View Full Version : Playable factions
While CA hasn't confirmed for sure that there will now be 12 playable factions in ETW, it does sound increasingly likely. So given that, which factions are you hoping will be playable?
Also, what faction (presuming that it is, in fact, playable) are you most looking forward to trying out first?
Note: Just a preemptive warning to keep discussion civil. I will not allow the thread to degenerate into a nationalistic ("my country is better than yours") pissing contest. :whip:
My list (in alphabetical order):
Austria
Dutch
England/Britain
France
Ottoman Empire
Poland-Lithuania
Portugal
Prussia
Russia
Spain
Sweden
United States*
* I'm not particularly eager to play my own country, but it's already confirmed as playable in the main campaign, so I might as well include it.
* I'm not particularly eager to play my own country, but it's already confirmed as playable in the main campaign, so I might as well include it.
I have to say I'm in the same boat with you there, Martok. I'm sure i'll get around to playing them, but they are very low on my priorities.
The total war series has somehow always lended itself to me playing as the English if the setting allowed for it, in MTW they were my first faction I ever beat the game with and with M2 they were my first choice as well (and still are). I just like the idea of an island nation and with the importance of sea-battles going up ten fold in Empire I'm sure playing as Britain will only be more fun. :beam:
After England/Britain then without a doubt Russia. No real reason here other then I think they're cool. That's not a lame reason is it? :2thumbsup:
I'll bet anything that they'll have one of the Indian factions as playable. The Mugals most likely, as they were the largest (atleast when the game begins).
ofcourse they might have Marathas or the Kingdom of mysore, but I'm dead sure that they'll have one native faction here.
Well, Great Britain sounds interesting just for the reason i think they, along with the US (13 Colonies or however they name them) are most flashed out, but i'm not so keen on naval battles, so i like a thrilling european war. I fear though that Austria will not be included as playable faction, which will make no sense at all.
Prussia perhaps just to see how CA displays their military based government and naturally the French in no particular order.
Well, "my country" Baden is surely not playable and i'm almost sure it is also not included in the 50 nations.
Quintus.JC
08-28-2008, 14:07
I'll bet anything that they'll have one of the Indian factions as playable. The Mugals most likely, as they were the largest (atleast when the game begins).
ofcourse they might have Marathas or the Kingdom of mysore, but I'm dead sure that they'll have one native faction here.
Definity the Mugals, there's too many European factions as it is already.
My history around that period isn't great, but I think we should get at least one Italian faction to be Playable, Kingdom of Piedmont perhaps?
What a coincidence, I've just been playing the Mughals in EU3, I'd never even heard of them before that, now they're everywhere! :clown:
But yeah, at least one native Indian nation should be playable, in fact I hope it will be like M2, where the ones they said were playable were just the ones that were unlocked at the beginning and actually most nations were playable.
woad&fangs
08-28-2008, 23:36
I'll probably play as Prussia first(in the distant future when I have a computer capable of playing E:TW) and then unlock or mod the game so I can play as the Barbary Coast Pirates. After that I'll play as one of the big colonial powerhouses(Portugal, Spain, France, England) and finally I'll get around to playing the Mughals or Iroquois.
I wonder if the "non-playable" factions will have the same sort of non-conventional victory conditions (prestige, trade, Republic etc) that CA have said some playable factions will have?
Furthermore, I wonder how moddable they'll be?
As for who I intend to play first, it's gonna have to be Great Britain. My country is, after all, better than yours. Plus, probably the best placed to get going with the overseas empire right away.
Though if the French faction features the Marseillaise at some point that plan may well change.
If I come around to buying the game (I really need a new cpu, hard drive & graphics card), the first nation I'll play will be Portugal. If Portugal isn't featured in it, then I won't even bother buying the game, since I won't be endorsing games who replace colonial empires with a handful of british colonies.
I would agree to everything of your list, but I'd replace Poland with the Mughals. Since the Poland Cover is already been shown, I only fear Portugal will be left out. (And CA loses a customer.)
Megas Methuselah
08-29-2008, 04:21
Portugal is like an important nation in the colonial period, isn't it? I doubt CA would go so far as to exclude it... Unless by the time of the game's starting period it was already past its prime?
:crowngrin:
SwordsMaster
08-29-2008, 09:53
It'll be Spain, Russia and France for me, probably followed at a later stage with Prussia and the Ottomans. You see, replaying history is not exactly fun. While fixing historical mistakes is something I do enjoy. So perhaps if Spain and France had won the war of 1700, Europe's landscape would have been forever changed. You never know. Or if Sweden knew when to stop in the northern war. Etc. Ad infinitum. Too many things to play, too little time
prussia first for a united germany. then russia. as a scandinavian(norwegian) i`ll of course have to try sweden. also poland has always been one of my faves in medieval/m2, and has to be tried out pretty early.
as a norwegian, I would of course have loved to play as denmark/norway and bring down the mighty blockading british men of war with guerilla gunboats along the coastline.
Portugal is like an important nation in the colonial period, isn't it? I doubt CA would go so far as to exclude it... Unless by the time of the game's starting period it was already past its prime?
:crowngrin:
It was during this time that Portugal expanded greatly inland on Brazil (Surpassing the Treaty of Tordesillas line), eventually leading to the discovery of large gold mines (Gold production peeks at 1750, relatively halfway to the date which the game covers), which flooded Portugal with wealth (Though badly used, but that's for the player to change.) Furthermore, Portugal still gaining Spanish Upper La Plata colony, using the Treaty of Tordesillas as an argument. This besides also having colonies in Africa (Which only British and the Dutch also had), and colonies in India (Which only all colonial powers had except the Spanish.)
This is the problem I see with Portugal, weren't most of their colonies in places that won't be on the Empire map (South America, Africa, South East Asia)? I suspect India is going to become something of a microcosm for all the colonialism that went on outside of North America.
Speaking of which, what on Earth are the poor old Spanish and Dutch going to be left with?
I admit that I don't know much about Dutch colonies, but I remember reading Washington Irving's stories, and that always made it sound like the Dutch had settlements around the Hudson river.......Ichabod Crane anyone? ~D
PBI: A good point about the Portuguese colonies. If South America isn't on the map, then we won't get Brazil.
What's not clear, however, is whether South America is or is not included in the game map. I've yet to CA confirm this either way.
I admit that I don't know much about Dutch colonies, but I remember reading Washington Irving's stories, and that always made it sound like the Dutch had settlements around the Hudson river.......Ichabod Crane anyone? ~D
The Dutch did indeed have a colony here, originally called New Amsterdam. Today, it's slightly better known as New York City (was eventually ceded to the English). ~:)
Definity the Mugals, there's too many European factions as it is already.
My history around that period isn't great, but I think we should get at least one Italian faction to be Playable, Kingdom of Piedmont perhaps?
Dutchy of Savoy you mean. They didn't become a Kingdom till after they got Sardinia. But in 1700 Italian factions would be the republic of Venice, Dutchy of Savoy, the Papacy, Tuscany (which I doubt will be included), and the republic of Genoa. The kingdoms of Sardinia, Sicily, and Naples are Spainish. As is the Dutchy of Milan.
I admit that I don't know much about Dutch colonies, but I remember reading Washington Irving's stories, and that always made it sound like the Dutch had settlements around the Hudson river.......Ichabod Crane anyone? ~D
They controled parts of Ceylon (Sri Lanka) in 1700 (look at the campagin map shots and you'll see that). And New York was a Dutch colony in the 17th century. After the Anglo Dutch war in the 1670's (I think) the English got New Amsterdam (New York) and one of the Dutch cities in India (IIRC). The Dutch got Aruba, and the British territory in what is now Indonesia.
Now as for the Portuguese they will have territory on the map outside Europe. You see the first Europeans to set up trading factories in India were Portuguese and Dutch. The Portuguese first arrived at Goa in 1498 in the person of Vasco De Gama. Whether CA makes a Goa province under Portguese rule is another story. Goa is one of the few territories Portugal keeps after the Napoleonic wars (they held onto their African ones, Timor, and Macau). They only lost it in 1961 after India sent in 40000 troops.
Map time!
http://www.friesian.com/images/maps/world-sp.gif
Gustav II Adolf
08-29-2008, 17:41
Austria
Dutch
England/Britain
France
Ottoman Empire
Poland-Lithuania
Portugal
Prussia
Russia
Spain
Sweden
United States*
Well, I'm quite afraid which countries will be left out. There is supposed to be several playable factions outside Europe but i think this list is superb. Which of these won't make it? :sweatdrop:
I would play Sweden first then Prussia or the Dutch.
G
[QUOTE=lars573;2002124]Goa is one of the few territories Portugal keeps after the Napoleonic wars (they held onto their African ones, Timor, and Macau). They only lost it in 1961 after India sent in 40000 troops.
Eh?
Portugal lost no territory during the Napoleonic wars... (Actually, we lost a "Beyond Guadiana River" city and it's surroundings to Spain, named Olivença)
Other than that, Portugal lost no territory. (During the Napoleonic wars, Portugal conquered French Guyana, but was forced to give it back.)
Brazil wasn't lost during the Napoleonic Wars. Brazil declared its independence in 1821, which, if the game lasts only up to 1820, it won't even cover it.
Lusitani
08-30-2008, 00:43
[QUOTE=lars573;2002124]Goa is one of the few territories Portugal keeps after the Napoleonic wars (they held onto their African ones, Timor, and Macau). They only lost it in 1961 after India sent in 40000 troops.
Eh?
Portugal lost no territory during the Napoleonic wars... (Actually, we lost a "Beyond Guadiana River" city and it's surroundings to Spain, named Olivença)
Other than that, Portugal lost no territory. (During the Napoleonic wars, Portugal conquered French Guyana, but was forced to give it back.)
Exactly!
OLIVENÇA É NOSSA!!!!!!!!!! :director:~:pissed:
Austria
Dutch
England/Britain
France
Ottoman Empire
Poland-Lithuania
Portugal
Prussia
Russia
Spain
Sweden
United States*
Well, I'm quite afraid which countries will be left out. There is supposed to be several playable factions outside Europe but i think this list is superb. Which of these won't make it? :sweatdrop:
Yeah, now that I think about it, I believe I remember CA saying that the Mugals would in fact be playable. So india will be happy. ~:)
However, you're right in that it does then beg the question of which one of the factions above will be cut from the "playable" list? I wish it would be the U.S., but of course we already know that's not going to happen.
Sheogorath
08-30-2008, 00:59
I, personally, will be playing the Duchy of Courland as my first faction, after I alter the files to make it playable ;)
pherhaps when they say 50 factions,they mean to say that 20 or 30 may be emergent facttions that only appear when a province of reigion rebels.~:idea:
Megas Methuselah
08-30-2008, 02:09
That is very likely, though you must remember that there is still numerous land not under European colonial control.
:crowngrin:
Yeah, now that I think about it, I believe I remember saying that the Mugals would in fact be playable. So india will be happy. ~:)
:beam: It matters little though, I always break the game with the British kingdom. After that, I look elsewhere.
Be the same this time. Then I'll get the mod to unlock all factions and play the Rajpoot States if they include them as a faction ~D
Sheogorath
08-30-2008, 17:25
:beam: It matters little though, I always break the game with the British kingdom. After that, I look elsewhere.
Be the same this time. Then I'll get the mod to unlock all factions and play the Rajpoot States if they include them as a faction ~D
On the campaign map in the other thread, it looks as though the Maratha States were a single entity. Even if they arent 'playable' they should be easy to mod into playability.
The question is, of course, whether or not it'll be worth it. I mean, they may end up just having two units or something, along the lines of 'Indian Rabble' and 'Horrible Indian Musketeers that Arent Worth Building'.
CA doesn't exactly have a sterling record with the more easterly factions >_>
Megas Methuselah
08-30-2008, 20:37
Don't bring my hopes crashing down like that, man. Even if you are right, there'll probably be a mod which should at least make a proper unit roster, if there won't already be one in existance.
Sheogorath
08-31-2008, 01:44
Hey, for all we know the Indian factions have a diverse and interesting unit roster, with nothing more offensive than rocket elephants ;)
* I'm not particularly eager to play my own country, but it's already confirmed as playable in the main campaign, so I might as well include it.
Ditto. The U.S. became a superpower long after the game ends. I'm not interested on playing crappy units with crappy provinces or units/provinces that are way more powerful than what they historically should be.
I always play factions with a unit roster that interests me. That and having a decent starting position. I think I'll go with one of the colonial powers, most probably Britain.
Khazar_Dahvos
08-31-2008, 03:36
I more than likely will probably play as the Dutch since I like the starting provinces that they start with!!!!! Or perhaps I will play as the Prussians and scrap my european provinces and sail somewhere and make a new home!!!!:laugh4:
Ditto. The U.S. became a superpower long after the game ends. I'm not interested on playing crappy units with crappy provinces or units/provinces that are way more powerful than what they historically should be..
Indeed. I just don't see the point of America being playable when it will --or at least should -- be grossly underpowered compared to the other major factions. (I don't think anyone took us seriously until the Mexican-American War at the very earliest, and most probably not til the Spanish-American War.) There's simply no way that the U.S. should be able to take on any European powers early on, and even later it should still be very difficult.
I always play factions with a unit roster that interests me. That and having a decent starting position. I think I'll go with one of the colonial powers, most probably Britain.
I'm thinking that I'll probably want to play as the British first, with Prussia, Sweden, France, and the Ottomans rounding out the top 5. I'll maybe play the U.S. when I'm bored with the rest.
Gustav II Adolf
08-31-2008, 10:01
I think it's fine that the US is a playable faction as long as no other important major faction is excluded. That means we need more playable factions because i don't want Portugal put behind the US. However we also need variation and different challenges. It would be a real challenge to start with a Weak US and change history by making it powerfull against all ods. I would'nt like though if it had super units of it's own.
G
I think it's fine that the US is a playable faction as long as no other important major faction is excluded. That means we need more playable factions because i don't want Portugal put behind the US. However we also need variation and different challenges. It would be a real challenge to start with a Weak US and change history by making it powerfull against all ods. I would'nt like though if it had super units of it's own.
G
To be honest it seems they scrap Portugal or Austria as playable faction for the U.S.
marketing reasons:thumbsdown:, but very sad. I agree with Martok and others.
The 13 Colonies should definately be one of the 50 factions, unlockable perhaps, but definately not one of the starting 10-12 for obvious historical reasons. I'm not sure how they want to do it, but if the U.S. is playable from the start (1700) it would be laughable and if they playable from 1770 onwards it would be a bad decission to leave a important power like Austria or Portugal out for them who shaped Europe(Austria) and hold important colonies (Potugal) from the early beginning of the game.
Sol Invictus
08-31-2008, 16:06
I agree, while I would like to play the Thirteen Colonies in a historical context and attempt to gain idependence, I wouldn't want that opportunity to come only by excluding some of the major powers of the era; mainly Austria and Portugal. Since CA seems to be going for twelve factions now, that should leave room for everyone to be happy; both players and the marketing folks.
Zenicetus
08-31-2008, 22:35
Indeed. I just don't see the point of America being playable when it will --or at least should -- be grossly underpowered compared to the other major factions. (I don't think anyone took us seriously until the Mexican-American War at the very earliest, and most probably not til the Spanish-American War.) There's simply no way that the U.S. should be able to take on any European powers early on, and even later it should still be very difficult.
True, but a major strength of the U.S. faction would be (to quote a certain Python movie)... vast tracts of land! And therefore resources.
I wouldn't want to see the U.S. faction artificially overpowered at the start, but it could be interesting to play a race for resource development while holding off the established European powers with diplomacy. If you can generate enough early cash from trade, agriculture, mining, etc., then you could bribe your way to a degree of military power with alliances, until you had your own strong armies and navies (assuming diplomacy actually does work better than previous games... otherwise all bets are off). It could be the ultimate faction for people who like to turtle instead of blitzing the map.
Also, didn't I read somewhere in the previews that there might be more than just a military conquest goal for the campaign? If there's an "economic victory" condition of some kind, then the U.S. faction would be a strong contender, if it can defend its territory and maybe do just a little local expansion (Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean) instead of having to go for world domination.
I realize CA included the U.S. as a playable faction as a "hook" to further attract my fellow Americans to the game, but I agree that it'll be a pity if it's at the expense of a major European power not being playable. For that reason, I'm rather hoping that the U.S. is being excluded as one of the original 10-12 playable factions (since it's also one of the emerging factions).
The 13 Colonies should definately be one of the 50 factions, unlockable perhaps, but definately not one of the starting 10-12 for obvious historical reasons. I'm not sure how they want to do it, but if the U.S. is playable from the start (1700) it would be laughable
I don't think you have to worry about that at least. From what's been said so far, it sounds as if the U.S. will be an emerging faction, and will only appear under certain conditions. If they do appear, I believe you will then have the choice to either play as them or continue playing as the British.
True, but a major strength of the U.S. faction would be (to quote a certain Python movie)... vast tracts of land! And therefore resources.
I wouldn't want to see the U.S. faction artificially overpowered at the start, but it could be interesting to play a race for resource development while holding off the established European powers with diplomacy. If you can generate enough early cash from trade, agriculture, mining, etc., then you could bribe your way to a degree of military power with alliances, until you had your own strong armies and navies (assuming diplomacy actually does work better than previous games... otherwise all bets are off). It could be the ultimate faction for people who like to turtle instead of blitzing the map.
Also, didn't I read somewhere in the previews that there might be more than just a military conquest goal for the campaign? If there's an "economic victory" condition of some kind, then the U.S. faction would be a strong contender, if it can defend its territory and maybe do just a little local expansion (Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean) instead of having to go for world domination.
Some good points, Zenicetus. Winning via forming alliances and/or economic/prestiege victory may very well be possible. I hadn't really thought of that. :bow:
Samurai Waki
09-01-2008, 04:03
[QUOTE=Martok;2003937] I don't think you have to worry about that at least. From what's been said so far, it sounds as if the U.S. will be an emerging faction, and will only appear under certain conditions. If they do appear, I believe you will then have the choice to either play as them or continue playing as the British.[QUOTE]
I believe this would be the best course of action.
Yeah, thinking about it, I don't think CA will make us conquer the entire map or even a huge majority of it. It'll just drag the endgame for too long, especially if they do the AI ganging up on you, brigands appearing everywhere on your territory, huge penalties for distance to capital thing they do in current released games. I wouldn't want to finish the game if that's the case. Right now, endgame just drags on too long because of all the artificial constraints meant to slow down a winning player once the player becomes too powerful.
If the victory conditions of a U.S. player, even on the long campaign, is just to conquer the lower 48 states and maybe a few more territories here and there, then that would be very reasonable. It's basically what the U.S. did in real life;the player is just attempting to finish it a few decades earlier.
i feel an obscure urge to play as portugal. However, i would also like to play as Prussia (ie: germany) and launch the first world war two and a bit centuries early.
i feel an obscure urge to play as portugal. However, i would also like to play as Prussia (ie: germany) and launch the first world war two and a bit centuries early.
If you want to play a First World War during this timeframe, the 7 years war fits almost perfectly, sadly with 1 year = 1 turn it will be over too soon.
Just think of all the factions that fought against each other during this war:yes:
I really hope for a expansion set for the 7 years-war and 1 turn = 1 month or perhaps 1 turn = 3 months at the maximum.
Dodge_272
09-02-2008, 08:45
Does it matter if factions are 'playable' or not?
In RTW there were 3 playable factions at the start. IN M2TW there were 5 playable factions at the start.
All you have to do is edit one text file and you can, and will, have every faction playable.
Does it matter if factions are 'playable' or not?
In RTW there were 3 playable factions at the start. IN M2TW there were 5 playable factions at the start.
All you have to do is edit one text file and you can, and will, have every faction playable.
Yes, it matters.
Even CA stated that the 10-12 factions are definately more detailed and fleshed out than the others, which means you'll probably have rather boring units like typical german line infantry for the austrian faction instead of specialized austrian, hungarian or balkan units for example. I think you can imagine the same for other factions.
So in my opinion it is very important if a faction is playable or not.
adembroski
09-02-2008, 12:14
I find it ironic that people are degrading the United States at the time as a country incapable of taking on world powers when, in fact, that's precisely what it did in gaining, and then defending, its independence.
Note that after Valley Forge, it can be easily argued that Washington's northern Army was the equal of, if not better than, the English army... conventional wisdom's greatest army at the time. And that's including it's Hessian mercs.
There is something to be said for the moral strength of a man fighting for his freedom, and it's easy to illustrate that the American colonies produced it's fair share of the world's intellectual elite at the time. Perhaps the political savvy and industriousness of the American people can be the faction's strength. The freedom of the American people allowed them to explore avenues of development other nations never even thought of once the nation recovered from the Revolution.
Much of the United State's post-Revolution weakness was its own fault. Had a slightly different form of government (such as the one later established with the Constitution) been adopted right off the bat, the United States may have very soon established itself as a world power.
In all cases, regardless of who you play in this game, you have the benefit of hindsight. This includes the United States. I will, proudly, play my own country, and it's the primary reason I am buying this game... finally, the chance to play my own in a Total War game! If it leaves me at a distinct disadvantage, so much the better.
Here we go again... "proudly play my own nation".:wall:
Nobody said the 13 Colonies were not as "good" as other factions.
Luckily this thread was not known for patriotic views this far and i hope it stays this way.
Nothing against patriotism for those who gain something from it, but usually it shouldn't belong in a computer game.
Don't be insulted, cause i fear for this thread, if one person starts this thing...
So:
Let me explain, why i think the 13 Colonies should not be playable in the grand campaign.
Others including me just said that there were definately more important factions concerning the relative power in the world during this time. And...more important, the real irony would be, if CA make the the Colonies playable from 1700. On the other side, if the Colonies are only playable from 1770 onwards it would be a lost spot for a other faction for the first 70-75 turns.
adembroski
09-02-2008, 12:41
Here we go again... "proudly play my own nation".:wall:
Oh dear, god forbid!
Nobody said the 13 Colonies were not as "good" as other factions.
Yes, they did. Repeatedly.
Luckily this thread was not known for patriotic views this far and i hope it stays this way.
Yes, because liking one's own country should be illegal... for Americans.
Let me explain, why i think the 13 Colonies should not be playable in the grand campaign:
Others including me just said that there were definitely more important factions concerning the relative power in the world during this time.
Sure, but not fifty of them. To say the United States does not play at least a secondary role in historical events between 1776-1820 is ridiculous. From a political stand point, there had not been a viable Republic in the (TW Relevant) world in almost 1,000 years. Can you say for sure that there would have been a French Revolution if their hadn't been an American Revolution?
And...more important, the real irony would be, if CA make the the Colonies playable from 1700. On the other side, if the Colonies are only playable from 1770 onwards it would be a lost spot for a other faction for the first 70-75 turns.
I would think they'd make the Colonies a conditional emerging faction. At least, that'd be the intelligent way to go about it. Had England handled things a tad differently, the Revolution never would have occurred. It was far from inevitable.
I can see the issues with CA including them A.) from the start or B.) having them emerge regardless of what occurs. I personally think that when a "Revolution" occurs within your faction, you should be permitted to chose which side you'll take over... at the risk of losing the game if you pick the wrong side, of course.
This, of course, means I play England in order to take over the United States later, and potentially lose that war and there is no more United States... but I think it'd be fun nevertheless.
I'm not going to only play US. I'm actually pretty interested in playing as several other nations as well. The point it is there seems to be an overt hostility toward anyone remotely patriotic, and I saw WTF is wrong with that?!? Especially concerning something so trivial as a single player campaign game.
I'm not here to say "My country is better than yours", that wasn't my point. My point was to defend A.) the United States' inclusion in the game (and it doesn't really need defending, it makes good, economic sense) and B.) point out that there's nothing wrong with being happy to see them there.
Mithridates VI Eupator
09-02-2008, 14:40
Personally, I think that the US would be a very interesting faction to play, but not if it would be at the expence of, say, Austria, which was one of the major powers of this time. Hopefully, it will be possible to play them both, at least if one were to mod the textfiles, but still, if it is as has been earlier stated, that non-playable factions will have fewer, and less interesting units, Austria would definately be the loser, given that the Austrian empire encompassed a large area, with very different groups of people, that could contribute with interesting units. The same holds true for the US, though, but not quite to the same extent.
(and, no: I'm neither Austrian, nor American):beam:
TenkiSoratoti_
09-02-2008, 16:15
So lets get this straight...
The emerging US faction is being implemented and nations such as Portugal, Russia and Austria are not?
This is a travesty akin to GB getting 4th place in the Olympics.
The 'Rebels/Patriots/Americans' or whatever you like to call them took on a power like Britain and pulled through BUT only just and had considerable help from foreign super powers. Are we not forgetting that the US, despite outnumbering the British in many of the battles, lost most of them? And was it not more to do with horrendous British ineptitude that edged them onto that Parisian table in '83?
I just can't get my head round why CA is treating the US as an 'Empire' nation when it was so clearly not. I fail to see how not doing this would hurt their little marketing schemes. The very fact that you can actually play as the US should be enough to entice most of the potential American market surely?
In either case, I'll be dealing with the Rebellious colonists in a manner that befits rebels, in a manner the British should have enforced - mass hanging, scorched earth, heads on pikes.
So lets get this straight...
The emerging US faction is being implemented and nations such as Portugal, Russia and Austria are not?
This is a travesty akin to GB getting 4th place in the Olympics.
The 'Rebels/Patriots/Americans' or whatever you like to call them took on a power like Britain and pulled through BUT only just and had considerable help from foreign super powers. Are we not forgetting that the US, despite outnumbering the British in many of the battles, lost most of them? And was it not more to do with horrendous British ineptitude that edged them onto that Parisian table in '83?
I just can't get my head round why CA is treating the US as an 'Empire' nation when it was so clearly not. I fail to see how not doing this would hurt their little marketing schemes. The very fact that you can actually play as the US should be enough to entice most of the potential American market surely?
Nothing is sure for the moment, but we all can count:
Maximum 12 playable nations - with playable i mean fleshed out and detailled (i know we can mod other factions in probably, but they will not be as detailled as the playable ones.)
Great Britain
13 Colonies
France
Prussia
Russia
Sweden
Netherlands
Spain
Ottomans
Mughals
Poland-Lithuania
and
Portugal OR Austria.
I think most of the information that was given hints to this final solution.
My list is based on 12 playable factions but even this is not confirmed.
If there are only 10 playable we can assume both Portugal and Austria are left out along with one other.
Since Austria played a very important part in defeating Napoleon's Empire, I think I won't be buying the game. :)
TenkiSoratoti_
09-02-2008, 17:50
Since Austria played a very important part in defeating Napoleon's Empire, I think I won't be buying the game. :)
I will buy the game but I find it VERY odd that Austria might not be included or that there is any doubt about Austria being included. I've got over the fact that CA are putting the USA in for money reasons only (comon lets face it, they are) but no Austria? Thats more like an insult to history.
13 colonies shouldn't be playble right from the beginning in the general game. It should emerge as a rebel faction in due course of time, IF the British Empire's policies cause it to. Else it shouldn't exist.
Also, it is confirmed that we're having a whole separate Road to Liberty thing for the 13 colonies, so it's not like that it's being totally left out.
Furthermore, I think we can trust CA enough to make sure that they don't sacrifice a superpower to allow people to play as the US. I don't think the rebel factions are being counted among the 12 playable by them.
I should at this point echo SaFe's point, nothing is confirmed yet. This is all guesswork and speculation. Even the number of playable factions is not fixed yet, CA have said it will depend on how many they can get done before release.
Personally I doubt that the US will be playable from 1700, since it looks like they will already get their moment in the spotlight in the "Road to Independence" tutorial campaign. Probably they will become playable in the main campaign if they emerge, but it would seem a bit rich to bill as "playable" a faction which you would have to play for some time as Great Britain to even start, and who even then might not actually emerge.
Zenicetus
09-02-2008, 19:14
I just can't get my head round why CA is treating the US as an 'Empire' nation when it was so clearly not. I fail to see how not doing this would hurt their little marketing schemes. The very fact that you can actually play as the US should be enough to entice most of the potential American market surely?
I'm sure marketing is part of it, but the main justification I see for making the 13 colonies an "empire nation" is pure strategic interest. Some of us play these games for strategic challenge, not just to live out personal nationalistic dreams. Even though I'm a resident of the USA, the main thing that interests me about the USA as a faction is that it should be very challenging to fend off the other powers (if it's done right), and it starts on a completely different part of the map from the other principal players. That's going to be interesting, I think. Otherwise it's just a repeat of the M2TW "let's see who can get to the New World first!" scenario.
I do hope they include Portugal as one of the main playable factions, for historical reasons. But from a strategy gaming perspective, playing as Portugal isn't going to be much different from playing the game as Spain. I'm in favor of more variety in units, culture, and starting positions on the map, even if it means a historically powerful empire has to get dropped from the main playable faction list.
Sheogorath
09-02-2008, 19:31
All this whining about the US being playable, give it a REST, people. Whatever CA's reasons, where you HONESTLY not expecting it? Were you SERIOUSLY expecting a %100 historically accurate game, with all the nations in the right place, borders exactly right, all the correct colonies, and the USA as a minor faction? COME ON, people. The Revolutionary War takes place during this games period and you SERIOUSLY expected them to pass up on being able to slap 'RE-ENACT THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR!!!(!)' on the box?
Just chill. Relax. Take a deep breath. Realize that, within a month of the game coming out, there will be a 'historical accuracy' mod out that 'fixes' your problems. The mod team is probably already being assembled somewhere to make preparations.
Or make a separate topic for "ZOMGZ AMERIKKKA!" That'd work too.
Megas Methuselah
09-02-2008, 21:11
Heh heh. You're funny. However, I do hope Austria is going to be playable. Judging from it's history, it would be a really fun faction to play. Keep in mind, though, that I'm not going to scream, bash my head into the wall, or make spam posts on the org(i.e. ZOMGZ AMERIKKKA :clown:) if I find Austria an unplayable faction. I'll just be dissapointed.
:crowngrin:
But from a strategy gaming perspective, playing as Portugal isn't going to be much different from playing the game as Spain. I'm in favor of more variety in units, culture, and starting positions on the map, even if it means a historically powerful empire has to get dropped from the main playable faction list.
I don't think so. Remember that Portugal had a global empire to look after, colonies in the Atlantic, in America, in Africa and in India (Without mentioning in Australasia, which probably won't be in the game), meaning you have to defend them all, scattered around the world, and defend them with a smaller population basis (In gameplay perspective, I suppose it would be through many less provinces. One or two.) than the Spanish while, the said people only have to tend after their continuous American Empire, needing not to bother with India, for instance.
All this whining about the US being playable, give it a REST, people. Whatever CA's reasons, where you HONESTLY not expecting it? Were you SERIOUSLY expecting a %100 historically accurate game, with all the nations in the right place, borders exactly right, all the correct colonies, and the USA as a minor faction? COME ON, people. The Revolutionary War takes place during this games period and you SERIOUSLY expected them to pass up on being able to slap 'RE-ENACT THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR!!!(!)' on the box?
Just chill. Relax. Take a deep breath. Realize that, within a month of the game coming out, there will be a 'historical accuracy' mod out that 'fixes' your problems. The mod team is probably already being assembled somewhere to make preparations.
Or make a separate topic for "ZOMGZ AMERIKKKA!" That'd work too.
Hey I'm right there next to you. Thinking all these things.
Easy, folks. Some of us should take a couple deep breaths.
As pointed out by SaFe, PBI, and others, we don't yet know which factions will and will not be playable. Until we do, it's utterly useless to get ourselves worked up over the matter. And even then, we have to remember that *gameplay* is going to be a primary factor for CA in determining which factions are playable, not which ones were the "best" or most prominent.
I've noticed this thread is starting to see a bit of chest-thumping (so to speak), despite my previous admonition back in the OP. Patriotism and national pride is normal, but it doesn't belong here in the Empire forum. If you wish to debate the merits of your respective country(ies), then the Monastery or the Backroom is the best place for such things.
We now return to your regularly-scheduled discussion. ~:)
Tiberius maximus
09-04-2008, 22:34
idk about all of you but i have to play the hardest faction the game will let me :2thumbsup: its just more exciting when ur always struggling to stay in the game:yes:
Sheogorath
09-05-2008, 19:30
idk about all of you but i have to play the hardest faction the game will let me :2thumbsup: its just more exciting when ur always struggling to stay in the game:yes:
Well, you could try conquering Europe as Luxembourg :P
"Our bankers will blot out the sun!
Gustav II Adolf
09-07-2008, 13:59
I've been thinking. CA recently stated again at the .com that they haven't decided on the final twelve because of balancing issues and that they will decide later this year. Why is it so difficult and why is it taking such a long time? Are they not agreeing with each other? :candle:Are they afraid factions will be too similar? It also strikes me that they refer to variety more than historical importance which fans mostly debate in this issue of choosing. A sort of gameplay vs history balancing seem to be in this. The most historically important factions might be seen by CA as too similar.
For me though I don't see this as a problem because every faction can have different units that give them a unique feel. I wouldn't want to leave out any important faction just to get some more variety since historically important factions will be more interesting to play. And I definitely hope no uber ninjas will appear to counter variety-angst. Still, of course it will be exciting to play exotic factions as well. I just wish that CA would have thought of this when first starting to make the game so that all important and some more exotic factions could be playable.:juggle2:
G
The Celt
09-07-2008, 21:14
For my first campaign I'll probably play as the British Empire since I'm of British decent.(Also, lets' be honest guys, they're probably the whole reason CA chose this period for the game in the first place.)Plus, it should be fun trying to hold on to all those rebellious colonies around the world.:whip:
After them I'll probably play as the Ottomans for awhile, and then I'll of course switch to Persia as I've been joansing to play them since I saw that screen shot of the entire campaign map. Sure they'll get the short end of the stick in vanilla(Just like Parthia & the Sassanids in RTW) but I'll be prepared with Gimp to at least give their skins a good recoloring.(I just hope CA don't give the Easterners leather faces like they did in MTW2:furious3:)
pevergreen
09-09-2008, 12:10
I don't think so. Remember that Portugal had a global empire to look after, colonies in the Atlantic, in America, in Africa and in India (Without mentioning in Australasia, which probably won't be in the game)
Oh it will be. hahaha.
IMO America is playable for the war and for the americans. :shrug:
KingKnudthebloodthirsty
09-23-2008, 00:11
Why cant CA just make a map of the globe. All they left out was the Far East (China, Japan, Korea, Siam, Burma, and other SE asian lands.), and east russia and australia. How much will it take to add them in? They came so close but excludes that part of the world? Those territories were as equally important as the other parts. China was a powerful nation in the early 1700s. They only declined in the late 1700s. the spice islands (indonesia) were fought over for trade and obviously, spices. Russia expanded into Siberia and in 1788, England built colonies in Australia.
pevergreen
09-23-2008, 00:25
Because it means more work. If they included those areas, people would complain of no factions. Which means they would have to make many more factions, which then would be complained about because they arent 100% historically accurate.
I am sure there will be a mod to give the rest of the world a shot.
Because it means more work. If they included those areas, people would complain of no factions. Which means they would have to make many more factions, which then would be complained about because they arent 100% historically accurate.
I am sure there will be a mod to give the rest of the world a shot.
They wouldn't have to make a lot more factions because there were few factions to start with.
China, Japan, Korea, Indochina (Or Annam, Cambodja, "Luang Prabang/Laos" and Burma), Tibet and Far Eastern and Central Asian Mongol-Turkish khanates (Dzungar, Khiva, Bukhara and Kazakh). And these are factions out of the Indian sphere in the Far East. Five factions who could be given generic Far Eastern troops, with some unique ones per faction.
Ignoramus
09-23-2008, 04:16
China, Japan, Korea, and Indochina didn't play a role in European colonialism until the 1800's. As Empire finishes around 1800, it doesn't need to include them.
Sheogorath
09-23-2008, 04:42
China, Japan, Korea, and Indochina didn't play a role in European colonialism until the 1800's. As Empire finishes around 1800, it doesn't need to include them.
Depends on which 'Europeans' you're talking about. The Russians had contact with the Chinese in the 17th century, Japan in the 1740's. The VOC was in Indonesia by the early 1600's. The Brits and Dutch were skirmishing in the Sea of Japan for a while as well.
Depends on which 'Europeans' you're talking about. The Russians had contact with the Chinese in the 17th century, Japan in the 1740's. The VOC was in Indonesia by the early 1600's. The Brits and Dutch were skirmishing in the Sea of Japan for a while as well.
True. However, I believe Ignoramus' main point was that east Asia's impact on European colonialism during that time period was still relatively minimal. Hence, why that part of the world is not being included in Empire.
Sheogorath
09-23-2008, 09:10
True. However, I believe Ignoramus' main point was that east Asia's impact on European colonialism during that time period was still relatively minimal. Hence, why that part of the world is not being included in Empire.
Well, it probably drove the Russians to colonize Alaska, rather than taking all that nice land in Manchuria, and the VOC was pretty profitable, I'm given to understand.
Well, it probably drove the Russians to colonize Alaska, rather than taking all that nice land in Manchuria, and the VOC was pretty profitable, I'm given to understand.
Psst, what CA & Ignoramus really mean is that those countries didn't play a role in English interests until 1800 ;)
Lusitani
09-24-2008, 02:20
China, Japan, Korea, and Indochina didn't play a role in European colonialism until the 1800's. As Empire finishes around 1800, it doesn't need to include them.
Actually South East Asia was a pain in the neck for the Portuguese since the early 1500's.
Freedom Onanist
09-24-2008, 12:01
I've been thinking. CA recently stated again at the .com that they haven't decided on the final twelve because of balancing issues and that they will decide later this year. Why is it so difficult and why is it taking such a long time? Are they not agreeing with each other? :candle:Are they afraid factions will be too similar? It also strikes me that they refer to variety more than historical importance which fans mostly debate in this issue of choosing. A sort of gameplay vs history balancing seem to be in this. The most historically important factions might be seen by CA as too similar.
For me though I don't see this as a problem because every faction can have different units that give them a unique feel. I wouldn't want to leave out any important faction just to get some more variety since historically important factions will be more interesting to play. And I definitely hope no uber ninjas will appear to counter variety-angst. Still, of course it will be exciting to play exotic factions as well. I just wish that CA would have thought of this when first starting to make the game so that all important and some more exotic factions could be playable.:juggle2:
GCould it not be more to do with how to balance the game properly? From a properly historical point of view how playable are some of the "main" factions anyway?
Spain in the 18th cent? If it was represented accurately wouldn't exactly be a bundle of laughs to play would it? Economy in doldrums, infrastructure falling apart, colonies rumbling, armed forces completely neglected, society at breaking point. No disrespect to Spain, but it was in a bad way in the 18th century. To get it out of its hole would be a socio-political game not a game of empire.
Portugal? The same.
Prussia? How would you play that one without Allies subsidising your existence, or at least contuned means of waging war?
Holland? How are you going to maintain a first rank position when around you those with more resources have decided they like what you have?
Not saying any of these factions shouldn't be in there, but CA do have to decide on certain compromises to make them enjoyable game factions. Maybe this is harde to decide on than just looking at at a history book and looking up the leadding European countries of the period.
TheDruid
09-24-2008, 13:55
If they were to make the entire globe (btw you say only parts of Asia are excluded ; what about africa? )
they would have to make America available for the russians by the sea; meaning not passing Scandinavia.
Or is that feature already in?
would be difficult strategically i think
hellenes
09-24-2008, 14:40
Is it me or ETW is a PC game and thus will have all factions playable 10mins after release?
Is it me or ETW is a PC game and thus will have all factions playable 10mins after release?
I'm sure that'll be the case. In fact, one of the CA guys (Kieran, I think) mentioned in one of the recent previews that they expected exactly that. They know folks want to be able to play as everyone in the game. :yes:
I'm sure that'll be the case. In fact, one of the CA guys (Kieran, I think) mentioned in one of the recent previews that they expected exactly that. They know folks want to be able to play as everyone in the game. :yes:
uhhhh...if thats the case why not start them off unlocked so those that dont have modding knowledge or go on forums get advantaged to???
anyway does anyone no of any mods based on australia? will we ever see the day?
Megas Methuselah
09-24-2008, 23:09
uhhhh...if thats the case why not start them off unlocked so those that dont have modding knowledge or go on forums get advantaged to???
Because CA wants to make it a point that the game mainly revolves, no, I mean the game is meant to be played by the initially playable factions. Sure, you can play as any other faction(God, I hope so), but there's probably going to be more goodies for those 12 special factions, ie. Soldiers speaking their native languages.
:beam:
Because CA wants to make it a point that the game mainly revolves, no, I mean the game is meant to be played by the initially playable factions. Sure, you can play as any other faction(God, I hope so), but there's probably going to be more goodies for those 12 special factions, ie. Soldiers speaking their native languages.
:beam:
^^^^^
@Aries777777: What he said. :yes:
Spain in the 18th cent? If it was represented accurately wouldn't exactly be a bundle of laughs to play would it? Economy in doldrums, infrastructure falling apart, colonies rumbling, armed forces completely neglected, society at breaking point. No disrespect to Spain, but it was in a bad way in the 18th century. To get it out of its hole would be a socio-political game not a game of empire.
Portugal? The same.
Not sure about Spain, but by saying that Portugal was like the description of Spain reveals you know very little of Portuguese history, at least of the 18th century.
It's economy wasn't indeed very strong, but mid-18th century, Portugal discovered very large veins of bullion in inland Brazil, which ingame would make it very easy for the player to build a nice economy. (In real life that didn't happen due to problems which won't be represented in ETW, such as leadership idiocy among others.)
Portuguese inland infrastructure was indeed a problem, due to most industries being situated exactly in the interior and it's transportation to the coast for exporting was rather archaic, such as was the industry's and agricultural processes themselves. They were being largely improved in the beginning of the 18th century, but the said Brazillian boon brought down those improvements. Once again, this can easily be fixed by the player.
Colonies rumbling, Portugal had no colonial problems whatsoever throughout the entire period of the game, even expanding it's colonial empire during the game's period.
Armed forces completely neglected is also untrue. Portugal had largely been a naval power, and it concentrated most of it's military might in it. The land forces and garissons it held were sufficient to quell any small uprisings, or deter other colonial powers from attacking it's colonies. As such, it was adequate to the goals the nation had during the timeperiod, Brazillian gold can also put a player in land army expansion.
Society at breaking point, this certainly doesn't apply to Portugal in any sense except after Napoleon's defeat, which is well after the 18th century.
Initially having to defend colonies scattered across the globe with a bad economy, eventually using the Brazillian Gold to build the economy and the army, and gaining power after initially being an underdog and being in trouble can make up for an exciting game, I think.
So...Yeah.
Sheogorath
09-25-2008, 06:30
The problem is, the bits of Brazil with all the people in them aren't on the map. Rio, for example.
Megas Methuselah
09-25-2008, 07:54
I actually think Spain would be fun to play as. If it was indeed, as someone previously stated, falling apart in so many different ways, it would be a great experience to attempt to turn this downfall around and reclaim the country's former glory and position in the balance of powers. Sounds very challenging, and not at all boring. It'd be a struggle worthy of a pro! :crowngrin:
@Sheo: South America's not on the map?! :uhoh:
Well, if South America isn't on the map, it simply reinforces the fact that ETW seems a "British Colonial Game", tbh.
@Sheo: South America's not on the map?! :uhoh:
It appears that at least the northern part of it is in (encompassing modern-day Columbia, Venezuela, French Guinea, etc.). I've yet to see Brazil, however -- or indeed, any of South America below the equator -- on any of the screenshots so far.
hellenes
09-26-2008, 20:15
uhhhh...if thats the case why not start them off unlocked so those that dont have modding knowledge or go on forums get advantaged to???
anyway does anyone no of any mods based on australia? will we ever see the day?
People that dont go on forums cannot complain...thus CA doesnt care much about what they get....either way with 0 competition its not a huge concern for them,...
Polemists
09-28-2008, 09:02
Well each game has a different reason.
The primary reason they don't unlock them all at the start is material. Usually the starting Factions have far more material then the other factions. So they want new players and reviewers to play as say England in MTW 2 before they play as say Hungary, sure Hungary has unique units, but England just has more fleshed out material. Which will lead to better reviews, they may get a 96% instead of say a 84% review.
It's sad but its' true. Thus the starting playable factions, after the tutorial (yes you will have to play through the tutorial again.) will probably be the ones they have put the most time in.
You know they put a ton of time in Thirteen Colonies for Marketing, and you know as they are based in England, England and France always seem to get top billing, England cause they live there, France cause they dislike them. There will be some german faction at the start, and probably Mughals for vareity. The only guarentee's are starting the game, you can play as england, i'd almost bet money on that since nearly every video I see has england in it somewhere.
Not being able to play Britain since the beginning in a colonial era game would be like having a ship of the line without sail and cannons :P
Sir Beane
09-28-2008, 12:04
I agree with india, I don't think CA choosing to have Britain as a playable faction is because of national pride, and I don't think France is in because we British love to hate them. It would be silly to have a game based around colonial empires and not feature the country that historically had the largest empire the world has ever seen. The same goes for France, it was huge historically, and therefore should be in the game.
However I do think that the Thirteen Colonies are only a playable faction so CA can put "Play as a founding father!" and "Fight for independence" on the box. Historically they were very small (until later on of course) and weren't really a major power. In fact I think they were pretty lucky that one of the real powers of the time didn't make a more concentrated effort to take them out.
As for fleshing out 12 or so factions more than the otehrs, I think it's a good idea. They obviously don't have the time to make all 50 factions stand out (unique units, voices, traits, buildings, ships, architecture etc.) but atleast a reasonable number will. I would rather play a game with 12 great factions and 38 good but samey factions than a game with 50 similar factions.
Focusing on just twelve allows them to add in a bit of local flavour and atmosphere that has been missing since Medieval.
It's sad but its' true. Thus the starting playable factions, after the tutorial (yes you will have to play through the tutorial again.) will probably be the ones they have put the most time in.
I believe the tutorial campaign this time around will be the "Road to Independence" campaign, and I'm pretty sure CA have said it will be optional.
Sir Beane
09-28-2008, 12:58
I believe the tutorial campaign this time around will be the "Road to Independence" campaign, and I'm pretty sure CA have said it will be optional.
They have done. In the recent Gamereactor Interview:
"It's an episodic campaign, the road to independence, set during the period of the foundation of Jamestown all the way through to the American war of independence. It's a type of campaign where if you want to play it you can, if don't you don't have to. You don't have to play it to unlock the grand campaign, you can just go straight into that"
Michiel de Ruyter
09-29-2008, 14:44
Assuming these are the options, and starting at 1700:
Austria
Dutch
England/Britain
France
Ottoman Empire
Poland-Lithuania
Portugal
Prussia
Russia
Spain
Sweden
United States*
The ones I would throw out as playable factions (in order of preference):
United States: Not aplayer at all, at best emerging in the early 1800's. Just as India the battleground between the French and British, and this time without powerfull enough native states to form a serious threat. (at least by the time the game starts).
Paradoxically, if not for the struggle between England, France and to some extent the Dutch Republic, it is unlikely that the 13 colonies would even have existed as such, that things would have come to a head the way they did resulting in a cry for independence (mostly fueled by the local colonial elites who saw their power threatened), or would have been able to gain independence (as they were bankrolled by the Dutch, and French intervention decided the war in US favor).
If not for the English involvement in Europe, it is unlikely that the US would have gotten out of the War of 1812 as well as it did, assuming war had again broken out. Similarly, if not for that European rivalry, it is debatable whether the US would ever have gotten to the Mississipi. And it was British power and backing that allowed Monroe to issue his favorite doctrine.
Poland-Lithuania: Very weak internally, and preyed upon from all sides. I think by this time almost allowed to exist by the grace of the other powers.
Portugal: Although perhaps still expanding into Brazil, again very much weakened, and relegated to a third or even fourth rate power.
Sweden: Again in many ways a spent state. It would be hard to get anywhere (at least if Russia, Denmark and the Dutch Republic are modelled anything close to reality). Even more so due to the stranglehold the Dutch had over the Swedish economy (especially the metal industry).
Factions to be included:
The Mughal state: Can you keep your northern neighbours at bay while also nipping European interference in the but?
The most challenging options, I think:
The Dutch Republic: (is economic super power enough to compensate for lack of resources - think mercs, mercs and mercs and strategic marriages to join the interests of the House of Orange with that another state).
Prussia: Can you grow, while balancing yourself between Austria, England (Hannover is a private fiefdom of the soon to be English royal family) and France (who do not want continental rivals).
Austria: Large, spread out but internally weak, a weak economy, and an agressive Prussia and France, and only slowly weakening Ottoman neighbour. Almost the opposite of the Dutch Republic.
Gameplay and coding is going to be hell. Otherwise the game would be so imbalanced that France Britain and Austria should be the runaways in the game.
Polemists
09-30-2008, 08:57
Sadly as much as I would love to play Austria do to the fact I could put the royal line back on the holy roman throne once I crush prussia, I think there is no way on earth they are getting rid of the US. It'll be there, it will be annoying, it will be over powered. We are just going to have to accept it.
People that dont go on forums cannot complain...thus CA doesnt care much about what they get....either way with 0 competition its not a huge concern for them,...
true. but if im wanting something to sell, then putting on the back of empires case '50 fully playable exciting civilzatons to play' would sound much better than '12 playable factions!' just your avarage non-total war person would likely be inticed by the extra choice
Tantalaul
09-30-2008, 15:59
Hey i read your posts and you make me wonder why you are so botter that you can't play from the first time your country. My country Tara Romaneasca (Romania) don.t apear in this game like a playlable faction and if i remember well not even in lockable factions in the first medieval and not in the second one so enjoy the game because is just a GAME man !
Hey i read your posts and you make me wonder why you are so botter that you can't play from the first time your country. My country Tara Romaneasca (Romania) don.t apear in this game like a playlable faction and if i remember well not even in lockable factions in the first medieval and not in the second one so enjoy the game because is just a GAME man !
welcome to the guild, dont worry i will enjoy it, i dont think you understand exactly what im trying to say, either way, if its moddable it wont effect me anyway, im just looking out for those who dont no how to unlock extra factions...meh
Sir Beane
09-30-2008, 17:13
welcome to the guild, dont worry i will enjoy it, i dont think you understand exactly what im trying to say, either way, if its moddable it wont effect me anyway, im just looking out for those who dont no how to unlock extra factions...meh
I'm with you Aries777777. 50 factions does sound a lot better than 12, and it makes me wonder why they don't just add the rest in as 'bonus' factions unlockable by completing either the Grand campaign or by completing the 'Road to Independence' story campaign.
It would be interesting to be able to unlock factions by personally beating them on the campaign map. It would give people a reason to play certain factions and go to war on certain factions just to try and unlock them.
Zenicetus
09-30-2008, 19:34
true. but if im wanting something to sell, then putting on the back of empires case '50 fully playable exciting civilzatons to play' would sound much better than '12 playable factions!' just your avarage non-total war person would likely be inticed by the extra choice
CA doesn't have unlimited time for programming and play-testing. Would you rather have a dozen or so factions that are well balanced against each other, and heavily play-tested (we hope)? Or that same developer and testing time spread across 50 factions? Which would make a better game?
Personally, I'd prefer a smaller group of well-balanced, well-tested factions that are heavily individualized (unique units, battle speeches, architecture, ship types, etc.), over 50 more generic factions, just so everyone has a chance to play their favorite.
I'm with you Aries777777. 50 factions does sound a lot better than 12, and it makes me wonder why they don't just add the rest in as 'bonus' factions unlockable by completing either the Grand campaign or by completing the 'Road to Independence' story campaign.
It would be interesting to be able to unlock factions by personally beating them on the campaign map. It would give people a reason to play certain factions and go to war on certain factions just to try and unlock them.
Again, I assume (from CA's perspective), that it comes down to limited time for balance and testing. CA has to stand behind the quality of the game. If all 50 factions are unlockable, then sooner or later someone (possibly a magazine reviewer) is going to notice that one of the non-primary factions is too hard to play, or is using generic battle speeches and "borrowed" unit types, or just isn't that much fun to play as the primary factions. From their perspective (making more assumptions here), it's better to let the mod community unlock those factions, because then it's not CA's problem if they don't play as well. And then the mod community can spend the time and effort to tweak the other factions, instead of CA having to do it (and us waiting another year or three for the game to be released).
fair enough, though its there sale profits at the end of the day
Polemists
10-01-2008, 08:56
Yes it is, and so far games with fewer factions have sold better for them then games with more factions.
From pure marketing do you want a 90% review, or a 70% review when the first computer gaming mags begin reviewing it. Reviewers in the magazines never care how many, they care about quality, MTW2 which had far fewer factions then MTW 1 got high reviews, based soley on the factions that were playable.
Factions don't sell a game, quality does.
Yes it is, and so far games with fewer factions have sold better for them then games with more factions.
From pure marketing do you want a 90% review, or a 70% review when the first computer gaming mags begin reviewing it. Reviewers in the magazines never care how many, they care about quality, MTW2 which had far fewer factions then MTW 1 got high reviews, based soley on the factions that were playable.
Factions don't sell a game, quality does.
mtw2 only got higher reviews because it had less factions? oh yeah cause it was nothing to do with tons better graphics, a new game engine amongst various other things...:gah:
Do we really need 50 playable factions? I've been playing M2TW more or less continuously since January 2007 and by my count I've only managed campaigns as 12 different vanilla factions, and several of those were short campaigns I got bored of and gave up on. Having 50 fully playable factions complete with voices, videos and battle speeches would mean I would likely never even use around 4/5ths of the content of the game by the time the expansion, the first big mod or even the next game comes out.
I'd certainly rather have 12 very well balanced and polished factions with another 38 basically playable but a bit more rough around the edges, than 50 virtually identical factions with generic units, differentiated only by a different colour scheme. And if I saw a game advertising itself as having "50 playable factions!" I would probably think "too good to be true, what corners did they have to cut to get that many?"
Yes it is, and so far games with fewer factions have sold better for them then games with more factions.
From pure marketing do you want a 90% review, or a 70% review when the first computer gaming mags begin reviewing it. Reviewers in the magazines never care how many, they care about quality, MTW2 which had far fewer factions then MTW 1 got high reviews, based soley on the factions that were playable.
Factions don't sell a game, quality does.
...From a pure marketing perspective, I think your marketing perspective is a very funny one.
MTW2 which had far fewer factions then MTW 1
Actually, that's incorrect. MTW has 11 playable factions in the main campaign, 14 if you have the Viking Invasion expansion pack. Medieval 2 has 17 playable factions in its main campaign.
Also, I'm quite certain that neither MTW nor Medieval 2 received the uniformly high reviews scores that they did solely because of the number of playable factions they had. That alone does not mean a game is good (or bad) -- there are many other factors that come into play.
Yoyoma1910
10-01-2008, 18:11
Since they're going to have the 13 colonies, I personally demand that their first expansion be Cajun: Total War.
:bounce:
Polemists
10-02-2008, 07:43
My only point was trying to emphasis I don't think that more factions will make a game better, I think it's quality over factions.
I'd certainly rather have 12 very well balanced and polished factions with another 38 basically playable but a bit more rough around the edges, than 50 virtually identical factions with generic units, differentiated only by a different colour scheme. And if I saw a game advertising itself as having "50 playable factions!" I would probably think "too good to be true, what corners did they have to cut to get that many?"
I just remeber that in the game of Rome, how I got Barbarian Spearmen, and I don't want to see that again, I want variety.
Stick to the topic, please. :yes:
Assuming these are the options, and starting at 1700:
Sweden: Again in many ways a spent state. It would be hard to get anywhere (at least if Russia, Denmark and the Dutch Republic are modelled anything close to reality). Even more so due to the stranglehold the Dutch had over the Swedish economy (especially the metal industry).
.
Oh come on! Sweden was a great power at the time the game starts. Actually, the game starts 1700, the same year as The Great Northern War starts. Sweden had, at the time, one of the best military forces in Europe. Commanded by the military genius Charles XII Sweden won several major victories and defeated Denmark in the first year of the war in such a way that it could not participate in war until several years later. The same year Russia was temporarily defeated when 8,600 Swedish troops defeated 37,000 russian troops in the battle of Narva, one of Swedens greatest military victories ever. The coalition against Sweden was in this time of the war, and actually during most of the war, ready to grant Sweden a very good offering of peace. Had it not been for Charles XII stubborn view of the war, convinced that everyone that declared war on him should surrender without terms - Sweden would have emerged only slightly hurt by the war. It wasnt until the battle of Poltava as the luck ran out for Sweden, and thats 9 years after the war started. If nothing else, it will be a great and entertaining challenge for the player to start the game with a faction currently in a state of war against 5 other countries at the same time.
Its ridiculous not including Sweden in the list.
A country that by its own manages to fight a 21 year long war against: Russia, Denmark–Norway, Prussia, Hanover, Poland-Lithuania and the Electorate of Saxony is ANYTHING but spent. It was spent _after_ the war, but since the war didnt end until 21 year after Empire: Total War starts, you might want to reconsider that statement.
Welcome to the Org, Pinxit. ~:wave:
For what it's worth, CA has fairly strongly hinted that Sweden will be one of the playable factions. Of course they can't confirm that until the list has officially been released, but it does look likely. :yes:
Polemists
10-12-2008, 12:59
I wonder how long it will take them to put out the official list, or how long before someone gets some leaked faction page screens again. Hmm, wonder if there will be some Dec Empire Total War magazine articles....I can hope.
As for playable, I'd like to see Austria still, I just fear they will get the back burner.
I would certainly miss a first rate power like Sweden. For all of the reasons Pinxit mentioned (Excellent inaugural post BTW).
Austria must be playable, no question.
I wonder how long it will take them to put out the official list, or how long before someone gets some leaked faction page screens again. Hmm, wonder if there will be some Dec Empire Total War magazine articles....I can hope.
If I were CA, I'd probably wait until the day the game goes gold, so as to minimize the screaming that will surely commence. ~;p
I too worry about Austria, yet I still think they would pretty much have to be playable.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.