Printable View
...then why dont they just add 'Difficulty: Very Easy/Easy/Moderate/Slightly Hard/Hard/Very Hard' or whatever?Quote:
I think CA is afraid of new comers playing a faction that is too dificult for them. By limiting the factions to only a few, perhaps nobody will be confused this way or be 'tricked' in to playing a difficult faction.
So what did we do when we found a faction in Shogun, then MTW, then VI too hard? We quit and picked another one...simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chester
tricked into playing a difficult faction?!?!? :wall: Er...what?
Sorry dude but that line of reasoning is completely flawed.
There is simply no reason whatsoever for limiting factions short of CA thinking we are a bunch of brain dead idiots, too stupid to make basic decisions.
Its so that the average gamer will have to play more if they want to play any other factions in the campaign map. Basically its a gimmick to get people to spend more time on the game and increase the likelihood that they would buy other TW products.
I think the reason why CA has chosen to "block" most factions for your first game is simply because the factions that you can play are the ones that are the most "fluffy". In RTW, Rome had the most "fluffy" options and features (i.e. longer speeches, senate missions, largest unit roster, ...). I believe they are following the same path for M2TW.
Besides, you can most probably mod the game and have all the factions in 5 minutes. And even if you can't mod, someone will post a mod on the forums. So, I don't really see what all the fuss is regarding the limited starting choice. Granted, we don't like it. But we can change it, so it isn't the end of the world. :)
The thing that we CAN rave and rant about it is the possibility that Muslim and Orthodox factions seem to be less fluffy than the main factions. That I don't like. Ofcourse, I hope CA will prove me wrong. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faenaris
If that is true than they should have five "fluffy" factions from different cultures. For example, the starting factions could be England (catholic), Byzantines (orthodox), Egyptians/Turks(muslim), HRE (another catholic), and Venetians (just because i think theyre so damn cool:laugh4: )
That way it would be something like
3 'fluffy' catholic (if you take the venetian thing seroiusly)
1 'fluffy' orthodox
and 1 or 2 'fluffy' muslim
That might keep everyone happy if CA just HAS to make only 5 starter factions that get special treatment above the rest.
I think you'll lose this argument against CA. Since CA has final say, and they choose certain areas.CA has a history of focusing on certain areas, more then others. Your not going to convince them to put in 17 playable factions and make them all equal.
Good news, most have speaches. (let's just hope there all cool , where as in rome only romans had cool ones). There seems to be a rather robust unit list. I agree though they want you to experience the most you can starting off. Not try like Almohads, and then be all mad cause you don't have as much to do as say HRE.
It makes sense marketing wise, and it's way it is. No point gettin all mad, just accept it.
YOu didn't read my entire comment.Quote:
So what did we do when we found a faction in Shogun, then MTW, then VI too hard? We quit and picked another one...simple.
tricked into playing a difficult faction?!?!? Er...what?
Sorry dude but that line of reasoning is completely flawed.
There is simply no reason whatsoever for limiting factions short of CA thinking we are a bunch of brain dead idiots, too stupid to make basic decisions.
It's just to make things a bit more interesting. You unlock things...
No different to advancing periods or tech trees.