SS6.4 early era historically more accurate start position (1100)

[Gorrrrrn]

(I've deleted the incorrect stuff that was here in cse anyone stumbles across it and doesn't read any further.
It's amazing just how quickly Google indexes stuff !!)

(if you want to read it's in the next post - but info is incorrect.)

as for other name changes - Xacitarxan is simply an earlier form of Astrakhan so won't require much adjustment of text files and ancillaries.
Gyulafehervar which replaces Brasov has a recognised coat of arms so that's noit a problem.
Ghent I've done, but needs moving slightly on the map.
Oleshe has been replaced by Peresechen which seems to lack a coat of arms - so I'll re-use the old one.

[Fred Putz]

I'll DP as there's a problem with the Crimea.

First up it seems it should be under the control the Kipchaks (Cumans) - which is easy enough to remedy.

However I discover that the new settlement that replaces Caffa (aka Theodosia) namely Kherson was only founded in 1778.
Obviously no use to us in this mod.

So we need the capital (as such) of the region when under Kipchak control - any offers.

I would suggest "Kyrk-Er".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87ufut_Qale

On the german wiki page stands that the City was called "Kyrk-Er" by the Kipchaks which means "40 places".

[Caesar Clivus]

However I discover that the new settlement that replaces Caffa (aka Theodosia) namely Kherson was only founded in 1778.
Obviously no use to us in this mod.

Kherson was an old greek colony and was part of the Roman empire in the medieval period. It is much much older than 1778. It was attacked in 989 by Vladimir I of Kiev because the Roman emperor reneged on a marriage deal the two had struck. There's a reason why I changed Caffa to Kherson

[Gorrrrrn]

one of the sort of entries that causes confusion - forgets to say it is in entirely different location:

Kherson was founded in 1778 by the military leader and statesman Grigory Potemkin as a fortress to protect the newly acquired Black Sea frontage of Russia. Kherson town became first Russian naval base and shipyard on Black Sea. Before Kherson there was a small Russian settlement which existed since 1737.
Kherson was named after ancient city of Khersones. One of the leaders of building ships for Black Sea fleet from 1783 till 1785 was Russian naval commander F.F.Ushakov. From 1787 till 1791 A.V.Suvorov headed the construction of fortifications in Kherson city.

http://ukrainetrek.com/Kherson_city.shtml

(I had to give up looking for other sites with info about Kherson - too many advertising attractive Ukrainian women.)

Eventually found a map - Kherson (modern city) isn't even in the Crimea - it's just to the north. Different place to the ancient city all together.
Very confusing.

Eventually found stuff on Chersonesos (via Kersones) giving conflicting information.
It looks as though the city was occupied by Kievan_Rus (but dates disputed) but then handed back to the Byzantines in the 10th century.
prior to 1100 the Crimea was occupied by Cumans / Kipchacks - but looks like it wasn't until a couple of hundred years later that the city was abandoned.

so the issue revolves around whether we go with a Byzantine city or a Cuman/Kipchak region?

what I haven't discovered (and much of the material isn't in english and google translator isn't really up to the task of translating difficult stuff)
is what the relationship was between the two, which was dominant.

So Kherson (not on the site of Chersoneos) was founded in 1778; but Kersoneos, Chersoneos was an ancient city (near Sevastopol) which was most definitely around in 1100.

good map here - shows Chersonesos and a slither of land around the coast under Byzantine control, the rest Cuman /Kipchak.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...3-%28en%29.png
(you can zoom in for greater detail.)

So my apologies to CC for not doing sufficient research on that one.

(One of the founders of Kherson in 1778 was Ivan Gannibal son of Abram Petrovich Gannibal an African born, Ottoman raised, French educated, Russian trained, Military engineer and general.
Hugh Barnes biography "Gannibal, the Moor of Petersburg" is a brilliant book - well worth reading.)

For now I'll leave it where it is but perhaps change the name to Chersoneos?

---
Found that the coat of arms for the crimea - which shows a white griffin and a red background is emblematic of Chersonesos, so am using that for the ancillary graphic.

Can't use the graphic for Oleshe for Peresechen as one doesn't seem to have been made?
(or does it have another name?)

[Gorrrrrn]

spent an entire evening trying to get the 1100 files working with a clean SS6.4 install.
still not sure what the problem was - wouldn't get past the splash screen.

I did discover a couple of problems - the new map by gracul has changed for the locations of Granada and Chernigov, CC smoothed the terrain to the west of Granada (new location), new map surrounds Granada with hills cutting the former off from the surrounding countryside.

I can't see the problem with Chernigov - possibly an extra tree or summat?

OK taking the plunge now - only hope this works on everyone else's machine as well as mine.

NOTE - Work in Progress.
--------------------------------

Installing - install a clean SS6.3 with early era - the default .cfg expects the SS6.3 folder to be in a Games folder not Program Files.
So that's probably the safest place to put it.
Remove the read-only attribute to folders/files.

Install SS6.4 in same folder - choose the Campaign - early era option.
- at this stage check the game is actually working OK.-
Remove the read-only attribute to folders/files.

Delete the map.rwm file
also the string.bin versions of
text\export_ancillaries.txt
text\export_buildings.txt
text\imperial_campaign_regions_and_settlements.txt

so that new ones can be created after you've installed the 1100 mod files.

The DL folder should be opened and you'll see the data folder and a readme.
I've removed my improved .cfg file as it needs editing to work with the new folders etc.

Extract the folder into a temp folder and copy files over manually to replace existing ones.
(You can extract directly if you prefer, if you are sure they'll end up in the right place.)

once everything is copied over, fire up the game again and if all goes well it should work.
--

Start positions etc mainly from SS6.3 RozMod 1100 version, rather than start all over again with SS6.4.
I've made few alterations to the new EDB -so it's not the old RozMod EDB - didn't see the point as people will be changing it around anyway.
sharp eyed people may also note a couple of changes to the campaign script too.
The EDU adds the attributes for the destroy_units scripts.
And I've added my "new" buildings for compatibility reasons (mainly mine)
--
I've no idea how flaky this will be on other systems - I have a working version here is all I can say.
--
And if the changes you were expecting aren't in there or some are that you don't like, remember this is a work in progress.

Perm stone forts not included - they make GeoMod go crazy - and are a huge DL.

Once again we should thanks Meneth for his faction maps - but they need updating - but maybe wait until everything is finalised?
And special thanks to Caesar Clivus for all his work and wisdom. Without whom this project would have stalled a long time ago.
--
If you hit problems installing or running this let us know
- check that .txt files haven't reformatted themselves (check in notepad).

Other than that post error reports and we'll have to see what can done to sort them out.

110historicalmod files.zip

[Caesar Clivus]

I can't see the problem with Chernigov - possibly an extra tree or summat?

More than likely. I had to remove some trees around Chernigov so they've probably been put back there in the 6.4 map.

[hull19]

replace Bruges with Ghent (no change to region)

Really nice project mate. But when I see that you want to change the Bruges into Ghent. In French, it's named Gand, and Gent in the Flemish language.

Anyways, during the middle ages, Bruges was a much more popular and opened city due to its sea port. Gent was a palce of cloth... but a relatively small city compared to Bruges in the 1000-1450 era.

Only after that did Gent become bigger and more culturaly important.. even if Bruges remained the Capital of the Flemish lands until the Spanish took over.

According to my sources, though, Bruges wasn't the capital until 1380. Before that, the capital is though of beeing the private castle of the Flemish current ruler.

edit: just tellnig you what i know for this mod

[Gorrrrrn]

hull19

will re-check re Ghent / Bruges.

[hull19]

okay mate. I must say that the capital varies a lot depending on the sources before 1380AD

[ironstatue]

According to the maps Sicily should not have Durrazo nor Romans the Illyrian coast at this time.

[ShockBlast]

Gyulafehervar which replaces Brasov has a recognised coat of arms so that's noit a problem.

Feel free to back up that Gyu name.

[Companion Cavalry]

Just a few things I noticed right off the bat:

-The Normans ("Sicilians") did not rule Napoli, though they did control the rest of S. Italy (+Bari -Naples)
-The Byzantines ruled Bulgaria, and most certainly the N. Anatolian coast. Arta goes without saying. (+Arta, Scopia, Tarnovo, Sinope)
-The HRE ruled Switzerland (+Zurich)
-Pisa was independent (-Pisa for Genoa)
-The Khwarezmians were ruled by Turks (I'm not sure how to simulate this)

I'll make a more in-depth list later

[bɑne]

Just a few things I noticed right off the bat:

-The Normans ("Sicilians") did not rule Napoli, though they did control the rest of S. Italy (+Bari -Naples)
-The Byzantines ruled Bulgaria, and most certainly the N. Anatolian coast. Arta goes without saying. (+Arta, Scopia, Tarnovo, Sinope)
-The HRE ruled Switzerland (+Zurich)
-Pisa was independent (-Pisa for Genoa)
-The Khwarezmians were ruled by Turks (I'm not sure how to simulate this)

I'll make a more in-depth list later

Khwarezmians could start out as vassals. A forced allianced seems to much.

[Macilrille]

If I may ask; what is the reason behind making Lund a fortress instead of a town? A compelling argument against is that Lund was made the seat of the Archbishop of Scandinavia in 1103 AD and completed its Cathedral in 1145 AD. AFAIK, there was never a fortress in Lund, always a town.

Palle, Danish Ma medieval, Roman and military history

[Ichon]

If I may ask; what is the reason behind making Lund a fortress instead of a town? A compelling argument against is that Lund was made the seat of the Archbishop of Scandinavia in 1103 AD and completed its Cathedral in 1145 AD. AFAIK, there was never a fortress in Lund, always a town.

Palle, Danish Ma medieval, Roman and military history

Kalmar was the most famous fortress in the area though I guess he might had added it for balance? Since if Denmark doesn't control Kalmar its out of luck while Norway has 2 castles + chance to take Kalmar which is why Norway is often the faction that takes out HRE. Castles having majority of recruitment not only of units but of quality units means for AI its important to have some balance between castles and towns. Unfortunately its not very historical sometimes which is why AllTowns should be the base. Most castles had towns and most towns had a castle or even 2 or 3. Some of the most famous Fortresses were only castles but they would best be represented by permanent stone forts. I am almost in favor of putting a PSF right next to a town so AI habit of leaving army outside town to be attack and draw the garrison into battle thus avoiding siege makes more sense that the garrison of nearby town would be house in a castle or 2 which required capture before the town could fall.

[Fair Prince]

I'm sorry to say but Roz doesn't seem to be around lately, so don't expect answers from him anytime soon, guys.

[Macilrille]

Hey FP, well... he will see it when he returns then ;-)

Meanwhile, I will maintain that Lund was a town and not a fortress. There is nothing remotely fortress-like about it and in the middle ages it was brimming with churches and monestaries while being the seat of the Archbishop and home of a Cathedral...

I see your point Ichon, but my suggestion would be to limit both Norway's and Denmark's number of fortresses as there was very few fortresses up here until the fortification effort by the Valdemars (all the "Borg" towns in Denmark are strategically located fortresses from that time). Let the Danish SS King pay the price for fortifications like his historical counterpart did. Let him change towns into fortresses if he wants fortresses. Same with Norway.

That will, of course, leave the Scandinavian players with a lack of hard units to resist the HRE, but it is a rare occasion when HRE expands that way in any game I have seen; HRE is usually busy being conquered by the French and Poles, so the Scandinavians has some time.

Just my 50 Øre.

[Ichon]

Hey FP, well... he will see it when he returns then ;-)

Meanwhile, I will maintain that Lund was a town and not a fortress. There is nothing remotely fortress-like about it and in the middle ages it was brimming with churches and monestaries while being the seat of the Archbishop and home of a Cathedral...

I see your point Ichon, but my suggestion would be to limit both Norway's and Denmark's number of fortresses as there was very few fortresses up here until the fortification effort by the Valdemars (all the "Borg" towns in Denmark are strategically located fortresses from that time). Let the Danish SS King pay the price for fortifications like his historical counterpart did. Let him change towns into fortresses if he wants fortresses. Same with Norway.

That will, of course, leave the Scandinavian players with a lack of hard units to resist the HRE, but it is a rare occasion when HRE expands that way in any game I have seen; HRE is usually busy being conquered by the French and Poles, so the Scandinavians has some time.

Just my 50 Øre.

Well I agree with you actually- would solve alot of problems if Scandinavia started with only towns but the divide between fortress/town in MTW2 is quite harsh and SS continues that. So it depends on how you see towns like Lund. They might not have some famous fortress or castles nearby but could be a center of population and hence military recruitment which a castle could represent. If only we could add a building within towns that if you spent the money the town would gain access to some of fortress units. Personally I think Fortress/Citadel make sieges way too easy for players. On defense its way overpowered while on offense the numerous walls etc actually end up helping the player more than the AI due to pathfinding. Most often I find the AI retreats to the inner Keep as soon as the first walls are breached. So it basically makes the rest of the walls pointless except a tiny bit more casualties if the human player is impatient. Medieval fortress on the scale of Citadels are almost non-existent. Castles seem more appropriate for majority of large fortifications while the town/castle divide is just made up distinction to give some strategic goals for human players. If Norway and Denmark rosters were changed to recruit Viking Raiders and Landsmenn or BoB roster imported with lower tier units recruited in towns and higher tiers requiring conversion of town to castle or building an equivalently expensive structure in the town to access the better units I think its much more fair for AI and balance.