[Preview] Throne and Altar: A Medieval Mod

[Half Fast]

Just for the heck of it I found some examples.
http://www.knightsedge.com/images/friedrich-armor-6220.jpg
http://www.knightsandarmor.com/chainmailknight.jpg
http://www.clevelandart.org/Kids/armor/images/horse.jpg

 

[Robo Magic Man]

I believe there are barbarian cities in South Italy. Barbarian cities don't show up on the mini-map so there are some other areas that look empty too that really have something. Also, the reason the Papal States would be removed is to free up one of the 18 slots for another civ. So adding Tuscany or something would defeat the point of removing the Papal States.

I understand that the reason for civ editing is based on the number of civs, but the people of southern Italy wouldn't be considered barbarians. They weren't even tribal, but instead had kingdoms and duchies like every other christian European power. And, they took more action as kingdoms than the Papal States did, considering the Papal States were basically just an area to house the Pope and clergy.
If other people (especially Arbitrary Guy) disagree with me, then obviously the mod shouldn't be changed just based on one person's opinion, and I wouldn't take offense if my ideas were disregarded. However, once the mod is released, I'll probably personally mod it to add some sort of Italian non-Papal civ.

Btw, any idea when the mod will be released, AG? It looks really great

 

[Gunner]

Barbarian in this scenario doesn't mean "barbarian" in the classic sense of the real word. It just means that its an independant city state.

 

[ArbitraryGuy]

Btw, any idea when the mod will be released, AG? It looks really great

After the SDK has been out a while... I've been very busy this semester. I'd like to wait and see what SDK can do and if people can produce new units (not just reskins).

Gunner's right. "Barbarians" in this mod will be independent states.

Right now I'm working a on smaller mod, too, that should be out sooner.

 

[Half Fast]

Wont there be a problem with the independent states being at war with everybody? Kinda like in earth 1000ad mod in the game where byzantium was locked in war with everyone else.

 

[ArbitraryGuy]

Wont there be a problem with the independent states being at war with everybody? Kinda like in earth 1000ad mod in the game where byzantium was locked in war with everyone else.

No... here's why:

1) The independent states will have a special "Town Watch" unit with very high defense and 0 movement,guarding their cities in the beginning, preventing their conquest until later, etc. Otherwise, they'll only be able to build this unit, which build slowly. This prevents abuse against them and them pumping out misc. archers that roam the map.

2) The independent states will get regular armies spawned in particular war events. For example, "Scotland" will spawn an army in an event around the time of their war with Edward IV (I think it was IV... but I'm probably wrong). Or, "Venice" will spawn an army in an war event against the Papal States if the Papal States gets too many other cities.

 

[Good Sauce]

Not till after the SDK?
My world is ruin!

 

[ArbitraryGuy]

Not till after the SDK?
My world is ruin!

Think of it like trading something good today for something better tomorrow.

 

[woodelf]

Seeing the guy from King of the Hill as your avatar and seeing that line is hilarious for some reason AG.

 

[Gunner]

Seeing the guy from King of the Hill as your avatar and seeing that line is hilarious for some reason AG.

Haha indeed.

 

[Half Fast]

Hope im not missing anything on the thread but will the Albigensians be in? What I mean is like an event that puts the religion in some french cities causing unhappyness. Even better, it would cause some cities to break away and start a civil war. Give the french knights something to do.

 

[camsmith]

EE3 is the best mod about at the moment.. and this looks great.. but

You gotta keep the Scots as a playable nation (not a minor). I mean you can't underestimate their influence on England (yes, I'm scots - trying to be non-bias).

Right in the middle of that period you have the Battle of Largs in 1263 between King Hakonn and Alexander III. Had the Vikings won, the English were open to a mainland invasion from the North of a far superior force.

Not long after that you have Wallace (to a lesser extent than Braveheart suggests), Moray and Bruce and the Wars of Independance. You also have the first defeat of Heavy Cavalry in history (major militaristic milestone) and at certain points in that timeline, Scotland controlled a larger land mass of Britain than the English. Plus you also have the Auld Alliance with France and the establishment of the Stewart Dynasty around 1370 (which eventually resulted in the Union of the Crowns - the Scots King James VI became James 1 of England).

Peace with Scotland was absolutely vital in securing England as a nation. Without the security of a friendly Scotland, England would've been invaded by France from the North and South and thus cease to exist.

Not to mention what happens in the 200 years after that period. Scotland, Germany and England are the 3 central bases of the reformation throughout Europe. Granted not until the 1500's.. but relevant and shaped by the century preceding it. Until the reformation, Scotland was the key weak link in England becoming a major power.

IMO you can't have England without Scotland.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I agree and disagree with you Camsmith. Though I certainly don't think that Scotland can be underestimated, it can be a Royal pain in the @$$ playing England in the EE3 scenario-when you are blocked from going north by Edinburgh . My suggestion is-if you are going to have both England and Scotland as playable civs in this Scenario-then Great Britain needs to be much bigger than it is in the EE3 scenario.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Robo Magic Man]

I have to agree that scotland should be playable. I just dislike the idea of replacing nations with barbarians, even if they are meant just as minor civs. And as for blocking English expansion; Scotland exists. Deal with it.
However, making Great Britain bigger would be a good idea if it holds two civs nonetheless.

 

[ArbitraryGuy]

I have to agree that scotland should be playable. I just dislike the idea of replacing nations with barbarians, even if they are meant just as minor civs.

Hmm... a lot of people are concerned that Scotland didn't make the cut. The problem is that there are only 18 slots. So if I put Scotland in, who should I replace with them? It's not a question of Scotland's importance... I agree, they're very important. Rather, it's a question of their importance relative to other civilizations. So, who do people think Scotland should replace?

Here's the current not necissarily final civ list...
Kingdom of Aragon
Kingdom of Castile-Leon
Kingdom of Denmark
Kingdom of England
Kingdom of France
Kingdom of Hungary
Kingdom of Jerusalem
Kingdom of Poland
The Turks
The Almoravids
The Baltic Pagans
The Byzantine Empire
The Holy Roman Empire
The Kievan Rus
The Mongols
The Papal States
The Saracens
The Teutonic Order

Two Options here in another civ must be added:
1) The only two really removable civs, in my opinion, is the Teutonic Order and Papal State... but I really like them (they're not like playing a normal civ), so wish not to remove them.

2)Another option is to turn all the non-Christian civs into "barbarians" to open up space for more Christian kingdoms (such as Scotland). The game would play faster (less civs), but Crusading wouldn't be as challenging (unless there's a combat penalty against barbarians - easily doable in difficulty level xml).

I don't want to do either. What do people think?

 

[Silica_Pathways]

2)Another option is to turn all the non-Christian civs into "barbarians" to open up space for more Christian kingdoms (such as Scotland). The game would play faster (less civs), but Crusading wouldn't be as challenging (unless there's a combat penalty against barbarians - easily doable in difficulty level xml).

NOOO! Pagan civs is a must, it would make mod much more interesting

 

[Robo Magic Man]

Making all non-Christian civs barbarian would be a bad idea IMO. That would make the Middle Eastern Civs barbarian, and they had some of the most advanced empires of their time (ever see the movie "The 13th Warrior"?).

My suggestion would be to remove the Almoravids and the Kievan Rus, simply because I've never heard of them and they seem to be more minor civs, and then replace those with Scotland and Venice.

 

[ArbitraryGuy]

My suggestion would be to remove the Almoravids and the Kievan Rus, simply because I've never heard of them and they seem to be more minor civs, and then replace those with Scotland and Venice.

The Almoravids (aka the Moors) controlled non-Christian Spain and North Africa... Castile and Aragon need someone to take the Iberian peninsula from. The Kievan Rus were the largest power in what is now called Russia. I'd say they're much more important that Scotland and Venice.

I'd love to add Scotland in, but I can't remove any of the other civs. Stupid 18 civ limit.

NOOO! Pagan civs is a must, it would make mod much more interesting

Don't worry... this is my least favorite choice. I was merely mentioning this as one of the only ways to put Scotland in the mod.

 

[Robo Magic Man]

Ok, you're choice to add them makes a lot more sense to me now. Knowing who they are now, I'd say they should be kept in.

 

[Kushan]

I like the idea of keeping the civs as they are. Scotland just wasnt a major power when compared to others. yes they fought the English, but they never expanded outside the British isles.

Kushan