Over 30 factions?

There hae been some interesting discussions in this thread though I think directing the requests to CA is a mistake.

It seems to me that the faction list they provided (of 21 factions) is the faction list for the game minus rebels of course which is in itself interesting and meaning that either there is at least 22 factions or no rebels.

From reading Caliban's post on the TW forums and the Bob Smith interview the impress I get is that firstly those 21 playable factions are playable in MP battles and not necessarily in the SP game. The Aztecs is a prime example as they are "playable" but will only appear in the campaign when "unlocked". The impression this gives (when considering earlier games) is that they will not probably not be playable in SP. Secondly CA are looking to see if they can expand the number of available factions to 30+ if it does not break the game. I would view this as expanding the functionality engine for the benefit of the modding community (as long as it holds up in beta testing) rather than any evidence that they will provide additional factions in the release of the game.

So our plees are better directed at the various modding groups that have established themselves for the TW series.

As for expecting any particular historical accuracy from a TW game, have you not been paying attention to the earlier ones!?!? BI has a "historical battle" with King Arthur in it!!!!

Total War was and remains solidly in the realm of Hollywood Style History. And anyone who thinks the STW was particularly historically accurate needs a slap... ;)

As far as I know, the 21 factions are playable in custom and MP battles. Has CA confirmed that this also includes SP campaign?

......Orda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

As far as I know, the 21 factions are playable in custom and MP battles. Has CA confirmed that this also includes SP campaign?

......Orda

---

Nope not yet.
But we can count on that some factions will not be playable such as Aztecs, Mongolians and other emerging factions.

I sincerely hope that Mongols are included this time around. Russia? With no Mongol presence?

........Orda

How can the golden horde be playable ??
The game starts at 1080 and according to the interviews then there are no era's . Just one large campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TB666

How can the golden horde be playable ??
The game starts at 1080 and according to the interviews then there are no era's . Just one large campaign.

---

I seriously doubt that they wont make eras, that would be catastophic for the campaign and people wont EVER see any advanced units. Only if CA made 1 turn equate 4 years.
There will be eras and different factions positions in each era.

Hellenes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

I seriously doubt that they wont make eras, that would be catastophic for the campaign and people wont EVER see any advanced units. Only if CA made 1 turn equate 4 years.
There will be eras and different factions positions in each era.

Hellenes

---

As I said, I'm have based this on the interviews and previews that so far have mention nothing about era's and at the moment pretty much all talk of a huge campaign.

Sorry to again bring up the issue of Bohemia but it simply was a part of the HRE. Although "Austria" was a very powerful duchy/empire toward the end of the medieval era it was still part of the HRE, same goes with Bohemia. Bohemia had a special status because it was what was left of the Moravian empire of the 800's that had been assimiliated into the empire. It was therefore given certain priviledges such as the very important position of being a part of the electoral college:

Quote:

---

The Emperor was chosen by the Elector princes (Kurfürsten). This institution emerges sometime in the first half of the 13th c., as a consequence of the crisis of 1198. It appears in the Sachsenspiegel, a compilation of German feudal law written between 1220 and 1235. Its composition seems to have been set fairly early, by the 1230s at the latest. Initially the electors nominated a candidate, subject to ratification by the magnates, but fairly quickly their choice became final. Its formal regulation came with the Golden Bull of 1356, although changes were made occasionally. by the late 15th c., the electors were understood to form a distinct college.

The composition was set as follows:

Three spiritual or cleric electors:
bishop of Mainz
bishop of Trier
bishop of Köln
Four temporal or lay electors:
king of Bohemia
count Palatine of the Rhine
elector of Saxony
margrave of Brandenburg
The Council was presided by the archbishop of Mainz, who had precedence over all electors.

The status of the king of Bohemia was controversial for a long time, because he was not (necessarily) German; on the other hand, he was the Butler of the Empire, and one theory founded the right to elect the Emperor on holding one of the four high offices. One view was that the king of Bohemia's vote was meant to be the deciding vote in case of an even split of the other six. The Sachsenspiegel did not include him as an elector, but the Schwabenspiegel did. It took the Golden Bull of 1356 to settle the matter definitively. The king of Bohemia did not attend the elections after Wenceslas in the 14th c., and in the 17th century was not present for the deliberations, until 7 Sep 1708, when Bohemia was admitted again as a full member of the Electoral college.

---

Source: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/hre.htm

As for the Serbian/Bulgar debate I put my money on the Bulgars. Despite the fact they would have to emerge in the game later on they actually managed to achieve fairly strong empire and didn't suffer as badly as the Serbians did from infighting. The Serbians should definately get some unique units but unfortuantely their inability to stay unified I think disqualifies them as an independent faction.

Does anyone know how far east the map will go?

Serbs were unfied through whole Nemanjic dynasty (when they were strongest too).
As for period before that (1080-1170) I can't comment too much, but at least they were independed for most time (especially at the starting date of the M2TW campaign).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Maybe the just naming them "the turks" would be the simplest solution.

---

I have to agree to that. Of course there was never such a turkish faction like "the turks" since 1080, but assuming there was no ottoman empire at 1080 as well, they have to decide either the seldchuks or the ottomans. Then again somebody would protest either "there was no ottoman empire by 1080" or "there were no seldchuks at 1480 (or whatever)". So assuming, they won't put two turkish originated factions in the game, the best solution is, to name them simply as the turks. Another solution would be to include the ottomans as an emerging faction when the seldchuks revolt, just like in BI, but still I think the former is the better solution.

Edit: Sorry, this was a topic long ago, didn't realized that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellenes

I seriously doubt that they wont make eras, that would be catastophic for the campaign and people wont EVER see any advanced units. Only if CA made 1 turn equate 4 years.
There will be eras and different factions positions in each era.

Hellenes

---

I fully agree- that will ruin the game:wall: :wall: :wall: . The game will became boring (esp. for those who play more offensive campaign- after the first 100 years they will control the biggest empire and they won't even smell the Timurids). And IMHO the different periods make the game unique- you can face different challenges (and the game is more interesting too):horn: :horn: :horn: :horn: :horn: :horn: :horn: ( I hope somebody will hear that horns and will read what has been written here and of course WILL BRING BACK THE THREE PERIODS (suggestion 1081 (Alexius I Comnenus took over Byzantium), 1205 ,1321 ).:helloo: :helloo: :helloo: :horn: :horn: :horn: :horn:
P.S. I don't think even the 4 turns will make the game better

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob the Insane

There hae been some interesting discussions in this thread though I think directing the requests to CA is a mistake.

It seems to me that the faction list they provided (of 21 factions) is the faction list for the game minus rebels of course which is in itself interesting and meaning that either there is at least 22 factions or no rebels.

From reading Caliban's post on the TW forums and the Bob Smith interview the impress I get is that firstly those 21 playable factions are playable in MP battles and not necessarily in the SP game. The Aztecs is a prime example as they are "playable" but will only appear in the campaign when "unlocked". The impression this gives (when considering earlier games) is that they will not probably not be playable in SP. Secondly CA are looking to see if they can expand the number of available factions to 30+ if it does not break the game. I would view this as expanding the functionality engine for the benefit of the modding community (as long as it holds up in beta testing) rather than any evidence that they will provide additional factions in the release of the game.

So our plees are better directed at the various modding groups that have established themselves for the TW series.

As for expecting any particular historical accuracy from a TW game, have you not been paying attention to the earlier ones!?!? BI has a "historical battle" with King Arthur in it!!!!

Total War was and remains solidly in the realm of Hollywood Style History. And anyone who thinks the STW was particularly historically accurate needs a slap... ;)

---

None has ANY illusions or demands for 100% accuracy, even the biggest modding groups cant do that but it is clear that while the level of approximation in STW and MTW was tolerable the whole turn to eye candy, woo effects and "RTS"clown circus for the sake of the 12years old customers has lowered the TW series to the level of AoE and other clickfest "strategy:laugh4: :laugh4: " titles...

Hellenes

I think you should be able to pick an Early, High or Late era game. Or one grand campaign that spans all of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

As for the Serbian/Bulgar debate I put my money on the Bulgars. Despite the fact they would have to emerge in the game later on they actually managed to achieve fairly strong empire and didn't suffer as badly as the Serbians did from infighting. The Serbians should definately get some unique units but unfortuantely their inability to stay unified I think disqualifies them as an independent faction.

Does anyone know how far east the map will go?

---

Serbian empire didn`t collapse right after death of Tsar Stefan Dusan. His son held power for some time after that and, although he wasn`t strong enough to fully control other nobles, he did bear a title of Tsar. He died very young, leaving no heir. Southern provinces quickly fell to the ottomans a few years after but the rest of serbia unified under prince Lazar and again tried to fight the turks 17 years later. Unification was of course impossible after turkish occupation.

So any official announcements about the factions in the game?

Id like to see Bohemia in game:

Your talking about HRE, but it was no empire in its true meaning. Since Karl the Great was gone, empire was just unattainable dream. Better would be divide it into 3 or 4 factions.
For example:
-Burgundy
-German lands
-Bohemia
-Milan

I dont understand why Milan is in (part of HRE as well) while Bohemia not. Prague iself used to be the 3rd biggest city in Europe in 14th century and so on so on. You cannot compare Milan a city with Bohemia, kingdom. Kingdom with This total conquest:
http://www.stratcommandcenter.com/fo...e=post&id=5631

I'd like to see more development of African factions, as well as a deeper map of that continent. Certainly the Americas were not the only route explored, and many interesting cultures existed throughout the African continent.

I'm not saying the whole of the land mass must be explored, but certainly more than in MTW.

Maybe throw in the Canary Islanders, since they were exploited before the Americas. In fact, they were like a training camp for the Spanish on how to concur a culture.

And I don't think that the Amerindian factions are going to be playable from the sound of things. Also, technically Central America is part of North America, just as India is part of Asia.

Yep. Missing Bohemia and many other kingdoms. Seems MTW2 is pretty unbalanced as it was announced. Many western european states compare to only 3 on the East. This is not pretty correct....
This is my list:

Bohemia
Lithuania
Serbia
Bulgaria
several russian principalities like Novgorod, Kiev, Muscovy.

and for sure some others...
I'm always disappointed to see historicaly uncorect maps, fractions, names and etc. in "historical" games.....

Havent read all the topics but has this been confirmed?

No not yet.
Atleast not to my knowledge.

Quote:

---

There will be eras and different factions positions in each era.

---

Hopefully yes

They should concentrate IMO the rest of the faction slots on Western and central Europe.
Brittony
Burgundy
Flanders
Bohemia
Lithuania
Serbs
Bulgar Khanate (was this still around in 1080?)
Kiev
Genoa

They should fill in the areas with the most gaps between factions Russia/Scandanavia/ Northern Africa etc. Obviously, if you were going to do things RIGHT there would be a disproportionately large concentration of factions in Western Europe instead of spread all over, and diplomacy would become integral to carving out a larger kingdom via marriages, treaties, bribes, and just plain ol' gunboat diplomatics. What Annoys me the most about CA is how they group factions together, lets say the Moors is a good example, there was no such thing as "the moors" the Almohads and the Almoravids certainly did rule over the largest areas of land, but they are forgetting Fez, Tunis, and Cyrene just to name a few off the top of my head, and thats just Northern Africa, not all of the minor principalities in Spain who squabbled endlessly against each other, just to find out at the last moment if they had worked together, Castile would not have united so much of Christian Spain against them.
Obviously I understand the hardware problems of making over 30 factions, and I also realize that sales are the best when a product is first released, so they have to bow down to the masses of people who own ****** Computers, and to think of anything less would probably be selfish. However, for the people to keep TW alive, via modding or just sticking with it out of love for the engine (Namely Me:laugh4: ), having AT LEAST 30 factions would be friggin' sweet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

They should concentrate IMO the rest of the faction slots on Western and central Europe.
Brittony
Burgundy
Flanders
Bohemia
Lithuania
Serbs
Bulgar Khanate (was this still around in 1080?)
Kiev
Genoa

---

Bulgarian Khanate was the Bulgarian state before being converted to christianity by Boris I. After that(866) it was called empire or tsardom.
Unfortunately after long war of Byzantium that continued 50 years Bulgarians were conquered (1018). Why? Many enemies of Bulgaria ( Hungarians, Russians),current economic problems and many others. But that was not hte end of the Bulgarians unlike others they succeeded in reviving their country in the end of XII century. After that they became a major power in Balkan peninsula (brilliant map on the first page of that thread). So in the Early period they should be included as a rebel faction (like Burgundy in MTW), but in High and Late should be playable ( High- Wallachia, Bulgaria, Moldavia; Late- Bulgaria).
My advise: read carefully this thread- there are some details that I can not explain now (no time).

Bohemia deserves to be in the game.

It was essentially independant in the 12th century.
Charles of Luxemburg king of bohemia even became emperor of the HRE.
Bohemia independantly warred against Poland and Hungary as well as the conflicts between states of the HRE.
Bohemian soldiers took part at Crecy, and Tannenberg and took part in the Thirteen Years War between Poland and the Teutonic knights.

It was more important than a lot of states that made it as factions.

They should have the children crusader states!

Think of it! The excitment of being sold into slavery!

Could make for a short game though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

I sincerely hope that Mongols are included this time around. Russia? With no Mongol presence?
........Orda

---

Exactly - same goes for Lithuania.
Russia without Lithuania's presence? I cannot imagine it.

The Volga/Kama Bulgars deserve a spot, their capital outshone the likes of London with trading on a huge scale. The mix of troop types, culture etc would be a great addition

.........Orda

Well, first to say "hello!" to everyone here; it's my first post on the boards.

Quote:

---

Why? Many enemies of Bulgaria ( Hungarians, Russians),current economic problems and many others. But that was not hte end of the Bulgarians unlike others they succeeded in reviving their country in the end of XII century. After that they became a major power in Balkan peninsula (brilliant map on the first page of that thread).

---

And, most of all- lack of manpower. Samuil, and later Gavril-Radomir/Ivan-Vladoslav just couldn't muster as much troops as the byzantines and were practically overwhelmed.
Stephen Asen, I'd prefer the Bulgarian Tzardom as a normal faction in the begging. Peter Delian's rebellion was succesfull and he liberated Macedon and part of Thrace, but was murdered by his cousin and his army defeated.
The Bulgarian Tzardom is a importaint faction in the european history, and I'm not saying that because I'm a bulgar.
It's the first and oldest slav state in history.
The cyrilyc alphabet was created in Bulgaria, and it was the most importaint slavic cultural center until the 11th century (and, to some extent again in the 14th). And (overall) it was the the prime adversary of Byzantium.

I'd also like to see Volga Bulgars, but with the fact that the Tzardom won't make it in the game it's doubtfull they'll be in.
Serbia, too, deserves a place in the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stiuartas

I would like to see Grand Dutchy of Lithuania. Lithuania first mentioned in 1009, became powerful state in 14-16 centuries in Eastern Europe. Lithuanians stopped teutonic orders invasion in this part of Europe, ruled over major part of Russia, Ukraine. Severel times defeated mongols. So i think it should be represented in Medieval 2.
As for other factions i vote for Armenia, Swedwen, Teutonic order, Aragon, Bulgaria, the Ilkhanate, Bohemia.

---

Lithuania did all this?? I think it was called hmm rzecpospolita. Other wise known as the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth (later just Poland:laugh4: ). Give credit where credit is due. I mean the freakin Kings were almost always Polish, even in the elected times. (other than a few circumstances). And we never deafeted the mongols. They PWNed us and then went away. You're thinking of Tatar raids, taken out by Polish Hussaria. And you forgot to mention the siege of Veinna.... our nations greatest militaristic(sp?) accomplishment.