PDA

View Full Version : Official list of factions and Q&A about them



DukeofSerbia
11-10-2006, 22:01
Hello ladies and gentlemen, fans and supporter of MTR: AOA and other forum members in.ORG.

Our team publish list of factions which will be included in Medieval Total Realism: Age of Ambition. Starting 31 factions are:

Factions are (alphabetical order):
Muslim:
1. Berbers
2. Egyptians
3. Khanate of Transoxiana
4. Moors
5. Timurids (emerging faction)
6. Turkic Sultanate
7. Volga Bulgaria

Orthodox:
8. Byzantine Empire
9. Georgia/Abkhazia/Sakartvelo
10. Republic of Novgorod
11. Rus
12. Serbia

Pagan:
13. Mongols (emerging faction)
14. Cumans (Qipchaqs)
15. Lithuania (emerging faction)

Roman Catholics:
16. Aragon
17. Bohemia
18. Danes
19. England
20. France
21. Holy Roman Empire
22. Hungary
23. Italo-Normans
24. Kingdom of Leon-Castile
25. Norway
26. Papacy
27. Poland,
28. Kingdom of Portugal
29. Scots
30. Ducate Venice

Plus:

31. Independents


List of factions is final. Mod will start in 1071.

Common Q&A has been erased as we don’t need it any more. Names of some factions are provisional.:smash:


P.S.
Can somebody from moderators make this topic sticky? Please.

Cousin Zoidfarb
11-11-2006, 19:41
Please consider these suggestions as your remaining factions:

1. The Teutonic order. Script them as an emerging 'horde' in the 1100's. I hear the 'horde' :idea2: type of faction as been reintroduced as in BI. Historically they started in Jerusalem before moving to Hungary and finaly to Prussia where they created a large independant state.

2. The Knight's Hospitaler. Just like my idea for the Teutons. Granted land in Cyprus then Rhodes then Malta all the while fighting against the Mamlukes and Turks as an important naval power, they even fought against the Timurids.

3. Persia. Just as you have split the other islamic factions in three ( a great idea:beam: ) so can you do with this one. Khwarazm-Ilkhans-Timurids. The Khwarazmians fled to the middle east after the destruction of their state ( another horde-faction?) allied themselves with muslim rulers there, and after being defeated fled back to the mongols. The ilkhans and timurids had a lot of persian influence and i think deserve to be put in as the mongols were not unified and conflict existed between the golden horde, ilkhans and timurids. A 'Persian' faction which starts out as a muslim culture and ends up more mongol-persian later in the game would be a great addition.

4. Sweden :yes: :viking:

5. Another Russian principality....please:yes:

I'm not good with computers but offer to do some historical reasearch

AliAS
11-11-2006, 20:07
AWESOME , i m happy you want include Bohemia.
And good. a really dont need fight with aztecs so THX. to orientation to Europe and East

Teutonic order ? not bad Idea :idea2:

satchef1
11-13-2006, 01:33
Nice factions list! Got a few suggestions for you:

What about the Navarrese? They would be quite a challenge dumped in between Castile, France and Aragon.
Volga Bulgaria for another Steppe faction?
Ireland? Not really a major player but they're an interesting faction to play as.
Genoa?
Sweden? As mentioned above, would be good to see them in.

I'd like to see Armenia in, would be fun to see them as a Horde at the start of the campaign!

Kolkhi-2
11-14-2006, 10:18
Nice factions list! Got a few suggestions for you:

What about the Navarrese? They would be quite a challenge dumped in between Castile, France and Aragon.
Volga Bulgaria for another Steppe faction?
Ireland? Not really a major player but they're an interesting faction to play as.
Genoa?
Sweden? As mentioned above, would be good to see them in.

I'd like to see Armenia in, would be fun to see them as a Horde at the start of the campaign!

1) yeah :) , I agree . when Turks invaded in south Caucasus, Armenian kingdom fall (after battle od Mantsikert in 1177) and Armenian nation never had the statement in Caucasus till 1918. Armenian land incorporated under Georgian Kingdom and late (XV c. ) in persian or ottomans empire.

but in 1080 ad Armenian prince Reuben established small principaliti in Cillicia, caled Armenia minor or Cillician Armenia, in XII c. ducke of Cillician Armenia was already as king and principaliti reorganized as a kingdom of Cillician Armenia.

2) genoa was not importent as Venice.

3) Ireland had not kingdoms as a Scotland or England

4) Volga Bulgaria not, but Bulgarian Kingdom was importent ortodox state, who was opponent for Bizantium Empire for Balkans domination.

Rex_Pelasgorum
11-15-2006, 18:04
Necesarily include a Valachian faction... !
I know that Walachia was founded only in the XIV century as a state (in the XV century it was strong enough to interfere in the internal bussines of the rising Ottoman Empire and fight and win major battles against it), but more or less pre-statal forms of organisation existed in the area from at least the IX century, and they were mentioned by the numerous chronicles of that time. Valachians took also an important role in the Vlach-Bulgarian kingdom from the XII, XIII centuries.... It would also , make the situation in the Balkans extremely interesting...

They should start as a protectorate of the Cumans, having controle over the provinces of Walachia and Carpathia. In Carpathia, they should enter in conflict with the Hungarians from the first turns of the game. Also, Hungarians should have a scripted possibility to choose wether to convert to catholicism or convert back to the old pagan ways. This should affect very much theyr culture type, theyr unit tech tree, giving to the player who chooses to play with them, much more freedom. This is accurate from a historicall point of view, as despite the conversion to christianity from 1000, violent pagan reactions took place in Hungary later on until the XII century.I can help alwo with suggestions about Hungary, as i speak (very badly) the language ,but sufficient for me to acces historicall databases.

Returning to Vallachia,

Aditional province of Dobrogea could be created, with its main city at Ticina, an island from the Danube, wich was for a long time a very important trade center of the Byzantine Empire, controlled by them in the begining.

Theyr starting units should be made out of low numbers of Razesi (decent peasant militias), Ciobani (shepherds) , Arcasi (archers), all very good ambushers with bonus in woods and mountains, but not capable of fighting efectivelly on the open field, they also be able to recruit some cuman units into their ranks. Light cavalry and peasant archers should be very important for theyr army, in the early times.

Later, unit tree could be made more diverse, as the Valachians started making better organization, and up into the XIV-XV century, the valachians could get more units, such as Boieri (noble cavalry), Rosiori (Medium Cavalry), Calarasi (Light Cavalry), Lefegii (mercenary armoured spearman), etc...It is not that hard for me to get you tons of images with such units, etc...

I hope you will take into account my proposals,

Sincerely,
Rex Pelasgorum

SoupNazi
11-15-2006, 23:00
Thank god some1 shares my exact thoughts of implementing walachia...very important,you just have to have them their the most adorable early guerrila troups you can have in the game. you guys should look up Mircea cel Batran and Vlad Tepes...yeah the guy everybody thinks was Dracula...veeery nice.

And now leaving patriotism aside...will you implement a civil war between the Yorks and the Lancastrians?

satchef1
11-16-2006, 01:25
2) genoa was not importent as Venice.

True, but they were important. Only 1 Italian faction would make things a little easy for Venice (i know the Papacy and Sicilians are in but The Pope isnt agressive and Sicily tends to build a Mediteranian empire rather than an Apennine one)


3) Ireland had not kingdoms as a Scotland or England

Yes, but they are very fun to play and did from time-to-time unite under one banner. All that was missing was someone strong enough to keep Ireland as one.


4) Volga Bulgaria not, but Bulgarian Kingdom was importent ortodox state, who was opponent for Bizantium Empire for Balkans domination.

Bulgaria are an important faction, yes. They dont exist at the time of the mod though so cant be included.

Volga Bulgaria on the other hand were active and important at the time of the mod. They controled a lot of the trade between Europe and Asia making them a very powerful player in the Steppes and as there is currently only one Steppe faction planned (the Rus) they would be an important addition.

Lord Condormanius
11-21-2006, 19:15
Q: Why there are only three Moslem factions? This is too few.
A: Technically there are three Moslem factions but in reality there are nine.

Moors – Al-Murabitun >>> Al-Muwahid >>> Nasrids
Egypt – Fatimids >>> Ayyubids >> Mamluks
Turkish Sultanate – Great Seljuk >>> Seljuk of Rum >>> Osmanli Oghullarï

However, because there is 31 faction’s slots team have internal discussion and only what can I say is that we’ll be put additional Moslem factions, but they’ll be secret for some period.


Don't forget. The mongols converted to Islam. I'll have to check on the year, but it was before they hit Kiev.

Tenebrae
11-22-2006, 03:00
Hey,

Congrats on the taking of such a great enterprise, bla bla bla...:2thumbsup:

So, I don't get it. Why do you take the Condado Portucalense/Portugal faction out of the mod? :sweatdrop:
It was the first european nation to establish an Atlantic projection which was relevant and it was one of the major players in western Europe in the period which is portrayed in the game (in MTW2, that is - don't know if you guys are thinking of changing the period for MTR) Too bad it sank after that...:laugh4:

'Though I can't think of any faction-specific units I'll be more than glad to collect some historically accurate information for your project, in my free time, of course....

PS: Yes, I am Portuguese :bow:

Cheers

Tenebrae
11-22-2006, 03:11
Sorry, just checked the time period in the FAQ...still my point is the same, except for the Atlantic projection part...:P

satchef1
11-23-2006, 01:24
I'll have a guess at this and say its because Portuagal didnt really exist as a nation until 1128. The mod starts about 50 years prior to that


Portugal gained its first de jure independence (as Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal) in 1065 under the rule of Garcia II. Due to feudal power struggles, Portuguese and Galician nobles rebelled. In 1072, the country rejoined León and Castile under Garcia II's brother Alphonso VI of Castile.


Portugal traces its national origin to 24 June 1128 with the Battle of São Mamede. Afonso proclaimed himself first Prince of Portugal and in 1139 the first King of Portugal. By 1143, with the assistance of a representative of the Holy See at the conference of Zamora, Portugal was formally recognized as independent, with the prince recognized as Dux Portucalensis. In 1179, Afonso I was declared, by the Pope, as king. After the Battle of São Mamede, the first capital of Portugal was Guimarães, from which the first king ruled. Later, when Portugal was already officially independent, he ruled from Coimbra.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Portugal

SLK
11-23-2006, 05:12
Please consider these suggestions as your remaining factions:

1. The Teutonic order. Script them as an emerging 'horde' in the 1100's. I hear the 'horde' :idea2: type of faction as been reintroduced as in BI. Historically they started in Jerusalem before moving to Hungary and finaly to Prussia where they created a large independant state.

2. The Knight's Hospitaler. Just like my idea for the Teutons. Granted land in Cyprus then Rhodes then Malta all the while fighting against the Mamlukes and Turks as an important naval power, they even fought against the Timurids.

This could make a very interesting non-playable feature. Have these two orders as emergant factions, disable their ai, move their armies via script and allocate them provinces following their historical progression and once they reach a desired ‘state’ un-freeze the ai.

MTR please consider as this would add a unique angle to your mod.

slav frunze
11-23-2006, 06:30
Teutonic order would be a very interesting addition.

Should cause a few problems for the Rus, Poles and Lithuanians.

oj121
11-23-2006, 13:23
Wales by any chance???

Cronos Impera
11-23-2006, 14:52
I think the best candidade for our extra Orthodox faction would be the Romano-Bulgarian Empire. It is basicily the empire founded by the Asen brothers (vlachs) that strached from Wallachia to Bulgaria. However shortlived the Empire was (it was later bulgarised). Defeated Byzantine Emperours Isac and Alexeius Anghelous, waged war with the Latin Roman Empire and aided the byzantines to recapture Constantinopole.

Darkarbiter
11-23-2006, 22:55
what about the swiss? I know their a bit late but they still made quite a big impact.

Tenebrae
11-24-2006, 01:49
Satchfe:

You are referring to Portugal, hence me mentioning the Condado Portucalense (which existed as Condado de Portvcale -a county inserted into the kingdom of Galicia - since 868. Granted to Henry of Borgogne on 1095 by King Alphonso VI of Leon for his help in the Iberian Reconquista movement, having its name changed to Condado Portucalense - or Portuguese County, in English). The Condado Portucalense actually engulfed the lands of Portus Cale (nowadays Porto), the County of Coimbra (taken from the Moors in 1091) and the southern galician parish of Tui. It had complete independent "administrative" rule from Leon.

1091 is usually considered to be the date of the begginning of the Portuguese Reconquista, 1095 the founding of Portugal (Portucale), as an independent county. Quoting the wiki you posted: "At the end of the 11th century, the Burgundian knight Henry became count of Portugal and defended his independence, merging the County of Portucale and the County of Coimbra. Henry declared independence for Portugal while a civil war raged between Leon and Castile."

In fact, the battle of S. Mamede you referred, and which is in fact the event which is normally considered to be the "founding battle"...it is not so. It was more of a struggle for independence from D. Afonso Henriques, fending off his mother's attack (D. Teresa of Leon) on Portuguese independence at S. Mamede. Once D. Afonso Henriques won in S.Mamede he had no more worries from the Leonese crown and was free to truly begin moving south towards Olisippo(Lisbon) and the Algarve...

Tenebrae
11-24-2006, 01:57
I forgot to mention that the official recognition in 1143 was merely a political powerplay from the part of D. Afonso Henriques to ensure the Leonese wouldn't try and seize the county once again.
Btw...Afonso Henriques is Henry's son. (and the first Dux Portvcalensis)
So, as you can see, considering the inclusion of Serbian ducates under Roman rule in the mod, I just think it to be fair for the Condado Portucalense/Portugal to be included. Given that after the Reconquista Portugal would become, together with the kingdom of Spain one of the, if not THE, most powerful nations in the whole of Western Europe...

Cheers

DukeofSerbia
11-24-2006, 20:23
First post is slightly updated. :2thumbsup:

Knight’s Orders will be not factions. They will be represented as is in vanilla through units.



I think the best candidade for our extra Orthodox faction would be the Romano-Bulgarian Empire. It is basicily the empire founded by the Asen brothers (vlachs) that strached from Wallachia to Bulgaria. However shortlived the Empire was (it was later bulgarised). Defeated Byzantine Emperours Isac and Alexeius Anghelous, waged war with the Latin Roman Empire and aided the byzantines to recapture Constantinopole.


If mod starts 1072 (slightly possible) Bulgaria had high chance to be playable faction alongside with Armenians and both if will be included will be horde. If mod starts 1066 (90%) then still there is a chance that Bulgaria and/or Armenians will be additional emerging factions from 1186 and/or 1072.



Wales by any chance???


No.



Volga Bulgaria on the other hand were active and important at the time of the mod. They controled a lot of the trade between Europe and Asia making them a very powerful player in the Steppes and as there is currently only one Steppe faction planned (the Rus) they would be an important addition.

Actually, steppe factions are Cumans and later emerging Mongols. And yes, Volga Bulgars are in (you “busted” our surprise http://smiles.zy.cz/133.gif).

Darkarbiter
11-25-2006, 11:41
So uhh how will the swiss rebellion from the holy roman empire be fitted in?

Kmotr
11-26-2006, 14:09
Ireland had not kingdoms as a Scotland or England??

Im sure that Irish has the same kingdim as Scotland,and the same kingdom as Bohemia...
And there is enough space for Irish,island is empty(only Rebels)
Its also great challenge to try defeat the strongest enemy like England(alliance with Scotland?)
And from history side,is it still "heat" topic( Northern Ireland)
So I think that Irish has they part in history and in MTR also..

Fisherking
11-26-2006, 15:19
Ireland is certainly over simplified in the game but so are others. It wasn't even fully subdued until the 17th century and had more than enough color for its own game. The problem of Ireland becoming a power was that they could never put aside their differences long enough to drive the English out.

The island does need 4 or 5 provinces and Scotland could use more as well...but then again, so could most everything else.

I am sure it would be a favorite of many, however. But not just as a single province the way it is set up now.

Lord Condormanius
11-26-2006, 19:00
It wasn't even fully subdued until the 17th century.

Some might argue that it was never "fully subdued." In fact, the English policy toward Ireland was somewhat standoffish at first, they were already tied up in dealing with France. It wasn't until after King Henry II noticed that some of his subjects (Strongbow) had managed to acquire pretty sizeable chunks of Ireland that England even cared enough to pay attention (1171). And yes, it probably wasn't until the time of Oliver Cromwell that England would assert their influence over most of the island.

I think that for Ireland to work, there needs to be at least 3 more Irish territories (perhaps, Waterford, Galway and Armagh). These should probably added even if Ireland isn't playable.

Tazmanius
11-27-2006, 00:31
Ok..some points ...

In response to the recent immediate discussion...Ireland as a viable Medieval Kingdom...sorry..No...It was at best a bit player during the majority of the Medieval period...and what influence it did have(at a pretty local level was disjointed and factionalized).Wales at the same time had more influence and impact on the Medieval History of England than Ireland did...In fact..pre Bannockburn..Wales virtually outdid Scotland in terms of it's resistance to the English and the influence it exerted on the political map at the time.

Q's related to the English/Welsh/Scottish/Irish issues...given the province limitations...what number of provinces will be given to the above nations...?
Suggestions might be to double the number of initial start provinces in the British Isles...Wales..2..North and South but with the Eastern area integrated,as the Marches..as hostile(rebel)territory in England..to be subdued and perhaps with a good chance of revolt over a sustained period.

Wals(2)..Gwynedd,Deheubarth or Glamorgan...
Scotland(4)..2 Initial..2 rebel?
Ireland(2)..Area around Dublin..which was the main Anglicized area...and another province making up the rest.
England(6)..Marches/Mercia..East Anglia,Kent,Wessex,York,Lancaster?..Marches,York and Lancaster all rebel to start..to simulate the difficulty the Normans had in subduing the latter 2 and also the continuing border warfare in the Marches between the Marcher Lords and the Welsh?

Also for consideration..a doubling of the various provinces of mainland European France...for a better simulation of the 400 years of war that went on between the Anglo-Normans/English and the French...
On a related note,,,Found a map on the net that perports to detail the various kingdoms,principalities etc. and some ethnic territories circa 1100 AD..could be useful for extended province mapping and for determining the major factions for inclusion.

Note regarding muslims...would definitely include Abbasid and Fatamid branches as seperate entities as their religious doctrine led to much conflict between them..

Lord Condormanius
11-27-2006, 01:17
Ok..some points ...

...Ireland as a viable Medieval Kingdom...sorry..No...It was at best a bit player during the majority of the Medieval period...

I would call that a very generous appraisal.

Antagonist
11-27-2006, 02:16
I had understood that a Kingdom of Ireland existed in that various records attest to the existence of such a title and that a particular individual was occasionally recognised as such by other monarchs and the Pope etc. (prior to the Norman colony) but that it was, at best, a HRE level of unity, an agglomeration of independent-minded princedoms who only really cooperated if the leader was strong, and that crucially the title was never converted to a dynastic inheritance. But you could hardly call it a great power, and what influence it had was largely a vestige of it's social and religious influence in previous centuries.

Having a single province with Dublin as the capital doesn't seem that accurate though, as it was only made greatly significant by the Norman colony which wasn't established for almost a century after the start date. Also, going on the assumption that an "English" occupation was inevitable sooner or later ignores the presence of Scotland as a faction, a country with which it had vastly more in common (the Irish and Highland Scots being near-enough identical at this juncture) and therefore could more easily be fitted into. However, historically the only Scottish attempt to "liberate" Ireland was made by Robert Bruce later then English involvement.

Antagonist

satchef1
11-27-2006, 23:39
And yes, Volga Bulgars are in (you “busted” our surprise http://smiles.zy.cz/133.gif).

class :bounce: wonder who the other one is? :idea2:

Kepper
11-28-2006, 00:19
Any possibility of Portugal as emerging faction in MTR they came in MTW 2


(Portugal came into existence as an independent nation on June 24, 1128, when Afonso Henriques, Count of Portugal, defeated his mother in battle, Countess Teresa, and her lover, Fernão Peres de Trava, thereby establishing himself as sole leader. Afonso Henriques proclaimed himself king of Portugal on July 25, 1139, after the Battle of Ourique and was recognized as such in 1143 by Alfonso VII, king of León and Castile, and in 1179 by Pope Alexander III.

Afonso and his successors, aided by military monastic orders, pushed southward to drive out the Moors, as the size of Portugal covered about half of its present area. In 1249, this Reconquista ended with the capture of the Algarve on the southern coast.

In 1373, Portugal made an alliance with England, which is the longest-standing alliance in the world. In the following decades, Portugal spearheaded the exploration of the world and undertook the Age of Discovery. Prince Henry the Navigator, son of King João I, became the main sponsor and patron of this endeavor.

In 1383, the king of Castile, husband of the daughter of the Portuguese king who had died without a male heir, claimed his throne. An ensuing popular revolt led to the 1383-1385 Crisis. A faction of petty noblemen and commoners, led by John of Aviz (later John I), seconded by General Nuno Álvares Pereira, defeated the Castilians in the Battle of Aljubarrota. This celebrated battle is still a symbol of glory and the struggle for independence from neighboring Spain.

In 1415, the Portuguese empire arose when a fleet conquered Ceuta, a prosperous Islamic trade center in North Africa. There followed the first discoveries in the Atlantic: Madeira and the Azores, which led to the first colonization movements)

Stratos
11-29-2006, 15:18
Catalan-Aragonese is the correct name for the Aragonese faction, cause is the union of both kingdoms, both conserving same rights and privilieges and some autonomy, Saying only Aragon is like calling the Austro-Hungarian empire only Austria.
My two cents

ahuitzotl
12-01-2006, 01:34
It's a pity that Judaism is out, it would have been fun to rampage as Jewish Qipchaqs.

slav frunze
12-01-2006, 03:17
Are the twcenter forums down for some reason? I can't access them, it keeps going to "cannot find server". Sorry, couldn't think of a better place to ask and didnt want to start a whole thread for this.

DukeofSerbia
12-01-2006, 18:59
First post is updated.:2thumbsup:

Roderic the Emptyhanded
12-02-2006, 20:27
Is Sweden in? I saw that someone asked about it, but no answer (I'm kind of tired now, so I might have missed the answer). I think sweden wasnt really united until somewhere in the 11-hundreds, with the help of norwegians if I havent misunderstood... but, are they in?

Arne Anka
12-02-2006, 21:34
Hello everybody and sorry for my bad english!


First of all I want to thank you for yours great work with the mod. I’m really yearning after it!

I wish you will add Sweden as a playable faction in your mod. I have two reasons why!
The first reason is the time around the end of Viking epoch and the spring of medieval was a time of huge conversion and struggle in the young country. This was the time when the first seed was sowed and the land and state begin to take shape. Indeed there was already around the year of 1000 an embryo of that who later will be calling Sweden, but it was far from a strong and united land.
I think it would be nice to be the one who will build up Sweden from scratch in your realism mod - Age of ambition :duel:

The second reason is the fact of a big interest in medieval-time in Sweden just now! A big “responsibility” in that interest had the writer and journalist Jan Guillou who have write a fantastic roman succession ( 4 books) about the temple knight named Arn Magnusson. In the books we will follow Arn from his birth in a poor and suffering Sweden to his why as a great Temple knight in the Holy land and later back to Sweden there he was one of the founder of the Kingdom of Sweden. We can also reed about him as a great crusader in the east over the Baltic Sea. The story is take place in the middle 12th and the beginning of the 13th century.
Arn had different name in different part in his life. As Temple knight he was called Arn de Gothia (Gothia is that part of Sweden he was born). The Arabian people and Salamin called him Al Ghouti. In Sweden everybody know him as Arn Magnusson
His life in the Holy Land remembers a lot of the movie named Kingdom of Heaven. Maybe has the scriptwriter reed the books of Arn :book:

In a near future will also the most expensive TV-production in Sweden be creating? It’s of course the story of Arn Magnusson and his life and death!
Maybe it will pock a lot of people in my home country to play your mod if Sweden and Arn is a part of it!?
It will also be very fun if Arn will pop up as a character (a general or something) in the story-line!

There is one problem. Arn is a fiction person :no: . But all the occurrences around his person are reel. Maybe he not will take part in your REALISM mod in that reason? I say.
- So what, let him play with the reel gays :yes:

If you want some help with the Swedish medieval I will try to help you. But im not an expert!

Thank you for yours attentiveness!

FactionHeir
12-03-2006, 23:29
Will you be having any emerging or re-emerging factions in MTR?
Also, will you remedy the names from the vanilla M2TW, as some names have been "translated" into English but IMO would add more flair if left in their native tongue. So actual French/German/Italian/Spanish/<insert faction name here> names instead of say "Marc of Paris" or "Péter von Saxony" which are just totally wrong?

O'ETAIPOS
12-04-2006, 11:39
Why Teutonic order is not considered a faction?
I do not know how powerful Hospitalers were, but Teutonic Order was able to field around 20.000 man strong army! And they controlled about 1/3 of Baltic coast. Not to mention they had huge impact on Middle and East European politics. And they were not part of HRE.

Cousin Zoidfarb
12-04-2006, 17:27
There have been recently some additional factions that are puzzling.
Excuses were given that khwarezm, and the timurids were not in because they would be emerging factions and did not exist at the beginning of the mod. Now factions such as Bulgaria and Armenia are included, and these will be emerging factions. This makes the previous argument against Khwarezm and Timurids invalid. Furthermore the Volga-Bulgars managed to make it in despite the fact they lasted roughly 100 years, from the beginning of the mod.

The Teutonic Knights were a huge territorial and independent political power that survived to modern times in the form of Prussia. Novgorod, Lithuania and Poland did not have war with the HRE when in conflict with the Teutonic Knights but only with them.

Furthermore Timur"s state fought against the Golden Horde, Mamelukes, destryed Bayezid at Ankara, and I never heard of him losing. Why the Timurids are relegated to a script doesn"t make sense.

Maybe we should see what the other modders are doing.

noodles
12-04-2006, 18:59
Much respect for the team and their ambitious project. Hope it turns out great. :2thumbsup:


I just wanted to make a point that the games timeline spans for 500 years and methinks one should take in account factions that have emerged later than 1066 and also maybe dismiss some of the factions which didnt last that much from 1066 onwards. :juggle2:


Alltho i'd love to see a Wallachian or Moldavian faction i'm not sure it would make much sense as my countrymen never got to actually wage active war and the troops were highly irregular up to a point (or so i remember). Still i'm a Romanian so i wouldnt mind if they got in. :yes:

Also please please don't let venice out. its much too important because of its navy and potential.

Thank you for working on this. We'll be greatfull :sweatdrop:

Cousin Zoidfarb
12-10-2006, 19:21
From what I read about the second Bulgarian Empire and the independent Vlach states was that the Cumans played a large part in the establishment of these states. Since the Cumans are already in why not give names and titles to reflect this to family members of the Cuman faction, like Czar of Bulgaria or Bassarab. Also give the Cumans objectives of occupying balkan regions. This way someone who wants to play as Bulgaria or Wallachia-Moldavia can play as the Cumans.

Similarly, I think a generic Persia would be a good addition. This faction emerges as Khwarezm and ends as the Timurids. My justification is as follows, even after being crusshed by the Mongols a Khwarezmian army made it to the middle East and took part in the campaigns there alongside muslim rulers, after being defeated by Egypt the remnants joined the Il-Khan Mongols. The Ilkhans were more often than not enemies of the Golden Horde, so two warring Mongol factions should be interesting and would counterbalance their power. After the Ilkhan decline a warlord named Timur arose from their territories and established his empire which continued in Moghul India.

In game terms I would represent this as follows:
Firstly give names to the faction members in Khwarezmid fashion ie, Shah Ali Al-Khwarezm then around the late 1200's give the names of the family members an Ilkhan-flavour ie, Shah Hulegu the Ilkhan and give this Persian faction access to mongol units, by the late 1300's give family members names like Shah Timur. So we get 3 factions in one, a nice counterbalance to the Golden Horde and some intrigue as the faction may be Muslim but the leader is Pagan or Buddhist. Not completely realistic but close, think about it.

Lastly the Knightly orders were pretty much independent of any other rulers for most of the middle ages. The Knights Hospitaler had their own states in Rhodes, Smyrna ( which they defended against Timur) and of course malta. They independantly wrecked havoc on muslim shipping, make them a vassal of the Papal States but do consider putting them in, since have you heard of any hospitalers taking part in the hunndred year's war? No. They had their own commanders and historically acted after the fall of outremer as would an independant faction in our game. In game terms I would make them an emerging faction after a certain number of jihads are successful.

And finally the Teutonic knights, of all the famous battles they took part in, Leignitz, Peipus and Tannenberg, they were only under someone else's command at Leignitz in 1241 (some think the Knightly Order present was the Hospitaler Order but I digress). Putting them in would create loads of fun challengesfor the Danish, Polish and Russian player. Let's not forget that the Knights collected taxes in their holdings and effectively acted as a state, which politically survived to modern times as Prussia.

Maizel
12-10-2006, 20:19
I'd like to see Medieval2:Total Realism make the more elite units more rare. Even with the new recruitment system, it's not hard to get full stacks of Chivalric Knights, or other elite troops like Varangian Guards and the like, when you have a few buildings that boost their replenishment time.

1 unit of knights being trainable every 3-4 (or even more) turns will be way better in my opinion

Will something like this be in?

JR-
12-11-2006, 15:44
i have to admit, adding the Hospitillars and the Templars as vassal factions to the pope is very appealing.......... :)

Innocentius
12-11-2006, 21:17
Hello everybody and sorry for my bad english!


First of all I want to thank you for yours great work with the mod. I’m really yearning after it!

I wish you will add Sweden as a playable faction in your mod. I have two reasons why!
The first reason is the time around the end of Viking epoch and the spring of medieval was a time of huge conversion and struggle in the young country. This was the time when the first seed was sowed and the land and state begin to take shape. Indeed there was already around the year of 1000 an embryo of that who later will be calling Sweden, but it was far from a strong and united land.
I think it would be nice to be the one who will build up Sweden from scratch in your realism mod - Age of ambition :duel:

The second reason is the fact of a big interest in medieval-time in Sweden just now! A big “responsibility” in that interest had the writer and journalist Jan Guillou who have write a fantastic roman succession ( 4 books) about the temple knight named Arn Magnusson. In the books we will follow Arn from his birth in a poor and suffering Sweden to his why as a great Temple knight in the Holy land and later back to Sweden there he was one of the founder of the Kingdom of Sweden. We can also reed about him as a great crusader in the east over the Baltic Sea. The story is take place in the middle 12th and the beginning of the 13th century.
Arn had different name in different part in his life. As Temple knight he was called Arn de Gothia (Gothia is that part of Sweden he was born). The Arabian people and Salamin called him Al Ghouti. In Sweden everybody know him as Arn Magnusson
His life in the Holy Land remembers a lot of the movie named Kingdom of Heaven. Maybe has the scriptwriter reed the books of Arn :book:

In a near future will also the most expensive TV-production in Sweden be creating? It’s of course the story of Arn Magnusson and his life and death!
Maybe it will pock a lot of people in my home country to play your mod if Sweden and Arn is a part of it!?
It will also be very fun if Arn will pop up as a character (a general or something) in the story-line!

There is one problem. Arn is a fiction person :no: . But all the occurrences around his person are reel. Maybe he not will take part in your REALISM mod in that reason? I say.
- So what, let him play with the reel gays :yes:

If you want some help with the Swedish medieval I will try to help you. But im not an expert!

Thank you for yours attentiveness!

Like you said, Arn is entirely fictional, and should thus be left out. Completely. Guillou is an even worse source for history than Wikipedia. Not even all of the events about him are true. There is no proof that there actually was a big battle at Gestilren (wherever that is) in 1210 for example.
Someone mentioned something about Sweding appearing in the 12th century with the help from Norwegians. Never heard of that before:juggle2:

Well, Sweden as a name existed already by the early 12th century, but was far from a country. Guillou has got the major parts right, as the lands to become Sweden were only squabling lands that never truly united under one king. The struggle for power was fought between a few major families (almost like Italian familias really) who gladly killed each others kings to get the throne for themselves. Sweden as a more centralized state only started appearing around 1250, but it can't be scripted as a horde emergence, as it was a slow build-up, involving some internal battles but not very much more. The first king to rule of a truly united* country that could bear any resemblance to modern-day Sweden would be king Magnus Birgersson (son of Birger Jarl), who ruled 1275-1290, although for the first five or six years he was involved in constant civil war or other forms of internal conflicts.
Sweden would be a really tricky one unless there's a way to fix a faction that just slowly starts to appear...And over a period of some 150 years evolve into what could be called a country.

I'm not familiar with how M2:TW works as I haven't played it yet, so I really have no idea what I'm talking about~:rolleyes: , although I do know a thing or two about Swedish history. But leave Arn out, please.

*Sweden still had separate lawbooks for each part of the country until the mid 14th century (Magnus Erikssons landslag).

Basilakes En Strategoisin
12-13-2006, 19:54
Factions are (alphabetical order):
Muslim:
1. Sultanate of Egypt,
2. Moors,
3. Turkish Sultanate (or similar name)

Orthodox:
4. Basilea Rhomaion (or Empire of Romans),
5. Kingdom of Georgia-Sakartvelo,
6. Rus’,
7. Kingdom of Serbia

Pagan:
8. Mongols (emerging faction),
9. Cumans\Qipchaqs\Polovtsi

Roman Catholics:
10. Kingdom of Aragon,
11. Kingdom of Castile (or Castile-Leon in 1072, not solved),
12. Kingdom of Denmark,
13. Kingdom of England,
14. Kingdom of France,
15. Holy Roman Empire,
16. Kingdom of Hungary,
17. Mediterranean Normans,
18. Papal State (unplayable),
19. Kingdom of Poland,
20. Kingdom of Scotland,
21. Republic of Venice
----------------------------------



Hello!

Just a couple of things with the faction names that caught my nosy eye:

1. I believe it should be Caliphate of Egypt, not Sultanate. The game starts with the Fatimids in power, right? Well, they called their ruler caliph.

4. It's basileia, not basilea. Besides, even though I'm a lover of the greek language (or maybe because of it) I think that, if all the other faction names are going to be in english, this one should be too. I've never cared much for exact translitterations. Why not just "The Roman Empire"? Or if that causes confusion with the Germans then "Empire of the Romans", like you said.

17. Why Mediterranean Normans? I doubt they ever called themselves that, even if I cannot be sure. What's wrong with Kingdom of Sicily?


And a general comment: Even if adding so many new factions is cool, I think it is not a good idea at all to leave northern italy with just one faction + rebels + any conquering powers. I think one of the historically best things CA did to improve mtw was adding Milan to counterbalance Venice, and if I was a modder I'd probably either keep it that way or add one more northern Italian faction. Italy's just not Italy with the rivalry of the city-states.

That said, have fun modding, hope your project turns out great :2thumbsup:

saapas
12-13-2006, 23:05
Shouldn't it be Romaion too instead of Rhomaion? And to be honest I find "Empire of Romans" to be rather dull, and like someone stated it wouldn't really be an exact english version.

Basilakes En Strategoisin
12-14-2006, 12:01
Shouldn't it be Romaion too instead of Rhomaion? And to be honest I find "Empire of Romans" to be rather dull, and like someone stated it wouldn't really be an exact english version.

Romaion and Rhomaion are both correct in a way, depending on whether you want to translate the letter ro or rho. Same as in Pyrros vs Pyrrhos for the Epirot general, or Rodos vs Rhodos for the island.

What's wrong with the exactness?

saapas
12-14-2006, 12:23
It's just so contradictory. Just like renaming "Kingdom of France" to "Kingdom of the French".

Flax
12-15-2006, 15:34
Anticipating it will be a qool mod worth RTR :)

In Q&A I saw that it is not decided how to call Lithuanian faction. Here are few suggestions. Quedlinburg chronicles call it "Litua", which is quite close to how Lithuania is called these days, which is "Lietuva". However, Teutonic order most of the time clashed with Samogitian (Zemaitija) ethnic group, located just in the middle between Livonic Order (Today's Latvia) and Prusia (today's Kaliningrad). It is historicall correct to say, that Samogitia was a province of Lietuva Grand Ducery. If Lietuva faction becomes playable, which I think is correct thing to do for the accuracy of medieval history, I'd suggest in the starting map divide this pagan faction into two provinces: Samogitia having castle and Vilnius (which is not 100% historically correct, as it was built just in 13th century) being capital. While Samogitia was constant battleground between Lietuva and Teutonic order and produced most fierce milita force in Baltic tribes, Vilnius could clearly be administrative part for the gaming purposes.

This is probably not most precise historical description, but it could work for gaming adaptation.

Miloshus
12-16-2006, 19:53
Why do you have to name it kingdom? ( kingdom of france)
Why dont you name it just England, France, Denmark...??

Sarmatian
12-18-2006, 00:27
Why do you have to name it kingdom? ( kingdom of france)
Why dont you name it just England, France, Denmark...??

And how would you then call it? Rome? Empire of romans do sound a little dull, but I think it is the best solution I've heard so far...

DukeofSerbia
12-18-2006, 19:27
Hello everybody.

Sweden doesn’t have any chance to become faction.

Baltic is already crowded and if we add Teutonic knights (which can be only emerging faction) it will become Baltic Total War.

@Beavis

Nobody guarantee that Bulgaria and Armenia will be in. This is not 100% settled. And there is high chance that starting date will be 1072 so Bulgaria and Armenians can be playable. We’ll see what will be in the end.



Similarly, I think a generic Persia would be a good addition. This faction emerges as Khwarezm and ends as the Timurids. My justification is as follows, even after being crusshed by the Mongols a Khwarezmian army made it to the middle East and took part in the campaigns there alongside muslim rulers, after being defeated by Egypt the remnants joined the Il-Khan Mongols. The Ilkhans were more often than not enemies of the Golden Horde, so two warring Mongol factions should be interesting and would counterbalance their power. After the Ilkhan decline a warlord named Timur arose from their territories and established his empire which continued in Moghul India.

In game terms I would represent this as follows:
Firstly give names to the faction members in Khwarezmid fashion ie, Shah Ali Al-Khwarezm then around the late 1200's give the names of the family members an Ilkhan-flavour ie, Shah Hulegu the Ilkhan and give this Persian faction access to mongol units, by the late 1300's give family members names like Shah Timur. So we get 3 factions in one, a nice counterbalance to the Golden Horde and some intrigue as the faction may be Muslim but the leader is Pagan or Buddhist. Not completely realistic but close, think about it.

Very interesting idea I admit. I will post it in developer subforum. Anyway, we’ll add another Muslim eastern faction (playable), but we can’t reveal it.



Hello!

Just a couple of things with the faction names that caught my nosy eye:

1. I believe it should be Caliphate of Egypt, not Sultanate. The game starts with the Fatimids in power, right? Well, they called their ruler caliph.

Hello, too.

True about Fatimid ruler. But Ayyubid and Mamluk rulers were Sultans, so… And Abbasid Caliph is puppet under Seljuk rule when mod starts.



4. It's basileia, not basilea. Besides, even though I'm a lover of the greek language (or maybe because of it) I think that, if all the other faction names are going to be in english, this one should be too. I've never cared much for exact translitterations. Why not just "The Roman Empire"? Or if that causes confusion with the Germans then "Empire of the Romans", like you said.

Many forum members in TWC didn’t like Empire of Romans so we changed in Greek.



17. Why Mediterranean Normans? I doubt they ever called themselves that, even if I cannot be sure. What's wrong with Kingdom of Sicily?

I updated Q&A:

Q: Why is Sicily eliminated as faction?
A: Sicily is not eliminated as a faction. In southern Italy and Sicily starting faction will be Mediterranean Normans led by de Hautevilles. They’ll be in the start represented as Duchy of Apulia & Calabria under rule of Robert Guiscard and later County and Kingdom of Naples and Sicily.



And a general comment: Even if adding so many new factions is cool, I think it is not a good idea at all to leave northern italy with just one faction + rebels + any conquering powers. I think one of the historically best things CA did to improve mtw was adding Milan to counterbalance Venice, and if I was a modder I'd probably either keep it that way or add one more northern Italian faction. Italy's just not Italy with the rivalry of the city-states.

Northern Italy: HRE, Venice and Papal State.



In Q&A I saw that it is not decided how to call Lithuanian faction. Here are few suggestions. Quedlinburg chronicles call it "Litua", which is quite close to how Lithuania is called these days, which is "Lietuva". However, Teutonic order most of the time clashed with Samogitian (Zemaitija) ethnic group, located just in the middle between Livonic Order (Today's Latvia) and Prusia (today's Kaliningrad). It is historicall correct to say, that Samogitia was a province of Lietuva Grand Ducery. If Lietuva faction becomes playable, which I think is correct thing to do for the accuracy of medieval history, I'd suggest in the starting map divide this pagan faction into two provinces: Samogitia having castle and Vilnius (which is not 100% historically correct, as it was built just in 13th century) being capital. While Samogitia was constant battleground between Lietuva and Teutonic order and produced most fierce milita force in Baltic tribes, Vilnius could clearly be administrative part for the gaming purposes.

This is probably not most precise historical description, but it could work for gaming adaptation.

MTR will use work of Lithuania Mini Mod for Lithuania(ns) faction. They will provide solution.

Cousin Zoidfarb
12-18-2006, 23:17
Here's a link that shows the state of the Teutonic Order.

http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1400.htm

Putting them in doesn't make the Baltic crowded it makes the game 'Realistic'. The Baltic doesn't become any more crowded than the Mediterranean. Putting the short-lived Volga-Bulgars in doesn't make sense if you leave a major power like the Teutons,

Anyone else think the Teutonic Order should be in?
Please reconsider

DukeofSerbia
12-19-2006, 10:22
Euroatlas maps are inaccurate and full of falsification.

Mediterranean is drastically larger area than Baltic which you know.:2thumbsup:

Cousin Zoidfarb
12-19-2006, 18:59
The euroatlas map is completely accurate in this case

The Baltic isn't crowded. Denmark, Poland, Lithuania and Novgorod.
Putting the Teutonic Knights gives your game Realism.
They even made it into other mods like Total War Chivalry I think.
Putting them in keeps the Polish faction in check as what happened historically.
Take out the Volga Bulgars they had little impact and disappeared when the mongols came along.

Miloshus
12-24-2006, 11:01
The euroatlas map is completely accurate in this case

The Baltic isn't crowded. Denmark, Poland, Lithuania and Novgorod.
Putting the Teutonic Knights gives your game Realism.
They even made it into other mods like Total War Chivalry I think.
Putting them in keeps the Polish faction in check as what happened historically.
Take out the Volga Bulgars they had little impact and disappeared when the mongols came along.

Well you are right there should be Teutonic order. They would make balance on the north eastern piece of map. But the map is a bit weird :inquisitive: (no offence).

Cousin Zoidfarb
12-25-2006, 00:48
no offense taken, I didn't make the map.
What's so weird about it? It seems quite accurate to me.

kataphraktoi
12-25-2006, 10:43
Bulgaria and Armenia has been sidelined...

We have scripted "outbreaks", its a term used for scripted appearances of independent factions we didn't include in the faction list.

So I suppose if ur Poland and u dominate the Baltics, ur feeling quite comfortable and then one day...the script kicks in and the Tuetonic Knights have invaded the Balts.

But no, the Tuetonic Knghts don't seem to be contenders. Unfortunately, they can't be playable either.

=Omni=
12-25-2006, 14:50
Sad to see them go - I especially had high hopes for Armenia Cilica (as I've succeded with them in Chivalry mod ;) )

I suppose we won't be able to play Teutonic order, because it's an emerging faction, right? This makes me think whther it could be possible to set different starting dates for different factions. So that England would start at 1066, Poland would strat at 1000 (just a wild guess ;), Teutonic order in XVIIth century and so on.

And expanding this idea, you could make separte eras - so,for example, England would start in 1066 (low era), somwhere in XIIIth cetury (high era) or at the outbreak of 100 year war (late era). I know it could be time consuming to implement, but I think it add flavour to the mod.

Also, I rember that there was a mod for RTW, that made it possible to switch factions with rebels to over come the faction limit - if you wanted to play with one faction, the other, blocking its place was replaced by rebels. Combining this with the separete era campaigns you could use much more factions - so, for xample, in low era there would be no Portugal and Mongols, but instead you could have Bulgaria and Saxons. Then in mid era there would be no Bulgars and Saxons, but you could get Portugal and Mongols. And so on :)

kataphraktoi
12-26-2006, 11:33
Sad to see them go - I especially had high hopes for Armenia Cilica (as I've succeded with them in Chivalry mod ;) )

It was a hard decision, believe me.


I suppose we won't be able to play Teutonic order, because it's an emerging faction, right? This makes me think whther it could be possible to set different starting dates for different factions. So that England would start at 1066, Poland would strat at 1000 (just a wild guess ;), Teutonic order in XVIIth century and so on.

More of a scripted emergence of an independent faction rather than an emerging faction from a faction list.


And expanding this idea, you could make separte eras - so,for example, England would start in 1066 (low era), somwhere in XIIIth cetury (high era) or at the outbreak of 100 year war (late era). I know it could be time consuming to implement, but I think it add flavour to the mod.

too far into the future...hehe


Also, I rember that there was a mod for RTW, that made it possible to switch factions with rebels to over come the faction limit - if you wanted to play with one faction, the other, blocking its place was replaced by rebels. Combining this with the separete era campaigns you could use much more factions - so, for xample, in low era there would be no Portugal and Mongols, but instead you could have Bulgaria and Saxons. Then in mid era there would be no Bulgars and Saxons, but you could get Portugal and Mongols. And so on :)

if there is a mod, could u link me to it. sounds interesting

=Omni=
12-26-2006, 14:57
Phew, after lots of searching I've found it :)

Here it is: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=34260

Unfortunately it seems that it's batch-file based, so to choose eras (with different factions) player would have to exit the game and run other bat file. But I don't think that having 3 shortcuts (for each era) instead of one would be such a problem for players:juggle2:

The batch files could also have one positive aspect - we could theme the menu and loading screens differently for each era :laugh4:

kataphraktoi
12-26-2006, 17:14
This is final list for the first version of MTR, any faction changes will be made in future versions if necessary. This is the faction list we're working from.

Starting Date: 1071

1) Byzantine Empire (Orthodox)
2) Holy Roman Empire (Catholic)
3) France (Catholic)
4) England (Catholic)
5) Poland (Catholic)
6) Italo - Normans (Catholic)
7) Ducate Venice (Catholic)
8) Kingdom of Leon-Castile (Catholic)
9) Kingdom of Portugal (Catholic) note: briefly independent, will have to fight scripted Battle of Pedroso to maintain independence before effective independence date of 1128
10) Moors (Muslim)
11) Danes (Catholic)
12) Norway (Catholic)
13) Serbia (Orthodox)
14) Hungary (Catholic)
15) Aragon (Catholic)
16) Papacy (Catholic)
17) Scots (Catholic)
18) Egyptians (Muslim)
19) Rus (Orthodox)
20) Georgia/Abkhazia/Sakartvelo (Orthodox)
21) Bohemia (Catholic)
22) Qipchaqs (Pagan)
23) Lithuania (Emerging Faction)
24) Mongols (Emerging Faction and Pagan)
25) Khanate of Volga Bulgaria (Muslim)
26) Khanate of Transoxiana (Muslim and vassal of the Seljuks/Turkic Sultanate)
27) Berbers (Same as Moors, but based around Tunis and predominantly a naval piratical force, Muslim)
28) Republic of Novgorod (Orthodox)
29) Timurids (Emerging Faction)
30) Turkic Sultanate
31) Independents

@Omni, has anyone tried it on MTW2 yet?

=Omni=
12-27-2006, 01:37
Nice list :)

I cannot say whether it's used or not, because I'm fresh to TW community and I'm more than a lurker and fanboy than modder (at least for now ;) ).

However, from thechnical point of view (and using my little knowledge about MTW structure I gathered until now) I think that having separate eras with separate factions should be 100% possible. Basically you'd have to make 3 mods (for each era) that share everything except for files with faction names (like EDU, EDB, descr_strat etc). Then you just make a small batch file that sawaps the files, depending on what campaign you want to play and you're done:yes:

The problem may be with performance, because the swappable files wouldn't be packed (provided we get the repacker), but I don't think that few unpacked text files would have any significant hit on performance.

BTW. Are the factions names used in files same as these in game? Because if not, then there sould be more files to share/less files to swap (for example EDB - provided the swapping faction has similiar buildings as the swapped one) etc etc

Darkarbiter
12-27-2006, 08:42
That map looks great! Very wise faction selection etc. Any chance of a colour code to help out the not so knowledgeable?

kataphraktoi
12-27-2006, 11:50
https://img223.imageshack.us/img223/7383/1071mapmininamespl9.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

Minor changes:

Added Madhia as a city and province

Baldwin of Jerusalem
12-27-2006, 13:52
So, Milan is dropped then? This must mean that you dont feel that the Northern Italian city states can be represented adequately with this game dynamic. Interesting. I dont really feel that the map needs to be extended Eastwards. Theres more than enough to cover on the existing map dont you think and even with 31 faction slots they could well be spread very thin.

having said that, Ive just seen your new map. Hmmm, forget everything I just said. lol

Miloshus
12-28-2006, 08:53
The map is almost perfect .:yes: .
And what is important ; it is almost realistic!

Cousin Zoidfarb
12-29-2006, 01:03
disappointing faction list.

the volga-bulgars were erased from history 150 after the start of your mod.
the khanate of transoxania and the timurids should be merged into one faction.
why did the berbers make the cut and not the Knights Hospitaler (the Christian World's naval-piratical force).
leaving the Teutons out will probably create ahistorical rivalries in the Baltic. As well as eliminate recreations of some of the most impressive battles and campaigns of the middle-ages (Peipus, Tannenberg, the thirteen-years war)
:no:

Miloshus
12-29-2006, 14:33
disappointing faction list.

the volga-bulgars were erased from history 150 after the start of your mod.
the khanate of transoxania and the timurids should be merged into one faction.
why did the berbers make the cut and not the Knights Hospitaler (the Christian World's naval-piratical force).
leaving the Teutons out will probably create ahistorical rivalries in the Baltic. As well as eliminate recreations of some of the most impressive battles and campaigns of the middle-ages (Peipus, Tannenberg, the thirteen-years war)
:no:

No game/mod is 100% perfect (realistic).

Miloshus
12-29-2006, 14:47
Forgot to ask; Is there America?
Are there any Aztecs? :beam:

saapas
12-29-2006, 15:30
Forgot to ask; Is there America?
Are there any Aztecs? :beam:
No.

kataphraktoi
12-29-2006, 17:54
the volga-bulgars were erased from history 150 after the start of your mod.
the khanate of transoxania and the timurids should be merged into one faction.
why did the berbers make the cut and not the Knights Hospitaler (the Christian World's naval-piratical force).
leaving the Teutons out will probably create ahistorical rivalries in the Baltic. As well as eliminate recreations of some of the most impressive battles and campaigns of the middle-ages (Peipus, Tannenberg, the thirteen-years war)

Item 1:
Lets see why people like games like MTW2
- to relive history
- to change history

Who says Volga Bulgars have to disappear 150 years after the mod?

In the game, sometimes factions get finished off, but you won't call that unrealistic, thats because alternate history always gets created in a game like MTW2

Item 2:
Khanate of Transoxiana and Timurids are kept separate because of two different dynamics, Transoxiana resists the Mongols (uf survive till the emergence of the Mongols), Timurids emerge from Mongols.

Item 3:
Because Berbers were very influential as a MUSLIM naval piratical force (something not represented in most mods) - plus we need a counter-balance to the Normans and the Venetians.

Item 4:
Crusaders are nice, but no space and.....well, we'd rather have playable factions with 3 emerging factions as enough already.

Item 5:
Well, this map is not everyone's cup of tea. Thats life.

Tellos Athenaios
12-29-2006, 18:54
Bohemia is going to have a hard time... surviving. :ballchain:

Cousin Zoidfarb
12-29-2006, 22:23
the volga bulgars were a minor state and had little impact on history.
the teutonic knights shaped modern europe.
the khanate of transoxania? never heard of it, name one historical ruler of this nation.

kataphraktoi
12-30-2006, 02:20
the volga bulgars were a minor state and had little impact on history.
the teutonic knights shaped modern europe.
the khanate of transoxania? never heard of it, name one historical ruler of this nation.

Unimportant for the ignorant...perhaps you'd like to go up against Orda Khan?

Volga Bulgar was a prosperous Muslim state on the Volga which recieved its cultural nourishment from the resplendent Abbasid Caliphate. It was a major trading center in Bolgar and had several cities prosperous from trade. Not to mention that they resisted the Kievan Rus instead of crumbling like the Khazars.

Well, look, we don't cater to personal preferences, if u like the Teutonic Knights, good for you, we're not including them. We don't make miracles, we can't crack the faction limit. So stop asking as to add factions on a whim.

Khanate of Transoxiana represents various dynasties which include the Qara-Khanids, the Khwarazmians, the Chagatai Khanate. Most important of all, its rich wealth and prosperity of the region supported powerful states in the past like the Samanids, the Saffirids, etc, etc. Even Timurlane had his capital in that region because it was wealthy. Moreover, Bukhara was an importnat Islamic city and even considered a holy one.

Cousin Zoidfarb
12-30-2006, 16:49
Unimportant for the ignorant exactly.

The teutonic order controlled a large amount of territory in the baltic at their peak.
The teutonic order's political state survived the middle ages and transformed itself, by various political manouvers into one of the most powerful states of modern times, Prussia.
The most famous conflicts by three of the factions already included in the mod (Poland, Lithuania and Novgorod) were against the teutonic order and not against the HRE.
I agree The Volga Bulgars had a rich state and were a great cultural center but in this time frame, short-lived due to the mogols obliterating them from the world around 1220. A rebel province would do them justice.

Khanate of Transoxania? unrealistic, ahistorical, isn't realism the objective of this mod? But If the objective is a generic Transoxanian faction why don't you include the Timurids in this one, save one faction slot.

Hody
12-30-2006, 17:49
oh thx god bohemia has the go!

are you going to implements hussite war wagons btw, Ive seen in some modding tutorial the way how to create them.

mayhem87
12-30-2006, 20:08
( ---> to Hody, in czech language)
Nemyslim si že tam ty válečný vozy daj....už sem se na to ptal a nikdo mi neodpověděl ( samozřejmě anglicky ;-) ) . A taky si nejsem jistej že čeští válečníci budou v husitskym stylu, protože to začlo až roku 1408 (myslim) a to už bude skoro konec módu. Ale těšim se na to. Ať žijou země koruny české :)

Tellos Athenaios
12-30-2006, 21:28
The teutonic order controlled a large amount of territory in the baltic at their peak.
The teutonic order's political state survived the middle ages and transformed itself, by various political manouvers into one of the most powerful states of modern times, Prussia.
The most famous conflicts by three of the factions already included in the mod (Poland, Lithuania and Novgorod) were against the teutonic order and not against the HRE.


Of course the teutonic order was very important. But so were the Knights of Sint John (Hospitallers if you like that better), and more important than the former: so were the Templar Knights too. True, perhaps they never wielded such a great power as their Teutonic colleagues and rivals but the point remains: why should you have the Teutonic knights in per se. In fact, the Templar Knight played a far more significant role (mainly as a sort of international bank) in Medieval times.

If we're on to famous conflicts: well the conflicts between France and the Templars Knights are quite famous too. And the only true conflict between the Crusader states and their Muslim neighbours eventually turned out to be (for the most part) conflicts between the Muslims and the Templar Knights.

If I may continue your line of thought (that one about being erased from history): didn't the forces of Novgorod, Poland and Lithuania eventually simply erase the order from the map?

Now, IMO: there is no reason to maintain that the order definitely needs to be in as a seperate faction. However, it would be very good idea to include them as a Guild (which is exactly what they were, just a very powerful one that's all).

Btw, I'm rather curious about your Prussia statement.

And on a side note: if there should be any change in map make up, I'd suggest you do something about the Turks. AFAIK they weren't exactly... united?

Arkatsson
12-30-2006, 22:41
Wow! My father has always been a fan of RTR I might try MTW 2 MTR.

FrantzITA
12-30-2006, 23:55
I also think that the Teutonic order should be included ... almost for a incredible "what if" that is even more interesting of the overrated mongol invasion of europe ... what if the order had extended a strong influence on the slavs population of russia ? imagine Novgorod being conquered for example ... we are talking probably of a different history of Russia and of Europe ... while the Templars are perfectly suited to be used with the guild ,they were erased "by law" ( and "for money ") from the french king because they were saw as a cancer .

Of course thats my opinion ...who work and spend hours making the mod have all the right to do what they want .

Cousin Zoidfarb
12-30-2006, 23:56
Tellos Athenaios, I agree that the Knights of St-John were very important militarily and I am in favor of putting them as an independant faction as well. The Knights of St-John on the offensive attacked muslim shipping with their navy. Defensively they were beseiged by the turks at Rhodes and Malta, they even faced Timur in an Anatolian outpost.

After the fall of Outremer most of the Holy Orders fought independantly and not under the command of another sovereign, with exceptions (Nicopolis, Lepanto). Keeping the Holy Orders as Units of a faction may create the unrealistic situation where England with some Templars in the army will fight against France with some Templars in the Army as well.

The French King resolved his conflict with the Templars by rounding them up in his kingdom, no pitched battle was fought.

Now, briefly, the Teutonic Knights first were stationed in the Holy Land, then moved to Hungary to face the Cuman threat around 1200, the Hungarian king sensed treachery and expelled them, they then were invited by the duke of Mazovia, in divided Poland to help subjugate the pagan Prussians, a baltic tribe. They were trounced in Lake Peipus by Nevsky of Novgorod in the middle 13th century. Exploiting a divided Poland their power grew. Later as the Golden Horde's territories began to recede, Lithuania filled the power vacuum swallowing up the western russian pribncipalities. Poland was reunited and began expanding toward the mouth of the Vistula. The two Catholic states of Poland and the Teutonic order were now in open conflict. Pagan Lithuania also bore the brunt of the Teutonic Order who had the help of Western Crusaders who since Outremer was lost found it easier to take part in the Baltic Crusades. As an aside the 'knight in Chaucer's Cantebury Tales goes on a crusade in prusse instead of the Holy Land. Having the same enemy in the Teutonic Order, Poland and Lithuania, previous enemies entered a dynastic union. The year now is 1410, The combined forces of Poland, Lithuania, some Russian principalities and Czech mercenaries devastate the Teutonic Knights at Tannenberg. The Polish King, the Lithuanian Jagiello, fails to capitalize on the victory. Some think his motivation was by keeping the Teutonic Order alive he ensures Poland will not dominate Lithuania. Later another war takes place between Poland-Lithuania and the Teutonic Order. The Grand-MAster of the Teutonic Order sues for peace and accepts to be a vassal of the Polish King. When the Protestant reformation comes along the Teutonic Order converts to Lutheranism and takes the name of Ducal Prussia. Ducal Prussia enters a dynastic union with Brandenberg. Eventually The Polish -Lithuanian Commonwealth's power wanes in the 17th century after disastrous wars with Sweden, Muscuvy, Turkey, and the Zapohorzian Cossacks, Ducal Prussia gains independence from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and becomes the Prussia of Frederick the Great.

Sahran
12-31-2006, 01:05
Unimportant for the ignorant exactly.

The teutonic order controlled a large amount of territory in the baltic at their peak.
The teutonic order's political state survived the middle ages and transformed itself, by various political manouvers into one of the most powerful states of modern times, Prussia.
The most famous conflicts by three of the factions already included in the mod (Poland, Lithuania and Novgorod) were against the teutonic order and not against the HRE.
I agree The Volga Bulgars had a rich state and were a great cultural center but in this time frame, short-lived due to the mogols obliterating them from the world around 1220. A rebel province would do them justice.

Khanate of Transoxania? unrealistic, ahistorical, isn't realism the objective of this mod? But If the objective is a generic Transoxanian faction why don't you include the Timurids in this one, save one faction slot.

I just want to make a point that by insulting the team and insinuating that their decisions are completely unrealistic and ahistorical, you are eroding away at any sort of argument you could try and hold against them.

Everyone can interpret history and the importance of certain groups over another differently. Whereas in RTW the only serious debate was held amongst the divided barbarian tribes and groups like Parthia or the Carthaginians were obvious choices, amongst the terribly divided political map of Eurasia and Africa, it's a lot more difficult. You have your views, they have theirs. Just because you hold a different one does not make yours correct and their wrong, and neither is the reverse. This is their mod, their historical decision was made to omit the Teutons. They are not saying they weren't important, but in their view, the selection of the Volga-Bulgars or Transoxanian was more critical for the 31-faction limit than the Teutons. While you should debate and argue for their inclusion, you should not act like a know-it-all and treat them with contempt for their decision to exclude them.


And what really gets my goad is people like you saying that a generic Transoxanian faction would be fine, but demanding the greatest of divvying up of generic European Powers. Others will come along and say that We must include every major Northern-Italian city, but can just lump the Moors or Turks into some big unruly grouping because of their damned nationalism. While I admit there is logic in the inclusion of the Teutons, I dislike the idea that we can just do an ahistorical and bland generalization of a Muslim or Orthodox faction, but can never do so to a European power. The Khwarazmians played a large part in the affairs of the Mongol's arrival, and just because it doesn't involve the history of Europe doesn't mean it shouldn't be included (if not for the Khwarazmian's actions towards the Mongol Ambassador/Merchants, it's possible we would have seen a far later Mongol Invasion, or no Mongol Invasion at all.). Those more knowledgeable than I can and those on the team can testify to their importance in the region and to the historical development of the Middle East, and even through it, Europe.

Bakma
12-31-2006, 03:16
...
And on a side note: if there should be any change in map make up, I'd suggest you do something about the Turks. AFAIK they weren't exactly... united?

https://img57.imageshack.us/img57/7199/turkmap9vf.jpg

as you can see this is a map of turkic empires and the yellow empire is the seljuk empire and in the game they represant the turks in the early time period.

So i think the map which kataphraktoi postet is acceptable :yes:

Tellos Athenaios
12-31-2006, 03:48
The point is: officially all that belonged to the Sultan of Bagdad; de facto most emirs were independent. Just about since the day the first Seldjuk leader to controll such a large empire died the whole area was the stake of many, many smaller and larger succesion wars. Amin Maalouf once wrote a book in which he described the Crusades from an Muslim point of view, and according to the sources he used it was the fact that the Muslim world was so utterly devided that allowed for the Crusade's succes and persistence.

Btw, if you look closely you'll see I used the word 'if'. ~;)

Baldwin of Jerusalem
12-31-2006, 13:23
Im just wondering if everyone in the team was impressed as I was with the quality of unit skins in the vanilla release. I found them to be much better than RTW's initial releases, which were absolutely crying out to be modded in every conceivable way. Units like armoured sergeants and steppe cavalry look to be straight out of the history books as far as I can tell. To that end, how much are you going to change unit appearances? Im obviously not asking for an early preview or anything, Im just wondering if re-skinning is going to feature as prominently in MTR as it did in RTW. My only real complaint with them is that they are perhaps a little bright but that would be easily remedied. I ask this because with all the new factions proposed and because all of the units have multiple appearances due to armour upgrades now being visible on the battlefield, it could end up being a stupendous amount of work.

Cousin Zoidfarb
12-31-2006, 16:07
I just want to make a point that by insulting the team and insinuating that their decisions are completely unrealistic and ahistorical, you are eroding away at any sort of argument you could try and hold against them.

Everyone can interpret history and the importance of certain groups over another differently. Whereas in RTW the only serious debate was held amongst the divided barbarian tribes and groups like Parthia or the Carthaginians were obvious choices, amongst the terribly divided political map of Eurasia and Africa, it's a lot more difficult. You have your views, they have theirs. Just because you hold a different one does not make yours correct and their wrong, and neither is the reverse. This is their mod, their historical decision was made to omit the Teutons. They are not saying they weren't important, but in their view, the selection of the Volga-Bulgars or Transoxanian was more critical for the 31-faction limit than the Teutons. While you should debate and argue for their inclusion, you should not act like a know-it-all and treat them with contempt for their decision to exclude them.


And what really gets my goad is people like you saying that a generic Transoxanian faction would be fine, but demanding the greatest of divvying up of generic European Powers. Others will come along and say that We must include every major Northern-Italian city, but can just lump the Moors or Turks into some big unruly grouping because of their damned nationalism. While I admit there is logic in the inclusion of the Teutons, I dislike the idea that we can just do an ahistorical and bland generalization of a Muslim or Orthodox faction, but can never do so to a European power. The Khwarazmians played a large part in the affairs of the Mongol's arrival, and just because it doesn't involve the history of Europe doesn't mean it shouldn't be included (if not for the Khwarazmian's actions towards the Mongol Ambassador/Merchants, it's possible we would have seen a far later Mongol Invasion, or no Mongol Invasion at all.). Those more knowledgeable than I can and those on the team can testify to their importance in the region and to the historical development of the Middle East, and even through it, Europe.



I think they drew first blood.
Why are you mad at me? they are the ones that put in the generic 'Khanate of Transoxania', in previous posts I was for putting the Kharezmians in and stated that Iberian and Italian factions were overrepresented. At least a generic Transoxania is better than nothing at all.

Miloshus
01-03-2007, 20:24
I dont know about you, but i never heard of transoxiania. :inquisitive:
There are many other medieval factions more important than Transoxiania (like arfrisco said: burgundy, genoa, TO, ) ...

tito
01-04-2007, 20:43
hello?
Are you ok for an other african factio like sonkaI empire with tombocto as capital?
And for the map can you put a part of india and island as the rome total realism version
thank for you answer
And sorry for my poor english!

FrantzITA
01-04-2007, 21:37
Sure they are planning to remove France to make room for the sonkal empire :book: ( ok thats a low blow ... )

Icefrisco
01-04-2007, 22:14
transoxiana didnt exist! it was a province of the persian kwarazm empire. it would be be like adding saxony as a nation because it was a province of the hre!

tito
01-05-2007, 09:57
And for the map can you put a part of india and island as the rome total realism version?

mayhem87
01-05-2007, 10:27
And can you put a China and Japan too? ;-)))))

tito
01-05-2007, 11:56
afganistan and the north of india too!

kataphraktoi
01-05-2007, 13:21
The name of this mod is total realism right? So it should include Antartica, you should not call your mod total realism if it does not have Antartica and those cute Penguins, yes, it is not historically accurate if you don't have Heavy infantry Penguin Halberdiers.

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

mayhem87
01-05-2007, 15:35
looool :laugh4: :laugh4: and I want there shimbali tribe soldiers....they were from desert and they were very fierce wariors. theyr village was able to field 1 fully equiped ( straw shields and sticks ) unit containing 12 men per year....
they totaly deserve to be added .... better than some worthless Holy Roman Empire or France ;-D

tnick777
01-05-2007, 18:11
Has nobody mentioned Serbia??? I think that's ridiculous.

Sarmatian
01-05-2007, 18:36
Has nobody mentioned Serbia??? I think that's ridiculous.

While you are totally OK with norway?

You should da a bit of :book: :book: :book: , and maybe you wouldn't look like a totatl :clown: :clown: :clown:

tito
01-05-2007, 21:25
no challange in africa...well!
And ethiopia,oman instead of volga bulgaria?

Innocentius
01-08-2007, 01:30
With the risk of sounding stupid (as I don't own and never have played M2TW):
I recall the capital of Finland being Helsinki in vanilla M2TW? Will this be changed (along with many other unhistorical castles/cities)?

saapas
01-08-2007, 10:41
I'd guess it's save to say that they will be changed.

DespotSRB
01-09-2007, 12:30
Has nobody mentioned Serbia??? I think that's ridiculous.

Try to find out something about Serbia in mid 14th centery and then ask yourseld if it's ridicolous to put it in.
Fact is this mod needs orthodox factions and that more factions need to be in Balkans to oppose Byzantine empire.
There is every reason for Serbia to be in the mod and i storngly support it.

Ulven
01-09-2007, 16:26
What settlement will represent all of Norway? And: Any chance of Norway being divided into three regions? Bjørgvin (Bergen), Oslo and Nidaros (Trondheim)? Bjørgvin was essential for trade back then and Nidaros/Trondheim was extremely important also especially in a religious sense. Lots of Christians went there on pilgrimage and it had it's own Cathedral (Nidarosdomen).

Hope the region-limit doesn't prevent this and that you at least consider it as both Bjørgvin and Nidaros were just as essential as Oslo and Norway wouldn't really be Norway without them :viking:

Good luck on your project and I'll be playing it and probably enjoying it vastly no matter what your decision on Norway may be :)

Innocentius
01-09-2007, 17:07
Yes, I agree with Ulven in that the Scandinavian provinces and Finland has perhaps not been properly divided. Really, the map should be somewhat extended northwards so that there could be two provinces in Finland (Turku and Hämeenlinna for example). Also, Sweden should really be divided into Ostrogothia (preferably with Kalmar as capital) and Westerogothia with either Skara or Lödöse as capital.

hashat
01-10-2007, 13:19
Hello

Question about Volga Bulgarian nation.

You state that they were muslim nation. I am a Bulgarian, ergo descendant from Volga bulgarians.
Well I have no history skills but I do remember from my history lessions from high school that my anscestors had some sort of paganic religion.

Can you please give me the link or the name of the book that states that the volga bulgarians were muslims?

Bakma
01-10-2007, 23:19
Hello

Question about Volga Bulgarian nation.

You state that they were muslim nation. I am a Bulgarian, ergo descendant from Volga bulgarians.
Well I have no history skills but I do remember from my history lessions from high school that my anscestors had some sort of paganic religion.

Can you please give me the link or the name of the book that states that the volga bulgarians were muslims?

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/russia/volgabulg.html
http://www.bookrags.com/Ahmad_ibn_Fadlan
http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Bulgars,+Eastern

Icefrisco
01-10-2007, 23:50
i want to have the caucaus allaince in the game! it wont be added becasue this mod is so westcentric!

i also want caokin sword warriors(their really cool trust me, there was 12 of them!):wall:

i also want the causcuases to be divided into 40-50 provinces because in the year 1243 the causcuases had a third of the population of western europe so they should have just as many provinces as europe does!:wall:

also the dynasty of ku-ku-kachoo must be in! most western historians dont talk about them but they had a huge impact!:dizzy2: they dominated the caucauses during the winter of 1230! they also stopped the mongol invasion! europe would have been ransacked if it werent for the caucuases and the ku-ku-kachoo! thank the lord. the ku-ku-kachoo also had colonies which made them a major empire! they controlled the horkey islands in the black sea just the the norwegians controlled the orkneys so if norways in the caucause allaince must be. i no that the hre wasnt inportant enough to be in the mod because theres so many catholic factions and they didnt do anything in the middle ages! the mod shouldnt be called medieval:total realism it should be called medieval:total bad unrealism! my knwoledge outdoes that of any modder!

the caucause allaince was ju-ju-bee shamanist so can it be added as a religion? will the map be much bigger in the caucauses because in vanilla it was much to small! i want tit to be the size of russia!
geese,geese, i just want a little from this mod, can the caucaus allaince be taken into considereation?

well, does is this crap(no,its really crap) familiar? i have copied just about all this from people who have been commenting in the threads for mtr except i changed faction names. according to some people the volga-bulgars stopped the mongol invasion, russia had a third the population of europe so it should have at least 40-50 more provinces then it has in mtr,norway had a major empire comparable to the hre because it controlled a few island chains in britain, france was not important enough to be in a realism mod, and i have seen more then three dozen people say the mod should change its name. i just though it would be funny to see the stupidy that people dare to write.

Renown
01-11-2007, 05:44
I bet you'd also argue against oh, hell.. Rostov-Suzdal, or.. even the Sultanate of Rum, or even the Fatamids or... what about a Taifa state in spain... or a non-Moorish north african faction... or anything that doesnt suit what YOU want.

Let me tell you Afrisco... the moment you can create, or produce any piece of work, feel free to start your own mod.

Until then I say you bend over and kiss the ground where the modders walk, otherwise you are stuck with vanilla MTW2.

Note* do not confuse me to be an MTR member. I belong to another mod, but I feel bad for the constant ... nonsense you are giving them.

Instead, say thank you, be nice, and you will get what they give you.

Orm the Red
02-13-2007, 07:13
The name of this mod is total realism right? So it should include Antartica, you should not call your mod total realism if it does not have Antartica and those cute Penguins, yes, it is not historically accurate if you don't have Heavy infantry Penguin Halberdiers.



The pengiuns didn't field halberdiers....

:book:

or did they?

Anyways I just wanted to say to keep up the good work and ignore all people whining over which factions are worthy and which aren't.

nekrotyrael
02-14-2007, 01:10
bump for arfrisco :)

Anarzius
02-22-2007, 17:17
...

Apoc
02-27-2007, 10:58
Oslo, was called Kristiania, at least not Oslo.

It was called Oslo - it was renamed Christiania in 1624, Kristiania in 1878, and back to Oslo in 1925.

Anarzius
02-28-2007, 23:01
...

Lothar
03-01-2007, 01:35
very nice list, too bad u missed one important factor in the balkans. since serbia and valachia were important oposing states to the rise of the otoman empire you should at least put one of them. too many muslim factions, ortodox religion although it was not liked by the pope it was accepted in the holy league. nations like valachia, moldavia, serbia (early middle age) where important to keep the otoman empire at bay. if the siege of belgrad would have ended with otoman victory that means vienna would have been conquered, changing history as we know it... serbians and transilvanians (with support from moldavia and valachia) under the rule of Iancu Corvine de Hunedoara fought back the turks at belgrad, Iancu died after the battle because of the plague in the city. missing these important factors means otoman empire can expand easily in the balkans and towards central europe. at least make them as trigger events, valachia in 1330 defeats hungary, becomes independent and later faces baiazid at rovine, stoping the otoman expansion at the line of danube...

Innocentius
03-01-2007, 16:45
very nice list, too bad u missed one important factor in the balkans. since serbia and valachia were important oposing states to the rise of the otoman empire you should at least put one of them. too many muslim factions, ortodox religion although it was not liked by the pope it was accepted in the holy league. nations like valachia, moldavia, serbia (early middle age) where important to keep the otoman empire at bay. if the siege of belgrad would have ended with otoman victory that means vienna would have been conquered, changing history as we know it... serbians and transilvanians (with support from moldavia and valachia) under the rule of Iancu Corvine de Hunedoara fought back the turks at belgrad, Iancu died after the battle because of the plague in the city. missing these important factors means otoman empire can expand easily in the balkans and towards central europe. at least make them as trigger events, valachia in 1330 defeats hungary, becomes independent and later faces baiazid at rovine, stoping the otoman expansion at the line of danube...

Well, the Ottoman Turks did not appear untill the 13th century and they're not in the mod so no worries there. And Serbia is in the mod.

Anarzius
03-01-2007, 20:10
...

AnthoniusII
03-02-2007, 11:13
But please, if the mod starts in 1066 (it does?), the Roman Empire is more than strong enought to hold off the Seljuqs, at least if the player is decent...:laugh4:

Kul att det finns fler svenskar här:yes:
I agree with you...Byzantine empire didn't loose it's provinces not by external dangers but incide colaption thanks of civil wars.Even the worst emperors had the half of earths gold in their volts and the only real tactical army in europe.

Innocentius
03-02-2007, 12:37
I agree with you...Byzantine empire didn't loose it's provinces not by external dangers but incide colaption thanks of civil wars.Even the worst emperors had the half of earths gold in their volts and the only real tactical army in europe.

A bit biased perhaps?

AnthoniusII
03-02-2007, 16:16
A bit biased perhaps?
This is not my personal opinion!!!!It was Ostrogorsky's opinion,if you know what I mean!!!Civil wars and local rebelions thanks to heavily taxation where the factors of the East Roman Empire's colaption!!!I personaly have no reasons to disagree with the greatest historian of the 20th centhury...

Innocentius
03-02-2007, 17:16
I wasn't talking about that, what I was talking about was that you claimed the Byzantine army to be the only in Europe that used tactics, which is absolute nonsense.

AnthoniusII
03-02-2007, 19:14
I wasn't talking about that, what I was talking about was that you claimed the Byzantine army to be the only in Europe that used tactics, which is absolute nonsense.
When western medeival lords came against byzantine army in early medeival times called the byzantines sniky and cowerd becaouse they used tactics,manouvres and ambouses.Acording to their custom of war chivalry ment close combat one to one and furius cavalry charges.Roman heritege was lost in western europe.Thats why suffered many losses at the first crusade by the turks...Byzantine units continued to have spesific units and uniforms(not armors).According to the byzantine military code a general laeding a province had to give to the local reqruit soldiers helmets,spears,cotton or woolen uniforms(same colored)and bows...Armors where bought by the soldiers."Tactics"by LEON IV THE WISE 9th centhury.
Information by THE BYZANTINE HISTORY of OSTROGORSKY.P.S.Units like "bandums"(battalions),"meroi"(divisions)simply didn't exist in europe since the ottomans..About tactics:the east roman empire still had military scools for lower and midlle rank officers.Scholai imperial battalion was a scool like this even this was also an ellite unit.There where an amount of writen "orders" for every case.Tactics as we know them today used in the 100years war between England and France.Foolish charges are not tactics.The most famous examble is the Hattin battle.

Innocentius
03-02-2007, 20:55
When western medeival lords came against byzantine army in early medeival times called the byzantines sniky and cowerd becaouse they used tactics,manouvres and ambouses.Acording to their custom of war chivalry ment close combat one to one and furius cavalry charges.Roman heritege was lost in western europe.Thats why suffered many losses at the first crusade by the turks...Byzantine units continued to have spesific units and uniforms(not armors).According to the byzantine military code a general laeding a province had to give to the local reqruit soldiers helmets,spears,cotton or woolen uniforms(same colored)and bows...Armors where bought by the soldiers."Tactics"by LEON IV THE WISE 9th centhury.
Information by THE BYZANTINE HISTORY of OSTROGORSKY.P.S.Units like "bandums"(battalions),"meroi"(divisions)simply didn't exist in europe since the ottomans..About tactics:the east roman empire still had military scools for lower and midlle rank officers.Scholai imperial battalion was a scool like this even this was also an ellite unit.There where an amount of writen "orders" for every case.Tactics as we know them today used in the 100years war between England and France.Foolish charges are not tactics.The most famous examble is the Hattin battle.

I don't know what kind of books you've read that states that European knights fought entirely as individuals who could do nothing but charge, but that sounds very much like seriously out-dated 20th or even 19th century research. Pretty much everyone in Europe was aware that a head-first charge against a wall of spears and a volley of bolts wasn't a very good idea. Richard Couer de Lion for one had very efficient spear/pavise crossbowmen infantry that proved effective against Saladin in the 3rd crusade.
Sure, cavalry charges were common, but they were not "furious" (although ocasionally foolish) and they were not always attempted. Roman heritage was far from forgotten in Europe; the things that eventually overthrew the Romans were put to great use (i.e. cavalry and missile infantry).

I wonder where this myth of the barbarian westeners and way, way superior easteners originates from. Since it is in fact so that each region develops its military tactics as is fit. The crusaders were defeated quite often in the Holy Land (like at the Horns of Hattin) since they were using tactics that worked where they came from (and the fact that they were always rather badly outnumbered). On the other hand, the crusader castles proved invincible more often than not, even to Saladin.

Kavhan Isbul
03-02-2007, 21:14
Anthonius I believe tries to point out that the art of war was a science in Constantinople, and that the Eastern Roman commanders had more theoretical training than their Western counterparts. Now theory is one thing, and practice another, as evidenced by history, wehere not every single Eastern Roman Emperor was a great tactician - some were, and some were not. The Eastern Romans devoted considerable effort to study their enemies, devising manuals for dealing with them and copying successfull tactics and weapons. However, as evidenced by the plentiful defeats they had to endure against pretty much all their neighbors, great theoretical knowledge and training was not enough to ensure victory. Anthonius has a good point about overtaxation creating internal dissent and helping bring about the collapse of the Empire, but I think he should also consider giving the deserved credit to the Byzantine enemies', especially since one of these enemies succeeded in creating an Empire of proportions, similar tot hos of the Eastern Roman Empire at the end of Justinian's reign. At the end Western and Turkish tactics and military technology simply proved to be better.

AnthoniusII
03-03-2007, 13:08
Anthonius I believe tries to point out that the art of war was a science in Constantinople, and that the Eastern Roman commanders had more theoretical training than their Western counterparts. Now theory is one thing, and practice another, as evidenced by history, wehere not every single Eastern Roman Emperor was a great tactician - some were, and some were not. The Eastern Romans devoted considerable effort to study their enemies, devising manuals for dealing with them and copying successfull tactics and weapons. However, as evidenced by the plentiful defeats they had to endure against pretty much all their neighbors, great theoretical knowledge and training was not enough to ensure victory. Anthonius has a good point about overtaxation creating internal dissent and helping bring about the collapse of the Empire, but I think he should also consider giving the deserved credit to the Byzantine enemies', especially since one of these enemies succeeded in creating an Empire of proportions, similar tot hos of the Eastern Roman Empire at the end of Justinian's reign. At the end Western and Turkish tactics and military technology simply proved to be better.
You have a point when you say that in the end other factions overcome the art of war the byzantines.Economical reasons but most of all the way they saw the world as part of thinging forced them to stick to nonmodern ways of life and war.Even they had artilery in the last years of the empires life they didn't have clear tactics for it.For examle the first nations developded artilery tactics where a:the ottomans,b:the french.According to arabs and byzantine historians of medeival time western military thinging focused around chivalry (bravery) and force of strait attack.Westerns beleived that bravery solves any problem in the battlefield and the opponets should behaive the same way.All other ways of thinging where ways of sniky and cowerd.The only sence of tactics they had was obout whedge or square formations...They didn't understand mouvements on the battlefield etc...When crousaders of the 1st crudade arrived outside the huge fortifided eastern cities asked byzantines for help.Anthioch falled whith ageement and not by asault...Do you see my point?

Innocentius
03-03-2007, 14:46
You have a point when you say that in the end other factions overcome the art of war the byzantines.Economical reasons but most of all the way they saw the world as part of thinging forced them to stick to nonmodern ways of life and war.Even they had artilery in the last years of the empires life they didn't have clear tactics for it.For examle the first nations developded artilery tactics where a:the ottomans,b:the french.According to arabs and byzantine historians of medeival time western military thinging focused around chivalry (bravery) and force of strait attack.Westerns beleived that bravery solves any problem in the battlefield and the opponets should behaive the same way.All other ways of thinging where ways of sniky and cowerd.The only sence of tactics they had was obout whedge or square formations...They didn't understand mouvements on the battlefield etc...When crousaders of the 1st crudade arrived outside the huge fortifided eastern cities asked byzantines for help.Anthioch falled whith ageement and not by asault...Do you see my point?

Did you even bother to read what I just wrote about two posts above?

Of course the understood manouvers on the battlefield! That's why Richard I and the Italian city-states developed their infantry and crossbow-heavy armies that could counter cavalry. The crusaders themselves were also very quick to adopt (at least somewhat) to the Saracen way of fighting. Their foot-archers and crossbowmen were often able to drive off harassing bands of horse archers, and they hired turcopoles themselves. There are also Saracen reports from the 12th century reporting how the crusaders appeared as hedgehogs as they were simply covered in arrows that did not manage to penetrate - but got stuck in - their maille.
If they asked the Byzantines for help that's no wonder, as the crusaders were an isolated army on enemy ground. Of course they could use some help of the powerful neighbour they had?

Kavhan Isbul
03-04-2007, 21:36
Innocentius, I agree that it would be overly-simplistic to stamp all westerners as poor tacticians, but while I am certain that they all had a good understanding of battlefield movements, the history of the Crusades is full of examples of Heavy Knights craging recklessly into the enemy, falling into ambushes and suffering defeat.
For example, after the fall of Constantinople, the newly proclaimed Latin Empire decided that it felt powerful enough to immediately go in war with its neighbor Bulgaria, despite the fact that nominally Bulgaria was Catholic and the Pope warned the Latins to remain in piece. When the armies met in front of the walls of Adrianople, the Bulgarian Tzar deployed his infantry in the swamps and forests arounf the Maritza river, and sent his auxilliary Cuman cavalry to harass the Crusaders. Apparently all the knights decided to try to charge the Cumans without waiting for any of their other troops, and the whole Latin cavalry simply took off after the Cumans without even holding its formation, falling into the ambush in the swamps and forests, which all resulted in a disastrous defeat, in which the Emperor Baldwin himself was captured.
Several years later, there was another battle between the Bulgarians and the Latins in front of Plovdiv. The Bulgarians pulled the same trick and the Latins fell for it again, which comes to show that Western Knights who faced eastern armies simply showed a complete disregard for tactical movement and relied heavily on their devastating charges.
To further illustrate the point, the lack of discipline of such Knights brought about the catastrophic losses for the Christians against the Ottomans in battles of Nicopolis and Varna. Apparently, the Western Knights chose to ignore lessons learned in the past.

Innocentius
03-04-2007, 22:36
I see your point there Kavhan Isbul and I know that European knights did commit some very foolish charges (like at Lake Peipus or Durbe to add more to the list). What I reacted in the first place was the statement that Byzantium was the only kingdom/empire in Europe that used tactics.

Nicopolis however is a very interesting battle. By this time most Europeans must have learnt that cavalry charges weren't very effective thanks to such battles as Bannockburn, Courtrai, Morgarten, Crécy and Poitiers, yet the "Franks" still managed to inflict relatively high casualties on the Ottomans.

Kavhan Isbul
03-05-2007, 05:08
I see your point there Kavhan Isbul and I know that European knights did commit some very foolish charges (like at Lake Peipus or Durbe to add more to the list). What I reacted in the first place was the statement that Byzantium was the only kingdom/empire in Europe that used tactics.

Nicopolis however is a very interesting battle. By this time most Europeans must have learnt that cavalry charges weren't very effective thanks to such battles as Bannockburn, Courtrai, Morgarten, Crécy and Poitiers, yet the "Franks" still managed to inflict relatively high casualties on the Ottomans.

Nicopolis is interesting in showing that heavy cavalry can indeed decide battles, only if used properly. The French Knights, despite inflicting serious casualties on the Ottomans, eventually were one of the main reasons for the battle's outcome, and at the same time the Serbian Heavy Cavalry's charge was another main reason why the Christians lost that day, as ironic as this was.
There is no absolute rule, and most deffinitely each medieval army had a commander with some tactical skills and knowledge, but sound tactical decisions seem to have often been ignored by over-confident Western Knights. But Byzantine and other Eastern Armies had their share of foolish charges too, just perhaps not that many as the ones for the Westerners combined.

AnthoniusII
03-05-2007, 15:57
I fill that i must explain my self...Historians expert in medeival era gave us the main differences betweeen byzantine and european armies of that time. Proffesional groups of soldiers existed all over the world all of eras.The main difference was that in byzantine armies still existed the ancient greek and roman sence of soldier reqruiting and unit separation like companies,battalions,divisions and army groups placed in specific military areas called themata for example.Western leaders also had a number of proffesional eskorts like sergents owned by them and not by the kingdom they served.Byzantine units proffetional or not where part of the empire's army owned by the emperor and not by their general.Generals where state's clerks and not semiindipantand vassals.A byzantine general could recongnise a unit by the colour of it's uniforms and by the shield drawings they had.For example let's imagine a division(meros) part of a thematic army group,having red as formal colour.All sub units have the same colours in uniform and on their shields.Each battalion (vandum) had it's own drawing on it's shields.A new general even from the other side of the empire could take over the managment of this numper of units and used them properly with or whithout any other emperial units like his one.Both thematic and main army groups had a numper of auxiliary units like engineers,smithers and supplay units as part of it.THIS style of army didn't exist in west europe.Vassals had to privide their armies and had the final word in their use.THAT is not what we call regular and tactical army.About tactical and stradegic manouevrability...Eastern generals byzantine,arabic even persian had a varaity of books and studies about stradegic planing and field unit development to help them to create their own style of battle.Noone can claim that there where no briliant army leaders in europe!!!There is no human race that is create only fools or genius.The huge difference was that in byzantine army elite units existed also like schools for senior army laeders, same way centurions existed in late republic and imperial roman armies... First time western lords had access in stadegic studies was after the fall of Constandinople and final after the fall of Granada.Sun gu apears as a name in europe in that time.Historians like ostrogorsky and others insist that the last regular(tactic)army in medeival era was the ottoman one copying the forgoten at that time byzantine style.Military education in military leaders in europe became fasion in renaisance.In medeival era a leader in europe relaide in his personal experience and he didn't share it whith others!!!:book:

Anarzius
03-07-2007, 17:31
...

Innocentius
03-07-2007, 19:10
But please do not use the word "Byzantine", it's wrong:whip:

Why not? It's an effective term that most people understand. I see no reason not to use it.

DukeofSerbia
03-07-2007, 19:55
Nicopolis is interesting in showing that heavy cavalry can indeed decide battles, only if used properly. The French Knights, despite inflicting serious casualties on the Ottomans, eventually were one of the main reasons for the battle's outcome, and at the same time the Serbian Heavy Cavalry's charge was another main reason why the Christians lost that day, as ironic as this was.


True. Our knights under prince Stefan smashed Hungarian center (that decided battle), which caused total anarchy in Crusading army. And we had reasons - those knights all the way pillaged through Serbia in way to Nicopolis.:book:

Vazul's Ghost
03-08-2007, 14:33
OK, I know this seems off topic as this thread seems to have strayed from faction list discussion, and this could already have been covered in a previouse thread but i have to ask...

What about bulgaria as a faction?! I obviously don't mean volga bulgaria but Bulgaria. To my knowledge (which is no where near as vast as people like dukeofserbia, so feel free to eat me alive for this:shame: ) factions like serbia seemed to alternate between being controlled by the ottomans or being protected by hungary, apart from their fourty years as the serbian empire. Meanwhile bulgaria remained militarily, economically, and politically (or royally however you wish to put it) independent far more of the time. For example, the second Bulgarian empire proved to be a major thorn in the side of the hungarians and Rus. This is just speculation... and faction proposels seem to be a dead topic, just thought i should mention it...

Anarzius
03-08-2007, 18:24
...

Kavhan Isbul
03-08-2007, 18:25
OK, I know this seems off topic as this thread seems to have strayed from faction list discussion, and this could already have been covered in a previouse thread but i have to ask...

What about bulgaria as a faction?! I obviously don't mean volga bulgaria but Bulgaria. To my knowledge (which is no where near as vast as people like dukeofserbia, so feel free to eat me alive for this:shame: ) factions like serbia seemed to alternate between being controlled by the ottomans or being protected by hungary, apart from their fourty years as the serbian empire. Meanwhile bulgaria remained militarily, economically, and politically (or royally however you wish to put it) independent far more of the time. For example, the second Bulgarian empire proved to be a major thorn in the side of the hungarians and Rus. This is just speculation... and faction proposels seem to be a dead topic, just thought i should mention it...

The problem with Bulgaria is that it did not exist in 1080, but acquired its independence a century later. After that Bulgaria did not have any confrontation with the Rus, as the Cumans were between Bulgaria and the Russian principalities, but Bulgaria was indeed a major thorn in the side of the Hungarians and the Eastern Romans, and played a crucial role in destroying the short-lived Latin Empire, succeeding where the Eastern Roman Empire failed - in defeating the 4th Crusade. Due to the starting date for the campaign unfortunately it is hard to include Bulgaria as a faction. The good thing about this particular mod is that the Balkans are better represented in comparison to other mods, thanks to the team here consisting of open-minded people with a good knowledge of history (unlike one other pathetic western-centric modding team I can immediately think of).

Innocentius
03-08-2007, 19:43
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=81066

So you're also suggesting we drop things as the "Hundred Years' War", "The Wars of the Roses" and "Nazi-Germany"?

Sarmatian
03-08-2007, 19:43
factions like serbia seemed to alternate between being controlled by the ottomans or being protected by hungary, apart from their fourty years as the serbian empire.

Nope. That happened in 15th century. After the battle of kosovo, serbia became ottoman vassal, than was independent for a little while after the ottoman defeat at angora (ankara) before becoming vassal of hungary. Before that, during the serbian empire and serbian kingdom, serbia was independent in full sense of the word.

Vazul's Ghost
03-08-2007, 21:57
OK, thanks for the replys. I new there would be somethig that would throw the spanner in my bulgarian works.:embarassed:

Randarkmaan
03-10-2007, 11:51
The assumption that the Crusaders always were overconfident and commited foolish charges is not always true, many times it seems to have been the exact opposite. If any of you have read Usamah ibn Munqidh's memoirs you will know what I mean, one of the things he recognizes in the Franks (crusaders/europeans) is their bravery, lack of jealousy and passion and their cautiousness in matters of war as well as their weird medicine. There is one instance of a small Muslim force being attacked and routed by a similarly sized Frankish force, but fearing an ambush because the flight of the Muslims could be a feigned retreat the Franks do not pursue and instead stay put, and if I recall correctly this Frankish force is later attacked and destroyed, whereas if it had pursued the Muslims they would have destroyed them (the muslims).
Individual bravery and valour was important in Western military thinking, because pitched battles were relatively rare and most clashes were either sieges or skirmishes between mounted elite troops, pitched battles were often avoided because it was difficult to maintain order and get one's orders through which lead to heavy and unneccesary casualties on both parts. Among the Muslim and Byzantine militaries pitched battles (or rather large battles) may have been more common, because of more focus on military theory and the fact that in these armies professionals were more common, anyway skirmishes, as seen in Western Europe, were more common than pitched battles, at least in the Middle East.

AnthoniusII
03-10-2007, 13:07
The assumption that the Crusaders always were overconfident and commited foolish charges is not always true, many times it seems to have been the exact opposite. If any of you have read Usamah ibn Munqidh's memoirs you will know what I mean, one of the things he recognizes in the Franks (crusaders/europeans) is their bravery, lack of jealousy and passion and their cautiousness in matters of war as well as their weird medicine. There is one instance of a small Muslim force being attacked and routed by a similarly sized Frankish force, but fearing an ambush because the flight of the Muslims could be a feigned retreat the Franks do not pursue and instead stay put, and if I recall correctly this Frankish force is later attacked and destroyed, whereas if it had pursued the Muslims they would have destroyed them (the muslims).
Individual bravery and valour was important in Western military thinking, because pitched battles were relatively rare and most clashes were either sieges or skirmishes between mounted elite troops, pitched battles were often avoided because it was difficult to maintain order and get one's orders through which lead to heavy and unneccesary casualties on both parts. Among the Muslim and Byzantine militaries pitched battles (or rather large battles) may have been more common, because of more focus on military theory and the fact that in these armies professionals were more common, anyway skirmishes, as seen in Western Europe, were more common than pitched battles, at least in the Middle East.
That's what I was trying to say too...Heritage of clobal wars in the past (clasical era,hellenistic,roman and persian knolege of warfare) gave eastern generals a better military education than the western ones.You are right when you say that bravery was very important for western fighters.In Alexiad is writen that they where heavily armed, their attack was irisistible and the concidered byzantine soldiers and generals coward and sniky becaouse they used a lot of ambuses and they didn't stay to fight one to one like them. Hossarioi (ambuse byzantine troops) treaded like comon thievs and executed by western armed forces becaouse they said that they didn't fight with honour!!!!!:book:

IrishArmenian
05-04-2007, 02:06
Which faction list is most recent, Abe Froman's or this one?

JR-
05-08-2007, 11:41
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=81066

well that is lovely, but to quote what has been said above:

Posted by Innocentius
Why not? It's an effective term that most people understand. I see no reason not to use it.

^agreed^ :)

Furunculus

Abe Froman
05-09-2007, 22:42
Which faction list is most recent, Abe Froman's or this one?

The one that I stickied is the latest.

masteri
05-11-2007, 22:20
Only one question.
Is the Serbia still faction in MTR

Milovan
06-09-2007, 00:29
The one that I stickied is the latest.


Well, that listed only 22 playable factions out of the possible 30. There's definitely enough room for factions like Serbia, Bulgaria, Sweden, Ireland, etc.

Incongruous
06-12-2007, 08:10
Well, that listed only 22 playable factions out of the possible 30. There's definitely enough room for factions like Serbia, Bulgaria, Sweden, Ireland, etc.

Definatley, Serbia could be a major addition to the playable list. It had after all obtained autonomy by the first crusade.

Alue26
06-16-2007, 11:09
Whats for sure, some factions in this mod are just the same in Medieval 2 Total War, like the Moors! Will you also post lists of the factions units?

Milovan
06-16-2007, 22:27
I can't edit my posts, so I'm posting again...

All right, now I'm definitely confused!
Abe's list only has 22 factions, and in the 'map' topic someone posted an image that is apparently the MTR map, but whoever posted it doesn't seem to be a part of the dev team... This map has 30 factions (if the hordes and the Aztecs are included), but I don't know if it's final and for real...

IF all the factions are decided upon, could someone PLEASE post the full list, pretty please...

Sorry if I sound like a spoiled brat, but I just don't know.

D. Afonso Henriques
06-17-2007, 13:30
I'm sorry to post this so late. Its just that I saw a message saying that Portugal (Portucal, in reality) was founded when D. Afonso Henriques battled his mother. That is complitly wrong!!! Portucal first came to the Iberian Peninsula in 868 a.c. It became a vassal of the Kingdom of Galiza in 1071 and regained its indepence when D. Henriques came around (1095, I think). So don't place Portucal as horde faction, because that thosen't makes any sence and is considered an insult (very sirious one).
Sorry for the rage, but please assure me that Portucal will be a playable faction Starting with the province that corresponds to the Condado Portucalense.

Milovan
06-18-2007, 03:13
Sorry about those posts, I was being stupid.
I got all the info from here and TWC and I think I'm up to date now :book:
Thanks for including Serbia. Sorry.

D. Afonso Henriques
06-18-2007, 19:41
Well WarHeart88 I forgive you for your post and I belive that everyone those (plus it always better late than never, no insulte).
Still could someone tell me if Portugal/Portucal is or not being included as a playable faction. Its mostly because I have already gathered some usefull info and was planning on posting it, if it is worth it.

Callahan9119
06-18-2007, 21:01
sigh, no ireland...

i only read the first post and thats 7 months old, so maybe it will change

Cousin Zoidfarb
06-25-2007, 19:51
ireland is in, but unplayable

King Orko
07-03-2007, 11:52
ireland is in, but unplayable
So why are these factions exist anyway? to make an impression or what?

King Orko
07-03-2007, 12:18
It's a pity that Judaism is out, it would have been fun to rampage as Jewish Qipchaqs.
It will be even more nice if you could have an inquisition! and if Jews will give you more many! and that the people will kill them if they are too much!!!

Haedarmkm
01-21-2008, 16:23
All good but if there one more muslim faction will be great the Abbasid state of baghdad and southern Iraq and Musol for the muslims historically where as considered Papal to the Catholics. Please Ihope you take that seriesly.

Anthony III
01-24-2008, 02:51
ireland is in, but unplayable

Is there any way to make them playable?

Baltic Hunter
01-28-2008, 14:30
what's the difference between Nowgorod and Rus faction? Wasn't Nowgorod the descendant of the Rus Vikings?

Tantalaul
10-02-2008, 11:46
hello

Europe map at 1100

http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_1100.html

AnthoniusII
10-05-2008, 18:08
Is this mod back and alive?:inquisitive:

visitor
11-10-2008, 00:23
a question, somewhere i read about 31 fractions, somewhere about 50 fractions. so what is true?