MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

[caravel]

Sorry to interrupt here,

Sorry, cheers!

You're not interrupting anything, and there is no need to be sorry.

yet may I suggest, should you wish to not include certain factions, that you make a "virtual faction", pardon me if there is a correct word for this sort of this, in their place. The concept it that such provinces which would be controlled by a borderline in/out of list faction could have highly powerful rebels in them that, although they may not do any conquering, they are very tough to take over - compensating for their discoordination.

This is a good idea, and one which I have been working on but with little success so far. Historical leaders and correct culture names need to be added to some of the rebel provinces in question, and the correct units also have to be added, otherwise they don't last too long agains the factions. The addition of extra units and buildings to the province is not really an issue, that can be achieved quite easily.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Thanks very much for the confirmation/response and good luck with all your brilliant work, cheers!

[The Unknown Guy]

Following Omanes's comments, with the Trebizond issue I'd leave them as "strong rebels", as to keep them from Ottoman/Byzantine hands, or at least make the occupation costly. It would historically fit their role, as, despite maneuvering towards trying to reclaim the throne, they never did much territorial expansion, they mostly "remained there". In fact, I recall that one of the things that the Paleologus had on their agenda when they retook Constantinople was the settling of the issue with Trebizond (which indeed had a better claim to the throne due to direct descendency from the late Emperor, but by that point all "big families" were related), and eventually managed to settle for a peace in which Trebizond was left with Trebizond (AKA: the right corner of the in-game province), and in return they didn't challenge their rights to the Imperial Diadem (I think that their wipe-out by the turks was partially prompted by a post-Paleologus attempt to take over Constantinople, with backing of some nomadic tribe from the east. I might be wrong, through: apparently some turk Sultan managed to get married to a Komnenos princess and gain some legitimacy for his son, and in an Opsrey book I have around there's an account of a Trapeouine historian flattering Mehmed II by recognizing him as "the true Roman Emperor")

In the Early and Late eras they could be renamed as "Eastern Roman Empire", just to get rid of the "Byzantine" word, because, as I've argued, countless numbers of times, "Byzantine" is the name applied to the Eastern Roman Empire by latter day scholars and historians. The Eastern Romans did not ever refer to themselves as "Byzantine", which means "of Byzantium" and thus "Empire of Byzantium". This actually means in simple terms: "Empire centred on the old city of Byzantium". Byzantium, first renamed as "New Rome", was known as Constantinople after the death of Constantine, it's founder, so in reality historians have applied a name for convenience and differentiation with the Western Roman Empire, a name that has stuck, but is not necessarily accurate. This is why I would have no hesitation of losing the Byzantine name.

Indeed. Byzantine is a misleading word, in fact, methinks. I've heard that it was pushed foward by Greek nationalists in the Romantic period as to make emphasis on it being a Greek empire and not the E.R.E. (whereas, in fact, the historical rulers of Constantinople insisted on their rights, and got called "Greek Emperors" by Western Europeans). Thus, most "common" books nowadays take the fall of Rome as in the city as the fall of the whole Roman Empire, ignoring altogether that a good chunk of it remained intact (and managed to rally under Justinian, and retake Rome, which by that time was a mess)

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

Sorry to disagree, but I personally, would prefer another "Byzantine" faction, just to add a little bit of interest in that area during High/Late and to be a thorn in the side of the Turks/The Niceans - it would also be highly pleasant to see another almighty almighty Orthodox faction to play with - The Orthodox factions are something very unique and individual in their fighting tactics. It would also be nice to have a choice to either continue the true Byzantine royal line or the false group of rebellious nobles!

[The Unknown Guy]

(Confession: The main reason I dislike Trebizond as a playable faction is that it leads to the "Ugly Empire Name" problem, even through geopolitics in Asia Minor are also to be borne in mind. As in Spain, there are too few provinces to represent the existing factions -where are the Ak-Koloyun supporters of Trapisond, for instance?-, and the existing provinces don't represent those faction's territories either -The Empire of Trebizond was far smaller than the province of Trebizond. And one-province nations, unless heavy tweaking of neighbours, invariably lead to early wipeouts -see, for instance, the low survival rate of Aragon in Early and High[sidenote:they lack the Balear islands, but can't be added, despite being more important than Rhodes :( ]- and in that particular region is very hard to tweak, as Constantinople starts off with a huge infrastructure and income, which is precisely what is needed to support Byzantine armies through the High and Late periods: lots of projectile weapons, heavy PKT cavalry, as well as standard PK cavalry, to keep being able to handle Western Knights and Turkish Janissaries -if Turkey remains alive. If not, to handle Mongol cavalry and Egyptian hordes, even through they are arguable far less troublesome than the turks due to the limited Mongol rooster, and the Egyptians relying on mass cheap-troops, their most troublesome unit combo being Sarracen infantry + Desert Archers [which have compound bows, as do the Psiloi, the Turks, and the Mongols])

(Sidenote: in case it comes to it: posible sidestepping of the "Ugly Name Problem": renaming to "The Komnenian/Paleologian" Empires, respectively.)


BTW: I´m not profficient on a "legitimate" imperial royal line. historically the Paleologous, who arguably were the "treacherous rebels", gained the upper hand, but they were related to the late Emperor, as well as the Kommenos, even if not that closely. The latter, on the other hand, were not the "royal line" either, as they had gotten overrun centuries before by the Angeloi dinasty-the last Kommenos Emperor was Alexius II.

[caravel]

I don't see a problem with the names but the word "Empire" is redundant for a faction reduced to one province. Simply "The Trapezuntines" or "The Nicaeans" may be more suitable.

[Omanes Alexandrapolites]

I don't see a problem with the names but the word "Empire" is redundant for a faction reduced to one province. Simply "The Trapezuntines" or "The Nicaeans" may be more suitable.

I'm very sorry to notify you of this, yet, in some of the books I have seen, one of which shows the world in 1453, when the once great Byzantine Empire was reduced to a small area of Greece and Contantinople after the Ottoman Invasion, the remainder of the Byzantine land is still labled "The Byzantine Empire". I'm not quite sure why this strange, and quite illogical name is still held, yet I think it may be because their now humble leader is still known as, and holds the title of, "Byzantine Emperor". I'm not too sure, but if their leader at this time was to have a different title, for example, that of Duke of Nicea, or Duke of Trezibond, then based upon the map presented in the book I have seen, they could, from a political term, no longer be called an empire and would have to be considered to be a Dukedom.

However, that said, I do most humbly agree with you in logical terms to a certain extent, and am not too concered over whichever path you may take in this naming regard. Either one of the two, both valid, logical and correct, paths would be perfect, in my extreemly humble opinion. Thanks, cheers!