13th Century: Scourge of God

"With Heaven's aid I have conquered for you a huge empire. But my life was too short to achieve the conquest of the world. That task is left for you." -Genghis Khan to his sons before his death.


Introduction

13th Century is a somewhat political scenario set in the year 1225 C.E. It is divided into 3 mini-scenarios, the Crusades, Europe in 1200s, and the Mongol Invasions. Not to mention the countless other scenarios like the Northern Crusades, English-French Wars, HRE civil war, and the Reconquista. All in a huge map with unprecedented scale. While you are fighting your petty Genoese-Venetian War, with its largest battle at 12v15 units, the Mongols and Song are having apocalyptic amounts of warfare. Hurling hundreds of units at each other and leaving central China a scarred wasteland.

Units

Yes you read that right. Over nine pages of units, and i'm not even halfway done with the cavalry units! On the first turn all your units are -1 in all stats. Some factions' units will evolve over the course of the game. As Genoa for example, I will get better defense and offense units but at a higher cost. Eventually I might have a more disciplined, yet more expensive army. Meanwhile the Almohads will have a huge army made up of crappy units since their units never evolved and stayed at the same price. Quality vs. Quantity at its finest!
Also in the game are cavalry forces. Militia cavalry are for scouting or quick raiding. Light cavalry are for quick defense that you can send to that city you are about to lose but can't reach. Heavy cavalry are...heavy. Very slow but very powerful. Eventually though with the unit evolution system they could replace the ground offense troops. Although they are quite expensive, over double the cost.
Another new addition is the castle. High cost units that provide a huge bonus in defense. They can kill around 10 units before succumbing. Use siege towers to destroy castles easily. Siege towers have horrible range though.
The Crusades. Why else would you play as a non-mongolian in a 1200s scenario? After turn 5 you will be able to build Crusading Armies which have a great bonus on Turkish and Egyptian Forces. They do not work on the Almohads as the Crusades were centered to the east not the west. Also their proximity to the Europeans makes them already vulnerable.

Gameplay

Each faction capital has a unit that acts like a free, powerful castle. No longer must you worry about cap rushing. In this scenario you can focus on other stuff instead of warfare. Such as trading! Send merchant vessels to trade hubs in the sea to take them and gain lots of income! Or if you are feeling really adventurous, send a land caravan to the heart of China and become the next Marco Polo! DISCLAIMER: I am not responsible if you spend 1600 coins on a caravan only to have it destroyed by greedy Mongols.

Well that concludes my description of the scenario. Hope you all enjoy it, I have received an almost 100% enjoyment rate from players! If you have any suggestions/comments please post them below. Have fun crusading

Looks good (y). I hope I can play soon ^_^

Looks nice! I'd certainly like to give it a try.

The problem I have as always the obvious doubt I have that you have set proper defense bonuses and negatives to every single unit and its opposites which fits the usual at war defences. The insane statistics given to certain units which give no certainty or even a measureable ability to judge how they will act when used.

You dont even give information on the units to understand how big the defence bonuses or negatives are. You cant just say tis weak against another unit, we need to know how much. You give zero information on very high stats units.

Which for me, makes your maps unplayable.

Written by Tik-Tok, 31.07.2013 at 15:10

The problem I have as always the obvious doubt I have that you have set proper defense bonuses and negatives to every single unit and its opposites which fits the usual at war defences. The insane statistics given to certain units which give no certainty or even a measureable ability to judge how they will act when used.

You dont even give information on the units to understand how big the defence bonuses or negatives are. You cant just say tis weak against another unit, we need to know how much. You give zero information on very high stats units.

Which for me, makes your maps unplayable.

Unplayable? The only bonuses that are not explained are siege towers against castles. That is the ONLY one. Don't see how that makes the entire map unplayable. I don't even use siege towers that often, I'm more of a roll over everything with a ton of units kind of guy.

Written by Utah, 31.07.2013 at 20:59

Written by Tik-Tok, 31.07.2013 at 15:10

The problem I have as always the obvious doubt I have that you have set proper defense bonuses and negatives to every single unit and its opposites which fits the usual at war defences. The insane statistics given to certain units which give no certainty or even a measureable ability to judge how they will act when used.

You dont even give information on the units to understand how big the defence bonuses or negatives are. You cant just say tis weak against another unit, we need to know how much. You give zero information on very high stats units.

Which for me, makes your maps unplayable.

Unplayable? The only bonuses that are not explained are siege towers against castles. That is the ONLY one. Don't see how that makes the entire map unplayable. I don't even use siege towers that often, I'm more of a roll over everything with a ton of units kind of guy.

Don't papal states get castles in every city? I think this is what Tik's referring to.

Written by Meester, 01.08.2013 at 01:08

Written by Utah, 31.07.2013 at 20:59

Written by Tik-Tok, 31.07.2013 at 15:10

The problem I have as always the obvious doubt I have that you have set proper defense bonuses and negatives to every single unit and its opposites which fits the usual at war defences. The insane statistics given to certain units which give no certainty or even a measureable ability to judge how they will act when used.

You dont even give information on the units to understand how big the defence bonuses or negatives are. You cant just say tis weak against another unit, we need to know how much. You give zero information on very high stats units.

Which for me, makes your maps unplayable.

Unplayable? The only bonuses that are not explained are siege towers against castles. That is the ONLY one. Don't see how that makes the entire map unplayable. I don't even use siege towers that often, I'm more of a roll over everything with a ton of units kind of guy.

Don't papal states get castles in every city? I think this is what Tik's referring to.

The Pope only gets units in the Crusader States, and he is talking about unit-to-unit interactions.

Written by Utah, 31.07.2013 at 20:59

Written by Tik-Tok, 31.07.2013 at 15:10

The problem I have as always the obvious doubt I have that you have set proper defense bonuses and negatives to every single unit and its opposites which fits the usual at war defences. The insane statistics given to certain units which give no certainty or even a measureable ability to judge how they will act when used.

You dont even give information on the units to understand how big the defence bonuses or negatives are. You cant just say tis weak against another unit, we need to know how much. You give zero information on very high stats units.

Which for me, makes your maps unplayable.

Unplayable? The only bonuses that are not explained are siege towers against castles. That is the ONLY one. Don't see how that makes the entire map unplayable. I don't even use siege towers that often, I'm more of a roll over everything with a ton of units kind of guy.

Units should have their bonuses displayed in their info box in game. You have not. Most of your units have ''infantry'' or ''offense.'' Your special other units with INSANE stats ranging of up to 75 def or attack have almost zero information in their unit info box.

And as I said, I very much doubt you placed every single unit defense or negative with its correlating unit. For instance, Ground: Stealth units gain one defense against Main: Defense units. Does every, single marine unit you have have a defence bonus against every single infantry unit? Does your submarine unit have 1 defence against Naval main attack units?

I seriously doubt that. You dont have information in your unit info boxes which display their weaknesses and strengths and nor are your units maintaining proper atwar stats such as marines having 1 defense against infantry.

This is exactly what I spoke about in my complaint in the scenario award systems. Mapmakers that provide zero information about their special units and dont give proper defense bonuses or negatives to proper atwar stats which means I cant calculate properly. Making it unplayable.

Is it really that hard to post what a unit is good against or bad against? Like castles and siege engines or caravans and silk roads. or where they can be built? Its called a unit ifno box for a reason. Use it.

Its like Un games. Is there any point in me picking Desert Storm with all these numerous Helicopters? Do they all have attack bonuses against infantry and militia? Did the mamaker select every single main defense and secondary defence unit with a -1 or -2 defense against every single helicopter unit? I doubt it. Did they give marines defence bonus against infantry? Do they even know that they do?

It amkes multiple strats unuseable, it makes any normal itneraction with a guarded city near impossible to judge properly. SHould I split my troops or send everything? SHould I place my marines in defence against that infantry stack or leave it?

Utah, your maps are riddled with these problems and each time I point it out, you just whinge.

Written by Tik-Tok, 01.08.2013 at 08:08

Written by Utah, 31.07.2013 at 20:59

Written by Tik-Tok, 31.07.2013 at 15:10

The problem I have as always the obvious doubt I have that you have set proper defense bonuses and negatives to every single unit and its opposites which fits the usual at war defences. The insane statistics given to certain units which give no certainty or even a measureable ability to judge how they will act when used.

You dont even give information on the units to understand how big the defence bonuses or negatives are. You cant just say tis weak against another unit, we need to know how much. You give zero information on very high stats units.

Which for me, makes your maps unplayable.

Unplayable? The only bonuses that are not explained are siege towers against castles. That is the ONLY one. Don't see how that makes the entire map unplayable. I don't even use siege towers that often, I'm more of a roll over everything with a ton of units kind of guy.

Units should have their bonuses displayed in their info box in game. You have not. Most of your units have ''infantry'' or ''offense.'' Your special other units with INSANE stats ranging of up to 75 def or attack have almost zero information in their unit info box.

And as I said, I very much doubt you placed every single unit defense or negative with its correlating unit. For instance, Ground: Stealth units gain one defense against Main: Defense units. Does every, single marine unit you have have a defence bonus against every single infantry unit? Does your submarine unit have 1 defence against Naval main attack units?

I seriously doubt that. You dont have information in your unit info boxes which display their weaknesses and strengths and nor are your units maintaining proper atwar stats such as marines having 1 defense against infantry.

This is exactly what I spoke about in my complaint in the scenario award systems. Mapmakers that provide zero information about their special units and dont give proper defense bonuses or negatives to proper atwar stats which means I cant calculate properly. Making it unplayable.

Is it really that hard to post what a unit is good against or bad against? Like castles and siege engines or caravans and silk roads. or where they can be built? Its called a unit ifno box for a reason. Use it.

No idea at ALL what you are talking about. Maybe if you had played an actual game of 13th instead of just ranting the entire time you would have seen that the info boxes are quite detailed in detailing a unit's weakness' and strengths. It does state the relations between castles and siege towers and caravans and silk roads. And for those random unit interactions you added like +1 defense against infantry...yeah with 15 pages of units? I have about 50 units per unit class. Seems like a lot of work for a feature that I have not seen in any custom map OR EVEN IN DEFAULT MAP (Yes I have checked and default map does not have that in its info box either, why not rant on that too?)

Written by Tik-Tok, 01.08.2013 at 08:13

Its like Un games. Is there any point in me picking Desert Storm with all these numerous Helicopters? Do they all have attack bonuses against infantry and militia? Did the mamaker select every single main defense and secondary defence unit with a -1 or -2 defense against every single helicopter unit? I doubt it. Did they give marines defence bonus against infantry? Do they even know that they do?

It amkes multiple strats unuseable, it makes any normal itneraction with a guarded city near impossible to judge properly. SHould I split my troops or send everything? SHould I place my marines in defence against that infantry stack or leave it?

Utah, your maps are riddled with these problems and each time I point it out, you just whinge.

Again, it seems you are putting a ton of emphasis on something that isn't THAT important to gameplay (I never said it wasn't important future quoters). I doubt any mapmaker would have the time to add all those stats to units even though it isn't stated anywhere (Like I said above, not even the default map states those unit stats in its descriptions). And once more, 15 pages of units. Not sifting through 200 units changing its stats one by one just for a tiny bonus that nobody except someone who is searching for a defect in my map to notice.

Written by Utah, 26.05.2013 at 12:59

After turn 5 you will be able to build Crusading Armies which have a great bonus on Turkish and Egyptian Forces.

''Only good against Ayyubids and Rum. WILL NOT HURT CHRISTIANS!!!! +3 Attack on the 2 factions mentioned.''

Thats about the only information presented in the entire unit list which takes 10-15 seconds to load and scrolls like a turtle. Of which, this information is poor. Does that mean 3 attack on every single unit? Do these units which have such a weakness against crusaders mention they have a weakness in their boxes?

With your maps, I'm literally walking blind. I played as Muslims and had no idea my units had a defense weakness against Crusaders.

Zero information. Unless I visit the forum or by sheer miracle click the only relevant unit in the 9 pages of units which says so, I wouldnt know and I didnt know until today. Which expalins why those Crusaders wiped stacks of mine.

Unplayable.

Written by Tik-Tok, 01.08.2013 at 08:26

Written by Utah, 26.05.2013 at 12:59

After turn 5 you will be able to build Crusading Armies which have a great bonus on Turkish and Egyptian Forces.

''Only good against Ayyubids and Rum. WILL NOT HURT CHRISTIANS!!!! +3 Attack on the 2 factions mentioned.''

Thats about the only information presented in the entire unit list which takes 10-15 seconds to load and scrolls like a turtle. Of which, this information is poor. Does that mean 3 attack on every single unit? Do these units which have such a weakness against crusaders mention they have a weakness in their boxes?

With your maps, I'm literally walking blind. I played as Muslims and had no idea my units had a defense weakness against Crusaders.

Zero information. Unless I visit the forum or by sheer miracle click the only relevant unit in the 9 pages of units which says so, I wouldnt know and I didnt know until today. Which expalins why those Crusaders wiped stacks of mine.

Unplayable.

Ok I will add that info to Egypt's description. (And once more you are exaggerating, I played as Egypt at least 15 times and faced numerous Crusades, none as severe as what you stated. So yes...it is playable.)

Oh and also, a big reason why I know you are exaggerating. You say that Crusaders wiped out your entire armies? Strange, considering that they have the same attack as tanks. Their only real advantage is range.

Written by Utah, 01.08.2013 at 08:18

No idea at ALL what you are talking about. Maybe if you had played an actual game of 13th instead of just ranting the entire time you would have seen that the info boxes are quite detailed in detailing a unit's weakness' and strengths.

No they aren't. They just say ''offense.''

Castles- Mega-Defense.
Siege Towers- A slow moving unit for attacking castles.

So revealing.

Rival Merchants- Empty
Land Caravan- Used to take Silk Road hubs along the route to china.
Silk Road- Empty
Theodosian Walls- Empty

There is zero ifnormation here. It displays none of the bonuses or negatives given to these units.

Written by Utah, 01.08.2013 at 08:18

It does state the relations between castles and siege towers and caravans and silk roads.

Relation? Thats bare basic info and half of the boxes are empty for the units you are describing.

Written by Utah, 01.08.2013 at 08:18

And for those random unit interactions you added like +1 defense against infantry...yeah with 15 pages of units? I have about 50 units per unit class. Seems like a lot of work for a feature that I have not seen in any custom map OR EVEN IN DEFAULT MAP (Yes I have checked and default map does not have that in its info box either, why not rant on that too?)

It's called an FAQ and yes, I follow it.
http://atwar-game.com/home/units.php

My unit boxes ahve all the information needed. Some arent perfect due to lack of space but they give all they need and in detail.

You are the fool that wrote 9 pages of units and ignored their bonuses. You think that defense bonus against infantry is minor? In a fight between a Gw and a PD player, that bonus can win or lose a game. You dont know about it becuase you are typical utah. Whenever I try to tell you these things you claim Im ranting. You put this up on showcase, so I replied. Thats the point and it's a solid point. You created units with heavy stats with no ifnormation on their weaknesses other than a blank ''its good against this.''

You wrote 9 pages of units and your lack of care in unit creation is why I dont like your maps. ANd yes, I did clearly complain about this in the scenario/map award forum. That part about terrible lack of scrutiny in units was directed at you.

Written by Utah, 01.08.2013 at 08:23

I doubt any mapmaker would have the time to add all those stats to units even though it isn't stated anywhere (Like I said above, not even the default map states those unit stats in its descriptions)

It's called a unit FAQ.
http://atwar-game.com/home/units.php

I've given plenty of mapmakers an earful for not using it properly, UN mapmakers in particular.

Written by Utah, 01.08.2013 at 08:23

And once more, 15 pages of units. Not sifting through 200 units changing its stats one by one just for a tiny bonus

You made the units, you are expected to make them properly. Instead you are lazy and your attitude and lack of care is exactly why I said your maps are unplayable.

Written by Utah, 01.08.2013 at 08:33

Oh and also, a big reason why I know you are exaggerating. You say that Crusaders wiped out your entire armies? Strange, considering that they have the same attack as tanks. Their only real advantage is range.

You cant give Attack bonuses. We call them attack bonuses because its hard to explain properly. Instead, we degrade a units defense against another unit and call it an attack bonus when really, it's just a defense negative. That means my Arab faction infantry which should have 6 defense only have 3 and it means Arab militia units will have 0. Depending upon your strat.

That's pretty damn important to tell players their militia have 0 defense against a unit used by their neighbour.

""No they aren't. They just say ''offense.''

Castles- Mega-Defense.
Siege Towers- A slow moving unit for attacking castles.

So revealing.

Rival Merchants- Empty
Land Caravan- Used to take Silk Road hubs along the route to china.
Silk Road- Empty
Theodosian Walls- Empty

There is zero ifnormation here. It displays none of the bonuses or negatives given to these units.""

Half those units you can't even BUILD. What is the point of adding descriptions to them. Actually ALL of those units besides the castle and caravan you can not build...

""Relation? Thats bare basic info and half of the boxes are empty for the units you are describing.""

Answered above.

"It's called an FAQ and yes, I follow it.
http://atwar-game.com/home/units.php

My unit boxes ahve all the information needed. Some arent perfect due to lack of space but they give all they need and in detail.

You are the fool that wrote 9 pages of units and ignored their bonuses. You think that defense bonus against infantry is minor? In a fight between a Gw and a PD player, that bonus can win or lose a game. You dont know about it becuase you are typical utah. Whenever I try to tell you these things you claim Im ranting. You put this up on showcase, so I replied. Thats the point and it's a solid point. You created units with heavy stats with no ifnormation on their weaknesses other than a blank ''its good against this.''

You wrote 9 pages of units and your lack of care in unit creation is why I dont like your maps. ANd yes, I did clearly complain about this in the scenario/map award forum. That part about terrible lack of scrutiny in units was directed at you.""

Tik-Tok look, this is not your typical war scenario. This is a political scenario set during Medieval times, you can even consider it a UN game without the UN. In the game you are supposed to make allies and trade. It is not all about war and more about diplomacy. That is why I have less of a focus on the units. And also because the defense marines have against infantry is the only unit interaction that actually matters in my map, since it lacks anti-aircraft or proper submarines.

Written by Utah, 01.08.2013 at 08:56

Half those units you can't even BUILD. What is the point of adding descriptions to them. Actually ALL of those units besides the castle and caravan you can not build...

And how am I supposed to know that? A simple ''Cannot be built'' would suffice along with information on how to kill them and what their direct defense negatives are.

How do you kill the Thedosian Wall or the Silk Road unit? They should say and they should say what their negatives are against that specific unit and that unit should also display its attack bonus against that unit. Simple stuff that takes less than 5 minutes of your time.

Written by Utah, 01.08.2013 at 08:56

Tik-Tok look, this is not your typical war scenario. This is a political scenario set during Medieval times, you can even consider it a UN game without the UN. In the game you are supposed to make allies and trade. It is not all about war and more about diplomacy. That is why I have less of a focus on the units. And also because the defense marines have against infantry is the only unit interaction that actually matters in my map, since it lacks anti-aircraft or proper submarines.

It's a war game. War begins straight away. I've played it a few times and its always war. You think I cna negotiate with Latin and Mongols? No. Im looking at people playing it now and its a very open war game.

It's atwar. Even in UN, there is little diplmoacy and it always ends in war... becuase this is a war game. Like I said, unplayable due tio your laziness. I find it hilarious that you think I target you. You dont see me complaining about the barrage of awful maps in atwar bcause they arent worth complaining about. You make half decent maps with decent borders and ideas but completely fluff it in other areas. I pick at you because your maps have potential but are unplayable because you are lazy.

Written by Tik-Tok, 01.08.2013 at 09:05

And how am I supposed to know that? A simple ''Cannot be built'' would suffice along with information on how to kill them and what their direct defense negatives are.

How do you kill the Thedosian Wall or the Silk Road unit? They should say and they should say what their negatives are against that specific unit and that unit should also display its attack bonus against that unit. Simple stuff that takes less than 5 minutes of your time.

It does say how to kill them, just on the other side of the spectrum. If you look in the description of the caravan unit it will tell you it is used to take silk roads. And the Theodosian Walls is just a strong castle. The only way to even find out about it is to be playing as Byzantium or try to find it in the mess that is the unit screen.

Written by Tik-Tok, 01.08.2013 at 09:05

It's a war game. War begins straight away. I've played it a few times and its always war. You think I cna negotiate with Latin and Mongols? No. Im looking at people playing it now and its a very open war game.

It's atwar. Even in UN, there is little diplmoacy and it always ends in war... becuase this is a war game. Like I said, unplayable due tio your laziness. I find it hilarious that you think I target you. You dont see me complaining about the barrage of awful maps in atwar bcause they arent worth complaining about. You make half decent maps with decent borders and ideas but completely fluff it in other areas. I pick at you because your maps have potential but are unplayable because you are lazy.

-facepalm- Of course it's always war when you only play as the Egyptians. You must face the Crusades, Byzantines and the Mongols. It is a very war-based faction. You can't base your entire opinion of a scenario just on one faction.

And my laziness?! I gave this scenario my all! I gave each faction 50+ units, I added their respective monarchs, queens and heirs, I painstakingly researched each of the factions and their history and spent at least 10 minutes on each province working on its borders, population and flags. You know if you really saw potential in me you could have said it without insulting me. One does not send an ally request along with threats of war.

Written by Utah, 01.08.2013 at 09:18

-facepalm- Of course it's always war when you only play as the Egyptians. You must face the Crusades, Byzantines and the Mongols. It is a very war-based faction. You can't base your entire opinion of a scenario just on one faction.

And my laziness?! I gave this scenario my all! I gave each faction 50+ units, I added their respective monarchs, queens and heirs, I painstakingly researched each of the factions and their history and spent at least 10 minutes on each province working on its borders, population and flags. You know if you really saw potential in me you could have said it without insulting me. One does not send an ally request along with threats of war.

you forgot the heavy HP bonus that some units have.
and how the support units are near useless

Written by Tundy, 01.08.2013 at 13:00

Written by Utah, 01.08.2013 at 09:18

-facepalm- Of course it's always war when you only play as the Egyptians. You must face the Crusades, Byzantines and the Mongols. It is a very war-based faction. You can't base your entire opinion of a scenario just on one faction.

And my laziness?! I gave this scenario my all! I gave each faction 50+ units, I added their respective monarchs, queens and heirs, I painstakingly researched each of the factions and their history and spent at least 10 minutes on each province working on its borders, population and flags. You know if you really saw potential in me you could have said it without insulting me. One does not send an ally request along with threats of war.

you forgot the heavy HP bonus that some units have.
and how the support units are near useless

I have never touched the HP, and this scenario doesn't have support units...

With the new update and the return of the capture neutral country victory we can now have a proper Crusades scenario! 13th Century: Crusades will feature a Europe only map where the goal will be to capture Jerusalem from the Egyptians! Rum will be added in as a Buffer state so that you can not easily get help from the Balkans. There will be different scenarios and I might even have to teleport back to the 11th Century or the 12th. Hope you guys will enjoy!

Hello! New player here. I've mostly been dipping my toes into historical stuff- my pacifist side is not comfortable with modern-themed things, plus historical stuff just seems more familiar.
Anyway, the last (and only) full game I've played was your scenario. I've just read the exchange above, and I do think it'll be interesting to add bonuses to all units- cavalry bonuses to pikes, light swords bonuses to archers, stuff like that (then again, I've no idea how difficult custom map creation is).
I frankly don't see much to complain about if the crusading knights are the only unit with bonuses if they're described in the infobox. =|

Anyway, thought I'd give a brief AAR of the game here.
I started playing as the Teutonic Knights, in Livonia, and expanded into Rus. Noone was at yet playing in the region- the only other players were a Mongol player and a France player. As I grew into Russia, the Mongol player marched up to Central Asia. Due to the distance involved, both of us could only send modest amounts of units to our borders.
Several players joined and quickly left at this time.
Then, around the 20s (it was a 100-turn game), 3 more permanent players joined- one played Almohad Egypt, another Hungary, and a Castille/Aragon. By then, France had expanded slightly, with well guarded borders, the Mongols had taken China and Central Asia, and Livonia looked very Russian.
In the following turns, everyone expanded. The Egypt player managed to reach into Europe, taking Constantinople. The Mongol invasion began, with horses sweeping into the large frontier provinces of Volga-Bulgaria. Meanwhile, the Iberians (who landed on and started taking control of the British isles, and some of North Africa) and France (who'd absorbed Germany) started warring too. By this time, I'd grabbed Gotland and Zealand, as well as all the North Sea tradespots. A player entered, taking Denmark, and before long was at war with the France player.
The next war broke out between Bulgaria and Egypt. The Bulgaria player, who'd earlier expanded into the Balkans, put up stiff resistance, but eventually, their land was reduced to a sliver, and they surrendered. The France-Castille/Aragon war had ground to a stalemate, with some French victories and some unexpected Castille/Aragon countervictories, when the C/A player suddenly quit. Denmark surrendered as the France player headed north. Over in Russia, I was beginning my reconquest as Teutonic Knights pushed back the Mongols.
After receiving a 40k gift from the Mongols, Egypt attacked (by this point they were looking more like Byzantium). The reconquest crumbled as the next wave of Mongols quickly took advantage of the sandwich and snatched most of the regained provinces. Both parties pushed further, the Egyptians heading for Kiev and the Mongols for the key regions- Novgorod, Livonia. The Teutonics were squeezed north.
Fortunately, there was soon a double sandwich as the France player suggested a free-for-all and attacked the Egypt player. And as it turned out, the regions that the Mongols and Egypt had captured were almost undefended, and waves of Ritterbruders popped out behind their main attack groups, recapturing some of Russia, while bunkering down the key regions with heaps of cheap militia. Idling militia in Gotland sneakily grabbed the unclaimed riches of Scandinavia. A swath of Eastern Europe was also taken while the France and Egypt players battled for Berlin (solidly French) and the Italian border (mostly Egypt).
All in all, the Egypt player came up tops, having taken an impressive amount of European holdings. Wonderful game overall, I'd say. (well, I did waste more of my Saturday than I intended, but you did a great scenario, with a huge variety of units- I really like that!)

(Endgame stats, and Map)

Also, I'd like to sneakily promote my current game here, if that's allowed. It's just me (as Byzantium and China) and a Mongol player currently. We're at turn 24 (casual), but I've so far left most of Europe empty.

Written by Neurotic Cat, 09.08.2013 at 09:23

Hello! New player here. I've mostly been dipping my toes into historical stuff- my pacifist side is not comfortable with modern-themed things, plus historical stuff just seems more familiar.
Anyway, the last (and only) full game I've played was your scenario. I've just read the exchange above, and I do think it'll be interesting to add bonuses to all units- cavalry bonuses to pikes, light swords bonuses to archers, stuff like that (then again, I've no idea how difficult custom map creation is).
I frankly don't see much to complain about if the crusading knights are the only unit with bonuses if they're described in the infobox. =|

Anyway, thought I'd give a brief AAR of the game here.
I started playing as the Teutonic Knights, in Livonia, and expanded into Rus. Noone was at yet playing in the region- the only other players were a Mongol player and a France player. As I grew into Russia, the Mongol player marched up to Central Asia. Due to the distance involved, both of us could only send modest amounts of units to our borders.
Several players joined and quickly left at this time.
Then, around the 20s (it was a 100-turn game), 3 more permanent players joined- one played Almohad Egypt, another Hungary, and a Castille/Aragon. By then, France had expanded slightly, with well guarded borders, the Mongols had taken China and Central Asia, and Livonia looked very Russian.
In the following turns, everyone expanded. The Egypt player managed to reach into Europe, taking Constantinople. The Mongol invasion began, with horses sweeping into the large frontier provinces of Volga-Bulgaria. Meanwhile, the Iberians (who landed on and started taking control of the British isles, and some of North Africa) and France (who'd absorbed Germany) started warring too. By this time, I'd grabbed Gotland and Zealand, as well as all the North Sea tradespots. A player entered, taking Denmark, and before long was at war with the France player.
The next war broke out between Bulgaria and Egypt. The Bulgaria player, who'd earlier expanded into the Balkans, put up stiff resistance, but eventually, their land was reduced to a sliver, and they surrendered. The France-Castille/Aragon war had ground to a stalemate, with some French victories and some unexpected Castille/Aragon countervictories, when the C/A player suddenly quit. Denmark surrendered as the France player headed north. Over in Russia, I was beginning my reconquest as Teutonic Knights pushed back the Mongols.
After receiving a 40k gift from the Mongols, Egypt attacked (by this point they were looking more like Byzantium). The reconquest crumbled as the next wave of Mongols quickly took advantage of the sandwich and snatched most of the regained provinces. Both parties pushed further, the Egyptians heading for Kiev and the Mongols for the key regions- Novgorod, Livonia. The Teutonics were squeezed north.
Fortunately, there was soon a double sandwich as the France player suggested a free-for-all and attacked the Egypt player. And as it turned out, the regions that the Mongols and Egypt had captured were almost undefended, and waves of Ritterbruders popped out behind their main attack groups, recapturing some of Russia, while bunkering down the key regions with heaps of cheap militia. Idling militia in Gotland sneakily grabbed the unclaimed riches of Scandinavia. A swath of Eastern Europe was also taken while the France and Egypt players battled for Berlin (solidly French) and the Italian border (mostly Egypt).
All in all, the Egypt player came up tops, having taken an impressive amount of European holdings. Wonderful game overall, I'd say. (well, I did waste more of my Saturday than I intended, but you did a great scenario, with a huge variety of units- I really like that!)

(Endgame stats, and Map)

Also, I'd like to sneakily promote my current game here, if that's allowed. It's just me (as Byzantium and China) and a Mongol player currently. We're at turn 24 (casual), but I've so far left most of Europe empty.

interesting indeed! Glad you liked the scenario, fellow historian comrade.

Written by Utah, 09.08.2013 at 11:27

interesting indeed! Glad you liked the scenario, fellow historian comrade.

Heh. I wouldn't really call myself a historian, more of a Wikipedia Information Junkie, but in any case thanks!
stealth advertising continues

Written by Neurotic Cat, 12.08.2013 at 08:58

Heh. I wouldn't really call myself a historian, more of a Wikipedia Information Junkie, but in any case thanks!
stealth advertising continues

That link doesn't work What the name of your game?

Written by Grimm, 21.08.2013 at 18:04

Written by Neurotic Cat, 12.08.2013 at 08:58

Heh. I wouldn't really call myself a historian, more of a Wikipedia Information Junkie, but in any case thanks!
stealth advertising continues

That link doesn't work What the name of your game?

The game's over, sorry. Mongol player and a bunch of others went inactive, and the remaining player (the Egypt player in the first game) & I formed an alliance, ending the game.
Feel free to send an invite this way if you're playing this scenario, though