Factions discussion...

I opened this space to discutions about factions...if the moderators permit it...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This can be useful to people who don't know what's the game 21 factions announced by CA:

Certainly unplayable factions: 4
Papal States
Aztecs
Timurids
Mongols

Factions I'm almost sure will be playable: 11
England
France
Spain
Venice
Byzantium
Holy Roman Empire
The Egyptians
The Moors
The Turks
The Russians
Denmark

Factions that maybe can be playable: 6
Poland
Milan
Scotland
Sicily
Portugal
Hungary
------------------------------------------------------
Poll question: Are you sactisfacted with the number of factions in MTW2?
My answer is Yes:2thumbsup: ...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Will start with two questions: what faction you think should be in the game??( please elaborate the answer...)( and for God Sake don't make it nationalistic!)

and in your opinion what factions should be playable???(maximum 11 but i think maybe CA can raise it to 15...)

Voted no. Not because I think the game will be un-fun with only 21 factions, but because I'd like to see modders have the option to add more/different factions. So, while I've really don't have a gripe with the 21 factions that CA has announced, I very much hope they allow (and the engine can handle) 30 factions.

I defenitely hope they raise the faction limit. From their hinting at Mayans and Incans, it sounds like they have defenitely gone up from the original 21.

Why doesnt CA make all factions playable? They know the modders will make it that way.

Anyway, more factions= more diplomacy, more strategy, and more cities. So no.

Same here. What is the point of non playable factions? All should be playable and that is the first thing I will mod when MTW II is released

.........Orda

About the only factions I'd are Serbia, Lithuania, and some Muslim Perisan faction (I don't know enough about them to make a judgement on which).

Why Serbia?
Well of any possible Bulkan factions they could made different enough from Former Romania or Hungary to be intesting. And they were never more than a protectorate of Former Romania (unlike Bulgaria). Plus it's always good to have more orthodox factions in the game.

Why Lithuania?
Not having the eastern end of the map nothing but rebel provinces would be nice. Lithuania was a major regional power in the north east. WArring against the Russians, the Poles, and the Teutonic knights. Plus until the mid game they'd be pagan. So the idea of being able to convert from the old gods to eastern or western christianity or even Islam could be interesting.

Adding a Muslim Persian faction is good thing because we need more Muslim factions. The only one I know of is the Khwarizmian Shah's though. But they might be off the map.

i choose the third choiceee even i think that the papal states and the aztecs should be playable

There are so many factions which can be included so I that CA will raise faction limit to 30.
Current list certainly misses muslim factions.
Several factions can be split up into two:
like:
Spain - Castile, Aragon
Holy Roman Empire - into dynastic lines: Habsburgs, Vitelsbahs, Luxembourgs etc.
Russians - Muscovy, Novgorod
Turks - Seljuks, Ottomans (they are not the same!!)

Aslo would like to see more diversity in cultures. So far it seems very western-european.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Herkus

There are so many factions which can be included so I that CA will raise faction limit to 30.
Current list certainly misses muslim factions.
Several factions can be split up into two:
like:
Spain - Castile, Aragon
Holy Roman Empire - into dynastic lines: Habsburgs, Vitelsbahs, Luxembourgs etc.
Russians - Muscovy, Novgorod
Turks - Seljuks, Ottomans (they are not the same!!)

Aslo would like to see more diversity in cultures. So far it seems very western-european.

---

I'm almost sure that Aragon will be rebel....and Spain will be Leon and Castille territories...seen in an screenshot
------
They say in the site that the HRE will suffer with serious civil wars from time to time....'cause of power descentralization...
------
Russians will be Novgorod in the game...Muscovy wasn't powerfull at 1080...
----
Ottomans just appear after a long time of game...so the Turks represent all Turk tribes and Ethnies...at the start you're sedjkid....

More factions: more complexities, more wars, more struggles, more diplomacies, more cities = more fun. More faction limits: more mods, more flexibilities, more fun mods = more fun. So no.

And they really should just make everyone playable. It makes absolutely no sense to penalize the average gamer who doesn't go to forums and get that First Mod That Comes Out to unlock all the factions like, a day after the release. I mean, in Rome, they even block out freakin' Macedon! As if that nation is somehow not important to the history of the period. Yeah...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

More factions: more complexities, more wars, more struggles, more diplomacies, more cities = more fun. More faction limits: more mods, more flexibilities, more fun mods = more fun. So no.

And they really should just make everyone playable. It makes absolutely no sense to penalize the average gamer who doesn't go to forums and get that First Mod That Comes Out to unlock all the factions like, a day after the release. I mean, in Rome, they even block out freakin' Macedon! As if that nation is somehow not important to the history of the period. Yeah...

---

in this point I have to agree...but im happy with 21 anyway...and I think 15 playable faction would be the ideal...Papal states is like senate, can't be playable...and emergent/new world factions can't too...

I'm wondering if it would be possible for modders to cut out the Aztecs and Mayans altogether (and any other Amerindian factions if they make an appearance) and use those faction slots for more important European factions that CA left out. If so those otherwise unnecessary factions could be useful after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MaximianusBR

Russians will be Novgorod in the game...Muscovy wasn't powerfull at 1080...

---

No, Muscovy only became powerful after the Mongol conquests which left Kiev and other cities in ruins, but before that Kiev was the most powerful Russian city, certainly more powerful than Novgorod at this stage, and the original Russian state. If CA is unwilling to allow more than one Russian faction, then Kiev should be the one, not Novgorod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Perplexed

No, Muscovy only became powerful after the Mongol conquests which left Kiev and other cities in ruins, but before that Kiev was the most powerful Russian city, certainly more powerful than Novgorod at this stage, and the original Russian state. If CA is unwilling to allow more than one Russian faction, then Kiev should be the one, not Novgorod.

---

Your not getting it. Factions like The Russians, The Spainish, The Egyptians, and the Turks. Even the HRE to a certain extent, aren't frozen in time. The dynasties change, just not overtly, as time goes on. The Spanish faction is the Spainish as an ethnic Identity, not a kingdom. So it's all Spainish factions minus Aragon or Portugal. The Turks represent the Seljuks and the Ottomans. The Egyptians are Saladins dynasty then the Mamluks. The Russians are Kievan Rus then Muskovy. The HRE changes from the Vitelsbahs HRE to the Habsburg HRE. That's the way CA did it in MTW. For the Turks when the game went from high to late eras you changed fro playing the Seljuk Turks to the Ottoman Turks. The HRE dynasty changes from Vitelsbah to Habsburg when you get to the high or late era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Your not getting it. Factions like The Russians, The Spainish, The Egyptians, and the Turks. Even the HRE to a certain extent, aren't frozen in time. The dynasties change, just not overtly, as time goes on. The Spanish faction is the Spainish as an ethnic Identity, not a kingdom. So it's all Spainish factions minus Aragon or Portugal. The Turks represent the Seljuks and the Ottomans. The Egyptians are Saladins dynasty then the Mamluks. The Russians are Kievan Rus then Muskovy. The HRE changes from the Vitelsbahs HRE to the Habsburg HRE. That's the way CA did it in MTW. For the Turks when the game went from high to late eras you changed fro playing the Seljuk Turks to the Ottoman Turks. The HRE dynasty changes from Vitelsbah to Habsburg when you get to the high or late era.

---

agree

Vitelsbah? You mean Hohenstauffen? Or Saxon?

I'm hoping all the already confirmed factions that exist at the start date will be playable. If they add one single faction, I would want it to be Lithuania. I'm also assuming that the Swiss and Burgundians emerge later in the game, as they did in MTW.

I don't care one way or another about the playability of American factions. I know I wouldn't even want to play them, and I wish the Americas weren't reachable in the game at all.

Considering how easy it was to make non-playable factions in RTW playable (simply cutting and pasting their position in a single text file), I'm not really concerned about who they make initially playable, but it would be nice to have some proper victory conditions and whatnot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B_Ray

I'm also assuming that the Swiss and Burgundians emerge later in the game, as they did in MTW.

---

It would be good to be added...

Swiss faction? I know id play that.

IMHO Eastern Europe lacks factions. I would like to see Serbs there and in my not very humble opinion there should be Bulgaria,too. Why? It's true it didn't existed in 1080 but Bulgarians lived in a large part of the empire and they already had almost five centuries state tradition (from 681 to 1018) and many rebellions against the Byzantine government. So definately Bulgarians can not be playable but should be included as a faction ( like Burgundy in MTW) ready to emerge if the ruler is not careful. I miss Aragon (oops maybe it does not existed at that time), Swiss and probably Burgundy, too. And more Eastern factions,please.
To sum up the number of factions should be increased.

IMO I dont see why they have to hardode a 21 limit max, couldnt they just raise the limit to say 30, so that modders can have freedom. CA dont have to add any more to Medieval, and Modders then will love the modding potential of Medieval 2, effectively putting both parties in benefit, CA getting better reputation among the community, and modders having more freedom...

Regards
Lentonius

From what CA has implied the 21 faction hardcode was for min spec. More factions=bigger load on the CPU and ram (thus needing more of it) of the computer running the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Your not getting it. Factions like The Russians, The Spainish, The Egyptians, and the Turks. Even the HRE to a certain extent, aren't frozen in time. The dynasties change, just not overtly, as time goes on. The Spanish faction is the Spainish as an ethnic Identity, not a kingdom. So it's all Spainish factions minus Aragon or Portugal. The Turks represent the Seljuks and the Ottomans. The Egyptians are Saladins dynasty then the Mamluks. The Russians are Kievan Rus then Muskovy. The HRE changes from the Vitelsbahs HRE to the Habsburg HRE. That's the way CA did it in MTW. For the Turks when the game went from high to late eras you changed fro playing the Seljuk Turks to the Ottoman Turks. The HRE dynasty changes from Vitelsbah to Habsburg when you get to the high or late era.

---

Because the piece I quoted mentioned Novgorod, I thought it might be obvious that I was speaking about the Early Period (at least it might be obvious to someone who played MTW). Maybe the setup in that game has been so hardcoded into my mind that I forgot to clarify my points, but I wasn't even touching on the multiple-dynasty theory, I was talking about how the Kievan Rus should be included in the Early Period instead of Novgorod because Kiev was more historically important. I wasn't talking about how Kiev should be a different faction from Muscovy. Is that clear now?

However, I do agree with the idea that nations shouldn't be named on basis of dynasty, unless those two dynasties coexisted for a time, (like the Seljuks and Ottomans).

i voted no, first of all it gets boring after a while because there is only so much you can do with each faction, and secondly whats the point of having factions in the game IF YOU CANT BE THEM, i want to be the damn mongols and vikings and the scottish, you know the awsome ones, quit limiting it to the same old factions, put some interesting ones in there, and lastly put all the real factions that were around then, it only makes sense if you are going for reality

Castilla and Aragón were not the same. There was even a little state called Navarra, but it's too small to be a faction in the game.

The fact is Castilla and Aragón didn't become "Spain" until fifteenth century.

About the other factions... Maybe it's enough. I don't know much about Denmark but... :smiley:

do u think it will be possible in this game to be able to play as emeging factions like the mods in BI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

From what CA has implied the 21 faction hardcode was for min spec. More factions=bigger load on the CPU and ram (thus needing more of it) of the computer running the game.

---

That's a good enough reason to have only 21 factions in the vanilla game but not a reason to limit what mods can do.

I want a playable faction for each area. Every playable faction should be very different and have unique technology trees and units. The other factions should be there just to add some extra challenge and improve the diplomacy (hopefully)

I liked in RTW how there are several different cultures. (Greek, Roman, Barbarian, Eastern, Egyption) And each one has a different style of warefare.

I'd like to see lots of different cultures with one or two playable factions in each. (As well as a couple of nonplayable ones)

I think they should include Ireland as we were independent until 1169, and the game starts in 1080.

The reason factions like Ireland and Wales aren't playable is because they didn't present a significant threat to other kingdoms during the time period. Nobody was making political alliances with them or anything, and they were weren't launching full scale invasions on other countries, so its sufficient to represent them as rebels in the game.

Don't think I would mind if CA were to make every single province occupied by a playable faction, but I don't consider worth delaying the game for.

Thats nice amount of playable factions. It would be anyway better if there were more playable factions.

IMHO Unless CA surprises us and have lots more factions (ie no rebel controlled at start but factions instead, both small (such as Obodrites etc.) and large (such as Cumans etc.), in which case not all have to be playable at start (though modding them to become that should be extremely easy)) I say all that appears on the map at campaign start except possibly the Papal States should be playable without any modding whatsoever needed.

In my opinion it would be great if they expanded the map a bit east and icluded the Abbasid Caliphate(perhaps called Iraq or Bagdhad?) and an Iranian/Persian(Great Seljuks, Kwarazmshas, Timurids I think and late in the game Safavids) faction.
I also agree that they should include a few more factions in Eastern Europe to make life a bit harder for those trying to conquer it.

They should allow like 30 factions, even if they dont use all of them in the game. Modders can always come up with uses for them :laugh4:

I would like to see the return of the faction-specific intros aswell, sadly removed in BI. :no:

I was suprised that at least 1 kingdom of Ireland was not in it. I think that their should be very few rebel factions at the beggining, if any at all. Leinster would probably be the best bet, so I hope they add it in an expansion pack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Vitelsbah? You mean Hohenstauffen? Or Saxon?

---

Hohenstauffen and the Saxons weren`t as important as The Wittelsbacher. TheWittelsbacher were one of the Kurfürsten Familiy who elected the Kaiser

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Antiochius

Hohenstauffen and the Saxons weren`t as important as The Wittelsbacher. TheWittelsbacher were one of the Kurfürsten Familiy who elected the Kaiser

---

I think the Hohenstauffen were more important than the wittelsbacher, but in a different era. The hohenstauffen were main contenders for the imperial title in the period 1130-1250 and some of the family members were emperors (Friedrich Barbarossa, Heinrich VI, Friedrich II). The Wittelsbacher were important, but were eclipsed by the Habsburger and Luxemburger in the era 1300-1500.

i like the 11 playable factions, but the 6 nations that are still up in the air seem unnecesary and realy just mimic the other 11 with the exception of the Scots and Huns. i'd really like to see one of the really strong african nations of the era like Mali or Ethiopia. i posted this comment elsewheres as well. Mali was bigger than the HRE and wealthier. It had a huge cavalry army and existed as a Muslim state just south of Morocco from 1235 to 1546. Or maybe they could include Ethiopia as a christian faction. They were allied with the papacy since 1204. Just a thought. I figure if you're going to include amerindian nations that had no contact WHATSOEVER with the main factions, why not include lesser know but very powerful nations that did exist in the same hemisphere. what do u guys think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MansaSakura

i like the 11 playable factions, but the 6 nations that are still up in the air seem unnecesary and realy just mimic the other 11 with the exception of the Scots and Huns. i'd really like to see one of the really strong african nations of the era like Mali or Ethiopia. i posted this comment elsewheres as well. Mali was bigger than the HRE and wealthier. It had a huge cavalry army and existed as a Muslim state just south of Morocco from 1235 to 1546. Or maybe they could include Ethiopia as a christian faction. They were allied with the papacy since 1204. Just a thought. I figure if you're going to include amerindian nations that had no contact WHATSOEVER with the main factions, why not include lesser know but very powerful nations that did exist in the same hemisphere. what do u guys think?

---

Brilliant actually i think.:2thumbsup:

I'm content with the factions that are included into the game, although I wouldn't mind the hardcoded limit to be upped a bit so that the mods out there can make those slower-paced games with lots of factions that I also enjoy playing.

Concerning the aspect of playable and unplayable factions, it seems like 17 factions will be playable and the only ones that are not playable are so for obvious reasons:
Papacy: Can't play the Pope as sure as you couldn't play the Senate
Mongols: They appear sometime in the game and are probably a major scripted event.
Timurids: Will probably also appear later in the game and plague the Turks/Egyptians.
Aztecs: Are sitting in the New World waiting to be crushed by the Europeans.

I'm not saying you can't include emerging factions as playable but I have always found that to be a very awkward solution.

Cheers!

Ituralde

As it turns out - we now know for sure that there are 17 playable factions... Another shread of information is released from the gut of CA... hurruh!

If they could use my suggestion of minor AI faction they could probably double the number of Factions although those would not be playable .....Anyway I have read on the main forum where they publicize the main 5 factions there that the Papal states are playable.....

Here is my suggestion for the other factions

My votes for other factions go to
Kingdom of Jerusalem
Principality of Antioch
Serbia
Armenia
Wales
Ireland

I also vote for a lot more provinces then in Medieval Total War 1, just who says Wales has to be only 1 county why not split it up? Same goes for Ireland, and why Palestine instead of Judea, Samaria, Israel, Phoenicia, and the Negev?

My opinion is that the map should be have many more smaller provinces and less big ones. Surely Scotland could easily be split up as can Ireland.

I think it would be fun to play as the desperately outnumbered,but always determined and high quality Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Here is my suggestion for the other factions

Serbia
Bulgaria
Lithuania
Norway
Portugal(i am not sure,are they allready in the game?)


Is there anyone who knows how long map stretch to the east?Is it going to be same map as in RTW or like in MTW1?
Also how long stretch to the south?
If there is only north hemisfery of the earth on the there is no way to add Incas,also it must be said that Mayas were extinct long before bloody arival of conquistadors!If they add Astecs in the game like they plan to do,I would like to unlish my armies on Europe is there anyone who knows is there anyway for astecs to atack europe?It would be great if it could be done,althoug it is not historicaly.
Someone said Mali?I am so sorry but why not to add China or Japan or India,or Nomadic tribes????
STICK TO THE EUROPE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Any way I would like to see more eastern european faction(orthodox).
I also would like much more reagions in the game,becouse of Serbia and Bulgaria in example if they have only one province what can they conquer?They must go in total war early in the game,thats the reason why we need more reagions.

The initial map streches the similar to RTW one. Ot goes from Spain (tough it has more atlantic ocean because more North africa's Atlantic coast is in the game.) and goes on till Caspian see. From north it goes from similar point as RTW one to south where it goes a bit more souther than in RTW
See this one. You got campaign map on it: http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/20..._screen003.jpg

And you might be interested in Byz sign https://img291.imageshack.us/img291/4778/wtfdw7.jpg
Пљунути наш знак.

I dont understand Byzantine sign is Serbian in real life this is four cirilic S it means in the serbian languange(its realy hard to translate it on the English)but it means only unify safe the Serb(samo sloga srbina spasava).I dont understand what does it means to do Byzantine,is there anyone who knows that?This is question for 4dimension:brate gde si skinuo ove screenshotove?

Well we did copy Byz sign a bit. But Byz sign had ß instead of C. Something like this:http://www.oramaworld.com/images/flags/4b_300.jpg
I took that close up screen from a trailer.
You can find most screens on
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...reenindex.html
but you should better check the sticted thread about movies and screen that has all th links.

If there going to put the new world in the game, shouldn't there be more than just one faction there? I don't really know much about the history, but weren't there other peoples in the area, who fought the aztecs? They should appear at least as rebels.

The lack of other nations in eastern europe does make playing as the russians a bit too easy - if you kill a few rebels you are granted an instant empire.
That said, looking at the map screenshots, factions are far more mobile than before, so mabye the factions to the west and south will expand more aggressively towards russia - otherwise there's no challenge until the golden horde arrive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by B_Ray

The reason factions like Ireland and Wales aren't playable is because they didn't present a significant threat to other kingdoms during the time period. Nobody was making political alliances with them or anything, and they were weren't launching full scale invasions on other countries, so its sufficient to represent them as rebels in the game.

Don't think I would mind if CA were to make every single province occupied by a playable faction, but I don't consider worth delaying the game for.

---

No one allied with the Irish. Well for a start the welsh did. Gryffud ap Cynan received military help from Muircheartach Ó Briain in re-establishing himself. Magnus Barelegs married the daughter of Muircheartach too. Arnulf de Montgomery recieved military help from him as well in their attempts to establish an independant lordship in south wales. Muircheartach also seems to have a good diplomatic relationship with the King of Scotland. One Diarmait Mac Mael na mBó assisted the sons of Harold Godwinson in their raids on the west coast of england in order to try to re-establish themselves. As well as that Henry II, the greatest of the anglo-norman monarchs, also required assistance from the Great Grandson of Diarmaid Mac Mael na mBó, Diarmaid na nGall Mac Murchadha in his wars against the welsh. So to say NO ONE bothered to make alliances with the Irish, is a gross exaggeration.

However Ireland was never nearly as important as Scotland or Wales in terms of political or military importance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horatius

However Ireland was never nearly as important as Scotland or Wales in terms of political or military importance.

---

To whom? Explain yourself.

Wales always posed a larger threat to England then Ireland ever did, the war waged by Edward I to finally subdue Wales was not an easy one, before that Wales had done a very good job at ressisting English efforts to bring it under their dominion, and at other points helped England by providing elite troops who would often turn the tide of battles in France, and don't forget that the Longbow was invented in Wales. Ireland did not change the course of wars in England in the same way, and it was much easier in terms of cost to conquer (Edward was broke by the time Wales submitted).

Scotland was a lot more powerful then Wales and had consistent alliances with France against England, infact that is how the events leading up to Braveheart began, when John Balliol invaded England in order to help his friend King Philip of France who urged him not to miss the opportunity to expand his kingdom (Frane and England where at war at the time), Scotland also intervened in English Politics, another way it was politically more important then Ireland. Scotland also clearly showed it's military might when Edward Bruce invaded Ireland, and crowned himself High King.

Ireland never successfully invaded another country at this time, nor was it's soldiery or innovations important in mainland Europe.

I would like to see Ireland to be included in the game, however I think Wales would be a better idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horatius

Wales always posed a larger threat to England then Ireland ever did, the war waged by Edward I to finally subdue Wales was not an easy one, before that Wales had done a very good job at ressisting English efforts to bring it under their dominion, and at other points helped England by providing elite troops who would often turn the tide of battles in France, and don't forget that the Longbow was invented in Wales. Ireland did not change the course of wars in England in the same way, and it was much easier in terms of cost to conquer (Edward was broke by the time Wales submitted).

Scotland was a lot more powerful then Wales and had consistent alliances with France against England, infact that is how the events leading up to Braveheart began, when John Balliol invaded England in order to help his friend King Philip of France who urged him not to miss the opportunity to expand his kingdom (Frane and England where at war at the time), Scotland also intervened in English Politics, another way it was politically more important then Ireland. Scotland also clearly showed it's military might when Edward Bruce invaded Ireland, and crowned himself High King.

Ireland never successfully invaded another country at this time, nor was it's soldiery or innovations important in mainland Europe.

I would like to see Ireland to be included in the game, however I think Wales would be a better idea.

---

Very anglo-centric but how and ever. How long do you think it took England to subdue Ireland? Till 1607 there were independant potentates in Ireland, almost all of ulster was under the dominance of the Uí Néill. North munster was in the hands of the Uí Bhriain til 1541, as well as south munster under the Meic Carthaigh. The midlands under Ó Conchubhair Fáilghe, Connacht under the Uí Chonchubhair even the outskirts of dublin were under the control of the native irish. The conquest by the 14th century was a complete failure, in fact the country was more anarchic than ever. Even anglo-norman potentates had gone into rebellion. No piece of land outside the pale was under direct english government control. You could argue that complete independance for ireland was quashed after complete independance for Scotland as the last native potentate, Aodh Ó Néill surrended a week after James 1 of England and IV of scotland succeeded to the English throne, and after a nine years war.

Edward the bruce was supported by Irish kings, most notably Domhnaill Ó Néill of Ulster, and it is doubtful he would have got far without irish support. In fact it was the lack of support from the Uí Bhriain kings that put the nail in his coffin, and he was defeated remember after invading during the worst famines in north west europe.

Unfortunately, The english invasion of Ireland occured at one of the most crucial moment in Irish history. There had been no powerful central monarchy, but the defeat of Muircheartach Mac Lochlainnby Ruaidhrí Ó Conchubhair, had left him in an undefeatable position, which he consolidated by convening an assembly at athboy and enacting powers to make him King of Ireland wihtout opposition. This embryonic central monarchy wasn't to last, as anglo-norman mercenaries in the employ of Diarmaid Mac Murchadha, and their subsequent subserviance to Henry II disrupted it completely. It would have been hard to make an alliance with no single central figure or goverment to make it with. However you do mention the point that Domhnall did make an alliance with the De Bruce clan, to do something that, though promised, he failed to do in wales.

In the 11th and twelfth centuries Irish kings did provide exiled kings of wales with the military assistance to various welsh kings to regain their power, and had made an alliance with the king of norway and with scotland. They also took over areas of man and the western isles. So military intervention was possible. Not to mention the fact they put up a good fight when the normans first landed and afterwards they repeatedly invaded the english lordship in ireland, bringing it virtually to its knees. Letters were also sent to Irish lords during the rebellion of Owain Glyn Dwyr, proving how important he viewed them. And irish armies were to be seen on the continent, usually as part of treaties they had made with the english crown.

What i don't want to see in this game is an english army walking into Ireland, and sittin there without any trouble, milking its resources for the next 500 years. Its just not historically accurate. After the 13th century, England received no financial benefit whatsoever from its irish colony.

Oh as regards soldiery and innovations. Hobelar is one that springs to mind.

THEY BETTER HAVE DAMN Denmark VIKINGS!!!:furious3: :2thumbsup:

i voted the third one cause having unplayable factions just isnt any fun!
and the only way i wouldnt mind more factions is if the number of provinces/regions went up considerably otherwise each faction would only start with like 2 pieces of land

and if scotland isnt playable then im goin to be very angry and dissapionted :furious3:

Riadach, I would venture that Ireland wasn't completly subdud even after Cromwell marched his armis all over Erin. Even then, independent pocket popped up as soon as he moved to a different region.

I would want as many factions as possible included. Has CA really tried to put more factions in? With all the tweaking they did to the graphics they should have been able to tweak other parts of the engine as well to handle more factions.

I have high hopes for MTW2 and time will tell whether those hopes are justified or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Herkus

Turks - Seljuks, Ottomans (they are not the same!!)

Aslo would like to see more diversity in cultures. So far it seems very western-european.

---

Between 1071 towards total Ottoman domination among Turkic factions the number of Turkic political entities in the region were as follows:

Saltuklular
Mengücükler
Kemah-Erzincan Kolu
Divriği Kolu
Danişmendliler
Dilmaçoğulları -Akkoyunlular
İnaloğulları
Ermenşâhlar
Artuklular
Çobanoğulları
Alâiye Beyleri
Aydınoğulları Beyliği
Aydınoğlu Gazi Umur Bey
Candaroğulları ( İsfendiyaroğulları)
Ankara Ahi Beyliği
Dulkadıroğulları
Eretnaoğulları
Eşrefoğulları
Germiyanoğulları
Hamîdoğulları
Kadı Burhaneddin Ahmed Devleti
Karaisaoğulları
Karamanoğulları Beyliği
Lâdik (Denizli) Beyliği
Menteşoğulları
Pervâneoğulları
Ramazanoğulları
Sâhib-Ataoğulları
Saruhanoğulları
Tâceddînoğulları
İzmir ve Efes Beylikleri

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishArmenian

Riadach, I would venture that Ireland wasn't completly subdud even after Cromwell marched his armis all over Erin. Even then, independent pocket popped up as soon as he moved to a different region.

---

Well there were certainly no go badlands for the british army in Ireland after cromwell (there still are in northern ireland), but none of these seemed to focus around any individual prince lord or king. I think the last of such a rebellion could be said to be that of Eoghan Rua Ó Néill, before Cromwell's armies came to Ireland. He is the last person who could have made himself king or prince or lord of a province or even the whole island.

I've been very dissappointed with ireland's representation so far in the total war series. Even the research done on it seems basic. Like bonnacht being a separate unit, when bonnachts were just any soldiers billeted on the country. Their refusal to grant archers to the Irish faction in vi, when there is evidence to support irish archers in the earlier period. Gallowglasses in the 8th century or even in roman total war bi in the 5th century is just not on. I'm sure people have been deafened by this point already so i won't labour. The only thing probably nearly historically accurate were the ceithearn(or kern in its bastardised english form) poor armour poor morale, not peasants but cheap mercenary soldiers, although the would not have relied on skirmishing as much but used their missile weapons in the preambles to the battle.

My unfulfillable dream is to see an irish total war. You start off in the fifth century as either an independant tribe(like corco modhrua), or part of a tribal federation, (like the eoghanacht or úi fiachrach) or a tight dynastic federation like the Uí Néill. The tribe would be the hardest and the dynastic federation would be the easiest.

Dilpomacy would be simple, march into someones territory with a list of demands. If they agree to ally, yield to you, you march out. If they don't and feel they can fight you then a battle plays out, to the winner goes the diplomatic spoils. By subjecting neighbouring tribes you begin a confederation (like a protectorate under your overall control) you call others to battle, receive tribute, but no direct control. Then over time, after more battles within your confederation, further subjection and building fortifications in these territories and suffering countless rebellions, you replace their kings with your own family members forming a dynastic federation giving u more power and control, but they constantly have to be kept in check. They can refuse to send you soldiers, which u must respond to immediately before they form their own independant dynasties. Then when your loyalty in such provinces goes above say 200% and you have large military forces in such areas you can replace they're kings with an airrí or governor, giving you direct control and they're king becomes a general or an officer in your army.

Was also daydreaming about being limited with your armies. The main bulk of your army would be ordinary peasant folk. You could control the amount of land and cattle you give to peasant folk in return for their military services, to nobles (chariots and horsemen) and even to blacksmiths poets the church etc. Their equipment depends on the amount and type of blacksmiths you have invited your province. They are cheap with okay morale, but they can only fight during the summer months. During the winter months, u rely on foreign mercenaries (deordha), fianna (originally the youth of the country made up into adolescent bands, sometimes acting as the police force of the king, and every king has them), díbeargaigh( wolf-headed wild berserker like fianna, members of a pagan cult) ceithearn (poorer forms of mercenary as mentioned above but quick moving and cheaper), carbait ar imram ( noble-type mercenaries armed with chariots or horses but operable in winter). Its with your mercenary forces you can raid (taking cattle so increasing the amount of soldiers you can employ) and subdue enemy kingdoms during the winter. Your ordinary peasant and noble folk only appear on the map during summer and naturally you can't garrison enemy territory with them only with your embryonic standing army.

That has been my idle fruitless unfulfillable daydreaming for the past few weeks, i have loads more ideas about monasteries, laws/decrees and judges, one on one combat (comhraic aonair) to settle disputes, noble and federation councils, paganism vs christianity, advent of vikings/ normans, acquiring of provinicial multi-provincial and all-ireland/scotland titles, interferin in neighouring dynasties, dividing provinces, annexin parts of provinces, building urban centres and forts etc. But since this idea isn't even moddable i won't bore yis with them :-)

Riadach, could it be because the CA team is most likely all English?

Now now now now now, we can't be saying things like that about our neighbour:laugh4: I think there is an abiding view of ireland in the 11th and 12th centuries as an anarchic, violent, highly de-centralised backward tribal backwater, with no contribution to medieval europe. This is very misconceived and based on the argument put forward, for the most part, by angevin propagandists, such as giraldus cambrensis and john of salisbury, to support the angevin invasion of ireland. We can infer now from native sources, how much executive and military power the irish provincial kings had, with little or no power now vested in sub-kings, who were now slowly being called lords and being granted mere military offices in the kings army. As i have mentioned before, a strong central monarchy was in its embryonic stage by 1167, when Ruaidhrí Ó Conchubhair had destroyed all opposition, so that no one could hope to field an army against him. He tried to capitalise on his victory by implementing laws 'for the control and governance of ireland' at athboy, but unfortunately at the same time a certain Diarmaid na nGall was off soliciting support from a foreign monarch, mainly because he could no longer assemble an alliance within Ireland, and was dispossessed of his kingdom by ruaidhrí. Had such not have happened, who knows what could have transpired. Perhaps a strong central irish monarchy unde the Uí Chonchubhair could have seen scotland as part of its jurisdiction, Brian Ború had afterall called himself Imperator Scottorum 'emporer of the gael', and held the loyalty of some scottish potentates, they fouight with him in his final battle at clontarf. And Diarmait Mac Mael na mBó is described as King of the Britons in the annals, leading one historian to surmise that suzerainity over the Welsh prinicpalities was the offer on the table for his military help. Perhaps an Irish king with warriors from Scotland as well as their fortification style and norman- based military innovations, hard viking men and boats from the Western Isles and Man as well as Dublin, Limerick, and Waterford (an irish king had ruled them before afterall), Hobelar-like horsetroop, suitable for warfare in the welsh and scottish borders unlike the Heavier Norman cavalry, lightning-fast (though lightly armoured) foot soldiery renowned (see song of dermot, a anglo-norman source) for their accuracy and distance with missiles(cambrensis himself), heavier mail-clad mercenary and noble soldiery, excellent ambush tactics as well as field fortification and structures (see song of dermot) longbowmen from wales, and perhaps with norman mercenaries too in tow, could have proven a serious obstacle to English supremacy in the british isles. However such are not the questions for history, but could be played out in a total war game. however we are not to know since they won't bother to put irish and welsh factions in :-)

I agree that unplayable factions aren't cool.The number of factions look quite okay though,but as most of you say,they should make a harder effort to introduce 30-ALL playable- factions.:wall:

One faction I would love to play is Mongols! I loved the Scythians in RTW and their horse archers - Mongols would probably have awesome horse archers.

Poll question: Are you sactisfacted with the number of factions in MTW2?
My answer is:NO

Serbia, from the Great Zupan Stefan Nemanja( 1196) to the Tsar Dushan, was great force on Balkan and in the begining of the 14 century ruled 3/4 of Balkan.

And there are other factions too..:book:



P.S. Sorry for my bad english.:oops:

I want Makuria!

Orthodox Christians isolated behind a wall of Muslim nations with their strongest allies in Egypt...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

About the only factions I'd are Serbia, Lithuania, and some Muslim Perisan faction (I don't know enough about them to make a judgement on which).

Why Serbia?
Well of any possible Bulkan factions they could made different enough from Former Romania or Hungary to be intesting. And they were never more than a protectorate of Former Romania (unlike Bulgaria). Plus it's always good to have more orthodox factions in the game.

Why Lithuania?
Not having the eastern end of the map nothing but rebel provinces would be nice. Lithuania was a major regional power in the north east. WArring against the Russians, the Poles, and the Teutonic knights. Plus until the mid game they'd be pagan. So the idea of being able to convert from the old gods to eastern or western christianity or even Islam could be interesting.

Adding a Muslim Persian faction is good thing because we need more Muslim factions. The only one I know of is the Khwarizmian Shah's though. But they might be off the map.

---

i agree i would realy like to see tha Safavids (turco/persian empire) the Timurids and the Moghuls (Pakistan/India) as playable factions and also central asia on the map like in the Alexander addon for R:TW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Herkus

There are so many factions which can be included so I that CA will raise faction limit to 30.
Current list certainly misses muslim factions.
Several factions can be split up into two:
like:
Spain - Castile, Aragon
Holy Roman Empire - into dynastic lines: Habsburgs, Vitelsbahs, Luxembourgs etc.
Russians - Muscovy, Novgorod
Turks - Seljuks, Ottomans (they are not the same!!)

Aslo would like to see more diversity in cultures. So far it seems very western-european.

---

The Ottomans and Seljuks co-existed for a time but the Osmanli empire is the successor of the Selcuklu empire :) they both are/were turkic empires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randarkmaan

In my opinion it would be great if they expanded the map a bit east and icluded the Abbasid Caliphate(perhaps called Iraq or Bagdhad?) and an Iranian/Persian(Great Seljuks, Kwarazmshas, Timurids I think and late in the game Safavids) faction.
I also agree that they should include a few more factions in Eastern Europe to make life a bit harder for those trying to conquer it.

---

i agree :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Why Lithuania?
Not having the eastern end of the map nothing but rebel provinces would be nice. Lithuania was a major regional power in the north east. WArring against the Russians, the Poles, and the Teutonic knights. Plus until the mid game they'd be pagan. So the idea of being able to convert from the old gods to eastern or western christianity or even Islam could be interesting.

---

To the western empires it is the doorway to east a very strategic locale.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Riadach

Now now now now now, we can't be saying things like that about our neighbour:laugh4: I think there is an abiding view of ireland in the 11th and 12th centuries as an anarchic, violent, highly de-centralised backward tribal backwater, with no contribution to medieval europe. This is very misconceived and based on the argument put forward, for the most part, by angevin propagandists, such as giraldus cambrensis and john of salisbury, to support the angevin invasion of ireland. We can infer now from native sources, how much executive and military power the irish provincial kings had, with little or no power now vested in sub-kings, who were now slowly being called lords and being granted mere military offices in the kings army. As i have mentioned before, a strong central monarchy was in its embryonic stage by 1167, when Ruaidhrí Ó Conchubhair had destroyed all opposition, so that no one could hope to field an army against him. He tried to capitalise on his victory by implementing laws 'for the control and governance of ireland' at athboy, but unfortunately at the same time a certain Diarmaid na nGall was off soliciting support from a foreign monarch, mainly because he could no longer assemble an alliance within Ireland, and was dispossessed of his kingdom by ruaidhrí. Had such not have happened, who knows what could have transpired. Perhaps a strong central irish monarchy unde the Uí Chonchubhair could have seen scotland as part of its jurisdiction, Brian Ború had afterall called himself Imperator Scottorum 'emporer of the gael', and held the loyalty of some scottish potentates, they fouight with him in his final battle at clontarf. And Diarmait Mac Mael na mBó is described as King of the Britons in the annals, leading one historian to surmise that suzerainity over the Welsh prinicpalities was the offer on the table for his military help. Perhaps an Irish king with warriors from Scotland as well as their fortification style and norman- based military innovations, hard viking men and boats from the Western Isles and Man as well as Dublin, Limerick, and Waterford (an irish king had ruled them before afterall), Hobelar-like horsetroop, suitable for warfare in the welsh and scottish borders unlike the Heavier Norman cavalry, lightning-fast (though lightly armoured) foot soldiery renowned (see song of dermot, a anglo-norman source) for their accuracy and distance with missiles(cambrensis himself), heavier mail-clad mercenary and noble soldiery, excellent ambush tactics as well as field fortification and structures (see song of dermot) longbowmen from wales, and perhaps with norman mercenaries too in tow, could have proven a serious obstacle to English supremacy in the british isles. However such are not the questions for history, but could be played out in a total war game. however we are not to know since they won't bother to put irish and welsh factions in :-)

---

I remember Banquos Ghots saying as late as 25-30 years ago, signs in English Pubs/stores said: "No dogs, No blacks, No Irish". So discrimination is still around. I was joking though about CA being all English. Many people living in England are in fact Welsh, Scottish, Irish. There are many succesful people of those nationalities in England to. For example Elvis Costello- Half Italian, Half Irish by way of England. But you are right, not much of the Irish records and literature of the time are still around because of the English Propaganda at the time.