SSHIP - Original Thread (archived)

[ITC]

Why not add Turku to Novgorod?

Novgorod was not that strong to control this region.
And I want just remind you a Battle of the Neva, 1240.
Novgorod won, but Sweden was a threat anyway.

And you guys want to make north region uninteresting to play, removing settlements in Scandinavia

[Ichon]

Novgorod was not that strong to control this region.
And I want just remind you a Battle of the Neva, 1240.
Novgorod won, but Sweden was a threat anyway.

And you guys want to make north region uninteresting to play, removing settlements in Scandinavia

The link you give itself says that prior to the battle Novgorod controlled the area for the previous 100 years and the battle itself is 140 years after the game start. Nearly a century and a half. In that time alot of things changed in the north.

Also Neva river is the one which flows into Lake Ladoga... already on the map belonging to Novgorod. Finland doesn't enter into it.

Why should the north be uninteresting to play now? Its streamlined but each settlement is more important and it will be harder to take advantage of the AI sending its armies far away from some settlement you want to capture in the start of the game so you'll more likely face larger armies earlier as either Norway or Denmark. More isn't always better. Besides now if you control all of Scandinavia its not so easy to launch an immediate invasion of HRE which before you could face on equal terms with 12 regions behind you and HRE usually controlling about the same number. Now you'll have focus on gaining some regions in the east Baltic or fighting with easier opponents at first just as happened in history.

[ITC]

The link you give itself says that prior to the battle Novgorod controlled the area for the previous 100 years and the battle itself is 140 years after the game start.

Not area!
" Trade Route from the Varangians to the Greeks, which had been under Novgorod's control for more than a hundred years"

Novgorod controlled Trade Route and the key settlement was Ladoga



Novgorod never controlled Finland region, except XIX th century after Sweden-Russia war in 1809.

[Ichon]

No one controlled Finns... that is the point. Novgorod had trade outposts all over the area in 1100s though. I don't think anyone knows with certainty what was going on in Finland in this period. Probably some small Swedish settlements but even in 1200s when Swedish started moving in with more force the records show they had to build all the castles and fortifications themselves. They didn't take over anything that was already there.

From that page of wiki you linked to, " The purpose of the Swedish invasion was probably to gain control over the mouth of the Neva and the city of Ladoga and, hence, seize the most important part of the Trade Route from the Varangians to the Greeks, which had been under Novgorod's control for more than a hundred years."

What do you think Novgorod got its power from as a trade city? It had control over that route... and Novgorod is the mix of Rus and others who had intermixed earlier and converted to Orthodox as opposed to Catholic like those further west.

That battle was for access to Lake Ladoga and the interior river trade which Novgorod controlled. It wasn't a battle for Finland. Maybe Karelia but its even south of there closer to Novgorod.

We could just make it halfway up part of Nyekoping and the other half Novgorod but I just think that would look weird and there was never either Novgorod or Swedish ruling Finland directly until mid 1200s. Novgorod traded with the people there alot and it was Swedish settlers who began to bring agricultural settlements with heavily cleared farmland closer to 1300s expanding from the small coastal settlements made earlier.

[Fair Prince]

The reason beeing: Königsberg was founded by the Teutonic Knights just south of the Sambian peninsula in 1255 during the Northern Crusades. It just isn't feasable to have it in early campaign with that in mind.

Wikipedia says an old fort known as Twangste was located there before the Teutons came in and replaced it with the Königsberg fortress. Considering that the Prussia region should not be touched, I think we can just go with Twangste and make it a motte & bailey in the early campaign.

Romanian being I can say is totally wrong. Dobrogea region was at control of byzantines and bulgarians. Wallachians controlled after 1300 the south east of Moldavia, from there they get access to Black Sea. Dobrogea also not have any sighnificant city, and Constanta pretty sure is not the place. Mircea de Elder was the only wallachian dominus who controlled Wallachia, but after many battles, last one lost to turks, he give it to ottomans.
Add to that is a very, very poor region in population. In 1878 was started a heavy colonisation of region by king Carol I.
To understand well, we must think how the region evolve. In dacian times, the region was heavy colonised by various city-states of helens. A lot of colonies was there but biggest was Histria, Tomis and Callatis. At Tomis the roman Ovidius was exiled. In the mainland, off the coast was a small kingdom of dacians, outside Burebista Dacia.
Romans integrate the region in Moesia inferior. After reorganisation was the new province Dacia, when historical the Dacia province became the Goth Kingdom. After them come the gepids, and Dogrogea remain part of roman empire. After the colapse of Rome, it was part of byzantine empire, with some intermezzo's like First Bulgar Empire. When bulgarian disapear like state was again controlled by greeks. In this context the Vicina played a huge role. Add to that, some former roman-byzantine colonies became genovese.
The Moldavia have it its ports on maritime Danube or at Black Sea in south Moldavia, not in Dobrogea. Tatar/mongolian destroy almost all settlements there, and after Mircea the Elder lost control, it became a turkish part of ottoman empire. The population was rare and was poorly coloniesed by tatars and turks.
The shepards from Transylvani, but from Moldavia and Wallachia too, moved their cattle there in winter season.
When it enter in Romania in 1878, was very few people there. Turks invested almost nothing. Was colonised and romanians maded the former Tomis, actual Constanta a big port at Black Sea.
In 1100 we can talk about the area like hellenic region connected with Bulgaria. The wallachian rule there was around 100 years.

Sorry for the late reply, I just noticed your remarks.
So basically you're saying that Constanta is not worthy of addition from a historical aspect - well, I can't really disapprove of this, but I'm still on the opinion that Dobruja as a region must be separated from Wallachia. The map you posted before also supports this idea.
In case we ignore Constanta then what about 'cheating' a bit and selecting Vicina as capital?

[Gogolometro]

Not a bad ideea, Dobrogea in any case was for a while in Wallachia. But we must think outside Wallachia.

[Fair Prince]

Not a bad ideea, Dobrogea in any case was for a while in Wallachia. But we must think outside Wallachia.

Okay mate, I'm gonna consider the options - since we have already moved on to another part of the map, I'll contact you in pm about the matter.

Back to the Baltics, merging the Turku region with Novgorod would seem a bit odd, but honestly I don't really have a better idea if we were to remove that. Personally, I'd keep it for the time being but I have a feeling it's inevitable that it will be axed sooner or later...

[Clegane]

Ochrida to replace Scopia (thanks to Giorgios)

Since I am from Serbia, I can tell you that Ochrida is written Ohrid in macedonian and other South Slavic languages, just a tip if you are going to make all city names in native lang. In medieval times it was mostly populated with Slavs so you might consider calling it by its Slavic name.

[Fair Prince]

Since I am from Serbia, I can tell you that Ochrida is written Ohrid in macedonian and other South Slavic languages, just a tip if you are going to make all city names in native lang. In medieval times it was mostly populated with Slavs so you might consider calling it by its Slavic name.

I know that, but considering that the town is likely to be in Byzantine hands at the start the game, I thought it's better to pick one of its Greek names instead (the other options were Lychnidos and Achrida). Thanks for the tip, nevertheless!

[Logios]

All right, let's see the Scandinavian regions this time!

Part 2: Scandinavia
I'm generally satisfied with the western part of it, only Eikundarsund should be dropped from Norway while Denmark can remain untouched (both of them would start with 2 owned regions in my 1132 SSHCP campaign). On the other hand, the eastern past looks quite overrepresented to me considering that there's no Swedish faction in the game - I'd suggest dumping at least 2 regions from here.

FP proposals (updated):
Ribe to replace Arhus (thanks to RollingWave for the idea)
Sigtuna to replace Uppsala (thanks to preachercheeze)
Remove Eikundarsund (thanks to RW and Ichon)
Remove Nyköping (thanks to RW)
Remove Visby

Region count status after Part 2 (updated):
+3 region slots, +4 in total!

I really think you should keep Visby, if not else then for its present medieval shows and its remaining city walls.
Another detail, a tiiiny one but huge to a Dane: Is it possible to not have the south tip of the Langeland isle belong to HRE. I have no idea how that happened in the first place. (see attached pic)

[Ichon]

Well I think he decided to remove Turku instead of Visby but that is being questioned as well. Visby was a small trading center(relatively) in 1100. It had been a center of some trade for awhile by 1100 but achieved its greatest importance as member of the Hansa until fading away again in 1300s. So it had maybe slightly more than 1 century of relevance in the Baltic as an important city in its own right. The first small walls and major churches were all started in 1188 but were only to protect German settlers who were arriving from Lubeck and going to settle in the territories won in the Livonian crusade and also take over some of the trade routes that were opening with the Christianization of northern and eastern Europe. The larger walls seen today were started around 1280s when the Germans in the city were under attack by native Gottlanders and some of the poorer people who had complained to the Livonian knights about special privileges but weren't finished until mid 1300s. The population inside the city was probably between 4,000 and 12,000 not a small number for northern Europe but also not huge by any means. It was a large shipping center though with numerous warehouses where trade goods were stored and then shipped to other parts of Europe. Mostly amber furs wood and fish though some other valuables but the former were the main goods. Visby was sieged and captured several times in 1300s and totally lost its status as cities further east and as Sweden began to assert itself the German settlers were forced to assimilate or migrate to other German regions.

The other reason is that Visby is pretty much just a town. Most other regions have a large town AND a region around it. Visby did not exert control over the whole island and even then the population of the rest of the island wasn't that large.

[Caesar Clivus]

Novgorod never controlled Finland region, except XIX th century after Sweden-Russia war in 1809.

No it didn't control it BUT it did exact tribute from the area. The fur trade was VERY lucrative and was one of the main sources of Novgorod's wealth. Novgorod sent tribute exacting missions to the north where the best furs could be found. It was this trade that largely caused the on again, off again conflict between the Swedes and Novgorod. I suggest reading Eric Christiansen's "The Northern Crusades" for more information.

Because it's such a big area and that it's too far from Novgorod, I think by matter of logistics the Turku region will have to stay. Turku itself should only be a village or motte and bailey though.

[Ichon]

Because it's such a big area and that it's too far from Novgorod, I think by matter of logistics the Turku region will have to stay. Turku itself should only be a village or motte and bailey though.

I think the map should just be adjusted to leave a small strip of land there with some resources. The map has to 'cheat' a bit to include as much as it does already. Of course the only problem there is if the same map is used for a 1220 campaign as then the Swedish-Novgorod wars are in full swing and peace isn't reached until late 1300s.

On the scale of things though it doesn't make sense to include in current SS 1100 campaign as Sweden is not even a faction so who would contest it with Novgorod?

[Caesar Clivus]

I think the map should just be adjusted to leave a small strip of land there with some resources. The map has to 'cheat' a bit to include as much as it does already.

I didn't think landmass could be included on the map without being assigned to a region

On the scale of things though it doesn't make sense to include in current SS 1100 campaign as Sweden is not even a faction so who would contest it with Novgorod?

Who contests the Moors for the south-west of Africa? Or the Cumans for the northern steppe? Until things get going in the early campaign, most factions just eat up the rebel regions anyway. I have seen both Denmark and sometimes even Lithuania go for Turku.

[Fair Prince]

I really think you should keep Visby, if not else then for its present medieval shows and its remaining city walls.
Another detail, a tiiiny one but huge to a Dane: Is it possible to not have the south tip of the Langeland isle belong to HRE. I have no idea how that happened in the first place. (see attached pic)

I know that not everyone fancies Visby's removal but since the early campaign should get greater emphasis than the late one for now, it needs to be sacrificed for more important settlements.
And a huge LOL goes for Langeland, I doubt anyone else has noticed this glitch but I'll make sure it will be corrected!

I think the map should just be adjusted to leave a small strip of land there with some resources. The map has to 'cheat' a bit to include as much as it does already. Of course the only problem there is if the same map is used for a 1220 campaign as then the Swedish-Novgorod wars are in full swing and peace isn't reached until late 1300s.

On the scale of things though it doesn't make sense to include in current SS 1100 campaign as Sweden is not even a faction so who would contest it with Novgorod?

I'm following your debate with CC and both of you have good arguments, making it quite difficult to make a decision - I'd say let's keep it for the time being then revisit the region if we end up in negative after the last Part (which is highly likely, anyway).

[Fair Prince]

Right, it's time to sum up what we got here.

Part 9: Baltics
EDIT: see the first post for details!

[Ichon]

I didn't think landmass could be included on the map without being assigned to a region

Who contests the Moors for the south-west of Africa? Or the Cumans for the northern steppe? Until things get going in the early campaign, most factions just eat up the rebel regions anyway. I have seen both Denmark and sometimes even Lithuania go for Turku.

Well if it was just a thin strip of land it makes more sense for Novgorod to control it as the trade resources there could be the tributes.

Well Moors didn't really have that much challenge in 1100 but later you are right.

Cumans its definitely true but same cases are Balkans, Scandinavia... almost all parts of the map actually MTW2 is simply incapable of showing how complicated things actually were.

For the level of conflict a faction represents though I think Turku is simply too safe and too powerful to get an entire region for how little resources and population lived there in 1100. Probably not until 1300s was it important enough to be represented by a whole region. When you compare that all of Ireland is 1 region or Milan is just 1 region.

[Mbrabant]

Turku has to be on the map, even if Rebel. Its a landmass that HAS to have its own settlement. On the Late Campaign we should add Helsinki, just to make Novgorod and Denmark fight

Riga has to be there. We cant blindely go only for History, since we have to consider the game balance and the settlements that should be on importance, even not existing on the time that the game begins

No one has ever said of Minsk, but its a city that comes a big importance late.
We should think about Brest. It became a important centre of resistence and also was founded on the 1000's. This should give a map balance on Poland/Lithuania, since Hrodna stays too on the north.

I should give an idea for adding a settlement betwen Minsk and Kiev, to give some balance to the region on KievanRus and Lithuania. I would go for Gomel, but it was first cited on a Chronicle on 1142. But you can see the importance the city come to have by its Gomel Palace.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Also, the Cumans are too strong, we should give less regions to then.
When you play as Kiev they are so unbeateable

[Fair Prince]

Well if it was just a thin strip of land it makes more sense for Novgorod to control it as the trade resources there could be the tributes.

Well Moors didn't really have that much challenge in 1100 but later you are right.

Cumans its definitely true but same cases are Balkans, Scandinavia... almost all parts of the map actually MTW2 is simply incapable of showing how complicated things actually were.

For the level of conflict a faction represents though I think Turku is simply too safe and too powerful to get an entire region for how little resources and population lived there in 1100. Probably not until 1300s was it important enough to be represented by a whole region. When you compare that all of Ireland is 1 region or Milan is just 1 region.

Personally, the only thing that keeps me from accepting your idea is that historically Novgorod never owned the South Finland region in question, as you can probably see on any map of the Novgorod Republic. Granted, they surely fought some battles there, perhaps even gaining temporary domination over the area, but the fact is that it just doesn't seem to be appropiate to merge it with Novgorod.
But again, I have to consider other priorities too, hence this doesn't necessarily mean I won't do it in the end.

Well, I think we can now move on to the next big Part, the much-criticized Eastern Europe - I inserted the list of settlements and also a very good map below.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Novgorod
Pskov
Polotsk
Smolensk
Yaroslavl
Moscow
Murom
Ryazan
Mensk
Bryansk
Zhytomyr
Serdobinskaya
Kiev
Pereyaslav
Oleshe
Caffa

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Mbrabant]

Personally, the only thing that keeps me from accepting your idea is that historically Novgorod never owned the South Finland region in question, as you can probably see on any map of the Novgorod Republic. Granted, they surely fought some battles there, perhaps even gaining temporary domination over the area, but the fact is that it just doesn't seem to be appropiate to merge it with Novgorod.
But again, I have to consider other priorities too, hence this doesn't necessarily mean I won't do it in the end.

Well, I think we can now move on to the next big Part, the much-criticized Eastern Europe - I inserted the list of settlements and also a very good map below.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Novgorod
Pskov
Polotsk
Smolensk
Yaroslavl
Moscow
Murom
Ryazan
Mensk
Bryansk
Zhytomyr
Serdobinskaya
Kiev
Pereyaslav
Oleshe
Caffa

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

We should think that the Cumans were not a unite people as shown in the game, and this makes the Rus so vulnerable and they so strong.

Here only some additions and map-fix locations and shapes should be made. Also the made of very rebel states with huge force, to prevent the Rus and Cumans from advancing on the region. This would give more Historical accurace, since the Rus only controled this region united on 1400's.

Suzdal should be on the map, it was the prercussor state of the outcoming Muscovite Principality, that was the prercussor of the Russian Empire with Ivan, the Terrible.
Volodimir is also a good adition. And the change of Bryansk for Chernigov (or its adition) is also good.

We should also add Dnipropetrovsk (Rebel), cos that region is really strange with Pereyaslavl having its control.