Vote on the final faction

[IrishArmenian]

Aragon was in union with Navarre and Catalaunia was independent under Berunger at this time.

[NagatsukaShumi]

yes yes
why dont include USA God Bless Bush,,,

answer me what has done Sevila to change world history somehow??
anyway your problem do what you want .

Bulgar, I could flip that round and ask you, what have Bulgaria done to change world history in the medieval period?

Don't make sarcy comments Bulgar, they will not get you anywhere. The faction list will not be changing, we have explained this, posts of this nature wouldn't help your cause even if we were open to changing some.

As I explained, we all have our favourites, but the fact is just because we like the idea of a faction being there, doesn't mean it will make it.

[Icefrisco]

answer me what has done Sevila to change world history somehow??
anyway your problem do what you want .

heres a list:

its the port from which spains gold wen tfrom the americas to spain

place where chocolate first reached europe

Abu Marwan Abd al-Malik Ibn Zuhr (known in the West as Avenzoar) - 1091-1161 C.E - "Master Physician" one of the fathers of modern medicine was born in seville

theres a lot more but i dont have time

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

So...where is the third faction update? Isn't there supposed to be a weekly blog update too?

[Icefrisco]

So...where is the third faction update? Isn't there supposed to be a weekly blog update too?

dont bother asking they wont answer.

[IrishArmenian]

Personnel issues.

[NagatsukaShumi]

dont bother asking they wont answer.

There is no need for that, watch what you say in future arfrisco, we are generally quite punctual in replying to the community, there is no need for comments like that.

[pontifexx]

No Croatia? It was still an independent kingdom at the time...

[Renown]

Updates are coming, no worries!

[IrishArmenian]

To be 100% accurate, we'd need closer to 100 faction slots (counting emergent factions, baronies, duchies, etc).
We only have 30 not counting independents.

[Solo]

@Pontifexx aka Bulgar aka Phoenix[illusion]

Stop creating accounts just to rant us (I have a hard time believing anyone would end up here for his first post, but three times it's close to winning lottery). You're working really hard to give bad publicity it seems but would you be happy if we close the vote ? Oh, well, perhaps it's just what you're trying to do afterall.

[DukeofSerbia]

@Pontifexx aka Bulgar aka Phoenix[illusion]

Stop creating accounts just to rant us (I have a hard time believing anyone would end up here for his first post, but three times it's close to winning lottery). You're working really hard to give bad publicity it seems but would you be happy if we close the vote ? Oh, well, perhaps it's just what you're trying to do afterall.

OK. I sloved it with Solo. Phoenix[illusion] is from my team.

[NagatsukaShumi]

@Pontifexx aka Bulgar aka Phoenix[illusion]

Stop creating accounts just to rant us (I have a hard time believing anyone would end up here for his first post, but three times it's close to winning lottery). You're working really hard to give bad publicity it seems but would you be happy if we close the vote ? Oh, well, perhaps it's just what you're trying to do afterall.

I shall investigate this with Tosa, if he is indeed the same guy, I will ask for his IP to be banned, constant unwarranted abuse isn't acceptable, no need for rude posts when the same point can be made in a civil manner.

[Icefrisco]

There is no need for that, watch what you say in future arfrisco, we are generally quite punctual in replying to the community, there is no need for comments like that.

sorry i guess i was a little upset cause i had asked a few times without any response. ill watch myself now

[NagatsukaShumi]

sorry i guess i was a little upset cause i had asked a few times without any response. ill watch myself now

Its fine arfrisco, a few of our members are in the middle or coming to the end of a busy exam period, so there maye be a lull in our usual response. We will look to get the third faction out for you as soon as we can, just try to channel your frustration a little better next time, the vast majority of your posts are friendly.

[aleksandar macedonian II]

I am little disappointed
medieval auctoriso-medieval autentic?

[NagatsukaShumi]

I am little disappointed
medieval auctoriso-medieval autentic?

Once again I have to whip out the warnings, watch your posts in future, slandering the mod team who do this in their spare time for free is not going to be a wise move.

[aleksandar macedonian II]

Once again I have to whip out the warnings, watch your posts in future, slandering the mod team who do this in their spare time for free is not going to be a wise move.

sorry boys no mean to dishonor your mod
I know that is very hard to satisfact everybody:
(To be 100% accurate, we'd need closer to 100 faction slots (counting emergent factions, baronies, duchies, etc)
but some factions are historical minor and their impact on history are small
I wish you best luck

[NagatsukaShumi]

sorry boys no mean to dishonor your mod
I know that is very hard to satisfact everybody:
(To be 100% accurate, we'd need closer to 100 faction slots (counting emergent factions, baronies, duchies, etc)
but some factions are historical minor and their impact on history are small
I wish you best luck

Don't worry about it, we have had a few rather rash statements in this thread already and it, admittedly, has urked me a little having to keep warning people.

[Renown]

aleksander, we understand what you mean...

but honestly we had only a few options.

Lets look at the Northern Italian area for example.

We could potentially have.... 10-30 factions in this single spot alone.

Let me list of a variety of different powers.

Florence, Pisa, Arezzo, Milan, Verona, Pistoia, Genoa, Lucca, Siena, Pavia, Parma , Padua, Venice, Bologna, Urbino, Perugia, Ancona, Mantua, Modena, throw in the Holy See, and some of the other unmentioned "papal state" territories, that were in reality not always under direct control. Then mix in french factions, norman/sicilian factions, along with the HRE, or Austrian types...

Now this is completely possible, I suppose, if we wanted to have an extremely small map, and focus on the "North Italian" theatre, so to speak.

But, this area was not a minute unconnected seperate continent that arose in a completely unaffected situation.

No, events in England impacted the situation, events in Northern, Eastern, Western and Southern Europe also were important to northern italy due to power politics, trade, and not even mentioning the multiple aspects of cultural change that may have occured or did occur due to interactions between these areas.

Now, throw in North Africa, Rus-Asian territories, the middle east, and futher.. all of which either directly, or indirectly affected North Italy.

So... no matter WHAT we would have chosen, something would be inaccurate, or not properly represented even looking at this area.

Now, we are dealing with a much larger map then just north italy, and what do you suppose would happen if we gave 5-6 factions in North Italy? Which is completely justifiable with historical reasons.

I'll tell you what, "not what we want". Whatever the results, we would have to obviously ignore some other regions that would then "piss" off someone else.

So, instead we have a situation where we try to include the most important factions according to historical starting points, and according to gameplay. 6 factions in North Italy, and 1 in the isles would lead to a certain game, that I would not enjoy playing, personally. Now we are getting flak for having 3 (and possible 4) factions in the Isles, and 3-6 factions involved in North italy (France/HRE/Italian factions/Holy See)... because there is not enough "here" or "there" or wherever someone wants a faction.

We made choices, we feel we can back them up with a myriad of reasons, and we wont change our existing faction slots.

SO no matter how many times someone demands "Burgundy Burgundy Burgundy" or Serbia Serbia, Serbia, it wont change.

All of our certified factions have legitimate historical reason to be in the mod. Just because "YOU" do not see them as major players does not mean you are right. In aspects where people may be right due to 'historical' reasons, we may have gameplay reasons for not including "your" faction.

But to go and say that we are not living up to our name, or blandly insulting us is not very nice or friendly... I mean we are doing this with our free time... perhaps everyone would prefer to not have us working on MA?

[aleksandar macedonian II]

I would like to see MA mod that is for sure ,it is going to bee very interesting to see several big mods (competition is always welcome)
MTW2 is a great game but mods are keep her alive

[Sarmatian]

All of our certified factions have legitimate historical reason to be in the mod. Just because "YOU" do not see them as major players does not mean you are right. In aspects where people may be right due to 'historical' reasons, we may have gameplay reasons for not including "your" faction.

But to go and say that we are not living up to our name, or blandly insulting us is not very nice or friendly... I mean we are doing this with our free time... perhaps everyone would prefer to not have us working on MA?

Exactly. Your mod - your decision. Just take it easy. For majority of people here english is not the first language, so sometimes it happens that a post or two sounds a bit too harsh, judgemental or demanding... It must be frustrating doing a job for others, while they sit back and criticize your work, but you should relax a bit...

Anyway, good luck with the mod...

[aleksandar macedonian II]

I meant noting bad or criticize MA mod just disuse to make MA mod better and more historical accurate (we no that you cant be 100% accurate)
sorry if sounded like that!
If you want to make good mod make historical accurate ( I think people love that,I do) that will solve your problems with community and with questions like :
why is this faction or unit in mod and that isn't.....

[Triglav]

I have to chip into this conversation.

I completely agree about there simply not being enough slots for all the factions to be in.

But I would perhaps dare to make a suggestion in a different direction.

Ok, the player can PLAY as one of 20 or 30 playable factions. But that doesn't mean that all the others are out of the game.

If anyone played Crusader Kings, they know what a fragmented thing feudal Europe was, and in that game you can play each smallest entity as your faction and see how hard it is to get anywhere...

A map like this: Europe 1300 A.D.
...nicely shows what a mess Europe was back then, and if you look at other maps from these series, you see how many changes occured in a lifetime of each ruler...

But what you have to be aware of is two main concepts:

1. Nationality as we know it today didn't exist, so a for instance German empire did not include Germans only, nor was it run by Germans only (so, I like the concept I saw in the screenshots of a HRE king also being the King of the Czechs for instance). Or England was not run by the English, their wars in France were because of their hereditary claims on france, and famous English kings, like Richard the Lionheart/Coeur de Lion spoke French all their life...(therefore names of units of factions should come from a wide pool of ethnic names of all their ethnicities, famous German generals with French or Czech or Polish names, famous Italian generals with German, French or even English names...)

2. Alegiances changed very rapidly and a part that was today a part of one kingdom, could tomorrow belong to another or go independent.

If this can somehow be adequately modelled into the game, I think it would be great. For instance, HRE had official rule over many teritorries, but often very little actual say in the matters, so even the emperor sometimes didn't get armies he demanded from parts of his empire when demanded. For instance (since I am from Slovenia and know this bit of history somewhat better), the Principality of Carinthia (Karantania) was a ethnically Slavic/Slovene principality back then, which, though a part of the Holy Roman Empire, was militarily, legislatively and financially a lot more independent in decision making, than modern-day Slovenian independent republic is as part of the EU. This was also the case with most vassal relations all over Europe. I'm sure our Serb specialists here could thell us of the level of independence Serbia had even once conquered by Ottomans, or Croats could tell of their relative independence under the formal reign of the Hungarian crown...

How to model this in game? Well, either have the 20 or 30 playable factions start out rather weak, with many independent entities (can the ingame title "Rebels" be changed into "Independents") to first have to subdue its constituent parts and join them all in their kingdoms.
We could have strong, expansionistic or otherwise dangerous independents (thus all the Burgundies, Bulgarias, Serbias, Croatias, Italian city-states, and others would still be ingame, important figures, just not playable), and once conquered, their titles would be added to the conqueror (somehow as it is already planned with titles).
My main point being that the unplayable A.I. controlled "independent" Serbia or Croatia or Bulgaria or whoever could actually expand as well, conquering targets of opportunity, or in scripted directions of expansion...

Another cool feature could be the loyalty issue having an inpact on factions vs. independents. Say a HRE general is made to be the Duke of Burgundy. Eventually for whatever reason his loyalty goes down and he rebells, Burgundy becomes independent and he and his army is immediately moved to Burgundy and he becomes the King of Burgundy, from where he may even attack neigbouring lands to expand his new realm. Vassals were prone to change allegiances or declare independence if they saw advantages in that...

Knights of Honor handled the instability of feudal Europe wonderfuly, with vassals, rebellions, rising and falling kingdoms...would be great if this could somehow be simulated in this game.

The complicated thing in this game is that you have to start with a situation on a certain year, whereas forming of kingdoms was a fluid process with their ups and downs...
But I think the easiest way to justify which faction is playable in the game would be by the criteria, did they have vassals or were they vassals themselves (and by that I mean vassal kingdoms). If they were independent kingdoms first, then became vassals they should not be playable, despite the level of independence under anothers rule. If they were independent first, stayed independent through most of the time a campaign is set to cover, or expanded so that they joined vassal kingdoms to their own domain, they should be playable.

I have no idea if any of what I wrote is practicable, but as in all things in life, noone can accuse you of being biased if you use the same judging criteria for all candidates you chose (cause let's face it, as much as I like commanding highlanders in games, if there wasn't for the movie Braveheart, Scotland wouldn't have made it into half the games you can find it in these days...so congrats for excellent promotion, courtesy of Hollywood. And it can be predicted that if Mel Gibson makes a good movie about the battle of Kosovo, you'll have Serbia in a lot more games that you have today).

Either way, cheers to everyone, thanks to developers for your effort, and forum members for your input, which I always find entertaining to read.

[Icefrisco]

i completely agree but a lot that your asking for cant be done(loyalty). however, ethnic units are possibel in aor. most mods include aor now.

[aleksandar macedonian II]

I think that would bee very hard to create
first diplomacy in MTW2 was not priority for CA,simply diplomacy is not complex enough for that kind of game,AI just gets his army and attacks
game is limited with hard code and some things cant be moded
But thet would be nice game

[Sarmatian]

Nice post, Triglav. Unfortunately, M2TW isn't friendly to "evolving" kingdom. Each has to take a faction slot. Although you can create rebels with distinct units, rulers, names etc, you can't stop them from being "rebels". They are going to wait for you to conquer them, although I guess the will be slightly tougher than in vanilla.

Scotland is actually very important from gameplay point of view. It makes it more difficult for England to control the isles. In lot of other cases, England easily conquered British Isles, then steamrolled western europe from a highly defencible position. I think putting two faction beside england (both scotland and ireland) is unneccessary, but that is the team's decision.

It is very hard to portray accuretaly medieval europe in M2TW engine. We can just hope that it will be better in some mods than in vanilla...

[Ivan_the_Terrible]

I have to chip into this conversation.

I completely agree about there simply not being enough slots for all the factions to be in.

But I would perhaps dare to make a suggestion in a different direction.

Ok, the player can PLAY as one of 20 or 30 playable factions. But that doesn't mean that all the others are out of the game.

If anyone played Crusader Kings, they know what a fragmented thing feudal Europe was, and in that game you can play each smallest entity as your faction and see how hard it is to get anywhere...

A map like this: Europe 1300 A.D.
...nicely shows what a mess Europe was back then, and if you look at other maps from these series, you see how many changes occured in a lifetime of each ruler...

But what you have to be aware of is two main concepts:

1. Nationality as we know it today didn't exist, so a for instance German empire did not include Germans only, nor was it run by Germans only (so, I like the concept I saw in the screenshots of a HRE king also being the King of the Czechs for instance). Or England was not run by the English, their wars in France were because of their hereditary claims on france, and famous English kings, like Richard the Lionheart/Coeur de Lion spoke French all their life...(therefore names of units of factions should come from a wide pool of ethnic names of all their ethnicities, famous German generals with French or Czech or Polish names, famous Italian generals with German, French or even English names...)

2. Alegiances changed very rapidly and a part that was today a part of one kingdom, could tomorrow belong to another or go independent.

If this can somehow be adequately modelled into the game, I think it would be great. For instance, HRE had official rule over many teritorries, but often very little actual say in the matters, so even the emperor sometimes didn't get armies he demanded from parts of his empire when demanded. For instance (since I am from Slovenia and know this bit of history somewhat better), the Principality of Carinthia (Karantania) was a ethnically Slavic/Slovene principality back then, which, though a part of the Holy Roman Empire, was militarily, legislatively and financially a lot more independent in decision making, than modern-day Slovenian independent republic is as part of the EU. This was also the case with most vassal relations all over Europe. I'm sure our Serb specialists here could thell us of the level of independence Serbia had even once conquered by Ottomans, or Croats could tell of their relative independence under the formal reign of the Hungarian crown...

How to model this in game? Well, either have the 20 or 30 playable factions start out rather weak, with many independent entities (can the ingame title "Rebels" be changed into "Independents") to first have to subdue its constituent parts and join them all in their kingdoms.
We could have strong, expansionistic or otherwise dangerous independents (thus all the Burgundies, Bulgarias, Serbias, Croatias, Italian city-states, and others would still be ingame, important figures, just not playable), and once conquered, their titles would be added to the conqueror (somehow as it is already planned with titles).
My main point being that the unplayable A.I. controlled "independent" Serbia or Croatia or Bulgaria or whoever could actually expand as well, conquering targets of opportunity, or in scripted directions of expansion...

Another cool feature could be the loyalty issue having an inpact on factions vs. independents. Say a HRE general is made to be the Duke of Burgundy. Eventually for whatever reason his loyalty goes down and he rebells, Burgundy becomes independent and he and his army is immediately moved to Burgundy and he becomes the King of Burgundy, from where he may even attack neigbouring lands to expand his new realm. Vassals were prone to change allegiances or declare independence if they saw advantages in that...

Knights of Honor handled the instability of feudal Europe wonderfuly, with vassals, rebellions, rising and falling kingdoms...would be great if this could somehow be simulated in this game.

The complicated thing in this game is that you have to start with a situation on a certain year, whereas forming of kingdoms was a fluid process with their ups and downs...
But I think the easiest way to justify which faction is playable in the game would be by the criteria, did they have vassals or were they vassals themselves (and by that I mean vassal kingdoms). If they were independent kingdoms first, then became vassals they should not be playable, despite the level of independence under anothers rule. If they were independent first, stayed independent through most of the time a campaign is set to cover, or expanded so that they joined vassal kingdoms to their own domain, they should be playable.

I have no idea if any of what I wrote is practicable, but as in all things in life, noone can accuse you of being biased if you use the same judging criteria for all candidates you chose (cause let's face it, as much as I like commanding highlanders in games, if there wasn't for the movie Braveheart, Scotland wouldn't have made it into half the games you can find it in these days...so congrats for excellent promotion, courtesy of Hollywood. And it can be predicted that if Mel Gibson makes a good movie about the battle of Kosovo, you'll have Serbia in a lot more games that you have today).

Your description of medieval europe is 100% accurate. The way the TW series portrays factions as 'nations' is, in my opinion, the biggest flaw in the game's design (programing short comings like diplomacy, AI, etc aside).

There is a game in development that may interest you. Unfortunately most of the sources of info are in russian, except this thread on twcenter.net:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...t=51229&page=6

The first release is set for march, and will feature only tactical battles. Apparently they are still working on the strategic part and plan to release it in mid 07. Apparently, it will feature something close to what you describe, with around 150 factions - families essentially.

[Icefrisco]

final faction was supposed to be released two weeks ago where is it?

[aleksandar macedonian II]

final faction was supposed to be released two weeks ago where is it?

maybe is not finished,yet!