Maps and Provinces

[gollum]

Hi,
no worries, often i think that yes/no type of answers to my posts are the best

!it burnsus!

[western]

I'm sure it's not top of the agenda at the moment, but I agree with Gollum about at least some of the islands. Sicily and Cyprus had strategic importance in the sense of being valuable bases which were both the targets and launchpads for invasions. That was not the case for Corsica, Sardinia, Crete where the story from 11th to !4th centuries is pretty much just localised rebellion. So in the search for a better MTW, I'd regard those 3 provinces as available for re-use where there are better opportunities. There's no shortage of historically based candidates which would be good for gameplay - Southern France and either Dalmatia or Albania already mentioned; in addition the giant Flanders and Lorraine could profitably be split (add Artois and Brabant) to better represent this very active area; Moravia could be split off from Bohemia; and adding Samogitia (main battleground on the Baltic) would make Lithuania an inland province as it should be. Just some ideas

[ULC]

Hmmm...to me, one of the things that should decide provincial availability it the overall faction "presence" in an area. We could have a very active or province heavy place in one area or another, but history at some point gives way to game balance. Increasing the provinces in the Lorriane/Flanders area is not as needed as say splitting Hungary or Poland. Also, based on the number of a faction in an area, we should have a certain number of provinces - IHMO, the number of provinces in a given theater should be equal to (number of participants)x3(+1). So if we have 4 factions crammed into one area, then we should have 13 provinces they should be fighting over.

[western]

You make a good point YLC. There's no shortage of good, available choices for historical provinces - and the ones actually chosen should be linked to choices about factions, with more provinces where there are more factions.

[caravel]

I'm sure it's not top of the agenda at the moment, but I agree with Gollum about at least some of the islands. Sicily and Cyprus had strategic importance in the sense of being valuable bases which were both the targets and launchpads for invasions. That was not the case for Corsica, Sardinia, Crete where the story from 11th to !4th centuries is pretty much just localised rebellion. So in the search for a better MTW, I'd regard those 3 provinces as available for re-use where there are better opportunities. There's no shortage of historically based candidates which would be good for gameplay - Southern France and either Dalmatia or Albania already mentioned; in addition the giant Flanders and Lorraine could profitably be split (add Artois and Brabant) to better represent this very active area; Moravia could be split off from Bohemia; and adding Samogitia (main battleground on the Baltic) would make Lithuania an inland province as it should be. Just some ideas

We already have Albania in the form of Epirus.

[western]

Hi Cynewulf

I had in mind the area north of Epirus, centred on Dyrrachium (western end of the Via Egnatia), that formed the Angevin kingdom of Albania in the 13th century and was earlier fought over between the Normans and the Byz. It would mean Thessaly didn't have a border on the Adriatic, and it would be harder for the Sicilians to get to Constantinople - but it's just one of many candidates, depending on where you feel gameplay needs a bit of a boost.

[naut]

I whole heartedly agree with YLC's post.

[gollum]

Alright - this is a suggestion in tackling the naval units/aspect of the game.

Its actually different than the one you have already started on - but bear with me it might be worth it.

The plan is this;

Make most sea areas not bordering land other than a few limited ones per theatre that would represent established commercial ports of the period as; Constantinople - Venice - Genoa - Valencia - Tripoli - Egypt - Algeria - Sicily - Fesh - Portugal - Aquitaine - Wessex - Pomerania - Denmark - Lithuania - Novgorod - Crimea.

These would be very small in map area representing the port - so from hereby i call them port areas. They would need to be drawn out on the map.

Now this would mean that naval trade is reduced significantly - so - i suggest that trade commodities have a much higher value than currently and even higher than in vanilla essentially becoming a constant source of profit.

Trade commodities should not be common among port areas so that whatever trade can be made is possible - with the raised commodity value trade should still be significant if somewhat exclusive to the player.

The rest of the sea areas i suggest to greatly reduce in number (ie merge a lot of coastal areas but may keep deep sea ones) - say Adriatic and Ionian they can be merged so can be Mirtoon and Aegean and Bosporus etc

In this way, major naval invasions that are fantasy of course for the period and detrimental for gameplay in my view, are largely impossible and by reducing the number of sea regions naval interaction will be more direct and effective for the AI factions.

In terms of this scheme, islands can be safely discarded - as i suggested elsewhere only Britain and Sicily can be kept.

This is just a suggestion - please do not tear appart

!it burnsus!

[caravel]

Let's just ditch ships altogether.

Ok well seriously, I'm not sure about this. Ditching ships is not as impossible as it seems by the way. Adding land-bridges to the map where required and getting rid of Islands is easy enough. It's the "crossing the Mediterranean" bit that always leaves me scratching my head. Anyway your idea is almost a compromise, but I'm still not sure. I would prefer the game to work as it does in STW, though it would be without the port hopping ability - which I never liked anyway. Ports and traders could be altered to simply give a steady income and trade goods removed altogether. Again my only reservation would be the Mediterranean region. It would be wrong not to have crossings there.

In my opinion it would improve the game vastly as you'd have no more of those stupid invasions (i.e. the Byzantine set off from Constantinople and invade Scotland), which ruin a good campaign.

Edit: by the way I tried this before some years ago before I started on this mod. I firmly believe that ships should be abstracted.

[gollum]

Thats exactly the kind of thing that is adressed - basically the only regions that can be invaded are the ones with a port sea region - also the AI factions should be better protected if the total number of sea regions is small. You are right in that it is a compromise and that taking out ships altogether is the best thing - the only problem that i see with that is that some gameplay and some flavor is taken out completely. In paper that might be inconsequential - yet perhaps when implemented it might turn out too dry.

EDIT
I wouldnt mind to take out ships altogether at all - and put on weight in other things like faction rosters, strategic imoprtance of tech trees in relation to recruitment and unit stats.

!it burnsus!

[gollum]

If ships are out altogether - then you might want to keep trade goods in with as i mentioned before with higher value - this will actually make for a decent constant income (as in the landlocked regions).

You could also add prerequisite buildings in order to exploit trade goods - say a lumberyard (for wood) or a textile guild (for silk) etc before a trading post can be set up. Then it would take some investing to reap the benefit.

!it burnsus!

[caravel]

True enough, trade goods could be left in to produce more variable incomes. Increasing their values and adding more goods to landlocked provinces would then be viable. Ports could be given a small income and would still be vital for the movement of agents.

A landbridge would need to be added from Ireland to Scotland and/or Wales. Landbridges across the Mediterranean are dangerous. For example a connection between Sicily and Tunisia would allow the Sicilians to Surge into North Africa with ease. I don't see this as an issue now that Cyrenacia and Sinai have been removed. This splits the region in half. To get to the Maghreb you have to go via Iberia which makes sense. Getting to Egypt and the holy land is via Asia Minor, this also makes a lot of sense. Of course there are those that will quote a certain invasion that came from a certain place and went somewhere that we would not be able to reproduce if ships were gone, though there are also plenty of other silly invasions, such as the Almohads turning up in Wales, that more than serve as the counter argument. Also from an historical perspective, 1087 - 1453 was hardly the age of great naval invasions and expeditions. Indeed most of the crusades went by the land route.

[gollum]

Ports can be now an expensive building that would add a small income (50flrs? 30flrns?). You can keep sea regions in by appropriately ponding them so agents from genoa say cannot travel to Novgorod.

An extra constant income building dependent on the port may be introduced (commercial port?) for the Italian faction as well as relevant units (such as the genoese sailors etc).

No shipping would certainly make for more realistic expansions and for more interesting crusading, especially after you have suceeded to say, conquer jerusalem. It took me 50 years to complete my first crusade with the French in 1.0.9beta - since i had to conquer Nicaea and then defend against a wave of Seljuk counterattacks. I had to build Nicaea up in order to replenish the Crusaders and then slowly move on towards the levant.

I would be against a landbridge from Sicily to Tunisia - but pro a landbridge from Naples to Eipirus - this is quite historical and feasible and would give a way out to the Sicilians in that direction that is good for gameplay imho (than connecting via landbridge muslim and christian lands).

talking of landbridges - you may want to cut off the Cordoba - Fes landbridge and leave in only the Granada-Fes one as it is harder for the Almoravids to defend once they lose Cordoba as it stands - while it would be easier if there was a choke point.

Taking out the islands will yield extra provinces - Crete, Cyprus, Corsica and Sardinia. I would also take out Ireland too - since there is no incentive to add an Irish faction - it is somewhat there only to be conquered by the English - and so inconsequential. There are other areas of the map that suffer greatly and are far more important (for the period globally) - namely around Poland and Hungary, southern France and the Alpine region.

If you have made this (important) decision - i suggest to concentrate on rendering a final version of the map next. Once this is finalised factions can be worked on (and a few perhaps added) while knowing that the map would not be altered anymore.

!it burnsus!

[caravel]

Yes there is no reason to take sea regions out. That would involve turning all of the sea to dead zone and messing around removing them from the startpos. They simply need to be disconnected. It can be done (or at least I think it can) but there wouldn't be much point. If the maptex file were to be altered then I would favour leaving in the sea zone names but removing the actual dividing lines (borders). This discussion would need to continue in the map thread.

-Edit and it's there.

[caravel]

Ports can be now an expensive building that would add a small income (50flrs? 30flrns?). You can keep sea regions in by appropriately ponding them so agents from genoa say cannot travel to Novgorod.

Yes I think the way I removed ships in the past was to simply disable the shipbuilder line. I'm unsure as to whether this is the correct way to do it. Are agents restricted by interconnecting sea regions or can they simply port hop? If the latter is the case then you wouldn't be able to stop agents from going from Egypt to Novgorod via the ports.

An extra constant income building dependent on the port may be introduced (commercial port?) for the Italian faction as well as relevant units (such as the genoese sailors etc).

I was thinking that the shipwright line could be joined to the port line along with the boat builders and slipways from the VI. This would give a true port line with increasing income.

No shipping would certainly make for more realistic expansions and for more interesting crusading, especially after you have suceeded to say, conquer jerusalem. It took me 50 years to complete my first crusade with the French in 1.0.9beta - since i had to conquer Nicaea and then defend against a wave of Seljuk counterattacks. I had to build Nicaea up in order to replenish the Crusaders and then slowly move on towards the levant.

I feel it would stabilise the game and give factions better territorial integrity. It would also mean realistic expansion of territory into regions that are of some benefit and that can be retained.

I would be against a landbridge from Sicily to Tunisia - but pro a landbridge from Naples to Eipirus - this is quite historical and feasible and would give a way out to the Sicilians in that direction that is good for gameplay imho (than connecting via landbridge muslim and christian lands).

Yes when I tested this before I added the Epirus/Naples landbridge. That is a definite one.

talking of landbridges - you may want to cut off the Cordoba - Fes landbridge and leave in only the Granada-Fes one as it is harder for the Almoravids to defend once they lose Cordoba as it stands - while it would be easier if there was a choke point.

This is perhaps a good idea.

Taking out the islands will yield extra provinces - Crete, Cyprus, Corsica and Sardinia. I would also take out Ireland too - since there is no incentive to add an Irish faction - it is somewhat there only to be conquered by the English - and so inconsequential. There are other areas of the map that suffer greatly and are far more important (for the period globally) - namely around Poland and Hungary, southern France and the Alpine region.

Yes, though perhaps Cypruis should be retained due to it's historical significance? Also removing Ireland would seem wrong. It's an extra province that the English will need in the later eras when they start with only the British Isles. Sardinia and Corsica I would agree with removing, those would be far better used in Italy itself either in the alpine region or the peninsula.

If you have made this (important) decision - i suggest to concentrate on rendering a final version of the map next. Once this is finalised factions can be worked on (and a few perhaps added) while knowing that the map would not be altered anymore.

!it burnsus!

Nothing is set in stone as yet, but let's see what others think perhaps?

[gollum]

Are agents restricted by interconnecting sea regions or can they simply port hop? If the latter is the case then you wouldn't be able to stop agents from going from Egypt to Novgorod via the ports.

Yes - remember the *bug* i found last.

I was thinking that the shipwright line could be joined to the port line along with the boat builders and slipways from the VI. This would give a true port line with increasing income.

sounds good.

I feel it would stabilise the game and give factions better territorial integrity. It would also mean realistic expansion of territory into regions that are of some benefit and that can be retained.

agreed and sounds good.

Yes when I tested this before I added the Epirus/Naples landbridge. That is a definite one.

Perfect.

This is perhaps a good idea.

Tried and tested.

Yes, though perhaps Cypruis should be retained due to it's historical significance? Also removing Ireland would seem wrong. It's an extra province that the English will need in the later eras when they start with only the British Isles. Sardinia and Corsica I would agree with removing, those would be far better used in Italy itself either in the alpine region or the peninsula.

Well - you can keep Cyprus in but in terms of gameplay makes little difference - using the province inland would be a million times better. Also Crete and Rhodes werent any less significant - i mean if you start in this vein there is no end - just need to prioritize. For Ireland i am with you.

!it burnsus!

[Belisario]

Hi Gollum and Caravel, interesting discussion about ships and sea regions!

I've reading your posts about this matter and I would like to see how this will affect gameplay. But I also have an idea: "make small independent sea zones" which don't border with their current sea neighbours, only with their land neighbours. Then you could deploy ships in this small sea zones but preventing silly invasions like you have noted and keeping the possibility of "historical" invasions (for instance Naples-Epiros, Sicily-Tunis, Morocco-Andalus...). I also think the movement of agents would result more "natural".

[gollum]

Hello Mr Belisario,

this is a good idea - i would only be fearful of the AI spamming boats on that single region that while might have some effect in allowing invasions may end up a financial dead weight for the AI factions that cannot be gotten rid of (as it currently happens).



!it burnsus!

[caravel]

Yes, this is true. Currently the cheaper shiping causes massive spamming of fleets, expecially with the Byzantine. This makes no sense as they are not set up in the startpos file as a trading faction. When things start to go wrong the AI are stuck with these fleets.

Personally I don't find the ships in MTW much "fun". I don't know of anyone else that does either? The battles are very unpredictable and the AI merely spams fleets and moves them around with no clear purpose. It does not try to build trade routes, though it sometimes may seems so (accident/coincidence) this is not the case. I've seen the Danes with a handful of ships on a few occasions. There are enough of these to go from the baltic to the north sea. Instead of doing this however the AI just sends them anywhere and everywhere - isolated and ineffective. This is why whatever we do with shipping, the AI will never use it effectively and the player will exploit it with ease.

[naut]

It can be done (or at least I think it can) but there wouldn't be much point.

It can, but it's tedious work.

[gollum]

Its contageous!



!it burnsus!

[caravel]

It can, but it's tedious work.

Its contageous!



!it burnsus!

Worrying...

[gollum]

Thats Asai gollum Mr

!it burnsus!

[Belisario]

this is a good idea - i would only be fearful of the AI spamming boats on that single region that while might have some effect in allowing invasions may end up a financial dead weight for the AI factions that cannot be gotten rid of (as it currently happens).

Yes, I am also be fearful of the AI spamming boats which ruined the AI economy. We should find a solution to the spamming ships but it can be difficult. Maybe our Daimyo is right removing ships altogether.

[gollum]

Yes Mr Belisario - it would be interesting - there is a chance that the game might feel somewhat impoverished for some players but its certainly worth to take a chance.

!it burnsus!

[Belisario]

Yes there is no reason to take sea regions out. That would involve turning all of the sea to dead zone and messing around removing them from the startpos. They simply need to be disconnected. It can be done (or at least I think it can) but there wouldn't be much point. If the maptex file were to be altered then I would favour leaving in the sea zone names but removing the actual dividing lines (borders).

Do you want disconnected sea regions from their sea neighbours or also from their land neighbours?
I think you only need edit the "SetNeighbours" section in both cases and it don't requires hard work. Turning all of the sea to dead zone (i.e. pink colour) and removing seas from the startpos would take a long time, but could be used sea colours to add more land regions?

[caravel]

Rather than ruin the game I feel that removing ships will revitalise it. At present ships just don't work (sorry I'm repeating myself) and the AI sees the route from Antioch to Portugal in exactly the same way as it sees invading an adjoining province. The ships in neighbouring seas simply opens up a direct path to the province and the AI goes for it if the province is deemed worthwhile. Also if it happens to be a rebel province then the AI will be very aggressive towards it. This results in factions all scattered all over the map, often losing their homelands.

I mentioned a campaign of mine with the Almohads and Byzantine in the British Isles. Well we have done much to remedy this by breaking the sea up into three zones. This helps to an extent but it still doesn't stop the silly expansions. In the last campaign I played the Byzantine actually dominated the whole south eastern quarter of the map simply because none could compete with them navally. Once they had taken that part of the map, they effectively had the whole of eastern med sea zone to themselves but their, now relatively useless, fleets were still huge.

[caravel]

Do you want disconnected sea regions from their sea neighbours or also from their land neighbours?

Well I'm thinking that disconnecting won't help. Instead I may simply remove ships and shipbuilders. The problem with disconnecting sea zones is that agents will then be unable to move between ports.

Turning all of the sea to dead zone (i.e. pink colour) and removing seas from the startpos would take a long time, but could be used sea colours to add more land regions?

No, I won't be doing that. Unfortunately the disused sea regions cannot be combined and used as land regions.

[Belisario]

Instead I may simply remove ships and shipbuilders.

Then the final solution will be easily reached. Any comment about new landbridges, where they are needed or what you have in mind?

[caravel]

Naples to Epirus will be needed as well as Ireland to Wales/Scotland. Apart from that no more will be needed.

I'm still not sure about the Cordoba to Fes landbridge. It's existence allows for an isolated Granada which is useful and historical (plus there's the fact that we may have a one province faction there in the late era). It may be better to remove the Granada to Fes land bridge, and keep Granada as a defensible province. This way the Castilians could expand as far as Fes but would not need to march through Granada to get there. This will be something to consider for crusades also. Having what will end up as a line of provinces between Castile and Tunisia will mean that any crusade will have to pass through every province in succession in order to reach it's goal.