Shouldn't Constantinople be more developed from the start?

[herne_the _hunter]

In M2TW shouldn't Constantinople be more developed from the start? By this I mean higher level barracks to recruit if you can afford the florins. If not have atleast have a unit of Varangian guard from the begining until you do? I've played Stainless Steel 4.1 and The Long Road where the situation isn't much better. Just that I have been playing the Chivalry Mod for RTW and the recruitment for the city is more developed in how I would like to see it. I should break my modding cherry to try it out but would like to hear if anyone has already done so.

[Drustan]

It's important not to unbalance the factions at the start. If you developed constatinople more, the Byzantines would probably dominate the area in nearly every campaign when controlled by the AI.

[Re_Minder]

It's important not to unbalance the factions at the start. If you developed constatinople more, the Byzantines would probably dominate the area in nearly every campaign when controlled by the AI.

They actually always dominate the area in SS 6.4 due to beasts called Scholarii and Siphonatores which are only recruitable in Constantinople by Byzzies Left alone, byzzies dominate the map up till the time when Mongols arrive.

[ChivalrousKiller]

Well, the developers had a choice between making the factions more historical or more balanced, and they chose the latter option.

[Aeratus]

No way would it make Byzantines unbalanced. Varangian Guards lose to DFK/DCKs in vanilla, so making Constantinople a higher level city isn't a big deal at all because all Byzantine units that can be trained in the city are weak.

[smthhappy]

No way would it make Byzantines unbalanced. Varangian Guards lose to DFK/DCKs in vanilla, so making Constantinople a higher level city isn't a big deal at all because all Byzantine units that can be trained in the city are weak.

This is because in vanilla the two-handed weapon animations are bugged...

[ChivalrousKiller]

No, they are not. But the biggest unbalance would be that Byzantium would gain a huge income every turn, and be the richest faction throughout most of the campaign.

[Aeratus]

No, they are not. But the biggest unbalance would be that Byzantium would gain a huge income every turn, and be the richest faction throughout most of the campaign.

Ok, the increased trade income could make the Byz a bit stronger, although personally I wouldn't mind that because the Byzantines are usually among the weakest factions in my vanilla campaigns (H and VH).

I think the main reason why Constantinople isn't developed is so that you could develop it, or else the game wouldn't feel like there's a progression that is an accepted artificiality of strategy games.

To be historically accurate, Constantinople and Baghdad should be maxed out cities with all buildings (except gunpowder ones) already constructed at the start of the campaign.

[ChivalrousKiller]

Ok, the increased trade income could make the Byz a bit stronger, although personally I wouldn't mind that because the Byzantines are usually among the weakest factions in my vanilla campaigns (H and VH).

Yeah, they tend to get destroyed by the Venetians and/or Hungarians.

I think the main reason why Constantinople isn't developed is so that you could develop it, or else the game wouldn't feel like there's a progression that is an accepted artificiality of strategy games.

I guess that was the main reason, yes. It feels good to have something to do in such an amazing city

To be historically accurate, Constantinople and Baghdad should be maxed out cities with all buildings (except gunpowder ones) already constructed at the start of the campaign.

There I agree with you. Constantinople was, after all, the greatest city in the known world, so if the game was to be historically accurate, then it should be a huge city with every kind of building and close to impenetrable fortifications.

But alas, M2TW is M2TW. Balance before historical accuracy.

[danny X]

To be historically accurate, Constantinople and Baghdad should be maxed out cities with all buildings (except gunpowder ones) already constructed at the start of the campaign.

ok, but where would it end; italy and egypt would've been more built-up at 1080ad too!

[herne_the _hunter]

It's more than just adding a building or some extra units. It's also editing what starting regions they hold. Which means they lose and gain. At the begining they also should have no starting navy...
Yes balance of course is important but it would be good especially when playing against them if they did last longer in vannilla. They always seem to melt away in most of my games. So their settlements like Constantinople should have potential but need to be managed to get the best out of them. In M2TW the status of a settlement as either a castle or a city determines what is the scope of this potential. Even considering changing Constantinople as a castle that will give them an economic hit for sure as well. It's a time to put pen on paper before even editing any files.
@Aeratus yes good point about Baghdad. Which shows that one one thing leads onto another.

[ChivalrousKiller]

Can't we just end the discussion knowing that Medieval II is what it was supposed to be. Maybe historical accuracy will be included in a future sequel with more accurate development and statistics. But for now, there's nothing to be done.

[danny X]

its nothing that cant be sorted out by modding in all the buildings, or an easier way, if you're the faction, just use process_cq!

[AJStoner]

There always has to be a balance between realism and playability and playability is the more vital. If you want to get technical about it, most cathedrals took over 50 years to complete--you want to mod that into the game fine but...

[the new username]

dude constantinole has already a great advantage:being a large city, if u build the right buildings in there, u will get extremely rich