Concerns for 3.0

[Inwalda]

Hi, I have been playing Broken Crescent since v1.0 and it is one of my favourite Medieval 2 Total War mods. However, one of my favourite features has been the real uniqueness of each faction. I am worried that adding all these new factions and extending the map will result in a loss of special units for each faction. There are only around 500 units slots and adding new factions will mean cutting back unique units.

Another issue I am concerned about is the large increase in the map size. Adding all there new northern factions and regions means removing many regions from the old map. I always enjoyed having all those settlements in Anatolia and the Holy Lands. It made fighting over there regions more exiting and strategic. Looking at the new map there has been as severe decrease in the amount of regions in these areas. The holy land only has 4?

My main point is: Will extending the map further north and east really improve the game or hinder it? The mod is nearly perfect as it is. With the addition of the succession script and the splitting of the Great Seljuks I think the mod will be perfect. Do we really need all these new regions and factions?

By no means am I angry at the Broken Crescent team. I am just asking them to at least consider my thoughts and ideas. I have great confidence that the Broken Crescent team will make a fantastic mod.

[Dago Red]

Another issue I am concerned about is the large increase in the map size. Adding all there new northern factions and regions means removing many regions from the old map. I always enjoyed having all those settlements in Anatolia and the Holy Lands. It made fighting over there regions more exiting and strategic.

This is a concern of mine as well. I'm excited that the scope of the mod is expanding, but since there are limitations to the number of regions and cities one can have, it seems clear that the original areas will suffer a loss.

My main concern is that the balance will be thrown off with such a dramatic loss in concentrated places like the Holy Land -- already there were only a few cities to deal with. Now even one trading hands between two powers will be extreme in consequences. In reality, there were many small fortresses and other strategic towns littered about the area. 2,000 Hospitallers garrisoned Krak de Chevaliers for example, which is not even in BC2.02 let alone these subsequent releases. That place in itself is not important, but I think you get the significance of places such as that.

[Toho]

i agree why would we need so many regions so up north? they should be moved to the holy land/Anatolia since so many factions are situated there.

[Commander Ruunu]

That would not be right. As I understand, BC tries to represent all regions equal. I am sure that they will make the right units and stuff, so that uniqueness isn't lost.

[Neige]

In reality, there were many small fortresses and other strategic towns littered about the area.

The same could be said about many other areas of the map.

[Khwarezm]

You can always make a sub-mod that cuts the BC map in pieces, so you can add all regions and units to the game you want.

[Jazz19]

......Another issue I am concerned about is the large increase in the map size. Adding all there new northern factions and regions means removing many regions from the old map. I always enjoyed having all those settlements in Anatolia and the Holy Lands. It made fighting over there regions more exiting and strategic. Looking at the new map there has been as severe decrease in the amount of regions in these areas. The holy land only has 4?....

While I am excited about the BC team's grand plan to expand the scope of the mod, I am also slightly disappointed to see the Anatolia's number of regions drop from approx 31 to 20. The fact that the area has so many regions made the battle for Anatolia seem more realistic in BC1/BC2. This is in great contrast to the vanilla game that had only had 6 regions and many other mods not really increasing that number....

I am hoping of the liberal deployment of stone forts to try and compensate for this.

[wudang_clown]

Guys, this is Broken Crescent and although mod's founders haven't actually chosen any strict factional scope, we decided to make it stricter. Most of factions in BC 2.02 as well as 3.0 belong to Islamic world, and the very center of the map belongs to Islamic world. Thus focus on Islamic world in post-2.02 versions.

I find strange a claim to not to add any more factions in order to keep all these settlements in the Holy Land and Anatolia intact. These two regions are only small parts of the map. Our intention is to make global mod, not regional. Our aim is not to make Anatolia and the Holy Land more realistic, but to make whole map more realistic.

Moreover, you have whole bunch of mods where you can play in Anatolia and the Holy Land with more regions - let's start from vanilla Crusaders expansion, not to mention whole bunch of excellent mods available here, on TWC, including Enlarged map of the Anatolia.

And any opinions about balance of BC 3 are totally out of place right now, because the mod has not been released yet. Yes, KoJ will be tiny faction in comparison to other factions, but that's actually more realistic. KoJ will get what it needs proportionally to other factions.

[Dago Red]

let's start from vanilla Crusaders expansion.

Do you really think we'd be caught playing that after playing BC? That would be like going from wearing silk robes in paradise to suddenly deciding to live in the wilderness like an animal, sleeping in your own feces.

I get that you guys want an Islamic focus and appear somewhat tired of the "Kingdom of Heaven" cliches from the Crusades and the Holy Land. But the Crusades were a major, defining event for the entire Middle East, indeed for Islam at the time. There is no sense in denying that, no matter how distasteful the conflict and the players involved have become after years in this community, and dealing with all the one track minded players who just want "omg Templars!" in full plate armor and hand grenades.

The Mongol invasions may be even more significant -- certainly they are to the peoples further to the east on the map -- but they enter in late to the game. As it is in this time frame, the Crusades events and thus the Holy Land + Anatolia remain the greatest raison d'etre. As important and interesting as other events across the map are, this is the cause of Islamic powers and people's uniting (if sometimes only briefly) they would otherwise not. It changed everything.

The name of this mod is great, Broken Crescent. No, the Crusades are not not the original reason for the Crescent to be broken... but it's the cause to rally around that might make it whole again.

not to mention whole bunch of excellent mods available here, on TWC, including Enlarged map of the Anatolia.

That's a great option, though so much smaller in scope. Will it work for 2.3 now too?




Also, does Kingdoms allow for blocking/raiding land trade routes by placing units on a road (on the campaign map?) Or is there some other mechanism for either attaining income or depriving an enemy of income in a similar manner on the campaign map?

What I'm thinking is the inclusion of permanent "forts" on the campaign map that can serve as strategic positions in place of cities and towns that have gone missing. If you can place these stone castles on roads (as they would have been) then holding them can be of real value. And you can name them. KNow what I mean?

[Dago Red]

What I'm thinking is the inclusion of permanent "forts" on the campaign map that can serve as strategic positions in place of cities and towns that have gone missing. If you can place these stone castles on roads (as they would have been) then holding them can be of real value. And you can name them. KNow what I mean?

I know I'm quoting myself, but since writing that I've succeeded in updating to 2.3 and to my pleasant surprise, the mod includes part of feature I was talking about here!!! The small stone forts part of it anyway, which are great.

But to really make them of strategic value, what the campaign map needs is land trade raiding -- such as in later total war games. I assume this is at least possible to script somehow. Or if there is some other mechanism for either attaining income (or depriving an enemy of income) in a similar manner on the campaign map, these forts, if placed along roads (as they would be anyway) could serve to make up somewhat for the loss of so many full fledged cities.

-- The occupier of the fort could receive a trade bonus in the region it is in, if the larger region is theirs.
-- If the fort is within the realm of a larger city's region that the occupier does not own, then the occupier of the fort could receive a raiding bonus.
-- If an enemy is the region owning faction where this occurs, it could suffer a trade income penalty on the land trade.

In this way the forts, although not nearly as significant as a real town/city, could be more realistic in terms of their impact on regional influence, economy, strategic power, etc.

[Aragorn1963]

One request. Please add Crac des Chevaliers.

[wudang_clown]

No one is denying importance of Crusades.

The thing is, there were a lot of equally important and more important events in the Middle East and Central Asia and Northern India in that time. Mongol invasion was most disastrous, I guess, but actually Crusades are not even close to the impact of that huge scale event.

Think about: formation and collapse of Seljuk state in XI-XII c.; collapse of Fatimid state in Egypt in 2nd half of XII c.; formation, expansion and collapse of Khwarezmian and Ghurid states in XII-XIII c., and struggle between these states; collapse of Ghaznavid state in XII/XIII c.; impact of presence of Turkic nomads in Central Asia and Middle East since XI c.; Muslim expansion into Northern India in XII-XIII c.

These are only most general issues that contemporary Islamic world had to deal with. Crusades had no direct impact on areas further east. They had no direct impact on powers like Khwarezmshahs or Ghurids or, earlier, Ghaznavids; and actually if in a hypothetical scenario KoJ would lay on Khwarezmshahs or Ghurids way, it would be easily vassalized or simply conquered - I think it's safe to assume that.

Thus, Crusades will be just one of the many issues, and certainly not the most important, that will be represented in subsequent versions.

[Silesian_Noble]

I don't get you guys with being so upset about the new horizons BC 3.0 is going to reach. You seem to forget one crucial thing here, there are going to be two different Broken Crescent mods and both are being developed simultanously. There will be more versions of BC 2 (which indeed focus on Anatolia and Levant wars) and each one will be enriched with new features and then some day you will get a brand new BC 3 that represent totaly fresh approach to Broken Crescent and which you may find very interesting as certainly there will come time that you will get bored with BC 2 - then BC 3 will be perfect for you. This is a great perspective and you should be damn happpy about it and support BC development in the way you can

[terrorist]

>"omg Templars!" in full plate armor and hand grenades''

wait... I hope this doesn't mean that my 'templars-in-full-plate-with-greek-fire-nades' fantasy is out of the window? Perhaps they can dual wield zweihanders instead?

[rummtata]

I'd rather want them to be riding dragons =D

[Shasqua]

I like the idea of reducing the amount of settlements in the Levant and Anatolia. Regions are all-important, and whoever owns Anatolia generally wins the game.