Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 59

Thread: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

  1. #1
    Cthonic God of Deception Member ULC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the swirling maddening chaos of the cosmos unseen to man...
    Posts
    4,138

    Default MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    As far as I can understand, these are the current factions in game/in development/being considered

    Catholic
    English
    French
    Spanish
    Aragonese
    Portugeuse
    HRE
    Danish
    Burgundian
    Polish
    Hungarian
    Italian
    Papal States
    Sicilians

    Orthodox
    Kievians
    Rus/Novgorod
    Byzantium
    Nicaeans

    Islamic
    Moors
    Tiafa Kingdom
    Egyptians
    Turks

    Pagan
    Golden Horde

    Looks good to me, but I would make a suggestion(s)...

    Catholic
    Scots - They were an actual faction during these times, and I think they should be represented as such. It may also be a little bit of pride in having Scottish blood for wanting them in.

    Genoans or Milanese - The Italians were quite divided, and this isn't reflected in game. The were constantly fighting each other and everyone else.

    Orthodox
    Empire of Trebizond - The were actually 2 factions competing for the Imperial crown after the sack of Constantinople. This may curb the Byzantine Juggernuat completely though.

    Kingdom of Cilicia - The "Byzantine" controlled Lesser Armenia in early wasn't even under thier control, and was nearly an autonomous. By High, they had sided with the Crusaders, something that isn't reflected and can't be done.

    Islamic
    Mali or Ghana - They were an actual empire, not just some rebel kingdom. Ghana was more or less pagan, true, but had very strong islamic influence and I think could thus qualify as a islamic faction. Mali on the other hand was a very influental and powerful Islamic kingdom, again not reflected.

    Volga Bulgarians - If only to curb the wolrds slow slide into catholic christianity, The Volga-Bulgarians were quite the faction and hiers to the the fallen jewish kingdom of Khazar (Which would be interesting to play as, BTW).

    Pagan
    Cumans - They fought the Hungarian Empire, and lost, but nonetheless was a kingdom in its own right. If you don't mind tearing apart the viking campaign, you could use the FN_07 faction for these guys to reflect thier conversion to catholicism in the 13th century.

    Lithuanians - These guys were involved in tons of things, more specifically all things involving Poland and the Tuetonic Order. They don't need a conversion event, becuase a Polish (?) king assumed the throne and converted the country.

    I think this may be more work then what you are looking for, but I would do the work myself if you want.

  2. #2

    Default Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    A few corrections best made within the general flow of the thing:
    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    As far as I can understand, these are the current factions in game/in development/being considered

    Catholic
    English
    French
    Spanish Castile-Leon
    Aragonese
    Portugeuse
    HRE
    Danish
    Burgundian
    Polish
    Hungarian
    Italian
    Papal States
    Sicilians

    Orthodox
    Kievians Kievan Rus/Russians
    Rus/Novgorod Novgorod Republic
    Byzantium
    Nicaeans Empire of Nicaea: As Byzantine

    Islamic
    Moors Almoravids
    Almohads: As Almoravids
    Marinids: As Almoravids
    Tiafa Kingdom Nasrid Granada only (Personally I think the Medieval Iberian situation would merit a smaller map, like the VI map to do the thing some justice.)
    Egyptians Fatimids
    Ayyubids: As Fatimids
    Mamluks: As Fatimids
    Turks Seljukid Empire
    Seljuk Sultanate of Rum: As Seljukid Empire
    Ottoman Empire: As Seljukid Empire

    Pagan
    Golden Horde
    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    Looks good to me, but I would make a suggestion(s)...

    Catholic
    Scots - They were an actual faction during these times, and I think they should be represented as such. It may also be a little bit of pride in having Scottish blood for wanting them in.
    I agree with the Scots in the VI camapaign but on the world stage no. Other smaller factions such as the Aragonese, Danes and Sicilians were important factions and did go on to conquer other lands, the Scots did not. In the Pocket Mod I could see them ending up as a token faction with only highland clansmen (the laughable Braveheart Infantry) as a unique unit, and not an historically accurate one. Also if Scotland were to be added that would give equal weight (ok perhaps not equal but almost) to Wales and Ireland being added.
    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    Genoans or Milanese - The Italians were quite divided, and this isn't reflected in game. The were constantly fighting each other and everyone else.
    And Venitians? The problem I can see with this is that, like the Iberian Peninsuala the Italian city states thing warrants a mini campaign to itself. Alot of small one or two province factions would just add more weak factions to be swallowed up. Venice would be difficult in that many of their key territories were small areas not represented as provinces, this would mean adding many extra provinces to do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    Orthodox
    Empire of Trebizond - The were actually 2 factions competing for the Imperial crown after the sack of Constantinople. This may curb the Byzantine Juggernuat completely though.
    My one argument against this is that they would be duplicate faction. There was also the Despotate of Epirus, the third successor state. Trebizond never actually returned to Byzantine (Nicaean) control and eventually fell to the Turks, but it did hold out as an independent state for longer than Constantinople. May be a worthwhile faction in the high era, if we were to go down that route.
    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    Kingdom of Cilicia - The "Byzantine" controlled Lesser Armenia in early wasn't even under thier control, and was nearly an autonomous. By High, they had sided with the Crusaders, something that isn't reflected and can't be done.
    This is why I've made it rebel in all eras, as it was never a Byzantine province. They would be an interesting faction, would need a lot of work and research though. At present we have Armenian Heavy Cavalry and that's it.
    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    Islamic
    Mali or Ghana - They were an actual empire, not just some rebel kingdom. Ghana was more or less pagan, true, but had very strong islamic influence and I think could thus qualify as a islamic faction. Mali on the other hand was a very influental and powerful Islamic kingdom, again not reflected.
    Off them map, so can't be done.
    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    Volga Bulgarians - If only to curb the wolrds slow slide into catholic christianity, The Volga-Bulgarians were quite the faction and hiers to the the fallen jewish kingdom of Khazar (Which would be interesting to play as, BTW).
    I agree, and they could make use of the steppe cavalry types that are already in existence.
    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    Pagan
    Cumans - They fought the Hungarian Empire, and lost, but nonetheless was a kingdom in its own right. If you don't mind tearing apart the viking campaign, you could use the FN_07 faction for these guys to reflect thier conversion to catholicism in the 13th century.
    Possible, again a lot of work but the possibilities are there.
    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    Lithuanians - These guys were involved in tons of things, more specifically all things involving Poland and the Tuetonic Order. They don't need a conversion event, becuase a Polish (?) king assumed the throne and converted the country.
    The issue with these is that to add them means adding the Teutonic Order and adding them means adding more of the Baltic States. It's a runaway train of adding factions from then on. As I've said I don't mind adding factions if I can get the historical input and graphics in order to do it, but I don't want to end up just copying the other major mods. Belisario has helped enormously with the graphics and other aspects, hopefully he will be kind enough to produce other faction shield/flag graphics when needed.
    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    I think this may be more work then what you are looking for, but I would do the work myself if you want.
    Any help will be greatly appreciated. You would have to have some knowledge of the scripting involved, or some artistic talent. Adding factions is no easy task neither is adding units. EVen startpos editing can be a minefield. It's not difficult in terms of complexity, but it is tedious, error prone and tiring. Every change has to be tested in order that untraceable errors don't creep in. A tab out of place in the unit or build prod files causes havoc. A mistake in the startpos files causes the era to simply not show up in the game. LBMs and BIF/BUFs the main formats that MTW uses for images are difficult to work with, save, create and convert.

    For now, as I've said on numerous occasions so excuse the repetition, I'm more interested in getting a working framework that plays well, before adding more general bulk.

    Last edited by caravel; 05-21-2007 at 16:07.

  3. #3
    Cthonic God of Deception Member ULC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the swirling maddening chaos of the cosmos unseen to man...
    Posts
    4,138

    Default Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    Understood. For the Ghana/Mali problem, I am in fact modding a MTW2 map for use within MTW, and this should help in that regard. As to the Other factions, maybe some good criteria would be the following to see if it gets added and to prevent the runaway effect:

    1) Faction must be unique
    2) Faction must have been A "world" player in politics
    3) Faction must have existed longer than a century
    4) Faction must not create overcrowding (i.e. 4 surrounded by 4 or more factions.)

  4. #4

    Default Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    And Venitians? The problem I can see with this is that, like the Iberian Peninsuala the Italian city states thing warrants a mini campaign to itself. Alot of small one or two province factions would just add more weak factions to be swallowed up. Venice would be difficult in that many of their key territories were small areas not represented as provinces, this would mean adding many extra provinces to do that.
    The problem I see with Separating Genoa and Venice is that it would make them too weak. Particularily Venice. So it can't be made quite "Historical" (there would be Florence and others to deal with). However, if it came to that, maybe it could be split into Venice and Genoa, with Venice getting the alps provinces and Florence, and Genoa getting Genoa, Corsica, and Sardinia? Plus, having Genoa and Venice start off as more developed to offset their lack of provinces
    EDIT: how about elective monarchies, whether an addittional italian faction gets added or not? Doges were elected.

    Nasrid Granada only (Personally I think the Medieval Iberian situation would merit a smaller map, like the VI map to do the thing some justice.)
    I don't know if a "small map" campaign, but certainly more provinces would be in order: as it is now the "glorious Reconquista" usually ends up in less than fifty years, one or other way...
    BTW: methinks Navarre would merit a place among the northern kingdoms, along with Aragon and Portugal :p
    PD: (more about units, but on the same topic: My experiments nerfing Spanish Jinettes: raising the upkeep to 90 gp/turn per unit sort of controlled their spamming)
    BTW: What is the conceptual rooster for Granada as of now? (Also, is there a flag? I know that nowadays it's shield is a Pommengranate, but I don't know how "historical" that is)

    On the naming of "The Empire of Nicaea": doesn't it look a bit ugly? I mean, chances are that it retakes Constantinople as one of it's first moves. Personally, I think that they should remain dubbed as "Byzantines". I would support the Trapisond faction idea, but I think that would be faction spamming a bit too much, considering the province layout on that zone.
    (on this same topic: I tried to alter the default Byzantine flag into something more akin to the "Basileus Basileon" flag (as in MTW2), but failed due to very small sprites being required)
    Last edited by The Unknown Guy; 05-21-2007 at 16:53.
    Iä Cthulhu!

  5. #5

    Default Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    Understood. For the Ghana/Mali problem, I am in fact modding a MTW2 map for use within MTW, and this should help in that regard.
    I'm not sure how that would work. The M2TW/RTW maps are angular tiles maps and not really suitable for MTW. Also a map of that scale would be a waste because there are simply not enough available provinces inside MTW's hardcoded limit to take advantage of a bigger map. You'd have a lot of dead zones. It's one of those things that we have to live with.
    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    As to the Other factions, maybe some good criteria would be the following to see if it gets added and to prevent the runaway effect:

    1) Faction must be unique
    2) Faction must have been A "world" player in politics
    3) Faction must have existed longer than a century
    4) Faction must not create overcrowding (i.e. 4 surrounded by 4 or more factions.)
    1) Unique as in not effectively the same faction under a different dynasty?
    2) That criteria effectively rules out the Taifa Kingdoms, Navarra, and Nasrid Granada among others.
    3) I agree with this, which is why I'm not really prepared to try and represent the shorter Taifa period in Spain between the Almoravids and the Almohads.
    4) This is not so much a concern. If the faction is an important faction I don't mind it being surrounded by three or four neighbours.

  6. #6
    Cthonic God of Deception Member ULC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the swirling maddening chaos of the cosmos unseen to man...
    Posts
    4,138

    Default Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    Some ideas I have thought up as of right now:

    1) Cambyses II mentioned that the Trebizond faction would be identical to the Nicaean one. I think this could be solved by simply by changing the unit rosters, so that one has a more western feel and the other a more eastern feel. On a side note, I suggest using the original Byzantine faction for Trebizond, and the new one for Nicaea.

    2) Just using the Genoese Sailors for the Italians could solve the Archer problem. They could have the following stats: 2 Charge, 2 Attack, 0 Defense, 1 Armor, 2 Morale. This could also help the AI, as it seems confused as to whether to build the sailors or vanilla archers (who I think should be called foresters, as they wear a uniform almost identical to a woodsman, with an actual “professional” archer available to catholic factions later). They could even be renamed “Italian Light Infantry” (and obviously the Italian Infantry would become something else).

    3) Make the Gothic units (Sergeants, Foot Knights, Knights) into an Imperial line for the HRE. Turn the badly named “Lancers” into “Gothic Knights”. The Imperial units could be available from High to Late, have high building requirements, and be the cream of the crop. I have the following suggestions for unit stats for the units: “Imperial Guard” (Gothic Sergeants) – 60 man unit, Elite, Disciplined, good speed (they use gothic armor, which supposedly was very light and durable, compared to conventional armor of the day), 2 Charge, 3-4 Attack, 5 Defense, 4-6 Armor, 4 Morale, Bonus attacking Cavalry, AP attack. “Imperial Men-At-Arms” (Gothic Foot Knights) – 60 man unit, Elite, Disciplined, decent speed, 4 Charge, 4-6 Attack, 5-6 Defense, 4-7 Armor, 6-8 Morale, AP attack. “Imperial Knights” (Gothic Knights) – 60 man unit, Elite, Disciplined, Elite, Impetuous, Bodyguard, good speed, 6 Charge, 4-6 Attack, 6-8 Defense, 6-10 Armor, 8 Morale, AP attack, dismounts into “Imperial Guard”.

    4) Why NOT include the Scots? I think the English need a thorn in their side, and the Scots could do it. They don’t have to be very strong, just annoying. If you want, make them unplayable. But if you do make them playable, a few unit suggestions: Scottish Pikemen (Robert the Bruce used these BEFORE the Late period), Highland Rabble (or some other suitable name: An excellent way to make use of the peasant unit, with of course better stats). You could even convert some units from the Viking campaign for use within the normal campaign. On the plus side, there is already a pre-made Scottish faction!

    5) If I can import the map from MTW2, then we would need some graphics (units, shields, colors, etc.) for the Mali and Ghanaian Empires. I still think that it should be done, considering the importance of Timbuktu. Anyway, any volunteers? (I think we could give them the Sahara; yes I know, very ahistorical, but come on, why not? I'd love to see Africans overrun Europe).

    6) On the previous subject, the expanded map plus the addition of the Ghanaian or Mali Empires might curb the Spaniards from using the North African coast as a Crusade “Gateway”.

    7) On Crusades and Jihads: Is there anyway to change the Zealousness of a province? I’ve seen far to many Jihads die before reaching the objective province.

    8) On the “Islamic” UM and MS, why not give them to the Sicilians too, if not exclusively? This could reflect the fact that the Sicilians had quite the mixed culture.

    9) On the Criteria for factions, it was hastily thought up. Sorry if it was confusing or self-contradictory.

    10) You don't really need to add the Tuetonic Order to add the Lithuanians: They would be effectively fighting 2 German factions. Just leave it as is. It also wouldn't make sense to have the Tuetonic Order conquer the HRE and the Russian steppes, as they are apt to do in XL and BKB.

    Don’t worry, I will be back every now and then to harass you with more insane, loony, useless, and vexatious ideas. I will never go away, unless of course a final version of the Pocket Mod is ever produced.

  7. #7

    Default Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
    The problem I see with Separating Genoa and Venice is that it would make them too weak. Particularily Venice. So it can't be made quite "Historical" (there would be Florence and others to deal with). However, if it came to that, maybe it could be split into Venice and Genoa, with Venice getting the alps provinces and Florence, and Genoa getting Genoa, Corsica, and Sardinia? Plus, having Genoa and Venice start off as more developed to offset their lack of provinces
    EDIT: how about elective monarchies, whether an addittional italian faction gets added or not? Doges were elected.
    The whole Italian situation is even more complicated than the Iberian one. Genoa and Venice were much smaller than the provinces in the game, basically only city states, and for a large part of the early and high eras most of Italy was part of the HRE, so in early and High I would compromise a bit and perhaps have Genoa, Venice and Pisa, the three most important of the time. When it comes to late it gets much more complex and personally I just don't think it can be done. For Venice a lot of the Mediterranean islands need to be added as they made up most of their territories, and for the rest the provinces of Italy in the game are not correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
    I don't know if a "small map" campaign, but certainly more provinces would be in order: as it is now the "glorious Reconquista" usually ends up in less than fifty years, one or other way...
    BTW: methinks Navarre would merit a place among the northern kingdoms, along with Aragon and Portugal :p
    Navarra is viable but would be a one province faction. Historically Navarre was there for the duration of the game's time frame but lost a lot of territory over the centuries. The problem with this is, that if Navarra are added then why not Wales? Why not Bohemia? What about Savoy, or the Hafsids? It goes on and on. There are simply too many factions to include.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
    PD: (more about units, but on the same topic: My experiments nerfing Spanish Jinettes: raising the upkeep to 90 gp/turn per unit sort of controlled their spamming)
    BTW: What is the conceptual rooster for Granada as of now? (Also, is there a flag? I know that nowadays it's shield is a Pommengranate, but I don't know how "historical" that is)
    No idea of the Roster for Granada as yet, as I haven't thought about it. They will probably need their own cavalry anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
    On the naming of "The Empire of Nicaea": doesn't it look a bit ugly? I mean, chances are that it retakes Constantinople as one of it's first moves. Personally, I think that they should remain dubbed as "Byzantines". I would support the Trapisond faction idea, but I think that would be faction spamming a bit too much, considering the province layout on that zone.
    (on this same topic: I tried to alter the default Byzantine flag into something more akin to the "Basileus Basileon" flag (as in MTW2), but failed due to very small sprites being required)
    I will not be using the name "Empire of Nicaea" and have never had the intention of using it. If Trebizond were added then it may be necessary though.

    I wouldn't worry too much about flags. The sprites are indeed so small that you can't achieve any detail, so small coats of arms are just a waste and lack definition. It is better to use something symbolic of the faction with an associated colour if possible. The historicity of the faction flags is something that I'm not overly concerned with, the ability to tell them apart and their visual clarity is. On a coat of arms for example it is better to take the key feature, separate it and make it a single colour and superimpose this on a background coloured to roughly represent the faction in some way.
    Last edited by caravel; 05-22-2007 at 14:19.

  8. #8
    Cthonic God of Deception Member ULC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the swirling maddening chaos of the cosmos unseen to man...
    Posts
    4,138

    Default Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    A stretch, but would it be possible to use the MedMod map permission? It has excellent province distrubution, which could make previously unstable factions more stable (particulary for the Italians). I understand if you don't want to, but I think it would give you a better base from which to begin your own map at least.

    Originally Posted by Cambyses II
    I will not be using the name "Empire of Nicaea" and have never had the intention of using it. If Trebizond were added then it may be necessary though.
    Not neccassarily; just make Trebizond the "Empire of Trebizond".
    Last edited by ULC; 05-23-2007 at 13:43.

  9. #9

    Default Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    A stretch, but would it be possible to use the MedMod map permission? It has excellent province distrubution, which could make previously unstable factions more stable (particulary for the Italians). I understand if you don't want to, but I think it would give you a better base from which to begin your own map at least.
    The problem with using the medmod map is that I'd still be editing just as many provinces in order to remove the ones we don't want. Also the Pocket Mod would end up as being called a mod that is "based on medmod", which I don't want. I am prepared to do the graft, and sit down and reposition borders and add a few provinces if people will only supply the maps and info for reference.
    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    Not neccassarily; just make Trebizond the "Empire of Trebizond".
    I was thinking more of "Empire of Nicaea" and "Empire of Trebizond"? As they are at present I would leave it as "Byzantine", though both of the former are actually more accurate. It would be nice to divide up Greece and add the "Despotate of Epirus" also. 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.

  10. #10

    Default Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
    I tried to alter the default Byzantine flag into something more akin to the "Basileus Basileon" flag (as in MTW2), but failed due to very small sprites being required
    Don't worry, the new Byzantine flags and shields are flying to Cambyses II PC!

    As far as Byzantines are concerned, I don't support their split into three factions in high and late. If you add the Empire of Trebizond you musn't forget the Georgian Kingdom (particularly Queen Tamar of Georgia was instrumental in the establishment of the Empire of Trebizond), and if you add the Despotate of Epirus you musn't forget the Bulgarians (remember the figure of King Kaloyan) and the Serbians (remember King Stephan Dushan). We run the risk to go in a spiral of multiple possible factions and we must be cautious.

    If you are interested in new factions I propose to follow the example of the ever-mentioned MedMod of WesWhitaker. He begin his mod for the late era, then launched the early era, and the high era was not released. Well, we need a bit of order here: Early, High, and Late .

    I am ready to listen your proposals for new factions in the early era and begin graphic shields work.

    Cheers

  11. #11
    Cthonic God of Deception Member ULC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the swirling maddening chaos of the cosmos unseen to man...
    Posts
    4,138

    Default Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    I already have suggested my ideas and thier refinements to Cambyses II, although he has not commented on my second post, so I have no idea what to suggest or where I should go. My original proposals are at the top.

  12. #12

    Default Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    Some ideas I have thought up as of right now:
    Sorry, YourLordandConqueror, I completely missed this post!

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    1) Cambyses II mentioned that the Trebizond faction would be identical to the Nicaean one. I think this could be solved by simply by changing the unit rosters, so that one has a more western feel and the other a more eastern feel. On a side note, I suggest using the original Byzantine faction for Trebizond, and the new one for Nicaea.
    If we were to add Trebizond, why the use the original Byzantine faction for them and not for Nicaea? Could you define "eastern feel"?

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    2) Just using the Genoese Sailors for the Italians could solve the Archer problem. They could have the following stats: 2 Charge, 2 Attack, 0 Defense, 1 Armor, 2 Morale. This could also help the AI, as it seems confused as to whether to build the sailors or vanilla archers (who I think should be called foresters, as they wear a uniform almost identical to a woodsman, with an actual “professional” archer available to catholic factions later). They could even be renamed “Italian Light Infantry” (and obviously the Italian Infantry would become something else).
    Most western european archers were foresters and hunters anyway, hence the "peasant tunic" look, so your idea is a good one.

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    3) Make the Gothic units (Sergeants, Foot Knights, Knights) into an Imperial line for the HRE.
    How would three types of units constitute a royal line? Also since gothic armoured units belong near the end of the late era, they could not be added in early.

    There is also an unused "Gothic Men at Arms" info pic which could perhaps be used for the third level (late) of men at arms.

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    Turn the badly named “Lancers” into “Gothic Knights”.
    Lancers are currently the "Knights of Calatrava", an order type Knight trainable only in Castile. This is not that much of a problem as I do have another unit icon (Late Ghulam Bodyguards) which is a knight in Gothic Armour that I can use if necessary. The info pic will have to be a duplicate of Gothic Knights, Lancers or Late Royal Knights though.

    There is also an unused "Gothic Men at Arms" info pic which could be used for the third level (late) of men at arms. (I believe CA initially intended to add Feudal, Chivalric and Gothic levels for the three eras but it didn't happen.)

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    The Imperial units could be available from High to Late, have high building requirements, and be the cream of the crop. I have the following suggestions for unit stats for the units: “Imperial Guard” (Gothic Sergeants) – 60 man unit, Elite, Disciplined, good speed (they use gothic armor, which supposedly was very light and durable, compared to conventional armor of the day), 2 Charge, 3-4 Attack, 5 Defense, 4-6 Armor, 4 Morale, Bonus attacking Cavalry, AP attack. “Imperial Men-At-Arms” (Gothic Foot Knights) – 60 man unit, Elite, Disciplined, decent speed, 4 Charge, 4-6 Attack, 5-6 Defense, 4-7 Armor, 6-8 Morale, AP attack. “Imperial Knights” (Gothic Knights) – 60 man unit, Elite, Disciplined, Elite, Impetuous, Bodyguard, good speed, 6 Charge, 4-6 Attack, 6-8 Defense, 6-10 Armor, 8 Morale, AP attack, dismounts into “Imperial Guard”.
    The naming is a concern to me. Firstly there were no "Imperial" units as the HRE was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire (how many times have you heard that one?) but more so a confederation of Germanic (eastern Franks) states. "Gothic" is simply a style of armour.

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    4) Why NOT include the Scots? I think the English need a thorn in their side, and the Scots could do it. They don’t have to be very strong, just annoying. If you want, make them unplayable. But if you do make them playable, a few unit suggestions: Scottish Pikemen (Robert the Bruce used these BEFORE the Late period), Highland Rabble (or some other suitable name: An excellent way to make use of the peasant unit, with of course better stats). You could even convert some units from the Viking campaign for use within the normal campaign. On the plus side, there is already a pre-made Scottish faction!
    Yes, there is a pre made faction but like any other it's too early. The units from VI would be wrong for the 1087 - 1453 campaign. The clansmen are also wrong in that they wear kilts, a 16th century garment. Other types of units would be needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    5) If I can import the map from MTW2, then we would need some graphics (units, shields, colors, etc.) for the Mali and Ghanaian Empires. I still think that it should be done, considering the importance of Timbuktu. Anyway, any volunteers? (I think we could give them the Sahara; yes I know, very ahistorical, but come on, why not? I'd love to see Africans overrun Europe).
    Unfortunately ahistorical means it's not going into the Pocket Mod, sorry. Timbutu is simply too far south to be on the map, and extending the current map would not be possible as the engine does not allow enough extra provinces.

    I have other plans for the Sahara already. I would support your ideas regarding the extension of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia and the removal of the existing Sahara province. Particularly Morocco, roughly equivalent in the game to the kingdom of Fes, doesn't actually cover Marrakech at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    6) On the previous subject, the expanded map plus the addition of the Ghanaian or Mali Empires might curb the Spaniards from using the North African coast as a Crusade “Gateway”.
    The removal of Cyrenacia and the cutting in half of North Africa should curb the Spanish expansion.


    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    7) On Crusades and Jihads: Is there anyway to change the Zealousness of a province? I’ve seen far to many Jihads die before reaching the objective province.
    In the vanilla game Inquisitors and Grand Inquisitors increase the zeal of Catholic provinces, and Imams do the same for Muslim ones. Orthodox have no equivalent. In the Pocket mod I have altered to this to Imams and Cardinals increasing zeal. The zeal increase factor is also much less, as per Noir's recommendations. Zeal is not the core issue with failed Jihads, it is troop quality within the Jihad.

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    8) On the “Islamic” UM and MS, why not give them to the Sicilians too, if not exclusively? This could reflect the fact that the Sicilians had quite the mixed culture.
    Possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    9) On the Criteria for factions, it was hastily thought up. Sorry if it was confusing or self-contradictory.


    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    10) You don't really need to add the Tuetonic Order to add the Lithuanians: They would be effectively fighting 2 German factions. Just leave it as is. It also wouldn't make sense to have the Tuetonic Order conquer the HRE and the Russian steppes, as they are apt to do in XL and BKB.
    Historically I can't imagine a Grand Duchy of Lithuania without a Teutonic Order. It would just be wrong adding one without the other, like adding Byzantines without Turks or English without French.

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    Don’t worry, I will be back every now and then to harass you with more insane, loony, useless, and vexatious ideas. I will never go away, unless of course a final version of the Pocket Mod is ever produced.
    Keep the ideas coming, but try to remember that i cam trying to be as historically accurate as possible.

    Last edited by caravel; 05-23-2007 at 20:44.

  13. #13
    Cthonic God of Deception Member ULC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the swirling maddening chaos of the cosmos unseen to man...
    Posts
    4,138

    Default Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    Originally Posted by Caravel
    If we were to add Trebizond, why the use the original Byzantine faction for them and not for Nicaea? Could you define "eastern feel"?
    Trebizond was still ruled by the Comnenos dynasty. I would have though thats were most of the power shifted. What I mean by eastern and western feel is the style of play. One could make more use of Horse archers, good tactics, guerilla warfare, etc., while the other could have more direct approach, similar to haw the catholics go to war.

    Originally Posted by Caravel
    How would three types of units constitute a royal line? Also since gothic armoured units belong near the end of the late era, they could not be added in early.
    I didn't mean a royal line, sorry if I confused you. What I meant was that they would be the exclusive units to the germans, representing thier most trained and professional soldiers. "Imperial" can be ignored or replaced, it was their only to tie them closer in with the "Holy Roman Empire" theme. I didn't want them availabe during the early period, and high was just a possability, But definetly during the late (hey, by the way, has anyone noticed that the sword the GFK are wielding looks like a pre-zwiehander?)

    Originally Posted by Caravel
    Lancers are currently the "Knights of Calatrava", an order type Knight trainable only in Castile. This is not that much of a problem as I do have another unit icon (Late Ghulam Bodyguards) which is a knight in Gothic Armour that I can use if necessary. The info pic will have to be a duplicate of Gothic Knights, Lancers or Late Royal Knights though.
    Sorry, thought you were going to give all Catholic factions access to it.

    Originally Posted by Caravel
    Yes, there is a pre made faction but like any other it's too early. The units from VI would be wrong for the 1087 - 1453 campaign. The clansmen are also wrong in that they wear kilts, a 16th century garment. Other types of units would be needed.
    I would problably argue this do death normally, but I concede to your opinion (and historical accuracy).

    Originally Posted by Caravel
    Historically I can't imagine a Grand Duchy of Lithuania without a Teutonic Order. It would just be wrong adding one without the other, like adding Byzantines without Turks or English without French.
    Why not remove the French? Really though, Lithuania was extremely important, and I think we need to have them be thier owwn faction jsut for the sake OF historical accuracy. Think of this; if they had not existed, the wouldn't have been a Wdalysaw Jogaila, the Tuetonic Order would have never been defeated, Poland would ahve been conquered by the Germans, maybe even the Rus princes would have been toppled! Such a travesty to history cannot be allowed. Not to mention they had the largest land empire in europe during the 13th and 14th centuries.

  14. #14

    Default Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    Trebizond was still ruled by the Comnenos dynasty. I would have though thats were most of the power shifted.
    A good point. I think you may be right.

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    What I mean by eastern and western feel is the style of play. One could make more use of Horse archers, good tactics, guerilla warfare, etc., while the other could have more direct approach, similar to haw the catholics go to war.
    Homelands should take care of that. Trebizond is closer to provinces that can train steppe mercenaries. Some new units may be added also, or exisitng ones renamed. Homelands for steppe units may have to be extended, as at present they don't provide enough coverage.

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    I didn't mean a royal line, sorry if I confused you. What I meant was that they would be the exclusive units to the germans, representing thier most trained and professional soldiers. "Imperial" can be ignored or replaced, it was their only to tie them closer in with the "Holy Roman Empire" theme. I didn't want them availabe during the early period, and high was just a possability, But definetly during the late.
    Well those units are already HRE only, apart from the Gothic Knights which are all factions. I have to rethink the Gothic issue, because a) I'm not entirely convinced this type of armour was very widespread during the game's time frame, and b) I'm not sure about them being available to every faction. I'm thinking moreso the French, Germans and Italians only.

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    Sorry, thought you were going to give all Catholic factions access to it.
    Well this is another thing I need to rethink. The Knights of Calatrava are really too early for the Lancer units armour (both man and horse) so I need some more input on this. The Lancers may be a good subsitute for Gothic Knights for those factions that cannot train the Gothic Knights.

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    Why not remove the French? Really though, Lithuania was extremely important, and I think we need to have them be thier owwn faction jsut for the sake OF historical accuracy. Think of this; if they had not existed, the wouldn't have been a Wdalysaw Jogaila, the Tuetonic Order would have never been defeated, Poland would ahve been conquered by the Germans, maybe even the Rus princes would have been toppled! Such a travesty to history cannot be allowed. Not to mention they had the largest land empire in europe during the 13th and 14th centuries.
    Agreed, in principle but I still think we can get carried away here with adding factions.

  15. #15

    Post Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    Sorry to interrupt here, 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.

    Sorry, cheers!
    Dawn is nature's way of telling you to go back to bed

  16. #16

    Default Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites
    Sorry to interrupt here,
    Quote Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites
    Sorry, cheers!
    You're not interrupting anything, and there is no need to be sorry.


    Quote Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites
    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.


  17. #17

    Post Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    Thanks very much for the confirmation/response and good luck with all your brilliant work, cheers!
    Dawn is nature's way of telling you to go back to bed

  18. #18

    Default Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    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)
    Iä Cthulhu!

  19. #19

    Post Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    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!
    Last edited by Omanes Alexandrapolites; 05-24-2007 at 17:56.
    Dawn is nature's way of telling you to go back to bed

  20. #20

    Default Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    (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.
    Iä Cthulhu!

  21. #21

    Default Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    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.

  22. #22

    Post Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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!
    Dawn is nature's way of telling you to go back to bed

  23. #23

    Default Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    They fancied themselves "Roman Emperors", by virtue of holding Constantinople. For the record, the Turks regarded themselves as the actual Romans, or heirs of the Romans, and regarded the Byzantine Emperors as "dukes", or somesuch. After the fall of Constantinople they took up the "Roman Empire" mantle.

    The claimants to a throne in exile often style themselves "kings" or "Emperors". The courts in Nicaea, Trapisond, and Epirus, certainly did.
    Iä Cthulhu!

  24. #24

    Default Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites
    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".
    On a map yes, but with respect you seem to have missed the previous point entirely, and that is that the word "Byzantine" is a later word applied by historians and scholars. The Eastern Romans (Romanoi) did not call themselves or their empire "Byzantine". Also if you refer to maps you will be heading for mass confusion. I've seen maps in several book and on the net that all seem to conflict with each other and with historical texts. The things to remember is that those maps are never accurate geographical boundaries, but approximate territory and there are differing opinions as which small parts of territory was held by who, when and for how long. Many of these naming differences are in essence the same thing, for example, the "Seljuk Sultanate of Rum" would be the same as the "Roman Sultanate". The use of "Byzantine Empire" on a map is there for uniformity and for the purposes of identification only. The correct name would be "Eastern Roman Empire", but this is almost never used on maps depicting Europe after the fall of the western empire. After 1204 most maps show clearly the "Despotate of Epirus" (Epirian Despotate), "Empire of Nicaea" (Nicaean Empire) and "Empire of Trebizond" (Trapezuntine Empire). My point is that all of these have been prefixed (or suffixed) either "Despotate" or "Empire", but are these scholars terms added for classification purposes or are they the true names of those lands?".

    Quote Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites
    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.
    The titles on the MTW map are not historically accurate and refer to a mish mash of provincial governors and monarchs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites
    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!
    Personally these are my proposals for the High era Byzantines:

    Three factions:

    Trapezuntine Empire (possibly a smaller Trebizond)
    Epirian Despotate (possibly break up greece to form more realistic provinces)
    Nicaean Empire


    One Faction:

    Eastern Roman Empire holding only Nicaea


    One Faction:

    Eastern Roman Empire holding Nicaea, smaller Trebizond, new Epirus province.
    Last edited by caravel; 05-25-2007 at 10:57.

  25. #25
    Cthonic God of Deception Member ULC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the swirling maddening chaos of the cosmos unseen to man...
    Posts
    4,138

    Default Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    I prefer the three Byzantine factions to the one. UG, the Trebizond Empire (misnomer) DID conquer Armenia and annexed Georgia. It eventually lost these to the Ottoman Empire obviously, but it was far more active then other factions. I don't support the "virtual" faction idea, mainly because the AI uselessly expends troops in that direction, builds up massiveborders to said rebelsm, and almost exclusivly attacks them. It creates a situation in which there is total peace. I in fact think the rebel AI should be crippled, so that the actual factions within game expand and stand a chance against the much more intelligent Human.

    On factions though, I really want more religions represented then just Catholic christianity. I'm sick of having catholic revolts in EGYPT for the love of Allah the merciful. I champion more Islamic factions or Pagan ones specifically.

  26. #26

    Post Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    I agree with YourLordandConqueror. I would find three Byzantine factions very interesting to play with/fight against. It would be very interesting to watch them play it out against each other - especially if their tactics are all slightly different.

    I'm sorry to go off topic, yet I just decided to start a Byzantine campaign in High and I have found that it was a simple bribing game. After bribing Constantinople, I could afford to pay off the Greeks, Serbians and Wallachians with ease. After twenty turns, the Byzantine Empire was almost as good as it was at the beginning of Early. I think that the rebel factions have some sort of hard-code behind them which prevents them from having a highish bribing cost. If there were to be "real" factions there instead, it would be almost impossible to simply "go bribe", something which I cannot resist doing, which is an additional reason as to why I would prefer three factions.
    Last edited by Omanes Alexandrapolites; 05-25-2007 at 15:03.
    Dawn is nature's way of telling you to go back to bed

  27. #27

    Default Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    I had this nutty idea.... adding an eçuivalent to the papacy for muslims. That is, not as in excommunication, but as a "keep reappearing" faction, with the Nizaris. My idea was giving them Syria, or a piece of Syria, at least, and making Nizari units exclusive for them, plus using the Grand Inçuisitor to allow them to build a super-assasin. Ideally they'd start messing up with their all Nizari footsoldiers/Fedayeen forces, and harassing and assasinating people, until the factions around them wiped them out, after which they'd have a resurgence, and restart the cycle (pay no attention, I am just toying around with the concept :p)
    Iä Cthulhu!

  28. #28

    Default Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    Quote Originally Posted by YourLordandConqueror
    I prefer the three Byzantine factions to the one. UG, the Trebizond Empire (misnomer) DID conquer Armenia and annexed Georgia. It eventually lost these to the Ottoman Empire obviously, but it was far more active then other factions.
    I agree with adding the other two Byzantine faction in the High era, though I have other reasons. Extra Byzantine factions would serve to add some balance to the region, effectively keeping the Byzantine lands divided and weakened. Real factions instead of just rebels would also present more of a challenge to other factions in the area.

    Quote Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites
    I think that the rebel factions have some sort of hard-code behind them which prevents them from having a highish bribing cost.
    The rebels are cheaper to bribe mainly because their generals are usually 0 loyalty.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Unknown Guy
    I had this nutty idea.... adding an eçuivalent to the papacy for muslims. That is, not as in excommunication, but as a "keep reappearing" faction, with the Nizaris. My idea was giving them Syria, or a piece of Syria, at least, and making Nizari units exclusive for them, plus using the Grand Inçuisitor to allow them to build a super-assasin. Ideally they'd start messing up with their all Nizari footsoldiers/Fedayeen forces, and harassing and assasinating people, until the factions around them wiped them out, after which they'd have a resurgence, and restart the cycle (pay no attention, I am just toying around with the concept :p)
    You mean a real "Assassins" Faction? This could be done in fact, and small province could be sandwiched between Antioch and Tripoli. A Muslim Inquisitor agent may be possible but may also start carrying out Inquisitions using the same info pic and text as the Catholic Inquisitors.

  29. #29

    Default Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    You mean a real "Assassins" Faction? This could be done in fact, and small province could be sandwiched between Antioch and Tripoli.
    Yes, pretty much what I meant. A resurging, harassing, assasin-using "Assasin" faction. I think it would add an addittional interest point in "Holy Land Troubles" besides crusades, Jihads, and hypothetical Byzantine reemergences.
    A Muslim Inquisitor agent may be possible but may also start carrying out Inquisitions using the same info pic and text as the Catholic Inquisitors.
    Now that wouldn't fit too well, would it? :/.
    How big is the Syrian Assasin bonus? Maybe it would suffice by itself to make them a threat. If they got conçuered, it could be assumed that the conçueror's hired assasins were actually putting funds for the warchest of the eventual "Hasashini reemergence", which would take place eventually, making it necessary to retake the province again, thus avoiding explotation of the bonus by long periods of time (if they had a comeback timer like the Papacy)
    Iä Cthulhu!

  30. #30

    Default Re: MTW Pocket Mod: Factions

    I have taken this information from the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I hope it helps to resolve some doubts.

    Empire of Nicaea

    Independent principality of the fragmented Byzantine Empire, founded in 1204 by Theodore I Lascaris (1208–22); it served as a political and cultural centre from which a restored Byzantium arose in the mid-13th century under Michael VIII Palaeologus.
    Theodore fled to Anatolia with other Byzantine leaders after the Latin crusaders' conquest of Constantinople in 1204, establishing himself at Nicaea (now Iznik, Tur.), 40 miles (64 km) to the southeast. Crowned emperor in 1208, Theodore gradually acquired control over much of western Anatolia. He and his successors sponsored a revival of Greek studies at their capital.
    The next Nicaean emperor was John Vatatzes, who sought to retake Constantinople before his rivals Theodore Angelus, despot of Epirus, or John Asen II of Bulgaria (1218–41). He defeated Theodore at Klokotnitsa (in Bulgaria) in 1230. Between 1240 and 1250 he negotiated with the Western emperor Frederick II (1220–50) for help in reconquering Constantinople, but nothing came of the pact.
    Theodore II Lascaris (1254–58) and John IV Lascaris (1258–61) maintained Nicaean strength against the invading Mongols during their brief reigns. In 1261 a Nicaean general, Michael Palaeologus, retook Constantinople and, as Michael VIII, founded the last dynasty of the Byzantine emperors.

    Despotate of Epirus

    Epirus also spelled Epiros (1204–1337), Byzantine principality in the Balkans that was a centre of resistance for Byzantine Greeks during the western European occupation of Constantinople (1204–61).
    The despotate was founded in what is now southern Albania and northwestern Greece by Michael Comnenus Ducas, a member of the dethroned Byzantine imperial house. His half brother and successor, Theodore Ducas, extended his rule eastward to Thessalonica (Thessaloníki), Greece, in 1224 and claimed the title of Byzantine emperor.
    Theodore's rivals, John III Vatatzes, emperor of Nicaea (now Iznik, Turkey), and John Asen II of Bulgaria, attacked him from the east and north; John Asen II defeated and captured Theodore in 1230 at the Battle of Klokotnitsa (now in Bulgaria).
    Under Michael II (reigned 1236–71), Epirus was greatly reduced, and in 1264 Michael was forced to recognize the suzerainty of Michael VIII Palaeologus, who had expelled the Latins from Constantinople and restored the Byzantine Empire. For a very short time, it remained independent and was later ruled by Halias and Serbs.
    In the 13th century Epirus promoted a revival of Classical studies that contributed to the development of Renaissance Italy. The principality was reannexed to the Byzantine Empire in 1337.

    Empire of Trebizond

    After the sack of Constantinople by the crusaders in 1204, two grandsons of the emperor Andronicus I Comnenus escaped and founded an independent offshoot of the Byzantine Empire at Trapezus, with Prince Alexius Comnenus as emperor. His successors, the Grand Comneni, reigned longer than any other Byzantine family, forming extensive alliances through marriage with foreign rulers and promoting their prestige through the cult of St. Eugenius and the glorification of their real or legendary achievements. Although subject to brief periods of domination by the neighbouring Seljuq Turks, Mongols, and Byzantines, the empire based at Trapezus was largely bypassed by both the Seljuqs and the Mongols because of its relative isolation, difficulties of access, and conflict among its enemies. Its prosperity lay partly in export of its own products—silver, iron, alum, cloth, and black wine—and partly from taxes on transit trade to western Iran. The end of the dynasty came when its territories were annexed to the Ottoman Empire in 1461.

    The second Bulgarian empire

    With the collapse of the first Bulgarian state, the Bulgarian church fell under the domination of Greek ecclesiastics who took control of the see of Ohrid and attempted to replace the Bulgarian Slavic liturgy with a Greek liturgy. Bulgarian culture was by this time too deeply rooted to be easily changed, and the Byzantine Empire, beset by the attacks of the Seljuq Turks and the disturbances of the Crusaders, lacked the power to support a more forcible Hellenization.
    In 1185 the brothers Ivan and Peter Asen of Turnovo launched a revolt to throw off Byzantine sovereignty. The Asen brothers defeated the Byzantines and forced Constantinople to recognize Bulgarian independence. Their brother and successor, Kaloyan (reigned 1197–1207), briefly accepted the supremacy of Rome in church affairs and received a royal crown from the pope. But when Baldwin I, first Latin emperor of Constantinople, refused him recognition and declared war on Bulgaria (claiming all its territory by virtue of succession of the Byzantines), Kaloyan had a change of heart. He defeated Baldwin and afterward reverted to Orthodoxy.
    The second Bulgarian empire, with its centre at Turnovo, reached its height during the reign of Tsar Ivan Asen II (1218–41). Bulgaria was then the leading power in the Balkans, holding sway over Albania, Epirus, Macedonia, and Western Thrace. During this period the first Bulgarian coinage appeared, and in 1235 the head of the Bulgarian church received the title of patriarch.
    The successors of Ivan Asen II, however, could not match his ability. Moreover, Bulgaria was beset by Mongol attacks from the north and by internal upheavals brought on by the growing burdens placed on the peasantry by the powerful nobles. The great peasant revolt of 1277–80 briefly allowed the swineherd Ivaylo to occupy the royal throne at Turnovo until he was defeated with the aid of the Byzantines. The Asen dynasty died out in 1280 and was followed by the houses of Terter and Shishman, neither of which was very successful in restoring central authority.
    The declining state reached its nadir in 1330 when Tsar Mikhail Shishman was defeated and slain by the Serbs at the Battle of Velbuzhd (modern Kyustendil). Bulgaria lost its Macedonian lands to the Serbian empire of Stefan Dušan, which then became the dominant Balkan power for the next four decades. Bulgaria appeared to be on the point of disintegration into feudal states when the invasions of the Ottoman Turks began.
    The Ottoman Turks first entered the Balkans as mercenaries of Byzantium in the 1340s, and they returned as invaders in their own right during the following decade. Between 1359 and 1362 Sultan Murad I wrested much of Thrace from Byzantine control and captured Adrianople (modern Edirne, Turkey), commanding the route up the Maritsa valley into the heart of the Bulgarian lands. In 1364 the Turks defeated a crusade sent by Pope Urban V to regain Adrianople, but not before the Crusaders committed so many atrocities against the Orthodox Christians that many Bulgarians came to regard Turkish rule as preferable to alliance with the Roman Catholic West.
    Although Ivan Shishman, Bulgaria's last medieval tsar, declared himself a vassal of Murad in 1371, the Ottomans continued to seek complete domination. Sofia, in the west, was seized in 1382, and Shumen, in the east, fell in 1388. A year later the defeat of the Serbs at the Battle of Kosovo sealed the fate of the entire Balkan Peninsula. In 1393, after a three-month siege, Turnovo was taken and burned. Ivan Shishman allegedly died in Turkish captivity three years later. With the capture of a rump Bulgarian kingdom centred at Bdin (Vidin) in 1396, the last remnant of Bulgarian independence disappeared.

    Medieval Serbia

    Although Serb historians trace the foundation of a Serbian state to the principality of Raška, a stable and continuous Slavic state appeared in this area only under Stefan Nemanja. Stefan assumed the throne of Raška in 1168, but he continued to acknowledge the supremacy of Byzantium until 1185. In 1196 he abdicated in favour of his son Stefan (known as Prvovencani, or the “First-Crowned”), who in 1217 secured from Pope Honorius III the title of “King of Serbia, Dalmatia, and Bosnia.” Under the Nemanjic dynasty, which was to rule the Serb lands for the next 200 years, a powerful state emerged to dominate the entire Balkan Peninsula. It was founded, in part, on the ability and administrative capacity of its rulers and also on the establishment of a link between church and state.
    The rise of the Nemanjic dynasty was facilitated by the collapse of the Byzantine Empire, under the impact of the Fourth Crusade (1204), and the creation of a short-lived Latin Empire. Even after the fortunes of Byzantium were revived after 1261, the primary frontier of Nemanjic expansion lay to the south. Power was seized and consolidated through opportunities offered by a weak Constantinople, and the kingdom extended its authority over an assortment of peoples. Skopje in Macedonia was taken in 1282 by Stefan Uroš II and became the Serb capital. Under the reign of Stefan Dušan (1331–55), the Nemanjic state reached its greatest extent, incorporating Thessaly, Epirus, Macedonia, all of modern Albania and Montenegro, a substantial part of eastern Bosnia, and modern Serbia as far north as the Danube. Dušan adopted the title of emperor at his coronation in Skopje in 1346 (later “Emperor and Autocrat of the Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians, and Albanians”), but he is more commonly remembered by Serbs as Dušan Silni, or “Dušan the Mighty.” To this day the Serbs consider the empire of Dušan Silni as the Golden Age of their nation. All the Balkan states during the Middle Ages modeled themselves on, and saw themselves as the supplanters of, Byzantium. This was no less true for the Serbian state, as reflected in the titles that its monarchs took for themselves and bestowed on their subordinates and as evidenced in the famous Zakonik (code of laws) that Dušan promulgated in 1349, which fused the law of Constantinople with Serb folk custom.
    Through the union of church and state, the Serb emperors strove to imitate and ultimately rival the status of the ecumenical patriarch in Constantinople. An autocephalous church was declared in 1219, with its seat at Zica, near modern Kraljevo, and Sava, the youngest son of Stefan Nemanja, was named archbishop and later was canonized as St. Sava. (The monastery he built there was later designated a World Heritage site by UNESCO.) The Serbian church thus separated from the Bulgarian-influenced archbishopric of Ohrid. In order to escape the harassment of Tatar-raiding parties, the seat of the ecclesiastical order of Nemanjic was later moved southward to Pec, in the Metohija Basin. In 1375 the archbishop of Pec was raised to the status of patriarch, in spite of the anathema of Constantinople. During this time great churches and monasteries were endowed—particularly those at Mileševo (c. 1235), Pec (1250), Moraca (1252), Sopocani (c. 1260), Decani (1327), and Gracanica (1321). These have subsequently come to constitute important symbolic monuments for Serbs. The frescoes of the Raška school, in particular, are known for their capacity to blend secular authority with a deep sense of devotion. Literary work extended beyond copying manuscripts to include pieces of independent creative merit, such as the biography of Stefan Nemanja prepared by St. Sava and his brother Stefan Prvovencani. Courtly culture became religious culture; both church and state benefited from this partnership and created a “civilization” of their own.
    Economic development also contributed to the consolidation of Nemanjic power. Such crops as hemp, flax, grapes, and oil-yielding plants became more widespread. The plains of Kosovo and Metohija became areas of fairly dense population and intensive agriculture, and mining grew considerably in importance. Not only gold and silver but also copper and tin had been exploited since Roman times, but production rose to meet the new demands of imperial courts and centres of ecclesiastical authority. Although this wealth supported a remarkably modest court, it also sustained substantial mercenary armies. Trade expanded, particularly in the hands of Ragusan and Italian merchants, who led caravans along the old Roman routes.

    Medieval Georgia

    Georgia embraced Christianity about the year 330; its conversion is attributed to a holy captive woman, St. Nino. During the next three centuries, Georgia was involved in the conflict between Rome—and its successor state, the Byzantine Empire—and the Persian Sasanian dynasty. Lazica on the Black Sea (incorporating the ancient Colchis) became closely bound to Byzantium. Iberia passed under Persian control, though toward the end of the 5th century a hero arose in the person of King Vakhtang Gorgaslani (Gorgasal), a ruler of legendary valour who for a time reasserted Georgia's national sovereignty. The Sasanian monarch Khosrow I (reigned 531–579) abolished the Iberian monarchy, however. For the next three centuries, local authority was exercised by the magnates of each province, vassals successively of Persia (Iran), of Byzantium, and, after AD 654, of the Arab caliphs, who established an emirate in Tbilisi.
    Toward the end of the 9th century, Ashot I (the Great), of the Bagratid dynasty, settled at Artanuji in Tao (southwestern Georgia), receiving from the Byzantine emperor the title of kuropalates (“guardian of the palace”). In due course, Ashot profited from the weakness of the Byzantine emperors and the Arab caliphs and set himself up as hereditary prince in Iberia. King Bagrat III (reigned 975–1014) later united all the principalities of eastern and western Georgia into one state. Tbilisi, however, was not recovered from the Muslims until 1122, when it fell to King David II (Aghmashenebeli, “the Builder”; reigned 1089–1125).
    The zenith of Georgia's power and prestige was reached during the reign (1184–1213) of Queen Tamar, whose realm stretched from Azerbaijan to the borders of Cherkessia (now in southern Russia) and from Erzurum (in modern Turkey) to Ganja (modern Gäncä, Azerbaijan), forming a pan-Caucasian empire, with Shirvan and Trabzon as vassals and allies.
    The invasions of Transcaucasia by the Mongols from 1220 onward, however, brought Georgia's golden age to an end. Eastern Georgia was reduced to vassalage under the Mongol Il-Khanid dynasty of the line of Hülegü, while Imereti, as the land to the west of the Suram range was called, remained independent under a separate line of Bagratid rulers. There was a partial resurgence during the reign (1314–46) of King Giorgi V of Georgia, known as “the Brilliant,” but the onslaughts of the Turkic conqueror Timur between 1386 and 1403 dealt blows to Georgia's economic and cultural life from which the kingdom never recovered. The last king of united Georgia was Alexander I (1412–43), under whose sons the realm was divided into squabbling princedoms.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO