In your games, what regions are forgettable? (Low Importance Settlements)

[johnny_b_good]

Thats true.

[RollingWave]

what if we turn all the faction to prefer naval invasion ? would that help?

[Caesar Clivus]

It doesn't seem to.

[charles the hammer]

Yes but the AI doesn't know how to use them properly. It rarely transports the troops it builds there off the island.

Well england doesnt, in my games scotland does a lot, while england rarely does. Its odd to say the least.

[BarSteward]

Yes but the AI doesn't know how to use them properly. It rarely transports the troops it builds there off the island.

I would have to disagree as HRE im currently facing about 6 full stacks of English, they have been pestering the France with many small invasions as well. they have the west part of Norway. so they do move there troops off the island

[Asterix]

get rid of some of the useless islands, like Rhodes and Crete. AI isn't smart enough to attack them and IMHO are only public order and money problems. Also, we could do with removing Corinth or Athens-i don't think its necessary to make Greece two regions. Something else i doubt anyone will miss much is that region on the edge of the map right above Novgorod...forgot the name but it was always pretty useless.
Remove Winchester or Exeter (one not both). and a region from Ireland. after that leave the British alone!

[Lord Minotaur]

get rid of some of the useless islands, like Rhodes and Crete. AI isn't smart enough to attack them and IMHO are only public order and money problems. Also, we could do with removing Corinth or Athens-i don't think its necessary to make Greece two regions. Something else i doubt anyone will miss much is that region on the edge of the map right above Novgorod...forgot the name but it was always pretty useless.
Remove Winchester or Exeter (one not both). and a region from Ireland. after that leave the British alone!

Nah, keep terorising them

[Caesar Clivus]

Something else i doubt anyone will miss much is that region on the edge of the map right above Novgorod...

I would miss it

[Mogan]

Removing the western province on Ireland and Turku wouldn't affect my games at all. And since this thread concerns players, not AI, I will oppose those who wouches for the removal of Crete and Rhodes. These have always been trading stations and are a great source of income in-game. In fact, they are an important part of the reason why the Turks were delayed with their conquest of Europe, and removing them would be horrible, both gameplay-wise and regarding the amount of historical consistency this mod aims toward.

[Marcvs Antonivs]

IMHO, Great Britain should have one less province, as well as Northwestern Africa, and remove at least 2 or 3 cities in the Arabian Peninsula. Too much towns for such area, in the middle of desert, where very few ever challenged the arid desert.

[billydilly]

Here's my idea.
Remove:
- Visby
- Rhodos
- Corsica
- Majorca
- Cornwall
- Malta (if not already removed?)

@ Mogan

Yes you are right. Historically Rhodes was important, but in this game it isn't important. The same goes for Visby.

[newt]

Removing all these regions, where would you put new ones? Europe's already getting crowded.

[billydilly]

Make the eastern part of the map more detailed - and add a new muslim faction

[RollingWave]

in population terms, Egypt and Mesopotamia probably could each use at least one more region. if not a lot more.

Egypts population was past it's peak and the medieval period marked one of rather steady and steep decline of Egyption population, but in 1100 it wasn't too bad, still at least in the 6 million range. aka about 3x as more than the British Isles. and for that they get 5 region vs the Brits 11.


http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Ne...PopCrises3.htm


In a general sense, if we do seperate campaigns in the longer run then it would be easier to work, since we could do different map, a lot of the islamic area's population fell dramatically during the medieval era, especially from high period on ward, basically no region except mayyybe Anatolia wasn't utterly ravaged, either by Mongols (Persia and Mesopotamia essentially went from highly populated area to uninhabited wasteland) to Bedouin Migration (Maghreb) or Reconquista (Andalusia, again, went from the most populated area in the begining of the game to average at best by the end) or other mix of factors (Egypt.) so in early campaigns probably more regions to Andalusia / Egypt / Mesopotamia / Russia / Persia, and by later campaign more to France / England / Germany

[Dominick]

Hmmmmmmm...

Nice discussion you have there, lads. Now, about the topic.
Ireland being cut off entirely (as a faction) was already a big w00t to me, so Ireland is really a wasteland now. I agree on removing Galway then (as there isn't really any fight over there, just a money factory).
Scotland... Hum... If you have to remove anything, remove Aberdeen as Inverness and Edinburgh are very important for Scotland (Castle - Town combo). Though... Scotland will be very weak then. Only 2 regions... It would be crushed as easily as in Vanilla. The best thing would be to remove NOTHING from Scotland.
England, my favorite... Eh... Remove Winchester as I really want Cornwall on its own. We already have the castle of Nottingham anyway, so I find Winchester really out of any use myself.
Rhodes, remove it, its unimportant and AI doesn't mess with it all, its just another money factory.
Crete, keep it, nice colony for the player, though it would be better if the AI would use it better.
Finland... Don't really have much opinion for it... I don't even play any factions in that area. Finland would be good as only 1 region.
Africa and Arabia, why are they so big? Axe 'em. Who cares about religious fanatics anyway. We dont need Arabia, and thats the reason why Africa is so big to the south. Keep the regions in North Africa as they are, just axe the map more to the north and kill everything in the way!
The East... Why is it so big anyway? Remove Kwarezms and Cumans and gimme some Burgundy and Ireland!!!
Corsica, keep it.

I think thats it, cheers!

[danielrech]

About the islands:

Given that AI naval invasion is broken, I think there should be more land bridges linking islands to the mainland, such as Rhodes and the british islands.

Thinking more radically, we could even link ALL the map with land bridges (does the engine have any restriction on that?).

[Peteriscoolz]

Don't remove galway,then capturing dublin would mean all of ireland is under their factions control which would be completly unhistorical.

[Polycarpe]

About the islands:

Given that AI naval invasion is broken, I think there should be more land bridges linking islands to the mainland, such as Rhodes and the british islands.

Thinking more radically, we could even link ALL the map with land bridges (does the engine have any restriction on that?).

Agreed, doing a small bridge for linking Ireland and Scotland is a must.

[Ichon]

Turku depends alot on when this map is used. In 1100 its mostly tribes with a few Swedish settlements. By 1250 Swedish colonizing more heavily and soon building Turku castle. 1300 Turku has strong Swedish presence and plays part in converting Finland to Christianity. 1400-1500 Turku is important in Sweden vs Novgorod/Moscovy wars.

Crete is big enough island and has enough trade and historical reasons to keep. Rhodes is tiny and not fair to give whole region. Put a couple trade resources on it. Corsica same. Cyprus is refuge for CS or point for Byzantines or Venice to invade Levant. It seems large enough and especially Fatimids invade it often to deserve own region.

Visby is more questionable. Town in the Hanseatic League but never had huge population and while trade center didn't have many of its own resources. To make Scandinavia balanced same as contemplated with England 2 regions at least need removal. Eikundersund so Norway start with Bergen and Oslo, and then either Uppsala, Visby, or Turku. Of the 3 Visby makes most sense to take out to me. It had brief importance as trade center but low population and impact aside from that brief period should get it just a couple trade resources not an entire region.

Marrakesh was hugely populated in this period and also represents Moors southern regions which are off map. I don't think it should be removed.

Some population figure for thought around 10th-12th century...

If we use overall estimates of world population growth trend today to try and figure the population of Ireland /Scotland / Wales back to 1100, (the 3 of them combine for around 12 million today, 1100 is generally thought to be around 1/30th of today's population, which would give us the figure of 400,000 . though one has to remember that this does not hold true for all areas. those 3 regions were relatively un-developed at that point .. though England would still be 25x that estimate, suggesting that the lesser developed regions of Europe at that point were not THAT much better than the medium)

edit: and from The Medieval Sourcebook

Estimated Population of areas around 1000.

Balkans + Greece : 5 million

Italy : 5 million

Spain and Portugal : 7 million

France + low counties : 6 million

British Isles : 2 million

Germany + Scandanavia : 4 million

Russia : 6 million

Poland + Lithuania : 2 million

Hungary : 1.5 million

The problem with going back linear way is that there were several population booms and busts. For example in 1100 there is still a warm period where crop yields nearly 3x due to longer growing season and more land under cultivation by the extra population brought by the longer growing seasons. Then plagues, wars, and cooling led to 25-50% of villages/clearer agricultural land going fallow and abandoned in Europe while Mongols and changing climate caused much of Mid east to lose fertile growing areas, salination from the rising sea levels associated with the warmer period also affected Iraq, N African coasts, and other areas on current map.

That source underestimates population for France and Germany alot from what I've read many other places but otherwise seems about right. 40-50 million population for Europe up to 1350 when plague brought it down by 25-50% whereas add up the numbers in that source and its 38 million. Not a huge difference but France should have more like 10-12 million at the high point of its population boom and Germany about 6 million with Scandinavia about 1.5- HRE had half of its population in N Italy and E France. So while modern area of Germany had 4 million or something as source states, area of Germany in that period actually included parts of modern France and Swiss, Austria, N Italy. Modern area of France is frequently estimated to have high point population of 15 million in 1300 but about 4 million of that is under HRE control for much of medieval period.

Anatolia and Iraq especially deserve add 1 or 2 regions and probably Egypt get +1 or leave Mecca and Medina despite their own low population to reflect Egypt greater populations. Population was definitely clustered on warm coasts and along rivers which the river basins give Russia and Eastern Europe alot of its population.

S Ukraine, Crimea could actually get more population as well. In this period its very fertile and river trade etc with Byzantines/Levant to south- Asia to east, and Scandinavia to N made it quite prosperous. Kiev was probably one of the largest cities in Europe along with Cordoba, Constantinople, and Paris. Of course Kiev and east regions has a decline with Mongol invasions so maybe just starting out as higher level city and adding +1 region is enough.

[billydilly]

Wouldn't linking all islands with land bridges make island strongholds even more pointless? Then it's just another land-region where the enemy can invade. I say remove the smallest island regions.