The "Let's Figure Out Sicily" thread

[DC123456789]

The Crusades kind of are? Still quite different though, I'll agree. It looks like AbsintheRed is favourable towards some sort of scripted event to give Sicily to Aragon anyway though, since we all know it's never going to happen naturally.

 

[AbsintheRed]

The Crusades kind of are? Still quite different though, I'll agree. It looks like AbsintheRed is favourable towards some sort of scripted event to give Sicily to Aragon anyway though, since we all know it's never going to happen naturally.

Well, that's an option. Not yet sure what will be added for it when we get there, I only wanted to point out that there are many possibilities.
Btw adding a conqueror event is actually easier to code.

 

[cmakk1012]

Conqueror events are neat because there's a chance you can defeat them as the defender as opposed to a predetermined loss. How much fun would SoI be if the Mongols just flipped Persia? Not very

 

[gilgames]

Some people prefer seeing historical city setups. I really don't think you should try SoI if that's a big problem for you...

I did, dont like it, meh

 

[cmakk1012]

I did, dont like it, meh

SoI is fascinating to me in examining a historical period that's really overlooked in the West along with its depth and strategy. I'd give it props for plausibility too but I just won an Armenia domination victory so I'm not so sure about that part

 

[The Turk]

I find it rather funny that you consider the time from ~1060 to 1282 way too short for any representation, while you think the time from 632 to 750 is more than enough to a very detailed representation of the Umayyad conquests.

I'm not sure how you are comparing a civilization with a UHV. Further in 1060 the Normans were little more than mercenaries, so its not as if they can't be portrayed as mercenaries or barbarians in game.

IMO Norman influence is way too significant to leave it out completely. What would a Sicily civ look like without the 2 Rogers?

It would look like Sicily without the 2 Rogers. What would "Normandy" be without the Rollo and his successors? The territory is literally named after them, and yet we don't depict the Duchy of Normandy, even when it was nominally independent within the Kingdom of France.

The Kingdom of Sicily (which was founded by 1130 by Roger II, and encompassed southern Italy too) was a direct successor state of the County of Sicily (founded in 1071 during the Norman conquest of Sicily).

Needless to say, this does not need to clash with my stated aims. If you want to portray the Normans, have them spawn in Apulia, and have them try to conquer the rest of Southern Italy, including Sicily. They shouldn't simply flip the entire territory. Sicily should remain up for grabs by a variety of actors.

Also, we can very easily represent a shift towards the Naples area for AI Sicily. At one point the capital is moved to the most significant city in Calabria/Apulia, province status changes in the Island of Sicily, etc.

The Normans, who you claim you want to represent, didn't begin in Sicily, they began in Apulia (as mercenary barbarians - as their neighbours considered them).

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

They were counts, and then became Dukes. Something you might want to explore in the future is a "title" system, where you can "upgrade" your title. You can use the base of it from SoI, to be able to claim the "Kingdom/County/Duchy etc. of X", based on territory held, which would give you certain bonuses (and even perhaps some malus').

 

[AbsintheRed]

I find it rather funny that you consider the time from ~1060 to 1282 way too short for any representation, while you think the time from 632 to 750 is more than enough to a very detailed representation of the Umayyad conquests.

I'm not sure how you are comparing a civilization with a UHV. Further in 1060 the Normans were little more than mercenaries, so its not as if they can't be portrayed as mercenaries or barbarians in game.

Ehh, this is getting annoying... I already told you like 5 times that the Norman Kingdom of Sicily does not equal the Sicily civ, it's only part of it.
Thus I'm comparing the first UHV (or maybe first 2 UHVs, not yet sure) of the Sicily civ to the first UHV of the Arab civ.

I would even argue that representing the period up to the Sicilian Vespers in 1282 is even more imporant for the Sicily civ than representing the Umayyad conquests for the Arab civ. (from a gameplay point of view)
There is not that much to portray after 1282 for Sicily, you want to take out the most interesting part.

It would look like Sicily without the 2 Rogers. What would "Normandy" be without the Rollo and his successors? The territory is literally named after them, and yet we don't depict the Duchy of Normandy, even when it was nominally independent within the Kingdom of France.

What are you talking about? How can you consider this a valid example, or relevant in any ways?
Sicily is planned as a full civ. Normandy is not.
If we would have a Normandy civ, it would surely start with Rollo and the Duchy of Normandy.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Conqueror events are neat because there's a chance you can defeat them as the defender as opposed to a predetermined loss. How much fun would SoI be if the Mongols just flipped Persia? Not very

Sure, but in my example I only meant that mechanics for an AI controlled Sicily.
Whatever will be chosen for this in the end, I definitely don't want to make it a predetermined loss for the player

 

[cmakk1012]

Oh, for AI Sicily a flip is perfectly fine. That's a historical change that needs to be modeled IMO

 

[cmakk1012]

Just to bring this subforum back to life, and on a topic relevant to 1.6, I'm curious what the stability map for Sicily would be. Core of Calabria and Apulia, Sicily itself either Core or Historical, mayyybe Historical on Arberia as well? Otherwise Contested on Ifriqiya, Arberia, Epirus, Morea, Malta. Given Charles II tried to march on Constantinople (but failed), should areas farther East like Thessaly, Macedonia, Thrace, and Constantinople be Contested also?

 

[AbsintheRed]

Probably something like that.
Didn't start working on Sicily yet.

 

[cmakk1012]

From reading the minor civs thread I’ve been reminded of my ideas for the Byzantine situation in Southern Italy which tie into Sicily. Unnecessary, I promise, but this could help historical accuracy.

1. Syrakousai/Syracuse should start at AD 500 under the Byzantines with Orthodox faith. Additionally, the Indy city in Apulia should be Orthodox.

2. “Muslim” barbarians should spawn on Sicily in the 800s and will take Syracuse unless the player ferries units over to hold it (in other words, AI will lose it but player can keep it). Islam can spread to it then as well.

3. Eventually, the Kingdom of Sicily spawn should be an invasive one that the Byzantines could fight off, but until then it should just flip the provinces and get Catholic missionaries or autospread faith.

4. The Byzantine UHV2 should include Southern Italy and Sicily. It’s a tight fit time wise, but with the Cataphracts the player has to build to fend off the Seljuks you can probably conquer the KoS before th Mongols arrive.

 

[The Turk]

From reading the minor civs thread I’ve been reminded of my ideas for the Byzantine situation in Southern Italy which tie into Sicily. Unnecessary, I promise, but this could help historical accuracy.

1. Syrakousai/Syracuse should start at AD 500 under the Byzantines with Orthodox faith. Additionally, the Indy city in Apulia should be Orthodox.

2. “Muslim” barbarians should spawn on Sicily in the 800s and will take Syracuse unless the player ferries units over to hold it (in other words, AI will lose it but player can keep it). Islam can spread to it then as well.

3. Eventually, the Kingdom of Sicily spawn should be an invasive one that the Byzantines could fight off, but until then it should just flip the provinces and get Catholic missionaries or autospread faith.

4. The Byzantine UHV2 should include Southern Italy and Sicily. It’s a tight fit time wise, but with the Cataphracts the player has to build to fend off the Seljuks you can probably conquer the KoS before th Mongols arrive.

1. Rome should be Orthodox from 500AD if we are going to be honest. Until the 800s the Pope in Rome was essentially a Greek speaking Byzantine puppet.

2. Aghlabids from Tunis launched the invasion of Sicily, not just random "Muslims". I think a Tunis civilization is in the works? In my opinion an unplayable Aghlabids would make most sense, and have the AI try and invade all of Southern Italy. On the barbarian side however, Muslim pirate ships would be nice, and on the reverse Christian (Italian - Pisa, Genoa, Venice specifically) pirate ships would also be nice.

3. The Normans came as roving bands of mercenaries first, not conquerors. If they could be represented as mercenaries and/or even barbarians that would be neat. The de Hauteville's eventually started to seize territory (staring north of Naples), but they were extremely fragmented. A unitary Norman state in Southern Italy only begins with Roger II (1130) who proclaimed himself King. But the Byzantines weren't alone, there was also Lombard princes, independent Greek states, and of course the Muslim emirates. Until 1130 the Normans would best be depicted as independent/barbarian armies, and then in ~1100 spawn in Sicily, and have to unite Southern Italy. But given how fragile and transitory the state was, it is still bizarre why they are a fully playable civ.

4. Having a Byzantine goal to defend your Italian possessions would be neat; especially since the game begins in 500.

 

[cmakk1012]

1. Rome should be Orthodox from 500AD if we are going to be honest. Until the 800s the Pope in Rome was essentially a Greek speaking Byzantine puppet.

2. Aghlabids from Tunis launched the invasion of Sicily, not just random "Muslims". I think a Tunis civilization is in the works? In my opinion an unplayable Aghlabids would make most sense, and have the AI try and invade all of Southern Italy. On the barbarian side however, Muslim pirate ships would be nice, and on the reverse Christian (Italian - Pisa, Genoa, Venice specifically) pirate ships would also be nice.

3. The Normans came as roving bands of mercenaries first, not conquerors. If they could be represented as mercenaries and/or even barbarians that would be neat. The de Hauteville's eventually started to seize territory (staring north of Naples), but they were extremely fragmented. A unitary Norman state in Southern Italy only begins with Roger II (1130) who proclaimed himself King. But the Byzantines weren't alone, there was also Lombard princes, independent Greek states, and of course the Muslim emirates. Until 1130 the Normans would best be depicted as independent/barbarian armies, and then in ~1100 spawn in Sicily, and have to unite Southern Italy. But given how fragile and transitory the state was, it is still bizarre why they are a fully playable civ.

4. Having a Byzantine goal to defend your Italian possessions would be neat; especially since the game begins in 500.

1. Yeah, but that would require a Papal rework and it’s not *that* important...

2. In a perfect world with the DoC uncoupled civ slot thing, yes Aghlabids should invade (and there should be unplayable Ostrogoths and Visigoths and Frisians and Suebi and—). For now, Aghlabid barbarians could attack Sicily and Southern Italy. Definitely agree about barb pirates for both sides, though; maybe they could be mercenary black-flagged War Galleys for Genoa and Venice to buy?

3. You could have it be like the SoI Sultanate of Rum and have barbarians precede a flip of the region?

4. The game beginning in 500 kind of makes me wish there was even more to do with the Byzantines. This was the era of Belisarius—honestly I’d love if UHV1 was some kind of crazy early conquest spree of all Italy, southern Spain, North Africa, etc. but it could never be balanced properly...

 

[The Turk]

1. Yeah, but that would require a Papal rework and it’s not *that* important...

For sure, I was just stating a fact. In 500 the Pope in Rome was extremely marginal. The Archbishops of Ravenna and Milan were far more powerful.

2. In a perfect world with the DoC uncoupled civ slot thing, yes Aghlabids should invade (and there should be unplayable Ostrogoths and Visigoths and Frisians and Suebi and—). For now, Aghlabid barbarians could attack Sicily and Southern Italy. Definitely agree about barb pirates for both sides, though; maybe they could be mercenary black-flagged War Galleys for Genoa and Venice to buy?

Isn't there already a Tunis civ? Aghlabids were far more important than the Hafsids. Have the Aghlabids spawn, even if they are not playable (although they would make for a great player civ).

3. You could have it be like the SoI Sultanate of Rum and have barbarians precede a flip of the region?

Exactly my thinking. The Normans were well known for their brutality, violence and torture, unseen before in Southern Italy. But as I already wrote, they did not created many small counties. It wouldn't be until Roger II that a "Kingdom" of Sicily would be born, and Southern Italy united. But then his descendants quickly got dethroned first by the German Emperor, and then by Charles of Anjou, and then by the Aragonese. So again... what is "Sicily" representing exactly?

4. The game beginning in 500 kind of makes me wish there was even more to do with the Byzantines. This was the era of Belisarius—honestly I’d love if UHV1 was some kind of crazy early conquest spree of all Italy, southern Spain, North Africa, etc. but it could never be balanced properly...

Anyone want to make an Early Medieval Europe mod? lol.

 

[cmakk1012]

For sure, I was just stating a fact. In 500 the Pope in Rome was extremely marginal. The Archbishops of Ravenna and Milan were far more powerful.



Isn't there already a Tunis civ? Aghlabids were far more important than the Hafsids. Have the Aghlabids spawn, even if they are not playable (although they would make for a great player civ).

Maybe Egypt could start as the Aghlabids, transition into Fatimids, and then go conquer Egypt itself?

Exactly my thinking. The Normans were well known for their brutality, violence and torture, unseen before in Southern Italy. But as I already wrote, they did not created many small counties. It wouldn't be until Roger II that a "Kingdom" of Sicily would be born, and Southern Italy united. But then his descendants quickly got dethroned first by the German Emperor, and then by Charles of Anjou, and then by the Aragonese. So again... what is "Sicily" representing exactly?



Anyone want to make an Early Medieval Europe mod? lol.

I actually really, really want to make an extremely detailed RFC Italy mod that would delve into medieval flavor more. It would probably start in the same era but end sooner, and would cram in all kinds of cool little duchies and republics and stuff. If only I had the patience to code...

 

[The Turk]

Maybe Egypt could start as the Aghlabids, transition into Fatimids, and then go conquer Egypt itself?

Well I said the Egyptians should begin with the Fatimids. The Fatimids overthrew the Aghlabids in 909, and only conquered Egypt in 969. It would perhaps be better if the Fatimids spawn in 969 in Egypt with most of North Africa. Hence the Aghlabids being an unplayable civ would make sense, so you can negotiate with the Aghlabids, but then inevitably they will collapse.

Alternatively we have the Egyptian civ (Fatimids) spawn in Tunisia, and then have the player conquer Egypt, and give the AI a strong army to invade Egypt.

But no, Egypt should NOT start as the Aghlabids, keep them seperate. But anyway the Aghlabids are only in power for a little over a century so them being a scripted non-playable civ makes the most sense.

I actually really, really want to make an extremely detailed RFC Italy mod that would delve into medieval flavor more. It would probably start in the same era but end sooner, and would cram in all kinds of cool little duchies and republics and stuff. If only I had the patience to code...

Unfortunately Embryodead was planning on making a RFC Medieval (Western) Europe mod, small extended timeframe, very detailed. Its just a shame that this mod has to cover the entire history from 500-1800, it means nothing gets any detail as a result. Which reminds me, is the 1200AD start date playable?

 

[merijn_v1]

Yes, the 1200 AD scenario is playable, but it still requires tweaking in several aspects.

 

[The Turk]

By the way, to consider making a new tile type called: "Mediterranean island" which gives +1 base of gold, on top of whatever other bonuses the terrain would get.

Frederick II & Charles of Anjou, both of whom ruled Sicily were the richest monarchs in Europe. (See Chris Wickham, Medieval Europe (2017), pg. 336).

And control of Cyprus, Crete, even Malta gave control of trade patterns. So in lieu of a complex trade system, it would be neat to have Mediterranean Islands actually worth seizing.

 

[gilgames]

This is actually a very Good idea.