Medieval European Mod II Preview

[St Exupère]

embryoedead,

I like the idea of giving Toulouse to Aragon. It's good also from the gameplay perspective - first, because Aragon is very weak in that scenario, and second, because it would promote conflict with France, and conflict is good!

I saw that you were trying to re-balance the iberian peninsula to the disadvantage of the Moors; letting Aragon have Toulouse and maybe Portugal re-conquer Liboa slightly sooner than real can be one way. The Franks will have to work hard vs Aragon, England and Burgundy in order to conquer a "strategic homeland" but then they have 3 cities in Brittany from the start which gives them depth. Unless they face an anti-Frankish alliance they should prevail and become the leaders of Western Europe, which is of course what happened historically.

For the same reason I'd prefer Rouen staying with England. I don't see a problem with London being the capital - after all soon after the conquest the focus shifted there, and by the time of Henry I, Normandy was the possession of the English King, native to England, not the other way around.

This is correct, I was just pointing out that very soon after England ceased to be a colony of Normandy and when it became the other way around - then the Franks moved into that political vacuum and Normandy was French forever after. Any human player of the Franks would never let Rouen to the English more than a few turns, however what will the AI do?

Regarding Burgundy - the base for the scenario is the main mod, whose time line is 700-1550 AD. But even that 11th century scenario's time line is 1075-1550, e.g. it skips the first era in the mod. In other words I didn't mean it as a scenario about 11th century, but a scenario that starts in 11th century and goes way into the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance. For this reason it includes Tatars and Burgundy. Unlike with say, Teutonic Knights, there is a basis for including them in 11th century at least - Burgundy did exist, just not as an independent power, and so did the Turco-Mongol tribes of Asian Steppes.

I understand the dilemna of having a mod start in 700, and the scenario of that mod 4 centuries later.

I know the idea of the old Kingdom of Burgundy mixed with the later Duchy's possessions is fishy, but it seemed the most feasible solution, and still much less unhistorical when compared to Burgundy in the original Middle Ages Conquests... There's also no other major European player there (Flanders = 1 city), and Burgundy is ready-to-use in the basic mod.

Understood, I pointed out that removing Burgundy would create a vacuum and that filling it would not be easy (Flanders, Genoa/Savoy, Occitania come to mind but they are either too small or not anymore "convincing" than Burgundy, or both).

As far as the identity goes, there's no claim that later Burgundians are some people distinct from the French. "Civs" in MEM are not nations/people, but sovereign states or ruling dynasties, so for instance, there are 3 Russian "civs" in that scenario.

Well... this could be debated at length. I am in no way trying to pretend that MEM civs should match contemporary peoples or Nations along strict ethnic or cultural lines. In some cases (Aragon, Portugal, Castilla, Moors for instance) the identity, historical, cultural clashes are perfect for gameplay while in other cases (Franks, Burgundians) they are much less.

Anyway, this was just a personal thought in case this had been debated between the authors of the mod/scen.

Good luck for your work, cannot wait to play it.

 

[Wolfhart]

This is true, even though out of all the Germanic peoples that we know of the Burgundians are probably one of the smallest in numbers; they got trashed and traumatised by the Huns, then repeatedly beaten and submitted by the Franks, and indeed assimilated. The laws forbidding (to their nobility only) mixed-mariages were suppressed by the Church in the IXth century.


There is some ground, more so in 600 than in 1100. I was focusing mainly on the scenario here. Your comparison with the Goths is somewhat valid within the "Frankish realm" in the High Middle-Ages, however it is not if you broaden the scope, the influence of the Goths being much much greater on the continent that that of the Burgundians.

I agree on all points. It's good to see other people knowing their way around the various gentes of the era of the Great Migrations.
Hopefully someday there will be a new Civ scenario starting in the 5th century so that we get to play the downfall of Western Rome; perhaps then the Burgundians may fight off Huns, Franks and Goths, and rewrite the history of Europe. I wish them all the luck; I will be busy leading my slow but brave Gepids against Constantinople after I've cast off the Hunnish yoke and annihilated the Unshaven Ones.

But I do agree with Ed about Burgundy having its place in MEM, it is too important later on to be excluded.

 

[Yoda Power]

I'm experimenting a bit with the Byz/Bul/Serb cities. Here they are listed cronologically from top to buttom. I'm just modifying Aions work, not going to make a whole new set and there's not a great change between each age. I like the late one the best, but I'm a bit worried it's too unhistorical.

 

[rifleman]

I think they look good. Besides the 'first' set actually has the smaller macedonian era churches - and no Haghia Sophia types. Even though the Haghia Sophia came first.

I don't see it as a problem.

What has you worried about the 'last' set? The blue domes?

 

[utahjazz7]

As for myself, I'm not partial to the blue domes.

 

[TopGun]

Yeah, the blue distracts me somewhat...

 

[aaglo]

Hey,
I like the blue domes - I've understood that this blue colour is used a lot in the mediterranean area...

If people think they stand out too much, then how about making them a bit lighter?

 

[St Exupère]

I agree on all points. It's good to see other people knowing their way around the various gentes of the era of the Great Migrations.

Wolfhart, you probably know much more than I do about this truly fascinating period.

Hopefully someday there will be a new Civ scenario starting in the 5th century so that we get to play the downfall of Western Rome; perhaps then the Burgundians may fight off Huns, Franks and Goths, and rewrite the history of Europe. I wish them all the luck; I will be busy leading my slow but brave Gepids against Constantinople after I've cast off the Hunnish yoke and annihilated the Unshaven Ones.

That would indeed be great; however the in-game feeling might be tough to render since it was times of migrations, of changes, of nomads more than one of empires/kingdoms/nations fighting off a war of positions. Civ3 is a lot about building, capitalizing, holding on and conquering further. Difficult to imagine all these Germanic tribes gradualling leaving their Scandinavian (for instance) settlements, moving to several places, fighting, organizing some sort of transitional ordered society, then leaving again to end up elsewhere. It would require a lot of modding imagination to convince the civ3 AI to change its capital city 3 times during the game, and moving 80% of its population from one side of the continent to the other... but could be worth a try!

 

[St Exupère]

On Byzantian-style city graphics: stunning work!
Maybe the difference between 2nd and 3rd era is not marked enough though; esthetically I think the blue of the 4th era is great.

 

[Yoda Power]

Ok, so people are split about the blue domes. I want to hear ED's oppinion before I change anything, but I could easily make them red instead, which wouldn't make them stand out as much.

 

[Mirc]

Actually, I like the blue too.

Edit: Crosspost!

 

[Kyriakos]

The cities look nice.
Imo you should erase Hangar 18 in the final set though

 

[Yoda Power]

That's not a hangar, that's one of Aions greek buildings.

 

[Keroro]

Wow, lots of talk about the Blue. It is commonly used in Greece - I've seen villages that look more blue than white in my trips there. I tried to find a pic, but only really found this.

Look here.

Maybe make the blue a bit lighter?

EDIT - Just realised - my 1000th post, and it's a cross post.

 

[Kyriakos]

I know, but it looks like one

 

[Virote_Considon]

I think the blue is great!

 

[Yoda Power]

But was blue common in the middle ages too?

 

[aaglo]

I think blue was common in the ancient era, and it's common today too.
Based on these claims, I'd think you would be pretty safe to say it was common in the middle ages too

 

[St Exupère]

I know that the colour blue was very much used by the Byzantine and Middle-Age Europe in general for clothing, iconography and art at large. There was an entire corporation revolving around pastel, later indigo (Renaissance).
See for instance: http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/byzantium/

On buildings I do not know; on the last painting in the page linked above, which is a European fictional work of art post-1453, the Byzantine castle is represented with a blue roof...

 

[Mirc]

I know that the colour blue was very much used by the Byzantine and Middle-Age Europe in general for clothing, iconography and art at large. There was an entire corporation revolving around pastel, later indigo (Renaissance).
See for instance: http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/byzantium/

On buildings I do not know; on the last painting in the page linked above, which is a European fictional work of art post-1453, the Byzantine castle is represented with a blue roof...

Blue was a very common Byzantine color, and is to me the symbol of north-eastern mediterranean. Also it is extremely used in Orthodox denomination of Christianity. In Romania a lot of Byzantine-rite monasteries (that now are mainstream orthodox) have a lot of blue. Ever heard of the Painted Monastery of Voronet? (built only 30 years after the fall of Byzantium...)