inuit lancers(!!)...

Hey, CA, come on... Inuit lancers!??? An ARMY of Inuit lancers(!!) in the polar freeze of Northern Labrador!??? Well, I quite understand that the CA tried to depict the fact that the Inuit's were much better accustomed for the snowfields of Northern Canada, but lancers(!!)... What did they feed their horses with? Moss? Seal fat?

There are other options (to make fighting Inuits more challenging) available too:

1) give the inuits (some historically more truthful version of their armed forces) huge defense/stamina/morale bonuses IF their armies are fighting in their native lands.

2) give the outsiders (the europeans) huge defense, stamina, morale PENALTIES if they are fighting in such harsh conditions as the Arctic OR the forests of Huron, Iroqouis, etc.

3) combine #1 & #2....

But lancers(!??), CANONS(!??), savages drilled in ligning up and marching!? If modders can easily implement AOR principles and realistic ethnic flavor, why cannot CA do the same?

As to lancers: is there ANY historic evidence that native Americans used ANY horse lancers at any point in time?

Sigh...

No.... they didn't even have horses back then.

Nearly everything about the native factions is horribly inaccurate in ETW. I do not care for the North America theatre because of this.

Well lets be fair, they did capture weapons from war, guns and cavalry, but not until late in the camipaign and certainly not with those tactics.

CA is the Baron Von Steuben and the French Government of 18th Century native factions! They're providing training and weapons!

As for natives capturing guns and other things from Europeans, what kind of training would they have had in firing a cannon? I'm not saying they're stupid- I probably would have no idea how to fire a cannon either, having never done it before. Also, where would they get more gunpowder/shot from?

Logical issues aside, I think giving native factions tech beyond their means levels the playing field (albeit in kind of a lazy, uncreative way, but CA did spend like YEARS on this game. I'm willing to give them that shortcut). It seems a little silly, but not quite as silly as steam ships in 1750 or Indian officers riding elephants into battle, so I'm willing to put it down to CA's usual quirkiness.

I don't think they ever set out to make a history simulator. They made a fun game instead. I'll take that tradeoff. :2thumbsup:

Well, even before ETW was released we had in one screenshot a unit of what looked like Light Native Infantry formed up in rank and file with rigid European discipline.........
I don't even want to start on what has been done to the Maratha-Mughal units.......buuuuut this is an old issue......accuracy vs gameplay. CA keeps the balance fine alright.

Here's hoping CA manages, in a later patch to rebalance the factions just a little, so at the very least the major Euro powers are tough opponents and the Huron and Cherokee cannot go toe to toe with the Grande Armee.

Surely, Inuit Lancers would use Polar Bears? :O

Reminds me of the Sami axemen from M2TW: Kingdoms. Wonder if a patch will add mounted reindeer archers. How about amphibious walrus-riders?

:candle:

Well, we know they messed up the American Tribes.

I guess they think they are riding Icelandic Horses buy why don’t they get a navy of 32 gun kayaks?


:clown:

Wait till you See the Inuit Heavy Lancers in the expansion :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

Well, we know they messed up the American Tribes.

I guess they think they are riding Icelandic Horses buy why don’t they get a navy of 32 gun kayaks?


:clown:

---

Then they can give a gun salute to their King!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Surely, Inuit Lancers would use Polar Bears? :O

---

If I have to, I'll -pay- someone to model Polar Bears for the inuit. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 777Ares777

Well lets be fair, they did capture weapons from war, guns and cavalry, but not until late in the camipaign and certainly not with those tactics.

---

Well, let's be fair: capturing a canon does not mean one knows how to use it (ballistics, for example) and has plentiful ammunition to practice ;)

I hear Inuit people had a genius scientists who taught them how to shoot ice cubes. That solved nicely the ammunition issue.

I'm just shivering with expectation at the ETW expansion - Empire: Inuit Invasion!

After having united all the lands in the Americas, the mighty Inuit Horde launches its historically accurate conquest of Europe!
New regions - Includes feudal Japan, theatre of some of the most valorous feats of the Inuit Grande Armée!
New units - Seal clubbers, bear cavalry and dinosaure tamers!
New research - Such as Laser gun! PEW! PEW! PEW!



:clown:

And don't forget a special forces edition for the expansion, with elite dismountable polar bear cavalry that can even fight in the Sahara.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by india

And don't forget a special forces edition for the expansion, with elite dismountable polar bear cavalry that can even fight in the Sahara.

---

Not only fight but they are also recruitable in Sahara! :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaists

Well, let's be fair: capturing a canon does not mean one knows how to use it (ballistics, for example) and has plentiful ammunition to practice ;)

---

well, lets be fair, if they saw some weird European use it, they probably have an idea of how it works :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 777Ares777

well, lets be fair, if they saw some weird European use it, they probably have an idea of how it works :inquisitive:

---

Including trajectory calculations and making their own shots? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 777Ares777

well, lets be fair, if they saw some weird European use it, they probably have an idea of how it works :inquisitive:

---

That doesn't explain how they managed to avoid destroying the gun by over charging it with powder {a problem for even some trained gun crews at the time} nor how they managed to get enough iron for the cannonballs {never mind should they somehow aquire grape} to even get in a bare minimum of practise , let alone enough for even one battle .




For a well documented theater and period of warfare that serves well as an illustration of the topic :
When the Maroi whom fought the British managed to capture cannons , they still had the problem of not knowing at first how to make gun powder . After they learned how to make the propellant , they then found they never had enough ammunition for a battle so had to use scrap metal and rocks which meant the weapon were nothing more than nusiance "weapons" that could only anoy and sometimes frustrate the Brits into charging the Moroi forts where in close combat the Moroi {the meme about Island Boys being rather beefy and good brawlers is actually based on fact} could match the better equipted British .

The problem also extended to muskets and rifles in that there was never enough ammunition {lead doesn't grow on trees , and stone-age technology cultures have little incentive to even know of the existance of lead intill they encounter higher technology peoples} .

This is what makes their achievements in the three major wars they forced the British Empire to fight with them so impressive , they really were always at a massive technological dissadvantage {as were the American Indians Vs all their European and U.S. opponents} .










Realistically , the American Indian native roster musket units should have only half the ammunition of their European counterparts {inluding the Native Auxiliary units as they would have been suppilied by their employers} and their cannon {which should be almost as rare as an honest politician} should not only have fairly limited ammunition and very poor accuracy and reload times , but also it might be best to create new sub-standard ammunition types for them . Their artilery capabilities generally sucked by a big margin and {compared to their European and U.S. opponents} continued to do so right up to the point when the last tribe was defeated .
Again , that they held on as long as they did deserves great respect .

To keep them a credible threat in the game , give their archers and musket men good melee , perhaps ballance their defense and attack a bit better {the European line infantry did not wear any armour , not even helmets -those things on their heads are made of thin felt or cloth- whereas some indians did -wood and bone and sometimes thick hide/cloth- and some would carry shields} so after the muskets limited ammo is gone they are still effective {they would have generally been some of the most formidable warriors of their tribe anyway to have aquired the muskets in the first place} and give their horsemen {which should not be found in Eskimo country !} a more realistic field of fire and the ability to fire on the move {same goes for horse archers and most mounted carbine and musket equipted units} .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Frost

To keep them a credible threat in the game , give their archers and musket men good melee , perhaps ballance their defense and attack a bit better {the European line infantry did not wear any armour , not even helmets -those things on their heads are made of thin felt or cloth- whereas some indians did -wood and bone and sometimes thick hide/cloth- and some would carry shields} so after the muskets limited ammo is gone they are still effective {they would have generally been some of the most formidable warriors of their tribe anyway to have aquired the muskets in the first place} and give their horsemen {which should not be found in Eskimo country !} a more realistic field of fire and the ability to fire on the move {same goes for horse archers and most mounted carbine and musket equipted units} .

---

It is very bizarre that European line infantry are the superior melee warriors, while most non European factions can match them in ranged combat.

For example, my chain mail clad Bhargir infantry can put up a great show at range, and most likely defeat European regiments since I will probably have researched better drills. Get them into melee, however, and they will lose.

You guys are getting it all wrong. They would ride moose into battle :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DisruptorX

It is very bizarre that European line infantry are the superior melee warriors, while most non European factions can match them in ranged combat.

For example, my chain mail clad Bhargir infantry can put up a great show at range, and most likely defeat European regiments since I will probably have researched better drills. Get them into melee, however, and they will lose.

---

To be fair, though, heavier armor doesn't always mean a win in the melee. In fact, chain mail probably wouldn't do much good against a solid bayonet thrust, and getting smacked with a musket butt...well...

That was a lesson the Ottomans learned the hard way in the Napoleonic era, when they were still fielding what were essentially medieval heavy cavalry.

Really, in this time period a breastplate is probably about as heavy as is wise to go. Everything else is just baggage, and making it heavy enough to stop pistol shot would be impractical...and since most cavalry carried at least a couple of pistols...well...

It's kinda like that scene in Indiana Jones.


For the native units, I was also quite dissapointed at the representation of Georgia and Dagistan. Both are probably the heaviest competition any Eastern player is going to get (Ottomans or Russians, they always seem to attack and produce massive armies (by early game standards) to do so.)

However, both of them field European line regiments. Dagistan gets some Eastern-style militia (Islamic Swordsmen, I think) but no other unique types of units.

And, you'll pardon me for saying so, but the idea of a central-asian khannate fielding European-style line regiments in 1700 is just about as silly as inuit lancers. Especially European-style regiments who dress exactly the same as everybody elses.

It kind of detracts from the pleasure of fighting in the area. You don't feel like you're up against a central asian state. You feel like you're fighting one of the other clone-armies of Europe.

The same goes for Georgia. While they were probably a bit better off than Dagistan, they couldn't defend themselves against PERSIA later on (although that is partially the fault of the Russians, who were supposed to defend them, but didn't) and ended up getting annexed by Russia with minimal effort.

Really, CA's presentation of most of the non-European factions is quite lazy, even in comparison to the rather lazy treatment of the Europeans themselves. The only ones which are really satisfying in their development are the Ottomans and Marathas. I'd say the Mughals, but from what I've seen they're essentially just green Maratha clones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

snip

---

That is true. Armor does not mean superior melee ability. Bhargir's have substantially lower defense skills, as well, however. Not really complaining, since they obviously should be worse than European line, its just that they are notably worse in melee, not at range.

As for the eastern factions, I agree. And it is a great opportunity for the inevitable mods that will come out and flesh out the factions. Perhaps they will also change the Native American factions so that their warriors will have a loose formation like the Ottoman swordsmen do, rather than their absurdly ordered current state. And, of course, the subject of this threat.

The Moghuls, however, as I have had much experience in fighting them, are quite different visually from the the Marathas. They have a few visually unique (as far as I've seen) units, and many of their troops are more similar to the Persians than the Marathas. They do have some mirror units such as Islamic Swordsman, of course. I am unsure of how accurate their armies are, merely that they have a different selection.

Mughals, Persians, Afghans, and Khiva are all clones.

Not PC in this day and age, but I do dare say that CA has the typical snobbish British attitudes of the 19th and early 20th centuries. What else can explain the weird unit selections and imbalances in battle performances for non-European, even non-British countries?

Remember: CA never claimed their games to be "historical simulators" for the sake of entertainment value. In fact, it's for people with no historical knowledge and it has degraded itself to further insult your intelligence by tossing commonsense... for sake of fun? inuit lancers? half naked native indians marching in drilled fashion in snow? Yes, you have to be an ignoramus to not find certain things troubling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaists

Hey, CA, come on... Inuit lancers!??? An ARMY of Inuit lancers(!!) in the polar freeze of Northern Labrador!??? Well, I quite understand that the CA tried to depict the fact that the Inuit's were much better accustomed for the snowfields of Northern Canada, but lancers(!!)... What did they feed their horses with? Moss? Seal fat?

There are other options (to make fighting Inuits more challenging) available too:

1) give the inuits (some historically more truthful version of their armed forces) huge defense/stamina/morale bonuses IF their armies are fighting in their native lands.

2) give the outsiders (the europeans) huge defense, stamina, morale PENALTIES if they are fighting in such harsh conditions as the Arctic OR the forests of Huron, Iroqouis, etc.

3) combine #1 & #2....

But lancers(!??), CANONS(!??), savages drilled in ligning up and marching!? If modders can easily implement AOR principles and realistic ethnic flavor, why cannot CA do the same?

As to lancers: is there ANY historic evidence that native Americans used ANY horse lancers at any point in time?

Sigh...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeeSting

Remember: CA never claimed their games to be "historical simulators" for the sake of entertainment value. In fact, it's for people with no historical knowledge and it has degraded itself to further insult your intelligence by tossing commonsense... for sake of fun? inuit lancers? half naked native indians marching in drilled fashion in snow? Yes, you have to be an ignoramus to not find certain things troubling.

---

Well, if that's the direction: I wan to see self-igniting walrus riders, excellent weapons against 1st rates stuck amongst icebergs ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaists

Well, if that's the direction: I wan to see self-igniting walrus riders, excellent weapons against 1st rates stuck amongst icebergs ;)

---

I still haven't been able to unlock the super-secret Quantum Elephants I predicted would be in the game a while ago.
It makes me a sad geisha. :sadg:

Walrus riders would honestly be more appealing. The inherent absurdity and the fact that no one would mistake them with reality.

Also, I thought that smiley was a sad guy with a beret. >.>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DisruptorX

Walrus riders would honestly be more appealing. The inherent absurdity and the fact that no one would mistake them with reality.

Also, I thought that smiley was a sad guy with a beret. >.>

---

I don't think anybody could mistake an elephant in a box for reality either. Especially not one that collapses into a black hole when the box is open ;)

So I don't suppose anybody remembers the Kensai from STW: Warlords ed.? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

So I don't suppose anybody remembers the Kensai from STW: Warlords ed.? :inquisitive:

---

Hey, everybody knows katanas are the best weapons ever. They can cut through tanks, you know.

I saw it in an anime once.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

I don't think anybody could mistake an elephant in a box for reality either. Especially not one that collapses into a black hole when the box is open ;)

---

I should have been more specific. I meant in relation to Inuit lancers, Huron Men-at-arms, Georgian line infantry and the like. Keep pushing for your idea though. It could work similar to Dark Eldar portals in WH40k. The Timurid commander could rush forward, open his webway portal right in front of the enemy, and suddenly dozens of elephants with twin-linked puckett guns emerge to rain death upon the enemy.

As for Shogun, I started with MTW 1. I do remember Jedi kings who could personally slay hundreds of men, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DisruptorX

As for Shogun, I started with MTW 1. I do remember Jedi kings who could personally slay hundreds of men, however.

---

Kensai were units that consisted of a single man, who was personally capable of slaying entire armies by himself if he wasn't shot to death first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

Kensai were units that consisted of a single man, who was personally capable of slaying entire armies by himself if he wasn't shot to death first.

---

That is what I seem to have gathered from reading about them elsewhere on this site. And given the mediocrity of missile weapons in the shogun/mtw1 engine, that would probably be no easy order?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

Kensai were units that consisted of a single man, who was personally capable of slaying entire armies by himself if he wasn't shot to death first.

---

LOL I remember that... once again, CA beat Hollywood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sheogorath

...In fact, chain mail probably wouldn't do much good against a solid bayonet thrust...

---

Incorrect , though given the vast amount of Victorian era ignorant tosh that passed for history that is still doing the rounds in popular mindset , you cannot be blamed too much for thinking so .

Even moderatly well made riveted mail would stop a bayonet thrust from Andre the Giant {though were he to indeed be hitting you it would certainly leave a bruise} and is virtually impervious to most muscle powered weapons .
Only the armour piercing spikes on warhammers and halberds and the like can actually penetrate it{and not every time either !} and only very heavy blows , such as from maces , can incapacitate the wearer with only one or a few hits places where the maile is protecting .
Weapons like swords and spears {and a bayonet is inferior to a spear} can only kill when hitting portions of their foe protected by riveted or welded {which was indeed used by the Ottomans and Persians both} maile if the blows are very many {which takes a long time giving the wearer ample opportunity to slay their attacker} . It is what knights wore on the first few Crusades and the Roman , Gauls , Greeks and others found it performed admirably against spear {which again are much better in melee than bayonets} .


The reason some European forces could out fight such troops wasn't some "uber" property of fixed bayonets™ , but rather a combination of better fireing drills {with both more good quality modern guns and more ammunition} and better discipline and that typically said encounters were between professional European forces against armies that had many poorly trained conscripts that were swept away {or ran} quickly allowing the Europeans to compromise the enemies line and outflank them .

The only reason Europeans abandoned all armour except for some cavalry {and even then in rather limited fashion} was simply expense and that firepower won battles {bayonet charges almost always happened after the enemy had been shot to peices and were ready to break , actual melee was fairly rare in European warfare of the time} .






You did correctly note the real weakness of maile armour in the period : bullets . Maile won't do anything significant to save you from a bullet , however it would be excellent against bayonets .
The unit that was mentioned really should have better defense {the idea that European line infantry which lacked even helmets and used a weapon actually poorly ballanced for melee {a bayonetted musket or rifle} would have had better defense in melee than a maile armoured soldier {which given the expense of the armour , would have been atleast somewhat skilled in melee otherwise they would never have been giver or aquired the armour in the first place} is quite silly . They should probably have a good melee attack too .
Most tales of European troops being better in melee using bayonets than dedicated melee fighters with dedicated melee weapons is jingoistic B.S. somewhere along the line that either ignore numbers and other advantages on the line infantries' side or pretends that poorly trained civilians whom got their hands on an armory were actual warriors . Like most things in history , you have to wade through a lot of bollocks and use plenty of common sense to find out what actually happened .


I hope I didn't come across as rude or overly critical of you by the way . If I did I am sorry as it isn't my intention . I am a fair bit fuzzy at the moment {tired and sore} , just that it was one issue of history that always bugs me :smash: .
I'm betting there is a typo in there somewhere too :yes:

Requesting Inuit Dogsleds of Doom in the next patch.

Inuit have horses because CA mixed(confused) them with Innu witch used horses.

As a side note by 1759 most major Amerindian Nation had dropped the use of spear and bow for muskets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Frost

Incorrect , though given the vast amount of Victorian era ignorant tosh that passed for history that is still doing the rounds in popular mindset , you cannot be blamed too much for thinking so .

Even moderatly well made riveted mail would stop a bayonet thrust from Andre the Giant {though were he to indeed be hitting you it would certainly leave a bruise} and is virtually impervious to most muscle powered weapons .
Only the armour piercing spikes on warhammers and halberds and the like can actually penetrate it{and not every time either !} and only very heavy blows , such as from maces , can incapacitate the wearer with only one or a few hits places where the maile is protecting .
Weapons like swords and spears {and a bayonet is inferior to a spear} can only kill when hitting portions of their foe protected by riveted or welded {which was indeed used by the Ottomans and Persians both} maile if the blows are very many {which takes a long time giving the wearer ample opportunity to slay their attacker} . It is what knights wore on the first few Crusades and the Roman , Gauls , Greeks and others found it performed admirably against spear {which again are much better in melee than bayonets} .

---

That would largely depend on the TYPE of bayonet being used.

True, a knife bayonet (such as the plug types you initially get) wouldn't have much effect. However, the 'spike' types which are used later (ring and plugs) would be effective against mail. Rings have holes in them, and being flexible, would do little to stop a thrust from that type of bayonet. Even if the bayonet didn't go all the way through the ring, the fact that the armor flexes to some degree would mean that you could get a pretty good puncture wound.

Taken from the commanders point of view, if that wound is a gut wound, it's just as good as killing the enemy. Even in the modern day, gut wounds are treated very seriously. It only takes a little hole for infection to set in.

Now, multiple layers of mail would certainly be more effective, however, that would be both quite heavy and rather expensive, not something, I think, many people outside of officers or elite units would be wearing.

Quote:

---

I hope I didn't come across as rude or overly critical of you by the way . If I did I am sorry as it isn't my intention . I am a fair bit fuzzy at the moment {tired and sore} , just that it was one issue of history that always bugs me :smash: .
I'm betting there is a typo in there somewhere too :yes:

---

It's fine, I try to avoid being one of the overly sensitive types who responds to any criticism with vitriol :loveg:

Honestly, they just need to make native american infantry "stuck" in light infantry mode, reduce their reload and increase the melee ability. IRL their strength would come from moving fast and stealthfully (with out a ponderous supply train) through a land that they had better knowledge of. I don't know how they could simulate that but native Cherokee crusader knights and the 103rd Iroquois Mountain Howitzer division is not it.

Inuits are completely different than the other tribes. I am not aware of any great inuit military culture or raiding hordes. I think their special ability should be called "can_survive_in_arctic_or_tundra_unlike_european_armies"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malkut

Requesting Inuit Dogsleds of Doom in the next patch.

---

:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melvish

Inuit have horses because CA mixed them with Innu witch used horses.

---

Lancers? please....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeeSting

Lancers? please....

---

Kind of depends on your definition of 'lancer'. I'd imagine that most anybody with access to horses thought of mounted spearmen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeeSting

Lancers? please....

---

Granted, it is a bit exagerated that they are able to field regiment of lancers as only the most prominent tribe members could "afford" horses. They were quite rare in that region.

Innu were also called Cree and their close related cousin the Plain-Cree made extensive use of horses.
But it far stretching as to call their horses hordes: lancers...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melvish

Innu were also called Cree and their close related cousin the Plain-Cree made extensive use of horses.
But it far stretching as to call their horses hordes: lancers...

---

Yeah, the nomadic Pains Cree lived in the Great Plains (yea, I live in the same land as my ancestors), and like most of the other plains nations, were born into the saddle. Try to think of the Asian steppe nomads.

However, I cannot speak for the use of horses amongst the rest of the tribes.

It's also too bad CA didn't bother with doing research about the placement of the native tribes. Instead, they decided to put well-heard-of tribes in whatever area they so chose. It didn't matter that the Chippewa Nations are currently spread all across Canada because of their earlier power and glory in this period, or that the Hurons were practically non-existant by this time, having been all but wiped out by the Five Nations the previous century, or that the Inuit homeland wasn't in Labrador and was far too insignificant anyways to be included as a faction, and that it doesn't make sense to include the wrongfully-done Inuit and leave the more populous areas of America to the south as "Wilderness," and so on. They might just as well have put the old Roman Republic in Sweden at the same time as Napoleon's Empire in Greece in the year 1700. :no:

Not that any of you kids care, of course. This only catches your attention when you get frustrated over a few horsemen wiping your army all over the floor because you don't have any sense of generalship. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Megas Methuselah

Yeah, the nomadic Pains Cree lived in the Great Plains (yea, I live in the same land as my ancestors), and like most of the other plains nations, were born into the saddle.

---

Did they really use saddles?

CA also left out the West Coast completely. Justifiable, I suppose, but I'm still angry. And I'm not even Canadian.

Really, the native factions are simply wrong, wrong, wrong. Too many musket units, too many artillery units, and a helluva too much cavalry. Furthermore, how the hell do you have lancers in a culture lacking horsemanship? Cherokee, Iroquois, Huron, Inuit, and Pueblo (Forgetting how inaccurate they represented anyways) are forest and desert dwellers. Absolutely ridiculous that they would have any sizable amount of horses, and especially LANCERS. WITHOUT SADDLES. WTF CA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nelson

Did they really use saddles?

---

That's beyond the point. Shut up. :laugh4:

EDIT: What was I supposed to say? They were born onto the back of a horse? Common!

Whats common? Horses? Sort of.

Also, Meth took all my ranting topics. I have nothing further to contribute except for.....

LOLCATS!!!!

No, I don't actually have anything to contribute. I still think the native factions need tweeking, no, upheaval.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

No, I don't actually have anything to contribute. I still think the native factions need tweeking, no, upheaval.

---

See?! Now even the uneducated working classes are threatening to revolt against the tyranny of blatant historical inaccuracy.