Medieval Total Realism : Age of Ambition (A Total Realism modification) FAQ

Medieval Total Realism : Age of Ambition (A Total Realism modification) FAQ

Things that you need to know, might not need to know but would be nice to know anyway and things you'd might like to know in advance before asking the same questions over and over again.

Continously added and edited on an ongoing basis

Special credit to DukeofSerbia, former PR for MTR:AOA:TRM

1. What are the factions?

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

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

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

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

Plus:

31. Independents

2. Starting date and End date?

1071 - 1492

3. Why isn't my faction in there?

- Faction limits
- We didn't give a damn for personal preferences
- Unlucky but they were very very close


4. Why doesn't my favourite faction have enough provinces?

- Province capped limits
- We didn't give a damn about personal preferences
- Province division took many different factors into account like demography, geography and re-creation of historical achievements

5. What if I don't like your modification?

Thats ok, we still love you anyway. Go along now and be a good boy (or girl) and don't play with fire.

6. Will Muslims and Islam be represented in a fair and balanced way?

We have Muslim members in our team. Bless them all, they'll steer us in the right course and provide enlightening insights into the Medieval Islamic period.

7. Is it true, MTR will borrow the work of the Baltic modification?

Yes, we are privileged and honoured to be able to have permission to share their work. Madtao is and still remains a member of MTR and we appreciate his good work on the Baltic modification, we support him fully in his endeavours and will look to his team as our primary source of advise for matters pertaining to the Baltics and the Lithuanian faction in particular.

8. Do you hate Medieval Auctoriso?

Not really, we wish we could kidnap their members, but we're ethical human beings here. We've been implanted with micro-chips that inhibit the cynical, cold, calculating, belligerent, militaristic aspects of our personality. We're model saints. There may be some sharing of some knowledge here and there.

9. Wait, I heard there was a merger of some kind?

You're right there is. MTR and RTR have merged into the TOTAL REALISM. Its a full circle story. MTR developed from RTR members but was not a RTR initiative. Now MTR is a fully related partner to RTR. Publius, an MTR Akolouthos is currently helping briing RTR 7.0 to a faster conclusion. He's flat out busy, but that doesn't stop me from filling his plate with work. :yes:

10. Why has MTR attracted so much attention positive and negative?

Ah yes, I remember the "Portugate" incident when the MTR forums were besieged by enraged Lusitanians and sympathesisers. Ok back to the question, I guess it because I don't know. There will always be unhappy people, the surprising thing is that it got out of hand. I copped a warning from the moderators for that. All is forgiven, Portugal is in, and it was not influenced by any outside agitation or lobbying. As I said before, Portugal is in the faction list. No need to firebomb my office.

11. Who is this Desertfox that pops his head now and then and makes posts as if he is some kind of important Fuhrer?

Thats because he is important, he's supervising the RTR project, he's one of the movers and shakers of the MTR/RTR merger. He's a big cheese in this modification project, a big freaking chunk of calcium made from wholesome Frisian cow's milk.

12. OK, is the eye candy gonna be good?

We've got some of the best talent out there, and its not because we're outsourcing to India or Eastern Europe. Its because we drugged them, stuffed them in a sack and made them sign a contract pledging allegiance to the TOTAL REALISM empire..I mean community. So yes, we will give you the best hot looking princess portraits out there, and if its your thing, we have nice looking princes too. Most important of all, the skins of the units.

If you've seen what Madtao can do, you know you're in safe hands with MTR.

13. Man, you're crazy I saw your map, HRE will swallow France. You anti-French jerk, I'll rip your eyes out!!

Calm down, HRE won't go frollicking from the start, they'll face internal strife and other problems first. In 1167, they'll face a nasty rebellion in Northern Italy...think Lombard League.


14. Will France have a fighting chance?

Do French women get fat? Don't answer that one. France will have a fighting chance, I dare say, they're in a better position than the HRE. They're smaller, but also lean and mean. While the HRE faces internal problems, the French can start planning their empire from the start.

15. Khanate of Transoxiana? Now I know you pulled that one from your dreams, right?

There were several states based in the Transoxiana region simply because the region was a major trade route area. It contained fabulously wealthy cities like Buqhara and Samarqand, important Muslim cities as well. The Qara-Khanid dynasty controls that region in 1071, they are vassals of the Seljuqs. They provide a counter-balance to the Seljuqs if the Seljuqs weaken. Plus they'll face many challenges with the rise of the Mongols, the scripted fractures that sees the Chagatai hordes try to seize Transoxiana and finally, the emerging faction of the Timurids and the horrible hordes of Timur-e-Lenk.

16. Are there any girls in the MTR:AOA:TRM team?

If we did, we'd have to kill you. Nice looking female team members are like female dwarfs...very rare.

17. OK, Now I know the TR team is working on MTR, what does that really mean?

It means a bigger team, a huge pool of talent and a faster release of MTR version 1.0

17. Will factions have unique units?

Yes. But some factions share the same units in different manifestations. Eg. Although the Kievan Rus, the Norewgans, Danes and the Byzantines will have access to Varangians, these Varangians will come in different forms and that is reflected according to the faction able to recruit them.

18. Who are the Emerging Factions?

Read the first question. And don't ask me which factions are emerging.

19. Can I ask a question in this thread?

Yes, if its related to this thread or if the question is worthy of being FAQed. If not, I'll delete it, so don't be offended if I delete it, its nothing personal.

20. Will Emerging Factions be playable in their own unique way, Via a different campaign, or a save game, or a later addition to the mod?

Good question Ahiga, we're exploring many options but for the meantime Emerging factions are, at the moment, unplayable.

21. Are there any special opening scenarios for factions?

Depends on the year, I can you give a few examples, but not all of them.

Byzantines vs Turks - Battle of Manzikert, the remaining cream of the Byzantine armies meet the formidable horsemen of the Seljuqs, defeat will be calamitous for the Byzantines, but a defeat for the Seljuqs is no big loss.

Byzantines vs Italo-Normans - Siege of Bari, the fall of Bari will signal the end of Byzantine Italy.

Portugese vs Castile-Leon - Battle of Pedroso, can Count Nuno Mendes complete his aim for Kingship by defeating his former overlords and therefore proclaim Portugese independence 40 or so years before 1128, the historical date of independence.

Italo-Normans vs Independents holding Palermo - Norman army within reaching distance of Palermo in the first turn, the fall of Palermo will secure Sicily for Christendom.

Fatimids vs Independents - basically the Fatimids are in a deep crisis, there is widespread famine in Egypt, revolts in Syria, Palestine and their holdings in the Hejaz make their control over these areas tenuous at best. In addition, the Seljuqs are poised to strike the Fatimids for their heretic Shi'ite beliefs and overrun Sunni majority areas. So, you're going to get an explosion of revolt very early on.

22. Alright, alright, Moorish Spain was one of the wonders of medieval civilisation, so why is Southern Spain barren? You fools! Aha, you're not realistic at all. You're exposed!

Its not barren, the Ummayad Caliphate of Qutuba was destroyed a few decades ago and in its place are the Taifa (parties) which basically fragmented splinter states. Our division of the provinces tried to include as many important Taifas as possible. Basically, you have fight these independent Taifa states if you want to expand into Spain. It's also ideal for the Moors from across the straits to pounce into the divided peninsular.

23. So, explain recruitment?

Our recruitment towards policy is making sure medieval armies are well...medieval armies. What does that mean? It means that costs and recruitment will influence the make up of most armies so that most armies will consist of small, but tactically dominant units, and the rest of the army consisting of semi-professional, conscript or levied units. However, should a medieval army consists of mainly professional units, that would only be at a very high upcost and investment in infrastructure. Moreover, such armies would be precious in any battle as defeat could be decisive.

RTR's recruitment characteristics will be carried over into MTR with a few adaptations. If you liked the AOR system, you'll like it in MTR.

24. Wasn't there a proposed "adaptation" and "e$volution" units policy?

MTR voted on "evolution" units but not "adaptation units". These are mechanisms that serve as a balance and equalising force. Traditionally and historically outdated factions will get the opportunity to change history and be given a fighting chance to adopt up-to-date military technology of their times. This may mean access to military technology they historically were not able to utilise or it may mean outdated units will get updated. Access to evolution units requires significant investment in infrastructure to be able to recruit them.

Factions like Qipchaqs, Timurids, Egyptians, Byzantines, Moors, etc which did not develop or have the opportunity to develop like France, England and the Turks did will be able to square the ledger. We believe this does not "realism" as modifications like this allows players to change the course of history from the history as we know it.

Each evolution unit comes under scrutiny so as to ensure they are historically viable with strong historical circumstantial evidence as to their viability.

"Adaptation" units were originally proposed. They allow factions to recruit units not traditionally associated with their strengths and also as units that can be recruited in certain regions. Eg. If the Moors settle in Western Europe, will they be able to develop heavy cavalry units like the Catholics? We cited precedence in the use of Turcopoles by the Crusaders as an adaptation unit. Despite significant support, it failed to achieve an absolute majority support within the team.

23. Catholics get Crusades, Muslims get Jihads...what do Orthodox factions get?

As far as know, nothing, there was a lack of distinct and overt ideology of "Holy War" or "Inner and Outer Jihads". Such is the hold to Orthodoxy that doctrines are rarely evolved or innovated. But they will be compensated in other ways, with particular emphasis on culture and religion.

24. Are dynasties represented in factions like the Egyptians who had several dynasties?

Yes. It's been explain before. Its all tied to buildings and the infrastructure you choose to construct.

25. How do you address the issue of the co-existence of culture and religion by factions?

Again, it is to buildings, culture and traits. As a Muslim faction, you may allow construction or existence of buildiings of a different religious nature. This may affect your character traits.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

will you inform us about news, pictures of the units or progress in the mod? fans will appreciate it. :)

As soon as we get them. :2thumbsup:

Is there a map available that shows where these factions are placed?

Also, the names are a bit strange. Egyptians is a bit too general, isn't it? Republic of Novgorod? As is Roman republic? Or are these WIP names? Personally, I would prefer faction names to be what the people called its state, like in EB.

Will it be possible to create a weapons like flails?
on the picture - second from the right ( originaly hussitic (from Bohemia)), or on the wall

http://www.husitstvi.cz/vyzbroj21.php

it will be great see those weapons in action, and not only pikes, axes, and swords

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cataphract_Of_The_City

Is there a map available that shows where these factions are placed?

---

seconded.


cheers for the news, sounds good.

Or are these WIP names?
Yes, they are.

https://img223.imageshack.us/img223/...ninamespl9.jpg

Hmh, can't edit my post. Oh well.

I'd like to make a few suggestions:

1. Make the Lithuanian faction a little generic like the Khanate of Transoxania to represent as well the other pagan baltic tribes which were present at the start of your mod. This way you could play this faction from the start instead of waiting for it to emerge (I guess at the present you want to script the nation's founding by Mindaugas). Will need a new name, Baltai-Lithuania? The Baltic and Lithuanian States/Nations/Tribes?

2. Have rebellious army stacks in the Baltic comprising of what would be now in vanilla MTW2 Teutonic Knights and high quality troops to reflect the Baltic Crusades around the beginning of the 1200. At least a nod to the Northern Crusades and a challenge for the present Baltic factions.

3. Have rebellious army stacks in cyprus, rhodes, and some anatolian provinces comprise heavily of Knights Hospitaler units and other high quality troops to reflect the Order of St-John's activities in these areas.


Apologies if I offended previously, I like most of your faction choices.

Quote:

---

Is there a map available that shows where these factions are placed?

Also, the names are a bit strange. Egyptians is a bit too general, isn't it? Republic of Novgorod? As is Roman republic? Or are these WIP names? Personally, I would prefer faction names to be what the people called its state, like in EB.

---

We use general names to cover the several dynasties who were "Egyptian". We know there are several dynasties but we feel they would best be represented under their common designate names. After all, they were Egyptian dynasties.

We have systems in place to allow players to change dynasties as relfected in infrastructure, religion and unit rosters. Thats all I will say for now.

I know how far you all go to achieve realism, so with that in mind, I came across an interesting fact: The Byzantine Empire wasn't called the Byzantine Empire until the 19th Century. In the Medieval era and throughout its lifetime, they refereed to themselves as The Roman Empire.

From Wikipedia do a search for "Byzantine Empire":

"To its inhabitants, the Empire was simply the Roman Empire and its emperors continued the unbroken succession of Roman emperors. During much of its history it was known to many of its Western contemporaries as The Empire of the Greeks due to the dominance of Greek language and culture."

"The Byzantine Empire is the term conventionally used since the 19th century to describe the Greek-speaking Roman Empire of the Middle Ages."

"The term Byzantine Empire was never used during the Empire's lifetime. The Empire's native Greek name was Ρωμανία, Rōmania, or Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων, Basileia Rōmaiōn, a direct translation of the Latin name of the Roman Empire, Imperium Romanorum. The descriptor Byzantine was introduced in western Europe in 1557, derived from Byzantium, the earlier name of Constantinople, by German historian Hieronymus Wolf about a century after the fall of Constantinople. Hieronymus had taken it from the writing of 15th century Byzantine historian Laonicus Chalcocondyles. He presented a system of Byzantine historiography in his work Corpus Historiae Byzantinae, in order to "distinguish ancient Roman from medieval Greek history without drawing attention to their ancient predecessors".

The term 'Byzantine' was introduced in the English-speaking world by Sir George Finlay in 1851, in his History of Greece, from its Conquest by the Crusaders to its Conquest by the Turks.

Standardization of the term began gradually in the 18th century, when French authors such as Montesquieu began to popularize it. Prior to this, the Empire was described in the West as the Empire of the Greeks (Imperium Graecorum)..."

Victory conditions: What are some plans for those? What about dynasties and kingdoms that did not cut it through the era? Will the faction objectives be grandiose or more modest. Remember, most of these kings and such tried strongly to hold on to what they had, but take a little bit more when it suited them. Since the word 'Ambition' is in the title of this mod, how ambitious will players have to be?

Quote:

---

I know how far you all go to achieve realism, so with that in mind, I came across an interesting fact: The Byzantine Empire wasn't called the Byzantine Empire until the 19th Century. In the Medieval era and throughout its lifetime, they refereed to themselves as The Roman Empire.

From Wikipedia do a search for "Byzantine Empire":

"To its inhabitants, the Empire was simply the Roman Empire and its emperors continued the unbroken succession of Roman emperors. During much of its history it was known to many of its Western contemporaries as The Empire of the Greeks due to the dominance of Greek language and culture."

"The Byzantine Empire is the term conventionally used since the 19th century to describe the Greek-speaking Roman Empire of the Middle Ages."

"The term Byzantine Empire was never used during the Empire's lifetime. The Empire's native Greek name was Ρωμανία, Rōmania, or Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων, Basileia Rōmaiōn, a direct translation of the Latin name of the Roman Empire, Imperium Romanorum. The descriptor Byzantine was introduced in western Europe in 1557, derived from Byzantium, the earlier name of Constantinople, by German historian Hieronymus Wolf about a century after the fall of Constantinople. Hieronymus had taken it from the writing of 15th century Byzantine historian Laonicus Chalcocondyles. He presented a system of Byzantine historiography in his work Corpus Historiae Byzantinae, in order to "distinguish ancient Roman from medieval Greek history without drawing attention to their ancient predecessors".

The term 'Byzantine' was introduced in the English-speaking world by Sir George Finlay in 1851, in his History of Greece, from its Conquest by the Crusaders to its Conquest by the Turks.

Standardization of the term began gradually in the 18th century, when French authors such as Montesquieu began to popularize it. Prior to this, the Empire was described in the West as the Empire of the Greeks (Imperium Graecorum)..."

---

we know that already. all faction list names are concept names only.

Ive never liked the term Byzantine myself, its just a shorthand term for Basileia Rhomaion so i don't have to type it out

Thank goodness, there are a lot of provinces to prevent people from creating large empires in such a short time! In our definition of ambition, ambition is not ruling the whole of the map. No, it is simply creating a strong empire which can exercise its power and influence without needing to control every single province. Ambition can also be reflected in the general economic prosperity of the empire itself. Ambition is more than military might, it is also to be remembered as a great ruler. Personally, I'm not interested in conquering the whole map, I'd rather have a governable empire at a decent size and make my empire economically sound and militarily strong, not just for invasions, but to defend, to raid and to interfere in foreign affairs when needed. Even participate in daring expeditions without having conquest as a goal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

In our definition of ambition, ambition is not ruling the whole of the map. No, it is simply creating a strong empire which can exercise its power and influence without needing to control every single province. Ambition can also be reflected in the general economic prosperity of the empire itself. Ambition is more than military might, it is also to be remembered as a great ruler. Personally, I'm not interested in conquering the whole map, I'd rather have a governable empire at a decent size and make my empire economically sound and militarily strong, not just for invasions, but to defend, to raid and to interfere in foreign affairs when needed. Even participate in daring expeditions without having conquest as a goal.

---

Well said!
The SP campaign concept of 'must conquer' has always been a negative IMO. With the exception of the 'Mongol Machine', there were seldom few factions with the strength/wealth to do more than expand their borders a little. It will be very refreshing to concentrate more on running a vibrant economy (and a powerful military as well) and writing your place place in history as a main player, so to speak. That is far more 'realistic'.

** On a side note regarding 'Byzantium'. We must remember that many so called historical names are incorrect or simplified and it does not help when these simplifications are not extended to others, ie The Seljuks of Rum as opposed to the Seljuks of Byzantium. Others like Golden, Blue and White Horde help denote the areas making it easier on the reader (even though even these titles get confused and mixed up) yet they are by no means accurate and history is not well served when certain authors offer suggestions as to their origin.
With this project it is going to prove almost impossible to find historically accurate names for some units and/or factions due to language barriers and some ancient languages that no longer exist. Therefore it may be necessary to use some generic terms such as Heavy Cavalry because the true name has become lost in time

........Orda

Thats great news i hope the mode will be as good as rome total realism
I am new to this forum but i played all total war games and all the realism patches
CONGRATULATIONS guys good luck and good work
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Hi Everyone,

I'm a refugee from TWC and while I've been a TW player since Shogun and a regular browser of the forums, I've only recently become involved in the forums. I played RTR quite extensively and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Question for the FAQs:

- Who controls Milan and Genoa at the outset?

- What will Florence's status be at the start of the game?

- What are the scripted events for these important cities during the course of the game?

Looking very forward to it. Some of the concept artwork is stunningly good.

MM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrMerisi

Hi Everyone,

I'm a refugee from TWC and while I've been a TW player since Shogun and a regular browser of the forums, I've only recently become involved in the forums. I played RTR quite extensively and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Question for the FAQs:

- Who controls Milan and Genoa at the outset?

- What will Florence's status be at the start of the game?

- What are the scripted events for these important cities during the course of the game?

Looking very forward to it. Some of the concept artwork is stunningly good.

MM

---

Aha! I've just moved down a couple of threads and seen the map post.

So it looks like HRE will own those cities at the start of the game. So in light of that I'd like to modify my 3rd question and add another:

- What are the scripted events for Milan, Genoa and Florence cities during the course of the game?

- Venice looks all but HRE. What will it start with?

Quote:

---

- What are the scripted events for Milan, Genoa and Florence cities during the course of the game?

---

Major Urban rebellions against Centralised power. Expect Northern Italy to be tough to hold, they just want to be independent :p

Lombard League will manifest as one big major Northern Italian rebellion.

Quote:

---

- Venice looks all but HRE. What will it start with?

---

Island of Venice and Istria. Venice is connected by a bridge of any kind, you've got to make a naval landing to even attack it. So if you are the Venetians, and you have a weak land army, but a very strong fleet, don't expect an invasion anytime soon, except perhaps Istria, but the HRE will be occupied with the mainland to even bother anyway.

Venice has the opportunity to create a maritime empire of enclaves from one end of the Mediterranean to the other...sound like fun?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

Major Urban rebellions against Centralised power. Expect Northern Italy to be tough to hold, they just want to be independent :p

Lombard League will manifest as one big major Northern Italian rebellion.

Island of Venice and Istria. Venice is connected by a bridge of any kind, you've got to make a naval landing to even attack it. So if you are the Venetians, and you have a weak land army, but a very strong fleet, don't expect an invasion anytime soon, except perhaps Istria, but the HRE will be occupied with the mainland to even bother anyway.

Venice has the opportunity to create a maritime empire of enclaves from one end of the Mediterranean to the other...sound like fun?

---

Well it not only sounds like fun, it sounds realistic. The Italian cities should be very hard to hold and require full foreign garrisons of quality troops at all times (militia wouldn't cut it against the local nobles, who should be able to hire a wide variety of local and foreign mercenaries to supplement their rebel armies, especially in the late game with the rise of the Condottieri).

Historically Venice expanded slowly and surely through naval and mercantile power and it's absolutely correct to represent this in a realism mod. The island city should absolutely not have a land bridge, nor did the city ever have any walls, so they shouldn't be able to build them (which is an issue with the game engine because cities expand by building ever bigger walls). I also don't know how sieges could work because invading armies would have to land directly onto the city itself, as, apart from the thin ribbon of land called the Lido, there was no open land to disembark an invading army onto. How do you plan to get around this with the limits of the game engine/strat map? Perhaps Venice could be represented on the strat map as a city/port and because the city can't be besieged, you'd have to naval blockade the port for X turns in order to force surrender? As the port itself is a land square on the strat map, you'd then have the issue of someone landing an army on the port square and assaulting the wall-less city directly?

In addition, enemy armies sitting across the water on the "terrafirma" should cause devastation to Venice's farming income, as the Venetians did have mainland agricultural holdings west of the lagoon. Their major imports of grain from the mainland should also be reflected in their trade balance and it should always be important for Venice to have trade rights with a faction that has grain as a resource. Their base farming (actually fishing and small agricultural holdings dotted around the Lagoon) should not be enough for them to grow their population beyond a certain point and they should have to engage in trade in order to sustain their populace.

They could also start with a Merchant's Guild and a Merchant's Wharf to reflect their leadership in mercantilism and with a shipwright to reflect their advanced shipbuilding techniques and their large merchant marine. A new resource, Murano Glass, should be added to their territory to reflect their dominance in high quality coloured glass in this time period.

If you like we can PM offline to discuss whether you need any assistance in doing historical research for this period. I live in Rome and have good connections with military historians throughout Italy.

And what about one of the biggest rivals of ERE in this ages - Bulgaria? Why the hell this isn't included?

As was mentioned earlier not every faction of this era could have possibly been included due to a faction limit. I'm sure if they were able they would have been more than happy to include every single country/kingdom/caliphate/city-state/principality/tribe/etc that existed during this era but the game itself wouldnt permit it. Instead they included only those factions that they felt as a whole made the largest impacts on European development.