Medieval Kingdoms Total War: Campaign Map Master Thread

[jan_boruta]

I'll do the new emblem for Ireland - I reckon that simply because of the harp symbol, there would be an incentive to build an Irish Empire.
I'll probably also do a new one for Wales, as this one is specifically for Gwynedd. Just what would it be? Go with the dragon as it is everywhere?

In regards to English Earldoms, the issue probably can be dropped. When Colchester is given to England, the Earldoms are left with three regions - breaking them up would make probably them a bit too weak against neighbours. That, and Warman wasn't really fond of the idea to break them up.

[Olligarchy]

Sounds good on the Ireland and English earls issue.

For Wales, the Coat of Arms of Wales remained the same as Llywelyn at this point, so if they are represented as an English vassal the arms should be:

If they're independent, the Dragon heraldry should take precedence.

[FrozenmenSS]

I tried to read more about the rebellion in 1211 or 1213 in Bdin/Vidin in the Nish region and there was some support from Serbia to the rebels.Now that we know the magyars were paid with Belgrade region for crushing the rebellion so indirectly its justified Serbia can start the campaign at war both with Hungary and Bulgaria.

This will help the Serbian AI and player to capture Belgrade faster and to get shorter travel speed between Nish and the Serbian capital.But Serbia have to get a second army in their capital.

Also for Hungary I read that there were a lot of peseant rebellions in the 1210s in their homeland. So this can nerf them in the early game.

So with this all factions in the Balkans and Asia Minor will be fighting on 2 or 3 fronts.Who backstabs the most wins the early game.

[SerbianWOLF]

War with Bulgaria and Hungary seems ahistorical at the start. In year 1212 Serbia was at peace. War against Serbia probably begun in 1214. So no war but relations between Serbia-Hungary; Serbia-Bulgaria; Serbia-Epirus should be bad and could quickly lead to war.

[jan_boruta]

If anything, I'd personally limit the amount of initial wars to 1 per small faction and maximum 2 for larger factions. Too many possible objectives and directions would be confusing - most likely both to AI and the player. Having one initial war feels like a very defined "first" objective to complete, and serves as an introduction to the faction's feel and unit selection.

With how the AI works in the game, everyone will end up fighting everyone sooner rather than later, but such chaos starting in turn 0 is just bad design.

[FrozenmenSS]

War with Bulgaria and Hungary seems ahistorical at the start. In year 1212 Serbia was at peace. War against Serbia probably begun in 1214. So no war but relations between Serbia-Hungary; Serbia-Bulgaria; Serbia-Epirus should be bad and could quickly lead to war.

Well we concluded that before the rollback Nish to be region for Serbia due to the support of Strez from the serbs in years 1207/9 and that Strez gave Nish to the serbs vs Boril Asen in Bulgaria in his usurpation of the throne.So this in the rules of the medieval times ment war.Also the reports that Serbs helped the Rebellion of Bulgarian nobles vs Boril in Bdin in 1211 or 1213 (1 source says 1 of the dates the other the other) that probably was the same war between Serbia and Boril .And The rebelion was crushed from the magyars and for doing this they were payed with the bulgarian held Belgrade and Branichevo Regions. The later formed coalition in 1214 tried to take Nish from the Serbs but due to infighting Latins and Bulgarians couldn't take Nish.

Edit: I said "justified" Hungary to be at war with Serbia due to crushing of the nobles in Bdin , supported by Serbia. Here due to this speculation both Serbia being at war with Hungary or not is both valid and right. It's to the Mod team to decide.
But the war between Serbia and Bulgaria haven't stopped until 1214.

[FrozenmenSS]

If anything, I'd personally limit the amount of initial wars to 1 per small faction and maximum 2 for larger factions. Too many possible objectives and directions would be confusing - most likely both to AI and the player. Having one initial war feels like a very defined "first" objective to complete, and serves as an introduction to the faction's feel and unit selection.

With how the AI works in the game, everyone will end up fighting everyone sooner rather than later, but such chaos starting in turn 0 is just bad design.

I don't see it as bad design.I see that the chaos in 1212 with the wars will make the starting early campaign a total fun.Each start will be different and tons of replayability due to AI acting in each 10 first turns. We all know the feeling when you are the last surviving Rat in the sack full of rats who killed the others.It feels good. And will show the depth of the diplomacy in the Balkan-Asia Minor area.And the tactics from the player to prioritise the expansion in what direction in the first 20 turns will bring tons of fun in each start of the campaign. And in each campaign the AI factions surviving in the region will be always unique as combination.

Bad design is dumb down the wars.

1 of the reasons for the starting units to be 50 or 75% heath is also a good dilemma - do I rush or turtle vs the AI and replenish my units, that will camp at the start due to if it attacks it have to beat also the player's garrison and from taking casualties a faction after battle can loose some units.

[jan_boruta]

I don't see it as bad design.I see that the chaos in 1212 with the wars will make the starting early campaign a total fun.

I assure you that in this chaos everyone will get eliminated within a few turns after starting the campaign and a torrent of posts calling the mod "unplayable" because of broken diplomacy at the start of the game. I do not see grind and fighting multiple AI stacks from different factions coming in a sequence to kill you in one turn (as the AI very often targets the player and forgets about everyone else) as "fun" - maybe only in extreme cases like West Rome. Moderation and careful approach is - I think - the best course of action. Use the sources as basis, but balance the starting situation afterwards so everyone has a chance of survival and a few open paths in front of them. Not a sea of enemies from the first minute that you can't possibly beat. I understand that some people see frustration as fun - I am not such a person and in regards to starting diplomacy, I would be trying to balance things between total recreation of history and design that treats both the AI and the player fairly.

This is becoming a mountain from a molehill though - in the end I severly doubt any faction would start at war with more than two other factions. Just wanted to point out that I'm not a slave to totally correct re-creation. There has to be some room for creativity.

[phoenix[illusion]]

Balcania as province?
Belgrade as important city?
zeta is totally wrongly placed
ragusa/venice holding half of bosnia and part of serbia?
this map needs serious edit concerning west balkans

[jan_boruta]

Go ahead, make my day.

[The Outsider]

Go ahead, make my day.

Mate you cant make everyone happy. No one said it will be 100 % correct. Im just glad that you guys are working on this and working so hard for no profit what so ever. Some of us still appricete things that you guys do so please dont worry about satisfying everyone. If people wnat to edit names of regions and cities, they can do it themselves.

[jan_boruta]

What amuses me the most is that no one ever said "This map needs a serious edit concerning Poland".

And Paris on the Loire river is totally okay.

[warman222]

Seriously, I swear we've done this same debate about the Balkans at least 3 times now. The Balkans are not gonna be as accurate as other parts of the map due to how regions are divided in that region in vanilla. You guys really need to get over it now, cause I'm sick of going around in circles every 3 weeks when another Serbian, Bulgarian and/or Bosnian member comes out of the blue to say the same damn stuff after the debate ended. WE KNOW, but our hands are tied!

[KAM 2150]

What amuses me the most is that people seem totally oblivious about basic modding limitations of past few games, after so many years of warscape....and it amuses me even more when a modder, who should understand it above all others, is still oblivious to this basic knowledge.

[Garibaldinisssa]

Your hands are tied but in my opinion this is the best possible map you can do. Great job guys.
I have a question regarding cities : can you be able to change the "capital" of a Province ? For exemple could you change Paris as the Francia capital instead of Dijon ?

I check your works every weak, I'm very impatient about the release, potentially the best mod of the new TW generation, keep going

[FrozenmenSS]

Your hands are tied but in my opinion this is the best possible map you can do. Great job guys.
I have a question regarding cities : can you be able to change the "capital" of a Province ? For exemple could you change Paris as the Francia capital instead of Dijon ?

I check your works every weak, I'm very impatient about the release, potentially the best mod of the new TW generation, keep going

Nope.No1 can.Only CA can do it.

[jan_boruta]

I am going to post an update to the starting factions map in a while - when I do new symbols for Ireland and Wales - and I'm double-checking all the city names in the meantime. A few quick dilemmas I wanted to get some feedback on. It doesn't mean I am going to change the names on a whim, I simply want to learn more and make it accurate or more relevant to the map where possible. Apart from that I am not changing faction ownership.

On the left is the current name. On the right is the dilemma. In brackets is my reasoning why I'm asking.

Narbonne <-> Montpellier (both important, but Montpellier has the edge of being tolerant to religious minorities like Cathars, and having education established around the mod's start)

Marseille <-> Arles (both important, but that settlement is not a port - it's a few inches away off the coast. Marseille sounds dumb without a port)

Valencia <-> Cuenca (Cuenca is in the right geographical spot, while Valencia should be on the coast. The flip side is that Cuenca was conquered by Castile in 1180's, while Valencia was in Muslim hands at that point. Plus, Valencia is really iconic. Probably the most painful settlement placement after Paris)

Iasi <-> Suceava (cosmetic change)

Sisak <-> Zagreb (conflicting requests from a few Croatians on the forums - please resolve this dispute)

Belgrade <-> Severin <-> other city name or simply Nandorfehervar (aimed at those disenchanted by Belgrade. Severin is on the other side of the Danube, but I find that name fun and refreshing)

Ragusa <-> Zara or Zadar (cosmetic change, but perhaps Zara is more relevant to both Venice and Croatia? This change would remove the emergent faction of Ragusa. It's also a province contested by both Venice and Croatia, so I'd like to resolve this dispute once and for all. For the time being it stays with Venice.)

[FrozenmenSS]

1)Im for Belgrade because it all of its history the city and the region was the gateway to the Balkans from Central Europe and vice versa. The name of the city is used as the dominant one since the early 9th century at least till to the present day.Since Augustus' reign till the present day the region was the gateway of central Europe. .Also the Ottoman invasion of central Europe started with the foll of Belgrade. Severin was important for its time.There a couple of big conflicts between Bulgaria and Hungary for Severin but that's about it. It's in Southern Romania and not in the Belgrade region.

2) Both Iasi and Suceava are OK names. Suceava was the first capital of Moldova and Iasi the second one.So here I'm for Suceava.

3)Im for Zadar due to its importance. The city was sacked by the 4th crusade but it recovered after that.

4)I'm for Valencia due to the reason I prefer to be in muslim hands.The lack of port is understandable but the Muslims needs some help because they are hated by the cristians in Europe.

[Ltd.]

Regarding Suceava - Iasi : In my opinion Suceava would fit better as it is closely tied with the name Stephen the Great , Stefan cel Mare in romanian, a highly esteemed ruler in the late era of our mod's timeframe, and who would prove to be quite a thorn in the side of the Hungarian King Matthias. And as we have King Matthias spawn in the late era, would be nice to have Stephen the Great as well.
Also Iasi came to be of major importance somewhat later.
My two cents.
Though romanian players might be of a different opinion of course.

[Scaevola]

What amuses me the most is that no one ever said "This map needs a serious edit concerning Poland".

And Paris on the Loire river is totally okay.

Poland is totally messed up. You need to rework it from scratch!!!!!!1111