Printable View
gallipoli was something of a deathtrap, due to the entrenched position of the turks, so with hindsight a assualt by anyone would have resulted in high casualties.Quote:
Originally Posted by johhny-turbo
i think australians and new zealanders would take umbrage at the suggestion that it was an "english" loss however, as most of the casualties were from that region.
England, just plain uninteresting.
The debate about the history of conflict between Muslims and England is really, utterly irrelevant. Stop getting so easily offended or take it elsewhere.
Gendarmes? Not sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Nihilus
Kartlos, I am pretty sure Burakius was not referring to the recent terrorist attacks, although you are not the only person to have wondered if he was.
Please could people avoid dragging in contemporary conflicts when discussing a medieval computer game? It's not necessary and it is particularly problematic when people start accusing other members of supporting modern day atrocities that I doubt any of us here would conceive of supporting. ~:grouphug:
Any more discussion of this topic here or elsewhere on the forum will be deleted as off-topic.
Well, even though an invasion always means a lot of people get killed and some are robbed you can't look away from the fact the Islamic invasion of Spain made Southern (Muslim controlled) Spain one of the most prosperous regions in the world for about two centuries?Quote:
(defending the invasion of spain etc)
And for factions I don't feel very attracted to: I don't know if I'll play as the Spanish, Portuguese or the Moors (at least not in the campaign, and at least not to begin with), for some reason they don't appeal to me (even though Iberia has an exciting history, just some stupid sub conscious reason I think), neither do I think I'll play as Poland, Hungary or Denmark.
Haven't seen you since Rome was released, here to stay ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Colovion
:balloon2:
The generals and politicians ultimately in command where English. It proved to the ANZACs that the English were not as good generals as the press believed, it also showed the disdain that the English had for colonials.Quote:
Originally Posted by KARTLOS
The ANZACs performed far better when given more free reign under better generals and indeed some of their own were outstanding.
I would contend however that Gallipolli was not a muslim vs english/christian battle. It was one secular nation vs another.
Yes indeed :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dutch_guy
Loving the M:TW2 demo.
exactlyQuote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
we probably would, at that.Quote:
Originally Posted by KARTLOS
and as protest, i shall not be playing england! har har! take that.
Getting back on subject :laugh4:
After seeing the French review at IGN I'm thinking that it might be quite interesting to play as them.
Off topic for (just quickly)
Galipolli wasn't an Anzac or British defeat. It was an allied defeatQuote:
Originally Posted by Wandarah
In terms of the casulaties, I think they were pretty horrendous all round. The best estimates of casualty figures breakdown something like this:
- Australia: 18.500 wounded and missing - 7,594 killed.
- New Zealand : 5,150 wounded and missing - 2,431 killed.
- British Empire (excl. Anzac) : 198,000 wounded and missing - 22,000 killed.
- France : 23,000 wounded and missing - 27,000 killed.
- Ottoman Empire (Turkey) : 109,042 wounded and missing - 57,084 killed.
- Furthermore 1.700 Indians died in Gallipoli, plus an unknown number of Germans, Newfoundlanders and Senegalese.
( These figures are educated guesses, but still approximate and controversial. They are taken from various sources, i.c. official Turkish, Dr Geoffrey Partington, Bernd Langensiepen, Robert Rhodes James, Spencer Tucker and Geoffrey Moorhouse. )
Back to the topic:
I never played in MTW I:
1. England
2. France
3. HRE
Why? Because they are always (sometimes only :)) in medieval games and that isn't very correct when we play game about medieval times (especially in XI - XV centuries).
Egytp.
Quote:
Back to the topic:
I never played in MTW I:
1. England
2. France
3. HRE
Why? Because they are always (sometimes only :)) in medieval games and that isn't very correct when we play game about medieval times (especially in XI - XV centuries).
Umm, are you saying that England and France weren't big nations in medieval times or did I completely misunderstand you?
If I misunderstood you don't get angry :furious3:
Im Scottish and will play as Scotland
I wont be playing as the English, dont want to despite living here and my half English kids being born here ;)
Something satisfying about kicking English ass on M2TW
I loved Hungary on MTW due to the magnificient Szekeley and the close proximity to Avar Nobles and look forward to playing them as my next faction.
Got the game yesterday and tried Spain then unlocked to get Scotland :)
Hungary.. Russia.... serbia.. no offence to anyone who mite originate from those countries..
The French.....I mean come on they are french (Yes that is a biast remark from a German) and the Hungarians
Yes SIGGE you had understood it good.
For example the military power only in XV century Poland (allied with Lithuanians) was bigger than in XV century England and don't forget about Turkey and Hungary which could easily destroy France in these periods.
And what about 10-11 century when the battles between HRE and Poland where fought and Poland survive it with no special problems. Is it a prove of military power or what?
Woah, is it just me or is there waaaaay to much testostorone in this thread.
People not wanting to play a faction for whatever reason should be cool with everyone else surely??? I like to think of it as not getting value (or diversity) for you hard earned $$$ when buying the game.
As a New Zealander (and hence interested in the Gallipolli theme here) I would point out that we got our behinds handed to us on a plate by the Turks. I point out that 90 odd years later Australia, New Zealand AND Turkey gather to remember what happened there. At the same place I might add - and with very little trouble (despite the differences in religion). This battle is far more recent than many battle some of the people here seem to take so personally.
And after all this who will I not be playing??? Probably the Turks - because we fought tooth and nail 90 years ago??? No - I am just useless with the troop types they have :laugh4:
People find boring the eastern european factions (aka Hungary, Russia, Poland here), because in all the TW Games (either ancient or medieval themed) the east-european factions and provinces are ahistoricall, there was very little research done on them, they look like they are unfinished and simply thrown in the game like that, etc....
I must say i am supprised people here dislike hungary so much
they were by far my favourite faction in mtw and taught me how to really use mounted skirmishers to good effect
i much prefer the factions with more unusual troop rosters than the basic speamen archers knights lineup that gets progressively more powerful
ps tho i will be beelin if i see any elehpants with guns in m2tw
Having started some six different campaigns, my worst to best list:
Aztecs
Mongols
Timurids
Egyptians
Moors
Russians
Byzantines
Seljuks
HRE
Scotland
Hungary
Sicily
Danes
Portugal
Poland
Milan
Castile
France
England
Venice
Venice I enjoyed very much. I bet the colors (dark red/gold) influenced it a lot too, as they are my fav's (nostalgia of England in MTW1). And also I like the catholic factions with knights and stuff by far the most, thats what medieval means to me.
The HRE never appealed, they are just too big at the beginning with too many foes, and completely landlocked and surrounded... its not too much fun.
And here is a bit of laugh from venice crusade:
http://aycu40.webshots.com/image/663...4659897_rs.jpg
Milian and Portugal, but I'm probably going to play them all anyways.
Ignoramus is indeed a good nickname for you :clown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
Do you know that big chunk of land in South America, that is called Brazil and the people there speack Poruguese? Guess why... :clown:
LEAST acttracted nations
(no order)
England: Never played England/UK in MTW1, EU2, Victoria, etc.(except several turns) They are too strong and had good location for defence, so no challenge for me.
Moors: Started as them as tests. Without pope, game was so dull and boring. Maybe same for Rus, Egypt, Turk.
Portugal: Why basque???
For myself, Hungary is the most interesting and challenging. 4 fronts war against HRE, Venice, Byzantine, Poland is really exciting, plus mighty mongols.
Portugal.... not overly excited with them
not really crazy about any of the powerhouses or Muslim nations... i always play as Poland :D (which i wish was more historically accurate)
Maybe next time, make it a poll :)
Egypt. Horse Archers and Camels. bah!
Least attracted to the French and the jocks,although the stuff they say is brilliiant,best i have heard.
I think it's why i like the English the best as you interact and war with them both.
Never fancied the Hungarians either,especially as their a horrible salmon colour.
Denmark...meh