SSHIP - General Discussion

**Korsan82** · September 12, 2019, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Lifthrasir

Not to mention that the Ottomans actually didn't rise before the end of the 13th century (1299 AD 'officially' with the conquest of Mocadene)

It's not about Ottomans it's about Turks. The area of eastern Anatolia was under Turkish rule by 1125. This can only be seen when you start a late period game.

**Lifthrasir** · September 13, 2019, 01:34 AM

Then I suggest you to re-read your original post:

Originally Posted by Korsan82

Hey, I just installed this mod and started to play. I usually play as Seljuks/Ottomans but I was surprised to see that the Seljuks in this mod are limited to the territory of modern day Iran. The Seljuks made their first strike to the Byzantine Empire in 1071. The game starts at 1125. The Turks are far away from Anatolia. So is this a mistake or am I missing something here?

Mod looks great btw!

Anyway, I still disagree with you. Many sources report that the Seljuk Empire was struggling with internal conflicts. Many local Attabegs took that opportunity to strenghten their local power/authority. Have a look at this article. It's not perfect but at least gives a good summary.
And what about this map?

As far as I know, even Danishmendids were independants in 1132 AD.
So no, Anatolia was definitively out of Seljuk control in 1132 AD.

**Jurand of Cracow** · September 13, 2019, 03:09 AM

I don't think you're in disagreement. All of them - "Great Seljuks", Danishmendids, and Rum (and a few atabegs/begs/other "rulers" wielding local power) were Turks.
The Ottomans indeed has risen (and even immigrated to the region) in second part of 13th century.

**VineFynn** · September 13, 2019, 09:56 PM

Please keep in mind that if the information suggests that a faction's control over an area was weak/nominal, we will always pick whichever option is more balanced.

**Cephalophore** · September 14, 2019, 04:31 AM

So, I have been lurking around the forums for awhile since I started using mods... I noticed that in my campaigns cities are sometimes renamed upon capture which I think is a neat feature, but I also have some criticisms in the naming of many of the cities especially in vanilla. I love SSHIP all around and I've played many campaigns. Recently, I began an Eastern Roman Empire campaign and it kind of evolved into researching the historical names of cities and renaming them as accurately as possible according to the Byzantine sources and experts on Byzantine history and Greek language. It's an aesthetic purpose, but I have compiled a list of cities with the most appropriate Byz. names. I don't know how the mod renames cities or how difficult it is to implement, but here's some of the names I've determined to be correct to the best of my ability and knowledge:

Baghdad = Eirenopolis (not to be confused with the city in Cilicia)

Jerusalem = Hierosolyma

Ar-Raqqa = Kallinikos or Leontopolis (the latter being the megalomaniacal name lol)

Aleppo = Berroia or Alep

Hamadan = Ecbatana

Shiraz = Persepolis (this one is a complete dead end, but the city in the area was historically Persepolis or City of Persians)

Malatya = Melitene

Nis = Naissus

Tarnovgrad = Tarnovo

Ani = Aniom or Anium

Bab al abwad = Derbend (the name provided in the mod is the arabic transliteration)

I've renamed many more, but I can't recall them all from memory. Expectedly, there are limitations to this historically and via game limitations.

Anyways, I hope at least this is interesting enough for people to at least see it and start doing it themselves lol.

Most of this information comes from the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium.

Thanks, love the mod, keep it up, looking forward to the next release

**GenPattonx** · September 14, 2019, 12:08 PM

Hi, I would like to understand why my faction leaders all seem to get bad traits on after the other when I am doing the following:
- all prisoners are released, always
- all settlements are occupied, always
- all city settlements get low taxes
these 3 literally seem to be the only things I can control, I've had my Faction Leader and Heir lead the armies and do the battles instead of sitting idle in a settlement, but they only seem to become bad anyway. I've even had a Leader titled The Conqueror or The Hero or The Good, but sometime after that they become The Merciless, The Mad, etc and now the Usurper... really... what the F*. This makes no sense. What am I missing ??????????

**Jurand of Cracow** · September 14, 2019, 12:26 PM

I release prisoners very often and I get high chivalry as a result. It seems to be a good trait.
I almost always occupy so that I don't lose population. This should be neutral, I think.
Low taxes may lead to bad economic traits. I've tweaked them a bit in my submod, the link is in the sig.

**sullivanclan1** · September 14, 2019, 02:19 PM

Just get rid of the bad traits by deleting them.

**Swarbs** · September 16, 2019, 04:23 PM

I think the number of prisoners taken in battle also influences the general's chivalry. Prisoners are only taken from routing units, so the game judges you to have been ordering your men to chase and attack routing enemies, hence the merciless trait and other dread characteristics. Particularly if the battle odds were in your favour to begin with.

Best way I've found to avoid it is to micro your battles carefully, and order your men to move away from routing units so they don't take any prisoners. Particularly important with your cavalry, as if they rear charge a engaged unit and rout it, they can take a whole load of prisoners very quickly, which the game judges as reflecting badly on the general for not letting the routing unit escape. Even if you later release the prisoners, it still counts as an ignoble action to take them in the first place.

Unfortunately the mad trait is a bit random IIRC - sometimes you can't avoid a ruler becoming mad, even if they are good in their actions. Much like mental illnesses in real life, they can't readily be predicted or avoided for everyone.

The usurper script is broken, so if you get a usurper king you are often best to either reload or use the console to remove the trait.

**Slaytaninc** · September 17, 2019, 11:08 PM

As far as the Turks go I vastly prefer the way this mod does it. Lumping in the Seljuks of Rum with the main Seljuk faction isn't necessarily balanced for the player and for the AI divided territory just doesn't work well. It's one of my biggest problems with Titanium.

**Lifthrasir** · September 19, 2019, 07:32 AM

I'm thinking about adding the Muslim Shia religion to Fatimids. That's just an idea for now. However, I'd like to get figures about its representation (%) in the Muslim areas. Thanks in advance

Also note that it won't be for the next release. That's for a longer term goal if ever implemented

**VineFynn** · September 20, 2019, 01:13 AM

Shia would indeed take a while. Would require doubling up a lot of religion checks.

**Lifthrasir** · September 20, 2019, 01:15 AM

That's still just an idea. It may end up to nothing concrete. For now, I'm just trying to gather info

The good point at least is that it won't requier new models for buildings and imams

**VineFynn** · September 20, 2019, 04:14 AM

Originally Posted by Lifthrasir

That's still just an idea. It may end up to nothing concrete. For now, I'm just trying to gather info

The good point at least is that it won't requier new models for buildings and imams

I'd been considering doing it myself, actually. So you'll get no pushback from me.

**Debadgeboi** · September 20, 2019, 09:14 AM

I'm playing a campaign with Norway.

Denmark have a mercanary Ribault in 1242 despite the fist recorded one being used almost 100 years later in 1339.

**kostic** · September 20, 2019, 04:37 PM

I spotted this error too ... hard to fix all the anachronisms of the vanilla version!

**Jurand of Cracow** · September 21, 2019, 02:21 AM

Caeterum censeo:

Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow

On artillery: after like 1220 in the east a mercenary Rimbault unit appears. The Kievian armies field them occassionally. These are pretty powerful units - comparatively fast reloading and high range artillery, impalling many people and spreading fear. On the bridge battles they're absolutely kings.
I wonder what is the historical background on them? And how it's possible that they appear as mercs somewhere in the steppes...

Besides - I'm also concerned with those trebuchets used in the field battles. I've had a battle (a bridge one, admittedely) where they're a major force.

Has anybody played the Point Blank's RR/RC 2.0 and noticed if he'd dealt with this issue?

**Lifthrasir** · September 21, 2019, 10:42 AM

In the descr_mercenaries.txt file, it is tied to the "gunpowder_discovered" event. I guess that we just need to change that event with another one happening later

Edit: what about the half_plate_armor event instead? Seems pretty close to reality (210/230 years after the starting date if I'm not mistaken).

**Dekhatres** · September 21, 2019, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow

Besides - I'm also concerned with those trebuchets used in the field battles. I've had a battle (a bridge one, admittedely) where they're a major force.

eazy, you just tweak the damage vs troops, descr_projectile

Code:

projectile trebuchet


effect             boulder_medium_set
end_effect                ground_impact_treb_set
end_man_effect            man_impact_catapult_set
end_package_effect        wall_impact_medium_set
end_shatter_effect        ground_impact_treb_set
end_shatter_man_effect        man_impact_catapult_set
end_shatter_package_effect    wall_impact_medium_set




damage            60
damage_to_troops 10

Originally Posted by Jurand of Cracow

how it's possible that they appear somewhere in the steppes...I wonder what is the historical background on them?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN1kN4H7zAE