PDA

View Full Version : Over 30 factions?



zakalwe
01-25-2006, 12:31
Caliban, a CA staffer writing at .com re the 21 factions

''We have been looking at this recently and I should have an answer in the coming weeks. We are looking to increase it to at least 30 if it doesn't cause too much drama.''

http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm55.showMessageRange?topicID=114.topic&start=41&stop=53


I must admit i am very very surprised at this. i thought it was going to be a 21 faction for sure after CA's anouncement. If they boost it to more than 30 i will be suitably impressed. Fingers crossed.

So if we get 9 more factions what would you like to see included (whether starting factions in 1080 and emerging factions dependent on date or game conditions)? We have ''England, France, Scotland, Holy Roman Empire, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Milan, Venice, Papal States, Sicily, Poland, Russia, Hungary, Byzantium, The Turks, Egypt, The Moors, The Mongols, The Tumurids, The Aztecs.''

I would like to see

Aragon
Lithuania
Kiev
Kingdom of Jerusalem
Norway
Teutonic Knights

then another three between Bohemia, an Irish faction, a Welsh faction, Sweden, Armenia, Georgia, Genoa, Serbia, Croatia, Bulgaria, the Cumans, the Ilkhanate, Novgorod, Switzerland, Wallachia, Burgundy, Navarre, Frankish Greek states

Mithrandir
01-25-2006, 12:37
Maybe they'll increase it with non playable factions.

as for your other question :

-Inca's
-Toltecs
-etc

;)

player1
01-25-2006, 12:41
Serbia.
Balkans should not be empty.
Also it's rise and fall just match the M2TW timeline.

econ21
01-25-2006, 12:45
Personally, I fear there may be a quality-quantity trade-off here. I am all in favour of letting modders have the freedom to create many factions, but I would rather CA concentrate on making a few factions distinctive and fun to play.

In MTW, I liked the historical leaders and faction-specific glorious achievements and always felt a little let down when some factions - eg the Danes - seemed to lack the loving given to others. In RTW, I liked the Senate missions, long Roman speeches and civil war, then felt a little short-changed that the other factions had less of such chrome. For an example of how this can be extended, one only needs to look at the EB beta, where Greek generals can compete in the Olympics, Roman ones get triumphs and every faction has flavoursome special victory conditions.

I don't really want the ability to play 30 bland cookie-cutter factions - instead, when I play as - say - the English, I'd like to feel that I am playing the King of England and not, say, the Holy Roman Emperor.

The nice thing about game sequels is that the company has more time to enrich the gameplay - I'd rather see "better" than "more".

Ash
01-25-2006, 13:07
If CA can diversify the factions enough, I'd like to see Egypt's factions split up. Then some added South American factions.
Also, I'd like to see the Knights Hospitaller, Bourgondian and Dutch factions.

Kraxis
01-25-2006, 15:01
A definate must is a splitup of Spain... Spain is wrong. Castille and Aragon would be enough for me.

But beyond that... I don't know, but I would not like to see Norway. Not because Norway does not deserve to be in (well at this time Norway was pretty silent though), but because it would cause Scandinavia to be rather weak in all. Two quite weak factions fighting each other would only lead to their both destruction by a stronger enemy, likely the HRE.

In case of Scotland and England the relationship is different. Scotland will be in a tough spot, while England less so. Thus England does not seem to suffer from this in any great extent, and Scotland adds needed flavour. Fair enough by me.

Templar Knight
01-25-2006, 15:07
I agree that Scotland adds some flavour to the game, especially to the English and French players. The English will have a lot of resources tied up with campaigns against Scotland, vital resources that could have been used against France. While the French could try and gain political and military influence in Scotland to open up a second front against England in the north.

Stiuartas
01-25-2006, 15:42
I would like to see Grand Dutchy of Lithuania. Lithuania first mentioned in 1009, became powerful state in 14-16 centuries in Eastern Europe. Lithuanians stopped teutonic orders invasion in this part of Europe, ruled over major part of Russia, Ukraine. Severel times defeated mongols. So i think it should be represented in Medieval 2.
As for other factions i vote for Armenia, Swedwen, Teutonic order, Aragon, Bulgaria, the Ilkhanate, Bohemia.

The Blind King of Bohemia
01-25-2006, 16:09
I would like to see:

Serbs
Incas
Sweden
Lithuanians
Aragon
Bohemians
Crusader States
Khwarzimian Empire
Burgundians

I could go on all day if its over 30. Well done CA even if you do get it that high, anything over is a bonus.

Ianofsmeg16
01-25-2006, 17:09
I Would like the Welsh* to be represtented, maybe only in early and high eras though..MY main concern will be the emergence of America in the late game, a couple more european factions (lithuania and Wales) would be awesome, but i certainly hope that most of the slots will be filled with Native americans, to keep the Aztec player busy, and to make the colonisation of America pretty damn fun for us euros :2thumbsup:

*Here's Hoping for a Welsh-American Empire :laugh4:

player1
01-25-2006, 17:11
Personally, I fear there may be a quality-quantity trade-off here. I am all in favour of letting modders have the freedom to create many factions, but I would rather CA concentrate on making a few factions distinctive and fun to play.

Personally, I guess it will be dozen of flavorful playable facations, and rest non-playable copy/paste factions.

The Blind King of Bohemia
01-25-2006, 17:26
I would love to see a welsh Princedom or an Irish faction of some sort but i can't see it.

Lentonius
01-25-2006, 17:32
who's to say that North America will not be included with the south?
that would require a couple of factions

BalkanTourist
01-25-2006, 18:08
If there's to be another faction in the Balkans - that should be Bulgaria. I'd like to see the time frame devided into 3 or 4 periods. Maybe they can have Serbia in the 1300's since that's when it rose to challange the Bulgarians and the Byzantines. Meanwhile Bulgaria was at its zenith in the 1200's defeating the Latins and Epirus, stretching all over the Balkans (yes, including Serbia) and the Bulgarian king Ivan Assen II was called king of Bulgarians and Romaioi.
The Bulgarian army could be a mixture of slavic infantry, some Byzantine influenced troops and a strong heavy and light cavalry (horse archers too) since the Bulgars were traditionally good horsemen coming from the steppes and also they often employed Pechenegs, Cumans and other steppe tribes as mercenaries.

Ianofsmeg16
01-25-2006, 18:45
who's to say that North America will not be included with the south?
that would require a couple of factions
I thought it was North america and Central America, not the south..but yea, Aztecs in the centre, with the iriquois and Shawnee in the north

caio giulio
01-25-2006, 20:09
I want Aragon!!!!

Antiochius
01-25-2006, 20:23
i knew it! I was very sure that they will make some more nations!

King Noob the Stupid
01-25-2006, 20:23
I think if there's 21 factions for MP and 30 for the campaign the 9 not included in the MP will have the same units as the others and so I fear no new pagans/jews (Lithuania/Khazar) but more christians and perhaps muslims, such as Aragon, Bohemia etc.

Antiochius
01-25-2006, 20:26
that couls be a possibilitiy, have the developers said that they want to divide the campaigns or do they want to ake ist like Rome and the ather Total War games?

Prince Cobra
01-25-2006, 23:51
I suggest Bulgaria and not only because I was born there. Bulgarians were one of powers in the Medieval world - a major rival of Byzantium. Yes, the empire conquered Bulgaria and ruled Bulgarians for a century and a half. But Bulgarians raised a rebellion and revived the Bulgarian state in 1185. I am going to give some examples.
In 1204 the great Byzantine empire was destroyed by the crusaders. Then the crusaders wanted to conquer Bulgarians ( in their view it was part of the Byzantium). And then... the battle of Adrianople took place:duel: ...

Bulgarians:allies:byzantine aristocrats and Cuman mercenaries
main force: Bulgarians
Latins: main force: crusaders

Result: the Latin army was defeated their emperor Baldwin I captured (and killed one year later), most of the crusaders killed.In the next years the Bulgarians were the main force on the Balkan peninsula... And according to somefamous historians Charles Dil and G. Ostrogorski this Bulgarian victory saved Byzantine state Nicaea and Epir from being conquered by Latins.
Some pictures ( I'll try to find the plan of the battle)
Bulgarian monarch:Kaloyan(1197-1207)
http://debian.fmi.uni-sofia.bg/~nikola1/Kaloyan.gif
Thanks to that site: http://debian.fmi.uni-sofia.bg/~nikola1/Kaloyan.gif
It will be really good idea to make Bulgatrians faction (including in the high period Walachia( Cumans were vassals of Bulgarians) and also Moldavia(the same reason-there were the Cumans too) and also some special armour piercing units.

magnum
01-26-2006, 00:00
Why must CA even provide additional pre-made factions? Simply having the max faction limit increased would allow modders room to create whatever factions that people would like. That way everyone can add the factions they think ought to be in there. It also allows CA the ability to focus of the original 21 factions and flesh them out properly.

Prince Cobra
01-26-2006, 00:06
Thanks to that site: http://debian.fmi.uni-sofia.bg/~nikola1/Kaloyan.gif
My mistake read http://debian.fmi.uni-sofia.bg/~nikola1/Bul/Kaloyan.gif http://debian.fmi.uni-sofia.bg/~nikola1/Bul/Kaloyan.gif
More info on the topic and Bulgaria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_First_Bulgarian_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Second_Bulgarian_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaloyan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pliska
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Anchialus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Asen_II_of_Bulgaria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Adrianople_(1205)
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/History+of+the+First+Bulgarian+Empire
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Kaloyan
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/History+of+the+Second+Bulgarian+Empire
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Klokotnitsa
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Battle-of-Adrianople-(1205)
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Kaloyan
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Ivan-Asen-II-of-Bulgaria
dinasties
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/List_of_Bulgarian_monarchs/List_of_Bulgarian_rulers#House_of_Asen_.28the_Asenites.29
more about bulgaria
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Bulgaria
And here some info for one of the greatest tsar of the Second Bulgarian tsardom (connected with Bulgarian superiority of that time)
http://debian.fmi.uni-sofia.bg/~nikola1/Bul/IVAN-ASEN-2.jpg
from http://debian.fmi.uni-sofia.bg/~nikola1/Bul/IVAN-ASEN-2.jpg

Prince Cobra
01-26-2006, 00:16
Too much mistakes:embarassed: I missed to say that 'the greatest tsar' was Ivan(John) Asen II (1218-1241) and his success was connected (to some extend) with the battle of Adrionople(look the map). I'll try to be more careful next time

BalkanTourist
01-26-2006, 01:01
Hi, Stephen! Welcome to the Org~:cheers: . It is good to see another Bulgarian on the forums! I hope you like it here and stay with us for awhile. From your posts it appears that you are really pasionate about history. That's what got me started playing MTW as well. I am too very disappointed that Bulgaria was not included in the first MTW installment but there are some great mods around if you look on the forums. Also be sure to check out the Monastery section of the forums where we have some really interesting (and heated) discussions.

SirRethcir
01-26-2006, 01:30
CA will probably raise the hardcoded faction limit. I don't think they will make new factions.

Pindar
01-26-2006, 01:57
The best additions of factions are in areas where they could effect several other established factions. I would add:

Aragon
Burgundy
Bohemia
Bulgaria or Serbia
Outremer
Armenia
Cumans or Ilkhanate
Kievan Rus
Teutonic Knights

Trajanus
01-26-2006, 08:07
When were the Crusader Kingdoms setup exactly? I would like to see some small principalities in the Holy Lands, and perhaps give the holy lands more "provinces" if they use provinces like in MTW.

Perhaps make them unplayable but create events throughout the game to cause the player to help or hinder them etc.

GoreBag
01-26-2006, 08:32
I would love to see a welsh Princedom or an Irish faction of some sort but i can't see it.

We're counting on you to make it happen, BKB! ~;)

VikingHorde
01-26-2006, 13:29
Here is the factions that I would like to see in MTW2

CATHOLIC

Aragon,
Castile Leon (Spain),
Crusader States,
Denmark,
England,
France,
Holy Roman Empire,
Hungary
Milan (or Genoa),
Papal States,
Poland
Portugal,
Scotland,
Sicily,
Teutonic Order,
Venice,

MUSLIM

The Turks,
Egypt,
The Moors

ORTHADOX

Armenians
Bulgarians
Byzantium,
Kiew Russians,
Novgorod
Serbians

PAGAN

Aztecs,
Cumans,
Lithuanians,
Mongols,
Tumurids,

Some factions could change, if the game does not have era's (Crusader States, Teutonic Order ect.). They should be replaced by muslim, pagan, orthedox or other exotic factions other than catholic.

Dooz
01-26-2006, 13:29
I'd like to see Armenia in the game as an added faction. I can't recall, were they in the original MTW, or did I see them in a mod?



OT: Why would CA or any other developer not allow a lot of faction slots or everything else that's hardcoded? What are the advantages for them not allowing modders to do all they can?

King Noob the Stupid
01-26-2006, 14:07
Armenia wasn't included, but for example the XL Mod has it. (well, as long as they're not killed by the turks, which is going to happen within the first 50 years).

Cronos Impera
01-26-2006, 15:14
What's the time period anyway?

Glyndwr
01-26-2006, 15:25
Time period 1080-1530

SLKHERO
01-26-2006, 17:51
Here is the factions that I would like to see in MTW2

CATHOLIC

Aragon,
Castile Leon (Spain),
Crusader States,
Denmark,
England,
France,
Holy Roman Empire,
Hungary
Milan (or Genoa),
Papal States,
Poland
Portugal,
Scotland,
Sicily,
Teutonic Order,
Venice,

MUSLIM

The Turks,
Egypt,
The Moors

ORTHADOX

Armenians
Bulgarians
Byzantium,
Kiew Russians,
Novgorod
Serbians

PAGAN

Aztecs,
Cumans,
Lithuanians,
Mongols,
Tumurids,

Some factions could change, if the game does not have era's (Crusader States, Teutonic Order ect.). They should be replaced by muslim, pagan, orthedox or other exotic factions other than catholic.

So you include Crusader States, Denmark, Milan, Portugal, Scitland, Sicily, Teutonic Order, Armenians, Bulgarians, Serbians, Cumans, Lithuanians, and Timurids, YET somehow you forgot Bohemia, which more important for European history than either of these.

In fact, if not for Bohemia's king Ottakar II, Tutonic order wouldn't even exist. He was the one who led a crusade into Prussia and built the city Konigsberg.

Bohemia deserves a spot.

SLKHERO
01-26-2006, 17:55
Too bad you can't edit your posts.

TheSilverKnight
01-26-2006, 21:11
I thought it was North america and Central America, not the south..but yea, Aztecs in the centre, with the iriquois and Shawnee in the north

Central America also had Mayas, Quiche, Miskito, Guajiro, etc. etc...jeez, Ian, I thought after all that I taught you, you'd know! :laugh4:

Anyway, here's what I'd want

--Spain split up into Castile-Leon and Aragon

--France split up into Kingdom of France, Duchy of Burgundy, Duchy of Britanny

--HRE split up into Hohenstaufens & Hapsburgs (MAYBE)

--Incas and Mayas added into Central (Possibly South) America

--Portugal

--Trebizond in a late period, as a successor state of Byzantium

That's all I can think of at the moment. If they can get 30 factions in the game, that will be great :2thumbsup:

Rodion Romanovich
01-26-2006, 22:14
Best usage of the new faction slots (in descending order of importance IMO):
- split spain in Aragon, Castile and maybe some more (I believe Portugal was already in? If not it's needed IMO)
- get another Italian city state (both Genoa and Venice are a must, maybe some more would be sweet to have also)
- Bulgaria (good map above says it all)
- Khazar (ranked along with the Khaliphate and Byzantine empire in importance during the early part of the game, but it's early fall after the start date speaks against it though)
- Lithuania (another often forgotten important empire)
- The Swiss (pikes - need I say more?)
- Serbia (better and more realistic coverage of the Balkans)
- some more steppe factions (Cumani, Pechenegs etc.)
- some more stuff to the east - Khwarazm, Timur Lenk's empire etc.
- a "spawn on event" faction to represent the hussites
- Sweden and Norway for some viking action and giving something more than the HRE for Denmark to worry about or direct their conquests towards...

SLKHERO
01-26-2006, 22:44
You liked the Bulgatian map above?

You will sure as hell like this one as well.

SLKHERO
01-26-2006, 22:47
Damn I can post attachments.

Here is the http://www.stratcommandcenter.com/forums/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=5631

Spino
01-26-2006, 22:47
I'm all for the inclusion of Aragon but when you consider that the 'Moors' as a faction is an amalgamation and abstraction of several different Islamic factions that ruled various parts of Spain and North Africa during the period depicted in MTW2 then splitting Spain into two separate factions (Castile & Leon) would make both of them highly vulnerable to either the Moors or the French.

The great thing about the original Medieval was the intense competition between Spain and the Almohads and the uncertaintly as to which one would triumph and conquer the other or which would be the first to succumb to the pressures exerted by either the French or the Egyptians. This heated race to supremacy and/or extinction was especially noticeable in Early Era campaign games.

SLKHERO
01-26-2006, 22:50
Damn I can post attachments.

Here is the http://www.stratcommandcenter.com/forums/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=5631

This map shows any lands that were ruled by Bohemian sovereigns.

Justiciar
01-27-2006, 03:03
You wouldn't happen to be Czech, would you? :inquisitive: I agree that Bohemia was important (what nation wasn't?), but moreso than Denmark? Lithuania? Portugal? ... if you say so.

SLKHERO
01-27-2006, 04:14
Not I would not happen to be Czech.

Let's just compare the importance of these countries on their achievments.

What any of these did to be more important?

Lithuania was the only one that significantly expanded its borders, but if you look at the map, so did Bohemia.

Find achievements for each of these that cast a shadow over anything that Bohemia did.

lars573
01-27-2006, 04:40
For 12 months tops. That map you posted is only valid for 1305, when Wenceslas III was King of Bohemia, Hungary and Poland at the same time. He was booted off the Hungarian throne in 1305 for a Bavarian named Otto. Rudolf of Hapsburg grabbed Bohemia. And Wenceslas died in 1306 leaving Poland to Wladyslaw IV the Short. No Bohemia is not worth including, it is under the domination of the HRE too much.

SLKHERO
01-27-2006, 04:51
How did you come to that conclusion?

I ask because it is not true. Few dates and names, but the overal info is wrong.

SLKHERO
01-27-2006, 05:08
Here, feast on the netrails of knowledge and forever break free from the shackles of ignorance.

Read this:

"The Kingdom of Bohemia-Moravia continued its independent status within the Holy Roman Empire, and its territory further expanded so that by the end of fourteenth century it had become the leading power in Central Europe Inittially, the expansive interests of Bohemia's rulers were directed southward, when in 1251, even before he became"

it continues here http://www.stratcommandcenter.com/forums/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=2540

and ends here http://www.stratcommandcenter.com/forums/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=2541

If the long rule and prestige of Przemysls, enough so that they were called up to rule Poland and Hungary, doesn't impress you and neither even more extensive flowering of Bohemia under Luxembourgs, nor the undefeated Hussite rebellion, to stay consistent you must thumb you nose over every faction then. For how many of them that are even included on the list have actually accomplished more? You won't find many that is for sure.

When Przemyslyds' contemporaries didn't see them as inferior to any other great European Monarchs, than why should we?

lars573
01-27-2006, 06:07
How did you come to that conclusion?

I ask because it is not true. Few dates and names, but the overal info is wrong.
I did get somethings wrong. The regal lists are always thrown together haphazardly. Should have went with the Geneiologies. I should have said that the map is only accurate for the period between 1301 and 1305 when Wenceslas II and Wenceslas III were kings of Bohemia, Hungary, and Poland at the same time. But the info is indeed good, poorly organized but good. Yours however is suspect to my eyes. The way that is tries to give the appearance that Bohemia had some kind of special status in the HRE is friggin ridiculous. HRE was, except for a few times when a strong emperor tried to change it, a loose confederation of dutchies/small kingdoms. Bohemias status was no different than Bavarias or Brandenburgs. Wealthier probably but not superior or more free. They were all part of the HRE and thus in any medieval game should be included as part of any HRE faction. The accomonplishments of the later Przemysls is for the glory of the empire not Bohemia. That's why they are not needed as a seperate faction they are part of the HRE.

SLKHERO
01-27-2006, 07:03
Slkhero disagrees with the previous post.

[Moderator comment: edited to remove ad hominem attacks.]

ajaxfetish
01-27-2006, 09:07
Courtesy is always appreciated on these forums, SLKHERO. Feel free to debate the issue, but do try to be civil. ~:) Insults and disparagement fail to prove a point.

Ajax

econ21
01-27-2006, 10:45
Ajaxfetish is right, Slkhero. Debate history, by all means, but if you are going to do so, do it in the style of real historians and be courteous. Ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated here.

Sarmatian
01-27-2006, 12:55
Does anybody knows what is the timeline of the game?
If it is 10th or 11th Bulgaria should be included as the main power in the Balkans. But if it is 12th or 13th century then Serbia should be included as it was the strongest at the time. Also somebody said that Bulgaria conquered Serbia. That is not entirely accurate. Organized Serbian state as we know it today starts at the begining of the 12th century. Before that we can only talk about serbian feudal lords who were vassals to sofia or constantinople, even budapest sometimes.
So choosing between Serbia or Bulgaria is a question of timeline, I think.
But let`s face it, balkan nations aren`t very interesting to western european or american market which is the most important market. So I have my doubts about balkan nations being icluded in the game.

Sarmatian
01-27-2006, 13:00
Does anybody knows what is the timeline of the game?
If it is 10th or 11th Bulgaria should be included as the main power in the Balkans. But if it is 12th or 13th century then Serbia should be included as it was the strongest at the time. Also somebody said that Bulgaria conquered Serbia. That is not entirely accurate. Organized Serbian state as we know it today starts at the begining of the 12th century. Before that we can only talk about serbian feudal lords who were vassals to sofia or constantinople, even budapest sometimes.
So choosing between Serbia or Bulgaria is a question of timeline, I think.
But let`s face it, balkan nations aren`t very interesting to western european or american market which is the most important market. So I have my doubts about balkan nations being icluded in the game.

econ21
01-27-2006, 13:08
Does anybody knows what is the timeline of the game?


The answer is in the title of this thread, which has slid down to page 2 already:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=60122

Rodion Romanovich
01-27-2006, 13:13
You liked the Bulgatian map above?

You will sure as hell like this one as well.

I agree, Bohemia was a very important factor in the region during some periods of the Medieval age. I did mentioned the Hussites above, but that wasn't the only time when there were important, for instance they put up strong resistance against the mongols in 1241 AD. If they include the hussites the faction should probably be called Bohemia and be included also before and after the hussite wars timeframe. By the way I didn't only suggest factions based on historical important but also based partly on gameplay aspects. For example for historical realism the HRE should be split up in hundreds of factions but that's not really possible to do - the amount of data the game must handle (and the performance of the game) approximately increases with a power of 2 when the number of factions are increased. That's probably the main reason why we didn't see more than 21 factions in RTW and should be happy if we get between 30 and 50 factions, or something like that, in MTW2.

Vladimir
01-27-2006, 13:42
Before anyone complains that their favorite Grand[sic] empire was not included look at the dates people. No one should say that they want a kingdom included because they did something great in the 14th century. Keep it in context! 1080, 1080 and 1080 are the only three dates that anyone should be talking about. If it's like M:TW they'll have different eras and maybe this now insignificant corner of the world will be represented. I can imagine someone screaming: I want Luxemburg!

SLKHERO
01-27-2006, 14:55
I did get somethings wrong. The regal lists are always thrown together haphazardly. Should have went with the Geneiologies. I should have said that the map is only accurate for the period between 1301 and 1305 when Wenceslas II and Wenceslas III were kings of Bohemia, Hungary, and Poland at the same time. But the info is indeed good, poorly organized but good. Yours however is suspect to my eyes. The way that is tries to give the appearance that Bohemia had some kind of special status in the HRE is friggin ridiculous. HRE was, except for a few times when a strong emperor tried to change it, a loose confederation of dutchies/small kingdoms. Bohemias status was no different than Bavarias or Brandenburgs. Wealthier probably but not superior or more free. They were all part of the HRE and thus in any medieval game should be included as part of any HRE faction. The accomonplishments of the later Przemysls is for the glory of the empire not Bohemia. That's why they are not needed as a seperate faction they are part of the HRE.


At Admins: It was unfair you removed my entire post and let his stand. Anyone with any knowledge of history would have backed me up on this.

Most of my post was not offensive. So thank you for erasing my half hout long argument. You really are on top of things.

SLKHERO
01-27-2006, 15:14
For 12 months tops. That map you posted is only valid for 1305, when Wenceslas III was King of Bohemia, Hungary and Poland at the same time. He was booted off the Hungarian throne in 1305 for a Bavarian named Otto. Rudolf of Hapsburg grabbed Bohemia. And Wenceslas died in 1306 leaving Poland to Wladyslaw IV the Short. No Bohemia is not worth including, it is under the domination of the HRE too much.

That map is good from 1197-1306, as it sais it is. That is from time when Bohemia was officially recognized as a kingdom with hereditary rights (note it was a kingdom on several occassions before) to when the last of Przemyslids dies mysteriously on his campaign to Poland (when they controlled much of central Europe).

Wencelaus III wasn't booted off Hungarian throne. His father came to get him as the country was breaking under the pressure of civil strife.

There were plenty of battles between Bohemia and HRE and the former won all except the last one. Most were during the time that Bohemia wasn't even recognized as a kingdom.

Battle at Tauss (1040) where the German Henry III was defeated by Bretislav I.

Battle at Chlumec (1126) Lothar III is defeated by Sobeslav.

The last one I am sure we know all too well.

econ21
01-27-2006, 15:20
At Admins: It was unfair you removed my entire post and let his stand. Anyone with any knowledge of history would have backed me up on this.

Most of my post was not offensive. So thank you for erasing my half hout long argument. You really are on top of things.

SLKHERO, your post was likely to give offense in my opinion whereas the one I let stand was not. I am sorry you disagree, but please understand these kind of exchanges can quickly degenerate into nasty flame wars that no one likes to read.

I repeat - debate in the style of a professional historian (or as you would in a history class as a student) and there will be no problems. Your latest post is a good example of this style. Please PM me or the site admin, TosaInu, if you wish to discuss this further.

player1
01-27-2006, 15:46
Does anybody knows what is the timeline of the game?
If it is 10th or 11th Bulgaria should be included as the main power in the Balkans. But if it is 12th or 13th century then Serbia should be included as it was the strongest at the time. Also somebody said that Bulgaria conquered Serbia. That is not entirely accurate. Organized Serbian state as we know it today starts at the begining of the 12th century. Before that we can only talk about serbian feudal lords who were vassals to sofia or constantinople, even budapest sometimes.
So choosing between Serbia or Bulgaria is a question of timeline, I think.
But let`s face it, balkan nations aren`t very interesting to western european or american market which is the most important market. So I have my doubts about balkan nations being icluded in the game.

Serbia golden age starts at 12th centuy at the beggining Nemnic dynasty. Which last until the end of 14th century, and final fall in 15th.
But it did got united somewhat earlier I think in 10th or 11th century.

Anyway, if they don't include it as faction I at least hope they include some unique unit from that are like Serbian Knights.

Sarmatian
01-27-2006, 15:52
Before anyone complains that their favorite Grand[sic] empire was not included look at the dates people. No one should say that they want a kingdom included because they did something great in the 14th century. Keep it in context! 1080, 1080 and 1080 are the only three dates that anyone should be talking about. If it's like M:TW they'll have different eras and maybe this now insignificant corner of the world will be represented. I can imagine someone screaming: I want Luxemburg!

I`m sorry if I misinterpreted your words, but when you said "insignificant corner of the world" I assume you meant the balkans. But this game is about the past, not the present. The balkans were highly developed and had a high cultural value from ancient times up to industrial revolution, when started the period of decline for balkan nations. Therefore I think not including some Balkan factions in the game would hurt historical aspect of the game.
As the game starts in 1080, I think it would be most logical and most historically accurate if Bulgaria is included.
I would like to see Serbia of course, as I am from there, but for the sake of historical accuracy I will give my vote to our eastern neighbours :laugh4:

lanky316
01-27-2006, 16:09
I`m sorry if I misinterpreted your words, but when you said "insignificant corner of the world" I assume you meant the balkans. But this game is about the past, not the present. The balkans were highly developed and had a high cultural value from ancient times up to industrial revolution, when started the period of decline for balkan nations. Therefore I think not including some Balkan factions in the game would hurt historical aspect of the game.
As the game starts in 1080, I think it would be most logical and most historically accurate if Bulgaria is included.
I would like to see Serbia of course, as I am from there, but for the sake of historical accuracy I will give my vote to our eastern neighbours :laugh4:

I think he meant "now insignificant" refering to powers that were not important at the various "eras" the game may encompass. For example at the start Denmark were and influence but by the end of the game their influence (as far as I know) was lesser. I may be wrong but that was my understanding of what was meant.

Mouzafphaerre
01-27-2006, 16:32
.

MUSLIM

The Turks,
Egypt,
The Moors
To generalizing, painstakingly insufficient and plain inaccurate. :no:

There were no Egyptians; rather there was the Fatimid khalifate, who at times allied with the crusaders and had been a pain in the ass of the muslim world ever since politically. Due to their extreme Shiite nature, they were hardly in union with the rest of the Islamic world and the populace of Egypt weren't content with their rule at all. OTOS there was a more or less a stable (successive) line of emirates (Zengids and than Salahaddin's house) nominally vassal to the Abbasid khalifate (which could/should be pictured like a senate/papacy but differently in mechanisms), finally overtook Egypt but at the cost of losing Syria afterwards.

There were never a single "Turks" faction, not well until very late 15th century. There were plenty of independent/semi independent emirates instead. The Selchuqs were still in power but in most regions local warlords and governors, be members and relatives of the dynasty or atabegs like Zengids, were practically independent. There were definitely more than more "Turkish" powers at work even in Asia Minor.

The moors were fragmented in Spain into several contending reigns. In North Africa the Muwahhids (silly Almohads of the original MTW) were the most powerful and for a brief period of time they ruled most of Spain too. But there were still several emirates of varying sizes and power lingering at the southern coasts of the Mediterranean. (Still, a single moorish faction would be less inaccurate than "Egyptians" or "Turks", which are plain nonsense.)
.

Sarmatian
01-27-2006, 16:39
I think he meant "now insignificant" refering to powers that were not important at the various "eras" the game may encompass. For example at the start Denmark were and influence but by the end of the game their influence (as far as I know) was lesser. I may be wrong but that was my understanding of what was meant.

I agree, but history is not an exact science. Some eastern european nations maybe didn`t have any influence in the western europe but, for example france didn`t have any influence in eastern europe. That is not the reason to exclude france from the game.
Also, scotland had no influence outside of the british isles. Even there it was minimal. So including scotland for example, instead of bohemia, bulgaria or hungary would be a mistake in my opinion. But, as I said before, I think the importance of a market will be the most important factor which will decide which faction will be included, not history.

Sarmatian
01-27-2006, 16:51
.

There were never a single "Turks" faction, not well until very late 15th century. There were plenty of independent/semi independent emirates instead. The Selchuqs were still in power but in most regions local warlords and governors, be members and relatives of the dynasty or atabegs like Zengids, were practically independent. There were definitely more than more "Turkish" powers at work even in Asia Minor.

.

I dissagre. Ottomans turks consolidated there power in Asia minor long before 15th century. Actually, by the end of the 14th, century they conquered entire balkan. In 16 century, about the time when the game ends, they laid their first siege to Vienna. Not including ottomans in the game is just wrong.

player1
01-27-2006, 16:56
I dissagre. Ottomans turks consolidated there power in Asia minor long before 15th century. Actually, by the end of the 14th, century they conquered entire balkan. In 16 century, about the time when the game ends, they laid their first siege to Vienna. Not including ottomans in the game is just wrong.

Actually at the end of 14th century after battle of Kosovo those land becomed vassals.
They evertually became turkish land in 15th century.

GaugamelaTC
01-27-2006, 17:02
Find achievements for each of these that cast a shadow over anything that Bohemia did.

Portugal helped in the major European discovery of the new world (I say major discovery, as there are the Vikings etc. I stress the importance of EUROPEAN discovery, as people obviously lived there. ), and the Pope himself once said that the entire world should be divided between Spain and Portugal. Does that cast a shadow over Bohemia? I think so.

Sarmatian
01-27-2006, 17:11
Actually at the end of 14th century after battle of Kosovo those land becomed vassals.
They evertually became turkish land in 15th century.

Quite right, but accepted turkish authority, untill the begining of the 19th century when they regained their independence. So I think we can say those were turkish lands form that point on.

Sarmatian
01-27-2006, 17:19
Portugal helped in the major European discovery of the new world (I say major discovery, as there are the Vikings etc. I stress the importance of EUROPEAN discovery, as people obviously lived there. ), and the Pope himself once said that the entire world should be divided between Spain and Portugal. Does that cast a shadow over Bohemia? I think so.

Actually, it doesn`t since portugal didn`t have anything to do with the discovery of the new world. Portugal discovered sea route to india, and therefore, for a brief period of time, had monopoly on the spice trade.
Columbus discovered new world and he sailed under the spanish flag.

Prince Cobra
01-27-2006, 17:30
The historical accuracy is very important to me. In 1080 there were no Bulgarians- their land were under Byzantine control. At that time Serbs were not very powerful- they were Byzantine vassals. And I'll be very disappointed if there are no three eras to start from (as in MTW) because they give to the game something very special. As I have already written the first half of the XIII century was the golden age of the Second Bulgarian state- so if the period starts from the beginning of the XIII century Bulgarian should be included.At that Serbia stopped being vassal of the empire but was not very strong country( i.e. at 1190 ( Bulgaria was revived in 1185) Serbs were defeated by the byzantine army, but when in the same year another army (lead by emperor Isaac II Angel(1185-1195) )tried to conquer Bulgaria again ...then it was defeated by Bulgarians in the Balkan mountain(Stara planina)). Some decades later (look the map) Serbia was absolutely less powerful than Bulgaria ( Bulgaria did not conquered Serbia at tha time (agree) but the Bulgarians supported the new Serbian king Stefan Wladislaw to strengthen his power). So in the end of XII and the first half of XIV century the Bulgarian domination is doubtless.
the first half of XIV century- I agree that is the golden age of Serbia (most of western part of Balkan peninsula was Serbian) but Bulgaria was an important country in the eastern part (altough without Walachia and Moldavia)-i.e. they defeated Byzantines in 1332. The Serbian empire exist till the death of Stefan Dusan in 1355. After that there were many small kingdoms and principalities in what had been the Serbian empire (the same happened to the Bulgarian tsardom- it was seperated into two tsardoms and one principality but two decades later). In 1321 when the original MTW starts the two states- Serbia and Bulgaria(bec of the Mongols) were not very powerful ( but Byzantium was not very strong either- i.e. it was defeated by Bulgarians in 1304). So in XIV they are almost equal ( Serbia is a bit more powerful).

About 1080 Bulgaria should exist (because of Bulgarian mass rebellions against the Byzantines i.e. Peter Delian (1040-1041) but in a similiar manner as Burgundy in MTW ( but more rebellions against the Byzantines).
And just a small note- in the Middle ages the capital of the Second Bulgarian state was not Sofia (altough Sofia should be included in province Bulgaria not in province Greece) but Tsarevgrad Tarnov (now Veliko Tarnovo, Central Bulgaria).
P.S. Bulgaria really ruled the Serbian lands but that was in the begining of the X century (first as a vassals from 917 to 923 and after that as a Bulgarian province from 923 to 931) but for a short time. In the end of X and the beginig of XI the Serbians were Bulgarian vassals but not for a long time.:book:

Mouzafphaerre
01-27-2006, 17:31
I dissagre. Ottomans turks consolidated there power in Asia minor long before 15th century. Actually, by the end of the 14th, century they conquered entire balkan. In 16 century, about the time when the game ends, they laid their first siege to Vienna. Not including ottomans in the game is just wrong.
.
As late as in Mehmed II's time the Karamanids were a contending power against Ottoman authority at the very heart of Anatolia; Akkoyunlu realm in the eastern Asia Minor proved to be troublesome until 1473; Kilikian princedooms (Zülkadir, Ramazanoğlu) were subdued only by Selim I in 1510's. They were all Turkish principalities. Kurdish warlords, previously independent, were made tributary by Selim I too.
.

Prince Cobra
01-27-2006, 17:35
And I agree that the Balkan factions (esp. Bulgaria and Serbia) should be included because the Balkan region was really very important!:2thumbsup:

Prince Cobra
01-27-2006, 17:45
So in the end of XII and the first half of XIV century the Bulgarian domination is doubtless.
It's my mistake I wanted to say in the end of XIIth and the first half of XIIIth century!:embarassed:

Cronos Impera
01-27-2006, 17:56
CATHOLIC

Aragon,
Castile Leon (Spain),
Crusader States,
Denmark,
England,
France,
Holy Roman Empire,
Hungary
Milan (or Genoa),
Papal States,
Poland
Portugal,
Scotland,
Sicily,
Teutonic Order,
Venice,

MUSLIM

The Turks,
Egypt,
The Moors

ORTHADOX

Armenians
Bulgarians
Byzantium,
Kiew Russians,
Novgorod
Serbians
Wallachia or Moldavia

PAGAN

Cumans,
Lithuanians,
Mongols,
Tumurids,

Sarmatian
01-27-2006, 17:57
.
As late as in Mehmed II's time the Karamanids were a contending power against Ottoman authority at the very heart of Anatolia; Akkoyunlu realm in the eastern Asia Minor proved to be troublesome until 1473; Kilikian princedooms (Zülkadir, Ramazanoğlu) were subdued only by Selim I in 1510's. They were all Turkish principalities. Kurdish warlords, previously independent, were made tributary by Selim I too.
.

The rise of the ottoman turks starts with sultan osman at the of the 13th century. Turkish supremacy on the balkan peninsula is established after victory on Kosovo in 1389. By 1393 bulgaria becomes a part of the ottoman empire. After that, ottoman rule is consolidated in the western part of asia minor. In the begining of the 16th century, ottomans defeated the sefevids and mamelukes effectively asserting turkish supremacy in asia minor. By the year 1520, ottoman empire controled vast land from red sea to crimea, and from kurdistan to bosnia.

Mouzafphaerre
01-27-2006, 18:08
The rise of the ottoman turks starts with sultan osman at the of the 13th century. Turkish supremacy on the balkan peninsula is established after victory on Kosovo in 1389. By 1393 bulgaria becomes a part of the ottoman empire. After that, ottoman rule is consolidated in the western part of asia minor. In the begining of the 16th century, ottomans defeated the sefevids and mamelukes effectively asserting turkish supremacy in asia minor. By the year 1520, ottoman empire controled vast land from red sea to crimea, and from kurdistan to bosnia.
.
In addition, 2 x 2 = 4 and E = mc² :yes: What was the point? :dizzy2:

Oh yes... *smirk* I'm talking abut the condition at the game's start: 1080. There was no single, consolidated, unified "Turks" faction at that time. The rise of Ottomans to their ultimate power took centuries; even after the dominion in the Balkans was guarnateed, Asia Minor and Mesopothamia were a source of turmoil. The game will end in 1530 (IIRC) and Ottomans will have just become the single and dominant Turkish faction, save the Safevid Iran ruled by yet another Turkmen dynasty.

Therefore, the waning Selchuq power needs to be checked with at least one contending Turkish faction. Ottomans can only be considered after mid 14th century, at which time they were establishing their dominion at the Balkans and growing to be a threat against the more powerful Turkish princedooms such as the Karamanids.
.

Reenk Roink
01-27-2006, 18:17
Some of you guys should really work for CA....

Sarmatian
01-27-2006, 18:33
.
In addition, 2 x 2 = 4 and E = mc² :yes: What was the point? :dizzy2:

Oh yes... *smirk* I'm talking abut the condition at the game's start: 1080. There was no single, consolidated, unified "Turks" faction at that time. The rise of Ottomans to their ultimate power took centuries; even after the dominion in the Balkans was guarnateed, Asia Minor and Mesopothamia were a source of turmoil. The game will end in 1530 (IIRC) and Ottomans will have just become the single and dominant Turkish faction, save the Safevid Iran ruled by yet another Turkmen dynasty.

Therefore, the waning Selchuq power needs to be checked with at least one contending Turkish faction. Ottomans can only be considered after mid 14th century, at which time they were establishing their dominion at the Balkans and growing to be a threat against the more powerful Turkish princedooms such as the Karamanids.
.

Ok, I agree that the rise of ottoman empire starts "in the middle of the game". But, considering what they accomplished, I feel that it would be a crime excluding them. But some kind of turkish faction should exist. Maybe the just naming them "the turks" would be the simplest solution.

Anyway, Mouzafphaerre, where are you from, if it`s not a secret?

lars573
01-27-2006, 18:40
That map is good from 1197-1306, as it sais it is. That is from time when Bohemia was officially recognized as a kingdom with hereditary rights (note it was a kingdom on several occassions before) to when the last of Przemyslids dies mysteriously on his campaign to Poland (when they controlled much of central Europe).

Wencelaus III wasn't booted off Hungarian throne. His father came to get him as the country was breaking under the pressure of civil strife.

There were plenty of battles between Bohemia and HRE and the former won all except the last one. Most were during the time that Bohemia wasn't even recognized as a kingdom.

Battle at Tauss (1040) where the German Henry III was defeated by Bretislav I.

Battle at Chlumec (1126) Lothar III is defeated by Sobeslav.

The last one I am sure we know all too well.
A war between vassals and lords, that's so uncommon in the middle ages. :rolleyes: We have to limit our view to the time frame of M2TW, that is 1080-1530. In that time Bohemia had brief periods of independnace mixed with long periods of German domination. And you have yet to come up with a decent reason why Bohemia should be included as a seperate faction from the HRE. Because the line of reasoning your following unltimately speaks for having no factions period. If Bohemia is in then any too bit county that broke with it's over lord could be argued for. This would be fine for a game like Paradoxes Crusader kings. Where the combat is abstracted and it's all 2D and text. But for a game like M2TW that has to show the combat you have to scarifce how many factions you have. Lines for the inclusion or exclusion of a faction have to be drawn some where. With the exception of Buegundy and Switzerland CA appearantly worked from a no vassals rule in MTW. Hence why Serbia and Bulgaria were excluded.

Lazul
01-27-2006, 18:40
There was a reason why denmark never expanded into that landmass above them except for Norway. There was a kingdom called SWEDEN... well Svea...

... add Swedes for the love of god! add them! :furious3:

Leet Eriksson
01-27-2006, 19:04
NORWAY NORWAY NORWAY NORWAY NORWAY...

Friggin eh, if they added timurids who only ruled late game why not Norway?! they had a bit of land in the high middle ages 1200's-1300's...

Antiochius
01-27-2006, 19:08
Because Denmark and Sweden were more powerfull and moree important than Norway. Because of that i wouldn`t prefer playing the Norways

Mouzafphaerre
01-27-2006, 19:48
Ok, I agree that the rise of ottoman empire starts "in the middle of the game". But, considering what they accomplished, I feel that it would be a crime excluding them. But some kind of turkish faction should exist. Maybe the just naming them "the turks" would be the simplest solution.

Anyway, Mouzafphaerre, where are you from, if it`s not a secret?
.
I'm not saying they'll exclude them. :wall: I'm just trying to point out the foolishness of a *single* faction arbitrarily named Turks. IOW, there should be at least two "Turkish" factions, appropriately named after the dynasty or domain.

Istanbul, btw. ~:)
.

Prince Cobra
01-27-2006, 19:52
A war between vassals and lords, that's so uncommon in the middle ages. :rolleyes: We have to limit our view to the time frame of M2TW, that is 1080-1530. In that time Bohemia had brief periods of independnace mixed with long periods of German domination. And you have yet to come up with a decent reason why Bohemia should be included as a seperate faction from the HRE. Because the line of reasoning your following unltimately speaks for having no factions period. If Bohemia is in then any too bit county that broke with it's over lord could be argued for. This would be fine for a game like Paradoxes Crusader kings. Where the combat is abstracted and it's all 2D and text. But for a game like M2TW that has to show the combat you have to scarifce how many factions you have. Lines for the inclusion or exclusion of a faction have to be drawn some where. With the exception of Buegundy and Switzerland CA appearantly worked from a no vassals rule in MTW. Hence why Serbia and Bulgaria were excluded.
Contrary to the common opinion Medieval period was not the period of the chivalry but a period of the slyness as every period of the history. In many cases the most cunning people succeed in gaining the power not the most honest. Some of the nicknames are prooves to that- i.e. Rober Guiskard (the Fox). And many of the vassals did not really obbey to their masters (there is a funny moment with the French king Hugo Capet who was humiliated by a vassal of him ( the vassal ordered to a servant to trip up the king :laugh4: ). But I agree for Bohemia - but it was really important in the HRE - its master was allowed to paricipate in the procedure of choosing a new emperor.
And Bulgaria was never vassals of Byzantium- they were either conquered
(only 167 years) or free (681-1018 and 1185-1396) in the Middle ages. But you are right- that could be the reason for excluding Bulgaria. And that's not fair because Bulgaria was revived and became one of the major powers in Europe.

Prince Cobra
01-27-2006, 19:58
Oh, I forgot to say- Russian states were vassals of the Mongols!

Mouzafphaerre
01-27-2006, 20:08
.
Vassal status should not be considered in deciding the existing of a faction. In most cases vassals were merely nominally so. I'd rather have a much more improved diplomatic system than we have suffered in MTW (non-existing but flavour) and RTW (a joke! irrational and ineffective).

That said, the uniform rebel/pirate faction mechanisme would best be improved. Each province acting at need as a faction when not controlled by a "faction" would be very good but I'm afraid I'm dreaming.
.

cutepuppy
01-27-2006, 20:34
I can imagine someone screaming: I want Luxemburg!

Well, the house of Luxemburg was quite powerfull in the 14th century. They were in control of the duchies of Brabant, Luxemburg and Silesia, the marches Brandenburg and Lausitz and the kingdom of Bohemia (John the blind of Bohemia was of the house of Luxemburg, as was Emperor Karl IV of the HRE).
So, I want Luxemburg!!!

scotchedpommes
01-27-2006, 20:38
Would like to see Croat and Serb factions, in separate time frames or not. Think
it's highly unlikely that either will be included though. As for futher splitting of
Italian city states, I'm inclined to think the developers would avoid this again,
[beyond their chosen ones, Milan and Venice] so as to cater for, dare I say,
the more casual gamer.

Rodion Romanovich
01-27-2006, 20:47
Would like to see Croat and Serb factions, in separate time frames or not. Think
it's highly unlikely that either will be included though. As for futher splitting of
Italian city states, I'm inclined to think the developers would avoid this again,
[beyond their chosen ones, Milan and Venice] so as to cater for, dare I say,
the more casual gamer.

Not having Genoa would be a disaster IMO :wall: :furious3:

Prince Cobra
01-27-2006, 20:50
I wanted to show that even the dependence for a certain period of time (vassalage (i.e.mongols were important factor in Russia for a certain period of time) or even conquering) is not so important if the faction had a great success and showed its power.

Vladimir
01-27-2006, 21:17
Not having Genoa would be a disaster IMO :wall: :furious3:

I agree with this. The Genoese did have a rather lengthy fight with the Venetians although I don't remember the time frame.

Prince Cobra
01-27-2006, 21:25
I agree- Genoa is really important

Mouzafphaerre
01-27-2006, 22:13
I agree- Genoa is really important
.
:yes:
.

SLKHERO
01-27-2006, 22:18
Portugal helped in the major European discovery of the new world (I say major discovery, as there are the Vikings etc. I stress the importance of EUROPEAN discovery, as people obviously lived there. ), and the Pope himself once said that the entire world should be divided between Spain and Portugal. Does that cast a shadow over Bohemia? I think so.

Are we talking about Medieval period?

Because for a moment I thought you wondered off.

However, if they choose to include post Medieval period into a Medieval game, then Portugal increases in its significance.

To say that this casts shadow over Bohemia is an overstretch. Still within the European politics and history, which is what this game will concentrate on no matter how long will the timeline be, Bohemia had more economic, cultural, and military achievements to boot.

King Noob the Stupid
01-27-2006, 22:26
I think portugal also wasn't that insignificant during the "main middle ages", they already existed as a county in the 11th century ("portucale"), became fully independent in 1143 and took part in the reconquista for the next 100 years, Portugal would clearly make Iberia more interesting, especially if Aragon isn't included.

SLKHERO
01-27-2006, 22:37
A war between vassals and lords, that's so uncommon in the middle ages. :rolleyes: We have to limit our view to the time frame of M2TW, that is 1080-1530. In that time Bohemia had brief periods of independnace mixed with long periods of German domination. And you have yet to come up with a decent reason why Bohemia should be included as a seperate faction from the HRE. Because the line of reasoning your following unltimately speaks for having no factions period. If Bohemia is in then any too bit county that broke with it's over lord could be argued for. This would be fine for a game like Paradoxes Crusader kings. Where the combat is abstracted and it's all 2D and text. But for a game like M2TW that has to show the combat you have to scarifce how many factions you have. Lines for the inclusion or exclusion of a faction have to be drawn some where. With the exception of Buegundy and Switzerland CA appearantly worked from a no vassals rule in MTW. Hence why Serbia and Bulgaria were excluded.

I did come up with a reason. It was the most powerful Centeal European kingdom during the 13th and 14th century. This culminated in Przemyslids ruling much of the Central Europe (Przemyslids were winning wars against Polish and Hungarian kingdoms during that time). Had Wenceslaus III not been assasinated en route to dealing with matters in Poland their domination would have continued. They still remained the strongest Central European country under Luxembourgs. And if you add Hussites to boot, this is really one of the most excitting and rich and unique faction to play as (for instance, howitzer was invented by Czechs, derived from their word houfnice- 'houf' means a mass, preferably of people, so houfnice was used to destroy a mass of people).

[Moderator comment: more ad hominem attacks deleted]

Mouzafphaerre
01-27-2006, 22:41
.
My ideal startup factions at the beginning of the 12th century AD, roughly from east to west:

Khwarezm-shahs
Selchuqs (Great)
Selchuqs (Rûm)
Bolghars (Volga)
Roman Empire (at Konstantinopolis)
Armenia (in Kilikia)
Kumans
Republic of Novgorod
Kiev
Zengi Atabegs of Musul
Fatimid Khalifas of Egypt
One of the Maghrib kingdoms (Ziris or Hammadis)
The Murabit Empire (Almoravid) ― Muwahhids (Almohad) can spawn on rebellion
Hungary
Poland
Bosnia/Croatia/Serbia (one faction)
Bohemia ― complete with the Hussite rebellion!
One of the pagan Baltic tribes would be cool; Lietuva?
Sweden
Denmark
Holy Roman Empire
Venice
Pisa/Genoa
Papacy
France (consisting of the King's domains, the feudal fiefdoms being rebel)
England (including Normandie, or rather vice versa ~;))
Scotland
Leon-Castillia
Cunty of Barcelona rather than Aragon, imho

With the inevitable rebels our thirty faction slot will be depleted. I hope it will be at least thirty in order to open up space for a few emerging factions (Moŋols! Crusaders et al). (I'm pretending that there won't be any silly Aztechs, Númenoreans or aliens. ~:mecry: At worst case it would be a great list for a mod. :yes:) Notice also the regional polarities.

I haven't included many feudal principalities, muslim emiratelets around Iberia, as well as Ireland and Wales; not because I deem them unimportant but for their non-expansionist and stagnant character at the time. They should be represented as strong enough rebel factions, though.
.

SLKHERO
01-27-2006, 22:44
I think portugal also wasn't that insignificant during the "main middle ages", they already existed as a county in the 11th century ("portucale"), became fully independent in 1143 and took part in the reconquista for the next 100 years, Portugal would clearly make Iberia more interesting, especially if Aragon isn't included.

I don't think that they are insignificant, but in comparison to Europe's major powers they are not as significant.

ajaxfetish
01-27-2006, 23:01
I certainly wouldn't mind having Bohemia in as a faction. There are plenty of other factions just as influential, though, and much of Bohemia's involvement was as part of the HRE. I'd be happy either way on that one.

The most important thing will be for them to leave it open to modders, (and hopefully with a high faction cap to give them plenty of options for inclusion), so it can be more customized for personal interests after release. I also like the way VikingHorde made XL mod (and I think BKB's does something similar), where the faction list is different for each starting period to reflect the changes over the age. IIRC Bohemia is a faction in XL in early and late, but part of the HRE in high. Hopefully they will include different starting date options again, and one step better will be to customize the factions for each of the periods.

Ajax

SLKHERO
01-27-2006, 23:04
My ideal list would be (if it is only for 21 factions):

Catholic:

France
England
HRE
Denmark
Catille
Portugal/Aragon-I'm leaning more towards Portugal based on the expanded timeline.
Sicily
Venice
Papacy
Bohemia
Poland
Hungary

Otrhodox:

Kievan Rus
Novgorod
Byzantines
Bulgaria/Serbia -one of these two of which I can't decide

Muslim:

Turks
Egypt
Almoravid
Moors (either as general tribes or unique rebels)

Pagan:

Lithuania

If there are 30, then these should be added:

Serbia/Bulgaria (whichever was left out)
Kumans
Georgia
Sweden
Timurids
Kwarezm
Scotland
Genoa
Armenia

Sarmatian
01-27-2006, 23:13
.
I'm not saying they'll exclude them. :wall: I'm just trying to point out the foolishness of a *single* faction arbitrarily named Turks. IOW, there should be at least two "Turkish" factions, appropriately named after the dynasty or domain.

Istanbul, btw. ~:)
.

Sorry, I didn`t understand you. I thought you are saying that they should exclude turks because there wasn`t any dominant turkish faction. I quite agree, but it is unlikely that there will be two turkish faction.

SLKHERO
01-27-2006, 23:16
A war between vassals and lords, that's so uncommon in the middle ages. :rolleyes: We have to limit our view to the time frame of M2TW, that is 1080-1530. In that time Bohemia had brief periods of independnace mixed with long periods of German domination. And you have yet to come up with a decent reason why Bohemia should be included as a seperate faction from the HRE. Because the line of reasoning your following unltimately speaks for having no factions period. If Bohemia is in then any too bit county that broke with it's over lord could be argued for. This would be fine for a game like Paradoxes Crusader kings. Where the combat is abstracted and it's all 2D and text. But for a game like M2TW that has to show the combat you have to scarifce how many factions you have. Lines for the inclusion or exclusion of a faction have to be drawn some where. With the exception of Buegundy and Switzerland CA appearantly worked from a no vassals rule in MTW. Hence why Serbia and Bulgaria were excluded.

Well, let's do this. You support your made up claims with some textual
evidence. I did and you called it a lie. You said it didn't represent reality.

Have you read anything that I have linked? Just admit it to us that you have no knowledge of Bohemian history and therefore you shoul reserve the right of
debating about its history to people who know what they are tlking about.

Tell me about one histrical book that you read about Bohemia previous to this
discussion (and no, googles articles don't count)?

At Admins: The thing I said about Nazis was deadly serious. They used history as they pleased and even have rewrote it to suit their ideological beliefs, among which was that Slavs were inferior. They simply could not stand a thought of a powerful Slavic king ruling Germans.

How do you then suggest I should have appraoched this, when his argument is similar to theirs? Why do you then take away my ability to express myself when it is not meant to attack but to point out certain falacies?

You are being unfair to me.

SLKHERO
01-27-2006, 23:22
To have an idea about how a Bohemian faction may look like lookout for a new preview of this faction in C:TW (the medieval mod for RTW hosted on SCC).

Roberto
01-27-2006, 23:25
I would like to se ireland

Mouzafphaerre
01-27-2006, 23:39
Sorry, I didn`t understand you. I thought you are saying that they should exclude turks because there wasn`t any dominant turkish faction. I quite agree, but it is unlikely that there will be two turkish faction.
.
Unfortunately seems so, considering CA's tendency of lumping things together. But if we really have 30+ faction slots then great mods can be made. ~:)
.

Just A Girl
01-27-2006, 23:54
Lol i love the regular input of,
"thyle probably make them non playable. or a sid campaign"

I really dont see what would be the gain in that,

however thats how it looked like in RTW,

So i guess its a 50/50

gardibolt
01-28-2006, 00:08
I'd like to see Spain split into Castile and Aragon, unless it's harmful to game play, as someone suggested above.

Other than that, the Lithuanians/Livonians seem essential to me (and I'm not Lithuanian).

I can see the arguments for the Bulgarians and to a slightly lesser extent, Serbia.

I suppose one could make an interesting game out of having the Knight Hospitallers and the Templars being separate factions too.

lars573
01-28-2006, 00:39
Well, let's do this. You support your made up claims with some textual
evidence. I did and you called it a lie. You said it didn't represent reality.

Have you read anything that I have linked? Just admit it to us that you have no knowledge of Bohemian history and therefore you shoul reserve the right of
debating about its history to people who know what they are tlking about.

Tell me about one histrical book that you read about Bohemia previous to this
discussion (and no, googles articles don't count)?

At Admins: The thing I said about Nazis was deadly serious. They used history as they pleased and even have rewrote it to suit their ideological beliefs, among which was that Slavs were inferior. They simply could not stand a thought of a powerful Slavic king ruling Germans.

How do you then suggest I should have appraoched this, when his argument is similar to theirs? Why do you then take away my ability to express myself when it is not meant to attack but to point out certain falacies?

You are being unfair to me.
I know enough, not gory details (like I can't remeber when the HRE incorporated bohemia into the empire and it's bugging the hell out of me) but enough. Enough to know that it's not worth seperating Bohemia from the HRE. I tried to read that but it was too tricky and I've read most of the raw details before. Written much more neutrally. That text is anti-German, and there fore bogus. Texts that unfairly degrade something to boost something else have no worth to me. Plus you should really spell check before posting (you too Mouza) it's really hard to argue with someone when they are making so many spelling mistakes.

As for historical texts, physical books none. Online mostly. But I only cite sites that I consider valid. If you want I'll link to them. Having no money or credit card and a very poor reference section in my local libraries means the internets is my only resource.

My only reason for not wanting Bohemia in is that you can't have everything. Bohemia is an integral part of the HRE. Which was made up of quasai independent provinces. If you include Bohemia why leave out Bavaria, or Saxony, or Austria, or any of the HRE constituent parts. You'd end up needing to do what was done to the Roman republic in RTW. That didn't work very well did it. Your reason is that Bohemia was a major player in eastern europe. This is not true as the HRE was, Bohemia was part of it. So all of Bohemia's glory is the HRE's glory.

Sarmatian
01-28-2006, 00:41
I'd like to see Spain split into Castile and Aragon, unless it's harmful to game play, as someone suggested above.

Other than that, the Lithuanians/Livonians seem essential to me (and I'm not Lithuanian).

I can see the arguments for the Bulgarians and to a slightly lesser extent, Serbia.

I suppose one could make an interesting game out of having the Knight Hospitallers and the Templars being separate factions too.

I don`t know. It`s a coin flip between Serbia and Bulgaria. After tzar Dusan of serbia defeated combined bulgarian and byzantium amies somewhere in the first half of the 14th century, and then securing lasting peace with the new bulgarian tzar by marrying his sister, his rule extended south until thesaloniki in todays greece. Dubrovnik accepted supreme rule of serbian kings long before that and paid special taxes to be autonomous. What serbs lacked to become a major power in mediterranean was the fleet. Also, don`t forget that bulgarians were asian barbaric horde when they first came to balkans, that is a couple of centuries before the start of the game. They conquered some serbian (slavic) tribes but eventually accepted serbian (slavic) language, culture and religion and that is why today they are considered to be south slavs. As a said, I think it`s a coin flip...

Prince Cobra
01-28-2006, 00:41
.
My ideal startup factions at the beginning of the 12th century AD, roughly from east to west:

Khwarezm-shahs
Selchuqs (Great)
Selchuqs (Rûm)
Bolghars (Volga)
Roman Empire (at Konstantinopolis)
Armenia (in Kilikia)
Kumans
Republic of Novgorod
Kiev
Zengi Atabegs of Musul
Fatimid Khalifas of Egypt
One of the Maghrib kingdoms (Ziris or Hammadis)
The Murabit Empire (Almoravid) ― Muwahhids (Almohad) can spawn on rebellion
Hungary
Poland
Bosnia/Croatia/Serbia (one faction)
Bohemia ― complete with the Hussite rebellion!
One of the pagan Baltic tribes would be cool; Lietuva?
Sweden
Denmark
Holy Roman Empire
Venice
Pisa/Genoa
Papacy
France (consisting of the King's domains, the feudal fiefdoms being rebel)
England (including Normandie, or rather vice versa ~;))
Scotland
Leon-Castillia
Cunty of Barcelona rather than Aragon, imho

With the inevitable rebels our thirty faction slot will be depleted. I hope it will be at least thirty in order to open up space for a few emerging factions (Moŋols! Crusaders et al). (I'm pretending that there won't be any silly Aztechs, Númenoreans or aliens. ~:mecry: At worst case it would be a great list for a mod. :yes:) Notice also the regional polarities.

I haven't included many feudal principalities, muslim emiratelets around Iberia, as well as Ireland and Wales; not because I deem them unimportant but for their non-expansionist and stagnant character at the time. They should be represented as strong enough rebel factions, though.
.
And do not forget to include a powerful rebel faction of Bulgaria (similar to what was Burgundy in MTW but more active) in XII century (in later periods Bulgarians should be playable IMHO)
I suppose you wanted to say that the Hussites will appear later in XVth century as a rebel faction ( which is historically acurate)~;)

Sarmatian
01-28-2006, 01:13
[QUOTE=Mouzafphaerre].
Bosnia/Croatia/Serbia (one faction)

Bosnia existed at the time only as geographic term andnot as a country. Croatia had a bried period of the independence before 1000AD, but after that croatian feudal lords acknowledged supreme rule of hungarian kings. They didn`t have any impact on history in the timeline of the game.

Steppe Merc
01-28-2006, 01:20
.
My ideal startup factions at the beginning of the 12th century AD, roughly from east to west:

Khwarezm-shahs
Selchuqs (Great)
Selchuqs (Rûm)
Bolghars (Volga)
Roman Empire (at Konstantinopolis)
Armenia (in Kilikia)
Kumans
Republic of Novgorod
Kiev
Zengi Atabegs of Musul
Fatimid Khalifas of Egypt
One of the Maghrib kingdoms (Ziris or Hammadis)
The Murabit Empire (Almoravid) ― Muwahhids (Almohad) can spawn on rebellion
Hungary
Poland
Bosnia/Croatia/Serbia (one faction)
Bohemia ― complete with the Hussite rebellion!
One of the pagan Baltic tribes would be cool; Lietuva?
Sweden
Denmark
Holy Roman Empire
Venice
Pisa/Genoa
Papacy
France (consisting of the King's domains, the feudal fiefdoms being rebel)
England (including Normandie, or rather vice versa ~;))
Scotland
Leon-Castillia
Cunty of Barcelona rather than Aragon, imho

With the inevitable rebels our thirty faction slot will be depleted. I hope it will be at least thirty in order to open up space for a few emerging factions (Moŋols! Crusaders et al). (I'm pretending that there won't be any silly Aztechs, Númenoreans or aliens. ~:mecry: At worst case it would be a great list for a mod. :yes:) Notice also the regional polarities.

I haven't included many feudal principalities, muslim emiratelets around Iberia, as well as Ireland and Wales; not because I deem them unimportant but for their non-expansionist and stagnant character at the time. They should be represented as strong enough rebel factions, though.
.
Totally agree, though I think Qipchaq would be a better name for the Kumans, and we deffiently need Mongols to spawn... mabye Ottomans to, if we can link it to the appearance of Mongols (that's when they gained power, right?)

Leet Eriksson
01-28-2006, 01:23
One word for bohemia haters :furious3:

Jan Zizka!

Also I think the obvious way to incoporate Bohemians is you can start as the HRE, and when the hussite rebellion starts you would be offered to switch sides, if you choose the rebels you play the bohemians and get the unique war wagons!

Problem solved! :idea2:

player1
01-28-2006, 01:34
I don`t know. It`s a coin flip between Serbia and Bulgaria. After tzar Dusan of serbia defeated combined bulgarian and byzantium amies somewhere in the first half of the 14th century, and then securing lasting peace with the new bulgarian tzar by marrying his sister, his rule extended south until thesaloniki in todays greece. Dubrovnik accepted supreme rule of serbian kings long before that and paid special taxes to be autonomous. What serbs lacked to become a major power in mediterranean was the fleet. Also, don`t forget that bulgarians were asian barbaric horde when they first came to balkans, that is a couple of centuries before the start of the game. They conquered some serbian (slavic) tribes but eventually accepted serbian (slavic) language, culture and religion and that is why today they are considered to be south slavs. As a said, I think it`s a coin flip...

If it's coint flip, it's good to now that at game start 1080, 3 years ago in 1077 Rashka and Duklja merged forming first what could be called Serbian kingdom. At that point there was no Bulgar state (conquered some time before).

Later, in next century after many Serbian raids, Byzantines with powerful emperor forced Serbia to become vassal state, but in near the end of 12th century due to rise of Nemanjic famliy Serbs become independent again (that's also a same era when Bulgars emerge again).


Of course, if there was 2 faction slots opened I would place Serbia at start of the game with two provinces Duklja and Rashka and I would made Bulgars emerge later if Byzantines get weakned by other factions.

Taffy_is_a_Taff
01-28-2006, 01:36
Mouz:

for 13th century I'd like a Gwynedd faction as they were evolving nicely into a proper little medieval state and consolidating their dominance over Wales. Who knows what they may have done if Edward I hadn't been such a git (personal bias there).

Prince Cobra
01-28-2006, 01:49
I don`t know. It`s a coin flip between Serbia and Bulgaria. After tzar Dusan of serbia defeated combined bulgarian and byzantium amies somewhere in the first half of the 14th century, and then securing lasting peace with the new bulgarian tzar by marrying his sister, his rule extended south until thesaloniki in todays greece. Dubrovnik accepted supreme rule of serbian kings long before that and paid special taxes to be autonomous. What serbs lacked to become a major power in mediterranean was the fleet. Also, don`t forget that bulgarians were asian barbaric horde when they first came to balkans, that is a couple of centuries before the start of the game. They conquered some serbian (slavic) tribes but eventually accepted serbian (slavic) language, culture and religion and that is why today they are considered to be south slavs. As a said, I think it`s a coin flip...
You are near to the truth but you are not exactly right:book: . In Vth century a lot of Slavic tribes started to live in Balkan peninsula (from Danube to the south parts of Greece). Some of them were romanized (later). Actually there is a slight difference between Serbian and Bulgarian slavs (they are two groups that are different but not very much- it is almost the same as the difference between Croatian and Serbian people). When the so called protobulgarians came (they are not the same as the bulgarians- they are semi-nomadic and later Bulgarian slavs and they formed the Bulgarian nationality) there were no other Slavic country in Europe (tothe exception with the state of Samo but it existed only some decades)- no Serbia, no Russia. After protobulgarians defeated Byzantines in 680 they allied with some of the Slavs from the Bulgarian group and put the foundation of Bulgaria in 681- that's true Bulgaria is the first permanent Slavic state (Because Slavs became more and more after the successful wars against Byzantium- only the slavic tribes in the southwestern parts of the Balkan peninsula refused to go under the power of Bulgarian khan- that was the Serbian and Croatian tribes (they formed their own state in IX century)). Of course the organisation of the Bulgarian state changed- it stopped being a federation and became a centerlised monarchy - the slavic chiefs lost their independence but they were included in royal court and some of them became a governors.
So in the middle of IX century Bulgaria was very interesting country- with two religions (two pagan religions -slavic and the official the Protobulgarian) which was a barrier between two groups (they were friendly to each other but they are two groups not one nationality). I don't agree that protobulgarians accepted the slavic religion. No, the protobulgarians and slavs were converted to the christianity by Boris I(852-889,+907) and then they became one nationality (slavic - the Slavs (that as I explained are not Serbs) were more than protobulgarians). The protobulgarians really accepted Slavic (which is similar to the Serbian but is not Serbian) but that happened when the 'students' of Kiril and Metodius (the same that pope John Pavel II declared to be patrons of Europe) came with the slavic letters in Bulgaria.
Conclusion the Bulgarians were close to the Serbs but are not Serbs ( neither they came from Serbian tribes; I pay attention to this there is a difference between serbian and Bulgarian Slavs). I hope I won't offend anybody but in the period betweenVII and XIV Bulgarians were better developed by the Serbs (earlier state, earlier converting to the Christianity, bigger territories) so they are not the same. It is the same as to say that Bulgarians and Russians are the same.
P.S. there were no combined armies of Byzantines and Bulgarians. One short story- the batlle of Velbyjd(the battle you talk about- Serbians and Bulgarians. The leaders of the two armies the Serbian king (father of Stefan Dusan) and the Bulgarian Michael III Shishman agreed to ' cease the fire' for pne day. The Bulgarian monarch made very big mistake trusted to the enemy. Then the Serbs attacked him and Bulgarian tsar was killed in the battle. Later the Bulgarian reinforcements stopped Serbians(that prevented bulgarians from losing many fortresses). The Bulgarian ally emperor Andronicus III saw that his allies lost their tsar- then A. III decided not to help to his allies but to conquer some bulgarian fortresses...Next - new war with Byzantium ...

SLKHERO
01-28-2006, 02:07
I know enough, not gory details (like I can't remeber when the HRE incorporated bohemia into the empire and it's bugging the hell out of me) but enough. Enough to know that it's not worth seperating Bohemia from the HRE. I tried to read that but it was too tricky and I've read most of the raw details before. Written much more neutrally. That text is anti-German, and there fore bogus. Texts that unfairly degrade something to boost something else have no worth to me. Plus you should really spell check before posting (you too Mouza) it's really hard to argue with someone when they are making so many spelling mistakes.

As for historical texts, physical books none. Online mostly. But I only cite sites that I consider valid. If you want I'll link to them. Having no money or credit card and a very poor reference section in my local libraries means the internets is my only resource.

My only reason for not wanting Bohemia in is that you can't have everything. Bohemia is an integral part of the HRE. Which was made up of quasai independent provinces. If you include Bohemia why leave out Bavaria, or Saxony, or Austria, or any of the HRE constituent parts. You'd end up needing to do what was done to the Roman republic in RTW. That didn't work very well did it. Your reason is that Bohemia was a major player in eastern europe. This is not true as the HRE was, Bohemia was part of it. So all of Bohemia's glory is the HRE's glory.

All this is worth nothing.

Provide a SOURCE that supports your aggregious claims. Fight facts with facts.

Here is one article that completely debases you claims http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/fulltext/czech/15.pdf

Sarmatian
01-28-2006, 03:11
You are near to the truth but you are not exactly right:book: . In Vth century a lot of Slavic tribes started to live in Balkan peninsula (from Danube to the south parts of Greece). Some of them were romanized (later). Actually there is a slight difference between Serbian and Bulgarian slavs (they are two groups that are different but not very much- it is almost the same as the difference between Croatian and Serbian people). When the so called protobulgarians came (they are not the same as the bulgarians- they are semi-nomadic and later Bulgarian slavs and they formed the Bulgarian nationality) there were no other Slavic country in Europe (tothe exception with the state of Samo but it existed only some decades)- no Serbia, no Russia. After protobulgarians defeated Byzantines in 680 they allied with some of the Slavs from the Bulgarian group and put the foundation of Bulgaria in 681- that's true Bulgaria is the first permanent Slavic state (Because Slavs became more and more after the successful wars against Byzantium- only the slavic tribes in the southwestern parts of the Balkan peninsula refused to go under the power of Bulgarian khan- that was the Serbian and Croatian tribes (they formed their own state in IX century)). Of course the organisation of the Bulgarian state changed- it stopped being a federation and became a centerlised monarchy - the slavic chiefs lost their independence but they were included in royal court and some of them became a governors.
So in the middle of IX century Bulgaria was very interesting country- with two religions (two pagan religions -slavic and the official the Protobulgarian) which was a barrier between two groups (they were friendly to each other but they are two groups not one nationality). I don't agree that protobulgarians accepted the slavic religion. No, the protobulgarians and slavs were converted to the christianity by Boris I(852-889,+907) and then they became one nationality (slavic - the Slavs (that as I explained are not Serbs) were more than protobulgarians). The protobulgarians really accepted Slavic (which is similar to the Serbian but is not Serbian) but that happened when the 'students' of Kiril and Metodius (the same that pope John Pavel II declared to be patrons of Europe) came with the slavic letters in Bulgaria.
Conclusion the Bulgarians were close to the Serbs but are not Serbs ( neither they came from Serbian tribes; I pay attention to this there is a difference between serbian and Bulgarian Slavs). I hope I won't offend anybody but in the period betweenVII and XIV Bulgarians were better developed by the Serbs (earlier state, earlier converting to the Christianity, bigger territories) so they are not the same. It is the same as to say that Bulgarians and Russians are the same.
P.S. there were no combined armies of Byzantines and Bulgarians. One short story- the batlle of Velbyjd(the battle you talk about- Serbians and Bulgarians. The leaders of the two armies the Serbian king (father of Stefan Dusan) and the Bulgarian Michael III Shishman agreed to ' cease the fire' for pne day. The Bulgarian monarch made very big mistake trusted to the enemy. Then the Serbs attacked him and Bulgarian tsar was killed in the battle. Later the Bulgarian reinforcements stopped Serbians(that prevented bulgarians from losing many fortresses). The Bulgarian ally emperor Andronicus III saw that his allies lost their tsar- then A. III decided not to help to his allies but to conquer some bulgarian fortresses...Next - new war with Byzantium ...

Thanks for an indepth response. I tried to explain it in simple terms for people from other parts of who aren`t familiar with the history of the balkans. I know that bulgarians don`t speak serbian, that`s why i put slavic in the brackets. I just wanted to say that the slavic tribe that most influenced bulgarians were serbs, as it was the tribe they were most in contact with. You are right about religion, though.
As the battle of velbujd is concerned, Stefan Dechanski, the father of Tsar Dusan held command but only formally. As for the betraying part, I can`t really say that I heard of that. Funny how history is told differently. I wonder which version is the truth. I`ll try to get more info on that subject.

Sarmatian
01-28-2006, 03:19
This is what I found on wikipedia. As it is not the most reliable source I will try the more.

After Serbian expansion under the rule of King Milutin, Bulgarian Emperor Michael III Shishman sought to take over Macedonia and destroy the power of Serbian Kingdom. After Milutin's death in 1321 Stefan Decanski became the King. His policy was that of peace with Bulgaria which he offered to Michael III Shishman. However Michael III Shishman refused the peace and instead prepared for war creating an alliance with the Greeks. Serbs made extensive war preparations, which included additional training of the army and hiring of western mercenaries mainly Kelts. In 1330 Michael III Shishmanmarched his army of 15,000 on Serbia. Another Greek army was coming from the south, in order to join the Bulgarian forces and then defeat Serbs. Serbian strategy was to prevent two armies from joining, and therefore Serbs marched with an army of 15,000 to meet the Bulgarians first before they joined the Greeks. Two armies met at Velbuzd on July 28, 1330. Battle went well for the Serbs. Bulgarians army was quickly crushed by Serbian archers and cavlary supported by experinced mercenaries who captured Bulgarian flag marking the victory for the Serbs. Young King Dusan proved to be an excellent military commander whose forces played decesive role in Bulgarian defeat. Serbian army continued to pursue Bulgarian forces deep into Bulgaria killing most of Bulgarian soldiers. However after Greeks attacked southern Serbian provinces Serbian army returned and swiftly defeated Greek forces driving them out of Serbia. Michael III Shishman died in battle after being slained by Serbian forces. As the result of the battle Serbian state became the most powerful country in the Balkans and one of the most powerful countries in Europe.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velbu%C5%BEd"

Justiciar
01-28-2006, 03:38
Bohemia hasn't been put in the game. End of. If you think it should be, get some people together and make a mod for it.

[Moderator comment: edited for language.]

Sarmatian
01-28-2006, 03:38
This is from oxford university:

A disputed succession soon ended in the enthronement of the late King's illegitimate son, Stephen Urosh III, known in history by the epithet " Detchanski " from the famous monastery of Detchani which he founded. He had been blinded for conspiring against his father; but on his father's death he recovered his sight, which perhaps he had never entirely lost. His reign is one of the most dramatic in Serbian history, for it affords an example of those sudden alternations of triumph and disaster characteristic of the Balkans, alike in the Middle Ages and in our own day. On June 28, I330, he utterly routed the Bulgarians at Velbujd, as Kostendil was then called. Bulgaria became a vassal state of Serbia, which had thus won the hegemony of the Balkan peninsula.

Now I am going to stop this as I am probably going to bore to death anyone who is not serbian or bulgarian :laugh4:

http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/MillSerb.html - here you can find a lot of information about medievel serbia if anyone is interested, in english.

jadast
01-28-2006, 03:54
Why expand to America?

Mouzafphaerre
01-28-2006, 04:24
Totally agree, though I think Qipchaq would be a better name for the Kumans, and we deffiently need Mongols to spawn... mabye Ottomans to, if we can link it to the appearance of Mongols (that's when they gained power, right?)
.
A late period campaign would be fine to begin with Ottomans. The Mongol invasions definitely predate them but it should be kept in mind that they were merely a small princedom, maybe one of the smallest, until the quest into the Balkans started. There's a lot of controversy about the earliest period but IMO the true Ottoman "existence" begins with the conquest of Prusa (Bursa) in 1326.

One of the most noteworthy Ottoman historians, Fuad Köprülü, firmly denies that the Kayı clan to which the house of Osman belonged migrated into Asia Minor flying before the invading Mongols. He places them (Kayı) thither much earlier, about the proposed start date of MTW2. The Ottomans weren't around after 1250's though. A good spawning date might be 1281, the death of Er-Toŋrul and the ascent of Osman...but I digress now. :dizzy2:
.

SLKHERO
01-28-2006, 05:09
Bohemia hasn't been put in the game. End of. If you think it should be, get some people together and make a mod for it.

[Moderator comment: edited for language.]


It's not so much that I want to play and that I am interested in the faction. It is also the TW community that won't get to experience all the splendours of leading Ottakar's heavy ride smashing the opposition. Or War Wagons fighting off multiple crusades.

Whom would I convince then to actually mod Bohemia?

lars573
01-28-2006, 06:16
All this is worth nothing.

Provide a SOURCE that supports your aggregious claims. Fight facts with facts.

Here is one article that completely debases you claims http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/fulltext/czech/15.pdf
It debases what exactly? That the Bohemia was part of the HRE? That's what I've been saying, Bohemia was part of the HRE so it doesn't need to be included beyond a rebel faction. In fact it does more to prove my point then yours of including it as a whole faction. It speaks of how the emperor was needed to legitamize the Dukes and crown it's kings. It tells of how the emperors interfered all the time in Bohemian politics.


http://www.friesian.com/germany.htm
The stem dutchies of the Eastern Frankish kingdom (as the HRE was known before the imperial title permanently settled there).

http://www.friesian.com/perifran.htm#bohemia

Prince Cobra
01-28-2006, 14:10
This is from oxford university:

A disputed succession soon ended in the enthronement of the late King's illegitimate son, Stephen Urosh III, known in history by the epithet " Detchanski " from the famous monastery of Detchani which he founded. He had been blinded for conspiring against his father; but on his father's death he recovered his sight, which perhaps he had never entirely lost. His reign is one of the most dramatic in Serbian history, for it affords an example of those sudden alternations of triumph and disaster characteristic of the Balkans, alike in the Middle Ages and in our own day. On June 28, I330, he utterly routed the Bulgarians at Velbujd, as Kostendil was then called. Bulgaria became a vassal state of Serbia, which had thus won the hegemony of the Balkan peninsula.

Now I am going to stop this as I am probably going to bore to death anyone who is not serbian or bulgarian :laugh4:

http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/MillSerb.html - here you can find a lot of information about medievel serbia if anyone is interested, in english.
It is very good idea to stop arguing. These are my final words
I checked some books and sites. In my opinion it doesn't matter how you win one battle the important thing is to gain the victory (although I think there was A' cease fire')- Serbs were stronger and won.
About the Bulgarian 'vassalage'- the Serbs tried to make one of the sons of Michael III (his first wife was Serbian) who was under Serbian influence a Bulgarian tsar but in 1331 Ivan Alexander became tsar and that put the end of the Bulgarian ' vassalage'.
I was surprised by what you said about Andronicus III.
from http://www.fhw.gr/chronos/10/en/p/pb4/pb4b.html
To confront the Serbian danger, therefore, Andronikos III, who had emerged victorious from the internecine conflict, signed a treaty of alliance with the Bulgars (1328). However, before they had had time to act against the Serbs jointly, the Bulgars were defeated by the Serbs at the battle of Velbuzd in 1330. The Byzantines seized the opportunity to take a number of fortresses along the Byzantine-Bulgarian border, as well as the ports of Mesembria and Anchialos. These did not remain long in Byzantine hands, as the Bulgars recaptured the disputed ports and, by a treaty signed in 1332, secured their former borders with the Byzantine Empire.
Well at that time the written info was not enough and that led to the difference in the opinions. Most probable A.III did not help to the bulgarians because he attacked them after that (then the version with the reinforcements- but of course Bulgarians lost many warriors).
After the battle of Velbuzd Bulgaria continued to be important but only in the eastern part of the peninsula (I am sure I said that above) and Ivan Alexander preferred not to fight against the Serbs fo r the western part. FULL STOP.
It was pleasure to have an argument with you Sarmatian.
My suggestions for new factions
Bulgarians - rebel faction (as Burgundy in MTW) in 1080
In high including(1205) Bulgaria, Walachia and Moldavia(look the map ( but the period the map depicts is later- from 1230-1241)- in 1205 under Bulgarian rule were only the three provinces)
In late(1321) - only Bulgaria ( but if possible with Tracia- new province (the lands between the Balkan mountain (or Stara planina) and Constantinople and Galipoli)
Serbia- early, high Serbia province
late province Serbia but with better infrastructure (in 1321 Serbia is not so big )
Genoa - we all know where is it
Aragon
Switzerland as in the original MTW
Burgundy
others
:2thumbsup:

GaugamelaTC
01-28-2006, 14:12
Are we talking about Medieval period?

Because for a moment I thought you wondered off. I was talking about the timeframe of the game which does include early renaissance. Portgual did have a major part in the new world and its discovery. The ignorance of some people gives Spain all the credit. The French, Dutch and Portuguese had some role in the expansion to the new world. I know they mostly came in after the game, but the discovery of the new world is in it. Even if you expand three hundred years early the portuguese should be included because of the expansion to the new world. Also they played a key part in the reconquista, one of the most important campaigns of the region. Portugal fused the Muslim and Latin culture's together more than Spain did, and unique Portuguese culture like Fada music and its architecture were born out of this fusion. So Sarmation and SLKHERO I think you should do a little more research and I think these fusions should be credited just as much as Bohemia's.

Sarmatian the Portugeuse did have an important role in the conquest of the new world (which SLKHERO is in the game, but a few hundred years early possibly).

Sarmatian
01-28-2006, 16:06
I was talking about the timeframe of the game which does include early renaissance. Portgual did have a major part in the new world and its discovery. The ignorance of some people gives Spain all the credit. The French, Dutch and Portuguese had some role in the expansion to the new world. I know they mostly came in after the game, but the discovery of the new world is in it. Even if you expand three hundred years early the portuguese should be included because of the expansion to the new world. Also they played a key part in the reconquista, one of the most important campaigns of the region. Portugal fused the Muslim and Latin culture's together more than Spain did, and unique Portuguese culture like Fada music and its architecture were born out of this fusion. So Sarmation and SLKHERO I think you should do a little more research and I think these fusions should be credited just as much as Bohemia's.

Sarmatian the Portugeuse did have an important role in the conquest of the new world (which SLKHERO is in the game, but a few hundred years early possibly).

I didn`t say that they didn`t have influence in the conquest and exploration of the new world. I said that they didn`t have any role in the discovering of the new world. Actually, Columbus first came to Portugal seeking help to finance his expedition but he was turned down. Portugal can take credit for giving the world Magellan, for example (although he sailed under the spanish flag), but not for the discovery of the new world.

Mithrandir
01-28-2006, 16:42
MTW II Forum will be a constructive and hence flame free forum!

Anyone who disagrees are invited to discuss this with me through Private Messages. Anyone who does not PM me understands, and therefore will post accordingly.

Een gewaarschuwd mens telt voor 2.

Losely translated: You're now informed, hence expect no mercy when you are flaming or baiting.

-Mithrandir.

Sarmatian
01-28-2006, 16:48
I think some czech faction should be included because, even if there isn`t any other reason, of the mere fact that they make best bears in the
world :2thumbsup:

Mithrandir
01-28-2006, 16:49
MTW II Forum will be a constructive and hence flame free forum!

Anyone who disagrees are invited to discuss this with me through Private Messages. Anyone who does not PM me understands, and therefore will post accordingly.

Een gewaarschuwd mens telt voor 2.

Losely translated: You're now informed, hence expect no mercy when you are flaming or baiting.

-Mithrandir.



Furthermore :

for historical discussions, visit the Monastery.

-Mithrandir.

Leet Eriksson
01-28-2006, 20:20
I think some czech faction should be included because, even if there isn`t any other reason, of the mere fact that they make best bears in the
world :2thumbsup:

Thats why there is an argument to include Bohemia in.

I still think it should be an event, and you get the choice to join the hussite rebellion or not, once you join its technically a czech faction with a unique unit.

CA can always raise the limit of factions i think.

ajaxfetish
01-28-2006, 21:47
One word for bohemia haters :furious3:

Jan Zizka!

Also I think the obvious way to incoporate Bohemians is you can start as the HRE, and when the hussite rebellion starts you would be offered to switch sides, if you choose the rebels you play the bohemians and get the unique war wagons!

Problem solved! :idea2:
I think that would be a fantastic way to incorporate the Bohemians, and would solve a lot of the argument and anger surrounding the issue. Though an influential part of the HRE earlier they were not the only one, but after the Hussite rebellion they became a really big deal. The question, though, would be what if someone else controls Bohemia by then? Do they rebel against whoever controls it? Do you have to control Bohemia as the HRE to switch to the Hussite faction? Some details would have to be ironed out, but I very much like the concept.


Whom would I convince then to actually mod Bohemia?
Shouldn't be too difficult considering Bohemia is already included in mods for MTW1!

Ajax

al'Callaendor
01-29-2006, 06:08
New Unit Abilities
A legion of more than 250 new and unique units split over 21 factions, each with their own new special abilities that open up a wealth of intuitive battlefield tactics

sapi
01-29-2006, 08:34
CA can always raise the limit of factions i think.Hopefully they will, for modders sakes...

Cesare diBorja
01-30-2006, 05:15
Sack it all! Let there be a minmum of fifty(50) factions. Everyone will be pleased.

Let everyone have what they wish. A fully moddable game is better than one that isn't. CA would be filthy rich if they'd just give up the control. Everyone would play this game. EVERYONE!

diBorgia

Mouzafphaerre
01-30-2006, 08:13
Sack it all! Let there be a minmum of fifty(50) factions. Everyone will be pleased.

Let everyone have what they wish. A fully moddable game is better than one that isn't. CA would be filthy rich if they'd just give up the control. Everyone would play this game. EVERYONE!

diBorgia
.
Wishful thinking but a shared one! :yes:
.

player1
01-30-2006, 09:18
Personally, I think that "rebel" faction needs to be reworked.

So that every rebel province would think on its own.
Get it's own one leader (no heir) and standing army.

Be capable of doing intrusions in other provinces.

Be capable of deveploing the province (buildigns, extra units).

That way most of the minor fractions could be nicely implemented by "rebel" faction.

If real world faction hasn't expanded from its original provice, just have it as "part" of rebel faction.


If real world faction had significant expansion from it's original province, and has threatened in some way some of the known 21 factions, then it deserved to be as seperate faction.

Mouzafphaerre
01-30-2006, 20:54
Personally, I think that "rebel" faction needs to be reworked.

So that every rebel province would think on its own.
Get it's own one leader (no heir) and standing army.

Be capable of doing intrusions in other provinces.

Be capable of deveploing the province (buildigns, extra units).

That way most of the minor fractions could be nicely implemented by "rebel" faction.

If real world faction hasn't expanded from its original provice, just have it as "part" of rebel faction.


If real world faction had significant expansion from it's original province, and has threatened in some way some of the known 21 factions, then it deserved to be as seperate faction.
.
+1 :2thumbsup: Actually I said it before, burried in a long post of mine.
.

Midnight
01-30-2006, 21:03
That's a brilliant idea! A good way of adding a lot more interest to the game.

Duke John
01-31-2006, 09:35
I can't see why so many are falling over the faction limit, especially if they use it in context with mods. Many mods are struggling to have a release with just 21 factions. Since M2TW will be more complex and puts an even bigger strain on modellers and textures I wouldn't care if the 21 faction limit remains.

And if the limit is increased I wonder how many are going to complain about the greatly increased waiting times during AI turns. More isn't always better.

Anti-hero
01-31-2006, 11:08
Which nations should be included?

What does it matter?

Right now, almost a year (maybe a year, they're not obliged to keep their schedule) before the game is released, I am absolutely certain that If I want finely depicted eastern europe, with it provinces done right, with properly spelled leaders' names, I'll just have to participate in a mod for mtw2.

I am very, very skeptical about CA implementing Balkan nations, Bohemia, Lithuania and more than one Russian state. I just hope they won't make it too hard for us to add them ourselves.

I won't take any part in the discussion "Who's more important and deserves to be included more than all others (combined)".

Bulgaria was a considerable local power and fully deserves to be included, if the Balkans are to be depicted accurately. There's no medieval Balkans without Bulgaria. There's no Balkans at all without Bulgaria anyway.

Serbia was a considerable local power and fully deserves to be included, if the Balkans are to be depicted accurately. There's no medieval Balkans without Serbia. There's no Balkans at all without Serbia anyway.

Lithuania was a considerable local power and fully deserves to be included, if the Baltic region is to be depicted accurately. There's no medieval Baltic region without Lithuania. There's no Balkans at all without Lithuania anyway.

You see what I mean. This is always true, no matter if we're talking about Serbia or Bulgaria or Lithuania. Or Kievan Rus. Or Moskov'y. Or Bohemia. Or any other. To someone playing in the Baltic region Lithuania is all that important but, of course, Bulgaria isn't. And what does he/she care about Bulgaria, this state has no influence in the region he's playing in. And for someone playing in the Balkans it's the other way around.

IMO, it's the game's scope that is messed up. In the middle ages, you hardly ever have military/political actions that span more than one, two neigbouring states from yours. Go three states further and you'll find nobody knows about your "great nation" and couldn't care less about it. That's why I think The map of Medieval Europe should have been split into at least five "regions", of which the player would choose one and work his campaign there. The others would be available for diplomatical actions but you shouldn't be able to go all the way into their territory. So, imagine you had, say Central Europe with 30 factions available... sounds much better, doesn't it? It sounds much better even with 21.

Moderator note: edited to remove ad hominem arguments

player1
01-31-2006, 11:29
Lithuania was a considerable local power and fully deserves to be included, if the Baltic region is to be depicted accurately. There's no medieval Baltic region without Lithuania. There's no Balkans at all without Lithuania anyway.

Some copy paste errors here. There is Balkans without Lithuania.

King Yngvar
01-31-2006, 11:43
So if we get 9 more factions what would you like to see included (whether starting factions in 1080 and emerging factions dependent on date or game conditions)? We have ''England, France, Scotland, Holy Roman Empire, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Milan, Venice, Papal States, Sicily, Poland, Russia, Hungary, Byzantium, The Turks, Egypt, The Moors, The Mongols, The Tumurids, The Aztecs.''


9 more factions... hmm, well there is probably several starting dates, seeing as the Mongols, the Timurids and the Aztecs are in the game. These are the factions I wish will be included (chronologically from most wanted):

Norway
Sweden
Ireland
Lithuania
Novgorod
Wales
Teutonic Knights
Jerusalem (or other crusader state, depending on starting date)
Aragon/Bohemia/Bulgaria/Serbia/Whatever other state I can't think of right now...



I can't see why so many are falling over the faction limit, especially if they use it in context with mods. Many mods are struggling to have a release with just 21 factions. Since M2TW will be more complex and puts an even bigger strain on modellers and textures I wouldn't care if the 21 faction limit remains.

Try to see it from another view. More factions means more countries represented in the game, it also means more factions to choose from (hopefully they wont do the silly "lock factions" thing again, forcing us to edit textfiles) and makes the game last longer. Perhaps the biggest bonus is that we will have less of those annoying rebel provinces all over the map.



Personally, I fear there may be a quality-quantity trade-off here. I am all in favour of letting modders have the freedom to create many factions, but I would rather CA concentrate on making a few factions distinctive and fun to play.

Maybe so, but they could still add for example Norway and Sweden without doing much extra work, giving all three Scandinavian countries the same units, building culture and battle speeches. Only differ in flags and some in character names...

GFX707
01-31-2006, 18:34
Scotland is in? That's great! I missed them so much in MTW. Now to conquer the world with them :D

Sykotyk Rampage
01-31-2006, 18:46
Aye Scotland ...I am going straight for Spain; building a villa, brew some scotch and make some haggis, set up my armchair on the beach, watch the sunset and wait for the Aztecs to come sailing over the horizon...LOL cause there are no Spanish left to go get them.

Not that I have anything against Spain...they just happen to be where I want my villa.

Anti-hero
02-01-2006, 01:18
Some copy paste errors here. There is Balkans without Lithuania.

Heh. I was sure I had avoided it. :wall:
Thanks. :)

Gaiseric
02-01-2006, 02:11
Personally, I think that "rebel" faction needs to be reworked.
So that every rebel province would think on its own.
Get it's own one leader (no heir) and standing army.
Be capable of doing intrusions in other provinces.
Be capable of deveploing the province (buildigns, extra units).
That way most of the minor fractions could be nicely implemented by "rebel" faction.
If real world faction hasn't expanded from its original provice, just have it as "part" of rebel faction.

If real world faction had significant expansion from it's original province, and has threatened in some way some of the known 21 factions, then it deserved to be as seperate faction.

My thoughts exactly. In BI the rebels are more active but I would like to see even more with rebels attacking. It would be cool to play as the Irish rebels, Welsh rebels, etc. Or just to see the Welsh rebels making periodic border raids into England.

Playing as a Vassal like a count or duke of a Kingdom would be a neat way to carry over loayalty from BI.

Lastly if CA is going to include America I would like to see the Caribs around the carribean, maybe even a seperate pirate faction. The Mayas, Aztecs, Incas with jungle battles and the Eskimo of the far north with artic battles.

King Yngvar
02-01-2006, 11:26
and the Eskimo of the far north with artic battles.

Yes, the mighty eskimo army is approaching... :2thumbsup:

Gaiseric
02-02-2006, 02:27
Yes, the mighty eskimo army is approaching...

lol, I think they would be a good addition. They could give the Danes/Vikings somthing to do if they already hold iceland and greenland.

Their special units could be artic dogsled chariots and the abomidable snowman. :laugh4:

King Yngvar
02-02-2006, 06:40
You must not forget their ever famous tradition of using polar bears as horses. "Charge my brave eskimo knights!" - quote of an unknown eskimo leader, his last words before the bear threw him off his back and ate him...

Bob the Insane
02-02-2006, 11:03
There hae been some interesting discussions in this thread though I think directing the requests to CA is a mistake.

It seems to me that the faction list they provided (of 21 factions) is the faction list for the game minus rebels of course which is in itself interesting and meaning that either there is at least 22 factions or no rebels.

From reading Caliban's post on the TW forums and the Bob Smith interview the impress I get is that firstly those 21 playable factions are playable in MP battles and not necessarily in the SP game. The Aztecs is a prime example as they are "playable" but will only appear in the campaign when "unlocked". The impression this gives (when considering earlier games) is that they will not probably not be playable in SP. Secondly CA are looking to see if they can expand the number of available factions to 30+ if it does not break the game. I would view this as expanding the functionality engine for the benefit of the modding community (as long as it holds up in beta testing) rather than any evidence that they will provide additional factions in the release of the game.

So our plees are better directed at the various modding groups that have established themselves for the TW series.

As for expecting any particular historical accuracy from a TW game, have you not been paying attention to the earlier ones!?!? BI has a "historical battle" with King Arthur in it!!!!

Total War was and remains solidly in the realm of Hollywood Style History. And anyone who thinks the STW was particularly historically accurate needs a slap... ;)

Orda Khan
02-02-2006, 18:42
As far as I know, the 21 factions are playable in custom and MP battles. Has CA confirmed that this also includes SP campaign?

......Orda

TB666
02-02-2006, 18:54
As far as I know, the 21 factions are playable in custom and MP battles. Has CA confirmed that this also includes SP campaign?

......Orda
Nope not yet.
But we can count on that some factions will not be playable such as Aztecs, Mongolians and other emerging factions.

Orda Khan
02-02-2006, 19:02
I sincerely hope that Mongols are included this time around. Russia? With no Mongol presence?

........Orda

TB666
02-02-2006, 19:40
How can the golden horde be playable ??
The game starts at 1080 and according to the interviews then there are no era's . Just one large campaign.

hellenes
02-02-2006, 20:29
How can the golden horde be playable ??
The game starts at 1080 and according to the interviews then there are no era's . Just one large campaign.

I seriously doubt that they wont make eras, that would be catastophic for the campaign and people wont EVER see any advanced units. Only if CA made 1 turn equate 4 years.
There will be eras and different factions positions in each era.

Hellenes

TB666
02-02-2006, 20:38
I seriously doubt that they wont make eras, that would be catastophic for the campaign and people wont EVER see any advanced units. Only if CA made 1 turn equate 4 years.
There will be eras and different factions positions in each era.

Hellenes
As I said, I'm have based this on the interviews and previews that so far have mention nothing about era's and at the moment pretty much all talk of a huge campaign.

spmetla
02-03-2006, 06:51
Sorry to again bring up the issue of Bohemia but it simply was a part of the HRE. Although "Austria" was a very powerful duchy/empire toward the end of the medieval era it was still part of the HRE, same goes with Bohemia. Bohemia had a special status because it was what was left of the Moravian empire of the 800's that had been assimiliated into the empire. It was therefore given certain priviledges such as the very important position of being a part of the electoral college:


The Emperor was chosen by the Elector princes (Kurfürsten). This institution emerges sometime in the first half of the 13th c., as a consequence of the crisis of 1198. It appears in the Sachsenspiegel, a compilation of German feudal law written between 1220 and 1235. Its composition seems to have been set fairly early, by the 1230s at the latest. Initially the electors nominated a candidate, subject to ratification by the magnates, but fairly quickly their choice became final. Its formal regulation came with the Golden Bull of 1356, although changes were made occasionally. by the late 15th c., the electors were understood to form a distinct college.

The composition was set as follows:

Three spiritual or cleric electors:
bishop of Mainz
bishop of Trier
bishop of Köln
Four temporal or lay electors:
king of Bohemia
count Palatine of the Rhine
elector of Saxony
margrave of Brandenburg
The Council was presided by the archbishop of Mainz, who had precedence over all electors.

The status of the king of Bohemia was controversial for a long time, because he was not (necessarily) German; on the other hand, he was the Butler of the Empire, and one theory founded the right to elect the Emperor on holding one of the four high offices. One view was that the king of Bohemia's vote was meant to be the deciding vote in case of an even split of the other six. The Sachsenspiegel did not include him as an elector, but the Schwabenspiegel did. It took the Golden Bull of 1356 to settle the matter definitively. The king of Bohemia did not attend the elections after Wenceslas in the 14th c., and in the 17th century was not present for the deliberations, until 7 Sep 1708, when Bohemia was admitted again as a full member of the Electoral college.



Source: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/hre.htm

As for the Serbian/Bulgar debate I put my money on the Bulgars. Despite the fact they would have to emerge in the game later on they actually managed to achieve fairly strong empire and didn't suffer as badly as the Serbians did from infighting. The Serbians should definately get some unique units but unfortuantely their inability to stay unified I think disqualifies them as an independent faction.

Does anyone know how far east the map will go?

player1
02-03-2006, 13:53
Serbs were unfied through whole Nemanjic dynasty (when they were strongest too).
As for period before that (1080-1170) I can't comment too much, but at least they were independed for most time (especially at the starting date of the M2TW campaign).

ivoignob
02-03-2006, 20:24
Maybe the just naming them "the turks" would be the simplest solution.

I have to agree to that. Of course there was never such a turkish faction like "the turks" since 1080, but assuming there was no ottoman empire at 1080 as well, they have to decide either the seldchuks or the ottomans. Then again somebody would protest either "there was no ottoman empire by 1080" or "there were no seldchuks at 1480 (or whatever)". So assuming, they won't put two turkish originated factions in the game, the best solution is, to name them simply as the turks. Another solution would be to include the ottomans as an emerging faction when the seldchuks revolt, just like in BI, but still I think the former is the better solution.

Edit: Sorry, this was a topic long ago, didn't realized that.

Prince Cobra
02-04-2006, 01:00
I seriously doubt that they wont make eras, that would be catastophic for the campaign and people wont EVER see any advanced units. Only if CA made 1 turn equate 4 years.
There will be eras and different factions positions in each era.

Hellenes
I fully agree- that will ruin the game:wall: :wall: :wall: . The game will became boring (esp. for those who play more offensive campaign- after the first 100 years they will control the biggest empire and they won't even smell the Timurids). And IMHO the different periods make the game unique- you can face different challenges (and the game is more interesting too):horn: :horn: :horn: :horn: :horn: :horn: :horn: ( I hope somebody will hear that horns and will read what has been written here and of course WILL BRING BACK THE THREE PERIODS (suggestion 1081 (Alexius I Comnenus took over Byzantium), 1205 ,1321 ).:helloo: :helloo: :helloo: :horn: :horn: :horn: :horn:
P.S. I don't think even the 4 turns will make the game better

hellenes
02-04-2006, 08:10
There hae been some interesting discussions in this thread though I think directing the requests to CA is a mistake.

It seems to me that the faction list they provided (of 21 factions) is the faction list for the game minus rebels of course which is in itself interesting and meaning that either there is at least 22 factions or no rebels.

From reading Caliban's post on the TW forums and the Bob Smith interview the impress I get is that firstly those 21 playable factions are playable in MP battles and not necessarily in the SP game. The Aztecs is a prime example as they are "playable" but will only appear in the campaign when "unlocked". The impression this gives (when considering earlier games) is that they will not probably not be playable in SP. Secondly CA are looking to see if they can expand the number of available factions to 30+ if it does not break the game. I would view this as expanding the functionality engine for the benefit of the modding community (as long as it holds up in beta testing) rather than any evidence that they will provide additional factions in the release of the game.

So our plees are better directed at the various modding groups that have established themselves for the TW series.

As for expecting any particular historical accuracy from a TW game, have you not been paying attention to the earlier ones!?!? BI has a "historical battle" with King Arthur in it!!!!

Total War was and remains solidly in the realm of Hollywood Style History. And anyone who thinks the STW was particularly historically accurate needs a slap... ;)

None has ANY illusions or demands for 100% accuracy, even the biggest modding groups cant do that but it is clear that while the level of approximation in STW and MTW was tolerable the whole turn to eye candy, woo effects and "RTS"clown circus for the sake of the 12years old customers has lowered the TW series to the level of AoE and other clickfest "strategy:laugh4: :laugh4: " titles...

Hellenes

Craterus
02-04-2006, 23:21
I think you should be able to pick an Early, High or Late era game. Or one grand campaign that spans all of them.

Sarmatian
02-05-2006, 04:27
As for the Serbian/Bulgar debate I put my money on the Bulgars. Despite the fact they would have to emerge in the game later on they actually managed to achieve fairly strong empire and didn't suffer as badly as the Serbians did from infighting. The Serbians should definately get some unique units but unfortuantely their inability to stay unified I think disqualifies them as an independent faction.

Does anyone know how far east the map will go?

Serbian empire didn`t collapse right after death of Tsar Stefan Dusan. His son held power for some time after that and, although he wasn`t strong enough to fully control other nobles, he did bear a title of Tsar. He died very young, leaving no heir. Southern provinces quickly fell to the ottomans a few years after but the rest of serbia unified under prince Lazar and again tried to fight the turks 17 years later. Unification was of course impossible after turkish occupation.

Inal_the_Great
02-05-2006, 05:54
So any official announcements about the factions in the game?

Hody
02-05-2006, 23:51
Id like to see Bohemia in game:

Your talking about HRE, but it was no empire in its true meaning. Since Karl the Great was gone, empire was just unattainable dream. Better would be divide it into 3 or 4 factions.
For example:
-Burgundy
-German lands
-Bohemia
-Milan

I dont understand why Milan is in (part of HRE as well) while Bohemia not. Prague iself used to be the 3rd biggest city in Europe in 14th century and so on so on. You cannot compare Milan a city with Bohemia, kingdom. Kingdom with This total conquest:
http://www.stratcommandcenter.com/forums/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=5631

Yoyoma1910
02-06-2006, 19:30
I'd like to see more development of African factions, as well as a deeper map of that continent. Certainly the Americas were not the only route explored, and many interesting cultures existed throughout the African continent.

I'm not saying the whole of the land mass must be explored, but certainly more than in MTW.

Maybe throw in the Canary Islanders, since they were exploited before the Americas. In fact, they were like a training camp for the Spanish on how to concur a culture.

And I don't think that the Amerindian factions are going to be playable from the sound of things. Also, technically Central America is part of North America, just as India is part of Asia.

majales
02-15-2006, 20:14
Yep. Missing Bohemia and many other kingdoms. Seems MTW2 is pretty unbalanced as it was announced. Many western european states compare to only 3 on the East. This is not pretty correct....
This is my list:

Bohemia
Lithuania
Serbia
Bulgaria
several russian principalities like Novgorod, Kiev, Muscovy.

and for sure some others...
I'm always disappointed to see historicaly uncorect maps, fractions, names and etc. in "historical" games.....

PROMETHEUS
02-16-2006, 17:56
Havent read all the topics but has this been confirmed?

TB666
02-16-2006, 18:01
No not yet.
Atleast not to my knowledge.

King Yngvar
02-17-2006, 01:48
There will be eras and different factions positions in each era.

Hopefully yes

Incongruous
02-17-2006, 05:57
They should concentrate IMO the rest of the faction slots on Western and central Europe.
Brittony
Burgundy
Flanders
Bohemia
Lithuania
Serbs
Bulgar Khanate (was this still around in 1080?)
Kiev
Genoa

Samurai Waki
02-17-2006, 10:11
They should fill in the areas with the most gaps between factions Russia/Scandanavia/ Northern Africa etc. Obviously, if you were going to do things RIGHT there would be a disproportionately large concentration of factions in Western Europe instead of spread all over, and diplomacy would become integral to carving out a larger kingdom via marriages, treaties, bribes, and just plain ol' gunboat diplomatics. What Annoys me the most about CA is how they group factions together, lets say the Moors is a good example, there was no such thing as "the moors" the Almohads and the Almoravids certainly did rule over the largest areas of land, but they are forgetting Fez, Tunis, and Cyrene just to name a few off the top of my head, and thats just Northern Africa, not all of the minor principalities in Spain who squabbled endlessly against each other, just to find out at the last moment if they had worked together, Castile would not have united so much of Christian Spain against them.
Obviously I understand the hardware problems of making over 30 factions, and I also realize that sales are the best when a product is first released, so they have to bow down to the masses of people who own ****** Computers, and to think of anything less would probably be selfish. However, for the people to keep TW alive, via modding or just sticking with it out of love for the engine (Namely Me:laugh4: ), having AT LEAST 30 factions would be friggin' sweet.

Prince Cobra
02-21-2006, 17:07
They should concentrate IMO the rest of the faction slots on Western and central Europe.
Brittony
Burgundy
Flanders
Bohemia
Lithuania
Serbs
Bulgar Khanate (was this still around in 1080?)
Kiev
Genoa


Bulgarian Khanate was the Bulgarian state before being converted to christianity by Boris I. After that(866) it was called empire or tsardom.
Unfortunately after long war of Byzantium that continued 50 years Bulgarians were conquered (1018). Why? Many enemies of Bulgaria ( Hungarians, Russians),current economic problems and many others. But that was not hte end of the Bulgarians unlike others they succeeded in reviving their country in the end of XII century. After that they became a major power in Balkan peninsula (brilliant map on the first page of that thread). So in the Early period they should be included as a rebel faction (like Burgundy in MTW), but in High and Late should be playable ( High- Wallachia, Bulgaria, Moldavia; Late- Bulgaria).
My advise: read carefully this thread- there are some details that I can not explain now (no time).

Cousin Zoidfarb
02-25-2006, 03:17
Bohemia deserves to be in the game.

It was essentially independant in the 12th century.
Charles of Luxemburg king of bohemia even became emperor of the HRE.
Bohemia independantly warred against Poland and Hungary as well as the conflicts between states of the HRE.
Bohemian soldiers took part at Crecy, and Tannenberg and took part in the Thirteen Years War between Poland and the Teutonic knights.

It was more important than a lot of states that made it as factions.

Kourutsu
03-02-2006, 00:19
They should have the children crusader states!

Think of it! The excitment of being sold into slavery!

Could make for a short game though...

Siena
03-02-2006, 22:10
I sincerely hope that Mongols are included this time around. Russia? With no Mongol presence?
........Orda

Exactly - same goes for Lithuania.
Russia without Lithuania's presence? I cannot imagine it.

Orda Khan
03-09-2006, 22:10
The Volga/Kama Bulgars deserve a spot, their capital outshone the likes of London with trading on a huge scale. The mix of troop types, culture etc would be a great addition

.........Orda

Thracian
03-24-2006, 15:24
Well, first to say "hello!" to everyone here; it's my first post on the boards.


Why? Many enemies of Bulgaria ( Hungarians, Russians),current economic problems and many others. But that was not hte end of the Bulgarians unlike others they succeeded in reviving their country in the end of XII century. After that they became a major power in Balkan peninsula (brilliant map on the first page of that thread).

And, most of all- lack of manpower. Samuil, and later Gavril-Radomir/Ivan-Vladoslav just couldn't muster as much troops as the byzantines and were practically overwhelmed.
Stephen Asen, I'd prefer the Bulgarian Tzardom as a normal faction in the begging. Peter Delian's rebellion was succesfull and he liberated Macedon and part of Thrace, but was murdered by his cousin and his army defeated.
The Bulgarian Tzardom is a importaint faction in the european history, and I'm not saying that because I'm a bulgar.
It's the first and oldest slav state in history.
The cyrilyc alphabet was created in Bulgaria, and it was the most importaint slavic cultural center until the 11th century (and, to some extent again in the 14th). And (overall) it was the the prime adversary of Byzantium.

I'd also like to see Volga Bulgars, but with the fact that the Tzardom won't make it in the game it's doubtfull they'll be in.
Serbia, too, deserves a place in the game.

polski_orzel
03-25-2006, 11:00
I would like to see Grand Dutchy of Lithuania. Lithuania first mentioned in 1009, became powerful state in 14-16 centuries in Eastern Europe. Lithuanians stopped teutonic orders invasion in this part of Europe, ruled over major part of Russia, Ukraine. Severel times defeated mongols. So i think it should be represented in Medieval 2.
As for other factions i vote for Armenia, Swedwen, Teutonic order, Aragon, Bulgaria, the Ilkhanate, Bohemia.

Lithuania did all this?? I think it was called hmm rzecpospolita. Other wise known as the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth (later just Poland:laugh4: ). Give credit where credit is due. I mean the freakin Kings were almost always Polish, even in the elected times. (other than a few circumstances). And we never deafeted the mongols. They PWNed us and then went away. You're thinking of Tatar raids, taken out by Polish Hussaria. And you forgot to mention the siege of Veinna.... our nations greatest militaristic(sp?) accomplishment.

Glemte_hage
03-25-2006, 16:30
The list so far rumoured, as written on the wikipedia entry on the subject (dunno where they got the Mayans from)

The English
The French
The Scottish
The Holy Roman Empire
The Danes
The Spanish
The Portuguese
The Milan Territories
The Venetians
The Papal States
The Sicilians
The Poles
The Russians
The People of Novgorod
The Hungarians
The Byzantine Empire
The Seljuk Turks, Ottoman Turks
The Egyptians
The Moors/Almohad Kaliphate
The Mongols
The Timurids
The Aztecs
The Mayans

Now, assuming the 23 above are set in stone, they should add-

24.Sweden (I personally prefer Norway, but it was a weaker power than Sweden during the later years of the campaign period- although Sweden was also in the Kalmar union for a good while)

25.Lithuania (Takes up space, rather large state, although it didn't have any power at the start of the "grand campaign)

26.Bohemia (Well known faction, relatively powerful throughout the era- though subject to the HRE)

27.Aragon (Would make playing in Iberia more fun- nullifies the historically inaccurate Spanish state)

28. Serbia (Padding out the east)

29. Bulgaria (See above)

30. Teutonic Knights (new dimension to the Baltic wars- possinly emerging after conquering specific regions with the HRE)


Of course, in an ideal world, the game would also feature

Brittany, Provence, Navarre, Gwynedd, Powys, Dehuaberth, a few large Irish kingdoms such as Leinster and Munster, Norway, Iceland, Brabant, Burgundy, Pomerania, Prussia, some finnic and livonian tribes, Croatia, Zeta, Genoa, Jersualem, Antioch, Sultanate of Rum, Latin Empire, Knights of Saint John, Pisa, Empire of Trebizond, More Russian principalities and Muslim emirates, other crusader states- everything and everyone basically

Furious Mental
03-25-2006, 20:07
" Of course, in an ideal world, the game would also feature"

In an ideal world it would also not delay the game by about a million years to add all those factions and (1) not make them pointless clones of those that are already being included (2) not also make them pointless in the sense that they would last five turns before their one city is invaded by a larger faction and they exit the stage.

Mictlantecuhtli
03-25-2006, 21:45
The Aztecs better be included.

I would love to see a Jaguar Warrior in action slaughtering some Spanish troops :laugh4:

Leet Eriksson
03-25-2006, 23:32
To CA please Include Norway, becuase between 1220-1320 they did alot of stuff, and if you don't include it i'll be one sad man.

Spartakus
03-25-2006, 23:38
To CA please Include Norway, becuase between 1220-1320 they did alot of stuff, and if you don't include it i'll be one sad man.

I hope they don't, Norway is such a stupid place.

Edit: Okay, that was an internal joke between faisal and me. ~D I do hope they include Norway, the more the merrier. I'd like to see as many of the period's historical factions as is feasible.

Leet Eriksson
03-25-2006, 23:41
I hope they don't, Norway is such a stupid place.

This is not the backup i asked for ~;p

Alexander the Pretty Good
03-26-2006, 00:14
They are not going to add more factions themselves.

The comment by Caliban means that the hardcoded limit has been increased to 30; not that they will include 7 more factions that they need to do artwork and text for.

They won't spend their time and money for more faction on the whims of a few forum-goers. They will leave it to modders to add the factions that they want in game.

NodachiSam
03-26-2006, 06:31
The teutonic order would be a good addition.

Sarmatian
03-26-2006, 13:49
" Of course, in an ideal world, the game would also feature"

In an ideal world it would also not delay the game by about a million years to add all those factions and (1) not make them pointless clones of those that are already being included (2) not also make them pointless in the sense that they would last five turns before their one city is invaded by a larger faction and they exit the stage.

It doesn`t have to be that way, if they make good diplomacy. In Imperial Glory small factions succesfully allied themselves with stronger factions and lasted quite long, some even expanded their territories. Sometimes is better for a strong faction to have small faction "guarding it`s back", against some other strong faction. But diplomacy would have to be a lot better for this to be possible.

crusader†
07-18-2006, 01:21
[QUOTE=Stephen Asen]Thanks to that site: [ulgaria[/url]
.....
.....
first you are a bulgarian propaganda man bulgaria was newer on balkan what serbia was,in any pereod form 11xx- to know.
your map is false bulgaria did NEWER own BELGRADE, belgrade was a present from a hungarian kinh to a serbian king.
and from than belgrade is in SERBIA,if the your map is "true" lol, is not biger than Serbia i ther period of Emperor Dusan the all mighty, the king of serbs and greeks
the pope himself gave him the crown and the titule of emperor, like in byzantium

http://www2.serbiancafe.com/lat/diskusije/new/redirect.php?url=
https://img123.imageshack.us/my.php?image=eurse1354b8vr.jpg
that is the map of serbia.
It is the truth,Emperor Dusan was a big threat to byzantium that he "sudenly" ,died in his 53 year of life.(it seems that he was poisened).
He wanted to clame the titule of byzantium emperor, and join the parts of byzantium to serbia.He could sucsess that if he didnt dye mistiriusly.
if you dont belive me bye any book of serbian medevil kingdom and the HOLY famili of NEMANJICI, which everyone was after death called SAINT, accept Emperor Dusan.may they all rest in peace.
and i think that this rarely knowes anyone, and serbia shoud be in new medevil total war.:book:

Alien_Tortoise2345
07-18-2006, 05:33
That link seems to be leading to a missing post.

If there are 9 more factions I would have them be:


Aragon
Lithuania
Kiev
Kingdom of Jerusalem
Norway
Teutonic Knights

Disagree with Jerusalem because it was only established in 1099. On the Teutonic Knights I would have them as a unit in the HRE army. Also doubtful about Norway as they don't seem to have played a major role in European history after 1066. Denmark, Norway, Sweden (then including Finland) entered the Kalmar Union in 1397 under one monarch so maybe that.


then another three between Bohemia, an Irish faction, a Welsh faction, Sweden, Armenia, Georgia, Genoa, Serbia, Croatia, Bulgaria, the Cumans, the Ilkhanate, Novgorod, Switzerland, Wallachia, Burgundy, Navarre, Frankish Greek states

I would consider including "Prussians". They did not have a state as such, but they had a common culture and language and were independent prior to the conquest of Prussia by the Teutonic Knights in the 1200's. Regarding Lithuania, I would make them an emergent faction in the 1100's as the Lithuanians only established it then. Agree on Irish factions although I would have more than one town. Is Dublin the only Irish town in the game? I don't agree with this as there was a civil-war going on when the Anglo-Norman invasion started in 1169 and parts of the country were not really under London's control in much of the Middle Ages (though they always controlled Dublin).

I would like an emergent faction called the "Latin Empire" to emerge if the Franks capture Constantinople. I would include Brittany as a faction as the duchy was independent of France until 1490 when the Bretons broke a 1488 treaty giving the French king the right to choose the Duke's wife (she married the Archduke Maximillian of the HRE) and the French invaded. I would have Serbia as an emergent faction around 1200 as it became independent of the Byzantines around then, though it had its own kings as a protectorate from 1101. I agree with Croatia as an independent faction from the start of the game as they were independent until 1102 (then conquered by Hungary). Armenia could be an emergent faction as it was ruled by the Turks from 1071 until the early 1100's. Switzerland was part of the HRE until def-facto independence in 1291 and actual independence in 1315 at the Battle of Morgarten.so I would probably have them emerge around one of these dates. I would also have Bulgaria as an emergent faction because they were controlled by the Byzantines from 1018 to 1185.

Agree with a Georgian faction as they were already independent. Same with Navarre. Agree on Genoa. Agree on Wallachia (controlled by Pechenegs) but only just because it is conquered in 1091 by the Cumans. Might include the Cumans partly for this reason. Agree on Novgorod too.

Alien_Tortoise2345
07-18-2006, 05:38
OK put this line in their by mistake:


If there are 9 more factions I would have them be:


I would appreciate an "Edit" function allowing posters to edit posts where they make errors. Please.........:2thumbsup:

r johnson
07-18-2006, 08:17
The list so far rumoured, as written on the wikipedia entry on the subject (dunno where they got the Mayans from)
Iceland,
Burgundy,

Iceland
Did Iceland make an impact in medieval history? I always thought that got invaded by the Danes and remained apart of the Denmark until the British gave them independence in 1940/5.

Burgundy
I hope they do include Burgundy as it played an important role in the 100 years war, it was two waring camps:

The French allies with the Scots
The English allied with the Burgundians

also it'd be nice to play from the burgundians point of vue.

zakalwe
07-18-2006, 10:09
That link seems to be leading to a missing post.

The first post dates from January so it is a bit out of date.


Disagree with Jerusalem because it was only established in 1099.

Yes but i would have it as an emergent faction dependent upon certain game conditions


On the Teutonic Knights I would have them as a unit in the HRE army.

Would work aswell, but i think the independent nature of the TO state in Prussia would allow its inclusion as an emerging faction perhaps with a military alliance with HRE.


Also doubtful about Norway as they don't seem to have played a major role in European history after 1066. Denmark, Norway, Sweden (then including Finland) entered the Kalmar Union in 1397 under one monarch so maybe that.

Not a major role perhaps but the Kingdom of Norway is certainly a suitable candidate for inclusion in 1080.

ShadesWolf
07-18-2006, 20:22
Burgundy and the Swiss from about 1400 please.....

MansaSakura
07-19-2006, 00:37
how about adding another African or near east faction. the middle ages didn't stop at Jerusalem or Tangiers, for Christ' sake! CA needs to stop cloning the same factions and including REAL factions of importance. And there's no excuse- ABSOLUTELY- no excuse for not including Norway or some kind of Norse/Viking faction.

MansaSakura
07-19-2006, 00:51
and another thing, how on earth are the aztecs or mayans competing with medieval european or near eastern factions when they didn't have horses during that time! NONE of the mesoamerican civilizations of the middle ages domesticated horses for labor let alone warfare. the north american horse breeds were all eaten or migrated back to asia by the time europeans arrived. So why include a faction in a medieval battle with virtually no history of cavalry based warfare? CA needs to get its head together and stop jumping on the mesoamerican bandwagon for historic civs (anyone play Rise of Nations?). I think the Aztecs are really cool, but they're completely irrelevent until about say... 1492! Now i will get off my soap box.

HOLLA

Sarmatian
07-19-2006, 02:48
[QUOTE=Stephen Asen]Thanks to that site: [ulgaria[/url]
.....
.....
first you are a bulgarian propaganda man bulgaria was newer on balkan what serbia was,in any pereod form 11xx- to know.
your map is false bulgaria did NEWER own BELGRADE, belgrade was a present from a hungarian kinh to a serbian king.
and from than belgrade is in SERBIA,if the your map is "true" lol, is not biger than Serbia i ther period of Emperor Dusan the all mighty, the king of serbs and greeks
the pope himself gave him the crown and the titule of emperor, like in byzantium

http://www2.serbiancafe.com/lat/diskusije/new/redirect.php?url=
https://img123.imageshack.us/my.php?image=eurse1354b8vr.jpg
that is the map of serbia.
It is the truth,Emperor Dusan was a big threat to byzantium that he "sudenly" ,died in his 53 year of life.(it seems that he was poisened).
He wanted to clame the titule of byzantium emperor, and join the parts of byzantium to serbia.He could sucsess that if he didnt dye mistiriusly.
if you dont belive me bye any book of serbian medevil kingdom and the HOLY famili of NEMANJICI, which everyone was after death called SAINT, accept Emperor Dusan.may they all rest in peace.
and i think that this rarely knowes anyone, and serbia shoud be in new medevil total war.:book:

Quite unneccessary. Majority of people on this forum already said that it would be ideal if both serbia and bulgaria are in the game (among others which should be included). Anyway, it's not going to happen. Modders will probably put both in the game so it's not going to be a problem. And also, if you want to convince people that serbia deserves to be in the game, try to be more argumentative. I imagine this post did quite the opposite. And have someone correct your spelling mistakes.

Prince Cobra
07-19-2006, 07:38
About the Latin empire and kingdom of Jerusalem. They both are Crusade states- a result of successful Crusades. And IMHO the Crusade feature eliminate the need of their emergence as a faction.



Originally Posted by Stephen Asen
Thanks to that site: [ulgaria[/url]
.....
.....
first you are a bulgarian propaganda man bulgaria was newer on balkan what serbia was,in any pereod form 11xx- to know.
your map is false bulgaria did NEWER own BELGRADE, belgrade was a present from a hungarian kinh to a serbian king.
and from than belgrade is in SERBIA,if the your map is "true" lol, is not biger than Serbia i ther period of Emperor Dusan the all mighty, the king of serbs and greeks
the pope himself gave him the crown and the titule of emperor, like in byzantium

http://www2.serbiancafe.com/lat/disk...irect.php?url=
https://img123.imageshack.us/my.php?i...se1354b8vr.jpg
that is the map of serbia.
It is the truth,Emperor Dusan was a big threat to byzantium that he "sudenly" ,died in his 53 year of life.(it seems that he was poisened).
He wanted to clame the titule of byzantium emperor, and join the parts of byzantium to serbia.He could sucsess that if he didnt dye mistiriusly.
if you dont belive me bye any book of serbian medevil kingdom and the HOLY famili of NEMANJICI, which everyone was after death called SAINT, accept Emperor Dusan.may they all rest in peace.
and i think that this rarely knowes anyone, and serbia shoud be in new medevil total war.



Quite unneccessary. Majority of people on this forum already said that it would be ideal if both serbia and bulgaria are in the game (among others which should be included). Anyway, it's not going to happen. Modders will probably put both in the game so it's not going to be a problem. And also, if you want to convince people that serbia deserves to be in the game, try to be more argumentative. I imagine this post did quite the opposite. And have someone correct your spelling mistakes.
I agree Sarmatian. I was absent for a while. Thanks.
This post was useless and with lack of proofs.Cusader†, the map was of XIVth century when Belgrade really was not Bulgarian. The other site was not active.But until the middle of XIIIth century Belgrade was part of Bulgaria. This is the truth. And I am not a member of any propaganda- do not make me laugh :laugh4: . But this does not mean we, the Bulgarians, claim for Belgrade.Because now Belgrade is inhabited by Serbs and it is Serbian. And from the end of VIIth to the middle of XIIIth century Bulgaria was the leading Slavic power on the Balkan peninsula ( to the exception of the time under Byzantine rule- 1018-1185/ 1186). Also it's debatable that Dusan could conquer Constantinople- for example the Turks needed a century to do it.
And I still vote for both Serbia and Bulgaria and the factions I mentioned in a previous post of mine.

Edited:my map is good too

Wandarah
07-19-2006, 10:44
i vote for New Zealand.

Subedei
07-19-2006, 12:44
i vote for New Zealand.

Impossible b/c of name....:laugh4: :laugh4: We ´re talking middle-ages here....

Wandarah
07-19-2006, 12:47
call it aoteroa then!

crusader†
07-19-2006, 16:09
I didnt want to create problems or something, i was writing the first post little drunk and i apologize.I dont think that you are right about belgrade, and j will find some evidences from some books, it will take a while, so all be back.:oops:
At the end we are all Ortodox in serbia and there are ortodox people in Bulgaria, Russia, Macedonia, Romania...
You know that st. Sava(or Rastko Nemanjic, the youngest of three sons of Stefan Nemanja (later st.Simeon)who was the first Serbian emperor ) was first buried in bulgaria, and than reburied in Serbia, and you should now the rest...

4th Dimension
07-19-2006, 20:12
In my knowlege, Stefan Nemanja wasn't the emperor. He wasn't even teh King. His son was the first king.

DukeofSerbia
07-19-2006, 21:13
@Stephen Asen

I will not discuss about history here. Historians from Bulgaria had one attitude, and our from Serbia other.
What if I wrote that Belgrade, Macva and Branicevo regions were under Hungarian rule? No body know exactly know how big was the state of King Ivan II Asen, but I'm sure that he didn't control Wallachia and Moldavia (Cumans controled those regions), which is on your map on Cyrillic. And after he was assasinated, Bulgaria wasn't great power any more in Balkan (plus Mongols who ravaged).
Kaloyan was great king and I don't litigate that fact. His daughter Beloslava was wife of Serbian king Vladislav.

This is neutral site:
http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm#asens
http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm#terters
I agree with what is written here.

When M2 TW start Bulgaria was under Roman rule. So, no Bulgaria. Does CA will use era system - they only know.
In two main mods (MTR and MA) Serbia will faction. Again - no Bulgaria.

crusader†
07-19-2006, 22:23
Ok no history here,so i will just put few links here, so j wouldn't become a lyjor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemanji%C4%87
http://www.rs.risjak.net/chilandar/Nemanjic.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/house-of-nemanji
it is about the medivel serbian dynasty...

Prince Cobra
07-19-2006, 22:31
@Stephen Asen

I will not discuss about history here. Historians from Bulgaria had one attitude, and our from Serbia other.
What if I wrote that Belgrade, Macva and Branicevo regions were under Hungarian rule? No body know exactly know how big was the state of King Ivan II Asen, but I'm sure that he didn't control Wallachia and Moldavia (Cumans controled those regions), which is on your map on Cyrillic. And after he was assasinated, Bulgaria wasn't great power any more in Balkan (plus Mongols who ravaged).
Kaloyan was great king and I don't litigate that fact. His daughter Beloslava was wife of Serbian king Vladislav.

This is neutral site:
http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm#asens
http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm#terters
I agree with what is written here.

When M2 TW start Bulgaria was under Roman rule. So, no Bulgaria. Does CA will use era system - they only know.
In two main mods (MTR and MA) Serbia will faction. Again - no Bulgaria.
Forunately I will use the same proofs for my point both in the case of crusader† and of Duke of Serbia.
Probably the difference between what Serbian historians and Bulgarian things is not so big.
If you write that these regions were under Hungarian rule you will be right but you have to say in which periods. Between the end of XIIth century and the half of XIIIth century these regions changed thier rulers several times. Depending on the situation in Bulgaria ( if it was weak or strong) it was in for some years Hungarian and rest of the time Bulgarian ( that is clear by the cites beneath). It was Hungarian in 1202-1203, between 1211-1218 and 1232-? (definately before 1240-1241 when Ivan Asen II for sure owned this territories) and reamained Bulgarian until 1246 .
If you look on the map of these neutral sites you will see that the territories of Bulgaria are the same as on my map. Yes Wallachia and Moldavia are debatable and I think I mentioned quite posts ago they were vassals of the tzar. First, they were inseparable part of the Bulgarian army( only during the reign of Boril they rebelled (it is cited from Wikipedia Boril section ) which meant the Bulgarian tzar was their sovereign to some extend) and my second argument is in the brackets. It is absolutely true nobody can determine the exact north borders of the Second Bulgarian empire. However they were significant as you can see beneath ( Lesser Walachia at least and the submission of some of the Cuman tribes( which is depicted very well by the arguments above)). The difference between this and the other map is that the second showed the presence of Cumans but the other showed some of them are dependant on the Bulgarian tzar.

All the proofs are from Wikipedia . Note there are both proofs for the Belgrade and Wallachia.
Singidunum experienced occupation by successive invaders of the region—Huns, Sarmatians, Ostrogoths and Avars—before the arrival of the Slavs around AD 630. In 878 the city was renamed Beligrad ("white fortress" or "white town") under the rule of the First Bulgarian Empire. For approximately 400 years the city remained a subject of warfare between Byzantium, the First Bulgarian Empire and Royal Hungary before passing to the Kingdom of Serbia in the 13th century. The first Serbian king to rule Belgrade was Dragutin (1276–1282), who received it as a present from Hungarian king. ( seek for Belgrade)

Success (in the war with Byzantium(my words- elucidation) ) now definitely swung in favor of the Bulgarians, who captured the areas of Sredec (Sofia) and Niš in 1191, of Belgrade in 1195, of Melnik and Prosek in 1196, while raiding parties reached as far south as Serres. During his return from the southwest, Ivan Asen I was murdered by Ivanko, one of his military commanders, who was threatened with punishment for an affair with the sister of Ivan Asen I's wife. The murderer attempted to assume control in Tărnovo and negotiated with Constantinople, to which he soon afterwards fled. (From Ivan Asen I )


In 1204, the Pope recognized Kalojan as "King of the Bulgarians and the Vlachs" (Geoffroy de Villehardouin, calling him "Johanitza," even says "King of Wallachia and Bulgaria").( seek Kaloyan) (Note: in Wikipedia it is said that the Vlachs mean Romanians. IMHO this is not very true because of the fact Romanians did not existed at that time as a nation. However in the same Wikipedia it is said:
Vlach origin (Romanian or Aromanian), a view supported by many Romanian historians, who say that there's no reason to question the ethnicity since the chronicles are quite clear in their meaning.
Bulgarian origin, a view that is common among the Bulgarian historians who suggest that it's just a matter of terminology and that by "Vlach", the medieval sources meant "Bulgarian".
Cuman origin, as some of the names in the dinasty, including Asen and Belgun (nickname of Ivan Asen I) are derived from Cuman language. (seek for Asen)
I myself support the third one. But Asen felt themselves as Bulgarians not as Cumans and they had Bulgarian blood also( not only Cuman). So this can not be called Cuman hegemony.

In 1202 King Imre of Hungary invaded Bulgaria and conquered the areas of Belgrade, Braničevo (Kostolac), and Niš (which he turned over to his protege on the throne of Serbia, Vukan Nemanjić). Kaloyan retaliated in 1203, restoring Vukan's brother Stefan Prvovenčani (Stefan the First-Crowned) in Serbia and recovering his lands after defeating the Hungarians. Ill-feeling between Bulgaria and the Hungarians continued until the intercession of Pope Innocent III. (seek Kaloyan)

The return of Andrew II of Hungary from the Fifth Crusade in 1218 provided an opportunity to establish a marriage alliance and to obtain (probably in 1221) the return of the disputed territories around Belgrade on the Danube as the dowry of the Hungarian princess Anna (Mária). Ivan Asen II also made an alliance with Theodore Komnenos Doukas of Epirus to his south, although the latter had expanded his control over various Bulgarian territories, including Ohrid. The alliance was cemented with the marriage of Ivan Asen II's daughter to Theodore's brother Manuel. (seek Ivan Asen II)

The alliance between Bulgaria and Nicaea, directed against the Latin Empire, provoked reprisals by the papacy and the kingdom of Hungary. In 1232 the Hungarians seized the Belgrade area and attacked Sredec (Sofia), but were defeated by Ivan Asen II's brother Alexander. In 1233, under the leadership of the future king Béla IV, the Hungarians invaded again, this time seizing Little or Western Wallachia (Oltenia) and setting up the banate of Severin. It is unclear how long the Hungarians were able to hold on to their conquests, but they had been recovered by Ivan Asen II before the Mongol invasion of 1240-1241. Both the Belgrade region and the banate of Severin were reconquered by Hungary in 1246.

At the end. I perfectly know Bulgaria in 1080 was under Byzantine ( or as you call it Roman) rule.And I never claimed the opposite. However Bulgaria is not one of this one- day barbarian states like Ostgothic, Visgothic, Vandalic, Avaric states but is one of the oldest countries in Europe ( how many modern European countries are founded before 681. Probably only Greece. The First Bulgarian empire was one of the great powers of the Early middle ages). Second, even after its fall under Roman power Bulgarians managed to raise successful rebellion and to restore their state. Furthermore, the Second Bulgarian empire became hegemonic power during the reign of Ivan Asen II( who died just before the Mongol invasion). Only the Mongol invasion stopped Bulgarian power. In addition Bulgarians suffered two foreign powers ( the Byzantine and the Ottoman ) but they survived. That's other important reason not to ignore them. There is no way to be playable but because of all the facts above they should include Bulgaria as rebel faction ( Burgundy type). This is my statement. Otherwise the Southeastern Europe will not be depicted historically accurate.
Edited: And please Ivan Asen II was ' tzar' ( emperor). The Nicaean emperor agreed the Bulgarian ruler use this tytle in Lampsak. Furthermore the Bulgarian first clergyman became patriarch.

crusader†
07-19-2006, 22:35
J wonder if there are a few periods to be selected(early,late...),
medieval begins about 10'th century,and it lasted till almost 15'th.
I am writing this because in these period many things happened many, changes in borders and power on Balkan.In one period byzantine was dominating(early period),later Bulgaria,and than Serbia and al last the turks...

Prince Cobra
07-19-2006, 22:46
J wonder if there are a few periods to be selected(early,late...),
medieval begins about 10'th century,and it lasted till almost 15'th.
I am writing this because in these period many things happened many, changes in borders and power on Balkan.In one period byzantine was dominating(early period),later Bulgaria,and than Serbia and al last the turks...

I wondered the same. But probably there will be one big period. Somehow I liked more the MTW1 system of three eras.

Duke of Serbia, forget to say- Ivan Asen II was one of the few Bulgarian rulers in the Second Bulgarian tzardom who was not killed

crusader†
07-19-2006, 23:00
I didnt want to create problems or something, i was writing the first post little drunk and i apologize.I dont think that you are right about belgrade, and j will find some evidences from some books, it will take a while, so all be back.:oops:
At the end we are all Ortodox in serbia and there are ortodox people in Bulgaria, Russia, Macedonia, Romania...
You know that st. Sava(or Rastko Nemanjic, the youngest of three sons of Stefan Nemanja (later st.Simeon)who was the first Serbian emperor ) was first buried in bulgaria, and than reburied in Serbia, and you should now the rest...
he was the first emperor of his people,his country the title isn't so important.

Kralizec
07-20-2006, 02:09
J wonder if there are a few periods to be selected(early,late...),
medieval begins about 10'th century,and it lasted till almost 15'th.
I am writing this because in these period many things happened many, changes in borders and power on Balkan.In one period byzantine was dominating(early period),later Bulgaria,and than Serbia and al last the turks...

Eras won't be in. CA is not willing to delay the release/do any extra work for it.

r johnson
07-20-2006, 08:35
Eras won't be in. CA is not willing to delay the release/do any extra work for it.

That's a shame, i liked the early, high and late periods.



yey i'm a member now, i can edit !

DukeofSerbia
07-20-2006, 11:45
@Stephan Asen

OK. Last night I typed faster than I thought. Ivan II died in June 1242, several months before Mongol invasion of Bulgaria from Serbia. Kalojan was assassinated by his own duke in the 8th October of 1207, when he and his army besieged Thessalonica.

If you want to discuss about Second Bulgarian Empire, then open new thread in Monastery.

P.S.
Remeber - Wikipedia is not source - it's free encyclopedia where everybody can write what he want. http://users.skynet.be/bs138791/sac/rofl.gif

P.S.2
Serbs were never subdued to the end by Romans, and Bulgarians were. That's the fact.:book:

econ21
07-20-2006, 12:35
Just an observation - discussions about factions seem to risk degenerating into flame wars between Org members from different countries. Let's keep the temperature down here. Afterall, it's not like we have any control over which factions CA creates. We don't need to create any bad blood over what was or was not the case nearly a thousand years ago.

Modders will give gamers more options, but even then - like CA - face some tough choices.

4th Dimension
07-20-2006, 13:08
Discusion beetwen people from te Balkans concerning things that happened over 1000 years ago without at least a somewhat heated conversations? Not in this dimension.

Yeah offtoppic. I know.

Lucjan
07-20-2006, 13:41
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Awesome..*sarcasm*

Just, as a note to the org world here, in agreement with 4th dimension.
It is impossible for south slavic nations to come to any form of historical agreement regarding their respective nationalities. This should be well known and anticipated by now..


Anyway, back to the topic..

I'd be happy with the inclusion of any factions, as there's always the possibility of modding out ones I don't want and modding in ones I do, so I don't see an issue, so long as the factions are meaningful (iceland falls a little short of that).

Prince Cobra
07-20-2006, 22:18
Let's not go off the real topic. The discussion is over ( for now he-he). Anyway you are right to some extend- in Wikipedia anybody can write but note that no Bulgarian will write about the ' Romanian ' origin of Kaloyan and in addition there are marked debatable facts there. None of my info was. That's why I have chosen different sources- to be as objective as possible. And actually wikiedia can not be perfect but it is one of the best sources. Because anybody can make his own separate site as well with dubious info.

And I have more things to say... But I will stop here.

I said what I wanted to say- I voted for both Bulgaria ( as emerging faction) and for Serbia.

About the discussion in the Monastery. On the one hand it may be interesting but on the other I wonder if it will be interesting for the most people here... I need time to consider this unless you are so eager to discuss this topic. I won't mind and it will be a pleasure for me ( :evilgrin: ).

This was by the way. Now on the topic. The thread is called 30 factions. After all how many factions (both playable and unplayable) will the new MTW have ???

Edited: Do not worry econ21. My dagger is safe in the sheath. Not a single drop of blood will be spilt here. The word of a Bulgarian boyar.

Sarmatian
07-22-2006, 01:43
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Just, as a note to the org world here, in agreement with 4th dimension.
It is impossible for south slavic nations to come to any form of historical agreement regarding their respective nationalities. This should be well known and anticipated by now..


It is not impossible, just very improbable :laugh4:

But that is actually a good point why more balkan factions should be in the game. From the times of ancient greece to the 20th century, balkan was very important (and very active) battleground. Few rebel province that you literally walk over at the start of the game is not historically accurate. Both serbia and bulgaria were powerful medieval states, powerful enough to challenge byzantium.

But this disscussion about which country was more powerful and which deserves to be in the game more really is pointless. Neither is going to be in the original game, both are going to be modded in. That makes this disscussion purely academic and we should continue it in the monastery...

Not bad for a balkan guy, ha? :laugh4:

Lucjan
07-22-2006, 12:57
Personally I think that Serbia and Bulgaria would both be good choices.

BUT, I would ALSO like to see Croatia included as a Hungarian client kingdom. Croatia, although technically part of Hungary through much of the middle ages, was allowed to maintain it's own customs and laws and enough autonomy to, according to TW terms, be considered as a vassal state or client kingdom to the Hungarians. Croatia's significance as a powerful military state is very often overlooked, they posess a unique fighting spirit and centuries of experience in conflict against all manner of foes, the Croatians deserve their own little spot in total war. After all, without them the Austrians could have never turned back the Ottoman tide. (And for those who absolutely must play the devil's advocate and say *yahuhhhh they could toooo*...ok, fine, be that way, but they still would have had a much more difficult time doing it than they already had)

Tzar Dusan of Serbs
07-23-2006, 00:41
Hi everyone

I would like to see Bulgarians,Serbs(not only becouse I am Serbian),Lithuania,
Norway(Harold Hardrada need to say more?also it woud create more interesting and chalenging conquest of scandinavia),if they include hole America than they must add the Incas,not the Mayas becouse Mayas misteriosly disapiere two ceturies before conquistadors came in to America.
Now for Bulgarians I dont have to talk to much they were realy strong faction during almost hole middle age,but also the Serbians were very strong.
Greatest thing for me is that Tzar Dusan were first Orthodox LEADER who have the blesing of the Roman Pope(sorry if its wrong written)to lead the crusade against the Turks,but unfotunatly for him,and for all Balcans he die at the same that year.I think that if he lived 20years more,Turks were never crushed Balcans.
I am painfully aware that Serbia probably never find place in some total war game althouw Serbia deserved that spot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tzar Dusan of Serbs
07-23-2006, 00:53
Personally I think that Serbia and Bulgaria would both be good choices.

BUT, I would ALSO like to see Croatia included as a Hungarian client kingdom. Croatia, although technically part of Hungary through much of the middle ages, was allowed to maintain it's own customs and laws and enough autonomy to, according to TW terms, be considered as a vassal state or client kingdom to the Hungarians. Croatia's significance as a powerful military state is very often overlooked, they posess a unique fighting spirit and centuries of experience in conflict against all manner of foes, the Croatians deserve their own little spot in total war. After all, without them the Austrians could have never turned back the Ottoman tide. (And for those who absolutely must play the devil's advocate and say *yahuhhhh they could toooo*...ok, fine, be that way, but they still would have had a much more difficult time doing it than they already had)

I am so sorry for answering angriliy on your post.
If the Croats were so powerfull military might why do they were under Hungarians,than under Turks,than under Austrians,and than in some way under the serbs(at least they allways talk that Yugoslavia was their jail and Serbs were their prisoners,I always thougt that we were brothers at that time,but it look that I am wrong).Also if they were so strong military in the middle age why Austrians let Serbs to create SERBIAN REGION in their country(srpska krajina)?Serbs have much more freedom than Croats,and this is one of the reason Croats hates Serbs,of course we hate Croats becouse they hate us(this is how it works on balcans),in truth Croats were strong only in the time of the king TOMISLAV he is only who defated Bulgarian great Tzar Simeon.This is only time in the whole middle age that Croats were power in the Balcans.

econ21
07-23-2006, 01:41
IMO, it's not worth getting angry over a computer game or medieval history.

And please avoid generalising about whether an entire people hates another. I am sure it does not apply to Org members. ~:grouphug:

This is the second warning - if I have to intervene again, I'll reluctantly lock the thread.

Sarmatian
07-23-2006, 03:50
And please avoid generalising about whether an entire people hates another. I am sure it does not apply to Org members. ~:grouphug:


That group hug actually brought a tear to my eyes...~:mecry: ~:mecry: ~:mecry:
It's so much nicer when people get along

DukeofSerbia
07-24-2006, 11:31
My personal favourites are Cumans and Aragon (if there will be 30 factions slots).

Lucjan
07-24-2006, 17:02
I agree with the idea that this silly bantering over the balkans is worthless nonsense, and there would be more than a few people here who would benefit by stopping right now. The point of the thread is to offer an opinion on what factions you would like to see incorporated if they allow up to thirty and why. Not to whine and cry about why a faction somebody else mentions, shouldn't be included, or to stir up ethnic anamosities over a video game.

If you want to do this :furious3: because of somebody else's faction suggestion, then you need this :help: so that the rest of us can stop doing this :wall: and come back to a meaningful thread.

My comments stand..

I think the inclusion of serbia, bulgaria, and croatia could benefit the game, plus more diverse faction selection in the far east. Perhaps Lithuania, Muscovy, Novgorod, the Khazars, the Cumans, Validimir, Suzdal. There are any number of national identities in the far northeast that could help make that region more important to the gameplay, especially speaking in medieval terms.

DukeofSerbia
07-24-2006, 17:28
@Lucjan

There is only one problem with Moscow - Moscow wasn't even built as a town in XI century!

Prince Cobra
07-24-2006, 18:46
@Lucjan

There is only one problem with Moscow - Moscow wasn't even built as a town in XI century!

It was probably the Russian faction he meant...

Lucjan
07-24-2006, 20:55
Between 500ad-1000ad the vjatichi, people regarded as the kernel of the future muscovite population, moved into the area around what is now Moscow. There is reference to Moscow as a town in an old manuscript of 1147, then in 1156 Prince Yuri Dolgoruky constructed timber walls and a moat around the town. He is frequently regarded as the founder of Moscow and his monument is among the most honored.

I don't know about everybody else, but to me, for a town to be of significant size and importance to warrant that a pallisade and moat be constructed around it, it's probably of significant enough size to have existed for more than 47 years. While I believe the exact founding date of Moscow as a town is unknown, an educated guess from my perspective would place it somewhere around 1050ad. And in tw terms, a pallisade and moat generally means it's a small town, but still large enough to be a provincial center.

If somebody is more knowledgable on this subject than myself, please correct me.

Horatius
07-25-2006, 00:46
My votes for other factions go to
Kingdom of Jerusalem
Principality of Antioch
Serbia
Armenia
Wales
Ireland

I also vote for a lot more provinces then in Medieval Total War 1, just who says Wales has to be only 1 county why not split it up? Same goes for Ireland, and why Palestine instead of Judea, Samaria, Israel, Phoenicia, and the Negev?

My opinion is that the map should be have many more smaller provinces and less big ones. Surely Scotland could easily be split up as can Ireland.

Hochmeister
07-25-2006, 03:35
Hi all,

Cant make new posts but there is a new interview on computerandvideogames with Bob Smith, some good stuff there!!

Hope this link works:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=143296

Prince Cobra
07-25-2006, 11:08
Hi all,

Cant make new posts but there is a new interview on computerandvideogames with Bob Smith, some good stuff there!!

Hope this link works:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=143296

So 17 playable. Interesting. Unfortunately the unplayable are still a mystery (with some exceptions)... And I learned some new things about the diplomacy ( I haven't got much time recently so any good source is apreciated).

Thanks, Mincemeat!

DukeofSerbia
07-25-2006, 11:12
Unplayable will be Papal State, Aztecs, Golden Horde and Timurids (from so far what is revealed).

Orb
07-30-2006, 01:18
While I haven't read the whole thread, I think the important question is whether it will be possible to mod in a new faction (rather than just replacing old ones). That way, everyone can have something...

B-Wing
07-30-2006, 02:08
Orb's right. If you can't create new factions, then M2TW is going to be a very big disappointment for many people looking foward to modding the game. I would be seriously amazed if the developers would even consider limiting the number of possible factions to however many are included in the vanilla game. They must be aware of the popularity of modding in extra factions. Even if the majority of customers don't mod the game, obviously a significant number of us do, and since the developers frequent forums like these, they must realize how many people are expecting that option.