SSHIP - Original Thread (archived)

[daraca]

Hi

For towns:
T1 - Village
T2 - Town
T3 - Large town
T4 - Minor city
T5 - Large city
T6 - Huge city

For castles:
C1 - Motte & bailey
C2 - Wooden castle
C3 - Castle
C4 - Fortress
C5 - Citadel

Had a quick look at the spreadsheet. My first thought was that if Constantinople is a T6, then Kiev and Novgorod should be T4, not T5.

Before you choose, some information about East towns. A source a fine book medieval town in the Middle East. VII - the middle of the XIII century. /Большаков О.Г. Средневековый город Ближнего Востока. VII - середина XIII в./ (uses many sources).


The situation in the XI-XIII century :

Area = hectares / Population= Thousand people

Aleppo 200-250 / 66

Ramla 200 / 50

Damascus 145 / 45

Racca 150-160 / 35

Hama 120-135 / 40

Kaysariya 130 / 25

Edessa 240 / 35

Hims 100 / 30

amide 100 / 25

Haran ? / 25

Gazza 90 / 30

Jerusalem 80 / 25

Antakiya 80 / 25

Acre 70 / 30

Sur 57 / 20

Ascalon 52 / 20

Tarabulus 45 / 25

Latakia ? / 15

Karak 42 / 15

Beirut 27 / 10

In Georgia, the city of Tbilisi 105 hectares, the population of 40 thousand people(may be a little more).
About Tbilisi here:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=424576&page=8
Kutaisi 130 hectares, the population of 35 thousand people. (I will add later..."Georgia").

Ani / Anisi information about the city areal size could not find, but the population could be up to 30/ 40 thousand people.
Dvin/ Dvini- probably, also 30 thousand people.

Constantinople certainly= T 6

Cities from 40 - and above = T 5

30-40 thousand = T 4

less than 30 thousand= T 3

less than 20 thousand= T 2

less than 10 thousand= T 1

[Ichon]

Does that book say anything about Antioch which everywhere I've read has said was the largest in that area except for perhaps Aleppo or Damascus?

As far as the cities directly representing the population of the whole region... that is tougher. Since many of those cities above aren't on the map and there are many more not listed that aren't on map either. Should we combine their population or just ignore them?

What about infrastructure? For instance I put Stettin as T1 though I'm sure more people lived there they were quite scattered in small villages and in this era still more than half pagan so the church wasn't there helping to organize. Similarly in Turku the incoming Swedes had to build all the forts and towns themselves- there wasn't much to conquer so the population relatively to other areas was smaller and much less infrastructure.

I was thinking more like-

T6- 125,000 ^
T5- 50,000 ^
T4- 30,000 ^
T3- 20,000 ^
T2- 10,000 ^

With consideration of nearby large towns not included and overall population density if there are not many well studied nearby large towns. Certainly almost every region of a size on this map has probably at least 50,000 people in this era but if we consider how effective such population was in supplying the rulers with taxes and manpower its much harder to collect when not centralized/organized and large towns usually can represent some wealth as if there are no large towns there is usually less trade going on.

[Fair Prince]

Thanks Ichon for the list, I just had a quick look at it, excellent work as always!
I can say I agree with most of the suggestions, though the first thing I noticed was the relatively high ratio of castle type settlements: considering that a good number of PSFs will be put on the map, for gameplay reasons I think we should have less castles than you recommend. Right now their ratio is around 1/3, but I'd suggest reducing it to at most 1/4. We should also keep in mind that towns are tend to be more useful for players due to the more income they generate, this is also the most frequent reason of the castle-to-town conversions they initiate.

I'm gonna examine your suggestions and will post my final proposals soon!

[Ichon]

Thanks Ichon for the list, I just had a quick look at it, excellent work as always!
I can say I agree with most of the suggestions, though the first thing I noticed was the relatively high ratio of castle type settlements: considering that a good number of PSFs will be put on the map, for gameplay reasons I think we should have less castles than you recommend. Right now their ratio is around 1/3, but I'd suggest reducing it to at most 1/4. We should also keep in mind that towns are tend to be more useful for players due to the more income they generate, this is also the most frequent reason of the castle-to-town conversions they initiate.

I'm gonna examine your suggestions and will post my final proposals soon!

I did aim for somewhere between 1/3 and 1/4 but it came out exactly at 1/3. Tried to spread out the castles a bit better than currently and give each faction chance at access to a castle early if it doesn't start with one while making castles in regions with lots of fortresses or easier to defend regions like highlands. Also in most cases opted to make the castles capitols or in the core areas of a faction so that faction doesn't lose its main recruiting area in the first attack.

Also used castles to represent Cumans and some other regions which were more poor/low manpower but had good warriors. I think more castles will help out AI as well so it doesn't field huge armies of only spear militia. The town/castle distribution is a bit weird. The recruitment system leans heavily towards castles for the first 250 years in SS from an 1100 start and only closer to 1400s do cities produce good units. For instance Italy was full of maritime republics but that doesn't mean all the wars were fought by militia forces- the militias played a larger role than in most other places but the battle fields had many knights and others still. Making all of Italy towns wouldn't make sense. As it is currently only 2 castles in Italy.

Then the issue of Spain- Moors as Almorhavids starting with so many regions means the Catholic Spanish are going to have a big problem if they have mostly spear militias so I tried to make sure they had enough castles. Actually I wanted to ask you about that- 1100s Moorish Spain was fragmenting but the Catholic states had barely begun their advance. Portugal wasn't even established yet but its first King was alive in the 1132 time frame.

Forts are irrelevant to me since they contribute no income or recruiting possibilities. Really I think it would be a mistake to make castles or towns depend on where forts will be placed. Middle ages were in part defined by the method of castles in strategic locations to give time the ruler to raise an army before being overwhelmed by an invasion. I hope there aren't more than 1 fort per region in most areas.

[Ichon]

I am going to go thru the ownership of the regions tonight- just noticed that there were some issues there. Seville should be Almohad in 1132 probably instead of Portuguese and Almohads make more sense than Almoravids to represent Moors. Portugal in 1132 shouldn't get Silves even- it should probably be independent. Actually there is too many to list like this so I'll just make changes in red.

[daraca]

Does that book say anything about Antioch which everywhere I've read has said was the largest in that area except for perhaps Aleppo or Damascus?

Antakiya 80 / 25

Since many of those cities above aren't on the map and there are many more not listed that aren't on map either.

I just presented historically correct / important city. Which choose, is another thing. I just presented the right historical information.

Should we combine their population or just ignore them?

Question = Change / make correction more impossible/It is now impossible ?

The big city was Fustat-Cairo = 600 hectares and the population of 160-200 thousand
people.

Soon I will give information about Baghdad.

was thinking more like-

T6- 125,000 ^
T5- 50,000 ^
T4- 30,000 ^
T3- 20,000 ^
T2- 10,000 ^

Ok...Good.

[Fair Prince]

I am going to go thru the ownership of the regions tonight- just noticed that there were some issues there. Seville should be Almohad in 1132 probably instead of Portuguese and Almohads make more sense than Almoravids to represent Moors. Portugal in 1132 shouldn't get Silves even- it should probably be independent. Actually there is too many to list like this so I'll just make changes in red.

Thanks, actually I just noticed that I forgot to include the last column when I ordered the new additions (blue cells) in alphabetical order, that's why there are some nonsense ownerships in the table - Seville of course won't be in Portuguese hands, just as Verona won't be held by Sicily either.
Sorry for this dumb mistake, I'll correct it as soon as I can and I'll also give some feedback on your suggestions later today!

[Fair Prince]

All right, after carefully examining Ichon's ideas I can say I'm finished with the settlement level proposals. The result is 144 towns and 55 castles which differs a bit from the targeted 0,75:0,25 ratio, but I guess we can get along with that.

For more details, see the updated picture in the first post!

[daraca]

I looked at your list:



You written-Tiflis ... not right, it's name appeared in the 19th century, during the Russians. Correct Tpilisi/ Geo: ტფილისი.



Can be Tpilisi = C4 ?

Possible so ?

Baghdad: 496 hectares=T6
Samara was a very large city in the 9th century, 6,000 hectares
Trapizond should be an important point= T4
Ani the scale and the importance of pulls on= T4
Aleppo= T4 or T5
Kutaisi city is important both from a military point, well as economic and cultural=T4 or T5 (No less than others)
Antioch is= T4 (no more)
Edessa= T4 exactly
Medina small 22 hectares =T3
Alexandria= T6 may be, has a population of 80 thousand and 250 hectares of the city.
Mosul is also important= T4 or T5, 227 hectares.
Damietta important point= T5
Tunis is too small= T3

[Fair Prince]

You written-Tiflis ... not right, it's name appeared in the 19th century, during the Russians. Correct Tpilisi/ Geo: ტფილისი.

Can be Tpilisi = C4 ?

I did some research and you seem to be right, thus I'm gonna change the name to Tpilisi and its level to T4. As a result, Kutaisi will be turned into C3.

I also examined your other ideas, you can find my comments below in blue.

Possible so ?

Baghdad: 496 hectares=T6 - It's already T6.
Samara was a very large city in the 9th century, 6,000 hectares - Possibly, but it's too close to Baghdad, that's why I decided not to put in on the map.
Trapizond should be an important point= T4 - I guess I can accept this.
Ani the scale and the importance of pulls on= T4 - Ani was indeed sacked by the Seljuks in a brutal way around 1064, but I think it can remain T5 but with considerably reduced population.
Aleppo= T4 or T5 - I accept T4.
Kutaisi city is important both from a military point, well as economic and cultural=T4 or T5 (No less than others) - With Tpilisi turned into T4, I decided to change Kutaisi to C3.
Antioch is= T4 (no more) - Accepted.
Edessa= T4 exactly - Accepted.
Medina small 22 hectares =T3 - Yeah, but as Ichon pointed out, it's not just a matter of the size of the city but the size of the region as well. Also, Medina was known to have served as capital of several local caliphates.
Alexandria= T6 may be, has a population of 80 thousand and 250 hectares of the city. - That's possibly true as well, but for gameplay reasons I opted to keep it on T5 level since Cairo is already T6, and I don't want any faction to have two huge cities at the start.
Mosul is also important= T4 or T5, 227 hectares. - Accepted, but I'm gonna change it to C4 instead.
Damietta important point= T5 - I reckon T4 would be more reasonable with Cairo and Alexandria also in the proximity.
Tunis is too small= T3 - No, the importance of Tunis shouldn't be underestimated, T5 is a justified decision in this case.

Thanks for your input, I'm gonna update the table with the new data soon - in the meantime, have some rep for your suggestions!

[Fair Prince]

Small update: I'm currently in discussion with Ichon about the ownerships but once we agree on all details, the list will be showcased in the first post.
Watch this space, folks!

[The Source]

-a few questions-
is the english Angevin empire going to exist?
will the roman empire be in the state it was at the end of the 4th crusade

[Caesar Clivus]

This is for the early campaign, not the late. Fourth crusade was only in 1204

[Ichon]

I threw out the idea earlier that ERE could have less and lowered barracks than the population and level of its cities to reflect the manpower shortage even during this part of the Komnenian restoration and as most of Anatolia will be independent and not belong to a faction. ERE will still build barracks and start expanding by turn 15-20 I expect but at least a few turns delay for the AI or the player to organize and build up the military does not seem amiss. A couple half full stacks of veterans- one east and one west might be the majority of the forces at game start.

By the way Caesar Clivus- what would you suggest for Kiev Rus as starting positions? I think FP and I have discussed every other area and agreed for the most part but with Novgorod and Kiev it seems especially difficult.

EDIT- judging population size only be hectares seems easy to make mistakes as many places such as Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, etc had the buildings but not the population to fill them at several times. Writers of the time often spoke of the population being confined to a smaller portion of the city while the rest lay in ruins. Some cities had revivals and others continued to decay but the size in hectares only indicates what the city achieved at its height which could easily be centuries away from the starting time.

[Caesar Clivus]

Novgorod should only start with Novgorod and Pskov.

Start date is 1132 right? Well 1132-1134 was a time of turmoil for Kievan Rus. Iaropolk, the son of Vladimir Monomakh assumed the Grand Princely throne but he alienated Iurii Dolgorukii, the prince of Suzdal and the two branches of the family fought. Even the prince of Novgorod sent an army against the Suzdalians. The princes of Chernigov from another branch of the family fought against both Iaropolk and Iurii supported by their Polovtsy (i.e. Cuman) allies. So Kiev should not control the north-east Rus provinces. And if you wanted you could also leave out Chernigov from their starting position too.

[Fair Prince]

Novgorod should only start with Novgorod and Pskov.

Start date is 1132 right? Well 1132-1134 was a time of turmoil for Kievan Rus. Iaropolk, the son of Vladimir Monomakh assumed the Grand Princely throne but he alienated Iurii Dolgorukii, the prince of Suzdal and the two branches of the family fought. Even the prince of Novgorod sent an army against the Suzdalians. The princes of Chernigov from another branch of the family fought against both Iaropolk and Iurii supported by their Polovtsy (i.e. Cuman) allies. So Kiev should not control the north-east Rus provinces. And if you wanted you could also leave out Chernigov from their starting position too.

Let's just say that in 1132, this is by far the trickiest area as far as ownerships are concerned.

Initially, I too planned to give Novgorod and Pskov to the Novgorod Republic with Vsevolod as Prince, but the fact that his brother and successor Sviatopolk was Prince of Polotsk at the time led me to consider giving them Polotsk as well.
However, knowing that Sviatopolk left Polotsk in 1132 (and was also dismissed from Novgorod later that year) and his successor came from another branch, I assume we might as well overlook his short tenures for the better and make Polotsk an independent region, meaning Novgorod would be left with 2 regions at the start after all. (Sviatopolk could then be added to the Kievan roster instead, but this matter belongs more to SSHCP, so I won't discuss it here.)

As for the Kievans, Yuri Dolgorukiy was indeed quite defiant in Suzdal, yet I don't think he should begin as a rebel straight away. Instead, I'd keep him in the family with his loyalty lowered to a dangerous level to make him pose a serious threat. I just don't want to deny players the chance of a possible reconciliation. (There are always people who prefer to make love, not war!)

[Caesar Clivus]

True, it would be nice to make such an important figure as Dolgurikii playable. What are your feelings on Chernigov though? If you give NE Rus to Kiev, then making Chernigov a rebel settlement might help to keep the faction balanced.

[Ichon]

My proposal is that Kiev start with the lands Dolgurikii controlled or was supported from by the end of 1132- Rostov, Ryazan, Pereyslavl, Smolensk, and Murom. Kiev would thus start with 5 regions but have to subdue Chernigov, capture and hold Kiev, and then Turov, Volodymr, and any thing else that like Chersonesos, Tmutarakan, or Polotsk and Novogorodian lands which would start majority Orthodox. This seems adequate to me and if Kiev started with a decent veteran army near Ryazan and a slightly smaller army near Pereyslavl.

Kiev would start larger than Novgorod, Cumans, or Lithuania and about the same size as Poland but not be so large as to immediately start expanding into other factions lands. Kiev then gets a nice challenge similar to ERE to recapture its capitol and largest city but would start with decent armies compared to neighbors and still larger than anyone close.

I think that despite Vyacheslav Vladimirovich being prince in Smolensk from the flow of battles and the he name his son as prince of Turov that Yuri in his campaign against Novgorod in 1132 also captured most of Smolensk lands though perhaps not the city that year in later years before renewing his campaign to capture Kiev- Smolensk fell to Yuri at some point. If anyone knows different? Then Kiev might start without Smolensk as well I would be fine with that as I think it would make more fun campaign.

[Caesar Clivus]

An interesting proposal Ichon. The difference between the ERE and your scenario though is that Kiev was still held by the legitimate ruler at the time.

[Ichon]

An interesting proposal Ichon. The difference between the ERE and your scenario though is that Kiev was still held by the legitimate ruler at the time.

Who was the legitimate ruler? I think that was the issue in 1132- there was no legitimate ruler. Dolgurikii did not rule Kiev. So if we count the other side that was against Dolgurikii then those I listed as Kiev should start rebel with Kiev starting as- Kiev, Chernigov, Volodymr, Turov, and Smolensk? So its 4 or 5 to start again. I am ok with that though I prefer Dolgurikii as he had pretty much won by 1147 which is close enough to start for me considering we bend the rules for some other factions starts like Portugal, Poland, and Moors.

My main issue where FP and I have been disagreeing about Kiev is that I think Kiev starting with 4-5 is appropriate whereas FP was proposing 7-9 for Kiev at start with some generals having lower loyalty. AI won't notice lowered loyalty and players won't much either and it doesn't seem very historical to have Kiev start with more than ERE and almost as much as HRE.