Wallachia is not Bulgaria !

This is probably somewhat of a subjective view (I'm Romanian), but come on... Wallachia and Bulgaria as a a single province?! :inquisitive: And thus not representing Bucharest that was/is a major European city, by far more important to represent than Iasi, the capital of Moldavia which has its own province. It just seems so stupid... Why not make one province for Romania (minus Transylvania) and one for Bulgaria? These two people have little in common geopolitically, culturally, ethnically,....you name it. And they never formed a common state (although I do remember reading something about an attempt of forming a joint Bulgaro-Romanian state, but that was more of an idea.. ). They just thought "Oh, these two regions are close together, lets just make them into a province." :thumbsdown: Its like taking Savoy (Italians) and Provence (French) and putting them together...

Are there more of these booboos in the game? I didn't really get to look around that much yet...

Aren't all those provinces under austrian and/or ottoman control in the game? Meaning they aren't their own states?

I'm no historian but I highly doubt the ottomans or the austrians actually cared about which countries had been there before them and as such divided their administrative regions as they saw fit.

This is mostly speculation however, so don't freak out if I'm completely wrong.

They are, they do fall under Austrian control, and therefore it's up to Austria or Ottomans about how they get labeled. Infact I've discovered several regions in the game if you conquer as another nation will change the name of the province you conquer.

If they rebelled and became thier own province it may be a diff matter but where as Savoy is it's own nation in this time frame, Bulgaria holds no such privleage, much like Hungary it's just under Austrian rule.

Time frame is 1700 false or true?
So Europe map is http://www.euratlas.com/history_euro..._map_1700.html
And in my opinion CA shows again a lack of history culture.
No comment

Yeah, I've noticed that as well, it's kind of stupid just to rename Walachia Bulgaria. But, hey, it's just a game, maybe in the expansion we'll get France owning England, who knows? :inquisitive:

Wallachia and Moldavia were otoman vassals in 1700 they should be like the Crimean Khanate and yes merging Wallachia with Bulgaria is annoying for us a Romanians but most of the provinces in the game have very little to do with historical accuracy.Anyway i don't remember any total war game to big on history so don't sweat it. I'm waiting so we can mod it into reality the map at it's current state is somewhat ridiculous from my view as a history buff it resembles risk more then history.

People fidn the oddest things to get worked up on :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squints

People fidn the oddest things to get worked up on :book:

---

Yes they do, especially when they have like 3rd grade knowledge of European history and are ...bothered... when they see what nonsense is presented to the average bloke playing such a game, which then believes that back then Bulgaria really did stretch all the way to the Carpathians :inquisitive:

How would you feel if I told you the Earth is not round? That's how I feel when I see that part of the map. And yes, I am probably exaggerating all of this because I'm from around there, but that doesn't mean that CA is doing a good job of educating people on the true history of he era --- not that it does that in any of its TW games... I know it's a game and not an encyclopedia, but still.. primary school level history knowledge for me..

I think CA's reasining might be somewhat understandable in this matter...

During this era, Moldavia changed hands several times between the Russians and Ottomans, whereas the rest of the Balkans pretty much stayed in Ottoman hands until the 19th century hit and bits of it started to fall off.

So...they get their own province, Wallachia gets to be a bit of somebody else.

[/shrug]

Just an idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olimpian

Are there more of these booboos in the game? I didn't really get to look around that much yet...

---

They have the Ghoorkas (Ghurkas) being unique to Kashmir when IRL Ghurkas are from Nepal.

Well, there also aren't thirteen colonies in the thirteen colonies. I'm sure this isn't due to ignorance; I find it hard to believe that CA didn't know the thirteen colonies were made up of... well... thirteen colonies. It's not because CA is stupid and doesn't know history, it was a design decision. I really don't think it's a huge deal, and it likely streamlines the game. I'm sure some mods will be out soon that will have a more historically accurate map. For now, just use your imagination and try to enjoy the game. It is a game, after all.

Edit: yes, I know all thirteen colonies hadn't been founded by 1700, but I think you see my point notwithstanding.

Lol who cares anyway!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by General SupaCrunk

Lol who cares anyway!

---

Yeah, I guess I should have expected that kind of feed-back from some people, but I seem to have become quite used to a more historically-accurate-inclined community, 'down' at the Europa Barbarorum subforum. It's just too bad that if you're a history buff and like to learn while you are playing you can't really do that in TW games, just in some mods like EB that focus on such things. Oh well, here's hoping some guys with the skills and time will redo ETW as it should be ~:cheers:

While we are at it, anyone care that casualty rates in most battles of the era were in the 15%-30% range (not 50%-99%, as we see in this game) . . .

Not saying combining/misnaming provinces is ideal, but if we are talking historical simulation, there are alot more pressing issues.

CA has to keep the number of provinces manageable. It does them no good to include all the provinces of every single race and ethnicity that believed themselves more important historically than they really are.

There's always been too much "my race is more important than your race" chest thumping here and it gets old really fast. People outside these provinces don't care. Period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olimpian

This is probably somewhat of a subjective view (I'm Romanian), but come on... Wallachia and Bulgaria as a a single province?! :inquisitive: And thus not representing Bucharest that was/is a major European city, by far more important to represent than Iasi, the capital of Moldavia which has its own province. It just seems so stupid... Why not make one province for Romania (minus Transylvania) and one for Bulgaria? These two people have little in common geopolitically, culturally, ethnically,....you name it. And they never formed a common state (although I do remember reading something about an attempt of forming a joint Bulgaro-Romanian state, but that was more of an idea.. ). They just thought "Oh, these two regions are close together, lets just make them into a province." :thumbsdown: Its like taking Savoy (Italians) and Provence (French) and putting them together...

Are there more of these booboos in the game? I didn't really get to look around that much yet...

---

I don't have much business in this thread and my comment will be a single and very short. There is a point and I catch it Olimpian. It is an annoying mistake but... ~:sigh:~ fact is a fact. It seems it has been unfluenced by the euro integration, maybe. :laugh: :no: Or just ignorance. :stars: Or maybe a reminder that Romania and Bulgaria shall work more with each other... who knows! ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewt

CA has to keep the number of provinces manageable. It does them no good to include all the provinces of every single race and ethnicity that believed themselves more important historically than they really are.

There's always been too much "my race is more important than your race" chest thumping here and it gets old really fast. People outside these provinces don't care. Period.

---

Hahaha... you do not get the point. This is not a race thing. It is purely about real history. If that is how things really, undoubtably, and uncontestably were, why change things? I mean, just stick Walachia with Moldavia and you got a nice Romanian province and a nice Bulgarian province. Simple and straightforward.

And about no one else caring, I find that very ignorant. People should care abut European history. The real history, not Hollywood's history. And I think it is to be expected that people from a region will expect accurate representation and complain about the lack of it because...well...they know. Do you expect a guy from France to start complaining about the misrepresentation of Syria? Well maybe he would if he were somewhat documented on the subject. But of course the most history you know is that of your country/region/etc.. Would you like your home country to be absorbed into one of its neighbours, knowing it is just plain bull? Maybe you wouldn't care, but you should. But I guess history is more like scifi for ever more people...

PS: Please note I did not/am not/will not offend anybody here (or at least am trying not to), I'm just thinking out loud about the disinterest in knowing where we came from and what was before us ; and am a bit disappointed that some have taken all that I have said as a nationalist outburst, when it was not intended to be so.

For the guys who don;t care about history true it doesn't really matter for you guys the game is fun because of battles more then the campaign.
For us historically minded people historical reality is important leaving the Wallchia issue behind I'd say having France and Spain as one province is totally ridiculous.
Playing as unlocked Genoa i took France and Spain in 20 turns now is that really possible? A small city state conquering the two strongest powers in western Europe in 10 years is just mind boggling.
The Genoese might have had a population of what 2-3 million at best and France and Spain 100 million:dizzy2: they could have just charged the Genoese bare handed and won.
Unless the Genoese had at the least some machine guns i don't see how they could have made it
As for the thirteen colonies the reason they exist as a nation is the American market :yes:
But as i said before to everybody enjoy the game. For those of you expecting a more historically accurate game i say why did you didn't you play Medieval 2 or Rome? And also don't worry the mods will certainly fix this at some point
For the rest just understand us we like history and some of us are patriots it's the feeling that's all.
I don't blame CA they are a company and as any company their first and foremost objective is to make money .

You're right The historian, I'll just go back to playing EB till Empire Total Realism or something comes out.

Being honest, I could see this thread turning out into a flame war with more provocative comments such as "It is not even a real country" (real: meaning none of the great powers).

Anyway, look on the bright side of life, your area of the world is in the game. There is a void spot in the middle of the Europe map covered by trees. I am sure my nation actually does exist and not a void hidden by an invasion of trees in the middle of Europe. (It is actually hidden by the Alps in reality. :beam: )

https://img401.imageshack.us/img401/...ntinvasion.jpg

That sir is the most impromptu use of Humor I have seen in a long times.

I bow to you sire:cheerleader:

Maybe CA thought the Swiss are too neutral to cause any trouble... :laugh4:

On the serious side, it is a pretty dumb way of getting rid of a 'delicate' problem regarding your none-the-less existant country. Condolences :skull:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olimpian

Hahaha... you do not get the point. This is not a race thing. It is purely about real history. If that is how things really, undoubtably, and uncontestably were, why change things? I mean, just stick Walachia with Moldavia and you got a nice Romanian province and a nice Bulgarian province. Simple and straightforward.

And about no one else caring, I find that very ignorant. People should care abut European history. The real history, not Hollywood's history. And I think it is to be expected that people from a region will expect accurate representation and complain about the lack of it because...well...they know. Do you expect a guy from France to start complaining about the misrepresentation of Syria? Well maybe he would if he were somewhat documented on the subject. But of course the most history you know is that of your country/region/etc.. Would you like your home country to be absorbed into one of its neighbours, knowing it is just plain bull? Maybe you wouldn't care, but you should. But I guess history is more like scifi for ever more people...

PS: Please note I did not/am not/will not offend anybody here (or at least am trying not to), I'm just thinking out loud about the disinterest in knowing where we came from and what was before us ; and am a bit disappointed that some have taken all that I have said as a nationalist outburst, when it was not intended to be so.

---

I'll be blunt. If CA included everything that you guys want included, Empire would be completely unplayable. You'd have over 100000 provinces and you'd still not be finished with one grand campaign by 2015 even if you played 100 hours a week.

For all I care, Ottoman Eastern European possessions could be one region called Ottoman Eastern Europe. It's not because I'm ignorant of history. It's because you're ignorant of modeling. There's a reason a barbie doll doesn't have every single organ in the human body and it's not because Mattel is being ignorant of the human anatomy.

The fact is, there are always abstractions where games are concerned. There's no historical data to suggest that line infantry are 50% better in melee than militias rather than 60%. Game provinces are the same. There should be a set amount of provinces to control game length. After you hit that mark, certain provinces should be cut from the game or combined with another.

You can deny it is a nationalistic outburst, but it really is a nationalistic outburst. You're upset that your country is one of the regions that got put on the cutting floor or combined with another province. Look at my join date. I've been at these forums ever since Shogun and there's always no end to complaints by people wondering why their end of the boondocks isn't included in the game.

Don't worry, I am sure once there are mod tools out, it will be a quick rename for your problem. I am sure the Irish cringe every time they see it under British control, unfortunately for them, that is accurate of the time period.

To andrewt Europa Universalis or Hearts of Iron have ten time 20 times the provinces in empire and they don't fall apart sorry it's not 1980 it's almost 2010 your PC can model some 500+ regions even at this level of graphics, this is not Risk or Axis and Allies.

PS: I think we should delete this thread cause it'll just flame us up all of us. It's counterproductive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewt

I'll be blunt. If CA included everything that you guys want included, Empire would be completely unplayable. You'd have over 100000 provinces and you'd still not be finished with one grand campaign by 2015 even if you played 100 hours a week.

For all I care, Ottoman Eastern European possessions could be one region called Ottoman Eastern Europe. It's not because I'm ignorant of history. It's because you're ignorant of modeling. There's a reason a barbie doll doesn't have every single organ in the human body and it's not because Mattel is being ignorant of the human anatomy.

The fact is, there are always abstractions where games are concerned. There's no historical data to suggest that line infantry are 50% better in melee than militias rather than 60%. Game provinces are the same. There should be a set amount of provinces to control game length. After you hit that mark, certain provinces should be cut from the game or combined with another.

You can deny it is a nationalistic outburst, but it really is a nationalistic outburst. You're upset that your country is one of the regions that got put on the cutting floor or combined with another province. Look at my join date. I've been at these forums ever since Shogun and there's always no end to complaints by people wondering why their end of the boondocks isn't included in the game.

---

Neah, I'm just so intrigued why they didn't just draw the borders a bit more logically. I never said there should be an extra province there, just different borders. I think I already stated that in an earlier post - do I express myself that bad?:no:

Just because you have 1000+ posts and are here since the stone age doesn't count as an argument in a discussion as far as I am concerned. I have seen my fair share of nationalist threads. If you think this is one of them and I am nothing but an over-crazed Romanian that wants every Romanian county in the game.... it must mean I am very bad at expressing an idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The historian

To andrewt Europa Universalis or Hearts of Iron have ten time 20 times the provinces in empire and they don't fall apart sorry it's not 1980 it's almost 2010 your PC can model some 500+ regions even at this level of graphics, this is not Risk or Axis and Allies.

PS: I think we should delete this thread cause it'll just flame us up all of us. It's counterproductive.

---

There's a reason I don't play Europa Universalis. I tried it once and the game just bogs down. Remember Civ 2 late game? I spent 20-30 minutes per turn just moving all my workers.

I made that comment not because of processor speed. Sure, a computer can model 10x the regions that the game currently has, but how much longer will turns be if you have to manage 10x the provinces and how long will the game be if you have to conquer 10x the provinces?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olimpian

Neah, I'm just so intrigued why they didn't just draw the borders a bit more logically. I never said there should be an extra province there, just different borders. I think I already stated that in an earlier post - do I express myself that bad?:no:

Just because you have 1000+ posts and are here since the stone age doesn't count as an argument in a discussion as far as I am concerned. I have seen my fair share of nationalist threads. If you think this is one of them and I am nothing but an over-crazed Romanian that wants every Romanian county in the game.... it must mean I am very bad at expressing an idea.

---

Probably a misunderstanding on my part. I understood your first post as saying Wallachia and Bulgaria should be two separate provinces instead of what it is currently. I think the number of provinces in game is good enough. The only ones I think should be split are France and Spain, which should be 2-3 provinces each.

Yes i remember Civ 2 endgame didn't stop me from playing.
As for Europa Universals you need a new computer Andrewt :juggle2: no offense meant i'd buy it for you if i could EU is a great game my greatest dream is a EU series-Total war series combination.
That would be the most perfect game ever would probably take till 2015 to complete but i'd savor every moment of it.

My computer can easily handle it. By bog down, I don't mean it taxes my system. I mean I found it full of tedious micromanagement. Some things are better off automated or abstracted out of games.

Sorry i misunderstood i understand now you'd prefer a simpler game then one with a lot of micromanagement the way i like them .

Kingdom of Romania
This will balanced your over extended map and give you less moves in every end turn and I supposed that you know if you make a click on the mouse the game make moves faster so Mister G.W. this is not a valid reason. C.A. doesn’t bother with less money productive regions from global markets this is the real reason.
Why do you believe that they put that thing called 13 colonies? If you don’t know I tell you why, for your big market.:logic:

This will be the Europe map for year 1600 - 1700 in my point of view
http://www.totalwar.ro/map-romanian-MV.JPG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tantalaul

This will be the Europe map for year 1600 - 1700 in my point of view
[IMG]http://www.totalwar.ro/map-romanian-MV.JPG[IMG]

---

There are several major problems with this map, though...

It almost ignores Sweden and the Baltic. Obviously major features in this era.

The shape of the German States does not reflect the reality of the 1700's. While ETW's doesn't exactly either, it does at least manage to give the 'feel'. Plus, this map has no Prussia and no Silesia, West or East Prussia.

The regions around the Crimea would prevent the Crimean Khannate from existing as it did in the period.

The map also simply would not work in...well...pretty much all of Eastern Europe.

So, while it may be 'balanced', it would also be, in my opinion, not much fun and rather ruin any glimmer of historical accuracy present in ETW.

Further, I rather like the elimination of tons of regions. Although at present it means the AI is terribly disadvantaged, hopefully CA will soon work the kinks out and fewer regions will mean you'll have to fight hard for each and every one, as opposed to LOL TEH BLITZ as in MTWII.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tantalaul

Time frame is 1700 false or true?
So Europe map is http://www.euratlas.com/history_euro..._map_1700.html
And in my opinion CA shows again a lack of history culture.
No comment

---

I don't who drew that map, but it's about as realistic as CA's making Wallachia part of Bulgaria. Wallachia and Moldova were part of the Ottoman empire from the early 15th century until 1881. How independant they were within the Ottoman empire is open to inpretation.

Here's someone elses.
http://home.zonnet.nl/gerardvonhebel/1648.htm
http://home.zonnet.nl/gerardvonhebel/1748.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TiberiusBeskar

Don't worry, I am sure once there are mod tools out, it will be a quick rename for your problem. I am sure the Irish cringe every time they see it under British control, unfortunately for them, that is accurate of the time period.

---

They balance it well I think. We get plummed in with the English or British when appropriate but they went to lengths to make the Irish a lot of fun to play in both of the Dark Age expansions for MTW and M2TW. Here's to allowing a "rebellion" mode in an expansion or mod so I can see if 1798 might not have come off a bit prettier. ;)

Anyway, any arguements for realism where it's possible for me to conquer the world inside 50 years and only using 20k or so troops are patently ridiculous.

I don't who drew that map, but it's about as realistic as CA's making Wallachia part of Bulgaria. Wallachia and Moldova were part of the Ottoman empire from the early 15th century until 1881. How independant they were within the Ottoman empire is open to inpretation.

Here's someone elses.
http://home.zonnet.nl/gerardvonhebel/1648.htm
http://home.zonnet.nl/gerardvonhebel/1748.htm
__________________
It is better to die for the Emperor than live for yourself.

VENI, VIDI, NATES CALCE CONCIDI

I came, I saw, I kicked ass



lars573
View Public Profile
Send a private message to lars573
View Userpage
Find More Posts by lars573
Add lars573 to Your Contacts

My time frame is 1600 - 1700 and if I choose 1600 the map will have this profile in eastern Europe and if you want to add in western Europe more factions I will do this

http://www.schoolzone.co.uk/images/SZ5star.gifFor your information is a well documented and very detailed made map from Euro atlas as you see in links below a good Bibliography and references used for the Periodical Historical Atlas of Europe in different times in history.
http://www.euratlas.com/biblio.htm
http://www.euratlas.com/biblio2.htm
and I think these man are good scientist.

Good God. You're complaining about one region not being properly represented? I mean, just because the Baltic States are grouped together doesn't mean it ruins my Swedish Empire, and I have not heard an Estonian complain yet. I agree with the opinion that adding every single little town and city will cause the already meh campaign to become unbearable.

CA made the campaign interesting with the town/port system and tech tree. But they never went overboard in towns, so you were not bogged down. Putting hundreds of towns in several regions because some nationalist players think their town is more important than some other nationalist players town just destroys the mix that I enjoy so much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewt

Probably a misunderstanding on my part. I understood your first post as saying Wallachia and Bulgaria should be two separate provinces instead of what it is currently. I think the number of provinces in game is good enough. The only ones I think should be split are France and Spain, which should be 2-3 provinces each.

---

I'm OK with France being one giant province, even though it bothered me at first (it's counterbalanced by the many French colonial regions). But Marseilles really ought to be a working port from the get go - it's been a major trading hub since before the Romans for chrissake ! And it's really counterintuitive and a-historical for France to have to invade northern Italy just to have a presence in the Mediterranean...

That map just looked like the med 2 map, infact it even says so.

Atleast this is civil for a more nationalistic thread, i would love to see more provinces in the balkans to give you more to do but hey thats life.

Well, I'm really, really upset at how my hometown was depicted by the time I got there:

https://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y7...Myhometown.jpg

A cathouse? Come on! Sure there are a few HO's in the area, but Little Rock, Arkansas is mostly a city and state of inbred toothless, booger eatin' rednecks and we're mighty damn proud of it!~D

Wallachia is not Bulgaria !

Would anybody notice this thread if some lady hadnt slept with Napoleon?

I wouldnt have, maybe thats why I dont care if they are all lumped together. I mean look at the Native Americans, you would be way "madder" if you were a Inuk :yes:

Even though I consider myself far from a historian I would like to add something to this discussion here.

Games are just games, they are made for a wide variety of public and can and will never be 100% historically correct.
I don’t like it but sadly there’s not much we can do about it (modders not included)
Still I believe that the makers of TW however do their very best to come as close as possible.
Very challenging when taking game play / loading times and user friendliness into account i'm sure.
We don’t know what goes on in those meeting rooms when all this is being discussed but I’m pretty sure these errors aren’t because of stupidity or incompetents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olimpian

that doesn't mean that CA is doing a good job of educating people on the true history of he era --- not that it does that in any of its TW games... I know it's a game and not an encyclopedia, but still.. primary school level history knowledge for me..

---

Not only I disagree I also believe CA does much more then just educating people.
I’ll bet that a lot of young and older gamers have little to no knowledge about the world some hundred or more years ago.
How many people I remember in school where totally uninterested in history just because it was a boring teacher or just couldn’t grasp the importance of it.
I remember one of my finest teachers opened his first class with and I quote; “I know a lot of you don’t understand why you should learn history or why it is any matter of importance…” Shame on me I cant remember the rest of the lecture :shame:
Ofcours then again I was never among those people but I tried numerous times to persuade them in the point of learning it.

My point here simply is.
I’m sure many kids here got the taste of it and this game will motivate them to just look stuff up, believe me, I’ve seen it happen.
As for the teachings of CA I’ll bet you that allot of them go: what the heck? There was an ottoman empire?
At this point those “details” (I apologize if I offend you here, this not my intention) don’t matter much. They won’t remember them anyway and if they do they’ll figure it out.
In this case they just had to click on this thread.
Besides my school experience on history was in a lot of cases full of errors due to the misinterpretations of the teachers and the books that where at hand.
Even worse when I chose to switch my course and thus from school, because of the different year schedules I never got learn anything about the Middle Ages.
A dying shame but because I cared I read up on my own time.

I don’t think we shouldn’t attack CA in anyway but we should never stop informing people.
If you had started this thread not by insulting but just by informing you would’ve achieved the same and more.
People wont waste time arguing about what CA should have done or not, making this one of the many endless discussions on the net but instead join in and tell what they know about the subject.

Same goal, different approach.
It’ll do wonders!
Even for this fine forum. (talking about attitude here)

I dont like your positive attitude :tomato:

Lets keep it short and angry!

Discussion bring forth more information.

For what it is worth, thses discussions however emotionally fulled and controversial they may be, they do inform people that may have taken a genuine liking of a certain moment in history and would like to know more.

Yes I agree with the fact that this is a game and can't be expected to be 100% accurate, for gameplay reasons, otherwise it would not be sold in the Strategy section of the games, it would be under the Educational section.

So compromises and sacrifices have to be made at times from the point of view of the developer in order to accommodate fun and game play.

Yet, as said above, the game serves a catalyst role, it encourages people to learn more and should not be taken "face value" as Historical fact, heck Montreal was placed in Upper Canada when in reality is in Lower Canada historically, but it is game play.

And the end result is that all nations are important no matter how big or how small how famours or not, because all nations are made up of Humans like any other, sharing part of eachother's culture and learning about other nation's cultures history is also part of learning about ourselves as well.

We all share the history no matter where we are located and live in the present, and learning about it helps us avoid past mistakes (we always wish that this is the case) as well as helps us learn how we got to be where we are today, upon this planet called Earth, that we all share.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Upxl

Even though I consider myself far from a historian I would like to add something to this discussion here.

Games are just games, they are made for a wide variety of public and can and will never be 100% historically correct.
I don’t like it but sadly there’s not much we can do about it (modders not included)
Still I believe that the makers of TW however do their very best to come as close as possible.
Very challenging when taking game play / loading times and user friendliness into account i'm sure.
We don’t know what goes on in those meeting rooms when all this is being discussed but I’m pretty sure these errors aren’t because of stupidity or incompetents.



Not only I disagree I also believe CA does much more then just educating people.
I’ll bet that a lot of young and older gamers have little to no knowledge about the world some hundred or more years ago.
How many people I remember in school where totally uninterested in history just because it was a boring teacher or just couldn’t grasp the importance of it.
I remember one of my finest teachers opened his first class with and I quote; “I know a lot of you don’t understand why you should learn history or why it is any matter of importance…” Shame on me I cant remember the rest of the lecture :shame:
Ofcours then again I was never among those people but I tried numerous times to persuade them in the point of learning it.

My point here simply is.
I’m sure many kids here got the taste of it and this game will motivate them to just look stuff up, believe me, I’ve seen it happen.
As for the teachings of CA I’ll bet you that allot of them go: what the heck? There was an ottoman empire?
At this point those “details” (I apologize if I offend you here, this not my intention) don’t matter much. They won’t remember them anyway and if they do they’ll figure it out.
In this case they just had to click on this thread.
Besides my school experience on history was in a lot of cases full of errors due to the misinterpretations of the teachers and the books that where at hand.
Even worse when I chose to switch my course and thus from school, because of the different year schedules I never got learn anything about the Middle Ages.
A dying shame but because I cared I read up on my own time.

I don’t think we shouldn’t attack CA in anyway but we should never stop informing people.
If you had started this thread not by insulting but just by informing you would’ve achieved the same and more.
People wont waste time arguing about what CA should have done or not, making this one of the many endless discussions on the net but instead join in and tell what they know about the subject.

Same goal, different approach.
It’ll do wonders!
Even for this fine forum. (talking about attitude here)

---

Really should stop posting after a drinking night.
Allways become so mushy and tender.
:shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sisco Americanus

Well, there also aren't thirteen colonies in the thirteen colonies. I'm sure this isn't due to ignorance; I find it hard to believe that CA didn't know the thirteen colonies were made up of... well... thirteen colonies. It's not because CA is stupid and doesn't know history, it was a design decision. I really don't think it's a huge deal, and it likely streamlines the game. I'm sure some mods will be out soon that will have a more historically accurate map. For now, just use your imagination and try to enjoy the game. It is a game, after all.

Edit: yes, I know all thirteen colonies hadn't been founded by 1700, but I think you see my point notwithstanding.

---

The weird thing is, Maine is presented as a colony, though historically it was part of Massachusetts until well into the 1800s. Colonies that did exist at the time are missing altogether. Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut?

AGH!

ITS FOR GAMEPLAY REASONS!!!

CA isn't going to make a separate region for Delaware, or New Jersey, or Connecticut, because there would be no point in it! The islands, naturally, are small, but they are spread out over such a large area that gameplay is improved by making them separate regions. Gibraltar, though smaller than what you mentioned is historically and strategically important, and the only way into the Med, unlike some of the colonies.

Are you asking for the "New England" region to extend all the way up to Acadia? Now there are too little regions for gameplay reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

AGH!

ITS FOR GAMEPLAY REASONS!!!

CA isn't going to make a separate region for Delaware, or New Jersey, or Connecticut, because there would be no point in it! The islands, naturally, are small, but they are spread out over such a large area that gameplay is improved by making them separate regions. Gibraltar, though smaller than what you mentioned is historically and strategically important, and the only way into the Med, unlike some of the colonies.

Are you asking for the "New England" region to extend all the way up to Acadia? Now there are too little regions for gameplay reasons.

---

No, you don't understand! This game is broken if I don't see Trenton!

/wrists

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

AGH!
Are you asking for the "New England" region to extend all the way up to Acadia? Now there are too little regions for gameplay reasons.

---

Actually, I was just pointing out that CA has made more than one unusual choice in selecting regions, among several already pointed out above. And I don't see the logic of your final statement, considering the unnecessarily large Spain and France regions already in the game, which are far worse game balance errors IMHO. As UP, I can just waltz in and destroy France by 1703 if I wanted to!

From what I see, Western Europe is meant to be cramped. Its more of the fault of the AI, and the player being too good, that the single-territory France is unbalanced. The Americas, on the other hand, are meant to open, to encourage landgrabbing.

My question in regards to this would be: would the re-division of the Balkan map section as described in the OP interfere with the game development? I think yes, so while I can understand the annoyance the existing map is probably better.

It would result in different locations for capital cities of provinces and different province locations and shapes. Currently I find that the existing layout creates a narrow neck for Russia/ Ottoman to engage on and probably limits their opportunities when played by the AI, but the re-design proposed here could open that right up (as well as rebalance the relative wealth of those areas quite a bit).

Hello this is my opinion regarding this game Empire Total War.
I have all the games from this saga Total War except this one Empire TW.
I was waiting like all the fans the previews for game, movies and other materials from CA regarding this game.
Wow a new improved and interesting game I can’t wait to see and play this game.
But when I find out that they don’t include Wallachia province in their map of Europe I decided that I will not buy this game until someone succeed to add a new region on this map.
This is all that I want to say.
End of story from my point of view

http://www.totalwar.ro/empiretotalwarnowallachia3.JPG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

AGH!

ITS FOR GAMEPLAY REASONS!!!

CA isn't going to make a separate region for Delaware, or New Jersey, or Connecticut, because there would be no point in it! The islands, naturally, are small, but they are spread out over such a large area that gameplay is improved by making them separate regions. Gibraltar, though smaller than what you mentioned is historically and strategically important, and the only way into the Med, unlike some of the colonies.

Are you asking for the "New England" region to extend all the way up to Acadia? Now there are too little regions for gameplay reasons.

---

Agreed. Gibralter is necessary so Spain can have more territory to have stacks stand around aimlessly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tantalaul

Hello this is my opinion regarding this game Empire Total War.
I have all the games from this saga Total War except this one Empire TW.
I was waiting like all the fans the previews for game, movies and other materials from CA regarding this game.
Wow a new improved and interesting game I can’t wait to see and play this game.
But when I find out that they don’t include Wallachia province in their map of Europe I decided that I will not buy this game until someone succeed to add a new region on this map.
This is all that I want to say.
End of story from my point of view

http://www.totalwar.ro/empiretotalwarnowallachia3.JPG

---

/wrists

The problem is not that "omg they combined two provinces I want my province >_<" it's that they had the opportunity to combine it the right way and the blew it on a monumental scale. I mean, there are two provinces in the region no? You have Bulgaria and Moldavia currently, why not:

-Unify Moldavia and Wallachia as one region, called the "Danubian Principalities" (which is a historical term for the two! People actually started putting them under "one package" by the early 19th century) with the city as Bucharest, and make Bulgaria a separate province with the Capital at Sofia? I mean, you still have two provinces, and you could even make the Romanian principalities rebels or vassals or something as they were historically. But currently it's like ass. It's like if you were given the choice "Sugar, frosting, and tabasco sauce... which two do I put together?" Honestly, maybe to people not into the region it's no big deal but given that they chose to make two provinces anyway they could at least have done it right.

That's what pisses me off most. If they didn't have Moldavia s a province as well then I could have said "well they ran out of provinces" but this is like "wtf!?" :wall:

So I said again I will NOT buy this game until someone succeed to repair the damage that CA did in this game!
Do not understand me wrong I am a big fan of this games I have a site dedicated to this games paid from my pocket, for god …..:furious3:

So wait, why aren't misrepresented Natives (Huron were wiped out by this time, Innu replaced by Inuit), the thousands of German states, the Welsh, and the Swiss crying out in outrage that the game left them out? Hell, what about people from areas that weren't even programmed to exist, like the Japanese?

I think one reason they reduced the number of provinces was to make their economic model work - the feature of the game in which "towns" outside of the regional capital appear and offer a specific type of economic or cultural development. OTOH they deliberately included certain smaller provinces - such as Gibralter, Lorraine, and Malta because historically those regions were treasures fought over by the various powers. Taking the later into consideration they probably should have left Moldavia - Walachia and Temesvar as seperate provinces. IIRC during this area those later provinces changed hands back and forth between the Ottomans, the Austro-Hungarians and the Russians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

So wait, why aren't misrepresented Natives (Huron were wiped out by this time, Innu replaced by Inuit), the thousands of German states, the Welsh, and the Swiss crying out in outrage that the game left them out? Hell, what about people from areas that weren't even programmed to exist, like the Japanese?

---

Probably because we (or I) can acknowledge a good game for what it is (a game!!!) without having my local patriotism influence my decision.
I still think CA could have done things much better in some parts with ease (name of the Italian states, HRE faction names, ...) but Empire imho is still a bloody good game!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tully Bascombe

Taking the later into consideration they probably should have left Moldavia - Walachia and Temesvar as seperate provinces. IIRC during this area those later provinces changed hands back and forth between the Ottomans, the Austro-Hungarians and the Russians.

---

Did they change hands en bloc or as seperate entities?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v...e/slowpoke.gif

Hey, did you hear that CA won't be putting Wallachia in the game?

Separately Darth Venom.
During 1710-1713 Wallachia and Moldova joined the Russians against their ottoman masters when they failed the local princes were dethroned and the Wallachian one beheaded and replaced by Greek born princes in 1718 they fought with the ottomans against the Austrians and the Austrians took eastern Wallachia and Timisoara(Temesvar), for 20 years, in 1739 the Austrians almost annexed Wallachis and Moldova only to be pushed out by the Russians in Moldova and the Turks in the south and well i can't remember the rest it's a long history during the 5-7 turko-ruso-austrian wars of the period they were the main battleground and the local princes were switching sides faster then the sultan got the mail:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The historian

Separately Darth Venom.
During 1710-1713 Wallachia and Moldova joined the Russians against their ottoman masters when they failed the local princes were dethroned and the Wallachian one beheaded and replaced by Greek born princes in 1718 they fought with the ottomans against the Austrians and the Austrians took eastern Wallachia and Timisoara(Temesvar), for 20 years, in 1739 the Austrians almost annexed Wallachis and Moldova only to be pushed out by the Russians in Moldova and the Turks in the south and well i can't remember the rest it's a long history during the 5-7 turko-ruso-austrian wars of the period they were the main battleground and the local princes were switching sides faster then the sultan got the mail:dizzy2:

---

Alright, on these grounds having an extra province does make sense, since this seems to be the grounds on which CA decided province borders (at least in west Europe).

Still, not having your home province/region/town/whatever in the game is not a measure of its quality.

It is a matter of the game's historical quality.:smash:.
I think the game engine is great the battles the ships the diplomacy the new economic model but the map has been made by some 1st grader for me as a history buff.

I agree with most of that.

However, I think the point is not that CA doesn't know how a 100% historical map should look, but that they draw the line between historical accuracy vs. playability quite a bit farther towards the latter than you, I and most of this board would have done. (Judging by the popularity of mods like EB)

Yep i agree Dark Venom.
But if we are to change it more to our liking we must fight for what we want with the weapons at hand:laugh4:.
Even if we are just town militia versus feudal knights :laugh4: