Hi.. this may have been asked already, but i just cant find the answer anywhere...
What are the names of all the playable and non-playable factions in the game?
Thanx alot.
Hi.. this may have been asked already, but i just cant find the answer anywhere...
What are the names of all the playable and non-playable factions in the game?
Thanx alot.
1300 mhz Duron, 512 DDR3200, 128mb GeForce4mx 440
Italians, HRE, English,French, C-Spain, Turks, Egyptians, Almohad, Byzantium, Russia, Poland, Who else? Danes,
[This message has been edited by Stephen Hummell (edited 07-21-2002).]
Yeah, those are the playables . . . non playable factions are:
Aragon
Burgundy
Mongols (Golden Horde)
Hungary
Novgorod
The Papal States
Sicily
Switzerland
It irritates me that we can't play as the 'non-playable' factions. Not that it's a huge deal but why not just let us pick them even if they have no glorious achievements? I want to be the underdog.
The mongols are not the underdog
I guess they thought it was stupid to make nations, which did not amount to much, playable.. cant be sure though..
1300 mhz Duron, 512 DDR3200, 128mb GeForce4mx 440
Ah but don't forget that in STW you couldn't be ronin by choice. But if you put in the .conan. cheat you could be. They were a non-playable faction.
So maybe the same will be possible in MTW.
------------------
Jaguara-Spoken like a TRUE SPAMMER Toda!
No Fear Legend.
I thought Walachia, Moldova and those other Romanian provinces were also gonna be non-playable factions
The TURK
And Lithuania, they have a unit in the game called the Lithuanian Cavalry
RIP TosaInu
Ja Mata
I dont get it... how could CA include a faction called "Italy?" Italy was NEVER united during that time period. Infact, it wasnt so until hundreds of years later. It was just a bunch of different groups like Venice, Florence, Genoa, Rome, etc. They were ruled by different families. Sometimes some cities were ruled by the Holy Roman Empire, sometimes they were independent. But there was no Italian King. Another thing I don't get is the Russians. Not until the times of Ivan the Terrible was Russia of any significance to the world. Infact, it wasnt even considered a world power until Peter the Great(1700s). They should have been a non-playable faction just like "Italy." Oh well, I guess things are supposed to be more interesting this way.
The TURK
Quote
It irritates me that we can't play as the 'non-playable' factions. Not that it's a huge deal but why not just let us pick them even if they have no glorious achievements? I want to be the underdog.[/QUOTE]
Just wait...The Modder guys will find it a way.
[This message has been edited by Pachinko (edited 07-21-2002).]
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you on the field of battle, and hear the lamentation of their women.
Yeah don't worry there will be mods to play the non-playable factions
Speaking on Italy, The italian infantry sucks, they ran away to a desert archer unit that had 100 men less than the II.
Turken and Nagatsuka,
I imagine that these provinces ARE in the game (and in the case of Lithuania, I'm reasonably sure of it) but they're not "factions" per se . . . how this works, we'll have to wait and see . . . my understanding is that it means you won't be able to have diplomatic relations, as such, with them, but you WILL be able to conquer them, and get special units from their provinces.
Quote Originally posted by Stephen Hummell:
Speaking on Italy, The italian infantry sucks, they ran away to a desert archer unit that had 100 men less than the II.[/QUOTE]
what??
i edited the battle of jaffa n had 2x50 byzantine infantry , 2x50 italian infantry and 2x50 chivalricfootknights , wiped out 2330 of saladins army which included 3x200 muwhaidfoot , 3x200 saraceninfantry , 1x200 lateroyalghulamknights , 2x200 muslimpesants , 1x200 turcomanhorse , 2x200 billmen n 1x60 napathrowers , thats like 2460 , up against 300 , only lost 74 men , had all the stats of saladins army of weapons and armour 2-2 , valour was at around 5-7 so they would actually stand and fight instead of running .
set the byz inf , italian inf and chivknifhts to weapons and armour 3-3 valour was 10 because there was 300 of them.
wiped them out in under 12 min
Yeah but this always happens. Different people have different styles of fighting, and so they prefer and hate different units.
You know how it goes. Also now it depends in which province u use the units remember?!
Lots of factors come into play.
------------------
Jaguara-Spoken like a TRUE SPAMMER Toda!
No Fear Legend.
GAH! Patch 2.01 will introduce a new playable faction! GAH!
[Sips sake, eats popcorn]
well if the non-playable's were modded into playables or in an expansion that would be cool
In remembrance of our great Admin Tosa Inu, A tireless worker with the patience of a saint. As long as I live I will not forget you. Thank you for everything!
Turken, you are right about Italy not being a united power during this period, but Russia or more correctly Kieven Russia was one of the strongest nations in the game in teh early period.
"I have come on the enemy, thus the enemy has already lost" Napoleon.
Quote Originally posted by czaralex:
Turken, you are right about Italy not being a united power during this period, but Russia or more correctly Kieven Russia was one of the strongest nations in the game in teh early period.[/QUOTE]
Come on! Don't make me laugh! Russia? one of the strongest nations around the early period(1100s)? I can see from your nickname that you are either Russian, or you like Russian history. Thats great, but I think this influences your thinking. The early Slavs were nowhere near to being one of the strongest nations in the period. They were just there so other nations could grab their territory. I'm sure they had some victories and some achievements but definitely not enough to say they were the strongest nation in the early period.
The TURK
Yep they were strong and became even stronger in the 13th century, but The Mongols put their growth back a few centuries. If I've learned one thing the .com forums it is that Czar Alex knows alot about Russian history.
The Oner Order of Ommisions. http://oooo.freewebspace.com/
Quote Originally posted by czaralex:
Turken, you are right about Italy not being a united power during this period, but Russia or more correctly Kieven Russia was one of the strongest nations in the game in teh early period.[/QUOTE]
I do agree with Turken, the whole idea is just laughable! Besides, you can't even be Russia in the Early Era...
WORMS
Stongest nation of the early period would be almohad or byzantine, or the germans cause they have many big armies.
Quote:
Come on! Don't make me laugh! Russia? one of the strongest nations around the early period(1100s)? I can see from your nickname that you are either Russian, or you like Russian history. Thats great, but I think this influences your thinking. The early Slavs were nowhere near to being one of the strongest nations in the period. They were just there so other nations could grab their territory. I'm sure they had some victories and some achievements but definitely not enough to say they were the strongest nation in the early period.
That only shows me how little turken00 knows about Eastern Europe history. Why dont you study it before braging nonsense.
I do agree with czaralex. Kievan Rus was the at its zenith between 11th and 12th century. It declined and broke off into separate principalities (fuedal stage) by the end of 12th century. That is probably one of the reasons Mongols had no truble riding through.
------------------
I am the law and you can't beat the law.
I am the law and you can't beat the law.
Quote Originally posted by Prodigy:
Quote:
Come on! Don't make me laugh! Russia? one of the strongest nations around the early period(1100s)? I can see from your nickname that you are either Russian, or you like Russian history. Thats great, but I think this influences your thinking. The early Slavs were nowhere near to being one of the strongest nations in the period. They were just there so other nations could grab their territory. I'm sure they had some victories and some achievements but definitely not enough to say they were the strongest nation in the early period.
That only shows me how little turken00 knows about Eastern Europe history. Why dont you study it before braging nonsense.
I do agree with czaralex. Kievan Rus was the at its zenith between 11th and 12th century. It declined and broke off into separate principalities (fuedal stage) by the end of 12th century. That is probably one of the reasons Mongols had no truble riding through.
[/QUOTE]
Thats all fine in good, but the fact remains: although they were very powerfull in the east, they really had little or no influence in the west, where really the game's sphere of influence is.
I'de have to say that in the start of the game, the Almohads or the Egyptians would be the strongest. Although the Germans have huge armies, they can be attacked from all sides. The coffars of Byzantium are very rich, but their provinces are very spread out with very few garrisons. And the Russian, well you can't even be them in the Ealy Era...
[This message has been edited by Emp. Conralius (edited 07-26-2002).]
WORMS
Before this heats up into a flame war.
How about posting some facts or at least a reference book that you are using for these beliefs. We all could do with a bit more historical information to feed on while we wait for MTW to go gold.
Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Pape for global overlord!!
The Russians, during the timeline of this game, was not strong. In fact, far from being strong, they were one of the weakest nations during that period. I will state my reasons. 1- No navy or shipbuilding experience. They had no knowledge whatsoever of shipbuilding until the late 1600s, early 1700s. Their rivers and lakes were frozen practically all the time. 2- They were isolated. They didn't have much contact with the rest of the world, which made them a backward country in terms of culture and technology. 3- They had no reliable income. No trade at all, because they had no clear trade routes, because once again of being a landlocked country and the frozen rivers, etc. Nobody would want to trade with them because well they didn't have much to trade. They had to rely on themselves which was just not enough. 4- The early Slavs were practically barbarians. They weren't civilized and they were all uneducated(even the leaders). This meant their armies were not organized either, a bunch of peasants fighting in a disorderly fashion. This could easily be proven by seeing how easily they were destroyed by the Mongols and later on how easily Crimean Tatars and the Ottomans grabbed territory from them.. not to mention the Swedes. I'm sorry if I'm offending any Russians here but thats just the truth. Russia was far from strong until the times of Tzarist Russia, when able rulers like Peter the Great and Catherine the Great reigned. All historians know, that while Europe was living its Renaissance and flourishing in every aspect, the Russians were still trying to move the country out of the Dark Ages and try to make it more "European."
The TURK
Based on Papewaio's last post, I have this to say. I get in enough trouble as it is with "flame wars" so I'll just sit this one out. And just for the record, I really could care less about Czarest Russia or whatever this topic is becoming.
WORMS
Wow, Turken, you are wrong in so many ways. Hopefully a Russian will come in here and correct you in depth, but I'll start.
"1- No navy or shipbuilding experience. They had no knowledge whatsoever of shipbuilding until the late 1600s, early 1700s. Their rivers and lakes were frozen practically all the time."
I suppose the early invasions of Byzantium were accomplished by floating soldiers down on driftwood instead of the fleets historians talk about. Oh, thats right, they could walk on their continually frozen rivers.
"2- They were isolated. They didn't have much contact with the rest of the world, which made them a backward country in terms of culture and technology."
Alright, since you already KNOW they were technologicaly backward why don't you give us some examples. Look into it.
"3- They had no reliable income. No trade at all, because they had no clear trade routes, because once again of being a landlocked country and the frozen rivers, etc. Nobody would want to trade with them because well they didn't have much to trade."
This one is just excellent. The ORIGIN of the Russian states was a Slavic/Viking trading empire. You could find almost every good in the known would in Russia as they shipped them up and down their rivers. Oh, I forgot, they were frozen. Trade wasn't interrupted until the Mongols but they could still trade to the west where, according to you, no one wanted their furs.
"4- The early Slavs were practically barbarians. They weren't civilized and they were all uneducated(even the leaders). This meant their armies were not organized either, a bunch of peasants fighting in a disorderly fashion."
First of all when you say "Slavs" you are talking about a lot of people, including Poles and Bohemians. Second, archaeologists have found so many bits of writing, including such interesting things as childrens lessons and love letters, in early Russia that it is accepted that the average Russian was much more literate than your average Frank or other western European.
"This could easily be proven by seeing how easily they were destroyed by the Mongols"
The Mongols destroyed an army of Poles/Teutons and another huge army of Hungarians. Tell us how backward they were.
The Russians were divided and Mongol rule(if you can even call it that, it was tribute really) was so lax it did nothing to unite them.
"I'm sorry if I'm offending any Russians here but thats just the truth."
I doubt you're offending too many Russians since your post was pure b.s.. You know, you're on the internet...all you have to do is type in a few keywords on google to get a clue.
I'm not Russian and have a limited knowledge of Russian history. I can only wonder what a Russian with good knowledge of Russian history would do with your post.
Quote Originally posted by Boleslaw Wrymouth:
Wow, Turken, you are wrong in so many ways. Hopefully a Russian will come in here and correct you in depth, but I'll start.
"1- No navy or shipbuilding experience. They had no knowledge whatsoever of shipbuilding until the late 1600s, early 1700s. Their rivers and lakes were frozen practically all the time."
I suppose the early invasions of Byzantium were accomplished by floating soldiers down on driftwood instead of the fleets historians talk about. Oh, thats right, they could walk on their continually frozen rivers.
"2- They were isolated. They didn't have much contact with the rest of the world, which made them a backward country in terms of culture and technology."
Alright, since you already KNOW they were technologicaly backward why don't you give us some examples. Look into it.
"3- They had no reliable income. No trade at all, because they had no clear trade routes, because once again of being a landlocked country and the frozen rivers, etc. Nobody would want to trade with them because well they didn't have much to trade."
This one is just excellent. The ORIGIN of the Russian states was a Slavic/Viking trading empire. You could find almost every good in the known would in Russia as they shipped them up and down their rivers. Oh, I forgot, they were frozen. Trade wasn't interrupted until the Mongols but they could still trade to the west where, according to you, no one wanted their furs.
"4- The early Slavs were practically barbarians. They weren't civilized and they were all uneducated(even the leaders). This meant their armies were not organized either, a bunch of peasants fighting in a disorderly fashion."
First of all when you say "Slavs" you are talking about a lot of people, including Poles and Bohemians. Second, archaeologists have found so many bits of writing, including such interesting things as childrens lessons and love letters, in early Russia that it is accepted that the average Russian was much more literate than your average Frank or other western European.
"This could easily be proven by seeing how easily they were destroyed by the Mongols"
The Mongols destroyed an army of Poles/Teutons and another huge army of Hungarians. Tell us how backward they were.
The Russians were divided and Mongol rule(if you can even call it that, it was tribute really) was so lax it did nothing to unite them.
"I'm sorry if I'm offending any Russians here but thats just the truth."
I doubt you're offending too many Russians since your post was pure b.s.. You know, you're on the internet...all you have to do is type in a few keywords on google to get a clue.
I'm not Russian and have a limited knowledge of Russian history. I can only wonder what a Russian with good knowledge of Russian history would do with your post.[/QUOTE]
Wrymouth, you have some good points which I won't deny are correct. Yet, none of your points prove my points wrong. If you want to debate, please do so in a civilized manner. Saying that my opinion is b.s. is not the way to do it. Now, lets get to your first statement. If you're telling me that Russia had anything near to a good fleet in the middle ages then I definitely do not agree with you. One thing I agree with you on though, is your limited knowledge of Russian history. Russia, as I have said before, didn't have the chance to develop a powerful fleet. They were landlocked really.. They didn't have access to the Black Sea, nor to the Baltic. However, when Peter the Great came to power, he had an ambition to develop Russia into a naval superpower, so he sent hundreds of students to Western Europe to learn the arts of shipbuilding and engineering. With that knowledge he ordered the building of massive fleets in Russia. That was the beggining of Russia as a naval power. Before that, the Russians had little or no knowledge of shipbuilding. Oh Wrymouth, you were wondering then how Russia sent soldiers into Byzantium. Well buddy, those are transport ships which anyone could make. I could make one myself in a month without any knowledge of ships. The true power of a fleet is in its warships, which Russia lacked. Your second point... you just said this: "Alright, since you already KNOW they were technologicaly backward why don't you give us some examples. Look into it." I can give you some examples sure.... 1) The Russians implemented the use of gunpowder in their armies much later than the rest of Europe. 2) Their agricultural methods were also thought of as being inferior to the standards of most European nations. 3) Their advances in castle designs and siege weaponry were way behind the rest of Europe.
Now let's get to your third point. You say Russia's origin was of a trade empire. Maybe so. But I doubt many nations would go into the trouble of trading with Russia under harsh conditions just for furs. You seem to disagree that the Russian rivers were mostly frozen all year long, but I can assure you I'm quite sure of this. This is why it made trading difficult and it was neccessary for a land route to be created, which has hard because of the massive distance that had to travelled on foot. As for your fourth point, I find it funny that you think writing love letters makes a nation civilized. The reason why early Russia might have been more literate compared to early Europeans was because Europe was in its Dark Age! After a hundred years Europe improved its literacy rate while Russia became worse and worse. By the 1500s, Russian literacy was a joke compared to European standards. And as your fifth point, you say it all yourself. The Russians were DIVIDED... they could not stand against the Mongols. If the Russians were DIVIDED how in the world could they be one of the strongest nations in the world at that time?? My whole point from the beginning was to prove Russia was not strong, and that they were weak. Saying they were divided just makes my job easier.
[This message has been edited by turken00 (edited 07-26-2002).]
The TURK
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks