MTW Pocket Mod: Units, Buildings and Unit Stats

[Third spearman from the left]

Some great ideas here so far keep them coming,

Any final decision on the MA for the otto Jan infantry I'm still in favour of getting rid of it and allowing production of the troops in any province that meet the high specs.

[caravel]

Any final decision on the MA for the otto Jan infantry I'm still in favour of getting rid of it and allowing production of the troops in any province that meet the high specs.

Well the way to do that, IMHO, is to remove the necessity for the Grand Mosque altogether. This way the Military Academy would only depend on the citadel and in this way you would be able to construct multiples. This way (assuming the mods above are present) you can separate your MI from you GM and build the MI in Constantinople (and multiples anywhere else of course) and the GM in Arabia to produce the High valour Imams.

Personally if I was to do this, I would also impose the late era restriction and also have the MI require Fortress level.

Not sure about sending the be-kilted bravehearts to northern spain though...

As to the FMAA/CMAA, Spanish javelinmen may be better... but needs more research.

[Kralizec]

I'd change the building requirement for the military academy from Grand Mosque to Fortress. Seems much more sensible.

[caravel]

Well, after adding all of the above changes except some of the most recently mentioned, and starting a new campaign as the Danes, this occured:

https://img301.imageshack.us/my.php?...pikemendq8.jpg

Yes the AI French faction is trying, at the expense of all else, to tech up to the +1 valour pikemen now available in flanders with the level 3 militia building and level 3 spearmaker...

[Kralizec]

That would seem to confirm the issue mentioned in post #42.

A workaround would be to give all bonus provinces border forts, ports and maybe some other buildings on the starting map.

EDIT: another workaround would be to add border forts and ports to the building requirements.
I don't personally like this solution though because
1) it's silly that you should need border forts to build pikemen, etc
2) I prefer not to build border forts. If you have spies or assasins in the province, they'll catch incoming enemy counterparts instead, adding to their valour.

[caravel]

That's what I was thinking, but even then the AI may not develop those provinces further. Now that the French have developed flanders to train those pikemen, will they develop it further? They've teched the spearmaker up to the max, even though that is not the primary prerequisite and, AFAIK, will not give another +1 valour to the unit. If nothing is built in the province for the next few years I could possibly assume that a fortress is being built in order to upgrade to a level 4 militia building (which should give the additional +1 valour), this would indicate that the AI cannot discern which building gives the additional valour.

I have noticed that the valour bonuses in provinces such as Constantinople and Tolouse also affect those provinces in this way. If the province can be teched up fairly fast, i.e. a province that is famous for peasants won't take much teching up, then it appears that the AI can presumably get back to business, but with provinces that give bonuses to high level units, the AI can spend alot of time working towards that particular unit, to the detriment of all else.

On another note, I have thought about modding the HRE/Italian Baronial Estates building to all factions and using it as an additional prerequisite for 'lancers' then modding them as all factions and renaming them to something more realistic (though I've no idea what, as yet).

The Royal Court also needs to be removed from the Orthodox unit roster as it serves no purpose at present. Though I do feel that such buildings could be utilised for the Russian/Novgorod faction as prerquisites for units such as Druzhina and Boyar cavalry.

-Edit: check the post count!

-Edit2:

EDIT: another workaround would be to add border forts and ports to the building requirements.
I don't personally like this solution though because
1) it's silly that you should need border forts to build pikemen, etc
2) I prefer not to build border forts. If you have spies or assasins in the province, they'll catch incoming enemy counterparts instead, adding to their valour.

I agree but it may pay to force the AI to improve at least it's famrland when it improves it's royal courts and horse breeders. The royal court and horse breeder upgrades could also depend on the famrland upgrades. The problem is that some provinces are just not worth farming...

I also avoid border forts, as I prefer to train first my assassins and later my spies in the home provinces counterspying. I'm not so worried about forcing the AI to build border forts, and I'm not sure if the AI actually needs watchtowers at all. I have a feeling that the AI is in perpetual .matteosartori. mode as it regularly deploys emissaries straight off the mark to a faction leader on the other side of the map. Assuming the AI does require watch towers they could be made an additional prerequisite to the keep (possibly with border forts as an additional prerequisite to the Citadel, though that would force border forts, which I wouldn't like personally).

The problem lies in the fact that castle upgrades can be teched up and up with no other buildings required, which is wrong in too many ways. You can potentially build a fort and keep upgrading it until it's a fortress, constructing nothing else whatsoever. Such structures should depend on the farmlands upgrades, among other things, and perhaps making those considerably cheaper is the best option?

[Kralizec]

Assuming the AI does require border forts they could be made an additional prerequisite to the keep (possibly with border forts as an additional prerequisite to the Citadel).

Now that's a good idea I hadn't thought of

The problem lies in the fact that castle upgrades can be teched up and up with no other buildings required, which is wrong in too many ways. You can potentially build a fort and keep upgrading it until it's a fortress, constructing nothing else whatsoever. Such structures should depend on the farmlands upgrades, among other things, and perhaps making those considerably cheaper is the best option?

I'd make the castle upgrades* themselves cheaper rather then the farming upgrades. That will make people think twenty times before upgrading Cyreanica or the Sahara to citadel level, wich is silly.
*and also make the defense upgrades (ie curtain wall and ballista towers for the keep) mandatory before you can upgrade to the next castle level, as well as making these defenses somewhat more expensive. This will prevent players from upgrading to citadels and fortresses too quickly.


For the royal courts: maybe it's possible to insert a new agent type that acts like an improved emissary, that's trained at the royal court (just like Cardinals and Orthodox bisshops are basicly just improved bisshops and priests)
Alternatively it could be used like a prerequisite for the Chancellary and some of the other higher-up government buildings.

Why is "lancer" an unrealistic name? It's kinda bland, but not moreso then "plated knights" or anything else I can think of at present.
If they're going to be added to all factions, I do suggest that the valour bonus in an Iberian province is indeed implemented.

check the post count!

Better not reply to this post then, my dark prince

[Deus ret.]

I'd make the castle upgrades* themselves cheaper rather then the farming upgrades. That will make people think twenty times before upgrading Cyreanica or the Sahara to citadel level, wich is silly.
*and also make the defense upgrades (ie curtain wall and ballista towers for the keep) mandatory before you can upgrade to the next castle level, as well as making these defenses somewhat more expensive. This will prevent players from upgrading to citadels and fortresses too quickly.

the idea about additional requirements sounds good. However the question is if the AI will build them on its own, since fortification upgrades usually do not enjoy a high priority with the AI. And I don't quite get the point why players wouldn't want to upgrade to a fortress in the Sahara if fortifying a province actually becomes cheaper.

For the royal courts: maybe it's possible to insert a new agent type that acts like an improved emissary, that's trained at the royal court (just like Cardinals and Orthodox bisshops are basicly just improved bisshops and priests) Alternatively it could be used like a prerequisite for the Chancellary and some of the other higher-up government buildings.

An upgraded emissary also sounds good, it would be interesting to see, though, as to how this could be reflected in-game. The difference between bishops and cardinals is mainly in conversion speed (and they don't profit from valor levels except against assassins), the distinction between mere inquisitors and grand ones in burning chance and range of targets. Since of all the emissary's duties only one seems to be tied to valor afaik (bribery missions, at least that's my impression), it would maybe suffice to provide new emissaries with a valor bonus, similar to the one given to spies and assassins. Given the emissary's role in the game, I'm having difficulties in imagining a broadening of his competences in an 'upgraded' version.

[caravel]

...also make the defense upgrades (ie curtain wall and ballista towers for the keep) mandatory before you can upgrade to the next castle level, as well as making these defenses somewhat more expensive. This will prevent players from upgrading to citadels and fortresses too quickly.

Not sure about this. This won't stop the AI from doing what it's doing. It will still advance through those tech levels in order to get to it's objective, in this case +1 pikemen. I'm confident that if I had made all upgrades part of the tech level, the French would still have raised that province to Citadel abd still teched up to pikmen.

For the royal courts: maybe it's possible to insert a new agent type that acts like an improved emissary, that's trained at the royal court (just like Cardinals and Orthodox bisshops are basicly just improved bisshops and priests)
Alternatively it could be used like a prerequisite for the Chancellary and some of the other higher-up government buildings.

Improved emissaries won't work. The only difference between, i.e, bishops and cardinals is the faith propogation AFAIK. Emissaries don't propogate faith so their abilities are unchangeable. The only way to improve them is to have building upgrades that increaese their valour (as is the case with assassins and spies). So it may be possible to use the court buildings to increase the valour of emissaries. Though personally I would use buildings such as the chancellory, admiralty and university etc for this purpose.

Why is "lancer" an unrealistic name? It's kinda bland, but not moreso then "plated knights" or anything else I can think of at present.
If they're going to be added to all factions, I do suggest that the valour bonus in an Iberian province is indeed implemented.

All knights are pretty much Lancers, it seems strange to have a tech tree of: Feudal Knights -> Chivalric Knights -> Lancers. The Lancers in MTW are also fantasy, and shouldn't be restricted to the Spanish. Lancers in the true sense, is how the later lance wielding cavalry of the 18th century are often described.

the idea about additional requirements sounds good. However the question is if the AI will build them on its own, since fortification upgrades usually do not enjoy a high priority with the AI. And I don't quite get the point why players wouldn't want to upgrade to a fortress in the Sahara if fortifying a province actually becomes cheaper.

The AI will build them if the build prod file is modded to encourage them to do so, and should do anyway if they have to build them to build something else.

An upgraded emissary also sounds good, it would be interesting to see, though, as to how this could be reflected in-game. The difference between bishops and cardinals is mainly in conversion speed (and they don't profit from valor levels except against assassins), the distinction between mere inquisitors and grand ones in burning chance and range of targets. Since of all the emissary's duties only one seems to be tied to valor afaik (bribery missions, at least that's my impression), it would maybe suffice to provide new emissaries with a valor bonus, similar to the one given to spies and assassins. Given the emissary's role in the game, I'm having difficulties in imagining a broadening of his competences in an 'upgraded' version.

[Kralizec]

And I don't quite get the point why players wouldn't want to upgrade to a fortress in the Sahara if fortifying a province actually becomes cheaper.

As of present there's absolutely no reason why a player wouldn't upgrade their castles in "dirt" provinces (well, if you really want gold armoured Saharan cavalry )
If you needed to upgrade to 80% farming before building the citadel, the Sahara or Cyraenica would probably be your last province to upgrade, because the farming upgrade there will take an eternity to return the costs.

[Deus ret.]

As of present there's absolutely no reason why a player wouldn't upgrade their castles in "dirt" provinces (well, if you really want gold armoured Saharan cavalry )

In fact well armoured (=upgraded) light lancer cavalry has become one of my favorite unit types....not really sure about Saharan cav though

If you needed to upgrade to 80% farming before building the citadel, the Sahara or Cyraenica would probably be your last province to upgrade, because the farming upgrade there will take an eternity to return the costs.

seems like I missed that point....the whole issue makes much more sense now . good idea, not sure about how the AI will react to it, though.

[Kralizec]

Btw, I already modded the pikemen stats myself in my own game and made Flanders the province that gives the bonus. However I realise that I haven't looked into what building gives another valour bonus.
If I have both the militia and spearmaker at lvl3 (same as you, Caravel), how do you edit the prod11 file to make the militia lvl4 building give a valour bonus?

[caravel]

Btw, I already modded the pikemen stats myself in my own game and made Flanders the province that gives the bonus. However I realise that I haven't looked into what building gives another valour bonus.
If I have both the militia and spearmaker at lvl3 (same as you, Caravel), how do you edit the prod11 file to make the militia lvl4 building give a valour bonus?

I'm not sure about this myself. It may have something to do with the order in which the prerequisites are listed, i.e.

"{horse_breeder2, spearmaker3}"
"{spearmaker3, horse_breeder2}"

It can't be the higher level building of the two as there would be cases where both are of the same level, i.e.

"{horse_breeder3, swordsmith3}"

It can be tested of course and I will try it later.

Still doesn't get away from the problem of the AI teching up a province for the valour bonus unit though.

I'm not sure about requiring the farmland upgrades either, as the AI would then have to tech up to 80% farmland to train +1 valour Saharan cavalry in Sahara, which would be pointless. The other option is to make the farming upgrades alot cheaper. At present they are stiflingly expensive wheras trade can be cheap and easy, returning massively. The AI is bad at trade (because it's bad at shipping), but won't have a problem upgrading it's farmland. The horse breeder upgrades could also be made cheaper (half price?). This would negate the wastage of upgrading farmland in provinces such as the Sinai, Sahara, Cyrenacia and Arabia. Every horse breeder upgrade would depend on the previous horsebreeder and the same level of farmland upgrade.

Forcing at least the watchtowers for the keep upgrade would work. Also a church could be forced before a castle can be built, this would serve to push up the loyalty and faith propogation in AI provinces which at present tends to be quite unpredictable. Militia buildings should also be a requirement. If you don't have a decent size militia then a castle upgrade shouldn't happen. The upgrade to a castle reflects (an invisible) rise in population that would need better policing.

Another good one would have been the trader in order to force the AI to trade, but since all provinces don't contain trade goods that won't be possible, unless a new generic very low income trade good could be introduced and added to every province as a default, enabling at least the basic trader to be built. This could then form the prerequisite of the castle upgrade.

Also another point. The indestructable "forest clearing" in the VI campaign. I would like to know how this is made indestructable, as It would be good if all farmland was indestructable, as farmland itself is quite literally destruction (clearing of trees, filling in of lakes, levelling of land etc) that is very difficult, if not impossible, to completely undo.

[Kralizec]

Also another point. The indestructable "forest clearing" in the VI campaign. I would like to know how this is made indestructable, as It would be good if all farmland was indestructable, as farmland itself is quite literally destruction (clearing of trees, filling in of lakes, levelling of land etc) that is very difficult, if not impossible, to completely undo.

Not sure but I think that may be hardcoded. Vikinghordes XL mod replaces 40% farming with forest upgrade (20% --> forest clearing --> 60% --> 80%)

[caravel]

Yea I think I remember that. That does point to it being harcoded. He obviously placed the forest clearing in there to cause the 40% to become indestructable, which is a very sound idea.

[Kralizec]

I have an idea for the Arab infantry.
Notch up the unit size to 200 (on huge unit size), down their attack somewhat, up their defense a little.

This will give them actually a viable function. As flankers the vanilla AI are redundant because Ghazi infantry is better, and they're no good for head on clashes with heavy infantry like FMAA.
Their new stats reflects that they're not meat grinding proffessionals like FMAA, but their unit size reflects that plenty of them are readily available and compensates a little for their mediocre stats. It will be different from Byzantine infantry as it's a little weaker and is not disciplined but has better morale.

Suggested requirements: militia building and swordsmith at level 1, both. An alternative would be simply the level 2 militia building, as otherwise it would have no function for the Egyptians.

Limiting the recruitment to certain provinces in the middle east (possibly the same as Bedouin camels + Palestine, Tripoli and Antioch) would probably be a good idea too. They're primarily for the Egyptians and I'm not sure wether the Turks should be able to get them. The Almohads already have a good swordsmen unit, but they should be able to get them when they get one of the right provinces (as AUM isn't any good in the desert)

[caravel]

I have an idea for the Arab infantry.
Notch up the unit size to 200 (on huge unit size), down their attack somewhat, up their defense a little.

This will give them actually a viable function. As flankers the vanilla AI are redundant because Ghazi infantry is better, and they're no good for head on clashes with heavy infantry like FMAA.
Their new stats reflects that they're not meat grinding proffessionals like FMAA, but their unit size reflects that plenty of them are readily available and compensates a little for their mediocre stats. It will be different from Byzantine infantry as it's a little weaker and is not disciplined but has better morale.

Suggested requirements: militia building and swordsmith at level 1, both.

I'm liking this alot. I'll have a go at this later.

An alternative would be simply the level 2 militia building, as otherwise it would have no function for the Egyptians.

Indeed, the militia buildings, as regards the Turks, Egyptians and Byzantines, have no function whatsoever apart from the first. The first building provides a happiness bonus, after that they have no effect. So like the royal court for the Byzantines they're useless. They can be modded as not buildable, and I've done it, it just appears that CA didn't bother.

Limiting the recruitment to certain provinces in the middle east (possibly the same as Bedouin camels + Palestine, Tripoli and Antioch) would probably be a good idea too. They're primarily for the Egyptians and I'm not sure wether the Turks should be able to get them. The Almohads already have a good swordsmen unit, but they should be able to get them when they get one of the right provinces (as AUM isn't any good in the desert)

I've already limited them to the same provinces as the Bedouin Camels. I feel they should be available to only the Egyptians and the Almohads. The same goes for desert archers.

I was working on the build prod 13 file, last night fixing the royal court and adding the baronial estate to all catholic factions and adding it as an additional prerequisite to Lancers, which are now available to all catholic factions with a valour bonus in Castile.

[Third spearman from the left]

Hi Guys
I didn't mention it earlier but in my game I adjusted some other aspects which might help to solve the AI valour build problem. The way I see it is the AI will tech up to valour bonus level to reap the rewards like any good general would want to. However on the way to that goal the AI spends a fortune and then has little left to improve other provinces.

I therefore aim to give the AI some help by introducing the following:

Increase in farming revenue and reduction in trade income - AI farms well enough but very rarely trades well.

Lower build time and cost to farm lands - 1yr 20%, 2yr 40% etc

Lower build time and cost from fort to citadel - 1yr fort, 3yr keep, 6yr castle, 8yr fortress, 10yr citadel

lastly I like really hard games so I give all the AI factions 50,000 f to start with and take 10,000 myself - in my last game it helped to get the AI off and running and I lost generals to a AI bride for the first time ever

Caravel@ any more updates on the danes game?

[caravel]

Hi Guys
I didn't mention it earlier but in my game I adjusted some other aspects which might help to solve the AI valour build problem. The way I see it is the AI will tech up to valour bonus level to reap the rewards like any good general would want to. However on the way to that goal the AI spends a fortune and then has little left to improve other provinces.

Caravel@ any more updates on the danes game?

I haven't been about here much nor have I played any TW for days now, and anyway I assumed the interest in this thread/subject had died off.

The AI does tech up to the the province to the valour bonus unit, to the detriment of all else. Provinces without the high level unit valour bonuses appear to thrive. Wheras Provinces such as Tolouse, Contantinople and now Flanders in the Danes campaign I was running are totally focused on the valour bonus unit. I loaded the game in -ian mode and tested this on a few more campaigns and found it to always be the same. This has led me to the conclusion that perhaps valour bonuses may not be such a good thing after all...

I have a feeling that it may be necessary to impliment valour bonuses some other way, to prevent the AI from acting in that way.

I therefore aim to give the AI some help by introducing the following:

Increase in farming revenue and reduction in trade income - AI farms well enough but very rarely trades well.

I think this is always a good idea, alot of mods do it already and it only enhances gameplay and the overall challenge. I actually tried modding out sea trade and shipping altogether once. Basically I removed the links between land and sea and all sea zones and modded out ship yards and ships. After which I put back all of the default landbridges plus many more liniking up the Islands with the mainland, and others such as sicily -> tunisia and greece -> crete -> cyrenacia. Not surprisingly it didn't work well. The main problem being that crusades began to take rather stupid routes... https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ght=landbridge

Lower build time and cost to farm lands - 1yr 20%, 2yr 40% etc

I would add that slotting in the VI forest clearing instead of the 40% farmland would be a good idea (as per Viking Hordes XL Mod) as it's indestructable, and so the razing and burning tactics are less easy to pull off.

Lower build time and cost from fort to citadel - 1yr fort, 3yr keep, 6yr castle, 8yr fortress, 10yr citadel

I'm not sure about this. The AI has a tendency to upgrade the castle before it upgrades anything else. It seems to prioritise this. We will end up seeing alot of citadels and not alot else constructed in the provinces. The high build cost puts off the AI from upgrading, allowing it to build more of the cheaper faster buildings sooner.

lastly I like really hard games so I give all the AI factions 50,000 f to start with and take 10,000 myself - in my last game it helped to get the AI off and running and I lost generals to a AI bride for the first time ever

Good idea.

[Third spearman from the left]

At present all my changes are for the XL mod and so the increase in farming and reduction in trade is on top of what VH has done already.

Talking of seas, I think the removal of seas around islands like crete would be a great idea. This would help lessen the isolation problem for factions on these islands with a huge army, only one ship and no money.

For me I'd like to see the AI tech up more, as it very rarely does when ever I've been playing and having the AI with more valour based troops can only be a good thing. Maybe we should look at only adding high tech valour bonuses to a few provinces.

Also I think it would be worth trying to give the AI 50,000f at the start game to see how this will affect it's build policy in valour regions and else where. This might cause a positive effect to the valour issue.

[caravel]

At present all my changes are for the XL mod and so the increase in farming and reduction in trade is on top of what VH has done already.

I see, so you're advocating increasing them even more? Interesting. On an income related note, it may be possible to make the mines worthwhile. I rarely bother building them as the outlay is high and it take eons to get your money back.

Talking of seas, I think the removal of seas around islands like crete would be a great idea. This would help lessen the isolation problem for factions on these islands with a huge army, only one ship and no money.

The only landbridge I have added at present is Finland to Sweden. I was thinking about linking the med islands (crete, rhodes, cyprus) to the mainland and linking Sicily back to Naples and Malta to Sicily. Also linking Ireland to Scotland would be an idea. The problem with Islands as a whole is that because of the AI's inability to manage fleets they tend to lose control of them to uprisings causing the province to turn rebel. It's then not much use until you arrive there. Then there's the major problem of the Byzantines reappearing in Crete or the English reappearing in Ireland... If this was implimented then ships are still vital for trade and long distance travel, not solely as a means to reach an island. Those islands, just like coastal provinces would still be defensible from seaborne invasion using your fleets.

For me I'd like to see the AI tech up more, as it very rarely does when ever I've been playing and having the AI with more valour based troops can only be a good thing. Maybe we should look at only adding high tech valour bonuses to a few provinces.

Agreed. Though adding the farmland as a prerequisite for the horsebreeder may assist the AI in teching up it's farmland.

Also I think it would be worth trying to give the AI 50,000f at the start game to see how this will affect it's build policy in valour regions and else where. This might cause a positive effect to the valour issue.

It's worth trying. I have heard that no matter how many florins you give the AI, it still wastes the lot on peasants and ballistas anyway.

[Third spearman from the left]

I see, so you're advocating increasing them even more? Interesting. On an income related note, it may be possible to make the mines worthwhile. I rarely bother building them as the outlay is high and it take eons to get your money back.

Yes an increase to farminng even more is a must, and I've already lowered cost and build times for all mines.

The only landbridge I have added at present is Finland to Sweden. I was thinking about linking the med islands (crete, rhodes, cyprus) to the mainland and linking Sicily back to Naples and Malta to Sicily. Also linking Ireland to Scotland would be an idea. The problem with Islands as a whole is that because of the AI's inability to manage fleets they tend to lose control of them to uprisings causing the province to turn rebel. It's then not much use until you arrive there. Then there's the major problem of the Byzantines reappearing in Crete or the English reappearing in Ireland... If this was implimented then ships are still vital for trade and long distance travel, not solely as a means to reach an island. Those islands, just like coastal provinces would still be defensible from seaborne invasion using your fleets.

I like the land bridge idea for finland sweden, but I just think adding say rhodes to the same sea square as cyprus and the other ports available in the east might encourage more invasion, chance of trade and lessen the cut off problem. adding crete to the greece sea square and Malta to the Tunsina sea square.

It's worth trying. I have heard that no matter how many florins you give the AI, it still wastes the lot on peasants and ballistas anyway.

Maybe.... but with the valour bonus it will be pikemen and crossbows with a fighting chance against us

[naut]

A bit off topic,

If I have both the militia and spearmaker at lvl3 (same as you, Caravel), how do you edit the prod11 file to make the militia lvl4 building give a valour bonus?

Column 17:

"{},{},{},{UPGRADE_VALOUR(n)}"

Where n is any value.

[Innocentius]

Regarding the adding and removing of landbridges, is historical accuracy the most important reason for these changes (which would make the landbridge between Sweden/Finland very odd) or is it pure playability?

[caravel]

Regarding the adding and removing of landbridges, is historical accuracy the most important reason for these changes (which would make the landbridge between Sweden/Finland very odd) or is it pure playability?

Well, looking at literally any map, I can see that all my troops would need to do in order to travel from Finland to Sweden would be to walk northwards then bear westwards which would lead them into Sweden. There is no need to cross the Gulf of Bothnia, though the presence of the Aland Islands near the mouth of the gulf (sadly not visible on the MTW map) would make a Landbridge somewhat viable there, but is redundant of course due the land route.

[Innocentius]

The lands you are talking about now were not a part of any kingdom at all untill the 15th or 16th century (they were officially Swedish or Norse already by the 13th century though). Only in the 16th and 17th century were these areas truly incorporated to Sweden.
You can't march an army just through nowhere, they need to eat as well. The minimal population of these lands (Laponia etc.) surely would not have greeted armies from a kingdom due south, which they didn't have much to do with. In medieval times, and of course even later on, armies travelling between Sweden and Finland travelled by sea, docking in Visby, Gotland, and then headed on. Åland was another possible port to stop at on the way. There is a reason as to why Laponia is not included in the map.

[caravel]

I bow to your superior knowledge.

Though there are many sparsely populated, non thoroughly explored and outright dangerous regions on the map, not just in scandinavia. Many of the siberian, german and desert provinces would be dangerous for an army to march across, though a ruler would claim these lands as part of his dominion some of the local folk might think otherwise. In view of this I do think the landbridge is valid, in any case it is just as valid as sending your men via ship from Scotland to Palestine in one year, or sending a crusade, well anywhere which is why I do think it's a valid landbridge.

I was also wondering if you could help me out with some of the Viking units name changes?


Edit: Update: It's now 2am and most of the changes are done The units and their valour bonuses and stat changes are finished, and the buildings are fixed as per the updated summary. The startpos files are mostly done except the late file which I haven't touched yet (apart from to remove inns). Peasants still need to be removed from all files, the sicilian ships still need to be fixed, as does the spearmen/roundshieldspearnmen mix up, the units for georgia and armenia need to be done, the shipping costs need to be sorted out, and the spearmen for the egyptians and almohads need to be added. Other fixes that need sorting are the homelands (i've done some work on this in the past), trade and farming which I still haven't looked at.

[Innocentius]

Though there are many sparsely populated, non thoroughly explored and outright dangerous regions on the map, not just in scandinavia. Many of the siberian, german and desert provinces would be dangerous for an army to march across, though a ruler would claim these lands as part of his dominion some of the local folk might think otherwise. In view of this I do think the landbridge is valid, in any case it is just as valid as sending your men via ship from Scotland to Palestine in one year, or sending a crusade, well anywhere which is why I do think it's a valid landbridge.

Totally agree on that part.

The names of the viking units is a tough one, mainly since there were no viking "units", raids were just composed of men from different social classes. In all honesty, the Viking Carls (or Carl Swordsmen) should be removed as only the very social elite (the cream of the cream) could afford swords, but I guess that'd make the game somewhat out of balance.
The Thrall unit seem fit. The Landsmenn could perhaps be renamed to Drängar (dräng=singular, drängar=plural). In modern Swedish dräng would be the equivalent of farm-hand actually, but they were a form of elite warriors in the army of their (often local) lord or king.
Huscarles is another term that does work, however I think that Tegnar (tegn=singular, tegnar=plural) would be somewhat more appropriate. Tegnar were in many ways the same as vassals to the king, who gained land from him, and this land remained in family of the tegn even after his death.
Huscarl is a term that belongs in the dark ages, the viking adapted the Tegn-system from England, do give the impression of being civilized christians. Tegn itself is in fact only a scandinavian from of the anglo-saxon title "Thegn".

[Martok]

I'm not sure I said anything about training them before era! They're very era restricted. Feudal Knights will no longer be available in High and Late, and Chivalric Knights will only be available in High. Lancers will only be trainable in the Late era. Basically if you have e.g. any battered units of Chivarlic Knights or Feudal Knights left during the Late period you can send them in to be retrained a Lancers. And if you had any Feudal Knights left during the High period you could retrain them into Chivarlic Knights.

Sorry, I should've worded that better. I was actually referring to a comment you'd made earlier in the thread--you had complained how you often couldn't train Feudal Knights until the Early period was almost over, because of all the infrastructure that was required. I was simply commenting that your changes should help remedy that.

-Edit: I was also thinking of reusing the Fedual Knights unit, but reducing it's stats somewhat, and making a new 'mounted militia' cavalry type. I'm not sure of the exact historical accuracy of this, but mounted militias did exist, I just need to find more information on them...

Well wouldn't that be more or less what the Mounted Seargents represent? Seems to me they're pretty much one and the same. I'm not sure either, though.

Summary updated:

Summary

Excellent! Looks good, MC.

One thing that caught my particular attention:

Brothel/Tavern structure needs to be fixed to allow earlier spies.

Are you looking at lowering the fortification requirement for both buildings, or just one of them?

[naut]

Brothel/Tavern structure needs to be fixed to allow earlier spies.

Couldn't agree more. A Keep to get a tavern! GAH!