[Preview] Campaign Map

[MWY]

Should be doable somewhen in the future.

@Cookie: I think Azaq/Azov was actually a name for a settlement. The name simply was "lowlands". Other than that, I've found 2 other settlements in that region, one of them couldve been pretty important and was the capital of the alans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maghas

The other one was a greek colony which perhaps still existed at that point of time:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nowomi...r,_Tuapsinski)

[j.a.luna]

Your settlements indeed look great, easily the best looking ones that I've come across. One small suggestion. If it isn't too much work, it would be great if you could paint the walls of Greek settlements grey and add red lines, like this.

This walls represent pretty well the byzantine architecture,it would be great if sship would add this byzantines walls

[Lifthrasir]

Some pics to show the changes made on the map of Poland.

Current map:


In SSHIP v0.9.5:
Krakow region:

Now Lesser Poland will be harder to defend as there are passages on rivers in the West of Krakow. Amber resource removed (inaccurate) and marble resource replaced by salt one (South-East of Krakow). Silver added in North-West of Krakow.

Plock Region:

Dense forest added between Plock and Twangste. Now, if you want to conquer Twansgte, you will have to go around that forest by the South-West or the North-East.

These changes make the map of Poland more accurate to what it was in reality during the game period
More to follow...

[nikossaiz]

wonderfull! i love map and campaign changes! are the hardest changes to make but give a fresh air and game approach! have you ever concider to make rivers navigatamble? DLV bb mod has that and brings a little bit more stratigical ellement and challenge, since you can use the danube river for excample to invade faster the balcan countries, etch etch.

[j.a.luna]

wonderfull! i love map and campaign changes! are the hardest changes to make but give a fresh air and game approach! have you ever concider to make rivers navigatamble? DLV bb mod has that and brings a little bit more stratigical ellement and challenge, since you can use the danube river for excample to invade faster the balcan countries, etch etch.

mmmm this is a good good idea haha,also for importants rivers as Nile,Rin,Sena,Támesis,Volga,Duero or Tajo,Eufrates or Tigris...we could see modern vikings assault again europe through the rivers.
Also rivers could have "maritime trade" similar to trade ports in the sea with the typical little boats sail in the campaign map and with and increase of trade income...

[Lifthrasir]

The problem with navigable rivers is that they appear too large on the map from my taste. I think it "ruins" the map somehow

[Jurand of Cracow]

Additionally, I doubt large armies were transported by fleets along the rivers at that time. Vikings yes, but we're already past this time.

Let's concentrate on finishing what's now in the pipeline, don't introduce sweeping changes, just fix the issues.

[nikossaiz]

according to armies transportation the romans constantly used the river passages during the romano-bulgarian wars, same with the hungarians. I am sure other factions used them too accordilly. And a full stack in SSHIP is almost what, 3000 sholdiers? anyway, the rivers were always used for sure. Lifths' argument form the other hand is a matter of taste and since his is the one that can make map changes his opinion matter the most here is an example from dlv bb

[AnthoniusII]

The problem with navigable rivers is that they appear too large on the map from my taste. I think it "ruins" the map somehow

Additionally, I doubt large armies were transported by fleets along the rivers at that time. Vikings yes, but we're already past this time.

Let's concentrate on finishing what's now in the pipeline, don't introduce sweeping changes, just fix the issues.

according to armies transportation the romans constantly used the river passages during the romano-bulgarian wars, same with the hungarians. I am sure other factions used them too accordilly. And a full stack in SSHIP is almost what, 3000 sholdiers? anyway, the rivers were always used for sure. Lifths' argument form the other hand is a matter of taste and since his is the one that can make map changes his opinion matter the most here is an example from dlv bb

Danube was a wide river and Romans used ships. But we can assume that in spesific seasons even Danube's water hight was so low that horsemen could pass it (Magyars,Pechenegs etc).
So there is no actuall need to make Danube suitable for ships because that way th emod would issolate factions that traditionaly don't use ships , north of the river.

[j.a.luna]

I think ,that is possible, i would like see navigable rivers in.sship, at least the most importants rivers...so it is possible and not suppose bigger efforts(jurand opinion) but it would be very inmersive in the game,stategical and also with maritime trade(nikossaiz opinion)

EDIT:Lifth you can try make one or two rivers in the game for the next release, as Nile, this river yes was navigable and with a lot of maritime trade...

[Lifthrasir]

During the game period as mentioned by JoC, rivers were not use for military purposes (except may be for some unusual cases). They were mostly used for goods transportation.
For example, during the 6th or 7th crusade, crusaders landed near Damietta and conquered it. Then they followed the Nile towards Cairo.
There are also several similar examples during the Hundred Years War.

On top of that, as already mentioned, aesthetically, I don't like the navigable rivers. So, I won't implement them for now.

[nikossaiz]

But we can assume that in spesific seasons even Danube's water hight was so low that horsemen could pass it (Magyars,Pechenegs etc).
So there is no actuall need to make Danube suitable for ships because that way th emod would issolate factions that traditionaly don't use ships , north of the river.

you can make "bredgies" in places who you assume that can be overided by land. Anyway, Lifth, who does all the hard work has allready mention that he dont like them, so we only make a few suggestions for the record mostly .

[Lifthrasir]

I'm not the only one doing the hard work
JoC, MWY plus several "freelancers" are also doing their part of the job

[nikossaiz]

according the map! well, you show us a preview and we started with other suggestions immidiatly, not the kindest of behaviours

[Lifthrasir]

That's fine, no worries
Next preview will be the Nile Delta...

[REDrake]

Hey there. I just took a look last evening to this sub-mod and noticed that Athens is not this map. Corinth and Thessaloniki are. In fact, Thessaloniki is covering the whole of Greece without Peloponnese. Why was that city removed from the map?
Taking into account the period, it was an important trading city and later on, after the fourth Crusade it became the seat of the Duchy of Athens. Corinth by contrast was not such an important settlement. Mystras was at the time the center of Morea (later Principality of Achea's seat).

[Lifthrasir]

From what I could find:

Okay- as I tend to advise most mods on the Balkans due to Rhomano-phile tendencies!

First and foremost, the frontier of the Bulgaria province should lie along the river Danube, and not intrude into Wallachia. The Danube was always the frontier of the area, under both Rhomanians (Byzantines) and Ottomans.

Durazzo should be renamed to its Greek title "Dyrrachion"- the Latinised version of this is "Dyrrachium". It certainly shouldn't be the Italian "Durazzo", anyway.

Athens was really not a very important city in the medieval era, though Corinth was. If you want another Greek city to replace Athens, I'd suggest Larisa- otherwise, just take it out, and get a new slot to "spend" on the Middle East somewhere. Western Anatolia would be my suggestion...

Scopia should be replaced by Ochrid, the capital of the first Bulgarian Empire and a major city in the region.

Sofia should get its Greek name of "Sardica".

And here are two possible ones- swapping Arta for Nikopolis (both were important, Nikopolis more so in the 11th and 12th centuries, Arta afterward) and Adrianople for Philippopolis (again, for the early campaign, Philippopolis was more significant, for the late one, Adrianople was).

Constantinople should certainly be a huge city, and Thessalonica should be a large one- it's a little known fact, but Thessalonica was likely the second largest city in early medieval Europe, larger even than Milan or Paris.

This was before "my time"

[Jurand of Cracow]

Originally Posted by Giorgios
Okay- as I tend to advise most mods on the Balkans due to Rhomano-phile tendencies!

First and foremost, the frontier of the Bulgaria province should lie along the river Danube, and not intrude into Wallachia. The Danube was always the frontier of the area, under both Rhomanians (Byzantines) and Ottomans.

Durazzo should be renamed to its Greek title "Dyrrachion"- the Latinised version of this is "Dyrrachium". It certainly shouldn't be the Italian "Durazzo", anyway.

Athens was really not a very important city in the medieval era, though Corinth was. If you want another Greek city to replace Athens, I'd suggest Larisa- otherwise, just take it out, and get a new slot to "spend" on the Middle East somewhere. Western Anatolia would be my suggestion...

Scopia should be replaced by Ochrid, the capital of the first Bulgarian Empire and a major city in the region.

Sofia should get its Greek name of "Sardica".

And here are two possible ones- swapping Arta for Nikopolis (both were important, Nikopolis more so in the 11th and 12th centuries, Arta afterward) and Adrianople for Philippopolis (again, for the early campaign, Philippopolis was more significant, for the late one, Adrianople was).


Constantinople should certainly be a huge city, and Thessalonica should be a large one- it's a little known fact, but Thessalonica was likely the second largest city in early medieval Europe, larger even than Milan or Paris.

This brings me to the question: what are the rules for naming provinces and cities, as well as chosing particular cities.
Should it be average of the 12-16 centuries, or just a beginning etc. I think it'd be better to state it somewhere.

A good example are Liubice. It's a good name in 1132, but later on the settlement was destroyed and Lubeck was fouded (actually, two times, I think).
So from 1160 onwards it would be more pertinent. (so if we'd take an average, then Lubeck should be all the time ;-)
Or Twangste - in 14th century it should definitely be Koeningsberg. Or that Durazzo - early a Greek name is pertinent, but in Late era - the Italian one, I suppose.

Which brings another problem: which language should be used. I think we also say the rules loud and clear (well, you know I'm quite rule-oriented ;-)

On the details:
- Bulgaria in 9-10 century is drawn on the maps on both banks of the Danube (I think the second state was indeed only on the right, but I'm not sure",
- I'm not sure Thessalonica was such big in comparison with the other cities. At some point it was big and important, but not to such degree (and the question is "when" - Paris was small at the beginning but then Corduba or Palermo were big, in other centuries it'd be Paris or Milan). Anyway, one should study this conference papers and perhaps more publications from Dumbarton Oaks. Nevertheless, it's true (to my knowledge) that Athens were insignificant anyway see here: Athens, the city that symbolized the classical world, was throughout the medieval perioda small provincial town in the Byzantine Empire to which the sources rarely refer,and then only coincidentally.

[Lifthrasir]

If you want to know, you'll have to go throught the 15 first (or so) pages of the original thread for the mod. All the discussions about regions and settlements are there. It was before I started to get involved in the project for most of it.

Edit: I missed your comment about languages. For regions and settlements, I think it's quite ok as it is now. MWY has done a good job and I honestly don't see any reason to change that. Regarding the PTF, the way you're handling it is fine too. All in all, both systems can work together in game for now, especially with that line you want to add "granted for ...". That will help the players to recognize some regions

[Jurand of Cracow]

If you want to know, you'll have to go throught the 15 first (or so) pages of the original thread for the mod. All the discussions about regions and settlements are there. It was before I started to get involved in the project for most of it.

Edit: I missed your comment about languages. For regions and settlements, I think it's quite ok as it is now. MWY has done a good job and I honestly don't see any reason to change that. Regarding the PTF, the way you're handling it is fine too. All in all, both systems can work together in game for now, especially with that line you want to add "granted for ...". That will help the players to recognize some regions

I'm usually against calls for the changes and I'm very much in the mood "don't change it hastly".

However, sometimes there're glaring mistakes, even with the settlements' and provinces' names. Take Gdansk and its province "Pomerelia" - it's on the left bank of lower Vistula. Sounds nicely, somebody obviously was aware that there're Latin (actually latinicised Prussian) names. However, the problem is: Pomerelia was a small region in this area and it was actually situatied on the right bank of the river - it was part of the Prussia province. It was probably never used to depict anything more than that small area, but nevermind - it has simply nothing to do with the province it depicts now. It's actually a glaring mistake. So I think it should be corrected to something like Gdansk Pomerania (in Polish it'd be Pomorze Gdańskie), or Pomerania Gedanensis in Latin.
So if something may be corrected, it should.
/I'm actually stayng now in Gdansk /