Medieval Kingdoms Total War: Campaign Map Master Thread

[claymore833]

Just a suggestion, is it possible to replace Bavaria with Saksonia? Well there is nothing wrong with Bavaria and I also love this faction, but I think there should be at least one playable faction in north Germany in order to provide more gameplay variation.

[You_Guess_Who]

Wait a moment... Sorry for the double post, but I have to ask something!

Now I read something about the cultural traits, because I haven´t played Attila for a long time and I was not sure about their mechanic ingame. The article said; „All factions of a given culture receive a common "cultural trait". The culture defines which style of architecture is used and also sets the different technologies and units that it can acquire.“

Does this mean, that all factions in the „Hispania and Africa“-group, like Castille or the Almohads, have to use the same architecture and the same tech tree, as well as using the same culture-sounds?! (e.g. the same voices in diplomacy or in battle)
If this is the case, it would be fatal! Then it would be better to use actual cultural groupings and have only a smaller variety of playable factions than to use catholic-european buildings and techs when playing the almohads. Would be super immersion-breaking.
Hope I understand that wrong and this is not the case...

That's the quirk of Attila's database - we found out that Campaign Selection Groping determines the shared bonus the group gets; but it have no actual connection with the actual culture and subculture that determines the sound theme and art theme! The unit groupings and tech tree used are even more independent, which can be tailored to individual factions instead of entire culture or subculture. That's why if we don't link the faction group with any effects, that does not matter.

So, in the surface of the end result it all comes together, but in the actual working underneath they are not necessarily interconnected.

[Commissar Caligula_]

I don't suppose you guys have worked out how faction watermarks work since last time I asked?
Its a very minor issue, but I figured I may as well ask.

[zsimmortal]

Wait a moment... Sorry for the double post, but I have to ask something!

Now I read something about the cultural traits, because I haven´t played Attila for a long time and I was not sure about their mechanic ingame. The article said; „All factions of a given culture receive a common "cultural trait". The culture defines which style of architecture is used and also sets the different technologies and units that it can acquire.“

Does this mean, that all factions in the „Hispania and Africa“-group, like Castille or the Almohads, have to use the same architecture and the same tech tree, as well as using the same culture-sounds?! (e.g. the same voices in diplomacy or in battle)
If this is the case, it would be fatal! Then it would be better to use actual cultural groupings and have only a smaller variety of playable factions than to use catholic-european buildings and techs when playing the almohads. Would be super immersion-breaking.
Hope I understand that wrong and this is not the case...

YGW kind of covered most the post but I'll try to give a rough idea of how factions work in Attila. There's essentially 3 layers...Culture (Barbarian, Nomad, Roman and Eastern). Some things tied to factions (like music for example, which I don't believe we can edit) are tied to this. Then there are subcultures (e.g. East Roman and West Roman). Things like like general models, technology, ancillaries, and so on are tied to this. For some reason, battle maps appear to be tied to this (since East Roman and West Roman factions have different battle maps), but I have no idea how it is done, and believe it to be hardcoded. Then there's the faction level, where we can tie quite a few things. At any point, various aspects can be further divided (e.g. something tied to subcultures can be custom-tailored for factions too).

Where do cultural traits come in? They are just tied to a 'faction group' that only appears on the selection screen and provides an effect bundle. Since the groups are kind of designed in an awkward way in which factions share very few things in common, they're empty effects (basically an icon with a name). This has no effect whatsoever on anything else.

The buildings are based on the regional groups that finix has done and battle maps, we hope, will eventually be custom designed. Tech trees will, at least to begin with, be split along the cultural lines ('Slavic' kingdoms (Rus and Balts), Steppe, European and Islamic/Eastern).

I don't suppose you guys have worked out how faction watermarks work since last time I asked?
Its a very minor issue, but I figured I may as well ask.

I don't know if you asked the guys at AE, but that's how we got to know how to make to the group icons work. I'm not working on UI stuff, but I can take a look at the UI files in the near future and concoct a hypothesis then test some stuff.

Just a suggestion, is it possible to replace Bavaria with Saksonia? Well there is nothing wrong with Bavaria and I also love this faction, but I think there should be at least one playable faction in north Germany in order to provide more gameplay variation.

We'll look at this, but I see no apparent problem with this suggestion. I'm not making any promises however.

[ST. Toma]

Work in Progress, We are currently adding factions to the database and startpos step-by-step.


For your information, there are UI limitations: Max 11 Faction Groups (more than that it'll go offscreen), with 6 to 7 Factions per Group (7 is actually bit forced, more than one-third of the rightmost faction button would slip under the Faction Leader screen).

Unless there's someone who know how to script the UI so it shows 2 rows of factions totaling 12 faction, we have to use Geographical Region Groping rather than Cultural Grouping. This choice was taken to maximize playable factions.
This kind of grouping might feels awkward since there are factions from different culture bundled together; but if we took Cultural Grouping approach, then many factions have to be sacrificed. For Regional Grouping to work, the Cultural Group Traits are not used, so the Faction traits are based entirely on the individual Faction's traits.


The Faction Traits are also still Work in Progress, the value can be changed on further development.

Here's the possible grouping scheme:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

North Sea: England, Scotland, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway
(Norway starts landless. Ireland is in even if not independent for variety sake)

Hispania and North Africa: Aragon, Castille, Navarre, Portugal, Almohad, Marinid, Hafsid

Italia: Sicily, Venice, Genoa, Pisa, Milan, Bologna, Papal States

Red Sea and Arabia: Ayyubids, Makuria, Zagwe, Oman, Uyyunids, Rasulids
(The Uyyunid and Rasulid were added simply because there's two open slots)

France and Lowlands: France, Burgundy, Toulouse, Flanders, Brabant, Friesland

Germania: HRE, Swiss, Bavaria, Austria, Bohemia, Lorraine, Trier

Balkans: Hungary, Croatia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Latin Empire, Epirus, Wallachia
(Croatia was under personal union with Hungary acting as vassal, Wallachia position in the selection is rather tenuous; so changes is possible)

Levant and Anatolia: Rum, Jerusalem, Antioch, Cilician Armenia, Niceaea, Trebizond

Steppes: Ilkhanate, Golden Horde, Cumans, Volga Bulgar, Alans
(one slot open)

Baltic and East Europe: Poland, Kievan Rus, Lithuania, Teutonic Order, Yotvingians, Ryazan-Murom
(There should be a representative of Prussians for now its Yotvingians; There's an open Rus faction slot, either Galicia Volhynia, Chernigov, or Ryazan-Murom - for now we place Ryazan-Murom)

Caucasia, Mesopotamia, and Persia: Georgia, Zengid, Abbasid, Khwarezm, Ghurid, Azerbaijan
(there's one slot open, for now we arbitrarily take Azerbaijan)

Great news!

Some ideas about it as a historian:

If this regional grouping won't affect architectural cultures, I guess it can absolutely work although the campaign will be a bit harder without cultural traits. Or you should think about "regio-cultural" traits like Hispania et Africa is a drier region so it affects fertility/food production of the farm buildings or so.
Also, the geographical order from left to right that Heisenburrg proposed would be great and would make it easier to find the faction you want to play. (Iberia-Africa>France and Lowlands>North Sea>Germania>Italia>Balkans>Eastern Europe>Steppes>Levant>Arabia>Persia would be the best solution imo)

For North Sea group isn't it possible to add Wales, too? It's 6 factions now.

For Red Sea factions I recommend to rename Zagwe to Ethiopia as Zagwe was the dynasty, ruling Ethiopia but soon to be faded and changed to the main line of the Solomonic dynasty. The country did not change, only the ruling house, so I prefer Ethiopia from the start.

For Germania I agree with those who said there should be a North German (Low German) faction - I guess Saxony instead of Bavaria could be the best way.

For Balkans it is okay to have both Wallachia and Croatia (although the latter wasn't an independent vassal, I know that lots of Croatian players would love it).

For Steppes: I recommend to rename the faction group to Deserta Orientalia (Eastern Steppes) to have a more authentic name.
Also, Cumans aren't divided to more tribal groupings? A long ago I recommended a Cumans (West), Kypchaks (East, North of Caucasia) and Kangli (East, northwest to Khwarezm proper) division which would be more authentic and can be used for Attila's not-too-detailed map.

For Eastern Europe I prefer Galicia instead of either Yotvingians/Prussians or Kiev, preferably Kiev as it wasn't really important that time and soon to be faded while Galicia soon met its golden age. But if Kiev is a must and the Cuman tribes are in one faction then I recommend to put Ryazan to the Steppe group (it is important to have a Northern Rus state as there can be no Novgorod or Vladimir-Suzdal but Prussians are also important) and change it to Galicia in the Eastern Europe group.
Also, the group name should be Ruthenia et Balticum, not -us.

For Magna Persia: the Eldiguzid Azerbaijan should be playable for sure, it was a really unique Persianate Turkic state with Seljuq and Kypchak elements and its golden age just recently ended so its goal can be independence and uniting the old Great Seljuq Empire again. Shirvan is another great choice for the slot as a long-lasting state with really unique culture but its military system is barely known, it was mostly a vassal of other empires and was not a conqueror type state.

[zsimmortal]

While I do wish for the mod to provide the maximum amount of experiences, I do not wish for there to be a larger number for the sake of it. Moving factions around to add one province minors who do not have a roster to their name is not something I would consider.

[You_Guess_Who]

If this regional grouping won't affect architectural cultures, I guess it can absolutely work although the campaign will be a bit harder without cultural traits. Or you should think about "regio-cultural" traits like Hispania et Africa is a drier region so it affects fertility/food production of the farm buildings or so.

Not necessary. The cultural traits that are usually tied to faction groups in Attila can be easily added to the regional traits. So, for example: Take Hispano-Maghrebi group. You want Hispanic factions have trait A, Maghrebi faction have trait B. We do not add trait A+B to the faction group trait, because that means two cultures that should be different now forced to have a shared trait just because they share the same campaign selection menu; instead we add trait A into each individual Hispanic factional trait, and trait B into each individual Maghrebi factional trait.

In other words, ascribe the elements of cultural traits directly into the factional traits, instead of through faction groups.

[Heisenburrg]

@YGW and ZSImmortal

To this cultural-trait-thing... Now I am released. If the only problem is, that we have to renounce the bonus from the cultural trait, then everything is fine, the regional system is great. Like you said; the cultural bonus could be easily added to the faction trait.

And to the other posts. I agree with most of the points. Saxony for Bavaria would be great (more likely Trier, but since it has it´s own roster, Trier is a given I guess), arranging a geographical order and renamings as well. And while I defenitely think, that we have enough factions (so no faction splitting or sth similar), I would at least consider to switch Ryazan-Murom to the Steppes, just to have more opportunities for Ruthenia et Balticum which is kinda overload with important factions atm. Yes, that´s it. Everything else is great!

[Sinatuo]

Great job! I can wait to play this amazing mod!
I want to say a big THANKS for replacing Bazard Voievod faction whit Wallachia! Regards!

[comPLete]

I cant wait to see the campaign ready, coming here every day to check for news.
Keep up the good work guys. Your mod is realy only reason people are buing Attila.

[Vardano]

Just a question: if you will liberate some Armenian cities, will they have same unit roster as Cilicia have?

[Habercosth]

Great news!

Some ideas about it as a historian:

If this regional grouping won't affect architectural cultures, I guess it can absolutely work although the campaign will be a bit harder without cultural traits. Or you should think about "regio-cultural" traits like Hispania et Africa is a drier region so it affects fertility/food production of the farm buildings or so.
Also, the geographical order from left to right that Heisenburrg proposed would be great and would make it easier to find the faction you want to play. (Iberia-Africa>France and Lowlands>North Sea>Germania>Italia>Balkans>Eastern Europe>Steppes>Levant>Arabia>Persia would be the best solution imo)

For North Sea group isn't it possible to add Wales, too? It's 6 factions now.

For Red Sea factions I recommend to rename Zagwe to Ethiopia as Zagwe was the dynasty, ruling Ethiopia but soon to be faded and changed to the main line of the Solomonic dynasty. The country did not change, only the ruling house, so I prefer Ethiopia from the start.

For Germania I agree with those who said there should be a North German (Low German) faction - I guess Saxony instead of Bavaria could be the best way.

For Balkans it is okay to have both Wallachia and Croatia (although the latter wasn't an independent vassal, I know that lots of Croatian players would love it).

For Steppes: I recommend to rename the faction group to Deserta Orientalia (Eastern Steppes) to have a more authentic name.
Also, Cumans aren't divided to more tribal groupings? A long ago I recommended a Cumans (West), Kypchaks (East, North of Caucasia) and Kangli (East, northwest to Khwarezm proper) division which would be more authentic and can be used for Attila's not-too-detailed map.

For Eastern Europe I prefer Galicia instead of either Yotvingians/Prussians or Kiev, preferably Kiev as it wasn't really important that time and soon to be faded while Galicia soon met its golden age. But if Kiev is a must and the Cuman tribes are in one faction then I recommend to put Ryazan to the Steppe group (it is important to have a Northern Rus state as there can be no Novgorod or Vladimir-Suzdal but Prussians are also important) and change it to Galicia in the Eastern Europe group.
Also, the group name should be Ruthenia et Balticum, not -us.

For Magna Persia: the Eldiguzid Azerbaijan should be playable for sure, it was a really unique Persianate Turkic state with Seljuq and Kypchak elements and its golden age just recently ended so its goal can be independence and uniting the old Great Seljuq Empire again. Shirvan is another great choice for the slot as a long-lasting state with really unique culture but its military system is barely known, it was mostly a vassal of other empires and was not a conqueror type state.

About Galicia -this name may can be reason of misunderstanding, and can push someone in a wrong way. For example i polish historiography "Galicia" is a term, which can be associate with XVIII century as Galicia and Lodomery. As you know, the roots of Galicia is Halicia, and in my opinion far better is pure medieval name "Halych" instead of Yotvingians. Possibly "Halych Rus and Prussians" or sth like this. Cheers! GL

[zsimmortal]

Also, the group name should be Ruthenia et Balticum, not -us.

Wouldn't that only be the case if it was the subject of a name or verb (e.g. Mare Germanicum)? As it is alone, I don't see why it would need in end in -um, but I'm not the best at writing in Latin.

[Heisenburrg]

Balticum comes from Mare balticum, but is a separate term. In this case it should simply be Nom., Sg., neutrum, which is -um. (like Raetia et Noricum for example)

Though „Balticum“ as own term is a bit anachronistic, because it was used in later periods. „Baltia“ would be possible, too. According to Plinius the Elder it was the term for a mystical island in northern europe, namely the Samland. (hence the name Mare balticum)

[ST. Toma]

Balticum comes from Mare balticum, but is a separate term. In this case it should simply be Nom., Sg., neutrum, which is -um. (like Raetia et Noricum for example)

Though „Balticum“ as own term is a bit anachronistic, because it was used in later periods. „Baltia“ would be possible, too. According to Plinius the Elder it was the term for a mystical island in northern europe, namely the Samland. (hence the name Mare balticum)

Just as Heisenburrg said.

Balticus is the worst name as it is an adjective and was never used as a separate term, a noun while Balticum is originally the shortened form of Mare Balticum (Baltic Sea) and became a separate term, a noun as the region's name around 1600 - first used by local Germans and Scandinavians.

Of course this makes it a bit anachronistic but it is still closer both in chronological and cultural sense to the 13-15th centuries than "Baltia" which was the name of one or more (semi-)mythical islands in the Baltic Sea where amber comes from. It was used by ancient Romans and Greeks and it seems that it was an umbrella term for all the South Baltic shores and isles from Bornholm to Estonia but its use faded no later than in the 6th century.

On the other hand, medieval people did not use a separate term for that region, in their minds its subregions were separate regions and they used only Pomerania, Prussia, Samogitia, Couronia, Livonia, Estonia, etc.

So neither Baltia nor Balticum are contemporary and absolutley authentic but we must call the region somehow therefore I'm with Balticum.



@Habercosth - Galicia was not a name idea, I just use it to make my post simpler. I think from the previews that the modders will use modern names/terms, so I guess it will be Principality of Galicia-Volhynia as this is the most general and wide-spread form (with dozens of alternative forms but let's keep it simple).

I absolutely support this solution, using the modern names for the factions as the contemporary, authentic names are problematic, even to choose the language: for example for Galicia-Volhynia one can use modern Ukrainian, modern Russian, Old Ruthenian, Old East Slavic or even Latin names (when it became Regnum Galiciae et Lodomeriae).


For faction names I only recommended Zagwe to Ethiopia change but maybe Empire of Nicaea should be changed to Byzantine Empire, too, as the direct heir and soon-to-be Constantinople-based Byzantium again.

[Totalize]

I cant wait to see the campaign ready, coming here every day to check for news.
Keep up the good work guys. Your mod is realy only reason people are buing Attila.

Dude seriously?? I didn't purchase Attila for this mod or any other. Why would anyone purchase a game based on a mod that may or may not ever be released? Same goes for Ancient Empires. I would just as soon focus on CA's upcoming releases and other Attila mods which are enough to keep one occupied assuming you don't play it 24 hours a day. Hey if these guys some day release the mod great but I wouldn't count on it.

[Filips Augustus]

Because lots of people wanted a (historical accurate) Medieval 3, and this mod can give it to them. I also bought Attila just for this mod for the same reason.

[Slytacular]

But we did release this mod.. Last February. Lol

[napoleon2905]

"may not ever be released? "

please don't tell that lol

[duffys tavern]

This has been released. Thanks a lot guys for sharing, great job.