SSHIP - Original Thread (archived)

[Ichon]

Maybe it's just me, but I can't really imagine sword-bearing generals strolling around with archbishop titles - the only way it could fancy it is to make use of the new Cleric character class I proposed not a long ago but even that would be quite off the mark I think. I'm still on the opinion that only priests should be entitled to archbishop titles.

It would be sort of a challenge to put all of Bruges, Ghent and Brussels on the map considering the short distance between them but it's far from impossible. I'm more curious about what should be the new region's (preferably Ghent's) name and title if they were to be included.

Well there were a few sword bearing Popes strolling around and a few more sword bearing Archbishops. Warrior Bishops were actually not uncommon for early medieval era either. The Medieval Church was quite different from the modern Church. As I said in 1100s it wasn't uncommon to have Archbishops that were married and had children. Normally 2nd and 3rd sons but sometimes if the eldest son died an Archbishop could still inherit and progress the family name and power at least into the 1500s though it became much rarer as time went on and traditions established more widely.

If you haven't read these yet they might be interesting for you-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage_of_France
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_peerages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey,...ishop_of_Reims
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count

As you can see just from wiki that many Counts also held the title of Bishop- the harsh divide between lay titles and clergy was not so definite at this point though a Church title was normally considered more privileged than an equal ranked lay title many of the high nobility also carried Church titles as a shield against the demands of vassalage. They could always claim their first duty was to the Church and the Church gained power by playing off the lower nobles against the Dukes and the King. Eventually more and more King either took the power of the Church onto themselves (investiture controversy in HRE, King of England becoming head of the Church, etc) or ensured that the divide between lay titles and Church titles was clear so that the clergy answered to the Pope and the lay vassals answered to the King.

Not as many that were named Archbishop would be active politically outside the Church or also be generals but there were a few. It was much more common for Bishops and lower orders. That is why I proposed that the title of Archbishop also have lowered command so rarely should they be leading armies but they could call men to arms and give the strategic orders that an army would follow while tactical command would be assumed by someone else.

If you read more beyond the Wiki you can see how often the politics of the Church and the nobility were often shared since most of the nobility were also the high officials in the Church. Though the later Church had a bit of a meritocracy where lower ranked people had some chance at progression it still was rare that any other than noble born was elected higher than Bishop.

As for Flanders... I think Bruges and Ghent are enough in 1100. Brussels did become quite important in the 1300s but that is 200 years after the start date we are talking of. The distinction between upper and lower is probably a good thing to keep in mind however with lower being more Flemish and upper being more German.

[el Cid]

Thanks for your arguments, they sound very reasonable to me. I already expressed my opinion about Flanders in my previous posts, we'll see if there will be enough space for all of Bruges, Ghent and Brussels (the latter replaces Antwerp).
As for Friesland, I actually chose to change it to Holland in my text updates but I'm thinking of reverting it back to Friesland because every map I found of 12th century Europe seems to have the latter name on it. After reading your reasons, Stavoren might well be represented by just a port and I also believe Utrecht now has a legitimate claim to replace Groningen as the region's capital - I'm gonna insert this change into the proposals as well.

Btw, I'm glad to announce that SonofPeverel has agreed to join the project as the map designer, let us hope he'll succeed in realizing our cool ideas!

Well in fact it works like this: The Netherlands had a big number of provinces at the time. And while I can't find any map of the 12th century, here is one of the 16th. At present it is still pretty much the same. (the northern part) The part that is called Ommelanden is now called Groningen, just like the city. It could however be that Friesland contained those other regions at the time, so you can be right.

[Fair Prince]

Well in fact it works like this: The Netherlands had a big number of provinces at the time. And while I can't find any map of the 12th century, here is one of the 16th. At present it is still pretty much the same. (the northern part) The part that is called Ommelanden is now called Groningen, just like the city. It could however be that Friesland contained those other regions at the time, so you can be right.

Okay, thanks for the map, I get your point now!

I think we have discussed this part of the map in detail, so I'd suggest moving on to the next one - from now on I welcome suggestions on Central Europe.
This area should mainly correspond with the realm of the HRE, with the Italian peninsula also being included.

I attached a pretty good map for your consideration guys, looking forward to receive some cool ideas!

[Serbian Hussar]

German teritoreis have quite a number of provinces already IMO. Maybe a one more in the north would be ok. Something in between of Hamburg, Cologne and Magdeburg (there is some space there). In northern Italy: Pola (Istria), Verona (Veneto) and Turin (Piedmont).

[SonofPeverel]

Btw, I'm glad to announce that SonofPeverel has agreed to join the project as the map designer, let us hope he'll succeed in realizing our cool ideas!

Glad to help ..there are alot of good ideas here and ill start work on some of them soon.

[Ichon]

German teritoreis have quite a number of provinces already IMO. Maybe a one more in the north would be ok. Something in between of Hamburg, Cologne and Magdeburg (there is some space there). In northern Italy: Pola (Istria), Verona (Veneto) and Turin (Piedmont).

All those make sense except for Turin. Milan is already there so why add Turin which became dominant much later? It was a large city in medieval era but not rivaling the other Italian cities...

Also I am not quite sure if Germany has really enough territories. Its not as bad off as France but could certainly benefit from Hannover and probably Lubeck or something else. At least +2 especially if Italy is getting +3.

Italy for 1100 should get Florence and Verona! Any 2 others of these I am fine with in addition to those two; Trieste(or something representing the Patriarchate), Pola, and Nice. Probably I would prefer Nice and Trieste which would give Italy +3 with Florence included and Ancona dropped.

Pola is interesting addition maybe but doesn't compare with Florence and Verona for importance to Italy. If anything I think Pola could just be represented with higher starting population in Venice and maybe a rebel stack.

I think Italy could actually have Florence, Verona, Pisa, and Ragusa as very strong rebels(2 stacks also to give barrier longer between Byz and Hungarians) at game start and also have a fort or stack where Pola, Ancona, and Amalfi were. That way both Venice and Genoa might find it easier to expand by sea in the early game and at least take some time to expand on the peninsula.

Dropping Ancona perhaps to make room or making it a very strong rebel stack in a fort or for stack plus a roaming stack south of Verona and Venice. Ancona and Ragusa were both maritime republics competing with Venice though Ragusa was stronger of the two and also lasted longer. Ragusa also much better map position. Pisa might also be dropped to make room for Florence and Verona but a fort protecting a trade resource or something left there as Pisa was a power in its own right until fortunes of war against Genoa and the increase in power of Florence simultaneously. If Pisa is dropped then Pola or Trieste could be added. Probably Trieste more important but Pisa is definitely more important than either but more for balancing map out would be the only reason to drop Pisa so then Pola is a bit better balance than Trieste as far as position.

Also I think the Italian coast should have the highest chance of pirate spawns of anywhere on map. All the competing maritime republics, saracen pirates, knights of st john, Ottoman corsairs, and N African pirates made attaining naval supremacy in the Mediterranean Sea quite difficult.

[el Cid]

Okay, thanks for the map, I get your point now!

I think we have discussed this part of the map in detail, so I'd suggest moving on to the next one - from now on I welcome suggestions on Central Europe.
This area should mainly correspond with the realm of the HRE, with the Italian peninsula also being included.

I attached a pretty good map for your consideration guys, looking forward to receive some cool ideas!

I see you are correct now, it seems Friesland was much bigger at the time. Perhaps it's because the Friesians inhabited a larger region back then.

Sorry for the trouble.

[Ottheinrich]

Well, like I said before, I really think the provinces along the Rhine just aren't represented enough in the current SS map, especially the Upper Rhine. It's cities and provinces had always been some of the most densely populated in Europe and the HRE, even more so after the Black Death, since the the Upper Rhine wasn't hit as hard by the Plague and the social disorder as the northern cities or Cologne.
But it's not only the population.The Pfalzgraf bei Rhein (Count Palatine of the Rhine) had been on of the more important Princes of the HRE.
I therefore think, that the town of Speyer should be added to the map to represent the Upper Rhine. Speyer itself had been of cultural importance: The Cathedral of Speyer was considered to be the largest church of Western Europe (and still is the largest Romanesque church). Speyer had been ruled by bishops and was independent from the Electoral Palatinate, yet I think the anc should be the title "Count Palatine of the Rhine".
I think, Staufen could be removed from the map, since, as far as I know, it hadn't been of any importance at all.
To compensate the loss of a castle in that region, you could Metz make a starting region of the HRE, since it had been a part of the Empire since 870.

So, that's my little proposal. Yet, I might be biased .

Furthermore, I agree that Hannover should be added.

[Ichon]

Speyer is a good idea- definitely remove Staufen as I never understood that cluster of regions north of Alps right there. Metz starting HRE is maybe good idea... especially if France getting a few more regions. Removing Salzburg and adding Regensburg instead might also make more sense. Strasbourg, Speyer, Metz, and Wiesbaden are all important places in HRE especially in 1100s.


Hannover wasn't strictly the most important town in 1100 but that area of the map is relatively blank and for map balance needs something. Hannover did become quite important by 1300s. Bremen or Oldenburg are also possible candidates though the regional capitol would be a bit on the north side of the region. Hesse with capitols at Kassel or Marburg might make sense as well.

[Fair Prince]

Thanks for the ideas guys, keep them coming!
Meanwhile, I reconsidered the size of the current part and came to the conclusion that Italy should be ignored for the time being - let's concentrate only on Central Europe now, the territory to the north of the Alps, between Cologne and Prague. Doing this will hopefully help us to progress more quickly.

Here's a list of the current relevant settlements in the area:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Bern (I renamed it to Zurich in my text updates)
Cologne
Frankfurt
Innsbruck
Hamburg
Magdeburg
Nuremburg
Prague
Salzburg
Staufen

[Ottheinrich]

I really like the idea of adding Marburg, especially if Bremen (or maybe Braunschweig?) is added to the map.
If both Marburg and Magdeburg would be castles, Hamburg could be turned into a town (the early "Hammaburg" - if it really existed - was a "Fluchtburg", a rather small fortification to protect the fleeing population in case of an attack.)

Oh, so many regions to add, so few slots

[Ichon]

Yes- switching Hamburg to a large town at start and moving more of HRE castles to the interior would help HRE survive longer in my opinion. I think HRE might do quite well with Bremen, Marburg, Lubeck added, Staufen taken out, Salzburg to Regensburg and a city not a castle and Nuremburg made into a castle. HRE starting with Metz maybe as well or make Metz one of the few regions in that area with relatively weak rebels so HRE will expand there first. Overall +2 for HRE but much better balanced. Especially with changes to France and Italy. If Metz as city and Innsbruck made into a city and Prague made into a castle...

Then the invading factions will gain income and cities but HRE doesn't lose its main troop generation centers and has a chance to rebound. Metz being a castle is 50/50. Zurich instead of Bern and Dijon being a castle might be enough for that area. Marburg, Magdeburg, Nuremburg, Prague as castles- rest as cities. HRE would start with 11 regions 4 being castles in the interior.

Nearby rebel regions would be- Lubeck, Groningen, Bruges, Ghent, Metz, Zurich, Stettin, Wroclaw, Trieste, Verona, Milan, Florence, Zagreb(or something else when we get that area of the map).

[el Cid]

I believe the ideas on Italy were also wanted?

On Italy I have only one suggestion: Add Verona, Trieste and Florence. That might make the peninsula a bit crowded but it was after all the most populated region in Europe. If a settlement has to go I would choose Ajaccio, though I do not think that necessary.

On Germany, I do not really have much knowledge of that. But I think Staufen could be replaced by a more important settlement. I agree with renaming Bern, as Zurich was much more important. Austria is also fine to me, though I have not looked into it enough to give constructive criticism on Germany at all. On overall there could be more settlements in the region, as it was a pretty populated area.

[Fair Prince]

Okay, considering that plenty of posts have been made already, let's see some initial ideas from me before I make my 'official' proposals.
First, it's out of question that Staufen should be dumped, but I'd do the same with Innsbruck as well, so we'd start with +2 slots immediately. Among the ideas I accept Lubeck and maybe Hannover could be a good addition too, even though Ichon pointed out it wasn't really significant in the early 12th century.

However, I also got a couple of questions in my mind that I haven't found answers to yet:
- Ichon suggested Regensburg to replace Salzburg but what about Augsburg?
- Should Bamberg replace Nuremberg?
- Should Trier replace Metz in Upper Lorraine? (The Archbishop of Trier held one of the prince-electoral offices in the HRE.)
- What about splitting the Magdeburg region to Magdeburg (Brandenberg region) and Meissen (Meissen region)?
- What about adding Thuringia with Erfurt as capital?

Let me know what you think, folks!

[Ichon]

I stick with Regensburg over Augsburg as Augsburg is an old city but not as politically important but honestly many of these choices can be a bit map dependent. IE- whichever position fits the map better though I don't necessarily see why the regions and capitols need to be in a grid pattern. I actually wouldn't mind small cluster of 2-3 regions for some of the major Duchies in Germany or to demonstrate natural political/ethnic/geographical boundaries.

Nuremburg I think is clearly better choice here both map position and history. Bamburg was the seat of a very large Bishopric region but if you look what it covered it would be 4-5 of the current regions on the map. I think you can separate the title here from the region capitol. I am not sure how you will do the titles for HRE since they changed and the regions they represented also changed frequently. Perhaps just the more important titles? IE- Dukes of Bavaria, Bishopric of Bamburg, etc. 7 major Duchies in 1100 at least plus important counts and bishops.

Trier or Metz is tough. We talked about it in RW's map and I honestly can't remember why went with Metz. I think it was a bit further west is the only reason so it fit better with map. Both were important though Trier as elector and seat of Archbishop had more political influence within Germany- Metz as the border of Germany and France/Burgundy/Lorraine was quite important strategically. I think either would be a good choice.

Meissen... just to add a further region? Meissen, Erfut, Magdeburg, and Prague would be a bit tight... Magdeburg and Prague were put in for a reason though and I am not sure there is good enough justification to change. Just adding more regions is nice but have to keep in mind the 199 limit. Maybe come back to this if there are extra regions left over at the end or due to map considerations and game balance. With adding already 2 regions to HRE... HRE was powerful and populous but not as concentrated as France, Italy, Iberia, Levant, or Rus. Keep in mind HRE probably had something 10-12 million but that was counting its domains spread over a larger area than modern Germany. Including Austria, Czech Republic, parts of Italy, Poland, Holland...etc. I'd like to see HRE a strong player in central Europe for much longer in the game but that can be achieved by increasing its dominions and shrinking Scandinavia which seems to be often its major threat and making its interior castles so it can produce more armies even when losing border cities. I could see HRE gaining- Marburg and Trier at start and possibly Erfurt I guess but that would be enough for a bit as that would give 12 starting regions surrounded by at least 12 rebel regions that HRE as largest faction could probably get at least half of giving somewhere around 18 regions which is strong enough counter balance for France if Denmark and Norway aren't such a huge threat by a reduction in Scandinavia. So I guess Erfurt over Meissen.

Back to Augsburg... trying to divide up Bavaria and make the map more balanced perhaps Innsbruck could go in favor of Linz? So that way Bologna is a bit isolated but Innsbruck and Vienna aren't a single turn apart as right now Venice can march and lay siege to Innsbruck in a single turn. Linz might actually be a better trade center than Innsbruck and allow HRE a bit better consolidation to protect from invasions. A permanent stone fort at Innsbrucks location with a silver resource nearby or perhaps even 2 silver resources to show the importance of the largest silver mine of the medieval era and its importance to the revenues of the ruling faction.

[Fair Prince]

All right, thanks to everyone for expressing their opinions, I once again tried to find some balance between accuracy and gameplay aspects, but let's face it, it was never easy in Total War games.
Here goes my ideas, feel free to comment on them!

Part 5: Central Europe
EDIT: see the first post for details!

[Ichon]

Don't forget Marburg. Or Kassel. Also two of the oldest towns with HRE records going back into 1100s. Nicely situated as well to make the Central West area of Germany in HRE a bit more important as it was holding most of the important places in 1100s. Closer to 1300s the south and north became more important and in 1400s the east.

I don't know if Hamburg should be dropped but maybe if Lubeck is added and then also Ribe in Denmark instead of Aarhus how RW did it. If Hamburg is dropped then definitely Bremen added.
Meissen still not convinced about especially in any 1100 campaign, Leipzig could also work but both were under Polish control for some periods.
Trier or Metz- makes little difference to me. Trier is a bit further east so maybe better to make room for Bruges and Ghent.
Erfurt its possible but all the eastern German cities tended to be smaller and less important in 1100s.
Speyer is a good idea.
Augsburg is further north than Linz but could replace Innsbruck while Regensburg replaces Salzburg.
Staufen gone and Innsbruck gone seem good.

I see removing Innsbruck(replaced by Augsburg) and Staufen(replaced by Bremen) and only adding Lubeck(which is net + only if Hamburg kept). HRE should get at least +2. Marburg and Bremen seem the best candidates for new adds after Lubeck. Adding both Marburg and Erfurt... your call but looking on map Marburg/Kassel seems better situated as near Erfut there is already Magdeburg and Prague.

Modern population distribution in Germany... major changes from 1100s is Berlin and Hamburg as far as distribution anyway. Also Germany was still expanding North and East. Of course modern numbers way higher.
http://www.populationlabs.com/Germany_Population.asp

And attached a map of the larger political divisions under Barbarossa in late 1100s.
Political Power in 1100 was something like this;
1. Franconia, Swabia, Bavaria
2. Saxony, Thuringia, Lotharingia upper and lower
3. Bohemia
4. Lubeck and Brandenburg relatively new but quickly became important due to leading expansion into the NE- both into Livonia and Pomerania.
5. the rest had more or less importance at various times but not as constant as those above in HRE. Burgundy was nominally HRE but also owed France vassalage obligations for some of its territories and in practice paid little attention to the Kings of either. So it was quite important especially as Burgundy gained power through marriages and land acquisitions.

Also to use to estimate which cities should start most developed this might be useful- I don't agree with everything and probably most real historians wouldn't either but it can be handy since for gameplay reasons most regions won't start incredibly developed anyway but it would be nice to have some have a bit more differentiation at the start.

http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/tekpages/urbanpop.html

[ironstatue]

British Isles had low pop but was highly militarized. For that matter Durrazzo was the 3rd largest city in the Byzantine Empire. Been playing Norman Sicily a lot lately and got that on my mind

[ITC]

My two cents )
I don't think changing the number of settlements is a good idea. Because we are in the game, where absolute historical accuracy couldn't be reproduced. But the game balance could be broken.
For example, Scandinavia wich was less populated, gave the world very active people, while overcrowded Europe could be more passive (from the military point of view) relatively to Viking Power. The reason of viking invasions could be possible.
Giving central Europe such an advantage of population, we need to change also military parametres of less populated but strong ethnoses.

[Ottheinrich]

Well, the Age of Vikings is pretty much over in the timescale of SS. Ever since the scandinavian regions started to adopt the feudal system and christianity and dynastys started to establish, the "viking invasions" stopped. The powerstruggle in the baltic became the main focus of the scandinavian kingdoms (with the exception of Norway, they keept attacking the British Isles well into the 1100s. But even the norwegian kings shifted focus to other target - like fighting for the crusader states as mercenaries).

@ Fair Prince

Good list :-)
I think Marburg would be a better choice over Meissen, but I think this is just a matter of personal taste...