Facts & Features

[Resurrection]

will lithuania have historical family?

Hardly considering 1080 is some 120 years before recorded history in Lithuania. On the other hand what it will have will be the best possible educated guess. We have a dedicated Lithuanian guy working on that so it should be good.

[Admiral Piett]

I just thought of something weird as I've actually never seen this happen before.

Say if the Holy Roman Emperor captured Constantinople. He'd be like "Emperor of the Romans" and "Emperor of Constantinople" or "Emperor of the Two Empires" or something.

[Hengest]

no titles will be faction or culture specific, although we still need coders for titles all you'll have none at all

[RaduAlexandru]

Well I am not impressed - sorry to say so. For me a game, a mod, not featuring Genoa but featuring Armenia and Georgia isn't worth playing. I respect your guy's work but I think that when choices have to be made western states such as Genoa were far more important and had far far more impact on history than those small eastern kingdoms which did nothing other than struggle for existence for some centuries. Genoa as Genoa but KoJ or the Teutons .. yes yes it's a bit a-historical but then again your whole mod is completely a-historical if you come to think about it and not because of you guys but because of the limitations of the game engine. Agreed mtw2 or for that matter any CA game will never ever compare to EU in terms of representing history ... but then again I think you guys should consider that those who will play your mod [which will last for about 1 year cause by the end of 2012 I and many others expect a MTW3 from CA] will do so to have fun - and fun means small western factions with a tons of unique units [such as the teutons koj or heh.. genoa..] ... As for including Syria in this well the quite only reason such a faction should be included as playable would be in conjunction with KoJ otherwise some upped rebels could play its historical role ...

Otherwise good job and I hope to play your mod soon - I do hope it will be fun

[WinsingtonIII]

and fun means small western factions with a tons of unique units [such as the teutons koj or heh.. genoa..]

"Fun" is completely subjective, clearly you only have fun playing Western European factions (of which there will be many), but you must remember that others will have much more fun playing eastern or Middle Eastern factions (which can also have tons of unique units... In fact, there will probably be more unit diversity between Syria, Cilician Armenia, and Georgia than there will be between the North Italic factions, of which there are two others already). You cannot expect every mod to cater to your personal tastes and only put in the factions that you most enjoy to play. If that's what you want, make your own mod in which all of your favorite factions are represented.

EDIT: Plus, as others have mentioned, and I can't believe I forgot to mention this, Genoa is in the mod as the "Communi Liberi."

[Horatius Flaccus]

Well I am not impressed - sorry to say so. For me a game, a mod, not featuring Genoa but featuring Armenia and Georgia isn't worth playing. I respect your guy's work but I think that when choices have to be made western states such as Genoa were far more important and had far far more impact on history than those small eastern kingdoms which did nothing other than struggle for existence for some centuries. Genoa as Genoa but KoJ or the Teutons .. yes yes it's a bit a-historical but then again your whole mod is completely a-historical if you come to think about it and not because of you guys but because of the limitations of the game engine. Agreed mtw2 or for that matter any CA game will never ever compare to EU in terms of representing history ... but then again I think you guys should consider that those who will play your mod [which will last for about 1 year cause by the end of 2012 I and many others expect a MTW3 from CA] will do so to have fun - and fun means small western factions with a tons of unique units [such as the teutons koj or heh.. genoa..] ... As for including Syria in this well the quite only reason such a faction should be included as playable would be in conjunction with KoJ otherwise some upped rebels could play its historical role ...

Otherwise good job and I hope to play your mod soon - I do hope it will be fun

The irony: you said "I respect you guys work" and then only criticise it. Without even backing up any of you statements? At least read the topic you posted on:

Genoa is represented as: "Comuni Liberi (Free Communes: Milan, Genoa)"

KoJ (non-existent at the start date!) is represented by the Papal faction, and I hope you know Salahuddin was a Syrian noble, right?

And please, please, don't post your opinions as if they are facts. The thing about MedIII is just ridiculous.

Edited by Meneth: Please be a bit less aggressive in your posting.

[RaduAlexandru]

Quote

The irony: you said "I respect you guys work" and then only criticise it. Without even backing up any of you statements? At least read the topic you posted on: Genoa is represented as: "Comuni Liberi (Free Communes: Milan, Genoa)" KoJ (non-existent at the start date!) is represented by the Papal faction, and I hope you know Salahuddin was a Syrian noble, right? And please, please, don't post your opinions as if they are facts. The thing about MedIII is just ridiculous.

REPLY

Let's start with "do I know that Salad ad-Din was Syrian". Very funny it's like saying hey Napoleon was Corsican so let's put Corsica as a faction in ETW and NTW. Very funny indeed. The short term presence of a LIMITED number of nobles from the regions of Aleppo and Damascus who gained fame and status is not reason enough to cut out other factions for these regional nobles to be represented. In the balance of things did anybody ever hear about say ... Burgundy? It is my opinion that when it came down to actual choices of factions the dev. of this mod chose mostly based on personal taste. And there is NOTHING wrong with that but please don't speak about historical accuracy. Syria might actually be very fun to play with but in my opinion it doesn't have enough merit to be included in a major mod. Now let's speak a bit about Genoa, Milan and the other Italian factions. Is Genoa really represented as it should when you placed it in the same bundle with Milan. I sort of doubt it. Forget starting positions think accurate unit rouster etc. So yes Genoa might be there but in my opinion Genoa like most Italian city states haven't been given as much importance as I would have liked (again a question of taste). History tells us quite frankly and directly that in medieval times the Italian Pen. was more or less an oasis of development and civilization and it's a mistake not to give it it's role. However the game has limitations and it's a question of personal taste. If it were me I would choose to cut as many regions as possible from africa and siberia and give more to Italy. But that's just me. Speaking about KoJ well it's one of those factions that are fun and played by most of us. Why? Because it's unique and fun. Does anybody really give a dam about historical accuracy when it comes to the teutons and koj. Not really and not really because we all love to have them to play with their unique units and starting from their unique positions. As for my opinions they are just opinions and I presented them as such. If when you read you think they are facts only then to realize these are just op. then you have a major problem .... And yes I do respect the work done by this team of modders and I will for sure play this mod when it comes out. It doesn't prevent me from expressing critical opinions and making observations. This isn't an ass kissing contest and it isn't communism so that we all bow down to the superior ideas of the one true ruler. Once this mod went public in it's dev stage it took it upon itself to be criticized by those who think that some things might have been done better. We are not all brainless monkeys who accept that the ideas of others are the absolute truth - as far as I know for myself I am still free and able to make observations and I will whenever I think I should. In short - I would have liked to see the mod be a bit more focused on unique factions like koj or the italian factions as they are ... more fun. But it's a question of taste yes. And no I still see no real reason for Syria being in the mod and if the developers actually want some feedback they might consider providing an alternative to Syria ... either a new Italian faction or another faction and then see what people would like to see....

_______________________
A question - will there be a population based recruitment limitation system? I think one based on the actual pop. of the settlement of the region would actually be great. And speaking on this issue is there any chance we could see realistic populations for cities like Constantinople or Baghdad? Is there any way in which repression and discontent could be represented in another manner so as to allow for huge populations?

And one idea [out of many ]. Would it be possible to link the cost of infrastructure buildings [let's say something as sewers] dependent on the population of the towns? And would it be possible to have a system of levels for such infrastructure to allow upgrades as the population goes up ... it's way more complex than 3 lines written here I know and I will make a separate post about it later but just as an off-shoot...

[Resurrection]

The short term presence of a LIMITED number of nobles from the regions of Aleppo and Damascus who gained fame and status is not reason enough to cut out other factions for these regional nobles to be represented.

The reasoning behind the Syria is a little more complex than an attempt to represent some significant nobles at the time the mod starts. The faction through transitions will in fact include factions and dynasties which reined in the area in our timeframe, mainly Uqaylid Dynasty, Zenghid Dynasty and in the late period should the faction be battered by the Monogls or Timurids (or both) also Koyunlu Empire. The European Middle Ages times in Middle East were extremely turbulent and it is very hard to come up with the feasible representation. We considered many concepts from the just few factions made into "superpowers" over more European-like static states. Eventually we have adopted more or less territorial approach where the faction slot is dedicated to represent the given territory (defined usually culturally or otherwise so it's NOT just artificially made up) and we represent the struggle of its peoples through history.

Such gameplay will be a lot different to the European one where you usually have just one dynasty attempting to survive and forge its destiny in expense of other factions. In ME case the player is in charge of more abstract idea of the culturally/ethnically/otherwise distinct faction which will experience a lot of huge changes throughout the game. If playing as Persia you might even be able to take charge of the Mongol invaders and turn into Il-Khanate! (so even THAT kind of change). In comparison the European transitions and gameplay is just static comprising just cosmetic changes.

But that's how things actually were in the High and Late Middle Ages. ME was extremely turbulent place seeing changes well comparable to European Migration Period and Dark Ages while Europe itself was already largely set up. And we tried our best to represent it.

In the balance of things did anybody ever hear about say ... Burgundy?

Of course, same as Bulgaria, Serbia and dozens of others. We dropped all those factions because we wanted the DotS to be as playable as possible and except for Rebels and Pope you can play all factions. Many of the dropped factions were in fact included as transition options but some had to be made just into rebels.

As for the 14th century factions (Burgundy, Switzerland, Moldova or Wallachia) they gained power under very specific circumstances and it is almost guaranteed such circumstances would not happen in majority of the DotS games. That is the reason why we are very reserved when considering their appearance at all. There are of course some exceptions to that rule such as the Hussites but they are included simply because they were the only successful catholic reformists (aka heretics) before the actual Reformation (plus they could be put in as a transition for Bohemia which cannot be done with other afore mentioned factions).

It is my opinion that when it came down to actual choices of factions the dev. of this mod chose mostly based on personal taste. And there is NOTHING wrong with that but please don't speak about historical accuracy. Syria might actually be very fun to play with but in my opinion it doesn't have enough merit to be included in a major mod.

This is so untrue mate. You may consider the mod's choice to be that of personal flavour but the DotS has started almost 5 years ago and for first 3 years it was basically ONLY debate about these exact things. What factions and other choices to make within the limits of the game. And the discussion was not done by handful of people, it was contributed to by literally hundreds, in all but one cases the ones making the final call were different guys to those who started the discussions or made the propositions. I am confident to say that if any mod out there (including those for EU3 or other games) is the most historical in its choices and considerations, then it is the DotS. Seriously, this project received insane amount of energy from hundreds of people and is still not finished after almost 5 years ALL BECAUSE WE WANT (and always wanted) IT TO BE THE MOST HISTORICAL GAME EVER. Saying that it's just some arbitrary choices made on a whim of personal taste is just plain insult.

Now let's speak a bit about Genoa, Milan and the other Italian factions. Is Genoa really represented as it should when you placed it in the same bundle with Milan. I sort of doubt it. Forget starting positions think accurate unit rouster etc. So yes Genoa might be there but in my opinion Genoa like most Italian city states haven't been given as much importance as I would have liked (again a question of taste). History tells us quite frankly and directly that in medieval times the Italian Pen. was more or less an oasis of development and civilization and it's a mistake not to give it it's role.

The debate on Italy was probably the longest and toughest in the mod seconded perhaps only by the factions debate. In fact it was not finished until recently so it was continually going on for 5 years. The solution for this unsolvable problem was partially already presented. If you don't think it is a good one (despite the fact you know little about it) it's your choice. But it was the choice made after half a decade of the debate so I really believe it's a good one.

However the game has limitations and it's a question of personal taste. If it were me I would choose to cut as many regions as possible from africa and siberia and give more to Italy. But that's just me.

Euro-centric region layout we had until quite recently (well not so recently anymore) and it proved game-wise VERY problematic. The Siberai, Africa and East in general were huge areas populated with just handful of settlements. While it might have made sense from the perspective of the settlements importance it was unsustainable in the actual game. So we adopted the regional approach meaning we wanted to represent the actual historical region with each of the 199 slots. And the layout is way more balanced. However that did not led to actual diminishing of cities etc. in Europe or anywhere. Introducing the huge amount of PSFs it turned out that you can barely move in places like Northern Italy or Lower Countries/Flanders. And we still had to drop many places simply because the map despite being biggest possible is too rough to include all of the important settlements. So again, this is the result of the years of development and debate - personal taste? Perhaps. But I am 99% sure it cannot be done much better.

Speaking about KoJ well it's one of those factions that are fun and played by most of us. Why? Because it's unique and fun. Does anybody really give a dam about historical accuracy when it comes to the teutons and koj. Not really and not really because we all love to have them to play with their unique units and starting from their unique positions.

Now these are obviously just your personal tastes. While it might be more fun to play as KoJ forging all-ME-Empire it is nor historically feasible nor interesting from our perspective. We wanted to give player the choice to create alternate yet believable history but also within the historical framework. That means that as Portugal you are destined to struggle in Reconquista to trigger the transitions and the actual content we created. You may of course opt to go rampage in British Isles or whatnot but that will give you little in DotS unless you enjoy playing without much of a clear purpose.

The result of this approach (and since we can hardly predict all possible unhistorical approaches player might select it is the only one feasible) is that the KoJ and Teutons (and almost two dozen other Monastic orders) are either unplayable (KoJ is under Pope) or with limited gameplay options (Teutons under HRE) or via tech-tree, units etc. (the rest of Monastic orders).


Nobody is blaming you for criticism but I believe that your criticism is largely unfounded. It is not expected from the fans to just acclaim us but when you wish to offer criticism you might want to do it in slightly more sophisticated manner and primarily on smaller scale. Pick something you see as not fitting and make your case (preferably backed by sources etc.) as it is the only way how the criticism can do anything about DotS. Otherwise chances are high you just get wall-texted like now from someone who have been through countless discussions on these exact things and who can beat you with countless arguments picked from there (and believe me, I have just scratched the surface of all the matters discussed in this post :-)). If you however made you point strong and backed chances are also high we would take it into consideration and did something about it!

Sorry for the mentoring though. :-)

_______________________
A question - will there be a population based recruitment limitation system? I think one based on the actual pop. of the settlement of the region would actually be great.

That was in RTW and was removed in M2TW so no besides the basic settlement level, AOR or other (tech-tree) requirements.

And speaking on this issue is there any chance we could see realistic populations for cities like Constantinople or Baghdad? Is there any way in which repression and discontent could be represented in another manner so as to allow for huge populations?

The mechanics are the same regardless of the population. We have however found out the real numbers work if the modifiers are adjusted to it but the biggest problem comes from the fact that we have tiny settlements as well as huge settlements. No work-around is feasible enough (like via tech-tree bonuses) to alleviate this problem since all settlements share the same mechanic. And any change to the vanilla mechanics would require extreme amount of balancing.

Therefore we have opted for the semi-realistic RTW style. We do include the realistic populations but the number represents only the fighting-able men (just like in RTW). That way the relative difference between the settlements is preserved as is the historical accuracy but the absolute numbers are closer together and manageable with the M2TW settlements mechanics.

And one idea [out of many ]. Would it be possible to link the cost of infrastructure buildings [let's say something as sewers] dependent on the population of the towns? And would it be possible to have a system of levels for such infrastructure to allow upgrades as the population goes up ... it's way more complex than 3 lines written here I know and I will make a separate post about it later but just as an off-shoot...

No, the costs in tech-tree are fixed in the files (EDB) and cannot be altered in the game. The population based upgrades however are standard hard-coded thing represented by the wall level.

[mynameisowen]

Well I am not impressed - sorry to say so. For me a game, a mod, not featuring Genoa but featuring Armenia and Georgia isn't worth playing. I respect your guy's work but I think that when choices have to be made western states such as Genoa were far more important and had far far more impact on history than those small eastern kingdoms which did nothing other than struggle for existence for some centuries. Genoa as Genoa but KoJ or the Teutons .. yes yes it's a bit a-historical but then again your whole mod is completely a-historical if you come to think about it and not because of you guys but because of the limitations of the game engine. Agreed mtw2 or for that matter any CA game will never ever compare to EU in terms of representing history ... but then again I think you guys should consider that those who will play your mod [which will last for about 1 year cause by the end of 2012 I and many others expect a MTW3 from CA] will do so to have fun - and fun means small western factions with a tons of unique units [such as the teutons koj or heh.. genoa..] ... As for including Syria in this well the quite only reason such a faction should be included as playable would be in conjunction with KoJ otherwise some upped rebels could play its historical role ...

Otherwise good job and I hope to play your mod soon - I do hope it will be fun

I dont expect you to find many people agreeing with you on this.

Popular culture depicts the medieval age as being the weastern-eruropean-age it wasn't. So much was going down everywhere and the conflicts fought on the eastern front of christianity, in those very lands your talking about, where at the forefront of the muslim, turkic and mongol invasions that engulfed the region.

[Los San Patricios]

Besides, even if M3TW will be released (though Rome 2 is far more likely) 'soon' it doesn't mean DotS won't be played anymore.
It's naive to think that a rushed vanilla TW will better than DotS even if it has some flashy new features. Also, future TW games most likely won't be very modable so the release M3TW won't make DotS worthless. In the 'best' case because DotS will still be the most historical accurate, but most likely also because it simply has far more depth.

[Jimmy-j]

Besides, even if M3TW will be released (though Rome 2 is far more likely) 'soon' it doesn't mean DotS won't be played anymore.
It's naive to think that a rushed vanilla TW will better than DotS even if it has some flashy new features. Also, future TW games most likely won't be very modable so the release M3TW won't make DotS worthless. In the 'best' case because DotS will still be the most historical accurate, but most likely also because it simply has far more depth.

True, I am still playing Rome and Medieval 2, simply because they have better mods than Empire and Napoleon, and vanilla is plain boring.

[Rilder]

Besides, even if M3TW will be released (though Rome 2 is far more likely) 'soon' it doesn't mean DotS won't be played anymore.
It's naive to think that a rushed vanilla TW will better than DotS even if it has some flashy new features. Also, future TW games most likely won't be very modable so the release M3TW won't make DotS worthless. In the 'best' case because DotS will still be the most historical accurate, but most likely also because it simply has far more depth.

Yeah this, M2:TW and RTW is will continue to be the crowning Jewels of CA, simply because moddability. Unless CA can actually start allowing modding again then they will never be able to top M2:TW and its plethora of awesome mods.

[sumskilz]

Well I am not impressed - sorry to say so. For me a game, a mod, not featuring Genoa but featuring Armenia and Georgia isn't worth playing. I respect your guy's work but I think that when choices have to be made western states such as Genoa were far more important and had far far more impact on history than those small eastern kingdoms which did nothing other than struggle for existence for some centuries. Genoa as Genoa but KoJ or the Teutons .. yes yes it's a bit a-historical but then again your whole mod is completely a-historical if you come to think about it and not because of you guys but because of the limitations of the game engine. Agreed mtw2 or for that matter any CA game will never ever compare to EU in terms of representing history ... but then again I think you guys should consider that those who will play your mod [which will last for about 1 year cause by the end of 2012 I and many others expect a MTW3 from CA] will do so to have fun - and fun means small western factions with a tons of unique units [such as the teutons koj or heh.. genoa..] ... As for including Syria in this well the quite only reason such a faction should be included as playable would be in conjunction with KoJ otherwise some upped rebels could play its historical role ...

Otherwise good job and I hope to play your mod soon - I do hope it will be fun

lol

[Walkman810i]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Well I am not impressed - sorry to say so. For me a game, a mod, not featuring Genoa but featuring Armenia and Georgia isn't worth playing. I respect your guy's work but I think that when choices have to be made western states such as Genoa were far more important and had far far more impact on history than those small eastern kingdoms which did nothing other than struggle for existence for some centuries. Genoa as Genoa but KoJ or the Teutons .. yes yes it's a bit a-historical but then again your whole mod is completely a-historical if you come to think about it and not because of you guys but because of the limitations of the game engine. Agreed mtw2 or for that matter any CA game will never ever compare to EU in terms of representing history ... but then again I think you guys should consider that those who will play your mod [which will last for about 1 year cause by the end of 2012 I and many others expect a MTW3 from CA] will do so to have fun - and fun means small western factions with a tons of unique units [such as the teutons koj or heh.. genoa..] ... As for including Syria in this well the quite only reason such a faction should be included as playable would be in conjunction with KoJ otherwise some upped rebels could play its historical role ...

Otherwise good job and I hope to play your mod soon - I do hope it will be fun

Epic rant! lol

[VINC.XXIII]

well, sorry if I nourish the polemic, but how is come this concept to make Milan and Genua in the same faction?
I would say, this is really accurate before 975 AD, after not. Under the reserv then one feudal house was enough powerfull to resist against the communal pressure from the Genoese commune both of the pressure from Milan.
oh also..., my wish isn't to see Genua as separate playable faction, why not a rebel faction, with proper name?(not an emergeant one, just preplaced rebels at the start, helped with strong garrison)

[Resurrection]

well, sorry if I nourish the polemic, but how is come this concept to make Milan and Genua in the same faction?
I would say, this is really accurate before 975 AD, after not. Under the reserv then one feudal house was enough powerfull to resist against the communal pressure from the Genoese commune both of the pressure from Milan.
oh also..., my wish isn't to see Genua as separate playable faction, why not a rebel faction, with proper name?(not an emergeant one, just preplaced rebels at the start, helped with strong garrison)

It has been mentioned many times already. Having the two in one faction at the start != they are in the same faction. It basically means that we have put two factions into one slot and it's up to player's choice which one he will choose AFTER he starts the game. For the historicity sake we include one choice already in place (I think Milan is the capital in case of Comuni Liberi). That means that unless you change your mind in the first few turns the Genoa will rebel. If you ever wish to play as Genoa you simply conquer the city and move your capital there. Needless to say the Milan will rebel in that occasion. Both choices will have its unique features and emphasize. We also consider the model where the other city won't actual rebel but will be limited to colony level (basically no player control). If it was ever developed beyond that it will rebel unless made capital...

The same model applies for Comuni Toscani.

The reason for this is obviously the faction limit and that we really wanted to feature the Northern Italy as fragmented as it historically was but simply could not spend 5 or more factions slots there... In our opinion this is quite elegant solution to the problem and it actually has historical grounds.

[VINC.XXIII]

thanks for the umpteeth explanation in this case.
Yes I understood fully about the engine's limitation, no problem.
Neverthless, I still thinking its a stake against Genua, I see around the power of Genua isn't valued to his exact proportion.
If the Dots team have a preference for Milan(in despite of your new system), as I said you should simply make Genua rebel since the starting.

as last question, the name of the faction will change after the "putch"/rebellion...etc?

[Hengest]

It seems to me that yours is a personal thing, there are many factions that could be argued in this way. We have had people arguing for everything from Bosnia to Wales--- and that isn't to belittle their arguments. You could just as easily argue against Syria, Sweden, Portugal etc. But all our choices is based on the arguments of hundreds of 'expert' researcher members for over three years, and all the settlements and factions were finally decided based on a survival of the fittest through all our arguments. So theoretically this was the best outcome we could acheive as a large project.

Genoa was not an important faction in 1080, Pisa was. Florence was not. Milan became an important faction before Genoa. With two slots we have had to make decisions, by including all four I think we did good Daddy. Making Genoa rebel would mean that Milan would have to conquer Genoa to activate it into the campaign. Genoa under Milan is not a good representation. Having them in some form of duumvirate using the settlement 'lockdown' script and the use of rival generals from the other city state means we can give power to these complex politics. I hope this doesn't seem like another umpteenth explanation...

It's not possible to change a faction's name in game as yet, we think we have a way to do it but it's really not important yet and will not be in the first release.

[VINC.XXIII]

no Hross, I wouldn't debate about the importance of Syria and others mentionned.
Otherwise the importance of Milan, Pisa and Genua can be debated ad vitam aeternam, too, but I wouldn't waste my time and the yours.
"Genoa under Milan is not a good representation", true, and the contrary is also an ignorance of the physic's laws.
An exploded italian map is quite enjoyable for me. I'm not really partisan to see one strictly italian faction with the full lordship in Italia.
anyway I wait to test your excellent mod, thanks to everyone for the explanations
good continuation

[WinsingtonIII]

So I take it that if you control Genoa as the Communi Liberi and have Milan as your capital, Genoa rebels? Does this mean it will never be possible to conquer Genoa as Milan? Or is this only something that happens in the first few turns and after that you can conquer the other?