Latest version :
Approximately 80 provinces. Any input would be nice
Provinces/settlements names will be up tomorrow. Now it's time to get some alcohol and to get drunk
Aquitaine is still pretty big... I hate to be a jerk about it, but it's surrounded by so many small regions...
I also think there should more, smaller German provinces.
cant a bit more of greenland be added this is a game about vikings and althogh they diddn't have a big community there it would still be cool if there was a bit more of it
"It is not so much that we need to be taken out of exile. It is that the exile must be taken out of us."- Lubavitcher Rebbe
"Its a great mitzva to be happy always" Rebbe Nachman of Breslov
We want moshiach now!!
Ofcourse it wold be cool having more Greenland there, but then we must have a huge area in the atlantic outside Britain and spain with only water.
Allso, the province will probably not be used at all. I don't think any player will bother traveling this far to get a very small village.
And the AI won't tutch it at all i guess..
My best bet is to see what Legio's map looks like when it's finished.
-Skel-
Well, it might be a good place to hide...Originally Posted by skeletor
I think Greenland should be left out of the equation until all the other map-necessities have been finished. If there's still time and room for Greenland, a bonus it could be.
If I were you guys, I'd cut off the map a little bit North of Britain. This would keep the focus on Europe, and the Norwegian and Swedish AI would be forced to look toward Europe, rather than wasting time up North. IMO, I think that a map showing this area would be best.
That's an excellent map, but I'd like to have more action in the North. It's nice to conquer your neighbours fiirst, I think.
Yes, Euratlas maps are trully great. There are one of my sources for the map I made earlier :)
Vikings factions should not waste a lot of time conquering Scandinavia. I think the north of Scandinavia and Finland should not have a lot of Provinces, and be heavily protected by rebel armies, just as eastern russia (so the Varagians and the Khazars don't spend their time conquering empty lands once they've torn apart the Volga Bulghars and the few other organized tribes living here)
the player will probably be able to do conquer the way vikings did at this time in spite of a detailed north. even though northern british isles and scandinavia is presented, the player can leave them alone and do whatever he want - ravish his way down to sahara without care if he wants. the ai is another story, but giving them an agressive nature and setting up some badass starting dimplomacy may make them kick a lot of ass.Originally Posted by Meneldil
edit:
btw my opinion on greenland is waste of time and space.
Should they necessarily kick more ass than the other factions, though? Not everyone can dig the Northmen.
Like I said, though; more than other factions? I'm sure they'll be a tough opponent and will have some sweet units, but none of the factions will be pushovers.
(Have you been drinking?)
nah no pushovers. I just feel they should be agressive so we don't have defensive and scared vikings. actually it's not that important to me, so I'll give the torch to someone more competent on history. I'm just defending number of provinces.Originally Posted by NeonGod
haha! no... just lost my pills down in the sink, that's allOriginally Posted by NeonGod
I think that more provinces are good. I hate big ones..
If I could synthesize a Kool-Aid Man saying "Oh no" for you, I would.
LOL
Imo (and i have been drinking :p) the vikings should start with some really misplaced armys to be the pain in the ass they were. Not huge conqering armys, but small bands of them in England, Portugal, Italy and france. This ofcource needs alot of playtesting, but it wold probably be alot of fun.
They wold never in any case be able to hold on any provinces in the south, but as a player you wold be able to loot southeuropean citys (realistic) and if you play one of the other factions you should start with armys facing the obvious borders, and be forced to deal with them in yous unprotected "backdoor (realistic).
The byzantine/muslim/khazar armys were huge organized dreadnoughts, batteling out huge battles compared to the northern kingdoms. And they should, by setting economy/sterting armys/diplomacy/technology/personality be forced to focus on huge battles among eachother, and then being vulnerable for smaller attacks away from their fronts. (if possibele)
This is just my oppinion, but for all offencive factoins of the time, having armys spread way past their borders wold make the campaigns very interesting.
Ofcource, small raidingpartys shouldnt stand a chance against any of the factions main armys. But having vikings all over Europe (specially in britain) and muslims penetrating in Byzantine areas, Franks penetrating Al-Andalus areas, aso. wold be very realistic.
-Skel-
The problem with that is that these raiding parties weren't under the same kind of central leadership that will be present once the player takes over. If these small viking armies were to be Rebels, though, I think that it would make a nice touch.
Originally Posted by skeletor
Well, as far as I know, a raiding army far away from its faction's lands will just try to go retreat to its cities, and won't raid anything. If you want these raiding armies to attack britain/france/whatever, you'll have to give them a settlement in these regions (which isn't un-historical), or to use command scripts such as "attack 'xxxxx' settlement".
Edit : Or as Neon God said, make these armies rebels, and everything will be fine I think :)
1 - Aquitaine - Limoges
2 - Gascogne - Bordeaux
3 - Brittany - Rennes
4 - Neustria/Maine/Anjou - Orléans (could be replaced by Le Mans or Angers)
5 - Septimania - Montpellier (could be replaced by Narbonnes)
6 - Provence - Marseilles
7 - Burgundy - Besancon
8 - France - Paris
9 - Flanders - Boulogne
10 - Upper Normandy - Rouen
11 - Lower Normandy - Avranches
12 - Spanish March - Barcelona
13 - Navarre - Pamplona
14 - Castilla - Burgos
15 - Leon - Oviedo (could be remplaced by Leon -the city)
16 - Gallicia - Oporto (could be replaced by Santiago de Compostela)
17 - Toulouse - Toulouse
18 - Badajoz - Badajoz
19 - Toledo - Toledo
20 - Zaragoza - Zaragoza
21 - Valencia - Valencia (I don't know if this place was an independant Emirate or part of Cordoba during the 9th century)
22 - Almeria - Almeria
23 - Granada - Granada
24 - Cordova - Cordova
25 - Sevilla - Sevilla
26 - Novgorod - Novgorod
27 - Polotsk - Polotsk
28 - Smolensk - Smolensk
29 - Rostov-Suzdal - Rostov (could be replaced be either Vladimir or Suzdal)
30 - Kiev - Kiev
31 - Pereiaslav - Pereiaslav
32 - Chernihiv - Ryazan
33 - Volhynia - Brest
34 - Galich - Galich
35 - Estonia ? - ???
36 - Livonia ? - ???
37 - Lithuania - ???
38 - Prussia - ???
39 - Pomerania - Kolberg
40 - Mazovia - Plock
41 - Chrobatia - Cracow
42 - Polania - Posen
43 - Friesland - Utrecht
44 - Ripuaria (could be Upper Lorraine/Lotharingia) - Aix la Chapelle
45 - Moselle (could be Lower Lorraine/Lotharingia) - Strasburg
46 - Liguria - Genoa
47 - Tuscany - Florence (Pisa ?)
48 - States of the Church - Roma
49 - Spoleto - Spoleto
50 - Venetia - Venice
51 - Friuli - Aquileia
52 - Croatia - Sissek
53 - Servia - ???
54 - Lombardy - Milan
55 - Alemannia - Zurich
56 - Franconia - Frankfort
57 - Saxonnia - Bremen
58 - Transalbingia - Hamburg
59 - March of the Billungs - Oldenburg
60 - NordMark - Brandenburg
61 - OstMark - Juterbog
62 - Bohemia - Prague
63 - Bavaria - Salzburg
64 - Moravia - Olmutz
65 - Silesia - Breslau
66 - Carinthia - Fiesach
67 - Cherson - Cherson
68 - Tmoutarakan - Tmoutarakan
69 - Levédia - ??? (land of the Magyars in 840/850)
70 - Etelköz - ??? (land of the Magyars in 840/850)
71 - Pannonia - Ofen
72 - Avarorum Solitudo - Kaliesa (sp?)
73 - Carpathia - Erlau
74 - Transylvania - ???
75 - Banat - Vidin
76 - Dalmatia - Ragusa
77 - Dyrrachium - Dyrrachium
78 - Nicopolis - Nicopolis
79 - Peloponnesus - Corinthes
80 - Hellas - Athens
81 - Thessalonica - Salonica
82 - Macedonia - Andrianople
83 - Thrace - Constantinople
Coming along nicely, but my comments from before still stand.
Well, I disagree with NeonGod. I don't think province sizes and borders matter that much, the cities are the most important point. If there were not other important cities nearby, then the city inside the province of Aquitaine can be large without any problems. I think vanilla R:TW removes one of the more interesting aspects of the game by placing most cities evenly on the map. Great differences in city density, and province sizes, isn't a bad thing IMO. So please base the map on city importance, rather than feeling forced to make some provinces small enough.
I like the last version of the map, France and Spain are great, and HRE seem fine too IMO.
Under construction...
"In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Norway, there is no separation of church and state." - HoreTore
That's just it, though; it's about having more cities. Plus, having huge territories based off one remote city doesn't make any sense; troops can't make it to the corners of the region, and you can't even see what's going on in most of it. In terms of game mechanics, it may not matter much, besides a little devastation in low-fertility areas and the interruption of some trade, but realistically, a region's people would not be inclined to be supported by a city that is simply too far away.Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Edit: Oh, is it only 199 provinces? Hrrrmm. >:-(
Wow! We also get a piece of Greenland on this map. Does this mean we will also have some Inuit rebel units ?
is 80 the limit on provinces?
Well, in this period the control over areas wasn't as complete as it is today, so it's good enough IMO. But that doesn't mean I don't want almost as many cities as possible, just that I don't want them to be chosen based on location, but based on importance. I support trying to get as close to 199 cities/provinces as possible.Originally Posted by NeonGod
Under construction...
"In countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Norway, there is no separation of church and state." - HoreTore
Control of the area was pretty tight, though, simply on the grounds that it needed to be. Bandits were common things, and the longer the roads were, the bigger of a problem it was for common folk to make it to the cities. Even if only for trade purposes, big provinces in populated areas really don't make sense.Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
Bookmarks