Medieval Kingdoms Total War: Campaign Map Master Thread

[cloud700]

Thank you for this insight. You're partially right about the balance. The fact that the city is called Raqqa on the map is a combination of balance and proper geographical location. First, Aleppo is quite a bit more to the west than the city on the campaign map. And because of balance, I didn't want to give that city to the Ayyubids, instead I preferred to make another Muslim state have a bit more power, so all of them in the area have a fair chance at expansion. Also this means that the Zengids and the Crusaders share a border, so both have one more option for land-based trade or direct war. I think that leaving the map as it is right now is the best compromise between history and game balance, so it will likely stay as Raqqa - after all this city had a bit of a renaissance under the Zengids and later Ayyubids. In any case, I'll be renaming the Persian provinces as requested.

I agree with you because of having more balance to game play

[jan_boruta]

Updated the provinces map with renamed provinces:

Mesopotamia -> Iraq
Isfahan -> Iraq al-Ajam
Tabarestan -> Atharbaijan
Balochistan -> Makran wa Sistan (spelling?)

[wvatha]

Hello,

I wish you guys good luck on this mod.

But I like to give some advise if I may. As Circassian I must warn you about Alania and Circassian regions. I try to fix on your map real regions.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Alania should be in the center of Caucasus and Circassians must be near Black see as free faction. Circassians free state counqured around 1230-1240 by Mongols. It is more historical that Circassians should start as a stating faction. They fight agains Mongols with their neighbour factions.

https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alania...ania_10_12.png

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

[jan_boruta]

It is not possible to do that, simply because where you want to move Alania, there is the Georgian capital. The cities in the regions in the Caucasus have all their settlements south of the mountains. Mtskheta = Tbilisi in the mod. Therefore, because I cannot move anything south, I cannot make Circassia a starting faction because it would remove Alania altogether, and would break Cuman lands in two halves and that would make life for them a bit too hard. Circassians are likely to emerge in the beginning of the game though, as I suspect the Cumans will face some public order problems. In the end, I am not moving anything, current situation is the only way I can include all the factions in the region.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[FrozenmenSS]

Please stop with ideas, lol. I am not adding any more factions. You yourself considered the maps done a few pages ago.

Crusading hordes make little sense because they could settle and create a country called "5th Crusade". They would have to have a separate culture group to change their occupation options so they could only sack or claim land for their parent factions like in Last Roman. Too much work for too little gain.

Iconion is going to stay.

I see and understand about the logic about the proposed idea for the 5th Crusade.Maybe can be added at a later Time after the release of the mod.

Now I considered the starting factions map to be done a few post earlier,before I found that Hamburg was in the hands of Denmark in 1212ad and After giving Rhodes to Nicaea we can give the city Cyzicus to the Latins to show their historic expansion into Asia minor in 1211 after Battle of the Rhyndacus.I know that the region was for Nicaea due to the balancing purpose,but due to the Diplomatic relationships and the wars between the factions in the area it is the Latins that are the underdogs in the situation in 1212ad.

Edit:I just Found Another Mistake with the starting Factions map.Holstein in northern Germany and Hamburg were under the rule of Denmark from 1202-1227ad. in the Map now its For Saxony,but give it to Denmark.So now Denmark Got 4 Regions and Saxony 1 region.


Valdemar II of Denmark raided and occupied Hamburg in 1201 and in 1214 Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor declined all claims of property northern of the river Elbe. Hamburg was controlled by Denmark. The Danish governor united the new and the old parts of Hamburg under one law, town hall and court. A series of Danish defeats culminating in the Battle of Bornhöved on 22 July 1227 cemented the loss of Denmark's northern German territories and liberated Hamburg also. Hamburg submitted to Adolf IV of Holstein.




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


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...3%B6ved_(1227)




Second Edit:Now that Rhodes is in th Hands of the Nicaea - you can give the Latin Empire the city of Cyzicus Simulate the Latin Empire's Asia Minor Holdings since the 1204ad. The Region Also will help the Defense of Constantinople who is pretty much isolated region of the Latins in the Balkans.Also the city of Cyzicus as land and naval pathfinding will help the Latins guarding the Dardanels straits - I know it was Nicaean because of Balancing.


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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...yndacus_(1211)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty...mphaeum_(1214) just confirms their holdings for the next 10 years.

With this Im stoping of the changes in all maps. Even if there is something like minor wrongly placed region I wont report it.I know that after a time it becomes tedious so Im stopping here.

[jan_boruta]

I was actually thinking about that after I played Knights of Honor recently... I don't know if it was in base game or a mod, but the Latin Empire started there with only Thracia, and Athens + Thesallonica were on the map and Latin vassals. So it started to bug me that maybe it could be done like that in the mod, take both Morea and Thessalonica out of emergent status and place them on the map as Latin vassals. The Latins would still have Constantinople and Philippopolis, and give Cyzicus to the Latins as you say it (but it would be a Nicean core, so they could be liberated there). That would make the Latins both weaker and stronger, and Nicaea would face a bigger challenge, as it probably should.

I am unsure about giving Hamburg to Denmark. I don't want them to overpower Sweden too much in the beginning of the game. I could do that, but as I said - I'm unsure yet. I'll give it some thought, I'm not opposed to it.

But yeah, those should be the last-last-last changes to the map. What needs to be done more are changes to religion map - to include Eastern Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism on the map and change some minorities here and there according to the notes I've been taking in the thread.

[FrozenmenSS]

I was actually thinking about that after I played Knights of Honor recently... I don't know if it was in base game or a mod, but the Latin Empire started there with only Thracia, and Athens + Thesallonica were on the map and Latin vassals. So it started to bug me that maybe it could be done like that in the mod, take both Morea and Thessalonica out of emergent status and place them on the map as Latin vassals. The Latins would still have Constantinople and Philippopolis, and give Cyzicus to the Latins as you say it (but it would be a Nicean core, so they could be liberated there). That would make the Latins both weaker and stronger, and Nicaea would face a bigger challenge, as it probably should.

I am unsure about giving Hamburg to Denmark. I don't want them to overpower Sweden too much in the beginning of the game. I could do that, but as I said - I'm unsure yet. I'll give it some thought, I'm not opposed to it.

But yeah, those should be the last-last-last changes to the map. What needs to be done more are changes to religion map - to include Eastern Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism on the map and change some minorities here and there according to the notes I've been taking in the thread.

this was my original proposal about it before the rollback for the latins.There were a lot of inner shady moves by the Lombard nobles in Thessalonika vs the Latins in Constantinople and so on. Do it. this way you as the latins will face also bad vassals.This will also help epirus to stand on its ground a bit more. The Family trees for those 2 new factions is easy to transfer from the Original Latin that I created.

For Denmark the problem is HRE is the powerhouse in the region not Denmark.So Sweden will be wiped out if not by denmark, then by HRE.

Edit: Infact you can do the same as for Moldova and Wallachia - but vassals to the Bulgarians.The bulgarians already got 1 horse archer unit from the Cummans to simulate their horsmanship in the Bulgarian army.This will also make the Cummans and Bulgarian CAI more consolidated on their long line of hard to defend regions.Also Bulgari and the latin empire are equals now - 3 regions + 2 vassals(+ 1 for latins - Trebizond). Personally I cant see the Cummans to survive at this long line of undefinable regions for the first 50 turns. Also this way will make Serbia's start in the campaign easier in the war Bulgaria. you know how some Romanian players wanted Romanian factions to be on the campaign from before the rollback. This is the only way to do it for them.

[jan_boruta]

Wallachia I think is justified, but what about Moldavia? I am genuinely green in that matter, but I wouldn't want to include the factions there as starting ones if they didn't have some sort of self-governance at that point in time. If anything, I wouldn't add Moldavia as Bulgarian vassal, but I would definitely do so with Wallachia - just to represent that Bulgarians had some sort of influence north of the Danube, but without overextending their reach. If I add Moldavia, then as a Cuman client state to keep the impression that they travelled very far west.

Adding Wallachia will also tingle my personal preference, as I would love Wallachia to be playable n the future. :p

And this is probably the point about the Cumans not being able to hold everything at the game start - it could be the mod's Western Rome, with the player forced to make sacrifices in order to survive.

[FrozenmenSS]

Wallachia I think is justified, but what about Moldavia? I am genuinely green in that matter, but I wouldn't want to include the factions there as starting ones if they didn't have some sort of self-governance at that point in time. If anything, I wouldn't add Moldavia as Bulgarian vassal, but I would definitely do so with Wallachia - just to represent that Bulgarians had some sort of influence north of the Danube, but without overextending their reach. If I add Moldavia, then as a Cuman client state to keep the impression that they travelled very far west.

Adding Wallachia will also tingle my personal preference, as I would love Wallachia to be playable n the future. :p

And this is probably the point about the Cumans not being able to hold everything at the game start - it could be the mod's Western Rome, with the player forced to make sacrifices in order to survive.

Well they had the medieval Bulgarian state governing apparatus.The local elites tried to copy the Bulgarian culture until the 1390s and from then on went into шheir owns separate ways.They used in the churches old medieval Bulgarian until the 1800s,used the Cyrillic alphabet until the 1800s. Now for historically documented characters Im not qualified to say on 100%.But their administration and influenced culture was in the Bulgarian control of political influence.The control of Bulgaria in Moldova ended with the arrival of the Mongols/Golden horde in the 1240s and in the early 1300s Bulgaria regained their vassals north of the danube (in Moldova only Bessarabia.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8agot1wGwU

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[jan_boruta]

Thanks, I'll think about it. I could add both factions, but as I said - being vassals to Bulgaria and the Cumans for balance and some sort of diversity. Mostly because I don't want to cut off Hungary from a possible conflict with the Cumans through Moldavia.

Now, a bigger fish - and it's a question to Warman directly, as well as to everyone else. I was also wondering about the other part of the map: Britain, mostly about faction naming.

First: Ireland. Question is whether it'll be an abstract Kingdom of Ireland - for which I could make an icon with a harp, or as it is now - the Lordship of Ireland, in close relations with England, with the symbol being the three crowns.

Second: Wales. It is the Kingdom of Gwynedd right now. Should it be an abstract Kingdom of Wales? I would keep the current icon though.

Third: England. I was thinking that England should get Colchester as its second city in the mainland, because of one simple thing - maritime trade. Without a port they would only be able to trade with the Earldoms, which could only be resolved through war with them or conquering Wales. For a moment I thought that maybe I could compensate that by making Aquitaine a starting faction and a vassal of England, but it passed directly to the Crown after the death of Eleanor, so that's not possible. Thoughts on that?

Fourth: English Earldoms. They are unique on the campaign map, responding to a unique situation, but they are kind of a big amorphous blob. I wonder if it could be broken up into smaller earldoms, all vassals of England? Two parts at least? Or maybe we could just rename the Earldoms into something less blob-sounding if that's at all possible? My point is that all the vassals for other factions are very defined, like Dauphine, Burgundy or Croatia, while the Earldoms sound a bit vague in that context. As I said, this is a question mainly to Warman, as Earldoms are his idea, so I wouldn't want to step on his toes here... But I think this region of the map could be made a tiny bit more interesting!

[Ltd.]

Wallachia I think is justified, but what about Moldavia? I am genuinely green in that matter, but I wouldn't want to include the factions there as starting ones if they didn't have some sort of self-governance at that point in time. If anything, I wouldn't add Moldavia as Bulgarian vassal, but I would definitely do so with Wallachia - just to represent that Bulgarians had some sort of influence north of the Danube, but without overextending their reach. If I add Moldavia, then as a Cuman client state to keep the impression that they travelled very far west.

Adding Wallachia will also tingle my personal preference, as I would love Wallachia to be playable n the future. :p

And this is probably the point about the Cumans not being able to hold everything at the game start - it could be the mod's Western Rome, with the player forced to make sacrifices in order to survive.

Well, I'm sure we could put together a solid wallachian roster But I' d need some resources to work with, at least for our early period. For the high and late era I have got sources for both wallachians and moldavians. For the early I guess some light - medium armored spearmen, light - medium melee cavalry, , javelinmen, archers, cuman HA mercenaries and then a Knyaz heavy cavalry / bodyguard unit would give the Romanian players a good base to form an empire. I have a few wallachian units done already, but for now , those are for the high era and serve as mercenaries and AOR units. If we end up making a wallachian roster, then they can be incorporated.

[Caucasian Iberia]

Hello,

I wish you guys good luck on this mod.

But I like to give some advise if I may. As Circassian I must warn you about Alania and Circassian regions. I try to fix on your map real regions.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Alania should be in the center of Caucasus and Circassians must be near Black see as free faction. Circassians free state counqured around 1230-1240 by Mongols. It is more historical that Circassians should start as a stating faction. They fight agains Mongols with their neighbour factions.

https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alania...ania_10_12.png

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

If you are Caucasian than you should probably know that Alans were not in southern Caucasus until 19-20th centuries.
Second of all Alans had most powerful Kingdom in the north Caucasus during medieval times.
The place you pointed as Alans territories is Kartli, Gori Region.
But i agree that Circassians must be emergent faction in the territory of Alania.

[jan_boruta]

They can't be for one simple reason - if Circassians emerge in the territory of Alania, then Alania could be removed forever and not liberated again, since only one faction can be assigned to a region as a "core" in which it can persist after being defeated. So if you'd want both factions to be present on the map at the same time, they have to have different regions as "core".

[FrozenmenSS]

Now that you already making another change to the starting positions you can rename the faction Volga Bulgars to Volga Bulgaria or Volgo Kama Bulgaria.The Name Volga Bulgars hints to the uneducated player that this faction doesn't have state of their own and the faction is some kind low developed tribal organisation. In fact it was the other way around.It was the most developed nation in northern Europe controlling the northern silk and silver trade routes.

You can also make Holstein to be in the campaign with Denmark's vassal if you think Denmark is being OP in the region.

[wvatha]

If you are Caucasian than you should probably know that Alans were not in southern Caucasus until 19-20th centuries.
Second of all Alans had most powerful Kingdom in the north Caucasus during medieval times.
The place you pointed as Alans territories is Kartli, Gori Region.
But i agree that Circassians must be emergent faction in the territory of Alania.

I know that. But They were never near the Blacksea. Circassians were lived there. They mainly stay in the center of Caucasus. I don't have much info about Attilla regions and I guess there are no right regoin for the real Alans lands. Circassians state was free state until around 1240 till Mongol invasion.

[Vainakh]

I know that. But They were never near the Blacksea. Circassians were lived there. They mainly stay in the center of Caucasus. I don't have much info about Attilla regions and I guess there are no right regoin for the real Alans lands. Circassians state was free state until around 1240 till Mongol invasion.

The reason they do it like this is cause Alania was present at the time and was the most influential kingdom in North Caucasus and in this game, there is no way to mod the map. You can look at where the Teutonic Knights are placed, and you can see that is very wrong placement as well, but it is done for gameplay purposes. And Circassians are put as an emergent faction above where they should be in reality so they could include Alania, and as to not split the Cumans in 2 at once which wouldn't help much gameplay wise.
Be happy they are at least included friend.
And also, Circassia was never a state, it was just the land of the many different Circassian tribes, and they didn't surrender to the Mongols either like the rest of the Caucasians

[FrozenmenSS]

You can also make the Emergent faction Gascony as vassal of England as it's historically correct and make Flanders vassal of France.

This way England will have 3 core(including the port city in East England for the trading reasons) regions and 4 from vassals .France - 3 core regions and 3 from vassals.

France can start with bigger Armies than the English ones in Western France to balance the 2 waging war factions.

[jan_boruta]

It would be weird to have a faction called Toulouse without the city of Toulouse, wouldn't it. That's what making Gascony placed on the map would mean. So far Warman agreed to giving England the city of Colchester so it has a trading port. I doubt Flanders will be vassalised, just so there is a rare instance of an independent one faction minor in the west. It'll have strong ties to France nonetheless.

[Olligarchy]

Here are my opinions on this stuff. Hope I'm not too much off the mark...

Now, a bigger fish - and it's a question to Warman directly, as well as to everyone else. I was also wondering about the other part of the map: Britain, mostly about faction naming.

First: Ireland. Question is whether it'll be an abstract Kingdom of Ireland - for which I could make an icon with a harp, or as it is now - the Lordship of Ireland, in close relations with England, with the symbol being the three crowns.

I'd say given the situation in Ireland the at the time the Harp would be more fitting... English dominance hasn't yet really stuck and a substantial part of the island still remains under control of the regional Kings. Maybe call it "Kingdoms of Ireland" to strike home on the situation at the time.

Second: Wales. It is the Kingdom of Gwynedd right now. Should it be an abstract Kingdom of Wales? I would keep the current icon though.

Call it the Principality of Wales and make it a vassal similar to the Earls mentioned.

Third: England. I was thinking that England should get Colchester as its second city in the mainland, because of one simple thing - maritime trade. Without a port they would only be able to trade with the Earldoms, which could only be resolved through war with them or conquering Wales. For a moment I thought that maybe I could compensate that by making Aquitaine a starting faction and a vassal of England, but it passed directly to the Crown after the death of Eleanor, so that's not possible. Thoughts on that?

Yes. If London can't be made coastal for gameplay purposes, Colchester as a royal port should work nicely. Making Aquitaine a vassal as well will balance things out nicely and represent the English realm being rather disjointed at the time.

Fourth: English Earldoms. They are unique on the campaign map, responding to a unique situation, but they are kind of a big amorphous blob. I wonder if it could be broken up into smaller earldoms, all vassals of England? Two parts at least? Or maybe we could just rename the Earldoms into something less blob-sounding if that's at all possible? My point is that all the vassals for other factions are very defined, like Dauphine, Burgundy or Croatia, while the Earldoms sound a bit vague in that context. As I said, this is a question mainly to Warman, as Earldoms are his idea, so I wouldn't want to step on his toes here... But I think this region of the map could be made a tiny bit more interesting!

If at all possible maybe divide them up into the regions like York/Northern Barons, Mercia/Midlands and Southern Barons/Wessex&Cornwall. That way you can really have things like "Northern Barons" rebelling, as opposed to the entire country being up at arms. This does leave them a wee bit weak though and runs the risk of the King just annexing the lot of them in a series of quick wars, but maybe give them all an alliance with each other, or some other mechanic to represent their dislike for royal supremacy?

[FrozenmenSS]

It would be weird to have a faction called Toulouse without the city of Toulouse, wouldn't it. That's what making Gascony placed on the map would mean. So far Warman agreed to giving England the city of Colchester so it has a trading port. I doubt Flanders will be vassalised, just so there is a rare instance of an independent one faction minor in the west. It'll have strong ties to France nonetheless.

ya it makes sense. And I'm on the same page as Oligarchy for the factions in Britain.

I have been thinking the same, but it needs doing some new factional emblems.