take away transoxiana+volga bulgaria and add burgundy+genoa

i have been discussing my point for nearly a month now so i would like to turn it into a thread.

transoxiana and volga-bulgaria are just not that essential to the mod. with both the timurids and mongols spawning why are they needed? what i believe is that burgundy and genoa should be added. This is why:

Burgundy:
created the first professional army
halted french expansion during and after the hundred years war(allied with england)
married into many european royal families thus securing influence
Duke Charles the Bold was arguably the greatest military leader at the very end of the middle ages. just because he lost many battles doesnt mean he wasnt good, think of Giap in vietnam, and George washington. even frederick the great lost nearly half his engagements.

Genoa:
only major threat to venician land and naval power up until the ottomans
created one of the most powerful navies of the time(many admirals of western warfare were genoese mercenaries)
held territory in crimea,north africa, balkans
was in hundred years war with venice to secure supremacy of the eastern medittereanean, had they one it would have been the genoese vs the ottomans.

I agree. I dont think the map needs to go eastwards either really. Its a waste of the newly expanded 31 faction slots to expand the map. With the moddable diplomacy in this game we could have had a really detailed game with lots of kingdoms crowded together and many old favourites and former wishlisters represented but it seems we have to include Persia and all the nomadic empires that wound their way through it.

Yes, its good idea, because the eastern factions have nearly the same type of units.... mounted archer cavalry - so its the same type of gameplay. And I think that most of players will be from Europe. And I dont think so, that they will like too many mongol type States. Timurids are also boring ( but thats only my opinion ). Im glad you added Bohemia and I will also welcome Burgundia, or some more Italic Factions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayhem87

Yes, its good idea, because the eastern factions have nearly the same type of units.... mounted archer cavalry - so its the same type of gameplay. And I think that most of players will be from Europe. And I dont think so, that they will like too many mongol type States. Timurids are also boring ( but thats only my opinion ). Im glad you added Bohemia and I will also welcome Burgundia, or some more Italic Factions.

---

i think more european factions are boring because their units and buildings look nearly the same.

It is better to have more asian or near eastern factions. So transoxania and volga bulgaria must be in.

well no one have said that others mod cant be done ( and i will be more than happy to contribute ) and its right that who make the work decide how it have to be done .

i was to be honest fascinated to play with Armenians , Bactrians etc in RTR but there we had many populations overrunned by romans , so having something "far far away " was refreshing .... while here we will have too many interesting things that would be lost like Genoa , Teutonics , Milan , Borgogne , swiss , Lithuania exhanged for exotic even if interesting factions
... and ive some doubts about that process .

I think those far eastern factions r refreshing, but 90% of players r from Europe, and they will like see their country added.....
And about this mod - It will the best mod.... I played RTR and it was amazing, so this ( I hope ) will be the same - I only want to say my opinion to improve this great mod ( thats why these forums r made, r´nt they? ;-)
And about Burgundia - it begins in 7th century a.d. and last to 15th century i think....so it was important faction, which absolutely deserve to be added. And I will miss it in england-France conflict ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayhem87

I think those far eastern factions r refreshing, but 90% of players r from Europe, and they will like see their country added.....

---

So? I don't think the people who put all this time into the mod are beholden to others that scream about faction X not being in. Those in charge made the decisions based on gameplay factors, as well as historical ones. IIRC, Burgundy wasn't Burgundy until late in the game's time frame. Also, tiny factions surrounded by multitudes of others tend to not fare so well in Total War games. So if you had an ahistorical Burgundy at the game's start, they'd likely be spanked before anything else happened, and the slot would have less of an impact than if it had been used for another nation.

Although I do personally like Genoa. :juggle2:

EDIT: Also, 90% of players "are" from Europe is probably way off. Unless you count ancestry, which then is likely true. Since a lot of us across the pond play this game (that means America :rolleyes: ).

ok America soldier, you can play as some Volga bulgars or so, but most of players will play as some civilised state, not some mongols ( nothing against them ofcourse :yes: )
Dunno what others sayin, but im tired of horse archers from east, thats the same like in RTW, very boring gameplay.... So I think 2-3 Cavalry archer based factions r enough. ( not 20 of em :inquisitive: )

You know not all Muslim and Eastern armies were based on horse-archery? Horsearchery was mostly a Turkic thing, and because of their skill and versatility Turks were often employed in Muslim armies either as captured slaves to be used as Ghulams/Mamluks or as hired mercenaries.

Anyway I think it would be a mistake to solely include Catholic/Western European factions as many propose, having 25 catholic factions 3 muslim factions and 2 Orthodox factions would be boring I think and would reinforce the myth that Western Europeans were the only so-called civilized peoples during the Middle-ages as seems to be the belief held by many.

I know that muslim ( egyptian especialy ) nations were civilised even more than european. But max. only to 13th century....
But I dont think that some transoxania or Volga Bulgars were civilised more than Russia :laugh4:

This is becoming a back roomish thread.

Less talk of who was civilised and who wasn't, and more talk of why both sides of the argument are legitimately beneficial to gameplay would be wiser.

Personally, I think that the only fair and correct thing to do is to take everything in the stride of historical significance from the beginning of the game's time frame.

I fully agree with Baldwin of Jerusalem, point is, that they shouldnt go too far eastward.... its waste of free space ( faction slots ). Transoxania and Volga Bulgaria = wastage ..... there r many turcish and tatar tribes to choose from.

I would like to see volga bulgaria and transoxiania rather than burgundy and genoa. There are already enough factions in Europe, and there arent enough factions in the east, so i think it would be best to change nothing...
But historicaly it is correct to put burgundy and genoa instead of transoxiania and volga bulgaria (Never heard of transoxiania).
It is hard to choose...

since i last posted this thread i have done more research to support my cause. here are some facts:

transoxiana was not independant, it was part of the persian kwarazm empire(much of it not on map, more eastern then modern persia)
samarkand its only really important city became powerful under timur and was then lost to time, though it still exists as a slum city in uzbekistan
transoxiana was the base of the timurids so where would the timurids be?

volga-bulgaria was only existant during the first 200 years of the game and was not a major military power due to lack of miltiary threats. this also goes to support that the area lacked any real power so y should it be included? this is a WAR game! if it had no military strength why should it be in?
also throughout most of its history it was subject to foreign powers.
gained independance around 1000(maybe a little earlier or later as khazars were the major power east of the franks) from khazars when the empire began to break due to russian attacks. then around 1180-1200 they were conquered by the russians and then lost independance to the mongols in
1236. thus a weak nation with only 180-200 years of independance is to be added!

so medieval:total realism contains a non-existant nation and one that had very little strength and was only indepednant for around 180 years.:wall:

burgundy became independant early on in the hundred years wars
(early 1300's) so then it is reasonable for them to be and emerging faction, also just to stop some more oppostition the timurids emerge 70-100 years later in the game.
the duchy created and EMPIRE stretching from switzerland to the north sea by diplomacy(not war but a big part of the game) and the court of Dijon was more influential militarily,politcally,economically, and yes for you culture fans culturally then Paris for the french for around 150-200 years of the game!
during the later part of the game burgundy was a major power base for the rise of the hapsburgs. it collapsed in 1477 with the death of charles the bold.
in the low countries to live burgundian is to live with extravagance, power, and satisfaction. not to be insulting to easterners i have not heard of living volga-bulgarian or living transoxianan in a positive way.

as for genoa, it existed from 800 to 1805 and 1815 so it existed at least four times as long as volga-bulgaria(i cant compare it to transoxiana because it wasnt an independant nation).
it was only second to venice in italys great trading cities throughout the middle ages. it defeated pisa in 1284 and gained corsica thus ending pisas power and starting genoas rise as an international power. after the angevin-aragonese war in which genoa served for the winning side it took control of the sicilian economy.
however, it was defeated by venice and lost its empire to the ottomans towards the end of the game(could fun for the turks before taking on the great powers of catholic europe) later it became the center of spanish banking when spain gained control.

so with this imformation hopefully at least volga-bulgaria and transoxiana will leave and genoa and burgundy will enter the mod.

im just giving constructive criticism not hating the mod!

I think its enough of historical facts to change those factions. :smash: :yes:

YEs its like adding japan to a napoleonic game because we dont have to think that the only civilized peoples were the europeans :egypt:

Forget this civilized, non-civilized/barbarian thing that I foolishly brought up, some of the logic behind including these two factions probably are for flavor and to populate the eastern portion of the map thus making expansion more difficult.
Also if lacking an impressive military power is enough reason for excluding the Volga-Bulgars (whom I must admit I know very little about) then there are some factions in Europe who could be discluded on that basis. I don't think Norway had an impressive army in the middle-ages I think, I've never really seen them mentioned by others, and if someone comes talking about Vikings as a basis for a good army then that is rubbish as the vikings were just pirates. Some fit other patterns: Sicily was conquered in the 13th century, the Cuman nation was destroyed by the Mongols, and so on and so on.

Let's just see how it turns out, who knows maybe the team will change it's mind?

I support factions like volga-bulgaria and khanate of transoxiana...
More factions in the east is a good thing. In vanilla, you had only 2-3 factions battling for a huge number of rich provinces, so it became boring. Of course, a fact that it only a minimal effort was put in eastern factions didn't help. That would also make crusades more interesting, because there will be more factions in the east. Crusades in the vanilla were more of a "who will get there first". Very little challenge.
So factions like V-B or KOT will be very interesting to play.

I am really against adding burgundy, cause, as arfrisco said, it was only independent for about 1/3 of the mod, and that is the last third actually.
That means that it can not be a regular faction. Making it emerging faction would mean that they are unplayable, and would take a spot of a playable faction.
Emerging factions like mongols and timurids are a good choice because they appear as hordes. I am not sure if burgundy could be represented as such.

This game is about changing history. There is no point if after some 300 years, a scripted event like "burgundy appears" happens. Maybe after 300 years of gameplay england conquers france, or france conquers england. Or england is confined on the british isles, and hre conquers france. Since the mod starts in 1071, situation in the 1300's will be a lot different than the historical situation in europe at that time.

And finaly, gameplay. We would have to give huge armies to emerging burgundy just not to have them crushed the moment they appear on the map, right in the middle of the already established factions.

To conclude. Adding an unplayable faction, which appeared under conditions that probably wouldn't be the same in the game (ie france is destroyed), which main purpose will be to add flavour in the english-french conflict, that will be destroyed in the matter of turns if not given unhistoricaly strong armies, over a playable faction, even if it is khanate of transoxiana, wouldn't be a good decision.

And as far as Volga bulgaria goes, if Orda says they were important enough to be included, that is good for me, because I haven't seen a person who knows more about steppe factions than him...

Cheers

wat i didnt mention was that burgundy did exist at the start of the game but it was absorbed into france in the early 12th century. then in 1363 it became independant(or what you may call it) of the royal family and took off as a international power.
also, unless the modders want to alter history a lot their going to have to make the transoxianans have very strong soldiers because their army was used to guard the silk road because there were really no enemies and nothing to conquer. their soldiers were more like policemen and would historically have no chance against even militia units.
volga-bulgaria is weak. the minute the russians arrived the khanate began to collapse. they barely fought the russians! then without any fight the mongols conquered them. at leasts the russians posed some threat to the mongols the volga-bulgarians barley fought! also this was because without any enemies and only barren plains to conquer why would they need an army?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randarkmaan

Forget this civilized, non-civilized/barbarian thing that I foolishly brought up, some of the logic behind including these two factions probably are for flavor and to populate the eastern portion of the map thus making expansion more difficult.
Also if lacking an impressive military power is enough reason for excluding the Volga-Bulgars (whom I must admit I know very little about) then there are some factions in Europe who could be discluded on that basis. I don't think Norway had an impressive army in the middle-ages I think, I've never really seen them mentioned by others, and if someone comes talking about Vikings as a basis for a good army then that is rubbish as the vikings were just pirates. Some fit other patterns: Sicily was conquered in the 13th century, the Cuman nation was destroyed by the Mongols, and so on and so on.

Let's just see how it turns out, who knows maybe the team will change it's mind?

---

well it has nothing to say that you never heard something about the volga bulgars or transoxania. Or that you weren't teached in school about them. Here in germany for example they don't talk something about turkic history in schools that doesn't make them "unimportant".

Quote:

---

well it has nothing to say that you never heard something about the volga bulgars or transoxania. Or that you weren't teached in school about them. Here in germany for example they don't talk something about turkic history in schools that doesn't make them "unimportant".

---

I haven't said anything against the inclusion of these two factions actually. I'm pretty excited actually to see how they turn out, decidedly more so for Transoxania than for the Volga-Bulgars though.

Burgundy and Genoa were far more famous in the world than some Transoxiana and Volga Bulgaria. they had more influence and better army. And thats what Im talkin about.

How do we define importance? Let me see....That's right, anything that is recorded in western European history.
Come, come gentlemen, surely we should realise a World existed beyond European boundaries.
Similarly, for every call for Burgundy or Genoa there could just as easily be a call for Wales and Ireland and others too.

Transoxiana (currently a generic term)
The Qara-Khanid (oddly enough another misnomer that has been accepted) state was established by an offshoot of the Qarluk Turks and Uighurs who migrated there. They adopted Islam in the 10th Century and though considered vassals of the Seljuks, they were free to administer without interferance, the Seljuks were looking in another direction. Their Capital was Bukhara and they enjoyed the wealth brought via the 'silk road'.
They did later on become vassals of the Qara-Khitai (western Liao - Khitan refugees) who set up their own state but generally resided to the north east. Note that Khwarazm was also a vassal of Qara-Khitai (it had by this time shaken off the grip of the Seljuks though maintained an army which was mostly Turkic). Shah Muhammad took advantage of internal strife amongst Qara-Khitai to establish his own 'Empire' and with the fall of Qara-Khitai to Jebe and his Turfan Uighur allies, Muhammad was able to gain the land of 'Transoxiana' between the Oxus and Jaxartes (Amu Darya and Syr Daria) and establish his new Capital at Samarqand.

Volga Bulgars.
Retreated north under pressure from the Khazars and established themselves around the Bulgar/Kama area. Some remained under Khazar rule and others migrated west to found Bulgaria. They began as a mixed people Altaic, Turkic, Finn, Ugrian and Slav and formed a strong link with Baghdad. Their Capital, Bulgar was THE trade centre of the time, making major European cities look insignificant by comparison.
In 1223, after the annihilation of Russian and Qipchaq troops at Kalka and after rendezvousing with Jochi and reinforcements, Jebe and Subedei were forced to withdraw by a Volga Bulgar army. Later in 1236, an army of 30,000 Mongols under Batu's brother Suntai were driven back. They were defeated by Batu and the invasion force that went on into Russia and Hungary and were finally subjugated six years later.
Anything but another 'horse archer' faction (and there are plenty of HA in eastern European armies in vanilla M2TW), their armies were influenced by Russia and Byzantium as well as the Turks.

Now please accept the faction list has been decided and realise that threads like this will have no influence over it

.......Orda

This is a game of medieval times mainly in Europe, who cares about some far eastern factions.... I like Russia, Turks, Egyptians, Bizantines.... they r specific and interesting. But some Volga Bulgars or transoxiana? ---> OK, lets make it straight to China.... ( i think, that Europe was most interesting part in medieval history, not some sub-mongolish type territories, that were captured by first stronger rival that arrived there......its only because of filling in free space on the map..nothing else.....they have no meaning in history.

Quote:

---

Burgundy and Genoa were far more famous in the world than some Transoxiana and Volga Bulgaria. they had more influence and better army. And thats what Im talkin about.

---

How do you know that they had better armies than them yet thev never fought against each other, nor was there are an enemy both of them fought?

burgundy had their part in hundred years war. They were main rivals of France
(and they were supported by HRE). Burgundy was strong economicaly and culturaly. They meant something......and they have the best wine ;-D

genoa fought against venice (nearly conquered them) and turks.. their generals also lead a defence in constantinople against turks....
have you some facts about those nomads from the far east?

than you mayhem, you have my summed upentire point.
burgundy did in fact for a short time have the most powerful and best-trained army in the world between 1453-1477, though its a short amount of time its like saying athens was not important because it was only really powerful for fifty-years. also, other greek states that were considered "barbarian by southern greeks" would have to be added to fill in the north. then so, according to these modders points of view athens would not be in a classical greek mod. people might not agree but these modders are so anti-western its ridiculous.

Note: this is just a comparison as there is no greek mod that i no of

Quote:

---

people might not agree but these modders are so anti-western its ridiculous.

---

Half the factions are western... I don't know were you've got the fact that we're anti-western, we're just not anti-eastern/muslim.
Anyway you could just mod the mod, adding another Catholic faction would mainly involve some new skins and flags, and disclude all the 'barbarian' factions not to your liking ~:)

at the end i tend to agree with the modding group for the sake of gameplay regarding how MTW2 works even if i think that boemia , poland , hre , hungary so compressed will be an half disaster while Russia will continue to get bigger and dominate as it usually do in my games ( until i arrive of course ... )

and what is worse on that? ----> ill tell you.....fighting for a piece of worthless land of steppes, where is one city in region that is 5000km big. Its the same for russians to capture Volga Bulgaria as for Egyptians to capture a big poor land of desert under Tunis ( dunno the name exactly ), the soldiers will be 20 y older before they arrive there. In Europe its different.... the provinces r smaller, wealthier, stronger, better defendable and civilised ! So its better to have smaller states in smaller area, than big states which r spread over half map and have 4 provinces ;-).....so its better to stay in Europe, than expand the map eastward

(Oh, and Genoa had a very strong navy)