Conquer Club

jako wrote:yup coleman is right. d.gish is confused with 1200 ad and 13th century. he meant 1200 or 13 century, not 1300.

? i wasn't confused. i said that denmark was christianized before the crusades. 1200s ad and 13th century are one and alike. i was responding to william18's comment about denmark's status

d.gishman wrote:

jako wrote:yup coleman is right. d.gish is confused with 1200 ad and 13th century. he meant 1200 or 13 century, not 1300.

? i wasn't confused. i said that denmark was christianized before the crusades. 1200s ad and 13th century are one and alike. i was responding to william18's comment about denmark's status

my bad d.gish.

i meant william

incanton - you seem to be on this

in 1200ad - which of the russian principalities on the map didn't have large pagan populations?

do you know when the majority converted in each?

if i have got materially wrong i will redesign map - it needs to be historically accurate.. ..and playable.

The only pagan country i see is Lithuania. Also the Byzantiane Empire controlled a portion of the middle east.

Tip: Constantinople was still standing in the 13th century. Constantinople was I think the largest city in the anciant world.I just thought you would like this info and help you with the ideas.

The map is largely based on this map and the one before.

I note i have got pomerania wrong.

http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/ ... _1200.html

if i have got materially wrong i will redesign map - it needs to be historically accurate.. ..and playable.

Yes you are so many wrong things in yours map,just look these map what you present like yours source,and you will se very big diferences.

on the christianisation of kiev, the best evidence of dates that i can find so far is text supplied by the "representation of the russian orthodox church to the european institutions".

http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/13/1.aspx#n5

The baptism of Russia: The Kiev period (988-1237).

But around 988 Olga’s grandson Vladimir (reigned 980-1015) was converted to Christianity and married Anna, the sister of the Byzantine Emperor. Orthodoxy became the State religion of Russia, and such it remained until 1917. Vladimir set to in earnest to Christianize his realm: priests, relics, sacred vessels, and icons were imported; mass baptisms were held in the rivers; Church courts were set up, and ecclesiastical tithes instituted.

Kievan Russia was not at once completely converted to Christianity, and the Church was at first restricted mainly to the cities, while much of the countryside remained pagan until the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.

the broad picture is that orthodox christianity became the official religion of kievan russia in ad 988, after which people converted through mass baptisms and other means. although the principalities of chernigov, smolensk, novgorod and vladimir-suzdal (the latter is shown as "tchuds" on our map) broke away from kiev in the 11th century, it seems reasonable to suppose that they were all officially christian in the 13th century, but with a significant rural pagan minority.

ian.

iancanton wrote: although the principalities of chernigov, smolensk, novgorod and vladimir-suzdal (the latter is shown as "tchuds" on our map) broke away from kiev in the 11th century, it seems reasonable to suppose that they were all officially christian in the 13th century, but with a significant rural pagan minority.

ian.

i think for playability and the fact these countries would have had significant pagan populations (and neighboured pagan regions) we should keep these countries as pagan. I note the place name change for vladimir suzdal. OK??

I don't know... I think that all of your continents/regions have very small bonuses compared to how many territories and borders they have.

bonuses do seem a bit small but if u get holy lands, u get another +3 on top, so it works out somewhat.

But thats terribly impractical for whoever has continents that aren't close to it... There has to be some kind of compensation for that.

Only just seen this map and it looks pretty good! One big issue though - that bonus of 3 for the holy Lands. It is a bit excessive imo.

I agree with everything this guy said and was about to post the same thoughts myself...

Islamic should be the same bonus as Roman, at least. I'd say 5 for both. and and attack route from Sicily is a great idea.

I GOT SERVED wrote:This is a decent start. Here's my two cents:

1) Scarp the Jewish star idea. It's confusing, as well as historically inaccurate on this current version.

2) There should be a +1 bonus for having the holy lands.

3) It's "Caspian Sea" not "Casbian Sea"

4) Islamic should be worth more than 4. (Maybe 5/6?)

5) Add an attack route so that Sicily borders Tunis and the Byzantine Empire.

except for this... i dont see it being any harder to take and keep than the other +3 bonuses.

I GOT SERVED wrote:6) Make the Orthodox bonus more than 3. (4 would be a good number)

also... maybe a different color scheme? im not in love with the primary colors. I think it should have a more medieval look that would fit that time period.

good comments - i will take into account place names and colours next draft

i like having +3 for the holy lands, it means people will actually go for the crusades

makes the islams better aswell - 3 countries to defend and will get 7 armies

updated.

I'm not following all the discussions here so I'll stick to graphics only.

-The blue in your legend is to dark, the black font is not legible
-The border at Italy sticks out the land
-The colour of your Jewish stars at Islamic looks brighter than the land underneath...
-Adjust your colours in your legend, they don't look like the colours on the map
-at Klev there is a piece of the black sea that sticks out at the top of the border same goes for khan. Now I look to it...you have a lot of that kind of borders, try to adjust your borders so the sea is outside...
-Why does the legend read 'Mange tout' which mean 'eats everything'?

qwert



Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Posts: 1916
Location: VOJVODINA
Posted: 16 Oct 2007 21:20 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
The map is largely based on this map and the one before.

I note i have got pomerania wrong.

http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/ ... _1200.html
Quote:
if i have got materially wrong i will redesign map - it needs to be historically accurate.. ..and playable.

Yes you are so many wrong things in yours map,just look these map what you present like yours source,and you will se very big diferences.

Still yours map is with very low graphic and also visual,and yours sourse look much much better then yours vision of these map.

i think that if you have one contenent that for each diffrent religon under your control should be -1 untill you have that religons contenent

Mongol isn't a religion. Lol I think Im the only person who noticed.

william18 wrote:Mongol isn't a religion. Lol I think Im the only person who noticed.

the mongols were a mix of different religions, so you can't call them anything other than mongols or the golden horde, etc. they were also against the muslim lands, so yeah, they are important for this map too.

CHAMPOS wrote:i think for playability and the fact these countries would have had significant pagan populations (and neighboured pagan regions) we should keep these countries as pagan. I note the place name change for vladimir suzdal. OK??

that sounds reasonable. i also like ur explanation for having the +3 bonus for holding the holy lands.

in the latest update, the island of sicily is a different colour from the peninsular italy part of sicily. did u simply choose the wrong colour for the island?

i'd actually like to suggest a more radical change to our map. so that the game focusses more on the holy land crusades, how about eliminating the remotest territories (scotland-ireland, norwegians, esths, novgorod, tchuds-vladimir-suzdal, golden horde and white horde) by cutting off the extreme left, right and top of the map?

we can then stretch the remainder of the map to make the territories bigger. this will enable us to put in one or two of the most important political units of the time that were central to the later crusades, such as the papal states (u did, earlier on, toy with the idea of giving special status to the papal states before removing this territory completely, i presume for reasons of space or territory count) and empire of nicaea.

the latter, together with the (catholic-ruled) latin empire that controlled constantinople, was the strongest successor state to the original byzantine empire that had splintered into several pieces after the fourth crusade. a unified byzantine empire was no longer in existence by the time the mongol hordes arrived on the scene.

to give some idea of dates: of the places on our map, khwarez shah was the first victim of genghis khan, in ad 1220, after the byzantine empire had broken up and before the purple territories succumbed.

ian.

iancanton wrote:

CHAMPOS wrote:i think for playability and the fact these countries would have had significant pagan populations (and neighboured pagan regions) we should keep these countries as pagan. I note the place name change for vladimir suzdal. OK??

that sounds reasonable. i also like ur explanation for having the +3 bonus for holding the holy lands.

in the latest update, the island of sicily is a different colour from the peninsular italy part of sicily. did u simply choose the wrong colour for the island?

i'd actually like to suggest a more radical change to our map. so that the game focusses more on the holy land crusades, how about eliminating the remotest territories (scotland-ireland, norwegians, esths, novgorod, tchuds-vladimir-suzdal, golden horde and white horde) by cutting off the extreme left, right and top of the map?

we can then stretch the remainder of the map to make the territories bigger. this will enable us to put in one or two of the most important political units of the time that were central to the later crusades, such as the papal states (u did, earlier on, toy with the idea of giving special status to the papal states before removing this territory completely, i presume for reasons of space or territory count) and empire of nicaea.

the latter, together with the (catholic-ruled) latin empire that controlled constantinople, was the strongest successor state to the original byzantine empire that had splintered into several pieces after the fourth crusade. a unified byzantine empire was no longer in existence by the time the mongol hordes arrived on the scene.

to give some idea of dates: of the places on our map, khwarez shah was the first victim of genghis khan, in ad 1220, after the byzantine empire had broken up and before the purple territories succumbed.

ian.

i really liek ur idea. i was looking forward to a more crusade oriented layout myself rather than another europe map.

updated?

You have 2 times red in your legend and 1 time orange...but there is no second red continent and there is no orange continent...

What did you change? maybe you can give us details because I'm about to say the same as I already did...

I think the problem is that there is a red background underneath the legend (and/or he has the map sitting on a light blue background). If backgrounds matched (or at least the legend's background was clear/transparent), then the colors would look more like those on the map.

Orthodox is where the byzantine empire and kiev (used to be yellow). Pagan (whilst it looks purple in legend) is actually the blue area with lithuanians and smolensk. I can only assume that the pinkish "Mongol" is actually the purple area with khan and golden horde.

Is sicily just the boot or is it also the toe and the other two islands? you need to indicate that it is all four of those OR get rid of the two islands between "sicily" and "mediterranean sea"

I'm thinking that Italy itself should be on it's own, and not half to the Holy Roman Empire and the other to Sicily. Because that map is then joining to different time periods.