Re: Age of Vikings and Fanatics: Total war
I'm still a little dubious about the starting date. Going as far as 911 is a little too much in my opinion. The fact that Normandy didn't exist until 911 is a minor inaccuracy if the mod starts in say ~880 AD or after - at least compared to the inaccuracies caused by AI and game mechanics. However, Normandy is probably too far out of the time frame in the 843 AD, so therefore I agree the starting date should be slighly later, but not be moved as far as to 911 AD. If you can find an interesting date around 850-900 that would make sense to have as a starting date, I'd like that.
Some replies to your list of reasons:
1-3. The lack of unity for the Scandinavian factions is imo a bonus, as it gives them a challenging start. Regarding not yet founded settlements, I see that as a minor problem if they were historically founded shortly after the starting date. Some approximations have to be done with the starting situation, or it'll pay back as a more inaccurate situation later in the game. I'm of the opinion that things that happened shorter than 50 years after the starting date aren't necessarily bad to have included from start.
Re AI not being able to send fleets, I've actually seen use of fleets from several AI factions in vanilla R:TW. One of the tricks is to have some rebel territories up for grabs in the British isles area, another trick, that could be relevant for the Danes, would be to have them own one province in the British isles from start - that'll make them want to reinforce their hold there.
4-7 The reason why I wanted scots, irish, welsh and saxons despite their inferior military strength compared to for example Byzantines and French in this period, was because a. gameplay-wise it's fun to have some really weak factions mixed with the stronger in order to grant a challenge to better players, b. the focus was on British isles. Even though Welsh were weak and mostly not united, I like the idea of having the ability to play them.
8 Normandy - I agree 843 was a bit too early. A compromise between 843 and 911 would be the best imo.
9 Rus - A strong Rus gives a strange balance imo. AI will expand far too quickly and perhaps also try to attack Scandinavia, which will then probably lose. Having a small Novgorod culture centered mostly around Novgorod will probably work better with AI, and make them more challenging to play. Still, they'll be relatively strong compared to the Swedish who are by then not united, and the Danes and Norwegians will prefer moving west so the Rus will be weak but still not likely to be conquered but instead grow steadily through the game. I think that's a better reflection of them - a growing empire in the 9th century than an overpowered dynasty (that will tend to conquer too much land) in the 10th century.
10-12 Magyars, Khazars, Bulgars religions. I explained this above, the magyar conversion however being too late to have from start if we start in 843 AD. Adding a conversion event, if that's at all possible, would solve all this. If we move the starting date to my newly suggested ~880 AD we'd still obtain the best results game mechanics-wise by letting Bulgars be orthodox, Magyars be pagan and Khazars be jewish. Around 880 AD I also believe Hungary have moved further into the northern Balkans area than in 843 AD. Having them as a too strong power from start would probalby upset balance.
13 Poles, the faciton limit can't allow including the Poles. Also, the first Polish kingdom fell pretty quickly, so Polish can't be in the mod, no matter what time we choose. Even though they were more important than the Welsh, I'm afraid I can't accept removing the Welsh, due to the Viking focus. I've already removed Mercians and Northumbrians among others up there.
14-16 Muslim States - I believe there are two choices for around 843 and 880: Al Andalus + Abbassids, or Fatimids + Abbassids. If we move far forward Abbassids would be Mamluks. I think I prefer Al Andalus + Abbassids, but it's just a matter of taste. I actually like having a "Spanish" Asturia too, just because they started in a hard position and they'd be fun to play. Besides, most muslim factions would have a similar fighting styles in many ways, so including some Iberian peninsula catholic faction would add variety.
17 Italians - After looking at those maps I've decided to replace Lombards with Lotharingia. Lotharingia will have little control and high unrest etc. in their northern provinces but good strength in modern northern Italy. That will be an accurate depiction of the decline and fall of the middle part of the Frankish empire.
18 Byzantines - I actually prefer having the Byzantines as a weak but rising power, for balance reasons. After all they already have the impregnable Constantinople from start. I know about the Iconoclasm and heretics etc., but 843 AD was the end of some of these problems and my sources claim it's approximately after 843 AD that the Byzantines enter their "golden age".
21 Rome - I'll make the pope pretty weak in the mod. "If you're stuck woth the Senate-Family relationship I suppose you can make the Julii France, Brutii Germany and Scipii Italy in which case they won't attack each other (which is not historically accurate) and the conquest of Rome is equivalent to the same event in RTW" - Yes, that's probably what I'd do.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by The Apostate
:
. So, in conclusion, I'll make lists 2 and 3 now and post them below. Province list has already been posted above this post (I'll edit it as updates are made).
Re: Age of Vikings and Fanatics: Total war
Bookmarks