Org Mobile Site
Thread: Least attractive regions in M2TW
Hello!
What would you say are the least interesting regions/cities/castles for you in Medieval 2 Total War? I'm thinking on general terms now... because it's obvious that it differs from faction to faction what regions you would want to control.
Are there any regions you have actually never held before?
PS: I'm not counting regions in the New World here...
I've been playing the game pretty much every week for about a year now, and these are the observations I've made from my games:
- There is only one region I've never attacked or owned before, and that is Stettin (I have no idea why it is so, becuause I've played all the factions around the baltic sea several times).
- There are some provinces I very rarely try to include in my empire, and that is Dongola (unless playing as Egypt), Jeddah, Arguin, Bulgar, Mosul, Bagdad and Inverness (though I always take Inverness when playing as Scotland).
I find most of those have no, or little strategic and/or economic importance to me, so I'd rather just leave them there.
- There are some provinces I sometimes choose not to take in order to stay out of trouble: Ajaccio and Cagliari because every faction in the area seems to want them no matter how good relations they have with the owner. Milan, Sicily, France, Moors and Portugal all seems to always land here. I also find Zagreb to be more resource-draining than gaining due to the fact that Hungary, HRE and Venice never seem to be content until they have secured the Croatian capital within their borders. It's a small settlement, and won't be profitable until later in the game (when I might consider taking it). Playing a muslim faction, my experience tells me that holding on to Constantinople, Antioch or Jerusalem in the end will bring me more headache than anything else (due to the crusades obviously). Holding muslim holy cities as a christian nation isn't a problem, because there are so few jihading factions in the game.
Soo... what are your thoughts on this topic?
What would you say are the least interesting regions/cities/castles for you in Medieval 2 Total War? I'm thinking on general terms now... because it's obvious that it differs from faction to faction what regions you would want to control.
Are there any regions you have actually never held before?
PS: I'm not counting regions in the New World here...
I've been playing the game pretty much every week for about a year now, and these are the observations I've made from my games:
- There is only one region I've never attacked or owned before, and that is Stettin (I have no idea why it is so, becuause I've played all the factions around the baltic sea several times).
- There are some provinces I very rarely try to include in my empire, and that is Dongola (unless playing as Egypt), Jeddah, Arguin, Bulgar, Mosul, Bagdad and Inverness (though I always take Inverness when playing as Scotland).
I find most of those have no, or little strategic and/or economic importance to me, so I'd rather just leave them there.
- There are some provinces I sometimes choose not to take in order to stay out of trouble: Ajaccio and Cagliari because every faction in the area seems to want them no matter how good relations they have with the owner. Milan, Sicily, France, Moors and Portugal all seems to always land here.
I also find Zagreb to be more resource-draining than gaining due to the fact that Hungary, HRE and Venice never seem to be content until they have secured the Croatian capital within their borders. It's a small settlement, and won't be profitable until later in the game (when I might consider taking it). Playing a muslim faction, my experience tells me that holding on to Constantinople, Antioch or Jerusalem in the end will bring me more headache than anything else (due to the crusades obviously). Holding muslim holy cities as a christian nation isn't a problem, because there are so few jihading factions in the game.Soo... what are your thoughts on this topic?
Zagreb is pretty good IMHO, well worth building up to get the huge mining income. It's also roughly halfway between Vienna and the rich cities of Northern Italy, which makes a good economic axis to expand around.
I agree on Baghdad, it's always miles from your capital whoever your playing and is one of the few map-edge cities with a huge population, which means it needs a huge garrison and is more trouble than it's worth to hold.
Stettin is also pretty worthless, as are most of those tiny wooden castle settlements in eastern Europe; it's a pain playing as Poland, you end up with a huge amount of land but no developed castles.
Oslo is also pretty much pointless to take, poor province, remote location, honeypot for English and Scottish invasions and large garrison of tough troops.
In Britannia, I'd say Castletown (Isle of Man) since you will be constantly invaded by any or all of the five factions.
BC has absolutely loads of worthless provinces, it's important not to waste too much time taking them while your enemies build up reinforcements.
I agree on Baghdad, it's always miles from your capital whoever your playing and is one of the few map-edge cities with a huge population, which means it needs a huge garrison and is more trouble than it's worth to hold.
Stettin is also pretty worthless, as are most of those tiny wooden castle settlements in eastern Europe; it's a pain playing as Poland, you end up with a huge amount of land but no developed castles.
Oslo is also pretty much pointless to take, poor province, remote location, honeypot for English and Scottish invasions and large garrison of tough troops.
In Britannia, I'd say Castletown (Isle of Man) since you will be constantly invaded by any or all of the five factions.
BC has absolutely loads of worthless provinces, it's important not to waste too much time taking them while your enemies build up reinforcements.
I tend to avoid Antwerp. As the English, it ends up being the very frontier of my continental holdings and Denmark always attacks it.
But I have to defend Baghdad in here. As the English, I always take Baghdad. It has great resources and is big. Plus, it ends up becoming a tripwire. The Mongols and Timurids tend to spawn there in my games. With ballista/cannon towers and stakes, I can hold Baghdad fairly easy. Even if I can't, I can bleed the Mongols/Timurids and stall them enough to get my other armies over there ASAP. That ends up protecting the crown jewels of Outremer which are Jerusalem and Antioch.
And my favorite reason to hold Baghdad is so I can keep a governor there and recruit elephant mercs.
But I have to defend Baghdad in here. As the English, I always take Baghdad. It has great resources and is big. Plus, it ends up becoming a tripwire. The Mongols and Timurids tend to spawn there in my games. With ballista/cannon towers and stakes, I can hold Baghdad fairly easy. Even if I can't, I can bleed the Mongols/Timurids and stall them enough to get my other armies over there ASAP. That ends up protecting the crown jewels of Outremer which are Jerusalem and Antioch.
And my favorite reason to hold Baghdad is so I can keep a governor there and recruit elephant mercs.
Originally Posted by Privateerkev:
And my favorite reason to hold Baghdad is so I can keep a governor there and recruit elephant mercs.
Nice one! And my favorite reason to hold Baghdad is so I can keep a governor there and recruit elephant mercs.
I actually never have tried Elephants before... I'm a bit turned off by their potential berserk-thingie.
How big are the risks for that compared to the advantages of this sturdy merc.?
Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry:
Zagreb is pretty good IMHO, well worth building up to get the huge mining income. It's also roughly halfway between Vienna and the rich cities of Northern Italy, which makes a good economic axis to expand around
I agree, but only if you can keep it in the center of your empire. As Privateerkev argued on Antwerp, I have the same problem with Zagreb: it always ends up being a frontier-province. And it's not good at being that, due to the small population, and thus little availability of good militia and defensive walls. At least early on, I find it hard to build it up to become profitable (expensive to defend as a frontier city).Zagreb is pretty good IMHO, well worth building up to get the huge mining income. It's also roughly halfway between Vienna and the rich cities of Northern Italy, which makes a good economic axis to expand around
The least attractive places to get for me are...
Inverness - too far from everything.
Oslo - too far from everything.
After that, i'd say it would be all the island provinces such as.. Iraklion and Caligari ..they aren't as usefull to me normally.
Lastly it would have to be the provinces that are far east such as Sarkel.. because they are too far from everything, and unlike the island provinces , you can't use a boat to travel faster
Inverness - too far from everything.
Oslo - too far from everything.
After that, i'd say it would be all the island provinces such as.. Iraklion and Caligari ..they aren't as usefull to me normally.
Lastly it would have to be the provinces that are far east such as Sarkel.. because they are too far from everything, and unlike the island provinces , you can't use a boat to travel faster
Durazzo. I think it grows even slower than Sarkel. 
It has to be Fortaleza... it's just never worth the trouble. I've never found anything there that made it worth the effort and garrison required.
Baghdad has potential as a decent city. And as for Mosul and Jedda, I got a tip for you guys, after gunpowder arrives, BUY THEM. Do not conquer, BUY. Trust me, what you'll pay for the cities is an incredible deal for the garrisons you get. Jedda gets you 8 units of Elephants, and Mosul gets you 8 units of Elephant Artie.
If you buy those cities instead of conquering them, you needn't fear the Timurids, you can have toe-to-toe open field slugfests with them. I had fun taking my 8 Elephant units from Jedda over to the Americas to introduce them to the Aztecs. That, and you can recruit both types of Elephants as mercenaries from Mosul, Baghdad, or Jedda. These provinces are tank factories.
Arguin is worth it just so no one else has it. Good merchant fodder, and if it's in rebel or enemy hands you will make less of them than you would if you owned it.
Baghdad has potential as a decent city. And as for Mosul and Jedda, I got a tip for you guys, after gunpowder arrives, BUY THEM. Do not conquer, BUY. Trust me, what you'll pay for the cities is an incredible deal for the garrisons you get. Jedda gets you 8 units of Elephants, and Mosul gets you 8 units of Elephant Artie.
If you buy those cities instead of conquering them, you needn't fear the Timurids, you can have toe-to-toe open field slugfests with them. I had fun taking my 8 Elephant units from Jedda over to the Americas to introduce them to the Aztecs. That, and you can recruit both types of Elephants as mercenaries from Mosul, Baghdad, or Jedda. These provinces are tank factories.
Arguin is worth it just so no one else has it. Good merchant fodder, and if it's in rebel or enemy hands you will make less of them than you would if you owned it.
IF it's hardest to reach... Arguin followed by Bulgar are most unattractive.
IF it's tiny and and a drain as a border, I'd go with Durazzo.
IF it looks land-locked, small, and dull (no resources on map, barely any land trade, just plain gloomy to look at from the screen) i pick Innsbruck
IF it's tiny and and a drain as a border, I'd go with Durazzo.
IF it looks land-locked, small, and dull (no resources on map, barely any land trade, just plain gloomy to look at from the screen) i pick Innsbruck
Originally Posted by Anonymous II:
Nice one!
I actually never have tried Elephants before... I'm a bit turned off by their potential berserk-thingie.
How big are the risks for that compared to the advantages of this sturdy merc.?
You can keep your elephants behind your lines so they shoot over your men. Or you can keep them on a far flank so they cause enfillade fire down the enemy army's line. Either way, that tends to protect them from getting attacked. Use your Panzerphaunts as counter-battery fire first. They outrange most artillery so you can destroy the pieces before they start firing at your precious elephaunts.Nice one!
I actually never have tried Elephants before... I'm a bit turned off by their potential berserk-thingie.
How big are the risks for that compared to the advantages of this sturdy merc.?
Originally Posted by JCoyote:
It has to be Fortaleza... it's just never worth the trouble. I've never found anything there that made it worth the effort and garrison required.
I have to defend Brazil here. I always take an army, send it south to Timbuktu, swing it west to Arquin, and then have it sit there until "world is round" happens. When it does, I sail that army right over to Brazil. You can immediately recruit enough native mercs to garrison the city. Then sail that army north to help with conquering the Aztecs. Brazil has good trade resources and will pay for itself. Florida and Cuba are far more useless than Brazil but I take them anyways.It has to be Fortaleza... it's just never worth the trouble. I've never found anything there that made it worth the effort and garrison required.
Originally Posted by :
Baghdad has potential as a decent city. And as for Mosul and Jedda, I got a tip for you guys, after gunpowder arrives, BUY THEM. Do not conquer, BUY. Trust me, what you'll pay for the cities is an incredible deal for the garrisons you get. Jedda gets you 8 units of Elephants, and Mosul gets you 8 units of Elephant Artie.
If you buy those cities instead of conquering them, you needn't fear the Timurids, you can have toe-to-toe open field slugfests with them. I had fun taking my 8 Elephant units from Jedda over to the Americas to introduce them to the Aztecs. That, and you can recruit both types of Elephants as mercenaries from Mosul, Baghdad, or Jedda. These provinces are tank factories.
Arguin is worth it just so no one else has it. Good merchant fodder, and if it's in rebel or enemy hands you will make less of them than you would if you owned it.
I never knew that about buying cities. :DBaghdad has potential as a decent city. And as for Mosul and Jedda, I got a tip for you guys, after gunpowder arrives, BUY THEM. Do not conquer, BUY. Trust me, what you'll pay for the cities is an incredible deal for the garrisons you get. Jedda gets you 8 units of Elephants, and Mosul gets you 8 units of Elephant Artie.
If you buy those cities instead of conquering them, you needn't fear the Timurids, you can have toe-to-toe open field slugfests with them. I had fun taking my 8 Elephant units from Jedda over to the Americas to introduce them to the Aztecs. That, and you can recruit both types of Elephants as mercenaries from Mosul, Baghdad, or Jedda. These provinces are tank factories.
Arguin is worth it just so no one else has it. Good merchant fodder, and if it's in rebel or enemy hands you will make less of them than you would if you owned it.
Fortaliza's resources are 1 Timber, 1 Dyes, 1 Iron, 1 Tin, 2 Gold. And no, there isn't a Chocolate, it's just a mirage. For most factions only the Gold are worth putting a Merchant on. Even then, that takes mines set up to get good production. The garrison has to be decent size... it is completely cut off from the rest of the map, help can never get there fast enough. It is the farthest from anything else of any settlement. Decent production on Gold nets around 600-800 each after a Merchant levels up a bit and mines are in, for most factions. So 1600 for the Gold. Putting enough native mercs on to take care of rebel pops... and the initial religious unrest issues... say a dozen... at 155 a turn upkeep each... there goes all the money from the gold and a chunk from the town as well.
Of course you can then build up the town and remove the mercs once you have a militia garrison and the ability to recruit extra as needed. But that's a long way in for anything usable.
I usually just take 4 quality stacks straight to Tenochtitlan. I take enough to do job, head straight to their capitol before starting a fight, then work my way back out. Footholds in the new world take too long to produce anything useful to be worthwhile, better to take what you need, go for the throat of the big dog over there, and hire some local arrow fodder when you arrive.
Of course you can then build up the town and remove the mercs once you have a militia garrison and the ability to recruit extra as needed. But that's a long way in for anything usable.
I usually just take 4 quality stacks straight to Tenochtitlan. I take enough to do job, head straight to their capitol before starting a fight, then work my way back out. Footholds in the new world take too long to produce anything useful to be worthwhile, better to take what you need, go for the throat of the big dog over there, and hire some local arrow fodder when you arrive.
Least attractive region?
Rome.
Too many men in robes.
Rome.
Too many men in robes.
The european castle (at start) provinces never net much for me value wise. Same for all
eastern (russian) steppe areas, to long to get to and by the time everything is going well either
the Tims/Mongols invade or the turn game is over.
Most castle provinces anywhere I find to be mere roadblocks to victory, I dont take them
for strategic or commercial gain but because I have to. (the exception would be a castle
in a strategic location for your faction...which varies)
Any island province is great until its blockaded and you lose all trade, so unless I have
a decent navy I try not to commit too much to them either.
Inverness, Oslo have awful growth and trade compared to other cities in the area. Even a
completely built (all economic/social buildings) major city in either of these provinces
makes little to no profit.
I have to differ with a few of the provinces listed here, namely Constantinople,
Fortaleza,Dongola. Constantinople is the largest and most advanced city at game start, is littered
with resources and is located in perhaps 1 of 2 most strategic locations on the map.
Fortaleza is far from your empire and has gold..lots of it. Fortaleza is totally safe
from attack,it has never been attacked or blockaded anytime I have held it. Also you dont
need more than a few town militia to take it over then use the same militia to garrison.
A few thousand florins and Fortaleza already turns a profit prior to any eco-development, and if you
bring a few merch from the mainland they make 100s per turn off the resource which easily
pays off any investment.. since its safe from attack (no towers needed etc) the investment
is nearly 100% eco-social and thats true of only a handful of provinces in the whole map.
Dongola is the 3rd of the 3 egyptian cities,is close to a river for growth and has resources.
Also safe from attack besides the occasional small rebel force. If you are playing as the Egyptians
it is nearly imperative that you take this province due the other provinces at your borders
being castles and desert they produce next to no income, for financial viability alone
if you are playing as the Egyptian faction Dongola is worth it.
eastern (russian) steppe areas, to long to get to and by the time everything is going well either
the Tims/Mongols invade or the turn game is over.
Most castle provinces anywhere I find to be mere roadblocks to victory, I dont take them
for strategic or commercial gain but because I have to. (the exception would be a castle
in a strategic location for your faction...which varies)
Any island province is great until its blockaded and you lose all trade, so unless I have
a decent navy I try not to commit too much to them either.
Inverness, Oslo have awful growth and trade compared to other cities in the area. Even a
completely built (all economic/social buildings) major city in either of these provinces
makes little to no profit.
I have to differ with a few of the provinces listed here, namely Constantinople,
Fortaleza,Dongola. Constantinople is the largest and most advanced city at game start, is littered
with resources and is located in perhaps 1 of 2 most strategic locations on the map.
Fortaleza is far from your empire and has gold..lots of it. Fortaleza is totally safe
from attack,it has never been attacked or blockaded anytime I have held it. Also you dont
need more than a few town militia to take it over then use the same militia to garrison.
A few thousand florins and Fortaleza already turns a profit prior to any eco-development, and if you
bring a few merch from the mainland they make 100s per turn off the resource which easily
pays off any investment.. since its safe from attack (no towers needed etc) the investment
is nearly 100% eco-social and thats true of only a handful of provinces in the whole map.
Dongola is the 3rd of the 3 egyptian cities,is close to a river for growth and has resources.
Also safe from attack besides the occasional small rebel force. If you are playing as the Egyptians
it is nearly imperative that you take this province due the other provinces at your borders
being castles and desert they produce next to no income, for financial viability alone
if you are playing as the Egyptian faction Dongola is worth it.
Who said Constantinople? Tis probably the most attractive province in my book; huge income, high population and development from start, sits on an excellent strategic chokepoint, held by a relative pushover of a faction and sacking it will give you enough money to power through the rest of the early game with ease. What's not to like?
Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry:
Who said Constantinople? [...] What's not to like?
I think it's being refered to my initial post. I said Constantinople, given that I am playing a muslim faction. Otherwise, Constantinople is, off course, one of the most attractive provinces. I have played Turks several times (probably my favourite faction), and my games with them tend to be a continous war with some 11-12 factions up until the very end of the game after the first crusade onwards if I decide to keep Constantinople.Who said Constantinople? [...] What's not to like?
Don't get me wrong, I like fighting, but it somehow gets too "unrealistic" for me, being at constant war with more than half the factions in the game.
Ah apologies, I missed that, I started from my initial post and read down.
But do you not find as the Turks (or any faction for that matter) that you end up at war with half the map no matter what you do? I always just assumed it was supposed to be like that!
But do you not find as the Turks (or any faction for that matter) that you end up at war with half the map no matter what you do? I always just assumed it was supposed to be like that!
Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry:
But do you not find as the Turks (or any faction for that matter) that you end up at war with half the map no matter what you do? I always just assumed it was supposed to be like that!
Actually no. I'm a builder, or turtle if you want. I also like to build up my cities to become economically very strong (don't like having "idle" settlements in my empire). I conquer the map bit by bit. And try to keep reasonable global reputation. I usually find myself in some war or another all the time throughout the game, but not with everyone at the same time. But do you not find as the Turks (or any faction for that matter) that you end up at war with half the map no matter what you do? I always just assumed it was supposed to be like that!
Some factions tend to attack me for no reason from time to time (like Denmark attacking England and/or Scotland, or HRE attacking Venice, etc.), but this is not a problem when you are powerful and have good reputations. I just send in a diplomat and offer ceasefire for some florins in return. Works everytime. This way, I take them out one by one.You could say I do as much as I can to keep away from "the great war". Being catholic, this is never a problem, cause I just make sure my opponents get in trouble with the pope, whilst I keep perfect relations with the guy in the robe through gifts (corruption in modern terms). Being orthodox isn't a problem either, but muslims (Turks and/or Egypt that is) with lots of crusades against them are doomed to be disliked by every catholic faction in the game, and that I don't like. That's why I keep away from the three provinces mentioned at the top of this thread.
Me
Interesting strategy. I seem to recall in my Turks campaign I snapped up all three and went down the Dread route, spamming assassins and executing prisoners, and then waited for the onslaught. I must say, I've never quite got the hang of turtling, I just find the money from sacking too good to resist and I always seem to end up with all my neighbours attacking me so I'm always expanding somewhere, though I don't quite go in for the insane breakneck blitzing some do.
My least fav provinces to take are the huge north eastern ones. Not just because of the undervelopment/slow growth or the mongols/tims as said earlier but i hate not being able to see everything in the provinces i own. So i spend alot of time finding the best places to put up watch towers. I dont know if anyone else has this problem lol. Seriously you should of seen the amount of watch towers in my Rus campaign lol. To come to think of it I dont think iv ever used a watch tower for there true purpose (if that is there true purpose?) to spy on enemy lands. Only my own.
Originally Posted by St.Jimmy:
My least fav provinces to take are the huge north eastern ones. Not just because of the undervelopment/slow growth or the mongols/tims as said earlier but i hate not being able to see everything in the provinces i own. So i spend alot of time finding the best places to put up watch towers. I dont know if anyone else has this problem lol. Seriously you should of seen the amount of watch towers in my Rus campaign lol. To come to think of it I dont think iv ever used a watch tower for there true purpose (if that is there true purpose?) to spy on enemy lands. Only my own.
My least fav provinces to take are the huge north eastern ones. Not just because of the undervelopment/slow growth or the mongols/tims as said earlier but i hate not being able to see everything in the provinces i own. So i spend alot of time finding the best places to put up watch towers. I dont know if anyone else has this problem lol. Seriously you should of seen the amount of watch towers in my Rus campaign lol. To come to think of it I dont think iv ever used a watch tower for there true purpose (if that is there true purpose?) to spy on enemy lands. Only my own.
Early on, setting up watchtowers can be a pain in the butt. It takes time to be able to see your entire province, and it will also cost relatively lots of florins (every florin counts early on). I think I had six watchtowers in Sarkel in my latest Turks-campaign.
For me, the "true" purpose of watchtowers is being able to see the whereabouts of enemy troops and/or foreign agents within my province.
I would have to cast my vote for the eastern steppe provinces for all the reasons St. Jimmy stated. They have incredibly slow growth, the spawning ground of Timerids and Mongols, and most importantly, are huge. This makes them bad troop and money producing factories. The only good thing about them is your ability to see an enemy coming because the provinces are so large, yet this is counter balanced by how far you have to travel to keep it rebel free.
I tried a campaign in SS as the Cumans, and only lasted 10 or so turns because of how large and lowly populated the provinces were. I didn’t even have all the watchtowers up when I quite. Perhaps I should have packed up everything and migrated across the map.
Anonymous II, I play my campaigns exactly like you. Keep a good rep, tech up and take one enemy out at a time. I feel as though this is a more realistic approach to the game. Also, I found in SS where the diplomacy works better, playing in such a manner is an advantage because of the AI's ability to spam decent stacks, making it difficult to fight more than two factions.
I tried a campaign in SS as the Cumans, and only lasted 10 or so turns because of how large and lowly populated the provinces were. I didn’t even have all the watchtowers up when I quite. Perhaps I should have packed up everything and migrated across the map.
Anonymous II, I play my campaigns exactly like you. Keep a good rep, tech up and take one enemy out at a time. I feel as though this is a more realistic approach to the game. Also, I found in SS where the diplomacy works better, playing in such a manner is an advantage because of the AI's ability to spam decent stacks, making it difficult to fight more than two factions.
that small rebel town near one of the byzantine strating towns. takes for ever to glow.then if you take it . will soon be at war with one or 2 new enemys. not worth keeping a lot of troops in there. becurse it will get attack offen,and makes no were near the money you would need to pay for the troops,that are needed to keep it safe.
city does make a good money maker later in the game.only good thing about it befor it strats to glow in to a big town. is you can offen sell it to the ai for a bit of money.
city does make a good money maker later in the game.only good thing about it befor it strats to glow in to a big town. is you can offen sell it to the ai for a bit of money.
Yeah, Durazzo is a pretty bad settlement. Particularly, because alot of factions seem to want it for some strange reason. In my Sicily Campaigns, I always ignore the councile of nobles mission to secure the town. A point in its favor, it is a good lanch pad into Greece or Naples.
Durazzo is a gift for the Pope. You can make the Pope very happy when you lift a few sieges from their new settlements.
Paris is surprisingly poor at producing a decent income. If you convert Metz to a city it will shortly surpass Paris in income and not much after that in population. Frankfurt never grows much either; certainly not as much as Vienna. Cairo is amazingly poor at producing florins unless you conquer Dongala and convert it to a city and take Jedda and improve it. Aguin and Bulgar are a waste of time and resources as is Timbuktu unless you need to eliminate the Moors or want to exploit by stacking merchants with a unit on the 2 gold resources there. Caen isn't much unless you convert it to a city; with Angers next door who needs another fortress in the neighborhood? (Same with Bordeaux) Oslo and Inverness are good places to give to the Pope (unless you are the Scots). Alpo (that miserable little town north of Damascus) is such a backwater boondock of a place by the time a western power can take it that it takes until after the Mongols are "history" until it is a large city.
I think Zageb is a great city. It is very strategically located. Lots of factions have it in their "to conquer list" so you can get them to be the aggressor easily and have the fun if you want of defending an assault and destroying the enemy with glee. Zagreb can grow rapidly in population and makes considerable geld. If you recruit merchants there it is a relatively short hop over to the gold mine in the Balkans and to the silk near Constantinople.
I think Zageb is a great city. It is very strategically located. Lots of factions have it in their "to conquer list" so you can get them to be the aggressor easily and have the fun if you want of defending an assault and destroying the enemy with glee. Zagreb can grow rapidly in population and makes considerable geld. If you recruit merchants there it is a relatively short hop over to the gold mine in the Balkans and to the silk near Constantinople.
Helsinki for every faction besides Russia, Dublin for every faction, Arguin for every faction. Better to have them given to the pope (OR A VASSAL) so that you can get the foreign trade bonus.
I like Dongola because of the resources and ease of getting there, and to boost Cairo. I like the easternmost provinces because those are Mongol battle zones. You're going to end up there evenutally, might as well prepare some defenses!
I like Dongola because of the resources and ease of getting there, and to boost Cairo. I like the easternmost provinces because those are Mongol battle zones. You're going to end up there evenutally, might as well prepare some defenses!
Arguin is pretty solid as long as you don't keep much of a garrison there ( no need to anyway) the resources for merchants are nice. even the pope occasionally pop a few merchants to acquire you :(
It sucks that the port there doesn't work though, so unhistorical. the Moors traded along the west african coast all the time, i think it might have been an unintentional bug . if the port worked their income would be very solid (though they would then require a more reasonable garrison from potential sea strikes
most of the north east stepp is garbage in vinilla.
It sucks that the port there doesn't work though, so unhistorical. the Moors traded along the west african coast all the time, i think it might have been an unintentional bug . if the port worked their income would be very solid (though they would then require a more reasonable garrison from potential sea strikes
most of the north east stepp is garbage in vinilla.
Originally Posted by RollingWave:
It sucks that the port there doesn't work though, so unhistorical. the Moors traded along the west african coast all the time, i think it might have been an unintentional bug.
Well, it actually "works", but not until the seafaring carracks are available.It sucks that the port there doesn't work though, so unhistorical. the Moors traded along the west african coast all the time, i think it might have been an unintentional bug.
I'm not so sure if it's an "unintentional bug", because, if that port was open from the start, Timbuktu would be too easy to conquer early on without any warfare. This could, off course have been fixed by letting Moors own Arguin, or having Mali as a faction with Timbuktu as capital.
I personaly dislike the far eastern provinces as well, primarily due to the underdevelopment and unnecesarily large spaces, even though strategically it is pretty handy to have...assuming you have enough scouts/watchtowers of course. Since I like playing as the Teutonic Order, that tends to be somwhat of a pain in the backside.I personaly prefer the German provinces, as they tend to be in the center of attention, hahaha.
Durazzo is a horrible region. It's basically an empty wasteland with almost no potential. when capturing it, i get no $ for sacking or exterminating it and only 2$ for occupying. Is that a joke??!!?? the only usefulness for durazzo is playing as venice, take the city and give it to the pope as a buffer to protect u from the byzantines. Playing as Sicily, i avoid missions to take durrazo and id always launch an invasion of the byzantines directly from italy rather than via durazzo. Even if the byz take it, i save it for last since without the other wealthy provinces, its just a matter of time till theyfall with only durazzo.
That's what happens if you take it early. Its a 400 people settlement with low farming level.
Let the AI take it and build it up as they get a bonus to growth.
Let the AI take it and build it up as they get a bonus to growth.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO