SSHIP - Original Thread (archived)

[Ichon]

Iconium renamed Konya if that hasn't already been suggested.

Smyrna going away... I'm not so sure with Rhodes and Canakkale going away but it could be renamed Izmir.

Canakkale going away seems ok. I would prefer Bursa if we kept anything there but probably more should be added to eastern Anatolia.

Isparata or Baris? I am not sure how strong either Byzantine or Seljuk hold was here in 1100. Might be better to be made as Antalya and be the southern Byzantine outpost while Trebizond is the northern.

Ahlat/Erzurum/Baghesh- one of those to represent ancient Armenia and the lands around Lake Van should be in.

Seabaste/Sivas- also good idea.

Those combined with the Tarsus/Sis split seems well enough to me.

Byzantines would lose Athens(merged with Corinth) Rhodes, and Canakkale compared to early era now. Byzantines could gain Antalya. Overall +1 if Antalya included.

EDIT- added map

[Caesar Clivus]

Rhodes could be removed I think. Especially given that the Romans seem to always have trouble moving the armies it recruits there off the island.

[Fair Prince]

Iconium renamed Konya if that hasn't already been suggested.

Smyrna going away... I'm not so sure with Rhodes and Canakkale going away but it could be renamed Izmir.

Canakkale going away seems ok. I would prefer Bursa if we kept anything there but probably more should be added to eastern Anatolia.

Isparata or Baris? I am not sure how strong either Byzantine or Seljuk hold was here in 1100. Might be better to be made as Antalya and be the southern Byzantine outpost while Trebizond is the northern.

Ahlat/Erzurum/Baghesh- one of those to represent ancient Armenia and the lands around Lake Van should be in.

Seabaste/Sivas- also good idea.

Those combined with the Tarsus/Sis split seems well enough to me.

Byzantines would lose Athens(merged with Corinth) Rhodes, and Canakkale compared to early era now. Byzantines could gain Antalya. Overall +1 if Antalya included.

EDIT- added map

Great, thanks, I'm gonna examine your suggestions and post my proposals very soon!

Just on a side note, the names of settlements will depend on their owner, so in case of Iconium I'll go for the Turkish Konya, while Caesarea will be renamed to Kayseri. However, considering the western part was in Byzantine hands, Smyrna will keep its name whereas Attaleia should be preferred over Antalya.

[Ichon]

Great, thanks, I'm gonna examine your suggestions and post my proposals very soon!

Just on a side note, the names of settlements will depend on their owner, so in case of Iconium I'll go for the Turkish Konya, while Caesarea will be renamed to Kayseri. However, considering the western part was in Byzantine hands, Smyrna will keep its name whereas Attaleia should be preferred over Antalya.

I think Smyrna wasn't recovered to Byzantine control until 1099 so actually I think it could start rebel as the city was barely recovered and the Turks were still all over the countryside though their losses at Dorylaion and infighting of the Turkish tribes allowed Komnenos to push them out of much of western Anatolia in the following years.

Antalya was protected by its walls and access to the sea and hadn't fallen to the Turks even in the dark period after Manzikert so would start in 1100 under control of Byzantines.

[Fair Prince]

All right, let's summarize what we got in this Part!

Part 12: Anatolia
EDIT: see the first post for details!

[Ichon]

I think PSF for Sis is good... all the other changes seem reasonable although I didn't see Sivas there? Did you still intend to include it?

[Fair Prince]

I think PSF for Sis is good... all the other changes seem reasonable although I didn't see Sivas there? Did you still intend to include it?

Eh, sorry, I somehow managed to miss this one in your list of suggestions...
I checked it since and I have to say it's a very good idea, so I'll add it to the proposals immediately!

[Fair Prince]

The next Part is gonna tackle the Levant, a relatively small yet important section of the map. Here's a list of the relevant settlements, from North to South:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Edessa
Aleppo
Antioch
Tortosa
Damascus
Acre
Jerusalem
Gaza*
Kerak
Al Aqaba*

*Update: Gaza and Al Aqaba are also to be discussed in this Part.

And here's a map too:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Keep the ideas coming, folks!

[Ichon]

Only suggestions I have is Tiberias a town instead of Kerak with Kerak as a PSF. Krak des Chevaliers, Montreal, and Kerak could be PSFs maybe.

Tortosa name changed to Tartus.

Acre and Tartus to start as the main Crusader castles with Jerusalem and Antioch as the main cities.

EDIT- also increase level of Damascus and some of the other region capitols but particularly Damascus should start with more than it does now. Aleppo as well though perhaps not to the same degree, a few others with at least basic roads, lowest level trade buildings, etc.

I am wondering if Byzantines along with the net loss of 2 regions could have most cities and castles start with 0 barracks. So to reach the highest barracks is going to take 10-16 turns to help slow down their start. Constantinople should still get a decent barracks level and maybe Corinth so that Greece can produce some defense but thats it.

[Fair Prince]

Thanks mate, I considered your ideas, they were very useful once again!
In the meantime I rechecked the map and decided to include Gaza and Al Aqaba too in this Part, since they both were in Crusader hands at my preferred start year of 1132.

I also did some research on the states that should be represented in the area, according to Wikipedia the most significant were:
- County of Edessa
- Principality of Antioch
- Kingdom of Jerusalem
- County of Tripoli

In addition, the Kingdom of Jerusalem had 4 major vassals:
- Principality of Galilee
- County of Jaffa and Ascalon
- Lordship of Oultrejordain
- Lordship of Sidon

Ideally, all of these 8 states should be included, but considering that the area is somewhat crowded already it's not really feasible to add any new ones, leaving us with the original 6 slots available here. Now let's see how we could use them wisely: Edessa, Antioch and Jerusalem pose no problems, they are already on the map. The city of Tripoli (seat of the county) was only miles away from Tortosa, thus a replacement is more than desirable here.
As for the vassals, Tiberias (seat of Galilee) should replace Acre, with the latter remaining its port. I think Kerak is better to remain the capital of Oulrejordain, even if it didn't become seat until 1142 (at the same time, Montreal could be made a permanent fort).
Consequently, this means there's no place left on the map for the County of Jaffa and the Lordship of Sidon as separate regions, though there might be a solution to this case as well: Jaffa could act as the port of Jerusalem, while Sidon could be a PSF on the route between Tripoli and Tiberias.

[Ichon]

It's hard to imagine Crusaders without Acre. So I am not sure about that at all. I was thinking as a PSF right next to the port but looking at SS base map I forgot how crowded it is in this region. Tiberias probably should not be included. My suggestion for Tiberias as a small town was so that CS would be a bit more consolidated but if there is a land route between the north and south on the west side of the hills with Sidon as a PSF then that isn't as important. Kerak was more like a robber baron castle without an accompanying town and the region of Transjordan was the least under Crusaders control of all the regions they captured. It basically existed to control the trade route there and exact tolls. 6 regions for CS is enough and if Kerak is not dropped they would start with 7 regions. I think actually it is better balanced and more authentic if CS starts with Antioch, Tartus, Jerusalem, Acre and maybe Gaza or Ascalon with a PSF full of Fatimid garrison. Al Aqaba should probably start rebel since Crusaders barely controlled it and Muslims took it back quite fast.

CS starting with 6-7 regions while Fatimids start with 6 seems weird if Aleppo and Damascus are rebel. Turks will usually be occupied elsewhere and Aleppo and Damascus rebel for quite long time.

Also I am not sure how to portray Gaza. It was in Crusader control but Ascalon just to the north remained an important Fatimid castle that enabled the Fatimids to dispute Crusader control of the south past the 2nd Crusade. Giving CS control of Gaza, Al Aqaba and Kerak all as starting territories seems a bit much. I am more in favor of Gaza/Ascalon starting rebel with either faction possible to gain control of it as it was still much in dispute.

Also we could add Homs as a PSF with a rebel garrison already included. Or did you have different plans for what Fatimids/Turks start in control of in 1132? Its very difficult to portray CS accurately when the emirates are rebels.

"The city of Tripoli (seat of the county) was only miles away from Tortosa, thus a replacement is more than desirable here." I don't understand what you mean here.

[Fair Prince]

Well, there's simply no chance that both Acre and Tiberias would be included, we have to choose between them - Acre was indeed important but Tiberias was the seat of Galilee, that's what makes it a difficult choice. I rechecked the history of Acre and you might have point, though.
I'm on the opinion that Oultrejordain should be in Crusader hands as both Kerak and Montreal were under their control, and you just get the impression that it would be inaccurate if they would not hold the region. On the other hand, I don't mind if Aqaba start as independent, though something representing their fortress in Helim would have been nice.

Gaza-Ascalon is indeed very catchy, I also read that the former was captured while the latter held Fatimid garrison. However, if you look at the map you'll see that the two are almost located at the same place, so we need to choose between them once again, and even though I don't really fancy the idea of Gaza being independent, this is possibly the only reasonable solution here. As for Tripoli, I simply meant that it should replace Tortosa due to its capital status, but let me know if you disagree.

As I said before, we should not care much about starting positions at this point, let's put our focus only the availabe regions for the time being. Once we are ready the mapper will hopefully start his work, while we can go on to discuss ownerships, PSF locations, settlement sizes, etc. I already have my own ideas for 1132 of course, but I think it's better if I keep them to myself until we're done with the map discussion.

[Caesar Clivus]

I would choose Acre over Tiberias. It was much more the focus of Crusader activity.

[Ichon]

Some of the regions are hard to decide in the Levant without knowing the starting locations of the factions. Since there are only 2 Islamic factions around CS wheres in history there were 4-5 nearly constantly and changing through time.

Tripoli replacing Tortosa seems fine... perhaps 2 PSF there right on borders with CS controlling 1 and Turks the other would be interesting. So assault Tripoli a faction would need to control both or move farther to the north around Antioch. Then if a small land route along the coast between Tripoli and Acre with PSF Sidon there...

Acre over Tiberias. Sorry for throwing that out there but before I looked at the map I was thinking there would be room for 2 towns on that side of Galilee.

I think Ascalon was a larger and more important settlement in 1100s so I would say Fatimids start with ownership but CS has a PSF right on the border. Al Aqaba should probably start rebel. Relations between Fatimids and CS should start higher though as they had an alliance soon following an 1132 basis. The MTW2 engine will eventually erode those relations, especially if Cairo gets an early Crusade but it will give AI CS a bit of space.

Kerak and Montreal... since Kerak wasn't begun until 1140 Montreal should probably be the PSF but since those aren't named and they are so close it doesn't really matter. So CS would start with Jerusalem in the south with 2 PSFs(Montreal%Gaza) and Al Aqaba rebels. Ascalon belong to Fatimids with higher relations so a trade pact is easier. Then movement against Jerusalem would require siege assaults against at least 1 PSF and then Jerusalem similar to how the numerous Crusader castles protected KoJ in history.

I've been thinking how to portray regions which had their existence mainly due to trade. It's hard to represent in MTW2 when there was hardly any population but a trade nexus. Montreal controlled the route for trade from Arabia and Syria to the Red Sea and thus to Egypt and parts of Africa. Also pilgrims going to Mecca passed by and so it was a very strategic point but there were no towns that far out in the desert. I think perhaps just put a PSF and a gold resource in the same place. Not to represent a gold mine but for the taxes and trade existing there. It seems the easiest solution given MTW2's structure. I don't think Kerak or Montreal should be a region though. The area should belong to Jerusalem's region with a PSF and a gold resource.

Satellite image of the Jordan Rift Valley...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nuary_2003.jpg

[Fair Prince]

After all, we could merge Transjordan with Jerusalem, though I'd prefer to keep it for its ducal title, as I'm not sure if characters could gain them in PSFs (that would be cool, however). If we go ahead with the merger it would mean we finish this Part with one slot saved, but only 5 of the 8 major states would be present, not counting the forts of course.
It's fairly acceptable I guess, although we could still use up that spared region here to compensate for the loss of Gaza - what about adding Sidon?

[Ichon]

Sidon or Tyre might be ok. I'd put it on the potential list seeing how many regions are free at the end. 5 regions is quite enough for CS seeing as Egypt has only 4 and all of N Italy has only 5.

[helmersen]

CS?

[Ichon]

CS?

Crusaders States... merger of Kingdom of Jerusalem, Antioch, Edessa, etc.

[Fair Prince]

All right, then let's see what can we propose this time!

Part 13: Levant
EDIT: see the first post for details!

[Losthief]

Kerak and Montreal... since Kerak wasn't begun until 1140 Montreal should probably be the PSF but since those aren't named and they are so close it doesn't really matter.

why aren't we going to name the psf?