restored Byzantium arose in the mid-13th century under Michael VIII Palaeologus.
Theodore fled to Anatolia with other Byzantine leaders after the Latin crusaders' conquest of Constantinople in 1204, establishing himself at Nicaea (now Iznik, Tur.), 40 miles (64 km) to the southeast. Crowned emperor in 1208, Theodore gradually acquired control over much of western Anatolia. He and his successors sponsored a revival of Greek studies at their capital.
The next Nicaean emperor was John Vatatzes, who sought to retake Constantinople before his rivals Theodore Angelus, despot of Epirus, or John Asen II of Bulgaria (1218–41). He defeated Theodore at Klokotnitsa (in Bulgaria) in 1230. Between 1240 and 1250 he negotiated with the Western emperor Frederick II (1220–50) for help in reconquering Constantinople, but nothing came of the pact.
Theodore II Lascaris (1254–58) and John IV Lascaris (1258–61) maintained Nicaean strength against the invading Mongols during their brief reigns. In 1261 a Nicaean general, Michael Palaeologus, retook Constantinople and, as Michael VIII, founded the last dynasty of the Byzantine emperors.

Despotate of Epirus

Epirus also spelled Epiros (1204–1337), Byzantine principality in the Balkans that was a centre of resistance for Byzantine Greeks during the western European occupation of Constantinople (1204–61).
The despotate was founded in what is now southern Albania and northwestern Greece by Michael Comnenus Ducas, a member of the dethroned Byzantine imperial house. His half brother and successor, Theodore Ducas, extended his rule eastward to Thessalonica (Thessaloníki), Greece, in 1224 and claimed the title of Byzantine emperor.
Theodore's rivals, John III Vatatzes, emperor of Nicaea (now Iznik, Turkey), and John Asen II of Bulgaria, attacked him from the east and north; John Asen II defeated and captured Theodore in 1230 at the Battle of Klokotnitsa (now in Bulgaria).
Under Michael II (reigned 1236–71), Epirus was greatly reduced, and in 1264 Michael was forced to recognize the suzerainty of Michael VIII Palaeologus, who had expelled the Latins from Constantinople and restored the Byzantine Empire. For a very short time, it remained independent and was later ruled by Halias and Serbs.
In the 13th century Epirus promoted a revival of Classical studies that contributed to the development of Renaissance Italy. The principality was reannexed to the Byzantine Empire in 1337.

Empire of Trebizond

After the sack of Constantinople by the crusaders in 1204, two grandsons of the emperor Andronicus I Comnenus escaped and founded an independent offshoot of the Byzantine Empire at Trapezus, with Prince Alexius Comnenus as emperor. His successors, the Grand Comneni, reigned longer than any other Byzantine family, forming extensive alliances through marriage with foreign rulers and promoting their prestige through the cult of St. Eugenius and the glorification of their real or legendary achievements. Although subject to brief periods of domination by the neighbouring Seljuq Turks, Mongols, and Byzantines, the empire based at Trapezus was largely bypassed by both the Seljuqs and the Mongols because of its relative isolation, difficulties of access, and conflict among its enemies. Its prosperity lay partly in export of its own products—silver, iron, alum, cloth, and black wine—and partly from taxes on transit trade to western Iran. The end of the dynasty came when its territories were annexed to the Ottoman Empire in 1461.

The second Bulgarian empire

With the collapse of the first Bulgarian state, the Bulgarian church fell under the domination of Greek ecclesiastics who took control of the see of Ohrid and attempted to replace the Bulgarian Slavic liturgy with a Greek liturgy. Bulgarian culture was by this time too deeply rooted to be easily changed, and the Byzantine Empire, beset by the attacks of the Seljuq Turks and the disturbances of the Crusaders, lacked the power to support a more forcible Hellenization.
In 1185 the brothers Ivan and Peter Asen of Turnovo launched a revolt to throw off Byzantine sovereignty. The Asen brothers defeated the Byzantines and forced Constantinople to recognize Bulgarian independence. Their brother and successor, Kaloyan (reigned 1197–1207), briefly accepted the supremacy of Rome in church affairs and received a royal crown from the pope. But when Baldwin I, first Latin emperor of Constantinople, refused him recognition and declared war on Bulgaria (claiming all its territory by virtue of succession of the Byzantines), Kaloyan had a change of heart. He defeated Baldwin and afterward reverted to Orthodoxy.
The second Bulgarian empire, with its centre at Turnovo, reached its height during the reign of Tsar Ivan Asen II (1218–41). Bulgaria was then the leading power in the Balkans, holding sway over Albania, Epirus, Macedonia, and Western Thrace. During this period the first Bulgarian coinage appeared, and in 1235 the head of the Bulgarian church received the title of patriarch.
The successors of Ivan Asen II, however, could not match his ability. Moreover, Bulgaria was beset by Mongol attacks from the north and by internal upheavals brought on by the growing burdens placed on the peasantry by the powerful nobles. The great peasant revolt of 1277–80 briefly allowed the swineherd Ivaylo to occupy the royal throne at Turnovo until he was defeated with the aid of the Byzantines. The Asen dynasty died out in 1280 and was followed by the houses of Terter and Shishman, neither of which was very successful in restoring central authority.
The declining state reached its nadir in 1330 when Tsar Mikhail Shishman was defeated and slain by the Serbs at the Battle of Velbuzhd (modern Kyustendil). Bulgaria lost its Macedonian lands to the Serbian empire of Stefan Dušan, which then became the dominant Balkan power for the next four decades. Bulgaria appeared to be on the point of disintegration into feudal states when the invasions of the Ottoman Turks began.
The Ottoman Turks first entered the Balkans as mercenaries of Byzantium in the 1340s, and they returned as invaders in their own right during the following decade. Between 1359 and 1362 Sultan Murad I wrested much of Thrace from Byzantine control and captured Adrianople (modern Edirne, Turkey), commanding the route up the Maritsa valley into the heart of the Bulgarian lands. In 1364 the Turks defeated a crusade sent by Pope Urban V to regain Adrianople, but not before the Crusaders committed so many atrocities against the Orthodox Christians that many Bulgarians came to regard Turkish rule as preferable to alliance with the Roman Catholic West.
Although Ivan Shishman, Bulgaria's last medieval tsar, declared himself a vassal of Murad in 1371, the Ottomans continued to seek complete domination. Sofia, in the west, was seized in 1382, and Shumen, in the east, fell in 1388. A year later the defeat of the Serbs at the Battle of Kosovo sealed the fate of the entire Balkan Peninsula. In 1393, after a three-month siege, Turnovo was taken and burned. Ivan Shishman allegedly died in Turkish captivity three years later. With the capture of a rump Bulgarian kingdom centred at Bdin (Vidin) in 1396, the last remnant of Bulgarian independence disappeared.

Medieval Serbia

Although Serb historians trace the foundation of a Serbian state to the principality of Raška, a stable and continuous Slavic state appeared in this area only under Stefan Nemanja. Stefan assumed the throne of Raška in 1168, but he continued to acknowledge the supremacy of Byzantium until 1185. In 1196 he abdicated in favour of his son Stefan (known as Prvovencani, or the “First-Crowned”), who in 1217 secured from Pope Honorius III the title of “King of Serbia, Dalmatia, and Bosnia.” Under the Nemanjic dynasty, which was to rule the Serb lands for the next 200 years, a powerful state emerged to dominate the entire Balkan Peninsula. It was founded, in part, on the ability and administrative capacity of its rulers and also on the establishment of a link between church and state.
The rise of the Nemanjic dynasty was facilitated by the collapse of the Byzantine Empire, under the impact of the Fourth Crusade (1204), and the creation of a short-lived Latin Empire. Even after the fortunes of Byzantium were revived after 1261, the primary frontier of Nemanjic expansion lay to the south. Power was seized and consolidated through opportunities offered by a weak Constantinople, and the kingdom extended its authority over an assortment of peoples. Skopje in Macedonia was taken in 1282 by Stefan Uroš II and became the Serb capital. Under the reign of Stefan Dušan (1331–55), the Nemanjic state reached its greatest extent, incorporating Thessaly, Epirus, Macedonia, all of modern Albania and Montenegro, a substantial part of eastern Bosnia, and modern Serbia as far north as the Danube. Dušan adopted the title of emperor at his coronation in Skopje in 1346 (later “Emperor and Autocrat of the Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians, and Albanians”), but he is more commonly remembered by Serbs as Dušan Silni, or “Dušan the Mighty.” To this day the Serbs consider the empire of Dušan Silni as the Golden Age of their nation. All the Balkan states during the Middle Ages modeled themselves on, and saw themselves as the supplanters of, Byzantium. This was no less true for the Serbian state, as reflected in the titles that its monarchs took for themselves and bestowed on their subordinates and as evidenced in the famous Zakonik (code of laws) that Dušan promulgated in 1349, which fused the law of Constantinople with Serb folk custom.
Through the union of church and state, the Serb emperors strove to imitate and ultimately rival the status of the ecumenical patriarch in Constantinople. An autocephalous church was declared in 1219, with its seat at Zica, near modern Kraljevo, and Sava, the youngest son of Stefan Nemanja, was named archbishop and later was canonized as St. Sava. (The monastery he built there was later designated a World Heritage site by UNESCO.) The Serbian church thus separated from the Bulgarian-influenced archbishopric of Ohrid. In order to escape the harassment of Tatar-raiding parties, the seat of the ecclesiastical order of Nemanjic was later moved southward to Pec, in the Metohija Basin. In 1375 the archbishop of Pec was raised to the status of patriarch, in spite of the anathema of Constantinople. During this time great churches and monasteries were endowed—particularly those at Mileševo (c. 1235), Pec (1250), Moraca (1252), Sopocani (c. 1260), Decani (1327), and Gracanica (1321). These have subsequently come to constitute important symbolic monuments for Serbs. The frescoes of the Raška school, in particular, are known for their capacity to blend secular authority with a deep sense of devotion. Literary work extended beyond copying manuscripts to include pieces of independent creative merit, such as the biography of Stefan Nemanja prepared by St. Sava and his brother Stefan Prvovencani. Courtly culture became religious culture; both church and state benefited from this partnership and created a “civilization” of their own.
Economic development also contributed to the consolidation of Nemanjic power. Such crops as hemp, flax, grapes, and oil-yielding plants became more widespread. The plains of Kosovo and Metohija became areas of fairly dense population and intensive agriculture, and mining grew considerably in importance. Not only gold and silver but also copper and tin had been exploited since Roman times, but production rose to meet the new demands of imperial courts and centres of ecclesiastical authority. Although this wealth supported a remarkably modest court, it also sustained substantial mercenary armies. Trade expanded, particularly in the hands of Ragusan and Italian merchants, who led caravans along the old Roman routes.

Medieval Georgia

Georgia embraced Christianity about the year 330; its conversion is attributed to a holy captive woman, St. Nino. During the next three centuries, Georgia was involved in the conflict between Rome—and its successor state, the Byzantine Empire—and the Persian Sasanian dynasty. Lazica on the Black Sea (incorporating the ancient Colchis) became closely bound to Byzantium. Iberia passed under Persian control, though toward the end of the 5th century a hero arose in the person of King Vakhtang Gorgaslani (Gorgasal), a ruler of legendary valour who for a time reasserted Georgia's national sovereignty. The Sasanian monarch Khosrow I (reigned 531–579) abolished the Iberian monarchy, however. For the next three centuries, local authority was exercised by the magnates of each province, vassals successively of Persia (Iran), of Byzantium, and, after AD 654, of the Arab caliphs, who established an emirate in Tbilisi.
Toward the end of the 9th century, Ashot I (the Great), of the Bagratid dynasty, settled at Artanuji in Tao (southwestern Georgia), receiving from the Byzantine emperor the title of kuropalates (“guardian of the palace”). In due course, Ashot profited from the weakness of the Byzantine emperors and the Arab caliphs and set himself up as hereditary prince in Iberia. King Bagrat III (reigned 975–1014) later united all the principalities of eastern and western Georgia into one state. Tbilisi, however, was not recovered from the Muslims until 1122, when it fell to King David II (Aghmashenebeli, “the Builder”; reigned 1089–1125).
The zenith of Georgia's power and prestige was reached during the reign (1184–1213) of Queen Tamar, whose realm stretched from Azerbaijan to the borders of Cherkessia (now in southern Russia) and from Erzurum (in modern Turkey) to Ganja (modern Gäncä, Azerbaijan), forming a pan-Caucasian empire, with Shirvan and Trabzon as vassals and allies.
The invasions of Transcaucasia by the Mongols from 1220 onward, however, brought Georgia's golden age to an end. Eastern Georgia was reduced to vassalage under the Mongol Il-Khanid dynasty of the line of Hülegü, while Imereti, as the land to the west of the Suram range was called, remained independent under a separate line of Bagratid rulers. There was a partial resurgence during the reign (1314–46) of King Giorgi V of Georgia, known as “the Brilliant,” but the onslaughts of the Turkic conqueror Timur between 1386 and 1403 dealt blows to Georgia's economic and cultural life from which the kingdom never recovered. The last king of united Georgia was Alexander I (1412–43), under whose sons the realm was divided into squabbling princedoms.

So from what I have read, the three Byzantine factions would work, along with Serbia, but the Georgians and Bulgarians would be hard to do, considering thier history. I'm I right, or have I interpreted it wrong?

Just wondering if you have decided on any new factions. Here is some Wiki info on some of the factions I have suggested.

Volga-Bulgarians

Volga Bulgaria or Volga-Kama Bolghar, is a historic state that existed between the 7th and 13th centuries around the confluence of the Volga and Kama rivers in what is now Russia. Today, both the Republics of Tatarstan and Chuvashia are considered to be descendants of Volga Bulgaria in terms of territory and ethnicity.

Information on Volga Bulgaria is rather sparse. As no authentic Bulgar records have survived, most of our information comes from contemporary Arabic, Persian, Indian or Russian sources. Some information is provided by excavations.

It is thought that the territory of Volga Bulgaria was originally settled by Finno-Ugric peoples. The Turkic Bulgars moved into the area in about AD 660, commanded by Kotrag Khan, Kubrat's son. Some Bulgar tribes, however, continued westward and after many adventures settled along the Danube River, in what is now known as Bulgaria proper, where they merged with or were assimilated by the Slavs, adopting a South Slavic tongue and the Eastern Orthodox faith.

Most scholars agree that the Volga Bulgarians were subject to the great Khazarian Empire. Sometime in the late 9th century unification processes started, and the capital was established at Bolğar (also spelled Bulgar) city, 160 km south from modern Kazan. Most scholars doubt, however, that the state could assert independence from the Khazars until the latter were annihilated by Svyatoslav of Rus in 965.

A large part of the region's population was Turkic and included Bulgars, Suars, Barsil, Bilars, Baranjars and part of Burtas (by ibn Rustah). Modern Chuvashes and Kazan Tatars descend from the Volga Bulgars (with more or less significant admixtures of Finno-Ugric and Kipchak Turkic populations, respectively). Another part comprised Finnic and Magyaric (Asagel and Pascatir) tribes, from which Bisermäns and Tatars probably descend.

Islam was adopted as the state religion in the early tenth century. Ibn Fadlan was dispatched by the Abbasid Caliph al-Muqtadir in 922/3 to establish relations and bring qadis and teachers of Islamic law to Volga Bulgaria, as well as help in building a fort and a mosque. Tengriism and other religions, however, continued to be practiced.

Commanding the Volga River in its middle course, the state controlled much of trade between Europe and Asia prior to the Crusades (which made other trade routes practicable). The capital, Bolghar, was a thriving city, rivalling in size and wealth with the greatest centres of Islamic world. Trade partners of Bolghar included from Vikings, Bjarmland, Yugra and Nenets in the north to Baghdad and Constantinople in the south, from Western Europe to China in the East. Other major cities included Bilär, Suar (Suwar), Qaşan (Kashan) and Cükätaw (Juketaw). Modern cities Kazan and Yelabuga were founded as Volga Bulgaria's border fortresses.

Some of the Volga Bulgarian cities still haven't been found, but they are mentioned in Russian sources. They are: Aşlı (Oshel), Tuxçin (Tukhchin), İbrahim (Bryakhimov), Taw İle. Some of them were ruined after and during the Mongol invasion.

The Russian principalities to the west posed the only tangible military threat. In the 11th century, the country was devastated by several Russian raids. Then, at the turn of the 12th and 13th centuries, the rulers of Vladimir (notably Andrew the Pious and Vsevolod III), anxious to defend their eastern border, systematically pillaged Bulgarian cities. Under Slavic pressure from the west, the Bulgars had to move their capital from Bolghar to Bilär.

In September 1223 near Samara an advance guard of Genghis Khan's army under command of Uran, son of Subedei Bahadur, entered Volga Bulgaria but was defeated by Gabdula Chelbir Khan. In 1236, the Mongols returned but it took them five years to subjugate the whole country which at that time was suffering from internal war. Henceforth Volga Bulgaria became a part of the Ulus Jochi, later known as the Golden Horde. It was divided into several principalities; each of them became a vassal of the Golden Horde and received some autonomy. By the 1430s, the Khanate of Kazan was established as the most important of these principalities.

Cumans

Cuman, also called Polovtsy, Polovtsian, or the Anglicized Polovzian (Russian: Половцы Polovcy, Ukrainian: Половцi Polovtsi, Bulgarian: Кумани Kumani, Romanian: Cumani, Hungarian: Kunok), is a Western European exonym for the western Kipchaks. The Cumans were a nomadic Turkic tribe who inhabited a shifting area north of the Black Sea known as Cumania along the Volga River.

The Cumans entered the lands of present-day southern Ukraine, as well as historic Moldavia, Wallachia, and part of Transylvania, in the 11th century. Having conquered the area, they continued their assaults by attacking and plundering the Byzantine Empire, the Kingdom of Hungary, and Rus.

In 1089, they were defeated by Ladislaus I of Hungary. In alliance with the Vlachs and the Bulgarians during the Vlach-Bulgar Rebellion by brothers Asen and Peter of Tarnovo, the Cumans are believed to have played a significant role in the rebellion's final victory over Byzantium and the restoration of Bulgaria's independence (1185). The Cumans defeated the Great Prince Vladimir Monomakh of Kievan Rus in the 12th century (at the Battle of the Stugna River) but were crushed by the Mongols in 1238, after which most of them fled Wallachia and Moldova and took refuge in Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Byzantine Empire. After many clashes with the Hungarians, the Cumans were eventually evicted from Hungary to join their kin who lived in Bulgaria. Later, however, a large segment of them were re-invited back to Hungary. The Cumans who remained scattered in the steppe of what is now Russia joined the Golden Horde khanate. In the 11th century the Cumans established their own country named Cumania, in an area comprised of modern-day Moldova, Moldavia and Walachia.

The Hungarian kings claimed supremacy on the territory of Cumania, among the 9 titles of the Hungarian kings of the Arpad and Anjou dynasties were the rex Cumaniae (further titles of Hungary, Croatia, Dalmatia—since Ladislaus I of Hungary inherited the 2 kingdoms based on his sister's right from his brother in law, and of Servia (Serbia), Rama (Bosnia), Lodomeria, Galitia and Bulgaria—based on their possession of Vidin, ca. 2% of the whole territory, further the Anjous were princes of Salerno as well).

The Bishopric of Milko was created in Cumania suffragant of Archbishopric Esztergom / (German Gram—see Nibelungenlied or Latin Strigam)

In the 13th century, the Western Cumans adopted Roman Catholicism (in Hungary they later became all Calvinist) and the Gagauzes Pravoslav/Orthodox, while the Eastern Cumans converted to Islam. The Catholic Diocese of the Cumania founded in Milcov in 1227 and including what is now Romania and Moldova, retained its title until 1523.

The Cuman influence in the region of Wallachia and Moldavia was so strong that the earliest Wallachian rulers bore Cuman names. Given that the rulers Tihomir and Bassarab I governed territories formerly ruled by Romanian leaders (mentioned in the Diploma of the Joannites of 1247), and given that there is no archaeological evidence to sustain the continuous presence of a Cuman population (only Hungarian documents mentioning a toll-paying Wallachian population), the ruler elite was gradually assimilated like in Bulgaria's case by the majority population they governed, which became Romanian.

Basarab I, son of the Wallachian prince Tihomir of Wallachia obtained independence from Hungary at the beginning of the 14th century. The name Basarab is considered as being of Cuman origin, meaning "Father King".

Cuman influence also persisted in the Kingdom of Hungary with the Cuman language and customs persisting in autonomous Cuman territories (Kunság) until the 17th century.

It is generally believed that the Bulgarian mediеval dynasties Asen, Shishman and Terter had some Cumans' roots.

While the Cumans in Europe have been assimilated into other population groups, their name can still be encountered in placenames as far as the city of Kumanovo in the Northeastern part of the Republic of Macedonia, Comăneşti in Romania and Comana in Dobruja. The Cumans settled in Hungary had their own self-government there in a territory that bore their name, Kunság, that survived until the 19th century. There, the name of the Cumans (Kun) is still preserved in county names such as Bács-Kiskun and Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok and town names such as Kiskunhalas and Kunszentmiklós.

The Cumans were organized into four tribes in Hungary (Kolbasz / Olas in the big Cumania around Karcag, and the other three in the lesser Cumania).

The other Cuman group in Hungary is the paloc group, the name deriving from the Slav Polovetz. They live in the Northern Hungary and current Slovakia and have a specific dialect. Their Cuman origin is not documented as the other two Cuman territory but their name derives from the above word. They have a very special "a" sound close to Turkish "a", unlike Hungarian pronunciation.

Unfortunately, the Cuman language disappeared from Hungary in the 17 century, possibly following the Turkish occupation.

Their 19 century biographer, Gyarfas Istvan in 1870 was on the opinion that they speak Hungarian together with the Iazyges population. Despite this mistake he has the best overview on the subject concerning details of material used.

In the countries where the Cumans were assimilated, family surnames derived from the words for "Cuman" (such as coman or kun, "kuman") are not uncommon. Among the people that have such a name are Romanian gymnast Nadia Comăneci, Romanian poet Otilia Coman (Ana Blandiana) and Romanian football player Gigel Coman. Traces of the Cumans are also the Bulgarian surname Kumanov (feminine Kumanova), its Macedonian variant Kumanovski (feminine Kumanovska) and the widespread Hungarian surname Kun.

Lithuanians

Lithuania entered into European history when it was first mentioned in a medieval German manuscript, the Quedlinburg Chronicle, on 14 February 1009. The Lithuanian lands were united by Mindaugas in 1236, and neighbouring countries referred to it as "the state of Lithuania". The official coronation of Mindaugas as King of Lithuania, on July 6, 1253, and the official recognition of Lithuanian statehood as the Kingdom of Lithuania.

During the early period of the Gediminas (1316-1430), the state occupied the territories of present-day Belarus, Ukraine, and parts of Poland and Russia. By the end of the fourteenth century, Lithuania was the largest country in Europe. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania stretched across a substantial part of Europe, from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Lithuanian nobility, city dwellers and peasants accepted Christianity in 1386, following Poland's offer of its crown to Jogaila, the Grand Duke of Lithuania. Grand Duke Jogaila was crowned King of Poland on February 2, 1386. Lithuania and Poland were joined into a personal union, as both countries were ruled by the same Jagiellon dynasty.

In 1401, the formal union was dissolved as a result of disputes over legal terminology, and Vytautas, the cousin of Jogaila, became the Grand Duke of Lithuania. Thanks to close cooperation, the armies of Poland and Lithuania achieved a great victory over Teutonic Knights in 1410 at the Battle of Grunwald, the biggest battle in medieval Europe.

A royal crown had been bestowed upon Vytautas in 1429 by Sigismund, the Holy Roman Emperor, but Polish magnates prevented the coronation of Vytautas by seizing the crown as it was being brought to him. A new crown was ordered in Germany and a new date set for the coronation, but a month later Vytautas died in an accident.

I'll be able to get more latter, don't want to be late for work.

Many thanks for the historical background info Belisario and YLC. I have been working on the map, so I haven't had much time. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

Yes, pretty much what I meant. A resurging, harassing, assasin-using "Assasin" faction. I think it would add an addittional interest point in "Holy Land Troubles" besides crusades, Jihads, and hypothetical Byzantine reemergences.

---

A sound idea but they'd need their own low loyalty province between Antioch and Tripoli, that province would be miniscule and would need to make use of a magnified submap probably placed inside where Arabia was. They would need to be able to construct a unique building cheaply to bolster the provincial loyalty otherwise they'd have difficulty holding the province down. None of this is a problem, the real issue is the alteration of the maptex file which I'd prefer to avoid (massive file to host for download etc etc) and the loss of another province to such a small faction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy

Now that wouldn't fit too well, would it? :/.
How big is the Syrian Assasin bonus? Maybe it would suffice by itself to make them a threat. If they got conçuered, it could be assumed that the conçueror's hired assasins were actually putting funds for the warchest of the eventual "Hasashini reemergence", which would take place eventually, making it necessary to retake the province again, thus avoiding explotation of the bonus by long periods of time (if they had a comeback timer like the Papacy)

---

I've already removed the Syria bonus since the first version of the Pocket Mod. The bonus itself is simply a valour bonus like those given to units. The difference is that with agents is that the bonus gives two valour stars instead of one. Since Syria no longer exists, the location of the Hashishin territory would be in the province of Aleppo, a bonus for assassins could be placed here, but as usual it could be abused and it doesn't make sense for the Turkish or Egyptian factions to be recruiting advanced assassins when in reality the assassins would have been an enemy.

I agree on the modification of the actual campmap. It is really unnesseccary, and even defeats the title of the mod (keyword: POCKET). On another note, any decisions yet on factions or possibilities? If your having trouble making factions from scratch, I found (not so sure about that, I sure someone else has thought of it) a rather interesting feature of factions within MTW.

Say I use the Scots within the main campaign. But instead of using them as the Scots, I istead use them as the Islamic Volga-Bulgarians. Because of the way MTW is worked, Viking files are essentially seperate from the main campaign, so you can make whatever changes you wish to the faction within whatever campiagn your modding. So for instance, I add FN_06, set it's culture and religion to Islamic, change dependincies within the unit production so FN_06 has some units, add a few flags, and Viola! the Scots are Islamic in the Main Campaign and remian untouched within the Viking Campaign!

I am currently experimenting with repeatedly using the FN_07 faction this way for the pagan factions, but it's not going well. I hope to have more info on this soon.

Any ideas on possible factions yet? I'd like to know so I can start developing units to have you look at.

I have an :idea2: for factions. Considering the "Runaway" effect, maybe we should come up with slots. For example:

14-18 Catholic Factions
6-8 Orthodox Factions
6-8 Islamic Factions
2-4 Pagan Factions

Also, is it possible to add a Jewish or Heretic Faction?

Another idea could be to lower the starting time of the game to 900 something, and add another era. That way we could have say the Khazar Jewish Khanagate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror

Just wondering if you have decided on any new factions. Here is some Wiki info on some of the factions I have suggested.

...

During the early period of the Gediminas (1316-1430), the state occupied the territories of present-day Belarus, Ukraine, and parts of Poland and Russia. By the end of the fourteenth century, Lithuania was the largest country in Europe. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania stretched across a substantial part of Europe, from the Baltic to the Black Sea. *Lithuanian nobility, city dwellers and peasants accepted Christianity in 1386,* following Poland's offer of its crown to Jogaila, the Grand Duke of Lithuania. Grand Duke Jogaila was crowned King of Poland on February 2, 1386. Lithuania and Poland were joined into a personal union, as both countries were ruled by the same Jagiellon dynasty.

...

---

Actually, many Lithuanians began adapting Christianity, both Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodox in at least the 1200's. Here is info. from Wiki on the matter, and there is a lot of other info. available about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Duchy_of_Lithuania

"Mindaugas facing extremely difficult position managed to take advantage of Livonian Order and Archbishop of Riga conflicts – he bribed Andreas von Stierland, the master of the Order, who was still angry on Vykintas for the defeat in 1236.[24] Andreas von Stierland agreed to support Mindaugas and promised help, but he also raised the condition, that pagan Mindaugas must take the Catholic faith. Mindaugas agreed to baptize and also give to the Order some lands in the western part of Lithuania for the Royal crown in return. He alongside with wife and sons was baptized in the Catholic rite in 1251. On July 17, 1251 Pope Innocent IV issued a papal bull proclaiming Lithuania as Kingdom and the state was placed under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome."

So, Lithuania was recognized as a Christian and catholic Kingdom by the Pope in Rome in 1251, even though many if not most people were still Pagans and a few were probably Orthodox due to contact with the Muscovite Principalities.

For game terms, Lithuania is a hard nation to portray and make playable with some degree of historical accurracy.

Chris

Tried to add new factions: apparently there is some trouble with faceshields, which makes christian factions a risky addittion (requires suppressing faceshields).

Faceshields have to be disabled for any mod where new factions are added, otherwise the game crashes on the battlefield I believe. It's a hardcoded limitation. The only downside is that you lose the shields that bear national "emblems", this is no real loss as such shields are ahistorical anyway.

This is far from a priority and so this comment is for whenever the time comes:

Faction standards:

Some of them can be overhauled, primarily the "Russians", the "Spanish" and the Byzantines IMO.

For the Byzantines i suggest something colourful that will brake the ahistorical purple *football team like* monotony - for example say

https://img504.imageshack.us/img504/338/25411tu1.jpg

or

https://img504.imageshack.us/img504/5830/cart21mqe1.jpg
https://img504.imageshack.us/img504/...5a4ef257f3.jpg

The same can be done with the "background" colours of the unit's uniforms, that is the background to be slightly different than the dominant colour of the standard in order to paint less uniform impressions for factions, that CA is sticking too and that i find somewhat too much.

Noir

The purple color comes from a mistranslation into english. In "romance languages" (Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian..) "purpura" refers to a deep shade of red. And in the Roman Empire (and by extension Byzantium) it was the color of the nobility. During the principate emperors wore red togas, and post Dioclecian they wore a red cape and red boots, right down to the last Byzantine Emperor

Hi,

a few suggestions that i have done already and a few that are new ones regarding to factions;

GAMEPLAY;

- Anatolia and the Levant can do with a few more factions, namely the Turks and Egyptian factions can be split, to teh
1. Sultanate of Iconium (Antalya/Konya/Nicaea)
2. Sultanate of Rum (Rum/Armenia/Sinope)
3. Great Seljuks (Edessa/Antioch/Mosul/Alleppo)
4. The Damascenese (Damascus/Tripoli)
5. The Fatimids (Palestine/Egypt)

The medieval arabic world for large tracks of time was a collection of divided fiefdoms/city states. This actually ensured the survival of teh Crusader states until Saladin took over.

This offers the potential for these additional factions in the game that will make the are way more interesting and game progression significantly less predictable for the early setting.

I wouldnt make the Armenians a faction in their own right - since this would entail hypothetical rosters for the high and late era which i find not nice for gameplay and historical plausibility. Representing them as a string rebel force will do.

The arabic and turkic factions can share rosters - indeed the Ottomans that took over as ruling clan eventually were one of these fiefdoms.

- The Hispanic Kingdoms.
It will help considerably to add extra Catholic kingdom/principality/duchy. This will help with game progression (especially since it is allowed by all the new Iberian provinces); it ll make it less predictable. Ideally all existing major plyayers of teh time can be represented since it was by the *hand of God* - circumstances that Castile and leon merged (as well as Castile and Aragon later on).
It will also delay the Spanish kingdoms from quickly unifying their lands and become a high game superpower - a common occurence (actually one of the achilles heels of MTW for me). This should be coupled with reducing the total agricultural wealth of the Iberian provinces that in v1.0.9 is considerable.

The obvious candidates are the Duchy of Portugal and Kingdom of Navarre but in my opinion the most important is splitting the Castilans and Leonese.

Again, Spanish kingdoms can share a common roster (with the addition of extra gun/pike Portuguese units in the late era).

In the same vein it might be possible to reduce the Almohads in Mahreb (Fes/Marakkesh/Algeria/Tunisia) and introduce some of the Taifa kingodms or the Almoravids (whichever seems more historically plausible to the creator) by splitting the current (1.0.9 beta) Almoravid roster via homelands to Iberia recruitable units and Mahreb recruitable units.

Again this multitude of factions will create more lengthy and uncertain outcomes (assuming that overall wealth and starting situations are tweaked so that all factions have a fair chance and their own advantages and disadvantages) increasing the replayability without decreasing balance.

-Byzantium
Given that the vision for Byzantium is to offer a tough starting setting for the early period - the only province still in Byzantine hands in Anatolia should be Trebizond.

-Italian City States
Given that GA mode is not encompassed by the Pom scope - the Italians can be split having in mind a spirit similar with those mentioned above (for the Levant and Iberia). The obvious choices for all eras are Milan/Genoa/Pisa(early) and Florence(late) based respectively in Milan/Genoa/Tuscany as well as the default Italian faction that can be the Venetians. One of the things that i like about the Pike and Musket mod is that it represents all Italian factions and there is indeed a tough warring competition before a clear winner is decleared.

The Italian roster also needs more personalising in my view in order to distinguish it from its feudal neighbours into a force of high upkeep, foot based, good stat but low morale, anti cavalry and crossbow specialist militia. But i ll post in the unit section for this.


In a similar vein a few more Russian principalities can be represented as independent, as Novgorod is in order to create a similar tough competition environment. The principality of Muscovy makes the first candidate. The steppes have a good number of provinces that allows 3 or 4 starting factions to war over them.

My suggestion here seems to be towards a *more factions* approach - and yet this is for the sake of gameplay. In no case are (according to my suggestion) the rosters of the say Arabic kingdoms or Spanish Kingdoms meant to be *individuated*. They should stay (quasi) uniform among them creating the setting for fierce local competition that needs overcoming before one is ready for global competition. Pom attributes such as high average rebeliousness and lack of immediate access to happy buildings as border forts can make sure that re-appearances will ensure such local competitors being an issue for quite a while.

:bow:

!it burnsus!

(cont d)

AESTHETIC

- I would agree with the fellow above about faction standards and faction colours. While being able to discern units in the midst of battle is a key goal to have in mind - MTW vanilla factions indeed with a bit of imagination resemble *football team* colours as he writes.

The colours that i find alright are;

The Turks
The Egyptians
The Almohads

that is the Islamic factions feel ok colour wise IMHO.

Ones that can be improved are;

The Byzantines; a combination of pinkish red and golden, instead of the purple/white. This will make the opulent and religious character of the empire felt.

Standard ideas - crux gemmata/archangels from orthodox icons/the eyes of Christ from Orthodox icons (the eyes of Christ were indeed used as a military standard - it was thought that they d paralyse the opponents particularly in wars that were thought to be fought over an injustice such for religious persecution).

The Siculo-Norman Kingdom of Sicily - the best representation seems a clear/deep yellow and red stripe as shown here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Sicily

(to be continued)

!it burnsus!

I would have to disagree with just making Cilicia Armenia rebel. Cilicia was not only an independent (but admittedly weak) state at the beginning of the game, it consistently grew in power as time when on until it's fall in 1375. It was also instrumental in helping the Crusader states to grow.

Your argument for saying that it would be fantasy to think of high and late units for Armenia is a bit false. Armenia's military structure was initially similar to the East Roman one, and was eventually "westernized" by the Crusaders, most notably the French principality of Antioch.

Also, not to bring in another game really, but have you ever played Broken Cresent? Yes, it is for M2tw, but it has a well researched Cilicia Armenia in it, and one could use the units and information from that.

That is not to say I disagree with your other assertions about factions however, but we only have limited faction slots, and those faction need to be given to deserving, unique, and fun factions.

This would be my list
Principality of Cilicia Armenia
Kingdom of Georgia
Duchy of Venice
Duchy of Pisa
Emirate of Damascus
Sultanate of Iconium
Khanate of Volga-Bulgaria
Duchy of Lithuania
Duchy of Aquitaine
Duchy of Portugal
Kingdom of Bohemia (Or Emirate of the Zirids)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

- Anatolia and the Levant can do with a few more factions, namely the Turks and Egyptian factions can be split, to teh
1. Sultanate of Iconium (Antalya/Konya/Nicaea)
2. Sultanate of Rum (Rum/Armenia/Sinope)
3. Great Seljuks (Edessa/Antioch/Mosul/Alleppo)

---

I haven't time to reply to everything just yet. :

The Seljuk Sultanate of Konya (Iconium) is in fact the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum. They are the very same. The Great Seljuk Empire is a separate faction. I have always had a problem with these as the provinces on the map are only a tiny fraction of their territory, but still...

As to the Byzantine territories, those that I have in the early period at present are as close as I can get it to the early era, handing more territories to the Turkic peoples in 1087 would look and feel wrong.

When it comes to a matter of new factions, there is a lot of work - and artwork involved which I don't not have the time nor the necessary skill to engage in. If others wish to take this on they are free to do so.

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

I haven't time to reply to everything just yet. :

The Seljuk Sultanate of Konya (Iconium) is in fact the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum. They are the very same. The Great Seljuk Empire is a separate faction. I have always had a problem with these as the provinces on the map are only a tiny fraction of their territory, but still...

As to the Byzantine territories, those that I have in the early period at present are as close as I can get it to the early era, handing more territories to the Turkic peoples in 1087 would look and feel wrong.

When it comes to a matter of new factions, there is a lot of work - and artwork involved which I don't not have the time nor the necessary skill to engage in. If others wish to take this on they are free to do so.

:bow:

---

May I ask what you think of my faction list then? I wish for your insightful critique and approval before working on it. If it does not fit the Pocket Mods aims, then it would be a bit pointless to put to much effort into it.

I'd gladly offer what little help can provide.

And yes I agree with YLC, starting work on factions just for the sake of working on them would be a waste of time. Firstly how many can be added, and how many would, in terms of gameplay, you want to add? Secondly where would they be placed? Which areas need or can handle more factions?

Well so far I can see the point in adding Portugal and for splitting Castile-Leon into two factions. Apart from that I'm not entirely convinced.

Taking Damascus as an example. This province would have had periods of independence in between being part of the Fatimid Caliphate and the Ayyubids. None of these periods warrant making a faction of it. So rebel or perhaps Seljuk is the best designation for this province as it would have been ruled by Seljuk dynasties up until Salah al-Din coming on the scene.

I don't much like the idea of Cilician Armenia but it probably qualifies more as an independant faction than some of the others mentioned.

It would be a good idea to place more factions in the Mahgreb. This region only ever has one faction at a time.

Quote:

---

The Seljuk Sultanate of Konya (Iconium) is in fact the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum. They are the very same.

---

Indeed - however it was divided in a number of semi-independent Beyliks. These were fighting from time to time against each other as much as against outsiders. In gameplay terms as you say it would be too much to assign all Anatolia to a single Turkic power. A split however would work well in abstracting a very complex reality. The Byzantines played often these Beyliks against each other and in fact survived for about 100 years more past 1320 because of this lack of unity among the Anatolian Turcs that pulverised with the advent of the Ottomans as the ruling *clan* in Anatolia.

Quote:

---

As to the Byzantine territories, those that I have in the early period at present are as close as I can get it to the early era, handing more territories to the Turkic peoples in 1087 would look and feel wrong.

---

Without wanting to press my case i ll just mention the arguments pro;

1. its historical - no one knows how the course of the power struggle in the area would have gone if the Crusaders hadnt give back a number of important towns to the Byzs.

2. its (in my view) good for gameplay as it will add fierce competition between Turks and Turks and Turks and Byzs.

The last call is of course yours.

:bow:

Quote:

---

When it comes to a matter of new factions, there is a lot of work - and artwork involved which I don't not have the time nor the necessary skill to engage in. If others wish to take this on they are free to do so.

---

:bow:

!it burnsus!

Quote:

---

Well so far I can see the point in adding Portugal and for splitting Castile-Leon into two factions.

It would be a good idea to place more factions in the Mahgreb. This region only ever has one faction at a time.

---

If so then the Iberian theater and Mahreb may turn into real grinders as they deserve since they are well represented in terms of provinces.

The same in my view can be said about Anatolia and the Levant - they are well represented with the PoM map and collectivelly (together) they can bear one or two more factions that may add to the PoM more unique character as well as additional gameplay depth. This is all the more so as the map alterations seem complete in that area.

:bow:

!it burnsus!

Well I don't see it as being my "last call", because if it was then I'd say quite simply "add no more factions". Though something tells me that a few extra factions in the right places might be a good idea. It's worth bearing in mind that we are working in the early era only and that only factions that should be around in that era should be of concern.

I am happy for someone else to take over the new factions part of the mod. What is need is an impartial factions debate. If you assume that in the end it's up to me, then we won't make much progress.

So far YLC and gollum are coming up with some of the more realistic ideas (I'm impressed that no one has mentioned the Irish and Swedes as yet!).

Once the factions have been decided on I'm quite happy for the responsibility for them to be divided out. For example if someone wants to concentrate on a particular theatre, culture or just a particular bit of the map, then I'm fine with that.

I'd advise however that the Muslim factions be taken as one theatre, including the Byzantines and any minor factions and that Spain and the Maghreb be taken as another. This will ensure that areas are balanced. The same goes for the Turks. If you're working on the Turks or Armenia then you will need to balance them against the Byzantine and other neighburs. I would prefer that the Byzantine were left alone as I feel that enough work has been done on them already. As for the Turks, they can easily be divided into two factions but keeping the same units. I have no problem with a faction having the same units.

As I said what is needed is a debate as to why factions are needed in specific areas. I think Iberia and the Mahgreb is an obvious one whereas in other areas it is not so clear.

Quote:

---

Posted by YLC
I would have to disagree with just making Cilicia Armenia rebel. Cilicia was not only an independent (but admittedly weak) state at the beginning of the game, it consistently grew in power as time when on until it's fall in 1375. It was also instrumental in helping the Crusader states to grow.

Your argument for saying that it would be fantasy to think of high and late units for Armenia is a bit false. Armenia's military structure was initially similar to the East Roman one, and was eventually "westernized" by the Crusaders, most notably the French principality of Antioch.

Also, not to bring in another game really, but have you ever played Broken Cresent? Yes, it is for M2tw, but it has a well researched Cilicia Armenia in it, and one could use the units and information from that.

---

Thanks for the info and the very interesting post. In fact i have dedicated very little time in M2 - its putting me greatly off. I have noticed that BC is a popular and well researched mod, together with SS as well as Retrofit , however i am very slow in getting on with M2 due to disliking what i perceive as its cartoonishness, lack of true strategy in the strategic portion and the despicable battle mechanics and general engine quirks that ruin gameplay for me.

:bow:

Quote:

---

This would be my list
Principality of Cilicia Armenia
Kingdom of Georgia
Duchy of Venice
Duchy of Pisa
Emirate of Damascus
Sultanate of Iconium
Khanate of Volga-Bulgaria
Duchy of Lithuania
Duchy of Aquitaine
Duchy of Portugal
Kingdom of Bohemia (Or Emirate of the Zirids)

---

Aquitaine certainly gets my vote. Something may be said about the Duchy of Brittany that could start with Brittany and Anjou as territories.

Aquitaine will provide the necessary wedge between England, France and the Spanish kingdoms in the south - instead of having the southern french provinces as a battle ground between the Spaniards and French/English. it would also provide a another competitor for the french area that is historical and good for gameplay. The same can be get out of introducing Brittany/Anjou as well as a powerful french Duchy.

I second Pisa and i would add Genoa to the mix for the Italians - it has been done by many other mods but its so imperative for the setting and period that if the Italians are split its hard to avoid.

Georgia and Armenia can be done and they would hardly brake the current balance in the area as they start with one Province. BC has a map that extents however deep in the east - unlike the MTW map that is sliced off even before the Caspian sea appears in view. In this respect a faction like georgia is unlikely to face the challenges and power balance that it may face in BC. The MTW map is simply not detailed enough in that are in my view.

Cilician Armenia is viable as you say - i wouldnt do it this way, but your arguments perfectly stand.

Volga-Bulgaria and Lithuania - they are obviuos candidates for the steppe area. Both existed and were influencial over time. In addition MTW/VI has certain units that can obviously be assigned to them and make up a roster in PoM style quickly and easily. I concur for both of them as hey will enhance gameplay and add in terms of historical plausibility and feel.

Duchy of portugal gets my vote, as Navarre yet as i wrote they are both secondary in regards to the kingdom of Leon.

I disagree with the kingdom of Bohemia - while semi-independent and independent at times its best left as a part of HRE - having a HRE replacement as in XL its not to my taste. Also if Bohemia is to be made a kingdom the area its set (Poland, Austria and Bohemia itself) needs splitting.

Sultanate of Iconium and Great Seljuks i fully concur.

Emirate of Damascus is good addition however - i understand caravels view that it can be left under the Arabic or Turkic empires of the area as it did little than being semi-independent and independent at most at times.

Emirate of the Zirids gets my vote - i am all for mahreb extra muslim factions rather than the Almoravids/hads being the only one. This was an area of fiefdoms and civil wars and the Almohads were a product of that local grinder.

The danger with going in a faction spree is to go in a corresponding unit spree - personalise all factions. This is bad for the gameplay the battle engine simply does not have the range for the 100 units of vanilla - they are already too many. i am all for more factions that are historical unique and warranted in terms of map and gameply - but i do not advocate to inflate the unit pool. My suggestion is to have a roster per culture/area and the factions there to share them. The unit pool should be drawn directly from vanilla and simply be modified as becesary to become reasonably accessible for the player and the AI factions - to make sure there are no redundancies and to add a hint of flavor and spice, in my opinion.

:bow:

!it burnsus!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Thanks for the info and the very interesting post. In fact i have dedicated very little time in M2 - its putting me greatly off. I have noticed that BC is a popular and well researched mod, together with SS as well as Retrofit , however i am very slow in getting on with M2 due to disliking what i perceive as its cartoonishness, lack of true strategy in the strategic portion and the despicable battle mechanics and general engine quirks that ruin gameplay for me.

:bow:

---

Oh, I play M2TW for the features ~;p If MTW had the same modding or internal gameplay mechanics, you'd think I pay it any attention? I can admit to liking the graphics a bit, if only because I'd like to be able to port some of the unit designs over into MTW :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Aquitaine certainly gets my vote. Something may be said about the Duchy of Brittany that could start with Brittany and Anjou as territories.

Aquitaine will provide the necessary wedge between England, France and the Spanish kingdoms in the south - instead of having the southern french provinces as a battle ground between the Spaniards and French/English. it would also provide a another competitor for the french area that is historical and good for gameplay. The same can be get out of introducing Brittany/Anjou as well as a powerful french Duchy.

---

And that's my thoughts exactly. It would be quite a contender in it's own right, and could actually keep the French and Spanish in check, which is needed (The four usual superpowers by high are Spain, France, Egypt, and Byzantines). Also, Aquitaine's army was much light then Frances, depending more on skirmishers, archers, and light cavalry, rather then raw brute force (Of course they would have a few heavy units)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

I second Pisa and i would add Genoa to the mix for the Italians - it has been done by many other mods but its so imperative for the setting and period that if the Italians are split its hard to avoid.

---

Actually, Genoa would already be in. The Factions I suggested are only using up the empty slots, so the "Italians" would become Genoa (Milan/Genoa) with Venice (Venice/Dalmatia), and Pisa (Tuscany/Corsica) created. With the Papacy and Sicilians however, it might be quite crowded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Georgia and Armenia can be done and they would hardly break the current balance in the area as they start with one Province. BC has a map that extents however deep in the east - unlike the MTW map that is sliced off even before the Caspian sea appears in view. In this respect a faction like Georgia is unlikely to face the challenges and power balance that it may face in BC. The MTW map is simply not detailed enough in that are in my view.

Cilician Armenia is viable as you say - I wouldn't do it this way, but your arguments perfectly stand.

---

The main reason for including Armenia and Georgia is that they would create balance. Every Faction needs competitors - Georgia can be both the competitor for the Volga-Bulgars, Kievians, and the Seljuks, while Armenia would compete with the Byzantines, Iconium, and whoever is in the Levant.

Also, both factions would fall under "Orthodox" and I like Orthodox factions ~;p

Speaking of a map, I have one that does extend all the way to the Caspian, but Caravel has rejected it due to the fact he would have to redo much of his work on the map. However, if I am able to somehow fit what Caravel has currently on to it, would you except it then Caravel?

I can easily get the data for both Factions from BC (with their permission).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Volga-Bulgaria and Lithuania - they are obvious candidates for the steppe area. Both existed and were influential over time. In addition MTW/VI has certain units that can obviously be assigned to them and make up a roster in PoM style quickly and easily. I concur for both of them as hey will enhance gameplay and add in terms of historical plausibility and feel.

---

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Duchy of Portugal gets my vote, as Navarre yet as I wrote they are both secondary in regards to the kingdom of Leon.

---

The reason I included Portugal was it's increasing influence overtime - even into this day, where as many states and nations during this time cannot say the same!

Your argument for a Leon AND Castile is an interesting one, but a bit hard to do inside MTW. By the start of the game, the two kingdoms have been in union for over 50 years and would continue to remain in union until 1157 and not be rejoined until 1230, for the last time. For all intents and purposes, this is like having a single territory revolt. Portugal IMHO is different enough, and valid enough, to warrant a spot more then Leon AND Castile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

I disagree with the kingdom of Bohemia - while semi-independent and independent at times its best left as a part of HRE - having a HRE replacement as in XL its not to my taste. Also if Bohemia is to be made a kingdom the area its set (Poland, Austria and Bohemia itself) needs splitting.

---

I believe Caravel spoke of splitting up that area, correct me if I am wrong. I placed Bohemia there if only for another "German" faction. Not a very strong argument besides what you mention above ~;p.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Sultanate of Iconium and Great Seljuks I fully concur.

---

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Emirate of Damascus is good addition however - I understand caravels view that it can be left under the Arabic or Turkic empires of the area as it did little than being semi-independent and independent at most at times.

---

True - no one that held the Levant was in a real position of power. However, only Damascus ever held onto the entirety of the Levant, and maintain it's independence. Just as well, it was ruled by an offshoot of the Turks, that is correct, but it never really fell back under the Great Seljuks influence again, and if we want a Levantine faction, they are really the only option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

Emirate of the Zirids gets my vote - I am all for mahreb extra muslim factions rather than the Almoravids/hads being the only one. This was an area of fiefdoms and civil wars and the Almohads were a product of that local grinder.

---

Well, it is either the Zirids (Tunisia) or the Hammadids (Algeria). The Zirids would most likely end up moving through Italy once the Sicilians are gone, and the Hammadids would expand into Almohad territory. The Hammadid's have two things in their favor though - they lasted longer then the Zirids, and ingame would not be immediately wiped out by the Sicilians (who almost always go after Tunisia).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gollum

The danger with going in a faction spree is to go in a corresponding unit spree - personalize all factions. This is bad for the gameplay the battle engine simply does not have the range for the 100 units of vanilla - they are already too many. I am all for more factions that are historical unique and warranted in terms of map and gameplay - but I do not advocate to inflate the unit pool. My suggestion is to have a roster per culture/area and the factions there to share them. The unit pool should be drawn directly from vanilla and simply be modified as necessary to become reasonably accessible for the player and the AI factions - to make sure there are no redundancies and to add a hint of flavor and spice, in my opinion.

:bow:

!it burnsus!

---

That's essentially the same theory I tried to use in my Dark Age mod. There were "cultural" rosters, with a few of those cultural units replaced by that factions 2-4 unique units. I think I still have the info floating around - I will repost it here so we can discuss the merits and organization of it further.

:bow:

Quote:

---

I can admit to liking the graphics a bit,

---

no worries, i admit liking the graphics a lot. Its unfortunately the only thing i like though.

No one showed this best other than Sin; here are my favorite of his masterful editor videos;
Crusaders vs Turks
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs5aDpjq0nM
Ottomans vs Kingdom of Hungary
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_bcaAW...e=channel_page
battle of ravenna
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BubXmP...e=channel_page

I watch them for inspiration before... playing MTW :laugh4:

Quote:

---

And that's my thoughts exactly. It would be quite a contender in it's own right, and could actually keep the French and Spanish in check,

---

This actually works precisely that way - i have modded in Burgundy as a Aquitaine/Brittany/Anjou - *western french duchies unite* faction - and it made a substantial difference in gameplay.

Quote:

---

With the Papacy and Sicilians however, it might be quite crowded.

---

it can be balanced even so - the key in my opinion is to make the Italian factions have very strict homelands and particular rosters. Then - they wont be able to expand beyond the Italian north in a bulldozer fashion they ll need to depend on their homelands for troops.

Quote:

---

Your argument for a Leon AND Castile is an interesting one, but a bit hard to do inside MTW. By the start of the game, the two kingdoms have been in union for over 50 years and would continue to remain in union until 1157 and not be rejoined until 1230, for the last time. For all intents and purposes, this is like having a single territory revolt. Portugal IMHO is different enough, and valid enough, to warrant a spot more then Leon AND Castile

---

All iberian kingdoms were allies and yet bitterly contested each other - my aim in terms of gameplay would be to achieve an unpredictable development were Leon or Castile or Aragon or Portugal may end up the leading power in the area. The division is meant to represent the simple reality that castile and Leon didnt act uniformly and optimally in a modern government fashion against their enemies.

This lack of unity again prevented the Spanish kingdoms in taking out the Moors of the equation quickly and efficiently. It took centuries of fighting to accomplish this feat, because among other reasons the local players had to have a strong motive to come together like say major Almohad incursions.

Quote:

---

However, only Damascus ever held onto the entirety of the Levant, and maintain it's independence. Just as well, it was ruled by an offshoot of the Turks, that is correct, but it never really fell back under the Great Seljuks influence again, and if we want a Levantine faction, they are really the only option.

---

i actually suggested the Damascenese as an independent faction almost a month back independently. I agree with you.

Quote:

---

There were "cultural" rosters, with a few of those cultural units replaced by that factions 2-4 unique units.

---

Yes this is the middle ground approach that can enmesh balance and flavor - the spice of uniqueness with the benefits of uniformity.

:bow:

!it burnsus!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YLC

Speaking of a map, I have one that does extend all the way to the Caspian, but Caravel has rejected it due to the fact he would have to redo much of his work on the map. However, if I am able to somehow fit what Caravel has currently on to it, would you except it then Caravel?

---

Is this a finished, Maptex2.tga and LUKUPMAP2.lbm? If it extends to the caspian how does it overcome the hardcoded province limit?

:bow:

As for Damascus, I've been looking into the various dynasties a bit more and I think the Burid Emirs might be the closest to what you want. The Zengids would be too late, so we'd have to leave them until the high era, once we get around to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Is this a finished, Maptex2.tga and LUKUPMAP2.lbm? If it extends to the caspian how does it overcome the hardcoded province limit?

:bow:

---

It is a finished MapTex2.tga, but the LBM provided has provinces set for a more Dark Age era and may be insufficient for your needs. It was made with Lukmapmaker by Omarpacha.

Link

And how does it overcome the total number of provinces restriction?

Thats the "problem" it doesn't, and I wish it did. However, how many provinces do you have left? IIRC serves, you still have many left since all you have done is reassignment, correct?

I'll need to check that, but I haven't only done reassignment. I've used about 4 of the surplus provinces up as well.