SSHIP - Original Thread (archived)

[ITC]

I think this would be right.

Originally Posted by Caesar Clivus
For Battle for the Baltic, I totally changed the Rus settlements and starting positions. Chernigov replaces Bryansk, Vladimir replaces Moscow, Rostov replaces Yaroslavl and Zhytomyr with Vladimir-Volonskii.

So my note: at least one of two cities Tver' or Moscow should remain.
Suzdal and Vladimir are very close, and better to chose Vladimir among them.
Here is noth-east closer.

[Ichon]

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.

Well we should probably decide how to display many of these factions that were more divided than they are in the game. I am all for more and stronger rebels but that hasn't been how SS has gone about things so far.

Cumans were just one of many Turkic factions on the steppes, probably themselves not even a single tribe. Alans, Kipchaks, Khazaks, Pechenegs, etc... Rus themselves if you listen to some people should be just a bunch of feuding principalities with only the strongest one put on the map.

Having at least 2-3 strong stacks in many of the rebel regions would make conquests in the early game a bit more serious. IF something like that doesn't happen then... current strength of the Cumans is probably not strong enough considering that AI regularly beats them back before Mongols even arrive and historically the steppe tribes were a very dangerous opponent for centuries. Cumans can represent the various tribes of the steppes or just the Cumans which would be much weaker.

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 my only point is that no one really owned south Finland in this era. Novgorod came the closest and the population there is probably smaller than in the Sahara which we have no problem displaying as a giant uninhabited region belonging to Moors which is not correct but comes closest since Moors owned the trade routes there.

I think this part of the map is needing the most work aside from France/HRE and have some small disagreements with some of the others about how Rus principalities worked I do agree that current regions could be much improved adding principally Chernigov and Vladimir but also increasing the starting level of buildings a bit... right now its as if all the principalities are small villages other than the capitols of Kiev and Novgorod. I can accept that Vladimir and Galicia might have become more powerful however I still have yet to see anyone disagree that Kiev as a city was still one of the largest in the region. It might have lost political power as it was fought over by stronger principalities but it remained a prize to fight over.

I'm not as sure how to display Galicia especially if the Rus lose 1 faction. Where Rus goes into Poland could definitely be done better and as I said earlier there should be higher proportion of Orthodox religion further west than there exists now.

Novgorod- stays with about the same level of development as now though perhaps +1 merchant structure
Pskov- could be moved to something better like Tartu especially if Reval stays... if not then it free up a region
Polotsk- stays and made large town
Smolensk- stay and as a large town not a castle
Yaroslavl- could be replaced with Vladimir and map borders drastically change- the map borders need to change alot anyway
Moscow- needs to change, was nothing much there in 1100- Tver is the best replacement.
Murom- perhaps or not
Ryazan- stay
Mensk- could stay but depends what happens around it
Bryansk- stay but as a small town or castle
Zhytomyr- change
Serdobinskaya- probably changed and moved south, I think it was chosen for map balance? But to me that area of the map could have a bit more distance
Kiev- stay about the same as current- if made rebel still have at least 1 full stack of rebels
Pereyaslav- stay but made into wooden castle
Oleshe- could stay or change- something there for sure but more choices than just Oleshe
Caffa- another time where control of trade is given as control of the region despite Genoa only had some coastal settlements- yes a bit more than Novgorod in Finland but also the interior of Crimea was much more developed than interior of Finland and had some strong forces of its own, personally I think Genoa could start simply with a fleet, 2-3 young merchants around Crimea and Black Sea and a diplomat. Genoa and Venice basically took over many of the former Greek settlements which were scattered all along the Black Sea coasts. However in 1100 Venice still controlled most of these settlements so how should it be portrayed? Caffa wasn't the only major settlement with large Italian population and control but its the only one included on the map. Also Genoa doesn't gain control until 1300s so if any Italian faction starts there it should be Venice. It doesn't seem right to me that Genoa or Venice could go on a conquest spree from there- hence I'd prefer it the trade contacts represents by a fleet, some merchants, and a diplomat for both factions. Venice in 1100 was quite more powerful than Genoa which was still on the rise and close to ending its fight with Pisa.

Halych- you didn't include this on the list but it should be more in the Rus sphere than Poland in 1100 though it could be represented by something else.

Saqsin is also a potential for the steppes as it was probably part of a long chain of cities on the lower Volga in the same vicinity. It would be directly west of Sarkel and start as a large town.

Astrakhan should probably be named Atil but remain in current place.

I would maybe add Maghas on the north side of the Caucus as a small castle with a full stack of rebels to represent Alania which King David the Builder supposedly visited and which records exists of dynastic marriage between Byzantines, Georgia, Rus, and Kipchaks indicating they were powerful enough to probably get some representation on the map. That area of the map is also hugely blank right now.

Also consider Derbent- it was a quite large city for this period and controlled the Caucus terminus of the silk road trade route. It is known to have paid tribute to Khazars and Georgia and probably Cumans or Alans so should probably start rebel but without a huge garrison- just 3/4 a stack or 1 stack. It had quite strong system of fortification guarding from the coast of the Caspian to the Caucuses opposite the this- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wall_of_Gorgan

It is difficult to see how to portray Cumans and others as there are few urban centers that they positively controlled in 1100. Really only 3 that I know of- Atil, Sarkel, and Tmutarakan. That would leave Cumans quite weak but it also depends how we want to portray such factions. Cumans were paid tribute by many of the cities in the area however and could start as if those cities were under their control. Azaq was under Kipchak control so could start independent or assume to have been allied to the Cumans or in the process of being merged.

When do you consider further east?

Bulgar should stay and probably be a large town or minor city along with maybe Kazan but Yelabuga, Khylnov, Jaiksk should go or be made either uninhabitable or merged with Embi to the south and Embi or Jaiksk(Uralsk) to remain the capitol of that large region.

[Mbrabant]

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)

And a huge LOL goes for Langeland, I doubt anyone else has noticed this glitch but I'll make sure it will be corrected!

The south tip of Lageland isle does not belong to the HRE, it belong to the Zealand Region of Roskilde.

[Ichon]

I noticed Langeland before playing as Denmark. If you move your units just right it causes relations with HRE to decrease. It so rarely happens though but its probably good idea to fix it.

Waiting for comments- also, I didn't make any proposals for Halych, Zhytomyr, and Mensk as that seems especially complicated area to portray in 1100.

[Caesar Clivus]

The full list of changes I made for the Rus regions for the early campaign in BftB2 (I think it's the full list as I'm working from memory)

Chernigov replaces Bryansk
Vladimir replaces Moscow
Rostov replaces Yaroslavl
Vladimir-Volonskii replaces Zhytomyr
Pereschen replaces Oleshe (Oleshe didn't exist in 1100)
Kherson replaces Caffa (Caffa didn't exist in 1100).

Smolensk and Pereyaslav moved to more accurate positions.
Region borders changed to be more accurate
Added in more rivers and/or changed the routes rivers take to more accurate positions.
Changed all region names to "Principality of xxx" to reflect the actual names of the constituant states of Kievan Rus.

So my note: at least one of two cities Tver' or Moscow should remain.

Moscow didn't exist in 1100. It should only be in the late campaign.

[ITC]

Kherson replaces Caffa

+ good idea.

Moscow didn't exist in 1100. It should only be in the late campaign.

Ya, but how do we play late campaign without Moscow?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Smolensk and Pereyaslav moved to more accurate positions.
Region borders changed to be more accurate
Added in more rivers and/or changed the routes rivers take to more accurate positions.
Changed all region names to "Principality of xxx" to reflect the actual names of the constituant states of Kievan Rus.

Awesome!

[Fair Prince]

Many thanks for the massive inputs guys, I see some very good ideas here!

First of all, let me clear things up on how I imagine the Rus: although some will not agree with me, I'd prefer to see them as a 'union' of the various principalities, with the owned regions depending on the local prince's relation to the grand prince. I already did some research about it for my SSHCP mod and I can say the result is fairly acceptable.

With that in mind, let's see which principalities should be on the map in my opinion:
Republic of Novgorod, capital: Novgorod (we cheat a bit here with the Republic)
Principality of Pskov, capital: Pskov (was a smaller lordship, allied with Novgorod for most of the time)
Principality of Polotsk, capital: Polotsk
Principality of Smolensk, capital: Smolensk
Principality of Turov, capital: Turov (replaces Mensk, which also grants more safety for the Lithuanians at the beginning)
Principality of Chernigov, capital: Chernigov (replaces Bryansk)
Principality of Volhynia, capital: Volodymyr-Volynskyi (replaces Zhytomyr)
Grand Principality of Kiev, capital Kiev
Principality of Pereyaslavl, capital Pereyaslavl
Principality of Rostov-Suzdal, capital: Rostov (replaces Yaroslavl)
Principality of Murom-Ryazan, capital: Ryazan
(Principality of Halych, capital: Halych - already discussed in Part 7)

Additionally, Oleshye and Chersonesos (replaces Caffa) will both remain, with the first being in Cuman and the latter in Byzantine hands, respectively. As for Rostov-Suzdal and Murom-Ryazan, I preferred to choose the more important settlement to represent the region, but that's not a final decision. In either case, there's no place for Vladimir nor Moscow as they had little to no importance in the area in comparison. I'd also like to dump Serdobinskaya as apparently it had nothing to do with the 12th century, but doing that might leave a quite big vacuum in its place.

Let me know what you think, folks!

[ITC]

If there is no place for Vladimir of Suzdal, then you can easily name Volodymyr-Volynskyi as simply Volodimir or Vladimir.
And we really have nothing to change Serdobinskaya with.

[Fair Prince]

If there is no place for Vladimir of Suzdal, then you can easily name Volodymyr-Volynskyi as simply Volodimir or Vladimir.
And we really have nothing to change Serdobinskaya with.

I suggested Serdobinskaya's removal because its presence doesn't really make sense from a historical viewpoint, but on the other hand, I also admit it has kind of a strategic importance on the map. I tried to find a historically more appropiate replacement in the vicinity, but got no success so far...

[ITC]

I can suggest only Elets, but it is too much to the west.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Better to remove Serdobinskaya. This region was populated much later, somewhere in 16th century. Vacuum would be ok, in my opinion.

[Ichon]

I suggested Serdobinskaya's removal because its presence doesn't really make sense from a historical viewpoint, but on the other hand, I also admit it has kind of a strategic importance on the map. I tried to find a historically more appropiate replacement in the vicinity, but got no success so far...

I think distance can be a strategic presence in itself. The steppes were quite hard to campaign in for western style army and even the more nomadic peoples had difficulty there as invasions and changes in rule tended to happen very swiftly with few permanents settlements or defensive positions.

The area around the Black Sea was much more often where serious military campaigns happened in the style where cities or fortresses were taken one by one. Caucuses also had this style of warfare. For a Rus army to march south into the steppes should be a bit more difficult.

Pereyaslav and Bryansk were key defensive outposts in 1100s established earlier when the center of the Rus was Kiev. North eastern Rus had terrain to protect them and simply distance and climate as well.

A large area of open territory that can be disputed seems actually correct. Campaign hopping from city to city should follow Black Sea and Caucuses or south on the Volga. Otherwise its an army of occupation coming that overwhelms several cities at once or just a raid not meant to hold territory. The creeping kind of defensive wars over castles and strongpoints fought in other areas is not how it should happen on the steppes.

Best to remove Serdobinskaya though I would think its good to add either Saqsin or Maghas near the Volga or Caucuses as that is where most of the settled population lived- one of the two is needed to give some depth to the map there and help Cumans- I think Saqsin is better as its location is established and its date is more certain.

Maghas definitely existed and had some power in the region but Cumans and Kipchaks were virtually acting together at some point in 1100s. Alans have a very long history from the Roman empire and even earlier and involved with Byzantines quite often. In 1100s they still occupied their traditional territory in the steppes north of the Caucuses with some settlements in the Caucuses where they could retreat when threatened. They did participate in raids both against Cumans and with Cumans so probably they had some temporary alliances but were not subsumed as Kipchaks were. Also they are the most frequent mercenary unit in SS without being represented by any region. At least 3 different mercenary types of Alans are in SS. So making a region for them seems an interesting potential. Maghas is mentioned in records in numerous places but no definitive location by archeology has been found. Somewhere north east of Kutasai on the north side of the Caucus would be fine though.

The location of Smolensk should be adjusted south as well- its in the middle of the rivers now. Probably some region borders and other locations moved also. Finally the area around most of the rivers should be a bit more cleared of trees especially with the long distances. Since the map generates roads that might not always go in the most obvious direction traveling along the rivers was quite common and many of the important battles happened near rivers so if you go off road in the game you can just follow river and be able to travel without getting stuck in terrain that takes lots of movement points.

The map is just for reference as looking at the current SS map I think some things could be adjusted both for real locations and game balance. Rayzan could be moved a bit south while Turov moved a bit west to be closer to Novgorod and further from Rostov.

Yelets is a good example of where a PSF could be handy.

[Caesar Clivus]

Ya, but how do we play late campaign without Moscow?

That's why I said I only removed Moscow for the early era campaign. Each campaign has it's own map dont forget

Many thanks for the massive inputs guys, I see some very good ideas here!
First of all, let me clear things up on how I imagine the Rus: although some will not agree with me, I'd prefer to see them as a 'union' of the various principalities, with the owned regions depending on the local prince's relation to the grand prince. I already did some research about it for my SSHCP mod and I can say the result is fairly acceptable.

Agreed.

With that in mind, let's see which principalities should be on the map in my opinion:
Republic of Novgorod, capital: Novgorod (we cheat a bit here with the Republic)
Principality of Pskov, capital: Pskov (was a smaller lordship, allied with Novgorod for most of the time)
Principality of Polotsk, capital: Polotsk
Principality of Smolensk, capital: Smolensk
Principality of Turov, capital: Turov (replaces Mensk, which also grants more safety for the Lithuanians at the beginning)
Principality of Chernigov, capital: Chernigov (replaces Bryansk)
Principality of Volhynia, capital: Volodymyr-Volynskyi (replaces Zhytomyr)
Grand Principality of Kiev, capital Kiev
Principality of Pereyaslavl, capital Pereyaslavl
Principality of Rostov-Suzdal, capital: Rostov (replaces Yaroslavl)
Principality of Murom-Ryazan, capital: Ryazan
(Principality of Halych, capital: Halych - already discussed in Part 7)

All looks good to me except for:

As for Rostov-Suzdal and Murom-Ryazan, I preferred to choose the more important settlement to represent the region, but that's not a final decision.

I would go for Murom over Ryazan. Murom was a more important town. I dont have the quote with me right now but there are records of people saying that Murom was the most beautiful city in all of Rus...or something like that.

In either case, there's no place for Vladimir nor Moscow as they had little to no importance in the area in comparison.

Moscow didn't exist in 1100 so I agree with that. But I would include Vladimir. It was a significant town which only grew in status as time went by.

[Ichon]

Moscow didn't exist in 1100 so I agree with that. But I would include Vladimir. It was a significant town which only grew in status as time went by.

So Ryazan, Rostov, Vladimir, and Murom all in roughly that same area? Seems a bit much. I agree with FP here that while Vladimir had a golden age it didn't arrive until late 1100s and was quite brief as Mongols arrived and then it never recovered.


EDIT- meant Ryazan, not sure why I wrote Turov.

[ITC]

I would go for Murom over Ryazan. Murom was a more important town. I dont have the quote with me right now but there are records of people saying that Murom was the most beautiful city in all of Rus...or something like that.

It's hard to determine something sertain here... But if we keep in mind the fact that Old Ryazan' was completely destroyed by mongols on 1237, and modern Rayzan' exists on a new place (50km/~30 miles to north east), we can conclude that Old Ryazan' gets off political arena after 1237, then it seems Murom is good idea.

Additionally, Old Ryazan' first time mentioned in chronicles in 1096, but Murom in 862.

P.S. Though up to the mongol invasion, it seems Ryazan had more power. An epic hero Evpatiy Kolovrat (can't find any info on english, just this weird source) was from there.
But if we speak about early era, then Murom anyway.

[Caesar Clivus]

So Turov, Rostov, Vladimir, and Murom all in roughly that same area? Seems a bit much. .

I've got Vladimir, Rostov and Murom all on my map and they're not too close together. Not by a long shot. Turov is near Kiev, nowhere near the NE Rus regions.

I agree with FP here that while Vladimir had a golden age it didn't arrive until late 1100s and was quite brief as Mongols arrived and then it never recovered

Actually it recovered and then some.The Grand Prince of Vladimir still existed and still held the senior position amongst the Rus after the mongol invasion. It's just that the Mongol Khan got to select who held the position by issuing his Iarlyk. The direct impact of the Mongol invasion is often over-estimated. The Rus were vassals, but they were never ruled directly by the Khan. The Grand Prince still ruled the Rus. The Rus way of life wasn't really affected. And it was the Grand Prince of Vladimir who used the situation to gather all the Rus lands under his rule to form the first properly united Rus state, which led to the rise of Muscovy and eventually modern Russia. So you can't really say that Vladimir never recovered

edit: Here's a screenshot of some of the NE changes I made to the map for BftB2. Unfortunately you can't seem Murom but the fact that it's not there shows that it's not too close to the other towns

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[ITC]

I've got Vladimir, Rostov and Murom all on my map and they're not too close together. Not by a long shot. Turov is near Kiev, nowhere near the NE Rus regions.

Actually it recovered and then some.The Grand Prince of Vladimir still existed and still held the senior position amongst the Rus after the mongol invasion. It's just that the Mongol Khan got to select who held the position by issuing his Iarlyk. The direct impact of the Mongol invasion is often over-estimated. The Rus were vassals, but they were never ruled directly by the Khan. The Grand Prince still ruled the Rus. The Rus way of life wasn't really affected. And it was the Grand Prince of Vladimir who used the situation to gather all the Rus lands under his rule to form the first properly united Rus state, which led to the rise of Muscovy and eventually modern Russia. So you can't really say that Vladimir never recovered

It can't be explained better.
I want to add, that Vladimir prospered up to the last Grand Duke of Vladimir Dmitriy Donskoy (1359–1389), who actually managed to change the capital to Moscow. So it's wrong info that Vladimir never recovered.
And the time of vassality under mongols was not that bad. The Invasion itself was awful, yes. But then it formed into something like symbiosis of Rus and Golden Horde State. They both needed each other. Because in the huge Mongol Empire (in which the Golden Horde was just a part) a feudal war began.

[Fair Prince]

The Northeast looks indeed quite tricky with the possibilities: all of Rostov, Suzdal, Vladimir, Murom and Ryazan could be included, but unfortunately we must settle for 2 or 3 at most.

The first 3 cities have to be considered for the Rostov-Suzdal region and Rostov gets my vote here, but Suzdal might also be put in as a permanent fort. However, I still don't see a place for Vladimir here - I acknowledge that it was much more important later, but on this ground Moscow could be included as well.
At the same time, I think we could keep both Murom and Ryazan, albeit with a bit better placement as they are seemingly too far from each other. Although their principalities was nominally united, I found out that they weren't ruled by the same prince, giving a good reason to keep them separated.

I'm gonna post my detailed proposals later today, stay in touch!

[Fair Prince]

Okay, here we are folks!

Part 10: Eastern Europe
EDIT: see the first post for details!

[Mbrabant]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Okay, here we are folks!

Part 10: Eastern Europe
It goes without saying that plenty of adjustments have to take place in this section of the map. I already posted a list of the regions that would be needed to get a more accurate representation, now let's sum it up: in the western portion, Turov, Volodymyr and Chernigov needs to replace Mensk, Zhytomyr and Bryansk, respectively. in the South, Oleshye can stay, but Caffa must be dropped in favour of Chersonesos.
The northeastern part required the most consideration, but I think we got a reasonable solution: Yaroslavl makes way for the more important Rostov while Moscow gets dumped due to its low significance in the 12th-13th century. Serdobinskaya in the East also follows suit.

FP proposals:
Turov to replace Mensk
Volodymyr to replace Zhytomyr (thanks to Caesar Clivus for the idea)
Chernigov to replace Bryansk (thanks to CC and Mbrabant)
Chersonesos to replace Caffa (thanks to CC and Halavar)
Rostov to replace Yaroslavl (thanks to CC)
Remove Moscow
Remove Serdobinskaya

Region count status after Part 10:
-7 slots in total

Turov seems quite good to me, and Minsk should be added on the LateEra Map, belonging to Lithuania.

Also, i guess it still should have a at least 2 regions between the Lithuanians and the Kievans
I guess you guys havent seen my proposal for the addition of Gomel, since it was a very strategic place. Even not being so historical, Gomel represents a region that came on various disputes, even on the Mongol Invasion.
I really think it should be added, even if not so historical, but as a strategic place. Gomel is right north of Chernigov and righ west of Turov. Its a clash of cultures happening here. It also guards one of the crossing spots on the Dnieper River.
If Gomel was not an important strategic place to be holded on that time, then i would not create this post only to talk about it. Turov is a quite strategic place too, but since Gomel is taken, all the armies can cross the Dnieper and strike.
It also has to be portrayted on the map, on Gomel guarding a cross spot on the Dnieper, even not being that so close to the river, since it is located on the Sozh, a tributary to the Dnieper, that may also be portrayted, but the Sozh is a snow-served river, frozen for almost all the year.

[Fair Prince]

Turov seems quite good to me, and Minsk should be added on the LateEra Map, belonging to Lithuania.

Also, i guess it still should have a at least 2 regions between the Lithuanians and the Kievans
I guess you guys havent seen my proposal for the addition of Gomel, since it was a very strategic place. Even not being so historical, Gomel represents a region that came on various disputes, even on the Mongol Invasion.
I really think it should be added, even if not so historical, but as a strategic place. Gomel is right north of Chernigov and righ west of Turov. Its a clash of cultures happening here. It also guards one of the crossing spots on the Dnieper River.
If Gomel was not an important strategic place to be holded on that time, then i would not create this post only to talk about it. Turov is a quite strategic place too, but since Gomel is taken, all the armies can cross the Dnieper and strike.
It also has to be portrayted on the map, on Gomel guarding a cross spot on the Dnieper, even not being that so close to the river, since it is located on the Sozh, a tributary to the Dnieper, that may also be portrayted, but the Sozh is a snow-served river, frozen for almost all the year.

You have some good arguments, but unfortunately neither Mensk nor Gomel would make much sense on the map as they're located too close to other, more important settlements (Turov and Chernigov). However, I might consider them as permanent forts later when we have finished discussing all of the regions, so all hope is not lost for you.

I consider Eastern Europe done, so now I'd like to start debating on the Steppes. See the list of relevant settlements below:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Khlynov
Kazan
Yelabuga
Bulgar
Jaiksk
Embi
Azaq
Sarkel
Astrakhan
Tmutarakan