Map Blog 2 - France and Iceland

[Recon]

Brennas: I meant what I wrote litterally - no sarcasm. I'm well aware that Iceland was no political hot spot, I was merely backing up Sumskillz.

As for why having Iceland in: I presume the reason is that Hross and the team simply wish to represent Norway as the colonial maritime power it was at the time.

In my opinion Norway is still poor represented as the kingdom had far more important colonies further north i.e. one being Lofoten a great center of air dried fish and minor ones that provied fur and whale artifacts through contact with the various sami tribes. Not to forget the possible skirmishes you could have had with the Novgorodians over the northern territories. Wasteland or not I approve of Iceland.

[Hengest]

In my opinion Norway is still poor represented as the kingdom had far more important colonies further north i.e. one being Lofoten a great center of air dried fish and minor ones that provied fur and whale artifacts through contact with the various sami tribes. Not to forget the possible skirmishes you could have had with the Novgorodians over the northern territories. Wasteland or not I approve of Iceland.

Yeah but obviously you understand why we can't give settlement slots away to points that far removed, it was certainly never fought over or instrumental in conflict unlike say Kirkwall was between Scots and Norwegians. I think you nailed it when you write 'skirmishes', 'minor' and 'wasteland'- compare that to Middle Eastern cities of 200,000 populatio in 1080 that we are not including because we need to include Bergen....

[huskythesaint]

Haven't been on the forums for a long while but decided to log in because of how great this looks, +rep

[Recon]

Exactly and I fully understand Hross. Although you would have satisfied me by representing them with PSF's, but then agian that would have caused some other sacrifices. bloody limitations..

By the way welcome back, Hross.

[Hengest]

Thank you, incidentally any places you think would make good PSFs just send me a list in a PM with some rough outline and I will take a look

[Los San Patricios]

About those PSF, do they have a limited number too? If so, what's the number of PSF you can add?

[Resurrection]

About those PSF, do they have a limited number too? If so, what's the number of PSF you can add?

We are yet unsure. As for now it seems there is no limit for PSFs but since we plan on adding hundreds of them we may as well run into the limit. That hopefully answers both your questions. :-)

[Los San Patricios]

We are yet unsure. As for now it seems there is no limit for PSFs but since we plan on adding hundreds of them we may as well run into the limit. That hopefully answers both your questions. :-)

Thank you, hundreds of new settlements sounds very good

[WinsingtonIII]

Looks great, +rep.

Just one question on the starting settlements of the French Crown....

It seems a bit strange that the French crown starts with almost the entirety of France under its control in 1080 AD. I do know that even 100 years after this, at the time of Louis VII's death, the royal domain only extended between Paris, Orleans, Bourges, and Rheims. I know that with DOTS's new system, many of the other provinces will be represented as the dominions of great lords and allow the player almost no control over them (as it should be), but there are a couple provinces that seem as if they should be rebel provinces in 1080. Specifically Bretagne is a bit suspect. I'm aware that they entered into an alliance with Phillip I in 1075, but I'm not sure if they should really start the game as a French province. Obviously, since they were allied to the French, being a rebel province is not ideal, but I don't really think being under the control of the French crown is a good representation of the situation either. The situation in Anjou is also a bit iffy... I might be misremembering but I thought the Count of Anjou retained quite a bit of independence at this point and was not particularly friendly with the French Crown (not that any of the major lords were "friendly" with the crown in the first place).

[Normani de Edessa]

Awesome work

[gustave]

Great work guys, the map looks very nice.

[Mads]

I don't want to sound impatient, but is it possible to see a screenshot with psf's added? - if not, I have patience enough to wait

keep op the incredible work!

[sumskilz]

I don't want to sound impatient, but is it possible to see a screenshot with psf's added?

It might be possible after they've been added.

[Ozzmosis]

If there is no settlement on Iceland, were is it controlled from? In Norway, or Scotland etc?

[Seleukos_I.]

If there is no settlement on Iceland, were is it controlled from? In Norway, or Scotland etc?

Afaik from Norway.

[Space_Ed]

If there is no settlement on Iceland, were is it controlled from? In Norway, or Scotland etc?

It is a part of the most northerly region of Norway.

[fightermedic]

i shall declare this as one of the maps with most devotion spent on it i have seen so far!

[loukas]

great preview France nad Island look great

[Alkidas]

Almost all of the principalities did in some way recognize their subjection to the French king, such as by sending men to the royal army. There were places, like Toulouse which were pretty much completely independent by the time the mod begins and I have been thinking about whether this representation of them is correct. Well, at least in these extreme cases it is a misinterpretation, but then there are few options. Making them rebel would, as sumskilz remarked, make them mindlessly fight wars against everyone - especially the king - so that would not be a better solution. There is no accurate way of doing this and our autonomy model is the best solution we've come up with and I think it's quite good overall. This way we can represent the growth of the royal power which didn't happen through one major war - king against everyone else - as in vanilla.

[VINC.XXIII]

I totally agree,
so look, in France we had 12 "pairs de France ", 12 great lords( with the times many was capetians eh eh), but at the start(of the capetians), the most part of this lorddoms was handed by hostile dynasties:
Duché de Bourgogne(1 lord after the king) become capetian at the 14eme century
Comté de Toulouse, become capetian at the end of the 13eme
Duché de Bretagne, capetian at the 15eme!!
Comté de Champagne, capetian at the 13eme
Comté de Flandre, capetian at the 14eme(key of powerfullness for the Bourgogne's Capetians)
Duché d'Aquitaine/Guyenne, last lorddom of the english in France...
the others "seigneur-pairs" are powerfull ecclesiatics(bishop of Langres, and some others from the North France)
It must look the progress of the capetian dynasty in the time, all this vassals was a day the mortal enemy of the Kings. Isn't only the princes who have a problem with the centralization, many provinces have an irascible hating of the french linguage and french culture until the 14eme/15eme century, like the Bretons, the Auvergnats, the Toulousains, same the Flandre, the Guyenne, some others was the fanatic supporters of the french crown, Rheims for example or many small cities who want a communal "chart" against their lords...
good luck