Campaign map overview (picture)

[Gampie]

Over at TWC, nodey made a very nice looking map with all the cities and factions of the Grand Campaign. It is based on a beta screenshot ( http://www.g4mers.com/images/previews/shot_71_499.jpg ). The map was enlarged and then refined. From the demo files a list of cities could be extracted ( http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...5&postcount=17 ) and by researching the net + tips from other fans the cities were placed on the corresponding regions. America is not included though :-P

Enjoy!

(Oh yeah, it's 1080 AD.)



If interested, the thread is at: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=66394

[Aracnid]

cheers that is really interesting

[MSB]

Southern Scotland's capital should be St. Andrews. It was the capital of the Scotish Kingdom till the Scotish Reformation when it's cathedral and castle was burnt down.

[Aracnid]

Yeah but Edinburough was always the bigger city, kinda like how Winchester was captial for a while even though London was bigger and more important.

[Polemists]

Well if it's like Rome I'm not sure Capitals will be that important. I mean in Rome a capital just meant that city started with better buildings and units but if it fell you just moved capitals usually.

[Perplexed]

Finally, a full map for our consideration! Excellent.

Now sorry to everyone if this seems nitpicky but just a few points:

_________________________________________
Western Europe:

- The Scots should control all of Scotland in 1080 except for the very northern tip (which was a possession of Norway).
- Northumbria should not be rebel in 1080, it should be a possession of England.
- The capital of Normandy should be at Rouen, not Caen.
- The capital of Brittany ought to be at either Nantes or Brest (probably Brest).
- The capital of Flanders should be at Ghent.
- France shouldn't control Aquitaine, Provence, or Toulouse. Their control of Anjou is also suspect.
- Portugal, if it should exist at all in 1080, should control neither Lisbon (which was captured from the Muslims in 1147 by a passing fleet en route to the Second Crusade) nor Navarre (wtf?).

Central & Northern Europe:

- Too little of Scandinavia is portrayed; the map should extend further north.
- Stockholm didn't even become a major city until the 13th century at least. The capital of Sweden ought to be Uppsala at this point.
- Again, Oslo did not become the premier city of Norway until the 13th-14th centuries. However, as the map does not seem to extend far enough north to include Bergen, it may have to do for now.
- The capital of what parts of Finland can be seen should be Åbo, as Helsinki wasn't founded until 1550.
- The capital of Prussia should be at Gdansk, not at Thorn, as that city only rose to some prominence under the Teutonic order.
- The capital of Friesland should be Utrecht, not Antwerp, since Antwerp only became important after the 15th century.
- Bern was founded in 1191, so it should not be the capital of Switzerland. I'm not sure what should replace it, but Zurich might be a fair bet.
- The Holy Roman Empire should control more territory to its north and west.

Southern Europe:

- Milan should not have been included as a faction over Genoa in the first place, and it certainly should not control the latter province in 1080.
- Malta should be included as a province under the control of Norman Sicily.
- Venice should not control the Adriatic coastline in 1080.
- Yugosolavia should not be province. At the very least it should be divided into Serbia and Croatia.
- Durazzo should at this point be Dyrrachium, and should be under Byzantine, not rebel, control.
- The capital of Bulgaria should be at Turnovo, not Sofia.
- Bucharest, not having been of any real import before the 15th century, should not by rights be the capital of Wallachia at this point. However, I can give no suggestions as to a suitable replacement.

Eastern Europe & The Steppe:

- There should be more steppe and Russian provinces. The current number doesn't do the area justice at all.
- Riga as a true city was founded in the 13th century by German colonists. Izborsk may be a more suitable capital for Livonia, but in this point I am uncertain.
- Technically the capital of the 'Muscovy' area ought to be Vladimir at this point.
- Volga-Bulgar should be simply Bulgar (or alternatively, 'The Great Bulgar').
- The province with its capital at Halych (which I assume to be Volhynia), should be stretched further southeast to include Galicia, since Halych (or Galich) was that region's capital.
- I don't know what the capital of Transylvania should be, but certainly not Bran.
- Budapest as a single city did not exist until the 19th century. The capital of Hungary should be either Buda or Pest, but not both.

North Africa:

- The Sahara should be an impassable zone. Conquerable provinces should be excluded to thick coastal provinces along the Mediterranean coast and very narrow coastal porvinces along the western coast.
- Dongola is much further south than this map would be able to show. Aswan might be a passable alternative, but that city may be too far south as well.

Middle-East & Anatolia:

- The capital of Cilicia should be at Tarsus, not Adana.
- The capital of Cyprus should be at Kyrenia, not Nicosia.
- The Arabian desert should be an impassable region like the Sahara, although Hejaz should be represented as a province.
_________________________________________

[Zalmoxis]

Yeah, Alba-Iulia would have been a much better capital for Transylvania.

[Cheetah]

Well, I assume it is a kind of PR decision to use modern names instead of historical ones (when it is possible). I am sure CA knew very well that this might be annoying for history buffs, but I guess that the proportion of history buffs to laymen decided the issue in favour of modern names.

What is lot more annoying, at least for me ... that Hungary is only two province. The one they call Budapest could be easily divided into two or three parts, both on historical grounds and on grounds of gameplay (IMO). It has the size of two or three western provinces, so for the same size the western factions has two or three cities, thus I assume a large economical and demographical advantage. If the reason to keep Hungary this "small" was that Hungary should not be as strong as the "main" western factions, then the disappointing news (from this point of view) is that Hungary at that time was "that strong", or perhaps even stronger than some of the main factions.
Of course I understand that it is probably another PR decision. They do not want to overload people with history, and they do not want to complicate the average customers life with things that Europe was different 1000 years ago than it is today.

Gah! More provinces to Hungary!!!

ps. At least I have something to moan about. not that I will ever play SP ...

[lars573]

- France shouldn't control Aquitaine, Provence, or Toulouse. Their control of Anjou is also suspect.

Yes they should. It was a massive distortion in MTW to have England Controlling Aquitane and Anjou in 1087. Those areas come into English control with Henry II in 1134. Toulouse and Provence were fiefs of the French crown in 1080. So they were part of France, but so was Burgundy.

[Perplexed]

Yes they should. It was a massive distortion in MTW to have England Controlling Aquitane and Anjou in 1087. Those areas come into English control with Henry II in 1134. Toulouse and Provence were fiefs of the French crown in 1080. So they were part of France, but so was Burgundy.

You are quite correct that, technically, these provinces paid homage to the king of France, but in reality France had next to no practical power over these areas in 1080. They were independent states in all but name. You have to remember that Normandy was also 'part of France' at this time, but I'm sure no one here would accept that area being under French control either; it's the same situation with these other provinces you mentioned.

And no, England should not control them either.

[Kavhan Isbul]

Southern Europe:

- The capital of Bulgaria should be at Turnovo, not Sofia.

I disagree - Turnovo became capital only in 1187, after the leaders fo the Rebellion from 1185 failed to capture Preslav, the capital of the former Bulgarian State (it was Ohrid in Macedonia just before the Byzantine conquest, actually, but that was because Preslav was in Byzabntine hands with no chance of being retaken). Therefore, I do not think Turnovo would be historically accurate. I do not think that the choice of Sofia was a poor decision, as it was an extremely important fortress during the Middle Ages, even if not the official capital of Bulgaria. However, it should have been called with its period appropriate name - Serdika. I think a much greater inaccuracy is having Bulgaria as a rebel province - as much as I wish this was true, in 1080 Bulgaria was firmly in the Eastern Roman Empire, with the last major rebellion defeated a few years earlier and not another to come in almost a century.
I for one, am sceptical about the inclusion of so many rebel provinces on the game and its results on gameplay, but let's wait and see.

[Scipio Africano]

I for one, am sceptical about the inclusion of so many rebel provinces on the game and its results on gameplay, but let's wait and see.

I see them more as small 'independent' city states rather than rebels. If every one was a full faction there would be major chaos. They act as early buffers for expansion, imagine playing as French and being surrounded from Turn 1 by Catholic factions.

Anyone had the patience to count the amount of provinces?
Obviously appears to be less than RTW. Probably a good thing.

[Templar Knight]

Southern Scotland's capital should be St. Andrews. It was the capital of the Scotish Kingdom till the Scotish Reformation when it's cathedral and castle was burnt down.

Edinburgh was made Scotland's capital in 1437, long before the Reformation. Also where is there any mention that St Andrews was the capital?

[Amon_Zeth]

Well, seeing as how Venice will automatically own Illyria, and that much of the Hellenic penninsula is open, that will seriously change my strategy of world domination. Thanks for the map. :)

[Dan.o6]

Thats a nice map, first time I have seen the starting positions for the factions :)

[TheImp]

Good luck. It looks like it's gonna be very difficult to survive with Portugal. They are surrounded by 3 other factions and don't have much freedom of conquest. I guess it will be mostly diplomatic style of game at the beginning.

[Gampie]

Nodey has made an update of the map:



Bologna is HRE, as it should be. Furthermore the cities are now marked with a dot on the map. Cheers.

[ProudNerd]

Over at TWC, nodey made a very nice looking map with all the cities and factions of the Grand Campaign. It is based on a beta screenshot ( http://www.g4mers.com/images/previews/shot_71_499.jpg ). The map was enlarged and then refined. From the demo files a list of cities could be extracted ( http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showp...5&postcount=17 ) and by researching the net + tips from other fans the cities were placed on the corresponding regions. America is not included though :-P

Enjoy!

(Oh yeah, it's 1080 AD.)



If interested, the thread is at: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=66394

He sure used nice colors and fonts for it its extremely clear and pleasant. ill have to print it and hang it near my pc for planing conquests!

[Filipe24]

Man there are sure some hard people to please in this forum thats for sure. OK so the map isn't the most historically accurate map in the world. But if you want that play europa universallis or crusader kings. The map has to be accurate but it has to be balanced (Portugal starting with Pamplona for example) so that CA don't get complaints that its too hard to play with some factions and that others are easy etc.. so they have sacrificed some historical accuracy to ensure that all the factions will be competitive and that hopefully no 2 campains will be the same.

[Laman]

Man there are sure some hard people to please in this forum thats for sure. OK so the map isn't the most historically accurate map in the world. But if you want that play europa universallis or crusader kings. The map has to be accurate but it has to be balanced (Portugal starting with Pamplona for example) so that CA don't get complaints that its too hard to play with some factions and that others are easy etc.. so they have sacrificed some historical accuracy to ensure that all the factions will be competitive and that hopefully no 2 campains will be the same.

Still there are things such as Scania NOT part of Denmark. It wouldn't even have to be it's own province but part of the same province as the rest of Denmark if they have to have one province only, or having Croatia and Serbia in one province. That kind of errors that should have never been made had any basic research been done are the worst. I wish that it was only which province should be had by whom and what cities that it should be would be only thing to complain about (such as France should not have Provence, if any faction should have it it should be HRE, since it didn't become part of France until ~1480 IIRC), but alas it is not.

[JR-]

does M2 have more Eurasian provinces than were found in the original M?

[Perplexed]

does M2 have more Eurasian provinces than were found in the original M?

If you mean in the continent of Eurasia then yes.
If you mean in Russia then no.

[Phalaxar]

Still there are things such as Scania NOT part of Denmark. It wouldn't even have to be it's own province but part of the same province as the rest of Denmark if they have to have one province only, or having Croatia and Serbia in one province. That kind of errors that should have never been made had any basic research been done are the worst. I wish that it was only which province should be had by whom and what cities that it should be would be only thing to complain about (such as France should not have Provence, if any faction should have it it should be HRE, since it didn't become part of France until ~1480 IIRC), but alas it is not.

That's nice and such, but you missed the point of the guy you were quoting/replying to. He said that they were probably conscious choices made by CA to improve gameplay; you replied, "hey, look, they made these basic errors!".

Yes, there are historical errors, but as he was saying, they were most likely purposely put there to enhance gameplay.

No amount of pointing out flawed historical accuracy will change that.

[Laman]

That's nice and such, but you missed the point of the guy you were quoting/replying to. He said that they were probably conscious choices made by CA to improve gameplay; you replied, "hey, look, they made these basic errors!".

Yes, there are historical errors, but as he was saying, they were most likely purposely put there to enhance gameplay.

No amount of pointing out flawed historical accuracy will change that.

Although they won't "enhance gameplay". What they do is kill whatever immersion this game could have had. With the Scania example it is something that doesn't even necessarily mean a new province! One might as well rename Novgorod to the Soviet Union to "enhance gameplay", or give the Mongols machine guns or the Papal States Roman Legionaries, it is essentialy the same thing (that is stupid things that shouldn't be that way).