Please post your suggestions on the Map for the Pocket Mod here. Some sort of visual aid based on your suggestions is required; I'll be putting mine up tomorrow.
Printable View
Please post your suggestions on the Map for the Pocket Mod here. Some sort of visual aid based on your suggestions is required; I'll be putting mine up tomorrow.
Sorry for the Doublepost, but this is my Idea. It's haphazard and not finalized, so it might be a little confusing.
https://i189.photobucket.com/albums/...007/MapTex.jpg
Could you by any chance number it and provide a key with the proposed province names?
:bow:
Some comments on that map (I assume that the islands stand as separated provinces):
-Move the borders of Constantinople (and the name) to Thrace. AKA: full Europe province, with an adequate border representing the Bosphorous strait.
-North of Castile: Lordship of Biscay
-What are the two south-sahara provinces?
My argument against this is that although the Constantinople province is not ideal it does represent the cities that would have been held by the Byzantine for much longer than the rest of western Anatolia. It also more closely reflects the approximate border between Nicaea and the Latin Empire after the fourth crusade.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
Thanks for the input. I have adjusted the map to be more understandable. I haven't yet completed a list or key for provinces yet, mostly because I lack names for a few of them, and any help in that regard would be most appreciated. I have add sea borders (red line) and landbridges (cyan line). Green lines donote where "possible" provinces may be.
https://i172.photobucket.com/albums/...OrgVersion.jpg
Cheers!:medievalcheers: :barrel:
No Comments:inquisitive: ? I still need help on the names for provinces.
If the provinces are nameless then I'm not sure how you have come up with their locations? What you have to remember is that in those days there were no real provinces, just land claimed by a certain lord or king based on visual geographics. Kingdoms such as Navarre, Aragon and Kiev changed size constantly. you're going to have to base your provinces on what we have at the moment, not on a complete rework. you're also going to have to keep the limitations to the number of provinces in mind. looking at your map I would estimate that you've gone over that.Quote:
Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
I'm also unsure about some of your choices, including the new province in northern Anatolia stretching into north western Nicaea and the eastern part of the old Constantinople province.
The best thing at this point would be for you to provide sources for the map, so that others can scrutinise it.
:bow:
Well, some historical ones I know:
- Despotate of Morea as in the southern Greece province
- The Lordship of Biscay, in Northern Spain. Switched hands between Castile and Navarre several times.
-Also, found this webpage which might help in other consultations:
http://www.allempires.com/
Actually, I have 106 set provinces, with 6 possible ones (Green lines). I also have 14 sea regions, which is a reduced amount (from 24 or 21, I believe). The ungainly "northern" Anatolia province is an attempt to create a western Trebizond while taking the advice from Unknown Guy to make Constantinople a european province while still keeping intact Nicaea's borders :dizzy2: . As for naming, I am attempting to be historically accurate as possible :help: . My sources, sadly, happen to be the multiplicity of Mod maps combined to together as feasibly as possible :shame: . My attempts at recreating the medieval era using historic maps always end in failure :wall: , as I have no idea on which provinces to compromise on :embarassed: .
I don't agree with making Constantinople an European province because the Constantinople province in the game is roughly equivalent to the territory of the western anatolian cities, and the territory held by the Latin Empire after 1204, and territory reclaimed by the Byzantines later. In my opinion the Nicaea province is the one that needs some changes. I would divide it up and make it smaller, having the western part as Nicaea, and give part of the southern Constantinople province to this new Nicaea province, relocating Nicaea to it's correct position.Quote:
Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
These maps could be useful:
The Balkans and Anatolia after the 4th Crusade:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LatinEmpire2.png
Several maps of Byzantium:
http://www.imperiobizantino.com/grup...xo%20mapas.pdf
Pay attention to these questions:
-Nicaea is located in the North-Western corner of Asia Minor. This region was historically known as Bythinia. Other important cities in Bythina are Nicomedia and Bursa, the latest being the first Ottoman capital.
-The western part of the actual Trebizond MTW province corresponds with the historical region of Paphlagonia, which was the native land of the Komnenian family. Its capital could be the coastal city of Sinope.
-The capital of the Seljuqs of Rum, Iconium, is located at the center of Anatolia. MTW Rum and Iconium are located a bit eastwards. I think that Rum could be replaced in central MTW Anatolia province while MTW Rum could be the Armenian regions of Melitene/Malatia and Sivas, the latest being occasionally the capital of the Seljuqs of Rum after its conquest by Kilij Arslan II in 1174. The coastal part of MTW Anatolia could be a new province called Antalya/Attalia, an area conquered by the Seljuqs and recaptured by the Byzantines again and again from 1076 onwards as the Seljuks strove to establish a trading base on the Mediterranean. In 1220 Byzantine rule ended for the last time and the city was conquered by the Seljuqs of Rum.
-The European part of MTW Constantinople corresponds with the historical region of Thrace (most important cities, Constantinople but also Adrianople), and, together with a part of Northern MTW Greece, Macedonia (most important city Thessaloniki).
-The North-Western part of Greece corresponds with the historical region of Epirus. Its most important cities were Arta (capital of the Despotate of Epirus), Ioannina, and the coastal town of Dyrrachium (Greek Durrës, Italian Durazzo).
-The large peninsula in southern Greece is the Peloponnese, which was known in medieval times as Morea. The Franks founded there the Principality of Achaea and the Catalans the Duchy of Athens, and later the Greeks of Morea tenaciously fought against the Ottomans.
-The Southern part of MTW Nicaea could be a new province perhaps called Smyrna or even Lydia but I am not sure.
Well, I don't forget the province limit factor :yes:
Thanks for the info Belisario, I have maps similar to the one in your first link. :thumbsup:
This is what I have done so far as regard north Africa. I have also slightly adjusted the border between Nicaea and Constantinople to place Nicaea actually in the Nicaea province.
https://img168.imageshack.us/img168/...tex2an0.th.jpg
I have freed up 3 provinces (Cyrenacia, Sinai and Sahara) in doing this. Some may disagree with the southward extent of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia but those provinces did actually extend that far during the Almohad Dynasty and before and after that.
Caravel
Changing the map makes all the difference. Can't be easy because it has been done so rarely, but imho the most interesting Mods are the ones that give you some new realities that way. :2thumbsup: On that theme, and sticking with Africa, conquering Morocco or Egypt should not be a pushover - one pounce and it's done. And they should have the strength to generate some real offensive power. I'm thinking of the crusader campaigns inside Egypt, and the Spanish/Portuguese lodgements on the coast of Morocco which never gave them the interior. In other words, how about splitting both into a coast and interior province? Entirely agree that Sinai and Libya were without much significance, but for Morocco to be one province when Spain is 7 plus Portugal, or for Egypt to be overrun by a single naval landing, has always been more than a bit unrealistic and removes serious campaigning in North Africa, of which there was actually quite a lot in our period. No other Mod has done this, but I think the historical arguments are sound.
There's obvious space to do this for Morocco. Map is less kind to Egypt, but maybe a diagonal split of Alexandria from (interior) Cairo?:egypt:
I don't have objections to the southwards extent of the Maghrib provinces, but I dislike the loss of Cyrenaica. I can argue some reasons:
-Cyrenaica was conquered by the Islamic Arabs by the first caliph, Abu Bakr, in 643/44, and became known as Barka after its new provincial capital, the ancient Barca. After the breakdown of the Ummayad caliphate, it was annexed to Egypt, although still under the same name, under the Fatimid caliphs and later under the Ayyubid and Mamluk sultanates.
-The Arab tribes settled in the south-eastern border of Tunisia (perhaps better called Ifriqiya which in medieval times was the area comprising the coastal regions of what are today western Libya, Tunisia, and eastern Algeria) were an outstanding factor in the political scenario of this region. In the 11th century the Fatimids favoured their settlement there as a counteroffensive to the rising independent power of the Zirids in Ifriqiya/Tunisia. These Arabs were also an important element of the military structure of the Almohads, who enrolled them in high numbers.
-Cyrenaica/Barka was a warfare scenario for the Siculo-Normans (conquest of Tripoli by the admiral Giorgio d'Antiochia in 1146), the Almohads (during the period of maximum extent of the caliphate), or the Ayyubids (campaigns of the mamluk soldier Qaraqush in the 1170s).
A possible idea for Morocco could be split it into two provinces:
-A northern province with Fes as capital and at north it borders on the Strait of Gibraltar.
-A southern province with Marrakech as capital and at west it borders on MTW Moroccan small sea region (I don't remember its name).
I agree, though it is not easy to divide up north Africa into provinces. The problem with the coastal strips idea is that the Kingdom of Fez, Zirids, Hammadids, Fatimids, Almoravids, Almohads, Marinids, Ziyyanids and Hafsids all held lands well into the interior, the coastal strip and interior province would seem artificial.Quote:
Originally Posted by western
The north African gains of George of Antioch were lost less than twenty years later. For the vast majority of the game's timeframe the MTW Cyrenacia province was split with the eastern part (Cyrene) being mostly under control of one of the Egyptian Dynasties. The western part was either independent or held by the Almohads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Belisario
The reason I have split the province and left a dead zone in the centre is to prevent Crusades taking this route to the Holy Land. The other reason is to better represent historical boundaries and to free up provinces.
Splitting Morocco into Fes and Marrakech may be a good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Belisario
:bow:
Caravel
I agree with you about transverse travel across Africa. More realistic to have basically two zones (Morocco and Egypt) that might be invaded or from which invasions might come. Noone would invade Morocco via Egypt or vice versa (alright - the Arabs did it in the 8th century, but that's a one-off and out of period!). If you've got the provinces, there's also a zone in the middle that attracted a couple of crusades in its own right - but I'd suggest less essential to realism than, for example, splitting up Syria.
Syria I would cut in half almost vertically but the eastern half I would turn into a dead zone and remove along with the Arabia province. That land was usually a no-man's land populated only by Bedouin AFAIK. Any and all maps I have consulted have that land as unconquered by Fatimids, Seljuks, Mongols, Ayyubids, Mamluks and others. Euratlas also shows the same. Halving Syria and calling the eastern part "Mespotamia" is also wrong as Mespotamia would have been further to the east (near the rivers). Arabia could be retained as the coastal strip just about visible near the Sinai province, but it would hardly be worth it. Personally I would remove it an put it to better use along with Cyrenacia.Quote:
Originally Posted by western
I have replaced the Morocco Province as it is in the game. I have renamed the province and the castle "Fes". The Sahara and it's castle are now "Marrakech".
Nice:2thumbsup: I agree whole hartedly. In vanilla, Islamic lands had the tendency to be overrun quickly because they lacked the fragmentaion of the western ones. Would you be partial to slicing Syria and Arabai down the middle, and keeping the western half as a province, while the east remains a Dead zone? This should allow the Egyptians (or Turks) a space in which to easily counter attack incursions into thier homeland, as was done throuout history.
ou considered any part of my map? Just wondering.
Caravel
I agree about Mesopotamia, but my thought on Syria is that there were 3 states pretty consistently important - Mosul east of Edessa, Aleppo east of Antioch and Damascus east of Tripoli and the northern part of Kindom of Jerusalem. The key for the crusaders was to keep them separate from each other and from Egypt, which ultimately - after the own goal of the Second Crusade attacking Damascus - they failed to do. If you could split Syria in 3, you'd have a mirror of the real crusader situation (assassins apart, but they never amounted to a faction with potential for conquest). But actually, since Mosul and Aleppo were joined under Zenghi from 1128, splitting in 2 would do - it's a north south split rather than an east west one. East of Damascus, you're right, would be desert.
It's your Mod mate, but I have been stewing on the map a long time, without the brains to change it!:2thumbsup:
I very much like the idea of the Syria split into Mosul, Aleppo and Damascus. Cyrenacia, Arabia and Sinai could all be used (put to a much better use) for those provinces. Consider the geographical borders of the crusader states changed so often a good map would be needed, but I am having no luck finding anything decent. :shrug:
How about putting in the Syrian "No man's land" a Hashashini faction?
EDIT: And PD: Maybe Finland could be dumped onto Novgorod? It's not like there was much there besides Novgorod, right? (Covers from the Finnish onslaught)
Caravel
I'm an IT dunce so don't know how this will appear, but you're probably familiar with this address which gives you maps century by century? The 3 emirates are pretty clear on it.:yes:
http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1100.htm
BTW: The capital of Malta was certainly NOT Valetta at medieval times, as that city dates to the XVI century
That's the one I've been referring to mostly as it seems the most accurate. I suppose I can work with that. I'll have a version up tomorrow with a bit of luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by western
:bow:
I think you'll find a lot more like that. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
Ok here is the map of the region based roughly on the Euratlas 1100 map. Note that this is not an actual working lukupmap or even part of one, just a rough draft.
http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/upl...16cc36a4b6.jpg
It looks rather drastic but personally I think it could work well, especially with the smaller and more realistically sized crusader states. The bright green and red provinces are the additional ones that will need to make use of Arabia, Cyrenacia and Sinai.
Edit: If you have any suggestions, locations, e.g. of capitals or changes you can use my image as a template and make the rough modifications to that.
:bow:
Caravel
I like the look of what you've done - especially making Lesser Armenia an inland, mountain province (which it was). Map changes make it look great and real, not just dreamed up provinces.:2thumbsup: Let's hope LukupMap will play ball with you:juggle2:
But I would extend Tripoli and Jerusalem so they meet. If you've conquered the 4 crusader provinces (inc Edessa) you should be able to move a land army between them all, as crusaders frequently did, shuttling up to Antioch to meet a threat there, or sending contingents south to help Kingdom of Jerusalem. The map of 1100 shows a conquest in progress, just 1 year on from crusade's arrival - so the Trip and Jerusalem borders are interim, not the more or less stable ones they achieved after another 10 years campaigning.
Sorry I'm too dumb to show this on the map:embarassed: , but it just involves stretching Tripoli out to the Antioch eastern border, and stretching Jerusalem north to meet it. The actual Tripoli/Jerusalem meet should be a narrow coastal finger.
Yes I think I know exactly what you mean. I have a map on paper that I can use for reference.Quote:
Originally Posted by western
:bow:
Ok a second attempt, hopefully a better one.
https://img403.imageshack.us/img403/...ppo3rh9.th.jpg
Whats all this fuss about province managment and squandering? the game has roof limit of 108, not 99.
I'm well aware of that, but I want to stay well within that limit and not go berserk adding provinces and then find we've run out. It's better to be in a situation where we can add key provinces that are useful instead of being right at the limit. Also no one mentioned "squandering".Quote:
Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
:bow:
Hi Caravel!
I understand Cyrenaica's removal in favour of gameplay. I have other regions in mind to free up provinces: Rhodes, Malta, and Switzerland. The new Near East looks great.
Meanwhile I have been working on my own Lukupmaps experiments. I have finally obtained a working Lukupmap but I have a problem with Castle, Origin and Port coordinates, are these in picas? The port, castle and strategic pieces of my new province appears in strange places. Could you help me, please?
Switzerland I can understand getting rid of by merging into Tyrolia but Malta and Rhodes I'm not so sure about. Anyway here is the latest from the new near east. I have to do the setneighbours, setborderinfo and castle, port and origin positions yet and then decide on their trade goods, resources, incomes, valour bonuses etc, and fix the homelands. Apart from that they're working fine though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Belisario
https://img508.imageshack.us/img508/...centeq6.th.jpg
-Edit: I should add that I've used Sinai for Aleppo and Arabia for Damascus, the other provinces are the same. Syria has become Mosul and Palestine - Jerusalem. Arabia is now dead zone as with the centre of Cyrenacia.
On a related note, the Maghreb region could now be cut off from the Iberian Peninsula by the removal of the landbridges between Granada/Cordoba and the province of Fes. This would create a separate region, like Britain, that can only be reached by ship. The old problem for Crusades from Castile heading for Constantinople to get to Morocco would no longer be an issue as the furthest they'd get would be Egypt which means they wouldn't try that route in the first place.
I'm still not entirely confident when it comes to the castle port and origin points. I know that the y coordinate works from the top downwards, so something around the 20000 mark is very near the bottom of the map and low numbers for the x coordinate are near the left of the map and around the 30000 mark is the right side of the map. I work by checking the location of other castles and taking it from there - trial and error. Probably not ideal but that's how I've been getting on so far. How are you editing the map? Mithel image converter and ultimate paint? Are you working with "lukupmap2.lbm"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Belisario
:bow:
~:eek:
I like, very nice.
Hallo Caravel,
here's my suggestions on this:
I second Belisario for the removal of Switzerland, Malta and Rhodes:
That will leave you with the 5 largest islands in the Med
(Sicily,Corsica,Cyprus,Sardinia), that is well whithin the scope of the game. As i suggested much eralier i would connect them all with the inland at least through one province for example:
Corsica to Liguria (or the equivalent province)
Cyprus to Antioch
Sicily to Southern Italy (as is)
Corsica to Sardinia (as is)
Crete to Greece (or the equivalent province)
I further suggest Finland and Norway to be out for use elsewhere.
Areas of the map i think need more provinces:
1. South of France (split Acquitaine, split Toulouse)
2.Iberian; at least one internal province and prevent easy moving around of troups by means of ships by disallowing coastal vessels through Gibraltar that turns wars on the area a naval affair that is entirely off for me.
Three more provinces may be added there (Murcia and an internal one with Toledo capital and split Portugal).
3.Italy - North & the Alps. Malta may be transplanted whosale on the top of the Adriatic as Venice, as in the MedMod IV. Further provinces are needed north. In the Medmod Wes has included key provinces that represent the "passes" of the Alps to the Italian north. I took this one step further and disallowed connection between them (these mountainous regions) so passage is granted from only one of them in out in my home minimod, and it works well that way. Armies crossing from Marseille to Genoa cannot jump through the mountains into Austria - they have to pass from Milan and Verona.
4.Italy south. Well one more province (Apulia Campania) surely will help the Sicilian faction to be more proper IMO, and the whole place there to be more interesting gameplay wise.
5. Greece. It can be split into two or perhaps three provinces (Macedonia, Epirus, Moreas/Achaia). This will give European Byzantine territory some further financial substance and reality.
6. Asia minor. The problem here is a similar one to the Iberian one IMO. There is much of naval troops transport IMO when wars in the Anatolian plateau were purely inland ones. I suggest you either disallow naval access to provinces like Anatolia that should be inherently internal or to cover the coast with strip like provinces if have the numbers.
Trebizond makes passage to Constantinople a two turn affair as it stands. This is not good IMO and armies coming from Georgia should pass inland in order to reach the Borporous and they should be doing so in three turns. My soloution was to disallow passage from Armenia and Georgia to Trebizond. The reality/history reasoning behind this is that in maps Trebizond thins out considerably further east to the point that is only the coast.
7. The middle east. This i see you took care of well.
The only comment i have is that Jerusalem/Palestine is too much "in the middle" being a bottleneck and having coastal access. I would have it differently but i can see that this is what you wanted, so i leave it at that.
For Constantinople:
My suggestion is that if you don't want to make Constantinople a European province, then make it an internal one whithin the province that now stands (a very small one whithin the current province of Constantinople that would be basically the city itself). It will of course face the sea of Marmara.
This will assert the status of Constantinople as a powerful city-state metropolis and show in the game its defensible position. The "outer" province will be its attendant lands, that strecthed often both sides of the Bosporous.
Finally the North of Africa looks very good. Moroco may be split into two provinces (Moroco - Atlantic Coast) in order to provide more substance/refuge to the Almohads while Algeria-Tunisia may be the homegrounds of a fourth Islamic faction - one of the many dynasties that ruled there.
Many Thanks
Noir
I rather like this one. The big income would be linked to Constantinople, or to Thrace, then? Or maybe split? (Such as: huge farming bonus goes to Thrace, but Constantinople gets the trading goods)Quote:
For Constantinople:
My suggestion is that if you don't want to make Constantinople a European province, then make it an internal one whithin the province that now stands (a very small one whithin the current province of Constantinople that would be basically the city itself). It will of course face the sea of Marmara.
My suggestion was to cut the north of Castile, and turn it into the "Lordship of Biscay" (which was a fief of the Castilian throne back then), thus leaving Castile as an internal province, with Toledo as the capital.Quote:
Iberian; at least one internal province and prevent easy moving around of troups by means of ships by disallowing coastal vessels through Gibraltar that turns wars on the area a naval affair that is entirely off for me.
Two more provinces may be added there (Murcia and an internal one with Toledo capital)
I would, perhaps, make Leon a more military-infrastructure developed province, but would leave Toledo as the province having the starting Royal Palace. The reason being that Toledo had been conçuered relatively recently at the starting point in the game, yet it had a good deal of symbolism because it was the capital of the old Visigoth kingdom of Spain.
As for Cordoba: I´d split it in two, as well. I don´t know if the split should be in favor of a Murcia eastern province, or an Extremadura western one, through (althrough I do favor Murcia, for some reason). In any case, balance-wise this is deserved because the Almoravids/Almohads have the unfair bonus of having a two-province defense layer, whereas they can strike at all Castilian provinces from the start of the game.
Something on these lines and something similar can be done for Venice.Quote:
Originally posted by The Unknown Guy
Such as: huge farming bonus goes to Thrace, but Constantinople gets the trading goods
The only disadvantage of this approach is that it consumes an extra province that might be better used elsewhere by making Constantinople fully european and including say 3 provinces in Greece.
I agree in that both the Iberian and Anatolia need to see more strife and back and forth before the troop producing heartlands of the "enemy" are taken out.Quote:
Originally posted by The Unknown Guy
this is deserved because the Almoravids/Almohads have the unfair bonus of having a two-province defense layer, whereas they can strike at all Castilian provinces from the start of the game.
In vanilla apart from the low rebelliousness and the outrageous naval profits its very easy to take out these key homelands in a few turns at the begonning of a campaign, because of the way the provinces connect. connectivity might introduce passes around geographical frontiers such as rivers and mountains as well as areas that transporting armies was not logistically feasible, in search of representing the locational nature of conflicts that occured in a given area.
Many Thanks
Noir
I have edited the Lukupmap2 following this method:
1.Open a Lukupmap.lbm with IrfanView and import it as a TGA of 8 bits using the batch conversion tool. In this manner the original palette is preserved.
2.Edit the Lukupmap.tga with a graphic program (in my case Gimp2.2) and save it as un-compressed tga of 24 bits.
3.Use CA_BIF_BUF utility called Seqgrab.exe to obtain the new lukupmap.lbm. I don't know how work MithelImageConverter but I suppose that it works like CA tool. Seqgrab needs an un-compressed tga of 24 bits which provides the new image, and a lbm (in this case an original Lukupmap) which provides the palette.
If you free up Switzerland remember that this province has a hard-coded factor: the Swiss occasionally appears around 1300. I suggest that you actually free up Tyrolia or Swabia to avoid CTD's, and use the label "ID_SWITZERLAND" for the whole province of Tyrolia or Swabia, and the label "ID_TYROLIA" or "ID_SWABIA" for a new province.
Nice map, Caravel. I like it. :2thumbsup:
I'm not sure I'm really knowledgable enough about medieval geography to contribute much. The biggest problem -- as everyone here is already well aware -- is the game's hard-coded province limit. I could easily suggest a dozen new provinces, but it would immediately run into the cap. In the end, we're going to have to simply accept that quite a few provinces will have to be left out, however much justification there is for including them in the game.
I believe the method I'm using is considerably easier:Quote:
Originally Posted by Belisario
You will need the Mithel Image Converter, Ultimate Paint and preferably Paint Shop Pro. I use PSP as I find it much more user friendly than UP. The file to work with is lukumpmap2.lbm save a backup of this.
First open lukupmap2.lbm using ultimate paint, go to edit and copy and then open PSP and go to edit and paste as new image. Do your edits and changes then paste is back into the same image in UP. Click save and then exit. Load the Mithel Image Converter and load the original unedited lukupmap2.lbm and save the palette. Exit and then load the edited lukupmap2.lbm, again with the Mithel Image Converter and then load the palette. You can check the palette to ensure it's loading correctly. Once the palette is loaded save the .lbm and exit. That will give you a working lukupmap2. :2thumbsup:
I'd thought of that one, I'm not yet focusing on that area, but that is how I'll do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Belisario
I've made some more changes to the same area. I've slightly expanded Tripoli based on a map I have here, mainly to make it slightly bigger as at present it is difficult to drop units there.
I've also extended Anatolia and Armenia in line with historical maps. The Antalya and Konya problem, that Belisario brought up earlier, is next on the agenda. Neither of these are in the correct place in the game. I'm not sure what Rum province and it's Iconium is supposed to represent. Konya would not have been in that location. The extension of Anatolia into part of southern Nicaea now places Konya in it's historic location in the Anatolia province along with Ankara and Antalya. The Rum province then lacks any significance or a capital. It could perhaps be extended further westwards and would then encompass Ankara, though I'm not certain of the historicity of this. I'd also like to extend the Nicaea province northwards into the Trebizond and reduce the size of Trebizond province, I have an example (again).
https://img528.imageshack.us/img528/...oliajp5.th.jpg
I don't play GA anymore so this doesn't concern me directly, but for those who do, it might be convenient to switch the ID label of Anatolia to "Rum", as there's a turkish GA dependent on that.
Caravel
Looks very good. Among many benefits, I've never liked Trebizond being next to Constantinople. It's a bit like putting Flanders adjacent to Navarre. Your changes put a whole 2 provinces in between, as it should be. Should also stop crusades taking an ahistorical excursion via Trebizond.:2thumbsup:
I'm not sure about that as technically Rum will still be in much the same location with a repositioned and renamed provincial capital. It would be more relevant as a homeland than Anatolia which is detached from the rest of the Homelands.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
Trebizond was a fallacy, it seems that the developer decided to add the black sea coastal strip, in it's position as it appears on maps, as a province and call it Trebizond. The annoying short cut that was always there for crusades to the Holy Land is another hopefully solved issue I hadn't thought of.Quote:
Originally Posted by western
:bow:
-Edit: Well I had nearly done when PSP crashed and I've lost most of the work I had done on the Rum province so I'll have to start again. :wall:
Caravel, I can't tell from that map: Will Trebizond still be connected to the other Byzantine provinces, or will it be cut off from them?
Caravel
What are your thoughts re Greece?:book: To me, that is another obvious candidate for splitting. I agree with Noir's comments above about an ideal split into 3. When it comes to saving provinces, Malta seems to have played virtually no role (despite strategic position) until the Knights were given it in the 16th century. It wasn't even a naval base before that, and they had to build Valletta from scratch. Rhodes makes it into Late in sense that it was a naval base then (but again no real significance before those Knights get there) - is it worth using a province for, esp if there is no Knights faction?
Stopping using either of these as provinces wouldn't mean removing them from the map, so I guess no harder than other changes you are making?? Easy for me to say:dizzy2:
It seems not, and IMO this is good. Well done!Quote:
Originally posted by Martok
Caravel, I can't tell from that map: Will Trebizond still be connected to the other Byzantine provinces, or will it be cut off from them?
Many Thanks
Noir
Trebizond will be separate from Nicaea and constantinople. In early it will be a Byzantine province along with Constantinople and Nicaea, in the high era, it should be the base of a Separate Trapezuntine faction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
Malta can be removed but I'm concerned as to it's significance to the GA goals. It simply needs to be recoloured the same as Sicily on the lukupmap2 to make it part of that province, and the Malta Channel added to the straits of Sicily. It would be useful to use as one of the Greek provinces. I suppose Epirus and a province representing the Duchy of Athens and/or Achaia perhaps, with the rest as a Thessalonica. Some of northern Greece would be added to Bulgaria or Perhaps Serbia and Thessalonica would take some of the Constantinople province. Cyrenacia and Malta could be used for both of the new Greek provinces, that would leave the rest of the free provinces to use on the rest of Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by western
If it was up to me I'd sçuikk Rhodes out of existance. As it is now it represents a ridiculously small island just a step away from the coast of Turkey, which however makes an ugly spot on the gameplay map by the "magnification" drawing....
Concerning the Anatolian peninsula matter I think MTW Anatolia (now Konya) and MTW Rum (now "Ankara") should be INLAND regions. The Seljuks of Rum (Konya) fought against Byzantium to win access to the sea both Mediterranean and Black seas. In 1214 the Seljuks captured Sinop (Greek Sinope) on the Black Sea coast, in the ancient region of Paphlagonia, and this city served as a base for Seljuk expeditions against Crimea. About 1220 the Seljuks captured the Mediterranean city of Antalya (Greek Attalia) which provides them an important commercial port. However province limit is a restricted factor in this sense.
In the Euratlas (Southeastern Europe AD 1100) MTW Rum roughly corresponds with the Danishmend Emirate. This Turcoman dynasty ruling in eastern Anatolia was the main rival of the Seljuks of Rum until its conquest by Sultan Kiliç Arslan II in 1174 (the same Seljuk ruler who beats the Byzantines at Myriokephalon in 1176). Danishmend territory approximately covered the ancient region of Cappadocia; Britannica says about them:
Danishmend dynasty
Also spelled Danismend , also called Danishmendid Turkmen dynasty that ruled in the Sivas-Kayseri-Malatya-Kastamonu region of central and northeastern Anatolia from about 1071 to 1178.
Danishmend (Danismend), founder of the dynasty, first appeared in Anatolia as a gazi (warrior for the faith of Islam) during a period of confusion that followed the death of the Seljuq sultan Sulayman ibn Qutalmïsh in 1086. In 1102 Danishmend took Malatya, but when he died in 1104, the city was captured by the Seljuq sultan Qïlïj Arslan.
Danishmend's son and successor, Gazi, intervened in dynastic struggles among the sons of Qïlïj Arslan and helped Mas'ud seize power in 1116. Gazi then captured Malatya, Ankara, Kayseri, and Kastamonu from Mas'ud's rivals (1127). Finally in 1133 Gazi recaptured Kastamonu from the Byzantine emperor John II Comnenus, who had taken it the previous year. The caliph al-Mustarshid and Sanjar, the Seljuq sultan of Iraq-Iran, rewarded Gazi for his victories over the Christians by granting him the title of malik (king). Gazi died, however, in 1134, and his son Mehmed (Muhammad) took the title instead.
When Mehmed died (1142), the Danishmend territory was divided among his two brothers—Yagibasan (Yaghibasan) in Sivas and 'Ayn ad-Dawlah in Malatya-Elbistan—and his son Dhu an-Nun in Kayseri. After Yagibasan's death (1164), the Seljuq sultan Qïlïj Arslan II intervened repeatedly in the affairs of the Sivas and Kayseri branches and finally invaded Danishmend territory; but he was stopped by Dhu an-Nun's father-in-law, Nureddin of Mosul. Nureddin died in 1174, however, and Qïlïj was able to take Sivas, the Yesil Irmak (Iris) valley, Tokat, and Amasya (1175), and Dhu an-Nun was slain. The Malatya branch came under Seljuq control in 1178, thus marking the end of the Danishmend dynasty.
Danishmend, the first ruler, is the hero of an oral epic tradition, the Danishmendname, which first appeared in written form about 1245.
Well the only way to represent that would be the addition of two more provinces to the area namely Sinope and Antalya.
https://img527.imageshack.us/img527/...alyaie4.th.jpg
Rhodes is Antalya and Cyrenacia is used for Sinope.
Caravel
Turning Rhodes into Antalya makes a lot of sense to me (as said before, Rhodes is a bit of an oddity unless there is a Hospitaller faction, and even then it's not as though they could realistically forge a land empire). Sinope would be good too if you have the provinces for it - but I guess you could go with one and not both if things get really tight.
It's all looking very interesting and a whole lot more historically accurate.:2thumbsup:
I've also been thinking that this dead zones idea adds a nice new dimension.
Sinope and Antalya are in, the screen shot in my last post is from a working lukupmap2. The neighbours data is set with provinces connecting properly, the ports, origins and castles are still all over the place for the changed provinces, apart from Sinope which is done. The borderinfo is next. Some suggested border crossing terrain based on the map above would be helpful ("armies meeting here" conditions).Quote:
Originally Posted by western
:bow:
This may potentially be the best Anatolia yet for MTW.
This might help out with the borders:
http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/pubs/Pub04...es/Figure1.jpg
And some more specifics to put a little colour:
Fortresses of Trebizond:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...%3Den%26sa%3DN
Trebizond:
http://members.tripod.com/romeartlover/Trebison.html
Constantinople & Bosporous:
http://www.ephesusguides.com/files/b...20istanbul.jpg
Various places (very good landscape pictures - comments in czeck that i can't read):
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...%3D1%26hl%3Den
Desertland in eastern Anatolia:
http://www.denizt.com/interests/phot...tolia_hill.jpg
Many Thanks
Noir
Caravel
Quote re Trebizond (which initially included Sinope): "A high range of mountains separate this coastal strip from the Anatolian tableland and this fact helped in maintaining the area under the rule of the Byzantine Empire, even when most of western and central Anatolia had been conquered by the Seljuks and other invaders coming from the east."
Crudely, Anatolia has the Pontic mountain chain running west-east in the north, and the Taurus west-east in the south (swinging north-east at the edge of lesser armenia), with a high tableland in-between, increasingly hilly as you go east. So the effect we want is of a natural division into 2 coastal strips and an interior, with lesser Armenia pretty much encirled by mountains apart from outlets to Antalya and Antioch. You might therefore have
Trebizond to Rum, Armenia mountain
Trebizond to Georgia hilly
Trebizond to Sinope flat
Sinope to Rum, Nicaea hilly
Antalya to Konya hilly
Konya to Lesser Armenia mountain
Rum to Lesser Armenia mountain
Antalya to Lesser Armenia flat
I have to say I would make the vast majority of borders "no river" - how many battles in history actually consisted of one army trying to force its way across a bridge (not a river) in the immediate presence of the main body of the enemy?:thumbsdown: Bridge battles to me are one of the least realistic features of MTW, but luckily it is easy to control their frequency.
Hope that's helpful and you're not looking for something different.
Thanks Noir and western, that's the info I was looking for. Should have some border info done later, and on to Greece at the weekend. If you've any ideas for Greece get them in now in time for tomorrow. :thumbsup:
:bow:
You can make ideally 3 provinces out of Greece:
Macedonia (bulky land adjacent Thrace with Thessalonica capital)
Epirus (strip coastal on the Adriatic with Dyrrachium capital)
Achaia/Moreas/Mystras (Thessali, Rumeli and the Peloponese with potential capitals: Athens, Thebes or Mystras)
If two provnces is what you want, then i would split it into a north south affair (Macedonia&Epirus - Achaia/Moreas/Mystras) with the Adriatic coast link contained in the Northern one. This is awkard unfortunately as you would be having only one port either in the north aegean or in the Ionian, but better than having Greece as 1 province in any case.
Crete is better off as an independent province/island (with a landbridge connection to the mainland IMO) to represent the Aegean islands and their strategic position as naval bases IMO. It can be potentially merged with the Southern Greece province as an alternative in order to still get 3 provinces out of the mainland Greece split. You'll see when you finish all the map what suits better.
Unfortunately in my experience the Total number of provinces is not enough to represent all areas as vigorously you did with Asia Minor. Compromises will need to be made - but that will come later and perhaps better after playtesting.
Many Thanks
Noir
Well the area between Morocco, Georgia and Constantinople has merely been redistributed. Provinces have been moved, stretched, shrunk and altered but no new provinces have been added as yet. Rhodes, Arabia and Cyrenacia have been simply moved and used elsewhere in that region. This leaves me with the extra provinces to play with as well as some others that could be removed such as Finland, Malta and Switzerland. Malta I've mentioned previously but Finland could perhaps be repositioned as another province, such as Polovtsia south of Kiev on the black sea coast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir
Caravel, the new Anatolian peninsula looks great. I would only suggest a minor change: extend Konya as far as Sinope to avoid the border between Nicaea and Ankara.
I am looking forward to seeing your next task, Greece. :2thumbsup:
Nice work Caravel. On Greece, I have read somewhere that Constantinople was difficult to invade from the north. As it stands, the Hungarians need only take Bulgaria to invade Constantinople, yet the self same Bulgarians had repeated troubles invading Constantinope from the north. My suggestion then is to extend Thrace (or Macedonia, depending on which your using) to cover Constantinople from invasions from Bulgaria. I don't know how accurate this would be, I'm looking for my sources as of right now.
Caravel, I have a slightly OT question: With the removal of Arabia, what happened to the hero general (I can never remember his name) who normally starts there in the Early period? Did you move him to another province, or has he been deleted entirely? (I ask because he's the only decent general the Eggies have in the very beginning of the game.) :book:
I can see exactly what you mean and it makes a lot of sense I'll get on to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Belisario
There is nothing we can do terrain wise, as with autocalced battles, hills and bridges have no effect AFAIK, so Constantinople would fall just as easily to an invasion from the west despite this. The extension of the current Greece province to cover it would not be accurate, and the creation of the new provinces within Greece will need to give parts of the north of the province to Constantinople province anyway, making it bigger. The only way I can see around this is to create a separate Constantinople province within Thrace as has been mentioned before, this would of course take up yet another much needed province, and would also involve the creation of a minimap which is just not feasible as everyone would have to download a file of nearly 37MB for the map graphics. The lukupmap is not such a problem as it is only a 700KB file. This is why I'd rather not have to get into cosmetic alterations of the map texture.Quote:
Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
The gentleman, Al-Afdal Shahinshah, and his trusty camels have been relocated to Damascus (which is really ID_ARABIA anyway). :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
:2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caravel
Apropos of nothing: No word on my replacement power supply yet. I hope to hear from my friend over the weekend, but it still might be another week. :sweatdrop:
Not to rush you, but what are your plans for the Italian and Iberian Pennisulas? The British Isles? Central Europe and Scandinavia? Russian Steppes? I admire your work so far, just wondering though what might happen to those regions.
Italy I'm still looking into. The problem there is the sheer number of provinces that would need to be added. I'm thinking that Naples needs to be split at the least.Quote:
Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
Iberia Belisario was working on last I heard, though I'm not sure if he's still on it? If needs be he can send me a rough draft (a jpg of only the region showing roughly where the borders would be) and I can do the actual work drawing the borders and converting the image etc.
The British Isles I wasn't planning to change. A landbridge between Ireland and Wales (Wales because otherwise the only route would be through Scotland which would be unrealistic) and that's about it. No matter how the provinces are altered there it would be still in the same format.
Scandinavia I'm still not sure about. I may add the southern tip of Sweden to Denmark and that's it. I'm open to opinion on that one.
The Steppe region I'm ok with so far. All of the provinces (Smolensk, Ryazan, Pereyaslavl etc) are all there. The only changes I would make would be around the south, mainly Kiev and Khazar perhaps.
For the rest of central and Western Europe I'm also open to opinion.
Caravel
You invited ideas:idea2: Here are a bundle - as you know, I think a good map adds more value than just about anything.
There are so many possibilities that I suggest a couple of tests
- was the proposed province significant historically over a long period
- does it add to gameplay
Supporting these tests
- it's good if new provinces make it harder to use teleporting sea power all over the map and conquer by sea what were in reality large inland provinces
- additional provinces in the border zones between culture areas/homelands are also good, so it is harder to leap from central France for example to the heart of the HRE or Castile-Leon
Applying those rules of thumb
- your proposal to split Naples is essential - S. Italy was a border zone, a hard nut to crack by seaborne invasion, and a major factor first in Norman struggles against Empire, Papacy and Byzantium, then in the conflict between Aragon and Anjou
- Dalmatian coast to me is another goodie. This was an area of consistent struggle, changing hands between Italy, Byzantines, Turks and Hungary in our period. Adding it would make Croatia and Serbia conquerable only by land, which is right
- I would split Aquitaine into Guyenne and Poitou - again all tests apply. Key area, hard to master
- movement between Burgundy and Italy shouldn't be possible. I would put Savoy in between (also shielding Milan from France). The Count of Savoy was nicknamed "the gatekeeper of Italy"
- Poland really needs splitting into Lesser Poland (Cracow) and Greater (Posen). It was very fragmented at this period, and the German drang nach osten should be more demanding than a pounce on a single province
- I would add Samogitia between Livonia and Prussia. Again, there was prolonged conflict here, and adding removes absurdity of the forest expanses of Lithuania being conquered by a coastal landing
- Flanders is way too big. This was the main conflict zone between HRE, France, Burgundy (plus some interest from England). I would split out Holland-Brabant as a separate province - maybe even 2.
- doing something to S. Russia so you can't conquer the Steppe from the sea would make sense
Those are my favourites (speaking only of Europe). Other possibles with a strong historical basis and some gameplay advantage (but less than above):
- split Pomerania into E and West
- split Lorraine into Upper and Lower
- split Provence into County (coastal - linked to Aragonese) and Marquessate (inland)
- split Denmark into mainland and islands
- split Burgundy into Duchy (French) and County (Imperial - later became Franche Comte).
Can add more detail about any of these if that helps.
On the other side, I personally wonder about taking out Norway and Sweden. What could realistically happen there apart from Denmark v rebels? Anyway Sweden without Finland doesn't make a lot of sense.
Look forward to your views:beam:
Some very good ideas there for provinces, I will definitely be looking into some of those.
:bow:
I think France and Iberia need some province splits, althrough in France I'd split both southern provinces (Provence and ...? I can't remember the name of the Western one, but I´d make it into Brittany and, uhm, The Gascogne, or whatever). Likewise, in Iberia I´d split Castile into a northern seaside and a southern inland province, and Cordoba in two (not sure exactly how)Quote:
Those are my favourites (speaking only of Europe). Other possibles with a strong historical basis and some gameplay advantage (but less than above):
- split Pomerania into E and West
- split Lorraine into Upper and Lower
- split Provence into County (coastal - linked to Aragonese) and Marquessate (inland)
- split Denmark into mainland and islands
- split Burgundy into Duchy (French) and County (Imperial - later became Franche Comte).
Also, I don´t remember if it was in this particular thread, but I made the experiment of messing with the starting rebel troops in "historically independent kingdoms during the Middle Ages". In Trebizond it worked just fine: If you jump to Constantinople, the rebel AI moves in the PKT that I gave it (which makes sense, in the context of "trying to reclaim the throne". althrough the new map alteration would make this part moot). I did not increase it's rebelliousness factor past 4, althrough I considered experimenting with that, as it would make Byzantium too hard, as what happened with my Iberian tweakings (see below)
Increasing the garrison of Navarre, however, seems to have made Castile very unstable, and they got wiped by the almohads rather early. I´m not profficient about this last one, through, I need to test it playing in the local area. My hypothesis (not verified) is that the high rebellion rate I added to that particular province, and the big rebel army, makes Castile commit too many troops to keeping peace there, and that afterwards, the Almos move north, rout the king out of Castile, and thus split the kingdom into Navarre and Leon, with huge rebellions and not a whole lot of economy or base armies in either.
Actually, thats why I play with a hampered rebel faction AI. The actual factions play much better, and war is signifgantly more common, as the rebel lands are quickly gobbled up.
P.S. - In one of my games, the Spanish and Almos made peace for 60 odd years, and the Almo bull rushed the egyptians from behind as they were attacking hungary. It was the fastest collapse of an empire, and the most violent too (Not a single province remianed under egyptian control).
My Iberian map:
https://img501.imageshack.us/img501/...eriakm1.th.jpg
I have added four new provinces (Catalonia, Murcia, Algarve, and Toledo) and made some border corrections (notably Valencia). The instability of the Muslim-Christian frontier makes the Iberian peninsula a hard work camp. I have tried to make a representative map of the period.
If you want I can send you a high quality image of my Iberian map ready to use (copy and paste).
I have been thinking about other regions but the province limit is frustrating.
That's a sweet map, Belisario. :thumbsup:
Unfortunately, I'm forced to agree that the province limit is probably going to prevent adding all the new regions you've put in. Indeed, if the only new provinces we added were these plus those proposed in the Middle East section of the map, I'm pretty sure that alone would max out the province limit. And we still don't know for sure where else we're going to want to add new provinces, either. No matter what we do, some regions will almost certainly have to be sacrificed.
I am agree with you, Martok.
I confess that I have thought about the possibility of new maps which represent specific scenarios: Reconquista (in this case we have the mod of the Celtibero Ramiro el Monje -MonkWarrior-), Crusades, Baltic Crusades, 100YW, Byzantium... There are multiple possibilities for these mods, but they need a lot of work (and time!).
Nice map Belisario:2thumbsup:
I've said it before and I say it again. Death to Norway, Sweden and Finland:smash: They could go from the game with a gain to realism and make it possible to add provinces which were genuinely contested in this period.
A 12 province (out of 107) Iberia does look a shade generous though (especially if it means a 1 province Morocco, when Morocco was the driver for so much Spanish action). In gameplay (not historical) terms, if you had to reduce I would merge Granada and Murcia first of all.
A superb map, I am in full support of it. I don't think it is overdoing it either. It can only enhance gameplay, not impact it. If there are provinces available I have no problem with adding that region exactly as it is.
Morocco I have as two provinces - Marrakech and Fes. There are also Algeria and Tunisia which are more than enough provinces for a region, that like Britain will be cut off by sea (due to the removal of Cyrenacia and the final (proposed) removal of the landbriges between Spain and Morocco). I plan to turn Marrakech into a rich province with good starting fortifications. The Moors losing spain will not mean the loss of the campaign.
:bow:
At least one problem with removing those provinces is that it would hurt the Danes and Novgorod, as they would then have fewer provinces into which they could expand. (In fact, the Danes would basically have no avenue for nearby expansion unless they wanted to tackle the HRE immediately!) Also, removing those provinces would greatly reduce the strategic signficance of maintaining naval supremacy in the Skaagerak and Baltic Sea.Quote:
Originally Posted by western
Ah yes, the Novgorod conquest of Sweden, followed by a quick dash to Norway to forestall the English:clown:
It all depends where you stand on the realism debate. If you have a realistic reconquista, seems a bit odd to have these funny goings on in Scandinavia - especially if provinces could be saved and better used. That's the kind of double whammy Caravel got from moving Cyrenaica.
If that means that Danes have to expand into HRE rather than going north - well, that's exactly what Waldemar the Conqueror did. Tough gig, but what a challenge!
I know total realism isn't achievable. But you can keep the possibilities at least bounded to some degree and I think that makes the game better, with some really tough factions. That's just my point of view though. Have to keep telling myself it's only a game:juggle2:
On the whole Sweden/Norway thing Denmark could be expanded to encompass part of southern Sweden, it's trade goods and farming could be improved and infrastructure strengthened if those provinces were removed. At present we have a weak Denmark that never expands in the early period. Invasion of Sweden almost always ends in disaster with the province rebelling creating a larger rebel garrison and the Danes in a worse position than before. Then the heirs start to mature and before you know it, they're in the red and out of the campaign. The Danes should always be a minor type of faction in the campaign, much like Aragon, but they should not be a completely crippled one. The real danger is in imbalancing them altogether which would unleash an unstoppable juggernaut Norse units through the HRE lands and beyond. This should not be a problem if they're still restricted to one province, don't have too much income and the unit prerequisites are properly set.
More accurate would be merge Murcia and Valencia. Both provinces represent the Spanish region of Levante which the Muslims called Sharq al-Andalus. The Almohads came up against serious difficulties in this region, which remained unconquered until the death of its ruler Muhammad ibn Mardanish in 1172.Quote:
Originally Posted by western
Caravel, in what part of the map do you work now?
I'm currently not working on any part of the map. I understood you were working on the Iberian provinces and was awaiting the outcome before proceeding.
The outcome is very good, so perhaps we can incorporate those provinces into the map?
:bow:
Caravel, feel free to use it. This wednesday I will got some free time and I will send you an image of better quality of the map.
Okay I want to jump on this map debate. On the removal of the Scandinavia provinces, I say the following: Kalmer Union. Also, the Danes really do need to expand else where, so I have an Idea. As a comprimise, unite Norway and Sweden, and Finland and Novgorod (the Rus can expand elswhere, their not severly hampered by such a loss). Give the Danes a large navy, which could prompt them to attempt naval invasions, which they happened to be historically good at. This will also bring some extra cash from the occasional line up of ships in the form of trade. Also, eliminate any and all male hiers for them. This gives them at least 16 years in which to expand their economy to be able to actually able to sustain thier royalty. If you want to couter the danish navy so they don't totaly own the seas, Give more ships to the Italians, Byzantines, and Egyptians.