Why make factions and then not use them?

Hi Everyone

Something I've been trying to work out recently is why CA keeps making some factions unplayable? For me it started in MTW with say the Swiss, now in RTW its Dacia or the Macedonians, BI has Celts and others and I'm sure MTW2 has the same.

I know that these factions can be unlocked quite easily, but for me that makes the decision to lock them even stranger. Surely the more factions to play as the longer the game lasts and the more people you please?

Another small point on RTW & MTW2 does anyone like this new (I'm still working through my first long Juill campaign while playing BI AND ATW so its all still new) system of having to finish a campaign before you get to access more factions?

I don't know of anyone that likes unlockable factions, which is why most people do some text editing and enable all the factions to start with. See frogbeastegg's guide for how to do this. ~;)

As to Minor Factions, I'm not at all sure as to the reasoning behind it.

Hi Third Spearman from the Left,
The CA's explaination is that the non-playable factions had un-interesting tech-tree and did not have a large enough variety of units to make them fun, henceforth they decided to make them non-playable. However, I find this un-true, Macedon had one of the most interesting unit and tech-trees, after Rome and the Selucids, in R:TW yet it was made non-playable. The same is true for Pontos, Thrace and Armenia who have very hard to manage starting positions which, in my opinion, adds to their interest immensly and their playabablility. In my opinion, being able to play as all factions, would have been a wonderful addition to a TW game.

I think the policy of unlockble faction is, however, there to force you to play them first - probably because the other factions are less interesting, this is true for the Romans in Rome due to the senate missions, offices, popular standing, senate standing and the Marian Reforms. If you play as the best faction first then the chances are you will immediately thing, wow, what a cool game and get somebody else to play it, more than you would should you make the effort to play another faction such as The Greek Cities which is resonably dull - phalanx beats all removing the challenge. Although I am against this, I can see the CA's reasoning behind it.

Hope this helps you, cheers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites the Idiot

...should you make the effort to play another faction such as The Greek Cities which is resonably dull - phalanx beats all removing the challenge.

---

The Greek Cities are a nice faction though indeed quite predictable with their somewhat overpowered hoplites. The same goes for the Macedonians I suppose. The more interesting of the factions from my experience so far, which is rather limited, are the "Barbarian" factions. They seem to provide the most challenge. I dislike the Roman factions, due to the restrictive senate and it's insane missions (I dislike games where I'm given a "quest" to carry out to earn extra brownie points) and I don't find them particularly challenging anyway (my Gauls have almost wiped them off the map already, I've actually prolonged their existence just to see what more they can throw at me!). There are a few factions that are so ahistorical they are difficult to come to terms with, such as the "Spanish" and "Egyptians" for example. I really need to download RTR again, I remember that being a pretty good mod. EB runs too slowly on my PC and while I like my historical accuracy as much as the next man, I do find it overly complex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites the Idiot

Hi Third Spearman from the Left,
The CA's explaination is that the non-playable factions had un-interesting tech-tree and did not have a large enough variety of units to make them fun, henceforth they decided to make them non-playable. However, I find this un-true, Macedon had one of the most interesting unit and tech-trees, after Rome and the Selucids, in R:TW yet it was made non-playable. The same is true for Pontos, Thrace and Armenia who have very hard to manage starting positions which, in my opinion, adds to their interest immensly and their playabablility. In my opinion, being able to play as all factions, would have been a wonderful addition to a TW game.

Hope this helps you, cheers!

---

To be honest CA'S explanation is pants and the sooner they give me a job the better :yes:

I think you hit on a very important point which is sometimes it's not the tech trees which are important but the start positions.

Some players like super hard conditions to test their steal and what could be harder than a faction with a limited tech, surrounded by bigger factions and very little cash?

It might not suit everyone but its just about choice for players which IMO makes for longer lasting games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Third spearman from the left

Some players like super hard conditions to test their steal and what could be harder than a faction with a limited tech, surrounded by bigger factions and very little cash?

---

That's one of those nasty issues with R:TW - it was, from what I have seen, designed with a younger audience in mind compared to M:TW. Younger audiences don't often want to test their steal or resolve and prefer to "go steamroller" across the map - the "rebel" faction's easy destruction is clear proof of that problem.

I agree with Caravel and Omanes in that the barbarian factions are tougher and more challenging at the outset and, as a result, are quite fun to play.

Likewise, I can side with Third Spearman. ALL the factions should be playable - and if you want me to play one of the Roman families first to unlock them, so be it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Omanes Alexandrapolites the Idiot

That's one of those nasty issues with R:TW - it was, from what I have seen, designed with a younger audience in mind compared to M:TW. Younger audiences don't often want to test their steal or resolve and prefer to "go steamroller" across the map - the "rebel" faction's easy destruction is clear proof of that problem.

---

You've hit the nail right on the head there Omanes. From RTW onwards, CA have re-oriented themselves towards a younger, more thrill-seeking market more interested in graphics and uber-units than in serious stategy and historical veracity.

One can't really blame them for this; they are a commercial enterprise and their success with their later games shows that, from a business perspective, that was a sound policy.

Nevertheless we can mourn the death of the high-quality strategy in STW and MTW, and be grateful that the series continues to be relatively highly moddable.

I personally feel that it is enough that you can mod the game to make all factions playable... Heck, you can mod in a whole new game.

If any of you do enjoy modding TW like I do, wasn't making all factions playable also your first mod? It is the hint. "Come on, try to make them all playable..." and then you discover this whole MASSIVE game engine. And this engine makes the rest of it (the factions, the units etc.) almost irrelevant.

This is an interesting topic, I too have no interest in "unlocking" factions and as far as Total War Games go one of my first edits is to make all factions playable out of the gate. One of the interesting things about RTW is that two factions at least, Macedon and Pontus were at one point intended to be playable, but were removed at some point. Unlike Armenia or Dacia, Macedon and Pontus both have introductory text ready to go.

I guess the similarity of units, or a boring unit roster is a valid point if the demographic your going for is younger and more action/arcade oriented. Afterall why make Egypt completely anachronistic unless you were trying to hide the fact that the Ptolemies fielded similar armies to the Seleucids and Macedonians. I for one have never quite understood the idea that complete historical accuracy is boring. Certainly you couldn't enforce historical outcomes but what's the problem with making the basis as sound as possible? Why is it considered boring? I don't think the Diadochi had variety in mind when they were assembling their armies for the long struggle after the Death of their Master. Perhaps it is boring (for some) to see legions of pikemen stabbing each other, but that's how things worked.

So, I really don't understand CA's strategy, I know they have one, and I'm sure its based on marketing data that they got from somewhere, but the logic behind it eludes me. Cheers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julius_Nepos

So, I really don't understand CA's strategy, I know they have one, and I'm sure its based on marketing data that they got from somewhere, but the logic behind it eludes me. Cheers!

---

When was the last time CA did marketing research on the org? Have they ever?

While trying to constantly sell more and more games CA and Sega surely realise that the best form of sales generation is through word of mouth. Sure by adding in arcade style battles and uber units you might get a few button bashers for five minutes but then they are off again on to the next five minute wonder.

The real fans of TW series seem to have a constant thirst for TW games, expansions, add-ons and mods. You only have to look at the org to see that.

I hope CA and Sega have as part of their strategy have a plan to use the org as a tool in which to push the series to even higher levels. One way I believe this could be done would be to invite in the teams who create the best mods EB, RTR etc and give them an official stamp of approval. That way the mod teams could have access to hard code under CA supervision and then the mods could be downloaded for a fee, creating extra sales for CA and Sega with the mod teams help.

It's just an idea and maybe it is full of holes but we all want the same thing which is the best TW games possible.

Well like I said I don't know where the marketing data comes from, it certainly didn't come from me since I certainly would not have advised them to make the choices they've made in regards to RTW and for that matter M2TW. It's apparent though someone, somewhere has told them fantasy units, anachronistic factions, and arcade style battles are what a majority of their target audience wants. They didn't just do this kinda thing arbitrarily. And while I'd like to believe that the users of these boards are a significant subset of the total Total War fanbase, this is likely not the case.

Sadly, I would wager good money that its the "five minute button bashers" are the ones CA must take into consideration the most. As far as the bottom line is concerned a sale is a sale. It matters not if the game is played for 5 minutes or 5 years. I can't say how much of a minority the hardcore fans make up, but it seems to me that CA has decided to grow the business and they think, rightly or wrongly, that catering to the devoted fan base is not going to produce enough profits for that task.

So I guess my point is, CA is going to be more concerned with the 13 year old who likes unlocking factions, using Druid "warriors" and Smashing the Seleucids with King Tut than the history buff who's grown tired of fighting Scythian Head-Hunting Maidens at Campus Getae. It's a fine line to tread and I don't envy the position the Creative Assembly is in. Perhaps it doesn't even matter if the decisions are logical or not, so long as they produce enough profits to keep the company in the black. I just hope the next Total War installment strikes a better balance all around.

"No man ever went broke under-estimating the taste of the American public" - H.L. Mencken

Sadly, the world is not exactly over-flowing with video-gamers who also have a love for history. Nor is it over-flowing with discerning strategy gamers who genuinely love a challenge. But hey, that's where the real + of PC gaming comes in. It's up to saintly hardcores to make a game that earns the adulation of the devoted and will be played for years to come. Something they could do much better if it wasn't for the (illegitimate son) hardcoded (Freudian relations) limits :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Julius_Nepos

So, I really don't understand CA's strategy, I know they have one, and I'm sure its based on marketing data that they got from somewhere, but the logic behind it eludes me. Cheers!

---

Judging by the fact that CA has made absolute boatloads of money off of their last 2 titles, I'd say their strategy has been pretty successful from that perspective.