Custom Campaigns - More Settings?

[Adebar]

I don't know if that has been asked before: Is it possible to give us more settings for custom campaigns like with the custom battles?

ATM I'm playing a campaign with the TT Mod: Byzantine 493 - 550 AD vs. Sassanid Persians 477 - 590 AD. All battle maps are of the Mediterranean map type. That would fit the theatres of war like Asia Minor or costal parts of Syria but not Armenia and Mesopotamia etc.

It would surely be much more immersive to have a choice of map types.

Also the possible choices for allies is quite limited even with the "Date" and "Geographical" settings turned off. For the Byzantine 493 - 550 AD there are only Arabs (Bedouin). (Vitalian, the rebellious magister militum per Thracias allegedly had Bulgarians and Huns in his army with which he threatened Constantinople till his defeat in 515.) Would be nice if we could get a bit more freedom of choice here.

Hey, and no Isaurians, anywhere?

[Paul59]

The Bulgarians and Huns are represented by the Fierce Nomad Light Horse Archers and Fierce Nomad Horse Archers that are in the main Byzantine list.

The Isaurians are represented by the Irregular Foot.

[Adebar]

Thanks, good to know!

[Adebar]

...

I just wanted to ask if it's technical possible to implement a map type choice in the custom campaigns settings like with the custom battles. But perhaps I'm already several years too late for the party.

[rbodleyscott]

It would technically possible, but it would be a bit counter to the principal of how campaigns work i.e. it would be too much player control. We could, however, look at the algorithm that controls which of the opposing army lists’ region is used for the battle, so that in the campaign some battles use one type and some the other.

Our general view is the the Mediterranean terrain type is more appropriate than the Middle Eastern one for Anatolia in this period, as Anatolia was not as arid as Syria and unirrigated Mesopotamia. In truth the terrain probably should be intermediate, but we had to shoehorn all areas into the 4 main categories,

[Adebar]

It would technically possible, but it would be a bit counter to the principal of how campaigns work i.e. it would be too much player control.

Letting the player choose a prefered map type for a campaign would IMHO not give him too much control - in fact such an option would be more eye candy/immersion related and not touch the deeper campaign mechanisms (as far as I know).

We could, however, look at the algorithm that controls which of the opposing army lists’ region is used for the battle, so that in the campaign some battles use one type and some the other.

That would be nice!

Our general view is the the Mediterranean terrain type is more appropriate than the Middle Eastern one for Anatolia in this period, as Anatolia was not as arid as Syria and unirrigated Mesopotamia. In truth the terrain probably should be intermediate, but we had to shoehorn all areas into the 4 main categories,

Sure, I understand. It's just that all Byzantine vs. Persian campaigns come with the same Mediterranean map type. It would be ... quite awesome ... to have the suitable Middle Eastern terrain representing Mesopotamia/Syria/Armenia for several stages of the epic struggle during the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 AD for example.

[sIg3b]

One thing I would like is the Allies a bit more restricted by an actual Allied Leader, it would improve immersion if you can´t distribute them all over the place, but have to use them as a distinct separate contingent.
So the advantage of having Allies that can compensate for some weakness would come with the disadvantage that they have to form their own wing or reserve, instead of mingling with your national units.

[rbodleyscott]

One thing I would like is the Allies a bit more restricted by an actual Allied Leader, it would improve immersion if you can´t distribute them all over the place, but have to use them as a distinct separate contingent.
So the advantage of having Allies that can compensate for some weakness would come with the disadvantage that they have to form their own wing or reserve, instead of mingling with your national units.

We hear you. However, as we stated in the v1.5.18 patch notes:

o Allied troops in custom battles are not required to deploy together under an ally general. This is not entirely historical, but is a “quality of life” game design decision, to avoid issues with deployment and group moves.

This was a deliberate design decision, not an oversight.

[sIg3b]

I was not suspecting an oversight; just making an attempt to nudge you a little to perhaps reconsider.