What Factions would you like to see in Empire Total War

[Brian Mc]

Sorry if this was dealt with already, I stopped reading at page 5 or so.

I think Canada could work well in an expansion pack as BNA colonies, along the same lines as Denmark in the Britannia campaign. Confederation could work like some sort of take on electing a new pope, your colony can decide on if they want to join or not. Trying to play Upper Canada and fight off the Yanks while hoping for the colonies to come together could be a great challange. I doubt CA will make it happen, but I can dream. :shame:

[Anonymous II]

I would like to see a non-playable rebellion state of Flanders.

The Flemish cities should be owned by Netherlands, and become Flanders if a rebellion uprising ends with success for the rebels. Meaning: instead of becoming a rebel settlement like in Medieval II, they should become Flanders. If similar to M2TW, Flemish cities would be Antwerp and Bruges.

:afro:

[Sheogorath]

Not the entire population no, just the ones who have to man the ships. Read history, and tell me why the Swiss and the Austrians didn't set up colonies in America, India, Australia, or the South Pacific. Why was it the countries that had deep experience in seafaring? You don't achieve that in just 100 years from scratch.
*coughcough* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_overseas_colonies)
*further fits of coughing* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_colonial_policy)
Pretty much every European nation with access to an ocean or sea had overseas colonies to a greater or lesser extent.. 'Sept the Italians, but really, Italy has sort of been the military laughingstock of Europe since Rome fell.

[Freedom Onanist]

*coughcough* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_overseas_colonies)
*further fits of coughing* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_colonial_policy)
Pretty much every European nation with access to an ocean or sea had overseas colonies to a greater or lesser extent.. 'Sept the Italians, but really, Italy has sort of been the military laughingstock of Europe since Rome fell.You are wrong about the Italians.

They had Libya. They also tried very hard to take over what is now mostly Ethiopia.

But in general, I think that a game called "empire", with a map that is pretty much global should focus pretty heavily on the oceans one way or another. But it is a game so a faction, like Austria, or Prussia should be able to expand to a sea port and grab itself a piece of the action. After all, when Prussia had annexed/united the rest of Germany the Kaiser's jealousy of his British cousin's empire was a not inconsiderable motivator for WW1. He always blathered on about wanting an empire on which the sun never set as well.

I think such countries should be at a disadvantage interms of cost and initial experience of naval units.

[Sheogorath]

You are wrong about the Italians.

They had Libya. They also tried very hard to take over what is now mostly Ethiopia.

But in general, I think that a game called "empire", with a map that is pretty much global should focus pretty heavily on the oceans one way or another. But it is a game so a faction, like Austria, or Prussia should be able to expand to a sea port and grab itself a piece of the action. After all, when Prussia had annexed/united the rest of Germany the Kaiser's jealousy of his British cousin's empire was a not inconsiderable motivator for WW1. He always blathered on about wanting an empire on which the sun never set as well.

I think such countries should be at a disadvantage interms of cost and initial experience of naval units.
And Libya. They sort of failed it though. Like I said...the Italians are a bit of a military joke.
The Austrian navy was actually moderatly well equipped and trained, just very, very, small, something like 2-3 ships of the line at most. They and the Italians actually fought the first major engagement between ironclad warships in some more or less pointless war in the Adriatic.

But 'empire' isnt measured strictly by naval power. Russia had a decent navy, but it probably wouldnt have done too well against France or the UK. Russia wasnt too big into overseas possessions either, they had Alaska, but that was pretty much the most useless colony ever.
However, denying that Russia had a major influence on pretty much every period of history since Peter the Great took power, and before that here and there. Of course, most of Russia's empire will most likely get cut out of the map, since trekking across Siberia to get that last Russian city would be kinda boring.

[Kalle]

Naval power was not so exclusive to a few nations that some seem to think.

1703 Tsar Peter founds AND CREATES FROM SCRATCH the new Russian capitol, ST. Petersburg, on what was still officially Swedish land. A few years later the russians have created a navy that dominates the baltic in spite of long Swedish naval tradition. (and for that matter Danish but danes and Russians worked together this time)

They also came up with a kind of fleet adapted to baltic coastal regions that Sweden had no immidiate answer to. (skärgårdsflottan)

Later in the end of the 18th century Sweden had created an answer and in the second battle at Svensksund scored the greatest naval triumph in Swedish history, hundreds of ships were involved in that battle.

Apart from the Russians we can use the Romans as an example. From virtually nada they created a navy that managed to wrestle naval dominance from a naval power with great tradition in the field, i.e. Carthage.

Many so called small nations could rival the big nations during this time. Sweden and Denmark for instance both must count as major naval powers during the 17th and early 18th century, even at Napoleonic times the Danish navy was such a threat that Britain went to Copenhagen and made sure it could not be used by Nappy.

It might look strange so scarcely populated countries such as Sweden and Denmark could field powerful navies but indeed they could. Even stranger I think it is they could field armies that could rival the "big nations" on land but they did in both number and quality. In the case of Sweden the land forces were actually worlds best and strongest at some points in history (the years1700-1709 for instance).

The Swedish ship Wasa set to sea in 1628 if memory serves me right. It was the biggest warship in existance in that day and it was not the only Swedish ship either. It suffered a construction error though so it sank on it maiden voyage.

Also remember that these small countries, in spite of fighting land wars against almost all neighbouring countries, had spare resources to compete for colonies. Sweden had Cabo Corso in Africa and New Sweden in America. So it is not a to big step from history to let these countries get involved in the struggle for colonies.

/Kalle

[Sheogorath]

Quite. Small nations dont nessecarily have small navies. Look at the Dutch, they probably had the largest navy in the world, even bigger than the Royal Navy, although more geared towards protection of their trade than imperial conquest, 'though the Dutch did have a pretty large empire at one point.

Few people realize that Spain was still a major power in the 18th century as well. The Spanish Armada wasnt such a major loss, it coincided with the start of the decline of the Empire, but the war between the Spanish and British mostly ended because both sides got bored. Spain's power lasted up until the 1760's or 70's if I remember, which is when the British clearly surpassed them in naval power.
Spain also had the biggest ship of the line ever built during the Napoleonic Wars. I cant remember the name, but I believe it had 130 guns. Of course, it was basically useless because its top speed was something approaching a fast walk and apparently its captain thought it handled like a drunken cow.

Dont tell the British that though, 'cause the Royal Navy has ALWAYS been the single greatest power with uncontested control of the oceans.
*winkwinknodnod*

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Russia had a decent navy, but it probably wouldnt have done too well against France or the UK. Russia wasnt too big into overseas possessions either, they had Alaska, but that was pretty much the most useless colony ever.

If only they'd kept it. It's a treasure trove nowadays, with all the oil, water, and forests. :wall:

[Csargo]

If I'm not mistaken Russia made a good profit off of the seals and such from Alaska.

[Sheogorath]

-Evil Maniac
Its probably a good thing. The Soviets would've strip mined it, at least with the US there is opposition to tearing the top off to get at the oil and gold.

-Ichigo
The Russian Empire and the Russian America Company never turned a profit from Alaska. Some individuals did though. The problem was shipping, the RAC bought from the individual trappers, then the Russian Empire had to ship the furs across Siberia, which mean that by the time they got to Europe they were either more expensive than the competition or selling at a loss.
Meanwhile, those trappers made a good bit of cash selling to the RAC.

[Fisherking]

Point 1
What is more amazing is in the claiming of Alaska they had to travel all that distance, build infrastructure and build ships before they even found Alaska. It was a three year mission but it took five. I suppose you could say that the Russians colonized half a continent just by exploring what lay east of the Urals. After all, they had to map it as they went.
During the time of Catherine the Great they built Sevastopol and Odessa to name but two cities, but at the start of the game in 1700 Russia was no where near that size, though it had tremendous manpower…mostly slave labor…but then everyone still had slavery at this point.

Point 2
Ships built by the English were notoriously bad. It was not their design but the cheep and slipshod construction and it cost the lives of the men using them. It later became customary for the yet to be built ship to receive its Captain and crew first as to supervise the construction, and still after taking possession of the ship there was major rework to be done. It has been said that the famous Captain Cook lost his life ultimately from having to put in for repairs from shoddy construction. The American Civil Service was initially brought into being to have government workers build ships rather than trust the work to contractors, what they saw as the English error.


Point 3
As to factions I would like to see…and it would sure make it interesting…The Jacobites!
In 1700 Scotland was still a separate country. Only in 1714 after bribery and cajoling the Scottish assembly (by Queen Ann) into passing the act of union did it become Brittan. I won’t go into the Dutch invasion of 1688 that was glossed over as the Great Revolution because of Parliament and the lack of an army, or Billy holding a parliament at gunpoint. Ben Franklin actually had talks with the Stuarts, so if the U.S. had decided on a monarch guess who it would have been. Who knows, when Scotland is done devolving perhaps they will invite them as there figureheads just to tweak the English’s nose one last time.

I am sure someone has some thoughts on these and might share them.

[Sheogorath]

Point 1
What is more amazing is in the claiming of Alaska they had to travel all that distance, build infrastructure and build ships before they even found Alaska. It was a three year mission but it took five. I suppose you could say that the Russians colonized half a continent just by exploring what lay east of the Urals. After all, they had to map it as they went.
During the time of Catherine the Great they built Sevastopol and Odessa to name but two cities, but at the start of the game in 1700 Russia was no where near that size, though it had tremendous manpower…mostly slave labor…but then everyone still had slavery at this point.
Mmmmh, Russia was still pretty big in 1700, most of its expansion across Siberia took place under Ivan IV. Peter the Great, I believe, got them Alaska, Kamchatka and a few other little details they forgot the first time around. Catherine snagged the south of Ukraine and the Crimea.
And you have to remember, the Russian population of Alaska was about 300 at its height. Most of the 'colonists' were native people.
Still, Bering's exploration is definitly underappreciated, I agree. Trekking across Siberia, BUILDING his own port (and ship) THEN sailing to Alaska. I dont think any other explorer had that particular issue.
And there were a few European states that had outlawed slavery. Contrary to the British opinion that they were the first to outlaw it, the Danes (or Finland? I cant remember) outlawed slavery in the 1400's.



Point 2
(snip)

Point 3
(snip snip)
I am sure someone has some thoughts on these and might share them.
While its a lovely thought that somebody might take issue with the British view of history, I doubt it will happen in this case. This is a video game, which means it will most likely go with the standard British-leaning view of hisotry. To do otherwise invites criticism and might alienate the mainstream.

[Fisherking]

You may have a point there. These TW games always avoid seminal points in English History…like 1066 or 1688... I am a bit surprised that the American Revolution is making it into the next one. So unless some enterprising moder does a make over then we are stuck with Norman kings or the same old Georges. But you have to admit that an ever present Jacobite threat was there until the end of the century and a couple of times it made a difference at least for a while. It isn’t a good idea to script in events of such uprisings as they get planed for. The English faction came out the winner in reality but if events had been just a little different…as in a game…what might have happened? It is a game and it is to some extent about what ifs.

[Zenicetus]

I am a bit surprised that the American Revolution is making it into the next one.

Well, the game period runs to 1820 or thereabouts. Many people (not just the American audience) would think it was strange if that part of the world remained a British colony all the way through the game. Also, the Revolution keeps England from being too much of a powerhouse faction, with all those extra resources in place.

The alternative, of just leaving it wilderness and Indians wouldn't be historically accurate because the British had been there since, what, 1607? And the Spanish even sooner. Sure, it will help sell more games if the U.S. audience can play as America, but I see that as basically a side-effect from maintaining a semblance of historical accuracy, and keeping the brakes on England in the game.

The Spanish colonies are another question. Will Spain have its colonies in place at the start of the game, and keep them throughout? IIRC, the wars of independence for Mexico and Peru happened right at the end of the ETW game period, so I guess Spain will keep them unless they're taken by another faction.

[Anonymous II]

I would like to see a non-playable rebellion state of Flanders.

The Flemish cities should be owned by Netherlands, and become Flanders if a rebellion uprising ends with success for the rebels. Meaning: instead of becoming a rebel settlement like in Medieval II, they should become Flanders. If similar to M2TW, Flemish cities would be Antwerp and Bruges.

:afro:


Any views on this? :smiley2:

[Alexander: The hellenic empire]

Definitely could see the first expansion being an collection of "struggles for independence" wherein you could fight your way to establishing any one of the following countries that "finally gained" their indepedent status in the 19th century:

Italy
Germany
Mexico
Belgium
Canada

That would be great, however you must add one more:

Greece. :greece:


[I just picture the units in a Greek-ottoman struggle, awesome!]

[Ozzman1O1]

What about the thirteen colonies?america,home of the free and the brave!and the battle of lexington and concord,french indian war,western explorations,and the seminole wars!!!(seminoles rule!FSU(american college footbal team)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, the game period runs to 1820 or thereabouts. Many people (not just the American audience) would think it was strange if that part of the world remained a British colony all the way through the game. Also, the Revolution keeps England from being too much of a powerhouse faction, with all those extra resources in place.
It'll probably work like the emerging Briton faction in BI, where they emerged if your happiness level was too low. I'm hoping they make events for it, but I don't think that a British player should be punished if they keep their colonies really happy.

[woad&fangs]

In the early 1800s, Aaron Burr(a former vice president who killed the secretary of treasury in a duel) plotted to claim territory acquired in the Louisana Purchase as his own personal country. The Sultanates of the Barbary Coast Pirates should also be in.

[SenecaTheYounger]

By the way. It would be great when all 50 factions could be playable in the multiplayer part. And i hope that the 10 factons are just starting factions. It would be really great to make nations like the Muhgal empire or the Sawafid persia playable. To win the Campaign with this factions you just have to survie the other empires:skull:

[Grymster]

That would be great, however you must add one more:

Greece. :greece:


[I just picture the units in a Greek-ottoman struggle, awesome!]


Actually I feel that this is a must for an expansion. But not Just Greeks vs Ottomans. Serbs, Bulgarians and Romanians are needed at least. Balkan Nationalism expansion spanning from early 1800s all the way up to 1913/14 after the second Balkan wars or at the assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary that sparked off World War 1.

Perhaps I am somewhat over stating the importance of this little corner of Europe but as an expansion I feel this would be one of the big ones.

[S.Selim_1]

talking of expansion for etw.. it will be cool if they had 3 or 4 different campaigns in different continents with empires struggling for power and traderouts making some of small non playable faction playable..same idea of Kingdoms with a slight difference:2thumbsup:
hope CA stuff hears of this idea..but i think they'r busy finishing the 25% of the game..looooool

[The historian]

Every country that is out there should be playable(if they ocupy enough of a province) how damn hard can it be make some minor country type units for say european middleeastern asian african types also maybe native .

[S.Selim_1]

more than 50 playable factions????!!!:dizzy2:

it's not that hard but first of all they'll need more time..maybe a year or two(to make a good game with every faction's unique untis and not crappy)....AND they'll need to change the name of the game!..maybe to NATION totalwar and not EMPIRE totalwar.

This game about huge empires in history for god's sake..leading empires and not provinces that were part of empires...i like the game the way it is. i don't care about nationalism..empirialism is way cooler..besides that's what the age is about.

[IrishArmenian]

Actually I feel that this is a must for an expansion. But not Just Greeks vs Ottomans. Serbs, Bulgarians and Romanians are needed at least. Balkan Nationalism expansion spanning from early 1800s all the way up to 1913/14 after the second Balkan wars or at the assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary that sparked off World War 1.

Perhaps I am somewhat over stating the importance of this little corner of Europe but as an expansion I feel this would be one of the big ones.
An amazing Kingdoms-esque expansion campaign: Fall of the Ottoman Empire, with the player either choosing to claim independence, or once again establish Ottoman dominance--map would include Eastern Europe to Caspian and down to Egypt(?)! If not, that'd be a great mod idea!
I've no real opinion on the real issue in this thread. I've not even miniscule knowledge of the history period and nationalism hasn't gotten anyone anywhere positive. It was different with Rome and Medieval but I think going in with no knowledge shall be fun, too! I'll base my preferences wholly on in-game playing styles!

[Sheogorath]

Seeing a Kingdoms-like expansion for ETW would be great! The Great Northern War, the Balkans wars, the struggle for India (maybe a LITTLE historical tweaking to make that one more fun, but thats what CA's good at, right? :P), the American Revolution, the Latin American Revolutions, all kinds of good stuff.
A few of those are a bit out of the time period (Greece 'officially' declared independance in the 1820's, didnt it? And the Spanish colonies in America did the same at about the same time...)

[derfinsterling]

Read history, and tell me why the Swiss and the Austrians didn't set up colonies in America, India, Australia, or the South Pacific. Why was it the countries that had deep experience in seafaring? You don't achieve that in just 100 years from scratch.

Well the Swiss haven't fought any aggressive war for their whole existence and Austria did try to engage in the overall colonisatio-thing like France and England, but suceeded only in capturing a port in India for a month.
Plus, Austria was a multi-national empire, much more so than France or the UK. Governing the balkans, the Hungarians, the Romanians, the Czechs and whoever else took the spotlight, not sending somebody overseas to claim, say, Western Africa for His Imperial Majesty.

And third - Austria, for the longest time, struggled against other German powers for dominance in the HRE. When that was settled, all the "good spots" in the world were already taken ;-)

[derfinsterling]

Oh, and I'd love to be able to play as Austria...

[Sheogorath]

Oh, and I'd love to be able to play as Austria...
Austria is already confirmed for braw-...I mean, ETW. All the Great Powers are, IE: Russia, Austria, UK, Prussia, France and Spain (Which still counted as a great power in 1700, :P)

[derfinsterling]

Austria is already confirmed

Really? Didn't see that in the summary thread.

[Sheogorath]

Huh, youre right. I could've sworn I saw it...
If it ISNT in, it should be. Austria is a very big player, especially later on.

[Ozzman1O1]

Ausria?just the battle of gefrees and you you request a faction that will start out with only one province,ohh wait...colonies..forgot,anyway,thanks for making me a member!

[Sheogorath]

I'm not sure what youre saying there, Ozz. The only Battle of Gefrees I can find was in 1809, and was an Austrian victory.
As to being small...well...

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/germany/habsblands1700.gif
I guess it might be small compared to Russia...

[Ozzman1O1]

At that time I refer to them as th AUSTRIAN EMPIRE,not the microscopic german country that napoeleon ran out of italy and conqured.................

[Sheogorath]

Even discluding all the rest, the 'core' Austrian state is fairly large, especially in this era.
And, technically, it would be the Archduchy of Austria. It was only the Austrian Empire after 1804.

[Ozzman1O1]

if the game starts with austria as an empire though,ill be discusted,starting with the empire is cowardly,you have to start out with austria,then mold your empire....then again what do I care,ill be playing as the thirteen colonies!but i do see your point(for the first time)

[Sheogorath]

...Uh...huh.
I believe that, since the focus of the game is being shifted AWAY from Europe, that Europe will start with few 'neutral' territories, outside of the German States, unless they make a faction for EACH little principality. Borders had become significantly more 'solid' than they were in the medieval era by this point.

Anyway, I think, judging from the interviews thus far, that the point of ETW will be to run around outside of Europe and try to get colonies, since wars in Europe tended to be messy and bloody and screw up the local economy more than they were worth.

Look at France and England. After the Hundred Years War they never really seriously tried to invade each other. The French knew that the English navy dominated the straits, and the English (much as they are loathe to admit it) knew that the French army would kick their butts right back into the sea.
Its an extreme example, and Europe did have many wars, but compared to overseas colonial conflicts they were few and far between.
It seems like every other week there was a war going on in India or Indonesia over who got to control this city or that island, see?

[Abokasee]

Hang on, wheres a list of factions which are confirmed?

[Sheogorath]

Wikipedia gives the following:
The British Empire
The Kingdom of France
The United Provinces (Dutch Republic)
The Swedish Empire
The Ottoman Empire
The Kingdom of Prussia
The Russian Empire
The Spanish Empire
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
Republic of Venice
The Thirteen Colonies

I'm not sure if those are 'confirmed' or not, though, but they would make sense.

[Ozzman1O1]

And a few of them will crumble like the selucids anyway,



Will american natives be in the game,i have a feeling to play as the seminoles,or the kamanche,or mowhawk,crow,or maybe the huron,then again religion would be a problem,then again,wont religion really be a problem with all the new worlds and religions!!!I hope ca hase found a solution to that!then again it might be sorted out in rtw2 wich ca has confirmed there making....

[Sheogorath]

Its 'Commanche'. Like commando, only with a che :P

But yeah, natives are set to be in the game as far as I've heard. Whether or not the natives get a faction (or factions) or are just 'rebels' I dont know.

[Paradox]

To be honest I'm a bit disappointed in this, Mainly from the plot and setting of the game. IIRC, this is the same time period AoE takes place right? It's good that the Ottomons are included, but how about adding factions of the far-east?

[Matt_Lane]

And a few of them will crumble like the selucids anyway,



Will american natives be in the game,i have a feeling to play as the seminoles,or the kamanche,or mowhawk,crow,or maybe the huron,then again religion would be a problem,then again,wont religion really be a problem with all the new worlds and religions!!!I hope ca hase found a solution to that!then again it might be sorted out in rtw2 wich ca has confirmed there making....

I suspect that the American continent is going to be dominated by the French, British, Spanish and the 13 Colonies faction although I'm not sure how the relationship between the 13 colonies and the British will start up. Id certainly like to see the indigenous nations represented and certainly not purely as rebels that are there to be squashed in the first few moves. However I can't see them as being playable as I don't think they for fill the games criteria of historical empire builders.

I don't think religion is going to play much of a part here, instead government style (monarchy, representational monarchy and republic) seems to be more important. I suppose this means we are going to loose the priests and imams but I'm interested to see if a political dissident character type replaces them that spreads dissent amongst your populace sparking uprisings and revolution.

[samiosumo]

posibly the Belgian empire that invaded the Congo with help Mr. Stanley of Dr. Livingston fame.

also maybe sdome of the great africand nations of the time....


and Boors. WE NEED BOORS!!!!!!!

[Intrepid Sidekick]

Every country that is out there should be playable(if they ocupy enough of a province) how damn hard can it be make some minor country type units for say european middleeastern asian african types also maybe native .

Hi there,

As we have said, here and elsewhere before: *creating* factions isnt so hard...but it does take some time (not just to create).

The thing that *does* take a lot of time (and therefore money) is playtesting and also doing the text and voice localisation for all localised SKU's. It also takes up valuable disc space.

Every faction that is created has to be given signature elements that make it sufficiently different from other factions to play and localised (translations in differernt languages etc) assets provided for it. That faction then has to be play-tested, to "lose" and "win", from start to finish many times over. :juggle2:

Now on top of that, think how long it takes you to play through a campaign. Multiply that by the number of factions, multiply that by the number of run throughs of that test that happen every time a new testable version of the game is created and then multiply that by the number of testers required to test the game. :sweatdrop: :whip:

Now you might get a grasp of what a huge undertaking "just adding a new faction" actualy is?

We honestly do actually spend a great deal of time agonising over which factions make "the cut" as "playable" factions and which are sidelined to the "supporting" roles. In the end I think we usually get it *mostly* right.:juggle2:

[woad&fangs]

If you allow us the ability to "unlock" factions like we could do for Numidia, Thrace, etc... in Rome: TW then that should be fine. Anyone who asks for more then that is just being obnoxious. The game looks great so far by the way.

[Sheogorath]

Just make 'em all 'playable'. As long as there arent any insta-CTD's like accessing the senate screen with SPQR then it'll be fine with me :P

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I would like to see the Swiss. They would be cool to play as.

[CaesarAugustus]

Wikipedia gives the following:
The British Empire
The Kingdom of France
The United Provinces (Dutch Republic)
The Swedish Empire
The Ottoman Empire
The Kingdom of Prussia
The Russian Empire
The Spanish Empire
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
Republic of Venice
The Thirteen Colonies

I'm not sure if those are 'confirmed' or not, though, but they would make sense.

Wait I though the Mughals were confirmed as well...:inquisitive:

[Ozzman1O1]

And I would like get a bird's eye view of the battle of zama too.



The swiss are smart,beacuse they know they cant win a war against anybody,same thing in etw,im sure they will stay snuggled in the alps ruled by austria........

Im looking forword to the black brunswickers....Imagine that great black uniform with the shiny bayonet in the heet of battle.The great army corps said to be un deafeted...cant find a lost battle on wikipedia...or anywhere for that matter!

[Anonymous II]

I would like to see the Swiss. They would be cool to play as.

Oh yes! Me too! :thumbsup:

They should be in too, because Switzerland was an independent nationstate already back then. The swiss didn't just function as a national group within a european empire, as did Croats, Czechs and Norwegians for example. If you don't count in those few years under Napoleon when the Helvetic Republic was established (1798 - 1802). I don't think we should. :smiley2:

Some info. from Wikipedia:
"The Early Modern period of Swiss history, lasting from formal independence in 1648 to the French invasion of 1798 came to be referred as Ancien Régime retrospectively, in post-Napoleonic Switzerland.

At the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the Swiss Confederacy attained legal independence from the Holy Roman Empire, although it had been de facto independent since the Swabian War in 1499. With the support of the Duke of Orléans, who was also prince of Neuchâtel and the head of the French delegation, Johann Rudolf Wettstein, the mayor of Basel, succeeded to get the formal exemption from the empire for all cantons and associates of the confederacy.

The Valtellina became a dependency of the Drei Bünde (Graubünden) again after the Treaty and remained so until the founding of the Cisalpine Republic by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1797."

Cheers!
:rifle:

[derfinsterling]

After the Hundred Years War they never really seriously tried to invade each other.

Napoleon wanted to invade England - that's what the Battle of Trafalgar was all about: To destroy the French fleet to prevent an invasion. Villeneuve risked replacement since he waited to long and Napoleon had to abandon his original plans of invasion.

After the loss of the fleet, the invasion was off for sure, but Napoleon wanted to invade. ;)

[Sheogorath]

Napoleon wanted to invade England - that's what the Battle of Trafalgar was all about: To destroy the French fleet to prevent an invasion. Villeneuve risked replacement since he waited to long and Napoleon had to abandon his original plans of invasion.

After the loss of the fleet, the invasion was off for sure, but Napoleon wanted to invade. ;)

He PLANNED to invade, but he never got around to it.
As I recall he also considered building the first Channel Tunnel so his men could walk to England :P

[TosaInu]

And I would like get a bird's eye view of the battle of zama too.


Battle of Zama

Isn't that RTW Ozzman101?

[Ozzman1O1]

Did I say the battles I sarcasticly refer to have to be in the timeline of etw?
I didint even look at your link to wiki,trust me,I know punic wars.........
And I personally find etw's timeline thee most boring of military warfare,
I only stand eager to see the the black brunswickers and seminole wars wich will probably be included in the expansion pack.



someone already crossed the alps before napoleon FYI, and with elephants,and thats punic wars too,in case you didint know

[TosaInu]

Did I say the battles I sarcasticly refer to have to be in the timeline of etw?


Hello Ozzman101,

No, I just wondered whether you meant another conflict at Zama or another place.


Isn't there a Zama historical battle available for RTW already? If not, it should be easy enough to make (if you have the numbers and positions): RTW includes an editor to make those historical battles.

[Ozzman1O1]

Im afraid not,they dont have cannea or a julius ceaser and briton battle eather....or marothon,or adrianople in BI..some what dissopointing....

[edward13]

wel before ppl start speculation abt wat factions wil be playable in ETW, CUD sm1pls tel moi wat's e extent of e campaign map gonna be? It's defo gt europe n e new world, bt is it going to span upto to indian subcontinent? thank you.

[Matt_Lane]

wel before ppl start speculation abt wat factions wil be playable in ETW, CUD sm1pls tel moi wat's e extent of e campaign map gonna be? It's defo gt europe n e new world, bt is it going to span upto to indian subcontinent? thank you.

From North America across Europe and North Africa to the Indian sub continent. I'm not sure how far south they are planning to go but my money is that it will be no further than Africas Ivory coast.

[Cpt_oo7]

If the game starts in excactly 1700 then the major factions should be:

Africa:
Ethopia
Dahomey
Kongo
Nkore

Asia:
China
Japan
Muhgal Empire
Korea

Middle east/North africa:
Morocco
Ottomen Empire

Europe:
Denmark
Norway
Denmark/Norway?
England
France
HRE (was a nation in 1700, shortly lived I think though.)
Baden-Baden
Baden-Durlach
Bavaria
Bohemia
Bradenburg
Cologne
..Way more german states, can't remember most though.
Hungary
Mantua
Modena
Parma
Poland
Portugal
Russia
Savory
Sicily
Spain
Sweden
Tuscany
Holland
And Venice

Way more, can't think of most though.

[Cpt_oo7]

Oh, and I know I forgot some of the important ones, I don'tt have all of the areas of the black sea covered (who could forget vlad the imapaler? [romaina] )

Anyways heres a map of italy in 1796 before the Napolenoic invasion.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Italy_1796.png

[edward13]

tis's for matt lane thank you 4e reply reg e camp map. then i'm expecting britain, france,austria, prussia,russia, ottoman empire as e major playable factions,swiss cud be there too! bt i'm bt loss abt USA being a playable faction fr e beginning since e game's supp2 start fr 1700! if ma history serves me rite us was a brit colony until 1786?pardon me if I've e yr terribly wrong:-(AS MUCH as i wanna play as e us i don't c Hw CA'S gonna do it!

[Ozzman1O1]

I think the thirteen colonies will be introduced if british settlments in the new world revolt. Like the goths and ostrogiths in rtwbi

[LadyAnn]

tis's for matt lane thank you 4e reply reg e camp map. then i'm expecting britain, france,austria, prussia,russia, ottoman empire as e major playable factions,swiss cud be there too! bt i'm bt loss abt USA being a playable faction fr e beginning since e game's supp2 start fr 1700! if ma history serves me rite us was a brit colony until 1786?pardon me if I've e yr terribly wrong:-(AS MUCH as i wanna play as e us i don't c Hw CA'S gonna do it!

Oh my, this is how English would be in 100 years? *shudders*

Annie

[woad&fangs]

Oh my, this is how English would be in 100 years? *shudders*

Annie
Is that the language he was speaking?*shudders*
Please keep txt speak to a minimum.
Annie, isn't it technically "will be in 100 years" instead of "would be"?
Of course my grammar is awful so I probably shouldn't be talking.

Vlad the Impaler was a couple of centuries before Empires time period. Also, I believe that Bohemia ceased to exist after the 30 years war in the 1600s but I might be wrong.

[Matt_Lane]

I think the thirteen colonies will be introduced if british settlments in the new world revolt. Like the goths and ostrogiths in rtwbi

I reckon the 13 colonies will be in there from the start, probably starting off as a British colony. I can only imagine that playing as the 13 colonies will be like playing as another nations vassal in M2TW, developing infrastructure and training militia until strong enough to revolt. Likewise if your playing as Britain and you manage to keep the colonials sweet then the cash should continue to roll in.

[MaddenKhan2]

The Barbary States or something would be great.

[Ozzman1O1]

:indian_chief: :indian_brave:
I reckon the 13 colonies will be in there from the start, probably starting off as a British colony. I can only imagine that playing as the 13 colonies will be like playing as another nations vassal in M2TW, developing infrastructure and training militia until strong enough to revolt. Likewise if your playing as Britain and you manage to keep the colonials sweet then the cash should continue to roll in.
thats probably true,but I still hope there will be some way that ca identifies the native american factions,It would be extremly historicly inacurate to exclude them....seminoles rule!

[Matt_Lane]

:indian_chief: :indian_brave:
thats probably true,but I still hope there will be some way that ca identifies the native american factions,It would be extremly historicly inacurate to exclude them....seminoles rule!

I reckon that North America at the start of the game is likely to be carved up between the 13 Colonies, New France and New Spain. As only the 13 Colonies has so far been mentioned as a playable empire I would guess that all three would have the possibility of rebelling but that New France and New Spain would start out as part of the French and Spanish Empires and if they rebelled they would become AI controlled factions.

This does leave a large area in the center and west of North America which were the home of many of the Native American tribes. I don't think CA will have these as full factions as they are limited by the criteria required to build an Empire. I do think they will be represented in some form, maybe in the 'rebel' format but I would hope they aren't just banded together and instead their individual identities are illustrated.

[Bijo]

Dat txtspk's btfl. E shld all chng conventional Inglish into it cuz its a lot btr, u know was i m syn? Cmon ppl, is u not lkn dat kinda spk 4 us al? I tink ETW must b lk it 2. Lk in d game u know? D gotta mk it like dat, those devs. Gonna b dam good.

How did I do? Was it clear enough? I usually avoid using it, so my attempt may be in vain :clown:

[Incongruous]

"Bravo" said Ironic Inso Manyways.

[Paradox]

Speaking of Napoleon, will Talleyrand be in this game? He played a big role and was one of Napoleon's greatest.

[PrinceofTroy]

I hope that Austria will be a faction, and just as a question, how can America be a faction if they don't emerge until 1782 as a country, I really want to play as the USA because I am American, but how can you play as an emergent faction?

[Ozzman1O1]

Technacily the thirteen colonies were in americaa because they wanted to ecsape from enlgland,So you can play as them before they revolt,they are a succeser faction,like the carthaginians from the phoenicians

[Sheogorath]

I hope that Austria will be a faction, and just as a question, how can America be a faction if they don't emerge until 1782 as a country, I really want to play as the USA because I am American, but how can you play as an emergent faction?
One possible solution is that they'll start out in an alliance or something.
That or independant, considering CA's typical approach to history, either one is possible.

[marodeur]

England
France
Spain
Portugal
Sweden
Netherlands
Denmark
Prussia
Saxony
Bavaria
Austria-Hungary
Savoy
Sicily
Poland
Russia
Morocco/Algeria
Ottoman Empire
Fatimides / Egypt-Sudan
Indian Mogules
Crimean Khanate
two native american nations (iroquois, mohawks, algonquin ...)
emerging independent nations in southern america (bolivars)

have to look some more up... :book:

[Anonymous II]

Nice list, marodeur! :thumbsup:

Well, I don't want to list the most obvious ones. But I can take those I feel should be in that might not be too obvious for all:

- Denmark-Norway
- Switzerland
- Duchy of Courland
- Mughal Empire
- Ethiopia

[Viking]

Nice list, marodeur! :thumbsup:

Well, I don't want to list the most obvious ones. But I can take those I feel should be in that might not be too obvious for all:

- Denmark-Norway
- Switzerland
- Duchy of Courland
- Mughal Empire
- Ethiopia


Agh, this stupid union is going to ruin a whole game for me. :wall:

[Ozzman1O1]

England
France
Spain
Portugal
Sweden
Netherlands
Denmark
Prussia
Saxony
Bavaria
Austria-Hungary
Savoy
Sicily
Poland
Russia
Morocco/Algeria
Ottoman Empire
Fatimides / Egypt-Sudan
Indian Mogules
Crimean Khanate
two native american nations (iroquois, mohawks, algonquin ...)
emerging independent nations in southern america (bolivars)

have to look some more up... :book:
iroquis and algonguin were two native american cultures that inspired different native american tribes of the northeast area,And the mowhak were one of the iroquis tribes,the huron were a alguonquin tribe,Its primaralry the reason they took differnt sides in the french indian war..You forgot the thirteen colomies

[Marcus Caelius]

Siam, please!

[Mikeus Caesar]

You people pointing all of the smaller nations that took up about half a province are forgetting some of the more significant ones, such as the mighty Khanate of Bexhill-on-Sea, and the Shetland Islands.

Seriously, do you really think CA, with their tendency towards historical accuracy, would include nations such as Savoy and The Viceroyalty of the Two Sicilies?

[Boyar Son]

You people pointing all of the smaller nations that took up about half a province are forgetting some of the more significant ones, such as the mighty Khanate of Bexhill-on-Sea, and the Shetland Islands.

Seriously, do you really think CA, with their tendency towards historical accuracy, would include nations such as Savoy and The Viceroyalty of the Two Sicilies?

Agreed, From europa barbarorum to Empires alot of people want to overcrowed a single area because it did 'something' 'somewhere'...

[zalalzabob konsorbud]

It would be good to see some Factions like India Or maybe even China.
Plus maybe some other nations that appear later on in the game Like America or Mexico but I dont think they would be in the same era. Would they?:dizzy2:

[Karl Gustaf XII]

Sweden,sweden,sweden and sweden did you know that sweden was a great power between the year of 1600 and 1801, in year of 1600 sweden went in to war against polan it was cald in sweden The Great Polish War, between the Polish king Sigismund (who was earlier king o Sweden) and the swedish king KarlXI. King Karl XI started the by attacking Lithuania who was a region of the polish kingdom. The war was later moved to Riga. After a few years King Karl XI died and the new swedish king Gustaf II Adolf took over the throne, the war ended in the battle of Gurzno. Sweden was 8000 men and Poland 7000. Sweden won the battle pretty easy with only 30 men dead and 60 men wounded. Sweden was standing as the winner and had counquerd Lithuania.
In the 16th century Sweden had one of the best armies in the world and they prooved it at the Battle Of Breitenfeld were the German Emperors army were totaly crushed. Battle Of Breitenfeld
Sverige-Sachsen Holy-roman empire- The Catholic League

Commanders Commanders

Gustav II Adolf Johann Tserclaes Tilly
Gustaf Horn Gottfried Heinrich von Pappenheim
Johan Banér
Lennart Torstenson
Johan Georg I of Sachsen

After the battle Sweden had counquerd Prussien in the northern Germany and had fulfield every goals they had but Gustaf II Adolf had bigger plans. The Swedish army marched down into southern Germany and sacked town after town. The 15th april in the year of 1632 the swdish army smashed into the Catholic army when they tried to cross the river Lech. After the war against germany and poland sweden had northern Germany and pieces of Poland, the entire Baltic, Finland and Norway. Swden lost many regions in Finland and Baltic in the war against Russia in the year of 1788. In the year of 1813 the swedish crown prince Karl XIV Johan declared war against Napoleon, Sweden were present at the battle of Liepzig, the battle of slaget vid Dennewitz and the battle of Grossbeeren. In the Piece in Kiel Sweden traded away Prussien aginst some norwegian regions.

Hope i gave you some Swedish history now :book:

[Kalle]

Sweden,sweden,sweden and sweden did you know that sweden was a great power between the year of 1600 and 1801, in year of 1600 sweden went in to war against polan it was cald in sweden The Great Polish War, between the Polish king Sigismund (who was earlier king o Sweden) and the swedish king KarlXI. King Karl XI started the by attacking Lithuania who was a region of the polish kingdom. The war was later moved to Riga. After a few years King Karl XI died and the new swedish king Gustaf II Adolf took over the throne, the war ended in the battle of Gurzno. Sweden was 8000 men and Poland 7000. Sweden won the battle pretty easy with only 30 men dead and 60 men wounded. Sweden was standing as the winner and had counquerd Lithuania.
In the 16th century Sweden had one of the best armies in the world and they prooved it at the Battle Of Breitenfeld were the German Emperors army were totaly crushed. Battle Of Breitenfeld
Sverige-Sachsen Holy-roman empire- The Catholic League

Commanders Commanders

Gustav II Adolf Johann Tserclaes Tilly
Gustaf Horn Gottfried Heinrich von Pappenheim
Johan Banér
Lennart Torstenson
Johan Georg I of Sachsen

After the battle Sweden had counquerd Prussien in the northern Germany and had fulfield every goals they had but Gustaf II Adolf had bigger plans. The Swedish army marched down into southern Germany and sacked town after town. The 15th april in the year of 1632 the swdish army smashed into the Catholic army when they tried to cross the river Lech. After the war against germany and poland sweden had northern Germany and pieces of Poland, the entire Baltic, Finland and Norway. Swden lost many regions in Finland and Baltic in the war against Russia in the year of 1788. In the year of 1813 the swedish crown prince Karl XIV Johan declared war against Napoleon, Sweden were present at the battle of Liepzig, the battle of slaget vid Dennewitz and the battle of Grossbeeren. In the Piece in Kiel Sweden traded away Prussien aginst some norwegian regions.

Hope i gave you some Swedish history now

I agree with the main point that you make: Sweden should be in the game and should be a playable nation.

Part from that there is a whole lot of things to correct in your post. For instance that Sweden was a great power from 1600-1801, I never heard those years being the limits of the Swedish great power status before. Some say 1631 (Breitenfelt) to 1709 (Poltava) others say 1561 (Reval i.e. Tallin with major parts of todays Estonia to Sweden) to 1721 (Peace of Nystad) and others make other suggestions but they are all within that timespan.

Sure, Sweden took part in the Napoleonic wars later on but not as a great power.

The Swedish king Charles XI did not live during the years you suggest he was waging war in Poland and he was not Gustavus II Adolphus father. Charles IX on the other hand was and he managed to waste an entire army at Kirchholm against the Poles.

I dont think it is true that Sweden had the best army in the world during the 16th century allthough Erik XIV made reforms that resembled and preceeded the dutch reforms, still we were loosing vs the Danes.

In the 17th century (sextonhundratalet) on the other hand the Swedes on some occassions had the best army in the world and also one of the best generals in history (Gustavus II Adolphus) and also a few other generals (Banér, Torstensson, Charles X and so on) who all were top notch.

No doubt we had the best army in the world from the late 17th century (after Charles XIs reforms) until roughly 1709 (we had some success after that also: Helsingborg, Gadebusch) and also two brilliant tacticians in the king Charles XII and his tutor Rehnshiöld.

We did not have Norway until 1814 when we took it from Denmark as compensation for loosing Finland to Russia.

There is some more to say aswell but that would require to much effort :)

Anyways I agree with you: Sweden should be playable.

Kalle

[RLucid]

In the year of 1813 the swedish crown prince Karl XIV Johan declared war against Napoleon, Sweden were present at the battle of Liepzig, the battle of slaget vid Dennewitz and the battle of Grossbeeren. In the Piece in Kiel Sweden traded away Prussien aginst some norwegian regions.

Timing is everything in war! Where were you at Waterloo?

[Quintus.JC]

Factions
Twelve factions have been confirmed to be in the game with ten of them playable at the start.

Faction Name Playable at Start?
British Empire Yes
The Ottoman Empire Yes
The Kingdom of France Yes
The Kingdom of Prussia Yes
The Spanish Empire Yes
The United Provinces (Dutch Republic) Yes
The Swedish Empire Yes
The Russian Empire Yes
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Yes
Thirteen Colonies Yes
Republic of Venice No
Austrian Empire No

(source of info from Wikipedia)

I for one would like to see more oriental Powers. The Chinese at that time are a powerful empire but are gradually failing through a series of weak emperors. The Japanese on the opposite are rising to be one of the major powers in the world. They could be compared with the Byzantine and Ottoman Empires.

[VRB]

18th century without Austria faction?:D Very funny

[RedOneZulu]

Yes, the japanese and chinese would be interesting to see in a game like this, at this Era. But if they should choose to include them, how should the map look like? A map over almost the whole world, or one just from, what will it be, eastern europe/western asia to the west and into Japan and China? I mean, over the atlantic sea and the Americas and then also over the pacific? That should be a huge map. Or one just going to the east, without the Americas then. Then perhaps you could include India aswell, then you could have the Marathi Empire as another faction.
Aswell I think the danish should be in the game. Otherwise I feel like the swedes wouldn't have so many enemies (or possible enemies), except russia but they should probably be busy with... like everyone else.

Just my two cents.

[Quintus.JC]

18th century without Austria faction?:D Very funny

The Austrian are in it, but at the moment they appear as an unlockable faction. Not available at the start of the campaign.

By the way welcome to the forum, VRB.:2thumbsup:

[Quintus.JC]

Yes, the japanese and chinese would be interesting to see in a game like this, at this Era. But if they should choose to include them, how should the map look like? A map over almost the whole world, or one just from, what will it be, eastern europe/western asia to the west and into Japan and China? I mean, over the atlantic sea and the Americas and then also over the pacific? That should be a huge map. Or one just going to the east, without the Americas then. Then perhaps you could include India aswell, then you could have the Marathi Empire as another faction.
Aswell I think the danish should be in the game. Otherwise I feel like the swedes wouldn't have so many enemies (or possible enemies), except russia but they should probably be busy with... like everyone else.

Just my two cents.

You misunderstood me. I meant that these 12 factions are confirmed as playable factions. The rest are in, but unplayable.

By the way welcome to the forum RedOneZulu.:beam:

[shopperkimpy]

Siam , Siam !!!
the strongest nation in Southeast Asia from 1767 to 1893
one of the few countries in the world which has never been colonised

:book: :book:

[Quintus.JC]

Siam , Siam !!!
the strongest nation in Southeast Asia from 1767 to 1893
one of the few countries in the world which has never been colonised

:book: :book:

That's a very good suggestion. Welcome to the forum Shopperkimpy. ~:wave:

[PBI]

Nice idea, it would be refreshing to see some of the SE Asian cultures in the game, aside from China they seem to me to be very underepresented in strategy games. Unfortunately the very fact that Siam was never colonised seems to me likely to rule it out of this game.

Although, I believe many of the neighbouring nations were colonised, so hopefully it'll be in. The impression I get is that there will be lots of small non-European factions rather than just a few big ones.

[RedOneZulu]

@Quintus Julius-Cicero: Oh, but thats good :)
And thanks!

[Abokasee]

You misunderstood me. I meant that these 12 factions are confirmed as playable factions. The rest are in, but unplayable.

By the way welcome to the forum RedOneZulu.:beam:

Just a quick edit of the descr_strat should do the trick...

[Quintus.JC]

Just a quick edit of the descr_strat should do the trick...

Yeah, I always do that in R: TW. But does it work in MII:TW as well. The unplayable ones. I mean like the Papals and Mongols hordes and Aztecs. The hordes are emergent factions that don't appear at the start, The Pope gives out missions and the Aztecs are in the middle of no where.

[PBI]

Works fine in M2TW, they can all be made playable by modding descr_strat, although some require some serious modding to make into a sensible campaign, e.g. the Aztecs will be stuck in the Americas for three hundred years with nothing to do if you don't give them the ability to build ships.

I imagine the same will be true in ETW. What I understand from what I've read from CA is that the reason factions are made "unplayable" is just because they aren't as well "fleshed-out" as the playable factions, i.e. they generally have less well-rounded unit rosters, no faction-specific intro movies etc, so they can't advertise them as playable factions.

[Quintus.JC]

In M2TW all the fun factions are playable, but in Rome that's not the case, half of the factions that aren't playable include Macedon, Pontus and Armenia. I found some of them to be better than playable factions. Hopfully in Empire all the good factions will be either playable from the start or unlockable.

[pevergreen]

I do believe every faction will be playable by modding, CA themselves have said they are trying to keep ETW more moddable.

I do agree, Macedon was one of my favourite factions to play as.

[Jedi Bruno]

Well, since I am Brazilian, I would like to see the South American continent displayed in the game. During that time there was a lot of conflict against the natives and later there were several insurgents against the Empire of Brazil. Has anyone heard about the War of the Tatters? Also called War od the Farrapos? It was the longest revolution to ever occur in South America, and maybe the whole American continent, it lasted 10 years of bloodshed, and was the only conflict in Brazil where the whole revolutionary army was forgived and merged with the Emperial Army.


As for the European factions, if the British Empire is there, I'll be satisfied. I am gonna love to see those redcoats and highlanders destroying those pityful french armies.:smash:

[General_Someone]

I am gonna love to see those redcoats and highlanders destroying those pityful french armies.:smash:
Amen to killing those Frenchies:laugh4:

[Aztec Warrior]

Hey everyone, this is the factions i'd like to see the most (and play).

British Empire (CA can't possibly leave this one out)

The Dutch

Prussia

any Sub-Saharan African faction

any native north American faction

the Mughul empire of India

and that's it for starters.:2thumbsup:

[Csargo]

Hey everyone, this is the factions i'd like to see the most (and play).

British Empire (CA can't possibly leave this one out) In

The Dutch In

Prussia In

any Sub-Saharan African faction has not been announced afaik

any native north American faction same as above

the Mughul empire of India pretty sure they'll be in there

and that's it for starters.:2thumbsup:

Hope I helped.

[Quintus.JC]

The far east factions such as China and Japan HAS to be there.

[Csargo]

The far east factions such as China and Japan HAS to be there.

I don't believe the campaign map reaches Japan, just Southeast Asia.

[PBI]

The last FAQ seemed to suggest only India, North America and North Africa would be included, which would be rather disappointing.:thumbsdown:

[Quintus.JC]

The last FAQ seemed to suggest only India, North America and North Africa would be included, which would be rather disappointing.:thumbsdown:

Darn right it is! When do we acutally get to play as the Chinese.

[penguinking]

I really want to see Persia as at least an unlockable faction. Nadir Shah of Persia was an extremely successful ruler during the eighteen century. His armies sacked Delhi and fought numerous successful wars against the Afghans and the Ottoman Empire; it would be impossible to accurately represent the Ottoman Empire without the Persians.

[Csargo]

The last FAQ seemed to suggest only India, North America and North Africa would be included, which would be rather disappointing.:thumbsdown:


The campaign map will be larger. It includes Europe, North and South America, North Africa, Central Asia, India, and Indonesia

This is according to pever's Summary thread. I'm assuming this will include the southern part of China as well as Vietnam, Thailand, etc

[Martok]

Since when is the campaign map going to include central Asia and Indonesia? (Last I'd heard the map was going to include Europe, North Africa, the Americas, and India. That's it.) Does anyone have a link to evidence of this?


This is according to pever's Summary thread. I'm assuming this will include the southern part of China as well as Vietnam, Thailand, etc
I doubt it, actually. Unless & until CA says otherwise, I would assume the opposite.

[pevergreen]

I refer you to the summery thread on included factions.

The Mughals are in.

[Csargo]

Since when is the campaign map going to include central Asia and Indonesia? (Last I'd heard the map was going to include Europe, North Africa, the Americas, and India. That's it.) Does anyone have a link to evidence of this?


I doubt it, actually. Unless & until CA says otherwise, I would assume the opposite.


direct your nation to dominate Europe, North Africa, the Americas, the Indies, and the Indian subcontinent.

Yeah you're right Martok it's probably not a good idea to assume anything that hasn't been specifically stated. :bow:

[rajpoot]

China was of immense importance to the British I believe? I cannot see how will they not include such an important entity of the time, they might just squeeze it in at the top, maybe not even give a special Chinese faction, but the land will certainly be there.

[Csargo]

China was of immense importance to the British I believe? I cannot see how will they not include such an important entity of the time, they might just squeeze it in at the top, maybe not even give a special Chinese faction, but the land will certainly be there.

I don't believe the British got involved in China until the 19th Century, except for possibly opium trade.

After doing a little research it seems that is correct. The First Opium War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Opium_War) which was from 1839-1842 according to Wikipedia.

[Quintus.JC]

I really want to see Persia as at least an unlockable faction. Nadir Shah of Persia was an extremely successful ruler during the eighteen century. His armies sacked Delhi and fought numerous successful wars against the Afghans and the Ottoman Empire; it would be impossible to accurately represent the Ottoman Empire without the Persians.

Same here. Assumeing the Ottoman being one of the major factions there'd be no way to portrayl them accurately without the Safavids and their successors, after all they're there biggest rivals in the east.

[hdk330]

England &
Nederland.

Netherland & England has so many colonies at that time. Especially in South East Asia, as an example, they had VOC (Verenigne Ost Compagnie) in Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Thailand, and Indonesia.

[Generals_Bodyguard]

England &
Nederland.

Netherland & England has so many colonies at that time. Especially in South East Asia, as an example, they had VOC (Verenigne Ost Compagnie) in Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Thailand, and Indonesia.

Indeed...but they got serious only around the 19th century 1820's and above. They have mostly set up trading post earlier and it wasn't colonisation per say. Singapore was only founded around 1815(sometime around there). Malaya was slowly colonised in the 19th century (after Th East India comapany first set up in Penang in 1776 -> roughly)

The Dutch were ealier in the region at Batavia(Jakarta today) and Malacca.

[hdk330]

Indeed...but they got serious only around the 19th century 1820's and above. They have mostly set up trading post earlier and it wasn't colonisation per say. Singapore was only founded around 1815(sometime around there). Malaya was slowly colonised in the 19th century (after Th East India comapany first set up in Penang in 1776 -> roughly)

The Dutch were ealier in the region at Batavia(Jakarta today) and Malacca.


I hope if we play as Portuguese or Netherland, we can trade in with Japan.such as tobacco and riffle weapons.

As we know in the history of Japan, Riffle weapons and tobacco was first introduced to Japanese daimyo by Portuguese / netherland traders.

Correct me if I'm Wrong.

and is it possible to you if we can play as a japan faction in ETW?

[Quintus.JC]

and is it possible to you if we can play as a japan faction in ETW?

Doesn't looks like it. I'd hate to miss out on China and Japan.

Continents:
North+South America, all of Europe.
North Africa, French colonies in North Africa, Native Africans.
Central Asia + English trading posts in India, Mughals in India, Indonesia

Seems everywhere is included except the far east. :shame:

[mps247]

I have no idea what the campaign map will look like, but it would be a shame to cut off the far East. Although I agree that even through Imperial China didn't do very much in the way of conquering over this time (somebody tell me that I am wrong - I am pretty sure about this, but not that sure), I think they should be a playable faction. They were of vital importance. I believe the British almost went to war with them because the Chinese emperor refused to trade with a small, insignificant island (which conquered a good deal of the World, but perhaps this didn't count for some reason).

Japan shouldn't be there because of isolationalist policies. It was only after Commodore Perry's arrival in 1854 (I think) that Japan started to invest in new technologies. Their short-lived attempt to build an empire really started in the early 20th century.

Although India had lost a great deal of its power, parts of it were still independent (not sure of the timeframe of this game I'm afraid, so this could be wrong). It would be nice to see if you could overthrow the "East India Trading Company", and build an empire from there.

[hdk330]

(I hope) ETW should put the whole new world in the game because there were so much great histories at that time in europe, middle east, and asia.

Moreover, I hope all playable factions will be able to anchor their ships to the dock of the new land so we can build a trading post over there and make a good relationship to the natives... or invade them all :duel:

[Quintus.JC]

I think they should be a playable faction. They were of vital importance. I believe the British almost went to war with them because the Chinese emperor refused to trade with a small, insignificant island (which conquered a good deal of the World, but perhaps this didn't count for some reason).



The Britz did go to war with them, but this was in around 1840 onwards which is outside the timeframe of ETW.

[mps247]

The Britz did go to war with them, but this was in around 1840 onwards which is outside the timeframe of ETW.

Thanks for the information - I suppose this is when the British must have seized Hong Kong. I think that the British sent an unsuccessful trade delegation in 1729, and that one of the people involved made a very passionate speech for war with China in the British parliament some years afterwards, without success.

[Mailman653]

A little off topic, but is anyone else looking forward to the pre-battle speeches? I wonder what an inept commander might say.

[facupay123]

it would be great if they put the southern parts of south america, at least until they reach to rio de la plata, so they could put the hispanic independant forces, they'll probably make the same emerging faction for all south america (if they do it) but it's OK anyway.

[Lusitani]

18th century without Austria faction?:D Very funny

Its a lot funnier to see a game about empires without the country that started the whole thing ...
:smash:

[Martok]

Its a lot funnier to see a game about empires without the country that started the whole thing ...
:smash:
Which country would that be?

[deguerra]

Which country would that be?

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

According to wikipedia, the first empire deserving of the name was the Sumerian Emprire of Akkad (Akkadian Empire) :2thumbsup: :clown:

[Spankfurt]

I hate to be one of those patriotic douches, but I would like to see, if at least on some small scale, an Independent/playable form of Canada. At least some specialty Canadian colonial troops. Like !@#$ing mounties.

[Lusitani]

Which country would that be?

Not the Akkadian Empire as suggested by DeGuerra....i meant the start of "globalized empires" that started in 1415 with the conquest of Ceuta by the portuguese.

[WarMachine187]

Putting at least two african empires in the game would only make sense.Id say the Ashanit and maybe morocco or the songhay or somethin. the popular notion that the africans like the natives just put their weapons down and walked on slave ships is a complete error.The Ashanti beat the british in their first war,tied the second,then lost the 3rd.An african faction wouldnt make the game anyworse or better and anyone who wouldnt buy the cuz of an african faction has issues.The natives,africans,and indians all should have factions because they were historically signifacent to the period in which the game takes place.I forget who it was that said they wouldnt buy the game if there were arican nations but i meant that for him.

Id be real dissapointed if there was no austria.

[Martok]

Id be real dissapointed if there was no austria.
I would fall over dead from shock if there was no Austria in ETW. ~D They are in the game, however, and I'm pretty sure they're one of the playable factions as well (as opposed to one of the ~40 non-playable factions).

[Jolt]

Thanks for the information - I suppose this is when the British must have seized Hong Kong. I think that the British sent an unsuccessful trade delegation in 1729, and that one of the people involved made a very passionate speech for war with China in the British parliament some years afterwards, without success.

Yes, sort of. To be true, China wasn't as vital to Britain as people are normally led to think. China's only Trade Post with the world was none other than Portuguese Macau. Britain indeed did try to open up China to trade, but it's influence in Eastern Asia wasn't really that great at that time (Don't forget France had colonies in India until 1750), still, they opened up a Trading Post in Canton in 1711.

However, as British power in India grew, so grew it's meddling in Eastern Asian affairs. India was, if I'm not mistaken, the largest producer of Opium in the world (And India was controlled by the British East India Company, which in turn payed large amounts of dividends to the UK Government in London), and while the said product was strictly banned in the UK, the government (Both the UK Government and the East India Company, which was in charge of all Indian affairs) didn't mind the increasing British smugglers, taking Indian Opium to sell it in China.


The Opium itself constituted a great problem in China. Not only was it began to affect, not only the lower strata's of the population but also high Imperial officers itself. But the biggest problem was that Opium itself was managing to turn the economic balance in the UK's favor (Once again, it favoured the East Indian Company, which payed a part of it's gains to the British Crown), balance which had always favoured China (British often bought large amounts of Tea from China, paying with large amounts of Silver). And since the British Government was doing nothing to stop the contraband (Obviously, since they were gaining money from it), China took affairs into its own hands. An Imperial Officer named Lin Zhou was charged with stopping the Opium trade at all costs, and he worked zealously to do so. This, however began to upset the powerful British East Indian Company, as this was cutting all the hefty and newly gained revenues of the BEIC (British East Indian Company).

Then an incident involving some British sailors in Canton, where the said men killed a Chinese citizen and were then arrested for trial in China. Britain demanded that those sailors be given a trial according to British laws, but the Chinese, who never overlooked homicide, decided to trial themselves and executed them, which gave the UK and BEIC, the casus belli to attack and reimpose Opium Trade in China.

What happened with Hong Kong, was that after the British invaded and took Hong Kong, along with several other forts in the area, the governor of the region (named Qi Shan) tried to end the war himself, leading to the Convention of Chuanbi, which ceeded Hong Kong to the British. The problem was that the Imperial Government refused to accept that treaty and carried on with the war, promptly executing Qi Shan for treason, though the execution was later revoked and he was exiled to somewhere I don't know.

[Aztec Warrior]

Putting at least two african empires in the game would only make sense.Id say the Ashanit and maybe morocco or the songhay or somethin. the popular notion that the africans like the natives just put their weapons down and walked on slave ships is a complete error.The Ashanti beat the british in their first war,tied the second,then lost the 3rd.An african faction wouldnt make the game anyworse or better and anyone who wouldnt buy the cuz of an african faction has issues.The natives,africans,and indians all should have factions because they were historically signifacent to the period in which the game takes place.I forget who it was that said they wouldnt buy the game if there were arican nations but i meant that for him.

Id be real dissapointed if there was no austria.



Right on with the native factions! Where ever Europeans went to colonize there were native peoples trying to fight them off and some were successful for a bit. To not show these conflicts wouldn't make sense.
Anyway, the Austrian empire is probably going to be included.

[legionary75]

I'd vote for England... i wanna put like 20 Units of the strongest English ships against 1 American Sloop... lol

[mps247]

What happened with Hong Kong, was that after the British invaded and took Hong Kong, along with several other forts in the area, the governor of the region (named Qi Shan) tried to end the war himself, leading to the Convention of Chuanbi, which ceeded Hong Kong to the British. The problem was that the Imperial Government refused to accept that treaty and carried on with the war, promptly executing Qi Shan for treason, though the execution was later revoked and he was exiled to somewhere I don't know.

Very interesting. Thank you for taking the time to write all of that (not just what I have quoted above, but your whole post). I had no idea about the intricate details. It was very educational and interesting. Thanks!

[Jolt]

No problem! ^_^
Many people assume it was the UK Government initiative to send Opium to China, although the reality is far from it. Most (If not all, I'm not sure) of the fighting was done by BEIC Divisions (Basically Indian Soldiers under British leadership). It's actually obvious once we realize the proximity of British India to China, and the necessity to keep many divisions (Due to constant Indian rebellions), in contrast with UK directly Administrated colonies, whose colonies most close to China (e.g. Sri Lanka/Ceylon; Australia; Canada) were either too small (Ceylon) or did not need a great military strength, since there was little instability in those colonies thanks to more passive natives (Australia; Canada). The other possibility would be to bring troops from the UK, halfway across the world.

[Zaleukos]

I'm a bit torn with respect to "native" factions. On one hand you want opposition rather than empty areas in the new world or wherever you want to build colonies, but on the other hand you dont want nonsensical Huron colonies in South Africa either. So the best way would be to have such factions but make them very defensive or limited (maybe unable to build ships). But then players will complain about not being able to colonise with those nations:p

I guess the best solution is to have such factions in the game with restrictions, but make the game at least as moddable as the predecessors so those who want to build Huron colonies in Scotland can do so...

[PBI]

Yeah, that seems easy enough to do; something like the Aztecs in M2TW. There are plenty of mods which give them the ability to build ships.

Maybe the native factions could build some sort of shallow-water boats like canoes which would enable them to hop around island chains like the Caribbean, but not duke it out with a ship of the line or sail to Europe. Then again, bear in mind that the "native" factions are going to include some fairly advanced civilizations like those in India, who most certainly should be able to build ocean-going vessels.

[Zaleukos]

Then again, bear in mind that the "native" factions are going to include some fairly advanced civilizations like those in India, who most certainly should be able to build ocean-going vessels.

For such advanced nations it'd make more sense to simply flag the AI to not perform naval landings, a bit like the M2TW 1.0 :D

[rajpoot]

I might be totally wrong, but the way I see it, keeping in mind that this time ships aren't just small units on the world map, I doubt if modding them would be so easy.
btw, I think that the natives should have the capability to build the ships they did, and cross the oceans with them, but if it's kept accurate enough, then even after this no native can colonize Europe unless the player is a real pro. I mean hey, if a veteran can manage to beat musketeers with spearmen, then he should have the option of going on.

[PBI]

The only reason it would bother me if the "natives" were able to colonize the Old World is if the AI were to do it all the time, and we end up with a game where the Prussians and French are routinely overrun by a huge Comanche empire. I have no problems whatsoever with the player being able to do it. If people don't like the idea of the native Americans carving out a huge European empire, no one's forcing them to do it.

Maybe the acquisition of ocean going vessels could be handled by the new technology system, so native factions will be able to travel overseas, but not right from the start and they will have to invest lots of time and money into doing it. Or maybe it could be handled like the acquisition of horses and guns for the Apache in Kingdoms, by sufficient contact (either through combat or trade) with the Europeans.

[seriousbusiness]

In 1700 France (with its large colonial empire - much larger than the English colonies (keep in mind the UK was not formed until 1707, IIRC) - was almost indisputably Europe's Foremost power. Spain had declined in the late 1600s and while the Dutch (with much naval control) and Austria acted as something of a counterweight, Louis XIV's France was scarily powerful. However Louis XIV is getting older and his successor Louis XV is not made of the same stuff (the Seven Years' War was one of France's most catastrophic defeats ever and ruined France's credibility and finances. Sweden is a major player in the north. Peter the Great's Russia is emerging as another major player with enormous potential. The Ottoman Empire, although relatively less powerful than in much of the previous 2 centuries, remains potent. Britain has just had a mostly lacklustre century - civil wars, public execution of Charles I (the horror! ~:eek:), dictatorship and so on, emerging with a relatively small colonial empire less powerful than most people assume. The situation is looking a little dim for Poland-Lithuania, with terrible defeats at the hands of the Swedes and Prussia and Russia looking to their lands for quick 'n' easy expansion (Polish partitions were an important geopolitical consideration which made Prussia and Russia considerably stronger). They had to work very hard to gain what they eventually did. Domestic reform is also key - a landlocked, industrialized empire (say, Austria) might easily beat another great power in a local European war.

I'm annoyed Austria isn't playable at the beginning. I very much hope it is unlockable. They were easily more powerful than the Dutch or Swedish and before the Prussian-Austrian war appeared to be in pretty good shape (they might well have won that war, too)

The Mughuls are a can of worms in my opinion. I would personally like to see ETW focus entirely on the European balance of power (let's face it, few foreigners have ever beaten a European force - Ethiopia (Italy) and Japan (Russia) are possibly the only ones I am aware of. If the Mughuls are playable then before you know it people will be wanting the Mayans, Incans, Inuits, Aussie Aborigines...

[Megas Methuselah]

Very good, seriousbusiness. You just necro'd a very old thread, with its last post 6-months old.

:no:

[Sheogorath]

BUT, since we're on the subject, I feel the need to point out that several Indian principalities (states, whatever you want to call them) DID beat the British, even after the disintegration of the Maratha Confederation.

Close enough in relatioN:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Maratha_War

In my opinion, the Mughals should definitely receive all the attention and dedication a main faction gets. And who knows. Maybe a taste of Asia will give CA the oomph it needs to make 'Emperor: Total War' or something and give us not only Japan, but all of Asia.

*Drool*

[Fisherking]

Where is Austria? Surely it is worth playing!

And no, in 1700 it was not a land locked nation, It bordered on the Adriatic Sea. Austria held Trieste from the late 1300s until 1920. There was nothing keeping it from becoming a Naval Power any more than there was anything keeping Prussia from the sea. In fact it later became a strong sea power but it was after the time frame of the game.

Austria should at the very least have the ability to build ships and pursue naval technologies if it chose to do so.

[Sheogorath]

I think Austria occupied Venice sometime shortly after the start of the game.

Looking it up, no. Apparently Venice only ceased to exist in 1797. But I'm sure players can go the alternate history route and take out Venice early. They should be pretty weak, even by the start of the game.

[Martok]

I'm annoyed Austria isn't playable at the beginning. I very much hope it is unlockable. They were easily more powerful than the Dutch or Swedish and before the Prussian-Austrian war appeared to be in pretty good shape (they might well have won that war, too)
Where did you get the impression that Austria wasn't going to be playable?

[Fisherking]

Ja! Ich muß Bayern spielen! Aber…It will have to be a mod I fear.

[Azlahn]

Hi everyone. I've been spying around here quite a bit lately, but I think I've found something post-worthy. I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed, nor am I sure this is the right place to post it, but from the latest Gamespot video (i.e. "the Road to Independence"), it looks like the Maratha Confederacy will be playable. I took a screenshot of it, but apparently I am not allowed to include attachments. However, it is around 00:37.

On a further note, it looks like I'm not even allowed to post links. Seriously, what kind of fascism is this?

[Megas Methuselah]

You're a junior member. In this society, the abilities to post links and edit posts are privileges granted to the rare few. :clown:

Anyways, if the Maratha Confed is that huge Indian empire, then yeah, it's playable. I think it's been an undisputed belief for a while, now, but I'm not sure.

[Sir Beane]

I was assuming the Indian playable faction was going to be the Mughals, not the Maratha. I think the Maratha will probably be in the game though.

As for Austria, with the new total of 12 playable factions I would say it is almost certain to be in the game as a playable faction.

[Sheogorath]

I was assuming the Indian playable faction was going to be the Mughals, not the Maratha. I think the Maratha will probably be in the game though.

As for Austria, with the new total of 12 playable factions I would say it is almost certain to be in the game as a playable faction.

I'm not too up to date on my Indian history, but it LOOKS like the Mughals actually peaked around 1707. The Maratha apparently existed at that point, somehow...I guess as a coalition within the Mughal state.

But yeah, maybe they'll be an emergent faction, which shows up when the Mughals lose control of a certain number of states.

[Martok]

Welcome to the Org, Azlahn! Good to see you here. ~:cheers:



Hi everyone. I've been spying around here quite a bit lately, but I think I've found something post-worthy. I'm not sure if anyone else has noticed, nor am I sure this is the right place to post it, but from the latest Gamespot video (i.e. "the Road to Independence"), it looks like the Maratha Confederacy will be playable. I took a screenshot of it, but apparently I am not allowed to include attachments. However, it is around 00:37.
I saw their shield/flag, but I don't know that it necessarily means they're playable, only that they're a faction in the game. Given that CA has previously stated the Mughal Empire is already going to be playable, I strongly doubt they'd add another playable Indian faction.



On a further note, it looks like I'm not even allowed to post links. Seriously, what kind of fascism is this?
Trust me, fascism has nothing to do with it. It's actually set up that way to hinder spambots, as it's harder for them to advertise effectively if you can't click on a link. I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience, however. :gah2:

That being said, if you simply continue to participate in a helpful manner (as you already have), you'll be granted full membership in a week or two; I promise. :bow:



Anyways, if the Maratha Confed is that huge Indian empire, then yeah, it's playable. I think it's been an undisputed belief for a while, now, but I'm not sure.
Well like I said earlier, CA had stated a long time ago that it was going to be the Mughals that would be playable. Unless they decided to go with the Maratha instead since then? I suppose it's possible. :shrug:

[Sir Beane]

https://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w191/BeanetheOrange/Mughals.jpg

This is a map of the Mughal Empire at it's greatest historical extent, which coincidentally was 1700, just as the game starts. At the start of the game the Maratha had a sizeable but underdefended empire. On the first image I think some of their territory has been included as belonging to the Mughals.

The two factions were at war at the time the game starts, historically until 1707.

https://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w191/BeanetheOrange/South_Asia_1758_AD.jpg

This is a map of the political situation in India circa 1758, it gives you an idea of how power ended up split between several different factions.

Here is an old map showing India from 1700 to 1792, more or less the period the game covers.

https://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w191/BeanetheOrange/india_shepherd_1923.jpg

I hope this gives everyone an idea of the (frankly confusing) political situation in the country at the time.

[Azlahn]

I understand your point concerning spam bots, but I still found the restrictions quite unnecesarry. I would have appreciated if I was at least allowed some degree of visual communication such as attaching an image.
The reason why I find this so important is that in the screenshot which I took, there is a text box attached to the cursor which says: "Maratha Confederacy (You)". I would say this indicates playability. The Maratha appear to be the small orange state in the south, whereas the Mughals would probably be the bigger green empire to the north. They might still be playable as well.

Oh, and thanks for the history lesson :)

[Sir Beane]

I understand your point concerning spam bots, but I still found the restrictions quite unnecesarry. I would have appreciated if I was at least allowed some degree of visual communication such as attaching an image.
The reason why I find this so important is that in the screenshot which I took, there is a text box attached to the cursor which says: "Maratha Confederacy (You)". I would say this indicates playability. The Maratha appear to be the small orange state in the south, whereas the Mughals would probably be the bigger green empire to the north. They might still be playable as well.

Oh, and thanks for the history lesson :)

No problem (assuming it was my rambling you found helpful):laugh4: If not, forget I said anything.

As for your screenshot, that would be news indeed. It would actually be somewhat of a suprise if the Maratha were playable, someyhing we havent seen yet with the factions so far confirmed. I doubt however that there will be two playable Indian factions.

Perhaps CA intend for us to play as the Maratha since the Mughals had reached their full potential around 1707. In that case we would take on the role of the underdog fighting the established power as well as outside invasion, which I think is an interesting tactical situation.

Don't worry abou the attatchment, keep on posting like you have so far and you will be promoted in no time :2thumbsup:

[General SupaCrunk]

Marathas ain't playable, there are 11 of playable factions only one is missing, there's showed Marathas first because player plays with them and they are unlockable

[Sir Beane]

Marathas ain't playable, there are 11 of playable factions only one is missing, there's showed Marathas first because player plays with them and they are unlockable

There are no unlockable factions in Empire, as far as we know (unless you mean you can unlock them through editing files, in which case every faction is plyable).

Unlike Medieval 2, all 12 playable factions are playable from the start, and none are unlocked. This is what evidence seems to suggest anyway.

So far we have never had the Mughals confirmed, only that there will be an Indian faction. It's therefore still up in the air whether it will be the Mughals or the Maratha, until we can find evidence one way or the other.


I decided to include a quick rund own of the factions that will probably be playable, for people who haven't been keeping up with all the hard-to-find interviews and things.

Playable factions so far:

Confirmed by faction feature:

1) Great Britain
2) France
3) Spain
4) United Provinces
5) Sweden
6) Russia
7) Ottoman Empire

Strongly suggested by various evidence:

8) Prussia
9) Poland-Lithuania
10) Austria
11) Mughals/Maratha
12) U.S or possibly Portugal (depending on whether the U.S is counted as one of the 12)

Unless something drastic happens in the comoing months then it will be these 12 factions which are playable, and no others unless CA announce the ability to unlick factions (I don' think they will based on comments in interviews about the rest being unlocked by modders)

[General SupaCrunk]

CA has said all other factions are unlockable, like in other TW series

[Sir Beane]

CA has said all other factions are unlockable, like in other TW series

Indeed, but only by modding the game. It won't be like Medieval 2 where you unlock the rest of the factions by completing the grand campaign.

[General SupaCrunk]

No, when you conquer faction you can play with it.

[Sir Beane]

No, when you conquer faction you can play with it.

If so that is interesting info, but do you have a source? It's not that I don't belive you but I've heard exactly the opposite mentioned in a few of the interviews and previews, so I'm worried my info might be out of date if you have something new ?

[General SupaCrunk]

Ask someone here: http://shoguntotalwar.yuku.com/forums/114, there i find all my information.

[Sheogorath]

Indeed, but only by modding the game. It won't be like Medieval 2 where you unlock the rest of the factions by completing the grand campaign.

I dont know that it qualifies as 'modding', considering it basically consisted of 'copy, paste' for like, %90 of them. The only ones that required actual modding were the Timurids and Mongols...and the Papal States, sort of, since, if I remember, the game crashed if you tried to bring up the 'papal standing' screen.

[Sir Beane]

I dont know that it qualifies as 'modding', considering it basically consisted of 'copy, paste' for like, %90 of them. The only ones that required actual modding were the Timurids and Mongols...and the Papal States, sort of, since, if I remember, the game crashed if you tried to bring up the 'papal standing' screen.

Since 'modding' is shorthand for 'modifying' and you have to modify the files in a way they are not intended to be then it is technically modding, even if it isn't paticularly difficult :laugh4:

The terminology doesn't really matter though, my point is still that as far as I know only 12 factions are playable and the others will not be unlocked by beating them.

If anyone has any other info then it would be great if they can share it, with a source if possible.

By the way GSC, I checked on that site you posted the link for and their info says the same thing, about 40 factions unplayable.

[Emperor of Graal]

To be honest, as long as they put in lots of factions with their own strength and weakness.
It won't be long until I find my favorites~:cool:

[General SupaCrunk]

Since 'modding' is shorthand for 'modifying' and you have to modify the files in a way they are not intended to be then it is technically modding, even if it isn't paticularly difficult :laugh4:

The terminology doesn't really matter though, my point is still that as far as I know only 12 factions are playable and the others will not be unlocked by beating them.

If anyone has any other info then it would be great if they can share it, with a source if possible.

By the way GSC, I checked on that site you posted the link for and their info says the same thing, about 40 factions unplayable.

I thought create tread there and ask!!! In one tread one guy found info about that.

[rabcarl]

Yes the Dutch would be nice, also I'd like to see some factions which are specifically geared more towards building an economic empire rather than brute-force.

[Azlahn]

GSC, it would be really nice if you could post a link to the thread in which you found your information. Otherwise I might think that the guy you mentioned simply lied to you. Especially since what you say contradicts all other information that I have come upon.

[Megas Methuselah]

It doesn't matter; they could be easily made playable through copying and pasting a few lines of text.

[Martok]

GSC, it would be really nice if you could post a link to the thread in which you found your information. Otherwise I might think that the guy you mentioned simply lied to you. Especially since what you say contradicts all other information that I have come upon.

It does indeed seem to contradict virtually everything we've read thus far. Unless and until someone from CA says otherwise (and/or a direct link to the information is provided), I think we have to assume that the other factions *won't* be unlockable by conquering them.

[dain4745]

Sweden,sweden,sweden and sweden did you know that sweden was a great power between the year of 1600 and 1801, in year of 1600 sweden went in to war against polan it was cald in sweden The Great Polish War, between the Polish king Sigismund (who was earlier king o Sweden) and the swedish king KarlXI. King Karl XI started the by attacking Lithuania who was a region of the polish kingdom. The war was later moved to Riga. After a few years King Karl XI died and the new swedish king Gustaf II Adolf took over the throne, the war ended in the battle of Gurzno. Sweden was 8000 men and Poland 7000. Sweden won the battle pretty easy with only 30 men dead and 60 men wounded. Sweden was standing as the winner and had counquerd Lithuania.
In the 16th century Sweden had one of the best armies in the world and they prooved it at the Battle Of Breitenfeld were the German Emperors army were totaly crushed. Battle Of Breitenfeld
Sverige-Sachsen Holy-roman empire- The Catholic League

Commanders Commanders

Gustav II Adolf Johann Tserclaes Tilly
Gustaf Horn Gottfried Heinrich von Pappenheim
Johan Banér
Lennart Torstenson
Johan Georg I of Sachsen

After the battle Sweden had counquerd Prussien in the northern Germany and had fulfield every goals they had but Gustaf II Adolf had bigger plans. The Swedish army marched down into southern Germany and sacked town after town. The 15th april in the year of 1632 the swdish army smashed into the Catholic army when they tried to cross the river Lech. After the war against germany and poland sweden had northern Germany and pieces of Poland, the entire Baltic, Finland and Norway. Swden lost many regions in Finland and Baltic in the war against Russia in the year of 1788. In the year of 1813 the swedish crown prince Karl XIV Johan declared war against Napoleon, Sweden were present at the battle of Liepzig, the battle of slaget vid Dennewitz and the battle of Grossbeeren. In the Piece in Kiel Sweden traded away Prussien aginst some norwegian regions.

Hope i gave you some Swedish history now :book:


Most of this is true but i am just going to point out that sweden never conquered lithuania, and lithuania wasn't a territory but it's own country in union with poland, Sweden did conquer Latvia and Estonia if that is what you are thinking. Not to forget earlier in history the Polish and Lithuanian forces defeated sweden also, not sure of the numbers, but i was pretty sure P.L. was outnumbered.

[Megas Methuselah]

There is no doubt Sweden was a great power, but yeah, that post was somewhat nationalistic and biased. :dizzy2:

[Pinxit]

There is no doubt Sweden was a great power, but yeah, that post was somewhat nationalistic and biased. :dizzy2:

I am from Sweden. And that post wasnt nationalistic and biased. It was complete rubbish.

:balloon2:

[Sheogorath]

I am from Sweden. And that post wasnt nationalistic and biased. It was complete rubbish.

:balloon2:

A Swede with sense? Good sir, I salute you! :ave:

But seriously, it's rather funny, if you look up any battle of the Great Northern War that the Russian's won on Wikipedia, take a look at the 'discussion' page. There's usually a great big argument between the Russians and Swedes as to who REALLY won, the wording of the article and so on.

It may just be me, but are Swedes naturally such a prickly lot? Must be the Viking heritage! :gring:

[Sir Beane]

Do Sweden and Russia have an England/France thing going on?

If so multiplayer is going to be interesting, what with both sides of the argument being able to recreate famous battles playing as their home faction. :laugh4:

[Sheogorath]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Swedish_Wars

That should tell you all you need to know :winkg:

And, indeed, it should be fun to watch the Swedish and Russian clans go at it :tongueg:

[Pinxit]

Do Sweden and Russia have an England/France thing going on?

If so multiplayer is going to be interesting, what with both sides of the argument being able to recreate famous battles playing as their home faction. :laugh4:

Considering that during the battles of Narva and Poltava Sweden was outnumbered 5 to 1, it will indeed be interesting to see how this is solved. And the Russians lost the battle of Narva. I cant even imagine how much of a noob you must be to lose with such an advantage in numbers (in the game).

:balloon2:

[Pinxit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Swedish_Wars

That should tell you all you need to know :winkg:

And, indeed, it should be fun to watch the Swedish and Russian clans go at it :tongueg:

Frankly, most people of the world seem to dislike Russia. But thats most likely because of USA winning the Cold War. Media have always loved to hate Russia.
Swedish people dont hate Russia because of our common wars. Why should we? We have had 200 years of peace, we have no international conflicts, we love our Scandinavian neighbours (even though they make fun of us), we are 9 million people sharing 450,000 sq km, and have an extremely high standard of living.

If Sweden had kept its empire, it might not have went so well in the end. So, thanks Russia. And besides: now we have Finland as a buffert against the Russians :idea2:

:balloon2:

[Pinxit]

A Swede with sense? Good sir, I salute you! :ave:

But seriously, it's rather funny, if you look up any battle of the Great Northern War that the Russian's won on Wikipedia, take a look at the 'discussion' page. There's usually a great big argument between the Russians and Swedes as to who REALLY won, the wording of the article and so on.

It may just be me, but are Swedes naturally such a prickly lot? Must be the Viking heritage! :gring:

I have read those arguments between the Russians and the Swedes on Wikipedia. It seems both sides fight because of nationalistic pride. Its not limited to the articles about Russian victories. Its in the Swedish victories as well. But most of all it seems to be limited to some few "prickly" individuals, Russians _and_ Swedes.

I fail to see the connection between Vikings (="blood thirsty, rapists, plunderers, fearless warriors) and being prickly. I thought Sweden had the reputation of being an extremely low profile and pacifist country, since we apparently decided to take a nap while the rest of the world blew themselves up in WW1 and 2.

:balloon2:

[Megas Methuselah]

Wow. It's almost as bad as the various fights between the Greeks and Slavs on YouTube.


I thought Sweden had the reputation of being an extremely low profile and pacifist country, since we apparently decided to take a nap while the rest of the world blew themselves up in WW1 and 2.

Huh? What country are you talking about? :clown:

[Pinxit]

Wow. It's almost as bad as the various fights between the Greeks and Slavs on YouTube.



Huh? What country are you talking about? :clown:

1. Oh, those I have to see.

2. Even if you outnumber me 200 to 1 you wont be able to survive my wrath in Empire if the next word coming out of your mouth is: "Switzerland". :inquisitive:


:balloon2: