Quote Originally Posted by gollum View Post
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.
Quote Originally Posted by gollum View Post
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.

Quote Originally Posted by gollum View Post
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.

Quote Originally Posted by gollum View Post
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.

Quote Originally Posted by gollum View Post
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.

Quote Originally Posted by gollum View Post
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.

Quote Originally Posted by gollum View Post
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?