Iraq looks too arid! It's not a desert. More greenery, please

[+Marius+]

I get the impression CA had little knowledge of history.

You don't say?
You would have me believe that a company that makes a game that has horse archers sheathing their damn lances on the backs has little to no interest in proper history?
http://media.moddb.com/images/mods/1...rsearchers.jpg

I am shocked.

The Persian Empire was the mightiest in the ancient world for centuries; even before it, the empire of the Medes, an Iranian people, covered much of the same area in 650BC. The Achaemenid Empire ruled until 330BC. The Parthians ruled from 250BC. The Sassanids ruled from c.200AD to 654AD. The Abbasid empire was created in 750AD on the basis of heavily Persian support. The Samanids ruled much of Iran from 820AD. Persia continued to be the powerhouse of civilisation, learning and culture until the Mongol invasion in 1219.

Irrelevant, Persia did not exist as a political entity in any starting date of any total war game to date.

Anyway the relevance of all this is that Persia should be in the total war games.

It did not exist at the start dates.

It was far more powerful and important than Rome until at least 133BC, and even then Rome was never able to defeat Parthia nor the Sassanids.

1) No, because it did not exist, it was split between the Seleucids, local satraps and later Parthia.
2) Rome defeated Parthia multiple times and sacked their capital twice, they also defeated the Sassanids just as the Sassanids defeated them. Btw, both Parthia and the Sassanids are present in vanilla Rome and the Barbarian Invasion expansion.

So CA's decision not to include it in their vanilla games is arguably an act of astonishing historical ignorance.

Nope, they lazy.

If we go back to the drawing board, from the conceptual point of view a game that seeks to cover the ancient or medieval periods should be centred on the Middle East, with Europe and Mongolia as offshoots at the periphery, inhabited by various barbarous peoples.

You have Broken Crescent, make your own mod if you wish to make it your way.
The majority of total war players are Americans and Europeans, deal with it.

If we take Medieval 2 as an example, there are 22 factions in the vanilla game. Of these, only three were Muslim. Three. Versus 15 Christian factions. I mean, come on. Seriously? No. *shakes head in disbelief. Here's how the faction list should actually look for Medieval 2:

22 factions

1). Almoravids (Morocco/Spain)
2). Banu Hilal (Algeria/Tunisia)
3). Fatimids (Egypt)
4). Taifa of Zaragossa (Spain
5). Taifa of Seville (Spain)
6). Emirate of Damascus
7). Emirate of Mosul
8). Abbassids of Baghdad
9). Seljuks of Iran
10). Seljuks of Rum
11). Danishmends (Turkey)
12). Ghaznavids (east Iran)
13). Khwarezmian Empire (north Iran)

Non-Muslim factions

14). Rajput Indian princes
15). Byzantine Empire
16). Kingdom of Georgia
17). Leon-Castile
18). French
19). Holy Roman Empire
20). Venice
21). Normans of Italy
22). Kingdom of Hungary

This would more accurately reflect the significant powers of the day.

Holy Mother of God you are so biased it is hilarious
Go play Broken Crescent ffs.

Banu Hilal - completely unorganized set of tribal lords without any proper information about them whatsoever.
Taifa of Zaragossa - Seriously? It stopped existing already in 1110 and you wish to replace Aragon with it? Aragon? One of the mightiest European medieval kingdoms?
Taifa of Seville - Again, silly, it stopped existing already in 1091 and was basically nothing but a small irrelevant state.
Emirate of Damascus - Did not even exist as an independent centralized political entity.
Danishmends - Barely relevant.
Rajput Indian princes - What does that even mean?

With such pathetic and irrelevant mentions on the wishlist you want to replace actual kingdoms like England, Scotland, Poland etc?

Under this plan, there would be no England or Scotland - those nations didn't exist in 1080 and are an anachronism.

Lol, Malcolm II = Rex Scotiae, Rex Anglorum or Rex Anglie for Norman England, you can take your pick. Perhaps even take the Danish term since Cnut also claimed himself "King of England"

The Norman lords of what is now England were French dukes, and thus can be covered by the "French" faction.

They were both dukes and kings, just as they remained such until the Hundred Years war and just as the Habsburgs remained dukes, emperors and kings all in the same person for centuries.
You know nothing of feudalism and the complexity of medieval politics.

Scotland was a backwater beyond the edge of the civilised world and can be covered by Rebels.

Nope.

Portugal didn't exist in 1080 and can be ruled by the Muslim Taifa of Seville.

Why the Taifa, why not the kingdom of Galicia?
Why not Portugal anywho;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County...List_of_counts

Denmark was an irrelevant backwater and can be rebel.

Nope, to important for Scandinavia.

Poland and Russia are regrettable losses, but they were too far beyond the pale of civilisation to be included.

Got an even better idea;
Why even include christian factions?
Why not just make Europe a single rebel province on the edge of the map?

The Papal states does kind of need to be a faction, but it wasn't important enough to justify cutting one of the other factions on the list so it will just have to be incorporated into the HRE, which was after all created by the Pope. He can then operate similar to the council of nobles, but with effect on all Catholic factions.

Yeah, not like he has any importance throughout the entire catholic faction gameplay or anything...

A total war based on my plan would be the best ever.

Create it then.
Or go play Broken Crescent.

[Lifthrasir]

@ bigdaddy1204, I think this is not the right place to discuss such things. You should have created a specific thread for such funny idea
Beside that, there are a lot of mistakes in what you have written. For instance, Scotland was actually a kingdom in 1132. It is basically the continuation of the kingdom of Alba which was found aroud 900 from the Pictland. This is also witghout considering some Irish migration out there. That's a quick summary as it would be too long to explain in detail. Also not to mention the Davidian reform which brought Scotland into the feudalism system as the rest of the Western Europe (and which happened around our starting date ).
Quite similar remark regarding England. You can consider it as a Kingdom since the 10th century at least and as a continuation and unitfication of the Kingdoms of Northumbria and Mercia. Once again, this is a real short summary.
Denmark was unified in 980 by Harald "Blue Tooth" and so, can be considered as a kingdom as well. Also, as mentioned, it has an important role in Scandinavia.
All in all and from my point of view, the main problem with the game engine is the factions' limitation. To be really accurate, we would need at least to add around 10 extra factions.

@ Marius Marich, you don't need to be that categorical, rude and think that you're the only one possessing the Truth. The English language is rich enough to let you express your disapproval in a more polite and respectful manner. I'm pretty sure that bigdaddy just expressed a funny idea, may be in a awkward way and definitively in the wrong thread, but it doesn't allow you to be that rude or unkind.
As we say in French, if you don't put water in your wine (meaning stay open minded and be more accomodating), I will have to report you to the Local Moderators

In conclusion, the subject is closed

[+Marius+]

I will have to report you to the Local Moderators

Yeah, not a single insult or even an implied insult towards the poster so, good luck with that.

Expressing outrage towards ideas one deems outrageous is nothing strange to forums.

[Lifthrasir]

In conclusion, the subject is closed

What part of this don't you understand???

[MWY]

"Holy Mother of God you are so biased it is hilarious
Go play Broken Crescent ffs."
"With such pathetic and irrelevant mentions..."

Yeah well.. And no you didn't directly insult him. And I don't think you're reported yet. Lets all move on together shall we?

[+Marius+]

What part of this don't you understand???

Well, I am sorry but I have to reply to a mention of me being reported to moderators.

"Holy Mother of God you are so biased it is hilarious

Not an insult.
He basically described the entirety of Northern Europe as either irrelevant or literally a "backwater", hence the smiley at the end.
Not to mention his previous posts on various threads on this forum as well.

Go play Broken Crescent ffs."

A completely valid and obvious advice to a person who wants more Muslim factions than Christian factions and a gameplay more focused on the middle east.

"With such pathetic and irrelevant mentions..."

That is my insult towards the political entities he proposed, has nothing to do with him.

Lets all move on together shall we?

We hopefully...shall.

[Lifthrasir]

As said previously,...

!!! SUBJECT CLOSED !!!

[Lifthrasir]

About the Nil delta, I found some more info. It seems that during the Middle Ages, there was still the Pelusium Stream existing (at least up to Saladin reign).
Here is a map showing it (the one going eastward from Cairo):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In green, modern river and streams.
In blue, ancient ones.

[+Marius+]

I am not sure about the ones on the far right.

Nile delta in the 12th century(al-Idrisi maps);

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Map flipped over so you can read the names;

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Lifthrasir]

That's actually the problem. Depending on sources, the maps are completely different. For instance, some sources say that the one going to near Alexandria disappeared around the 3rd or 5th centuries AD. Regarding the Pelusium branch, I also found sources saying that it disappeared around the 8th or 9th centuries AD but some other still mentioned it during the beginning of the reign of Saladin.
Also, the Tanis lake (or laguna) seemed to have been larger to the East during the game period.

Edit: Here is another map of the Nile delta during the 12th century:

Again, the Pelusium (or al-Farama) branch seemed to have been still present at that time.

[j.a.luna]

Lifth,imo is more important new skin and new units rosters than this discussion about Nilo, i know that a totally historical campaign map woulb be great but there are many weakness about units rosters for the news releases

[Lifthrasir]

True but it costs nothing to start the discussion

[bigdaddy1204]

@Lifthrasir: thanks for sharing these maps.

I also reckon it's worth taking another quick look at Iran. According to the land map on the previous page, the area north of Hamadan is some of the richest agricultural land in the whole of Iran, with wheat and barley being grown on it. The area leading south from Hamadan all the way to Shiraz is heavily forested, and so is the area between Ray and Alamut. There shouldn't be any desert west of Ray. Even if we count the pink area as desert, it still shouldn't extend west of the province boundary between Ray and Alamut.

[Lifthrasir]

So, if I get it right and based on the screenshots posted by MWY:
- Area between Alamut and Ray with more trees/forest
- Area between Amadan and Shiraz (especially North part of Shiraz), more greeny (dark brown at present) with areas with dense trees/dense forest
- Area between Amadan and Alamut should be more greeny.

[bigdaddy1204]

So, if I get it right and based on the screenshots posted by MWY:
- Area between Alamut and Ray with more trees/forest
- Area between Amadan and Shiraz (especially North part of Shiraz), more greeny (dark brown at present) with areas with dense trees/dense forest
- Area between Amadan and Alamut should be more greeny.

Yes, agreed.

We can use this map as a guide

[Harith]

About Iraq, my grandfather used to tell me that Al-Ghazaliya (western region of Baghdad) was up to the 1920s inhabited by gazelle, thats until Saudi and Iraqi hunters depleted the population. Hence, the name for that area (which literally means Gazelle in Arabic). As for the north, there were documentations of lions, again hunted down by Kurdish tribes. Although, these lions might've been of Iranian origin and not necessarily the Iraqi ones you see in Assyrian script.

Added to that, the north and the east has several parks and farmlands. Diyala for one is famous for its fruit farmlands that are several acres (despite negligence)

I unfortunately don't have any documentations to show, this is simply a collection of anecdotes and my personal input. Take it as you will. However, I have lived in Iraq, Baghdad to be precise, for a substantial amount of time and I can assure you that desert is not how you would describe it. However, the region is experiencing increasing desertification and apparently the Tigris and Euphrates are running dangerously low in the summer. So, I feel that making the current situation of greenery in Iraq as a reference for the medieval times is not the best of ways to go about it.

[Lifthrasir]

@ Harith, thanks for your input. MWY has corrected the Iraq map according to sources (at least the one we could find) from the Medieval period, not from the actual ones

Regarding the Nile delta, I found a source about the Egyptian Campaign of Amalric (king of Jerusalem) in 1163. The al_Farama branch of the Nile is mentioned as still existing when Amalric besieged Bilbeis (or Bilbais). So it seems that the map in post #110 is quite accurate.

[bigdaddy1204]

Regarding the Nile delta, I found a source about the Egyptian Campaign of Amalric (king of Jerusalem) in 1163. The al_Farama branch of the Nile is mentioned as still existing when Amalric besieged Bilbeis (or Bilbais). So it seems that the map in post #110 is quite accurate.

That's interesting. So does that mean the Nile Delta area would have extended a bit further east in those days?

[Lifthrasir]

So far, with what I've found, I would say not really. That al-Farama branch has disapeared but irrigation has also progressed. My guess is that the "green" area would be quite similar in size. The main change is just the addition of that branch.

[bigdaddy1204]

So far, with what I've found, I would say not really. That al-Farama branch has disapeared but irrigation has also progressed. My guess is that the "green" area would be quite similar in size. The main change is just the addition of that branch.

One of the nice things about this game is the history. Recently I've been doing Google search on the history of each town I conquer in SSHIP. I found some really interesting results from that.