Printable View
I think he meant "now insignificant" refering to powers that were not important at the various "eras" the game may encompass. For example at the start Denmark were and influence but by the end of the game their influence (as far as I know) was lesser. I may be wrong but that was my understanding of what was meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
.
To generalizing, painstakingly insufficient and plain inaccurate. :no:Quote:
MUSLIM
The Turks,
Egypt,
The Moors
There were no Egyptians; rather there was the Fatimid khalifate, who at times allied with the crusaders and had been a pain in the ass of the muslim world ever since politically. Due to their extreme Shiite nature, they were hardly in union with the rest of the Islamic world and the populace of Egypt weren't content with their rule at all. OTOS there was a more or less a stable (successive) line of emirates (Zengids and than Salahaddin's house) nominally vassal to the Abbasid khalifate (which could/should be pictured like a senate/papacy but differently in mechanisms), finally overtook Egypt but at the cost of losing Syria afterwards.
There were never a single "Turks" faction, not well until very late 15th century. There were plenty of independent/semi independent emirates instead. The Selchuqs were still in power but in most regions local warlords and governors, be members and relatives of the dynasty or atabegs like Zengids, were practically independent. There were definitely more than more "Turkish" powers at work even in Asia Minor.
The moors were fragmented in Spain into several contending reigns. In North Africa the Muwahhids (silly Almohads of the original MTW) were the most powerful and for a brief period of time they ruled most of Spain too. But there were still several emirates of varying sizes and power lingering at the southern coasts of the Mediterranean. (Still, a single moorish faction would be less inaccurate than "Egyptians" or "Turks", which are plain nonsense.)
.
I agree, but history is not an exact science. Some eastern european nations maybe didn`t have any influence in the western europe but, for example france didn`t have any influence in eastern europe. That is not the reason to exclude france from the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by lanky316
Also, scotland had no influence outside of the british isles. Even there it was minimal. So including scotland for example, instead of bohemia, bulgaria or hungary would be a mistake in my opinion. But, as I said before, I think the importance of a market will be the most important factor which will decide which faction will be included, not history.
I dissagre. Ottomans turks consolidated there power in Asia minor long before 15th century. Actually, by the end of the 14th, century they conquered entire balkan. In 16 century, about the time when the game ends, they laid their first siege to Vienna. Not including ottomans in the game is just wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
Actually at the end of 14th century after battle of Kosovo those land becomed vassals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
They evertually became turkish land in 15th century.
Portugal helped in the major European discovery of the new world (I say major discovery, as there are the Vikings etc. I stress the importance of EUROPEAN discovery, as people obviously lived there. ), and the Pope himself once said that the entire world should be divided between Spain and Portugal. Does that cast a shadow over Bohemia? I think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by SLKHERO
Quite right, but accepted turkish authority, untill the begining of the 19th century when they regained their independence. So I think we can say those were turkish lands form that point on.Quote:
Originally Posted by player1
Actually, it doesn`t since portugal didn`t have anything to do with the discovery of the new world. Portugal discovered sea route to india, and therefore, for a brief period of time, had monopoly on the spice trade.Quote:
Originally Posted by GaugamelaTC
Columbus discovered new world and he sailed under the spanish flag.
The historical accuracy is very important to me. In 1080 there were no Bulgarians- their land were under Byzantine control. At that time Serbs were not very powerful- they were Byzantine vassals. And I'll be very disappointed if there are no three eras to start from (as in MTW) because they give to the game something very special. As I have already written the first half of the XIII century was the golden age of the Second Bulgarian state- so if the period starts from the beginning of the XIII century Bulgarian should be included.At that Serbia stopped being vassal of the empire but was not very strong country( i.e. at 1190 ( Bulgaria was revived in 1185) Serbs were defeated by the byzantine army, but when in the same year another army (lead by emperor Isaac II Angel(1185-1195) )tried to conquer Bulgaria again ...then it was defeated by Bulgarians in the Balkan mountain(Stara planina)). Some decades later (look the map) Serbia was absolutely less powerful than Bulgaria ( Bulgaria did not conquered Serbia at tha time (agree) but the Bulgarians supported the new Serbian king Stefan Wladislaw to strengthen his power). So in the end of XII and the first half of XIV century the Bulgarian domination is doubtless.
the first half of XIV century- I agree that is the golden age of Serbia (most of western part of Balkan peninsula was Serbian) but Bulgaria was an important country in the eastern part (altough without Walachia and Moldavia)-i.e. they defeated Byzantines in 1332. The Serbian empire exist till the death of Stefan Dusan in 1355. After that there were many small kingdoms and principalities in what had been the Serbian empire (the same happened to the Bulgarian tsardom- it was seperated into two tsardoms and one principality but two decades later). In 1321 when the original MTW starts the two states- Serbia and Bulgaria(bec of the Mongols) were not very powerful ( but Byzantium was not very strong either- i.e. it was defeated by Bulgarians in 1304). So in XIV they are almost equal ( Serbia is a bit more powerful).
About 1080 Bulgaria should exist (because of Bulgarian mass rebellions against the Byzantines i.e. Peter Delian (1040-1041) but in a similiar manner as Burgundy in MTW ( but more rebellions against the Byzantines).
And just a small note- in the Middle ages the capital of the Second Bulgarian state was not Sofia (altough Sofia should be included in province Bulgaria not in province Greece) but Tsarevgrad Tarnov (now Veliko Tarnovo, Central Bulgaria).
P.S. Bulgaria really ruled the Serbian lands but that was in the begining of the X century (first as a vassals from 917 to 923 and after that as a Bulgarian province from 923 to 931) but for a short time. In the end of X and the beginig of XI the Serbians were Bulgarian vassals but not for a long time.:book:
.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
As late as in Mehmed II's time the Karamanids were a contending power against Ottoman authority at the very heart of Anatolia; Akkoyunlu realm in the eastern Asia Minor proved to be troublesome until 1473; Kilikian princedooms (Zülkadir, Ramazanoğlu) were subdued only by Selim I in 1510's. They were all Turkish principalities. Kurdish warlords, previously independent, were made tributary by Selim I too.
.
And I agree that the Balkan factions (esp. Bulgaria and Serbia) should be included because the Balkan region was really very important!:2thumbsup:
So in the end of XII and the first half of XIV century the Bulgarian domination is doubtless.
It's my mistake I wanted to say in the end of XIIth and the first half of XIIIth century!:embarassed:
CATHOLIC
Aragon,
Castile Leon (Spain),
Crusader States,
Denmark,
England,
France,
Holy Roman Empire,
Hungary
Milan (or Genoa),
Papal States,
Poland
Portugal,
Scotland,
Sicily,
Teutonic Order,
Venice,
MUSLIM
The Turks,
Egypt,
The Moors
ORTHADOX
Armenians
Bulgarians
Byzantium,
Kiew Russians,
Novgorod
Serbians
Wallachia or Moldavia
PAGAN
Cumans,
Lithuanians,
Mongols,
Tumurids,
The rise of the ottoman turks starts with sultan osman at the of the 13th century. Turkish supremacy on the balkan peninsula is established after victory on Kosovo in 1389. By 1393 bulgaria becomes a part of the ottoman empire. After that, ottoman rule is consolidated in the western part of asia minor. In the begining of the 16th century, ottomans defeated the sefevids and mamelukes effectively asserting turkish supremacy in asia minor. By the year 1520, ottoman empire controled vast land from red sea to crimea, and from kurdistan to bosnia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
In addition, 2 x 2 = 4 and E = mc² :yes: What was the point? :dizzy2:
Oh yes... *smirk* I'm talking abut the condition at the game's start: 1080. There was no single, consolidated, unified "Turks" faction at that time. The rise of Ottomans to their ultimate power took centuries; even after the dominion in the Balkans was guarnateed, Asia Minor and Mesopothamia were a source of turmoil. The game will end in 1530 (IIRC) and Ottomans will have just become the single and dominant Turkish faction, save the Safevid Iran ruled by yet another Turkmen dynasty.
Therefore, the waning Selchuq power needs to be checked with at least one contending Turkish faction. Ottomans can only be considered after mid 14th century, at which time they were establishing their dominion at the Balkans and growing to be a threat against the more powerful Turkish princedooms such as the Karamanids.
.
Some of you guys should really work for CA....
Ok, I agree that the rise of ottoman empire starts "in the middle of the game". But, considering what they accomplished, I feel that it would be a crime excluding them. But some kind of turkish faction should exist. Maybe the just naming them "the turks" would be the simplest solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
Anyway, Mouzafphaerre, where are you from, if it`s not a secret?
A war between vassals and lords, that's so uncommon in the middle ages. :rolleyes: We have to limit our view to the time frame of M2TW, that is 1080-1530. In that time Bohemia had brief periods of independnace mixed with long periods of German domination. And you have yet to come up with a decent reason why Bohemia should be included as a seperate faction from the HRE. Because the line of reasoning your following unltimately speaks for having no factions period. If Bohemia is in then any too bit county that broke with it's over lord could be argued for. This would be fine for a game like Paradoxes Crusader kings. Where the combat is abstracted and it's all 2D and text. But for a game like M2TW that has to show the combat you have to scarifce how many factions you have. Lines for the inclusion or exclusion of a faction have to be drawn some where. With the exception of Buegundy and Switzerland CA appearantly worked from a no vassals rule in MTW. Hence why Serbia and Bulgaria were excluded.Quote:
Originally Posted by SLKHERO
There was a reason why denmark never expanded into that landmass above them except for Norway. There was a kingdom called SWEDEN... well Svea...
... add Swedes for the love of god! add them! :furious3:
NORWAY NORWAY NORWAY NORWAY NORWAY...
Friggin eh, if they added timurids who only ruled late game why not Norway?! they had a bit of land in the high middle ages 1200's-1300's...
Because Denmark and Sweden were more powerfull and moree important than Norway. Because of that i wouldn`t prefer playing the Norways
.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
I'm not saying they'll exclude them. :wall: I'm just trying to point out the foolishness of a *single* faction arbitrarily named Turks. IOW, there should be at least two "Turkish" factions, appropriately named after the dynasty or domain.
Istanbul, btw. ~:)
.
Contrary to the common opinion Medieval period was not the period of the chivalry but a period of the slyness as every period of the history. In many cases the most cunning people succeed in gaining the power not the most honest. Some of the nicknames are prooves to that- i.e. Rober Guiskard (the Fox). And many of the vassals did not really obbey to their masters (there is a funny moment with the French king Hugo Capet who was humiliated by a vassal of him ( the vassal ordered to a servant to trip up the king :laugh4: ). But I agree for Bohemia - but it was really important in the HRE - its master was allowed to paricipate in the procedure of choosing a new emperor.Quote:
Originally Posted by lars573
And Bulgaria was never vassals of Byzantium- they were either conquered
(only 167 years) or free (681-1018 and 1185-1396) in the Middle ages. But you are right- that could be the reason for excluding Bulgaria. And that's not fair because Bulgaria was revived and became one of the major powers in Europe.
Oh, I forgot to say- Russian states were vassals of the Mongols!
.
Vassal status should not be considered in deciding the existing of a faction. In most cases vassals were merely nominally so. I'd rather have a much more improved diplomatic system than we have suffered in MTW (non-existing but flavour) and RTW (a joke! irrational and ineffective).
That said, the uniform rebel/pirate faction mechanisme would best be improved. Each province acting at need as a faction when not controlled by a "faction" would be very good but I'm afraid I'm dreaming.
.
Well, the house of Luxemburg was quite powerfull in the 14th century. They were in control of the duchies of Brabant, Luxemburg and Silesia, the marches Brandenburg and Lausitz and the kingdom of Bohemia (John the blind of Bohemia was of the house of Luxemburg, as was Emperor Karl IV of the HRE).Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
So, I want Luxemburg!!!
Would like to see Croat and Serb factions, in separate time frames or not. Think
it's highly unlikely that either will be included though. As for futher splitting of
Italian city states, I'm inclined to think the developers would avoid this again,
[beyond their chosen ones, Milan and Venice] so as to cater for, dare I say,
the more casual gamer.
Not having Genoa would be a disaster IMO :wall: :furious3:Quote:
Originally Posted by SSNeoperestroika
I wanted to show that even the dependence for a certain period of time (vassalage (i.e.mongols were important factor in Russia for a certain period of time) or even conquering) is not so important if the faction had a great success and showed its power.
I agree with this. The Genoese did have a rather lengthy fight with the Venetians although I don't remember the time frame.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix