I don't think it's needed, cause it is not matters that much, but would complicate other submod compatiblity considerably.
Here goes my proposals on the Balkan area.
Part 8: Balkans
EDIT: see the first post for details!
Last edited by Fair Prince; April 22, 2012 at 01:47 PM.
I am fine with that. Keep Venice busy as now they rarely fight with Hungary. Corinth and Crete are enough in southern Greece. With Rhodes gone that will help more balance for Byzantines.
why are there no pictures yet?!
Interested in how Attila and the new LONGBEARDS DLC plays?
Check out my Total War Attila: Jutes Let's Play: http://youtu.be/rFyxh4mj1pQ
Check out my Total War Attila: The Langobards Let's Play: http://youtu.be/lMiHXVvVbCE
Total War: Attila with ERE vs Sassanids GEM at max settings: http://youtu.be/jFYENvVpwIs
Total War: Rome II Medieval Kingdoms Mod Gameplay: http://youtu.be/qrqGUYaLVzk
Yeah, it'd be nice to see map_regions so far
The mapper still working in our ideas, so we can continue doing it and the map should come faster.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The changes on the map are just ok for me. But i guess Adrianople should be on the map (but i think it already is).
What about the adition of Constanta on the Danube Delta that i proposed on this post?
This should give a importance to the Danube Delta.
-8 already? does that mean you are going to take out some eastern regions?
That is pretty much guaranteed. It should be able to be spread out a bit more though than just in the east. Between N Africa, Arabia, and the east I can easily see -7 but after that it gets really hard. Anything much taken out after that is going to make the east quite weak. So we are already at that point...
I am not sure if he included Ajuccio and Rhodes in the list as taken out. I think those 2 can also easily go. To me the British isles at 10 region is still too large and can easily lose 1 more region probably even 2 but I'd be fine with even just 1 more. So if we do that it leaves over the chance to add at least +2 more regions. I think 1 should go north of Caucuses and 1 in Anatolia or Rus principalities.
East can be radically changed, Persia is not bad now and shouldn't lose more than 1 if even that. Arabia has too many regions for sure, Oman and the central desert merged or Oman taken out and Mecca/Medina/central desert merged something like that to give -2 there. In N Africa Libya and Benghazi merged and Algeria lose 1 region, probably the small village next to Tunisia for -2 there.
In the north east the 3 regions from the most NE position down can be merged and Khiva also taken out leaving Urgench as a single Huge city giving -3. So actually that is -7 more from all over the map. Anything else extra 1 should go to Samarra or something else near Baghdad and past that looking into Central Europe again or Dalmatia/Serbia/Caucuses.
The only other things I could see being done are to make Sahara and central Arabia and the extreme NE uninhabitable regions. That would only free an additional 1 or 2 though as otherwise those would be merged with nearby anyway. I like RW's solution for the Sahara but we could try something different here.
Last edited by Ichon; July 13, 2011 at 12:28 PM.
We're still in the discussion phase and considering some parts might be reexamined later, there's no point in showcasing the new map until it's been finalized.
I guess I have missed this suggestion, though it's a very good one! Wallachia shouldn't have access to the Black Sea, thus inserting the Dobruja region with Constanta as capital seems absolutely acceptable - I'm gonna add this to the proposals, thanks for the idea!
Yep, some eastern regions will have to be sacrificed to compensate for that. However, I think you shouldn't worry about it for now, even if we end up in the negative (but hopefully above -3), we could still select the most suitable proposals in a poll, as I have already mentioned in this post.
I consider the Balkan area done folks, thus I suggest moving on to the next step of the revision: the Baltics.
Here are the affected settlements, in North-South direction:
Good news is that we are halfway through the discussion process - this Part shouldn't take long either, but as always, I welcome all ideas and arguments!Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Last edited by Fair Prince; July 13, 2011 at 02:50 PM.
Romanian being I can say is totally wrong. Dobrogea region was at control of byzantines and bulgarians. Wallachians controlled after 1300 the south east of Moldavia, from there they get access to Black Sea. Dobrogea also not have any sighnificant city, and Constanta pretty sure is not the place. Mircea de Elder was the only wallachian dominus who controlled Wallachia, but after many battles, last one lost to turks, he give it to ottomans.
Add to that is a very, very poor region in population. In 1878 was started a heavy colonisation of region by king Carol I.
To understand well, we must think how the region evolve. In dacian times, the region was heavy colonised by various city-states of helens. A lot of colonies was there but biggest was Histria, Tomis and Callatis. At Tomis the roman Ovidius was exiled. In the mainland, off the coast was a small kingdom of dacians, outside Burebista Dacia.
Romans integrate the region in Moesia inferior. After reorganisation was the new province Dacia, when historical the Dacia province became the Goth Kingdom. After them come the gepids, and Dogrogea remain part of roman empire. After the colapse of Rome, it was part of byzantine empire, with some intermezzo's like First Bulgar Empire. When bulgarian disapear like state was again controlled by greeks. In this context the Vicina played a huge role. Add to that, some former roman-byzantine colonies became genovese.
The Moldavia have it its ports on maritime Danube or at Black Sea in south Moldavia, not in Dobrogea. Tatar/mongolian destroy almost all settlements there, and after Mircea the Elder lost control, it became a turkish part of ottoman empire. The population was rare and was poorly coloniesed by tatars and turks.
The shepards from Transylvani, but from Moldavia and Wallachia too, moved their cattle there in winter season.
When it enter in Romania in 1878, was very few people there. Turks invested almost nothing. Was colonised and romanians maded the former Tomis, actual Constanta a big port at Black Sea.
In 1100 we can talk about the area like hellenic region connected with Bulgaria. The wallachian rule there was around 100 years.
Kill Them All, Let God Sort Them Out!
Turku, the finnish region must go. Not because is not important, but is far from almost anything. I am agree is a key for teutonic order to develop fast in late, being a fortress, but on long shoot, I think is a Rhodos case here.
Kill Them All, Let God Sort Them Out!
Turku can go. Barely any Scandinavian settlements and mostly tribes in the interior but nothing seriously organized.
Reval- more difficult as there are reasons it could even start as Kieven. Basically Reval was probably only a very small fort or perhaps fishing village nearby that could well have been abandoned due to earlier raids. By 1200s it was becoming important as a Livonian stronghold and could easily start as a castle. However it might be better to switch it with Tartu and make it belong to Kiev or add Sakala or something and be rebel pagan Chudes or similar tribes.
Vilnius seems obvious to stay.
Hrodna seems ok to me unless someone has a better suggestion? I think it should be about 40% pagan 40% orthodox and 20% catholic. There are even some connections to Kiev here as it could have belonged to a principality associated with Kiev. How to portray Kiev is something to consider as well- if we give every region to Kiev that was a principality Kiev would be quite strong. If we just give Kiev and a few of the nearby regions(not including ones which had major wars with Kiev) that might work the best.
Palanga should stay I think- but be mostly Pagan with some timber and furs as resources.
Riga seems certainly to stay and was probably one of the largest urban centers in the Baltic though compared to other regions it was quite small. Later when Reval surpassed it in 1200s Reval had probably less than 10,000 inhabitants so Riga was even smaller- however the countryside was quite settle by various tribes- just not very organized. To oppose the Livonian crusaders they were only able to gather and army of around 5,000 men.
So what do we have about Hrodna.
On russian. http://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%AD...B4%D0%BD%D0%BE
My translation:
First chronicle mentioning in 1128 as the residence of Duke Vsevolod Davidovich (Kievan Rus). In the XII century there were several orthodox churches. In 1224, was sacked by the Teutons, in 1241 by Mongols. Then in was occupied by Lithuania. In 1259 taken back from Lithuania by Daniil Galitsky (Kievan Rus). In 1270 - again Lithuanian Duke Troiden. During 1284 and 1392 Hrodna struggles against Livonian Order, two times was destroyed. In 1398 Vitovt made Hrodna his residence and it became the best city in Lithuania after Vilno. Since the beginning of XV-th century - under the Poland.
what about Köningsberg, i know it was founded around 1250 so for a early campaign it would make much sense, though i think in late campaign it crucial while it was the stronghold of the german orders.
Errr...why Kievan over Novgorodian? Kiev never held sway over those regions whereas Novgorod did.
Riga is too important to be removed. BUT it was only founded in the 13th century so it doesn't really fit for the early campaign.
Tarku could be removed. However, then you'd have to add all of Finland to another region which doesn't really work either.
Last edited by Caesar Clivus; July 14, 2011 at 06:50 AM.
Thanks for input guys, I'll try to take all of them into consideration.
Some initial remarks: ReQuest has suggested putting Königsberg on the map and I have to say it's already there, only it's called Palanga for some reason. Vilnius could remain, but if that's the case then Kaunas, the earliest known capital of Lithuania must be included as well, preferably with access to the Baltic Sea (its port could act as the real Palanga). Subsequently, Hrodna would become quite redundant if the aforementioned changes take place.
Turku seems destined for the drop, but it might be problematic to merge that region with another - maybe make it a 'blank' region?
You are right- I wrote Kiev but I was thinking Novgorod. Although I meant it in the context of Tartu or something else.
As for Riga- I thought it existed much earlier than 12th century? Just that Germans and others didn't establish outposts to trade there until 12th century. But there was a town inhabited there for a very long time.
Why not add Turku to Novgorod? In this period Swedish settlement was sporadic and probably as much or less than had occurred already in other Rus regions that Novgorod starts with control over. Novgorod did have alot of small trade missions but there were no major settlements or military fortifications until 13th century. So I think its fine to merged with Novgorod with just some resources. It certainly shouldn't be a castle in 1100 start. Though if Reval is kept that might be a castle.
What do you think of something besides Reval? Since Reval didn't achieve importance until later but there were some other towns in the interior.