Medieval Kingdoms Total War: Campaign Map Master Thread

[FrozenmenSS]

What are the plans for the unit rosters for the Vlach and Balkan rebels ? Because if for the Vlach there aren't bulgarian units a Vlach rebels in northern Bulgaria is quite bizarre. There were no Vlachs and Vlach rebellions in Bulgaria in all of the medieval period. if the balkan rebels got generic balkan slavic units that are more relatable to the Bulgarians - is it better northern and southern Bulgaria in thrace and the rodopes mountain to have balkan rebels.And to compensate the Vlach rebels with Transilvania. Or just delete them and give the regions to the balkan rebels and all have the same generic units as rebels ?

[Legionair]

Wow thanks guys seriously can't wait to start playing this I have seen so much things that are right in so many ways. The map is just perfect finally a game where the HRE is probably a king of puppet staes as it is supposed to. The hordes of Attila are awesome and i already see the mongol and cuman hordes on the map. The colours and the names of dukes in an army are just perfect. This is looking like a gem people. Think this will be the first time where Rome 1 and Medieval II stainless steel will leave my sight. My total war games will be played chronological Attila, Charlemagne and Kingdoms. Awesome job can't wait to start these camapigns.

[FrozenmenSS]

Another thing that I remembered - add Catholic Minority to North Africa(probably in Tunisia,havent researched the rest of the Maghreb)

The conventional historical view is that the conquest of North Africa by the Islamic Umayyad Caliphate between AD 647–709 effectively ended Catholicism in Africa for several centuries. The prevailing view is that the Church at that time lacked the backbone of a monastic tradition and was still suffering from the aftermath of heresies including the so-called Donatist heresy, and this contributed to the earlier obliteration of the Church in the present day Maghreb. Some historians contrast this with the strong monastic tradition in Coptic Egypt, which is credited as a factor that allowed the Coptic Church to remain the majority faith in that country until around after the 14th century.


However, new scholarship has appeared that disputes this. There are reports that the Roman Catholic faith persisted in the region from Tripolitania (present-day western Libya) to present-day Morocco for several centuries after the completion of the Arab conquest by 700. A Christian community is recorded in 1114 in Qal'a in central Algeria. There is also evidence of religious pilgrimages after 850 to tombs of Catholic saints outside the city of Carthage, and evidence of religious contacts with Christians of Arab Spain. In addition, calendar reforms adopted in Europe at this time were disseminated amongst the indigenous Christians of Tunis, which would have not been possible had there been an absence of contact with Rome.


Local Catholicism came under pressure when the Muslim regimes of the Almohads and Almoravids came into power, and the record shows demands made that the local Christians of Tunis convert to Islam. There are reports of Christian inhabitants and a bishop in the city of Kairouan around 1150 AD – a significant event, since this city was founded by Arab Muslims around 680 AD as their administrative center after their conquest. A letter in Catholic Church archives from the 14th century shows that there were still four bishoprics left in North Africa, admittedly a sharp decline from the over four hundred bishoprics in existence at the time of the Arab conquest. Berber Christians continued to live in Tunis and Nefzaoua in the south of Tunisia up until the early 15th century, and in the first quarter of the 15th century we even read that the native Christians of Tunis, though much assimilated, extended their church, perhaps because the last Christians from all over the Maghreb had gathered there.


By 1830, when the French came as colonial conquerors to Algeria and Tunis, local Catholicism had been extinguished.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_...cism_in_Africa

http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/maghreb.htm

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

[LinusLinothorax]

The numbers of Christian Berbers would have been tiny at that time tho, barely hitting the 5%.

[FrozenmenSS]

The numbers of Christian Berbers would have been tiny at that time tho, barely hitting the 5%.

True 5-10%, but it's good to debate about it. For gameplay reasons it can only help for the campaign.

[Blade Of the East]

I'm curious to know how the Little ice age will play out in campaign. Any plans for that?

[FrozenmenSS]

As far as I know the climate was 1 of the warmest in last 1000 years before the industrial age. due to sun activities.From the 16th century to the 19th one as far as I remember it the period was called the mini ice age.

[nnnm]

some minor notes

Ibadis in Oman and in Sahara region in Africa.

@FrozenmenSS
that most likely due to trade Sicily and Andalus Spain . and what is the sources of that ???

[FrozenmenSS]

No it was what was left from the primal Latin berber and Latin speaking population from before the rise of Islam in the 7th century.The Coptic Egypt was Cristian dominant for most of medieval period. Last time I reed that after the 14th century they become a minority but I may be wrong.

[jan_boruta]

some minor notes

Ibadis in Oman and in Sahara region in Africa.

Ibadi minority in southern Persia is there to give them a chance at surviving. There are no factions in the two regions in Sahara that you marked, so there will be no religion assigned to them.

Christian minorities in Africa can be added, I'll need to write it down in a list or mark on the map in a different manner (probably with coloured dots like I want to do with cities with Jewish communities).
That and add the Eastern Christianity (or Oriental Orthodoxy if you play Civ 5 with mods ) to Ethiopia, Assyria and Armenia.

In regards to climate change - I suppose it could either be left out altogether, or - to represent the little ice age - a minor drop in fertility could occur somewhere around 1312 or 1362 AD. (after 100 - 150 years of campaign which will likely be 200 - 300 turns). But nothing too major - in 1212 AD most of the map will have rather good fertility, but there still will be poor regions so it's not boring from a gameplay standpoint.

[OutsiderKK]

So you mean Miaphysitism right?

[SerbianWOLF]

jan,is there any chance to change Balkan rebels to South Slavic rebels ? Becasue that area where there are supposed to be "Balkan rebels" is populated by South Slavs. Not all of the Balkan nations. So I think it would be better to use South Slavic rebels than Balkan ones.

[altunenberg]

Rebels in Gascony and Navarre should be "Vascon" or "Wascon" rebels, not spanish or occitans as they are defined in the map. My question is the next one:
Are rebels defined according to the "Provinces Map"? In this case I understand every rebelion, based on the same province, will have the same rebel-group.
Nevertheless this would be an historical mistake for Navarre and Gascony (Gascony is an evolution of the "Duchy of Vasconia") and the ethnocultural society in
both areas was Vasconic. Is there any possibility to name these rebels (in Navarre and Gascony) as Vascon? Or you have to designate rebeles only according to provinces and not settlements? (Navarre should not be in Castela et Aragonnia... There should be a differentiated province but I think it is complicated to create it based on Attila).

It is like saying that in Scotland rebels were english :S
Vascons had a differentiated culture and language (Basque was an indo-european language, it has nothing to do with their neighbouring spanish or frankish kingdoms).

Is there any chance to modify this issue?

[OutsiderKK]

In that case it would be better to change the name "Steppe Rebels" to "Turkic Rebels". Since the natives and the people that lives in the area were all Turkic people(Cumans, Kıpchaks, Nogais, Khazars etc).

[Swarbs]

In regards to climate change - I suppose it could either be left out altogether, or - to represent the little ice age - a minor drop in fertility could occur somewhere around 1312 or 1362 AD. (after 100 - 150 years of campaign which will likely be 200 - 300 turns). But nothing too major - in 1212 AD most of the map will have rather good fertility, but there still will be poor regions so it's not boring from a gameplay standpoint.

I'd like climate change to be a bit more dynamic if possible - there's little impact from predictable changes as the player knows when they will happen and thus can prepare for them whereas the AI invariably fails to, at least in vanilla Attila.

Is there a way to script some climate events to be dynamic but based around historic events, like the plague events in SSHIP for M2? So there will be a drop in fertility around 1300-1350 but you don't know when exactly. And also a more significant drop around 1315-1317 for the great famine, but only on a temporary basis and with a variable start date. And maybe only affecting some regions if possible.

Just in general it would be good to have occasional periods of poor food production in local areas to reflect famines, particularly in areas where there is prolonged conflict or armies maintained for a long period of time. But dunno if that would be possible to code.

[lexWielstra]

Hey Jan_Boruta,

Instead of making the the far east Islam focussed you should also focus on the remaining presence of Zoroastrian beliefs. After Persia was conquered by the muslims in the 7th century Zoroastianism remained very big in the region till the 10th century when the muslims started to prosecute the so called "gabar" if i remember correctly in the 12th century most of persia/iran was still not converted to Islam and still believed in the old Zoroastrian faith (especially in the regions Kerman and Yazd, which are also on your map). not only would adding Zoroastrianism split up the big islam block in the east but it would also mean that strong countries such as the Khwarazmian dynasty (which had a sunni muslim upperclass) would start of with public order problems and would not be able to steamroll to the west.

Kind regards,
Lex

[zsimmortal]

So you mean Miaphysitism right?

Miaphysitism is doctrine, not a church per se. Coptic Christians and Eastern Orthodox iirc follow Miaphysitism, but they'd fall in 'Eastern Christianity' for game purposes.

[jan_boruta]

jan,is there any chance to change Balkan rebels to South Slavic rebels ?

Rebels in Gascony and Navarre should be "Vascon" or "Wascon" rebels, not spanish or occitans as they are defined in the map.

Most of the rebel names are based on their geographical region and not ethnicity. In regards to Vascon rebels, I'm not sure if it's worth creating a rebel group for two regions (and if it's province-related, then I can't do anything about that fact.). So they're "Spanish" and "Occitan" not because of their genes but because they're in Spain and Languedoc. There are a few exceptions (Slavic, Turkish, Gaelic etc.), so I could think about it. There certainly is room for diversity but I'd have to investigate if it's region- or province-based.

In regards to Balkan rebels - again, it's about the region, not ethnicity. The rebels in Ragusa could be of Italian or Hungarian descent for example. I'd have to split the group into all the nationalities (Serbian/Bulgarian/Croatian) and that is a bit counterintuitive when a Slavic blob contains the Obotrites, Czechs and Poles for example, not to mention the German superblob which I probably should break down into smaller parts.

I also wanted all the rebel names to be distinctive, so when I have Turkish rebels, I have to keep Steppe rebels, and when I have Slavic rebels, I have to keep Balkan rebels. I could rename Turkish to Seljuk and Steppe to Turkic. Unless of course it's not an issue for anyone except for myself.

So yeah, a bigger look on rebel types could be good, but I'd need to get an opinion from Warman who most likely will be making all those factions and assigning them to regions in the startpos.

@FrozenmenSS: I'll move the Vlach rebels to Transylvania and remove them from Turnovo, good point.

I'd like climate change to be a bit more dynamic if possible - there's little impact from predictable changes as the player knows when they will happen and thus can prepare for them whereas the AI invariably fails to, at least in vanilla Attila.

Is there a way to script some climate events to be dynamic but based around historic events, like the plague events in SSHIP for M2?

There are scripted events in The Last Roman (plague and famine) that could be adapted for that. I don't think a few turns of changed fertility would upset the game that much. So for the effect to be pronounced, the climate would have to worsen a lot in the 14th century - but this brings forth the fact that not many people liked how inevitable the climate change in vanilla grand campaign was. It served little purpose except to force migration and pretty much prevented re-settlement of Europe. Personally I'm not a fan of it and use mods to lessen its effects. Maybe plagues could be made as event chains so they spread across larger areas? They could appear at historical dates, but having them at random dates could also be interesting, and increase the dynamic nature of the campaign.

Instead of making the the far east Islam focussed you should also focus on the remaining presence of Zoroastrian beliefs.

I can investigate that. Another vanilla religion that can just be re-used in the mod. But it will be a small minority, still.

Miaphysitism is doctrine, not a church per se. Coptic Christians and Eastern Orthodox iirc follow Miaphysitism, but they'd fall in 'Eastern Christianity' for game purposes.

This. The name for a religion should be overarching. I'd call the religion "Oriental Christian" or "Eastern Christian", to compliment the "Catholic Christian" and "Orthodox Christian" ones. It can't really be Coptic due to the minorities in Assyria which were largely Nestorian. It will be a tiny minority there, and there is no reason to make a separate religion for them, so they could be lumped with the more exotic Ethiopian variation. That way we don't have to invent a chain of unique buildings for them for achieving basically the same effect.

I'll take a look at those things (religion, rebels, fertility) sometime during the next week, got some other stuff on my plate right now.


EDIT: There is one big issue on my mind - the Kingdom of Arles. At this point it is included as a vassal of France, which is:
a) probably better for balance and to make France a viable faction
b) totally not historical
Arles was incorporated into the HRE in 11th century and the Emperors were crowned Kings of Arelat. Upper Burgundy (the parts with Dijon) came under French influence early enough to warrant Burgundy as a vassal of France from the game start, but the rest of Arles remained in Imperial hands until much later. The earliest (within the mod's time frame) territorial change is the cession of Provence to the house of Anjou in 1246, and other parts - such as Lyon and Dauphine - only were incorporated to France in mid-14th century. There are three ways I think:
1) keep Arles as a vassal of France for game balance
2) make Arles a vassal of the HRE, but with "same blood"/confederation trait as France
3) break Arles up into Provence and Dauphine - Provence a vassal of France, Dauphine a vassal of the HRE. This would necessitate the change of the name of the city of Lyon to Vienne or Grenoble. (or to rename Dauphine into Lyonnais, but I'm probably too lazy to make a new faction symbol)

I don't know, maybe I'm just stirring it unnecessarily, but it bothers me to no end.

Also, should Flanders start as a vassal of France?

[OutsiderKK]

I know it is complicated to name Turkic people. Because Turks are too widespread. If you ask me, Turkish and Steppe Rebels shouldn't be separate. If you call them both Turkic, it will be easier for you to choose units for them. At last, their armies probably will depend on Horse Archers

[Swarbs]

There are scripted events in The Last Roman (plague and famine) that could be adapted for that. I don't think a few turns of changed fertility would upset the game that much. So for the effect to be pronounced, the climate would have to worsen a lot in the 14th century - but this brings forth the fact that not many people liked how inevitable the climate change in vanilla grand campaign was. It served little purpose except to force migration and pretty much prevented re-settlement of Europe. Personally I'm not a fan of it and use mods to lessen its effects. Maybe plagues could be made as event chains so they spread across larger areas? They could appear at historical dates, but having them at random dates could also be interesting, and increase the dynamic nature of the campaign.

Oh I definitely disagree with an Attila style of inevitable fertility regression through climate change. I'd be more in favour of some minor long term changes and more aggressive short term changes.

So for the long term events maybe a -1 fertility to Europe around the early 1300s to reflect the mini ice age, but that doesn't occur on the same date, or indeed in every campaign if possible. Perhaps then also a chance that event will reverse itself in the future after 40-50 turns to add a bit of dynamism.

For the short term changes, maybe see fertility drop by -2 in a specific province or area of the map, but only for 5-6 turns. Basically give the player a message saying there has been a local famine or blight. They then have to choose between investing in boosting food production to try and fix the problem, or waiting for it to resolve itself and sucking up the malus to income, public order and army size. If it's only a short term event then it becomes more of a strategic challenge than an Attila style "oh look, time to build more farms as the game is about to needlessly punish me and break the AI"