take away transoxiana+volga bulgaria and add burgundy+genoa

i have been discussing my point for nearly a month now so i would like to turn it into a thread.

transoxiana and volga-bulgaria are just not that essential to the mod. with both the timurids and mongols spawning why are they needed? what i believe is that burgundy and genoa should be added. This is why:

Burgundy:
created the first professional army
halted french expansion during and after the hundred years war(allied with england)
married into many european royal families thus securing influence
Duke Charles the Bold was arguably the greatest military leader at the very end of the middle ages. just because he lost many battles doesnt mean he wasnt good, think of Giap in vietnam, and George washington. even frederick the great lost nearly half his engagements.

Genoa:
only major threat to venician land and naval power up until the ottomans
created one of the most powerful navies of the time(many admirals of western warfare were genoese mercenaries)
held territory in crimea,north africa, balkans
was in hundred years war with venice to secure supremacy of the eastern medittereanean, had they one it would have been the genoese vs the ottomans.

I agree. I dont think the map needs to go eastwards either really. Its a waste of the newly expanded 31 faction slots to expand the map. With the moddable diplomacy in this game we could have had a really detailed game with lots of kingdoms crowded together and many old favourites and former wishlisters represented but it seems we have to include Persia and all the nomadic empires that wound their way through it.

Yes, its good idea, because the eastern factions have nearly the same type of units.... mounted archer cavalry - so its the same type of gameplay. And I think that most of players will be from Europe. And I dont think so, that they will like too many mongol type States. Timurids are also boring ( but thats only my opinion ). Im glad you added Bohemia and I will also welcome Burgundia, or some more Italic Factions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayhem87

Yes, its good idea, because the eastern factions have nearly the same type of units.... mounted archer cavalry - so its the same type of gameplay. And I think that most of players will be from Europe. And I dont think so, that they will like too many mongol type States. Timurids are also boring ( but thats only my opinion ). Im glad you added Bohemia and I will also welcome Burgundia, or some more Italic Factions.

---

i think more european factions are boring because their units and buildings look nearly the same.

It is better to have more asian or near eastern factions. So transoxania and volga bulgaria must be in.

well no one have said that others mod cant be done ( and i will be more than happy to contribute ) and its right that who make the work decide how it have to be done .

i was to be honest fascinated to play with Armenians , Bactrians etc in RTR but there we had many populations overrunned by romans , so having something "far far away " was refreshing .... while here we will have too many interesting things that would be lost like Genoa , Teutonics , Milan , Borgogne , swiss , Lithuania exhanged for exotic even if interesting factions
... and ive some doubts about that process .

I think those far eastern factions r refreshing, but 90% of players r from Europe, and they will like see their country added.....
And about this mod - It will the best mod.... I played RTR and it was amazing, so this ( I hope ) will be the same - I only want to say my opinion to improve this great mod ( thats why these forums r made, r´nt they? ;-)
And about Burgundia - it begins in 7th century a.d. and last to 15th century i think....so it was important faction, which absolutely deserve to be added. And I will miss it in england-France conflict ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayhem87

I think those far eastern factions r refreshing, but 90% of players r from Europe, and they will like see their country added.....

---

So? I don't think the people who put all this time into the mod are beholden to others that scream about faction X not being in. Those in charge made the decisions based on gameplay factors, as well as historical ones. IIRC, Burgundy wasn't Burgundy until late in the game's time frame. Also, tiny factions surrounded by multitudes of others tend to not fare so well in Total War games. So if you had an ahistorical Burgundy at the game's start, they'd likely be spanked before anything else happened, and the slot would have less of an impact than if it had been used for another nation.

Although I do personally like Genoa. :juggle2:

EDIT: Also, 90% of players "are" from Europe is probably way off. Unless you count ancestry, which then is likely true. Since a lot of us across the pond play this game (that means America :rolleyes: ).

ok America soldier, you can play as some Volga bulgars or so, but most of players will play as some civilised state, not some mongols ( nothing against them ofcourse :yes: )
Dunno what others sayin, but im tired of horse archers from east, thats the same like in RTW, very boring gameplay.... So I think 2-3 Cavalry archer based factions r enough. ( not 20 of em :inquisitive: )

You know not all Muslim and Eastern armies were based on horse-archery? Horsearchery was mostly a Turkic thing, and because of their skill and versatility Turks were often employed in Muslim armies either as captured slaves to be used as Ghulams/Mamluks or as hired mercenaries.

Anyway I think it would be a mistake to solely include Catholic/Western European factions as many propose, having 25 catholic factions 3 muslim factions and 2 Orthodox factions would be boring I think and would reinforce the myth that Western Europeans were the only so-called civilized peoples during the Middle-ages as seems to be the belief held by many.

I know that muslim ( egyptian especialy ) nations were civilised even more than european. But max. only to 13th century....
But I dont think that some transoxania or Volga Bulgars were civilised more than Russia :laugh4:

This is becoming a back roomish thread.

Less talk of who was civilised and who wasn't, and more talk of why both sides of the argument are legitimately beneficial to gameplay would be wiser.

Personally, I think that the only fair and correct thing to do is to take everything in the stride of historical significance from the beginning of the game's time frame.

I fully agree with Baldwin of Jerusalem, point is, that they shouldnt go too far eastward.... its waste of free space ( faction slots ). Transoxania and Volga Bulgaria = wastage ..... there r many turcish and tatar tribes to choose from.

I would like to see volga bulgaria and transoxiania rather than burgundy and genoa. There are already enough factions in Europe, and there arent enough factions in the east, so i think it would be best to change nothing...
But historicaly it is correct to put burgundy and genoa instead of transoxiania and volga bulgaria (Never heard of transoxiania).
It is hard to choose...

since i last posted this thread i have done more research to support my cause. here are some facts:

transoxiana was not independant, it was part of the persian kwarazm empire(much of it not on map, more eastern then modern persia)
samarkand its only really important city became powerful under timur and was then lost to time, though it still exists as a slum city in uzbekistan
transoxiana was the base of the timurids so where would the timurids be?

volga-bulgaria was only existant during the first 200 years of the game and was not a major military power due to lack of miltiary threats. this also goes to support that the area lacked any real power so y should it be included? this is a WAR game! if it had no military strength why should it be in?
also throughout most of its history it was subject to foreign powers.
gained independance around 1000(maybe a little earlier or later as khazars were the major power east of the franks) from khazars when the empire began to break due to russian attacks. then around 1180-1200 they were conquered by the russians and then lost independance to the mongols in
1236. thus a weak nation with only 180-200 years of independance is to be added!

so medieval:total realism contains a non-existant nation and one that had very little strength and was only indepednant for around 180 years.:wall:

burgundy became independant early on in the hundred years wars
(early 1300's) so then it is reasonable for them to be and emerging faction, also just to stop some more oppostition the timurids emerge 70-100 years later in the game.
the duchy created and EMPIRE stretching from switzerland to the north sea by diplomacy(not war but a big part of the game) and the court of Dijon was more influential militarily,politcally,economically, and yes for you culture fans culturally then Paris for the french for around 150-200 years of the game!
during the later part of the game burgundy was a major power base for the rise of the hapsburgs. it collapsed in 1477 with the death of charles the bold.
in the low countries to live burgundian is to live with extravagance, power, and satisfaction. not to be insulting to easterners i have not heard of living volga-bulgarian or living transoxianan in a positive way.

as for genoa, it existed from 800 to 1805 and 1815 so it existed at least four times as long as volga-bulgaria(i cant compare it to transoxiana because it wasnt an independant nation).
it was only second to venice in italys great trading cities throughout the middle ages. it defeated pisa in 1284 and gained corsica thus ending pisas power and starting genoas rise as an international power. after the angevin-aragonese war in which genoa served for the winning side it took control of the sicilian economy.
however, it was defeated by venice and lost its empire to the ottomans towards the end of the game(could fun for the turks before taking on the great powers of catholic europe) later it became the center of spanish banking when spain gained control.

so with this imformation hopefully at least volga-bulgaria and transoxiana will leave and genoa and burgundy will enter the mod.

im just giving constructive criticism not hating the mod!

I think its enough of historical facts to change those factions. :smash: :yes:

YEs its like adding japan to a napoleonic game because we dont have to think that the only civilized peoples were the europeans :egypt:

Forget this civilized, non-civilized/barbarian thing that I foolishly brought up, some of the logic behind including these two factions probably are for flavor and to populate the eastern portion of the map thus making expansion more difficult.
Also if lacking an impressive military power is enough reason for excluding the Volga-Bulgars (whom I must admit I know very little about) then there are some factions in Europe who could be discluded on that basis. I don't think Norway had an impressive army in the middle-ages I think, I've never really seen them mentioned by others, and if someone comes talking about Vikings as a basis for a good army then that is rubbish as the vikings were just pirates. Some fit other patterns: Sicily was conquered in the 13th century, the Cuman nation was destroyed by the Mongols, and so on and so on.

Let's just see how it turns out, who knows maybe the team will change it's mind?

I support factions like volga-bulgaria and khanate of transoxiana...
More factions in the east is a good thing. In vanilla, you had only 2-3 factions battling for a huge number of rich provinces, so it became boring. Of course, a fact that it only a minimal effort was put in eastern factions didn't help. That would also make crusades more interesting, because there will be more factions in the east. Crusades in the vanilla were more of a "who will get there first". Very little challenge.
So factions like V-B or KOT will be very interesting to play.

I am really against adding burgundy, cause, as arfrisco said, it was only independent for about 1/3 of the mod, and that is the last third actually.
That means that it can not be a regular faction. Making it emerging faction would mean that they are unplayable, and would take a spot of a playable faction.
Emerging factions like mongols and timurids are a good choice because they appear as hordes. I am not sure if burgundy could be represented as such.

This game is about changing history. There is no point if after some 300 years, a scripted event like "burgundy appears" happens. Maybe after 300 years of gameplay england conquers france, or france conquers england. Or england is confined on the british isles, and hre conquers france. Since the mod starts in 1071, situation in the 1300's will be a lot different than the historical situation in europe at that time.

And finaly, gameplay. We would have to give huge armies to emerging burgundy just not to have them crushed the moment they appear on the map, right in the middle of the already established factions.

To conclude. Adding an unplayable faction, which appeared under conditions that probably wouldn't be the same in the game (ie france is destroyed), which main purpose will be to add flavour in the english-french conflict, that will be destroyed in the matter of turns if not given unhistoricaly strong armies, over a playable faction, even if it is khanate of transoxiana, wouldn't be a good decision.

And as far as Volga bulgaria goes, if Orda says they were important enough to be included, that is good for me, because I haven't seen a person who knows more about steppe factions than him...

Cheers

wat i didnt mention was that burgundy did exist at the start of the game but it was absorbed into france in the early 12th century. then in 1363 it became independant(or what you may call it) of the royal family and took off as a international power.
also, unless the modders want to alter history a lot their going to have to make the transoxianans have very strong soldiers because their army was used to guard the silk road because there were really no enemies and nothing to conquer. their soldiers were more like policemen and would historically have no chance against even militia units.
volga-bulgaria is weak. the minute the russians arrived the khanate began to collapse. they barely fought the russians! then without any fight the mongols conquered them. at leasts the russians posed some threat to the mongols the volga-bulgarians barley fought! also this was because without any enemies and only barren plains to conquer why would they need an army?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randarkmaan

Forget this civilized, non-civilized/barbarian thing that I foolishly brought up, some of the logic behind including these two factions probably are for flavor and to populate the eastern portion of the map thus making expansion more difficult.
Also if lacking an impressive military power is enough reason for excluding the Volga-Bulgars (whom I must admit I know very little about) then there are some factions in Europe who could be discluded on that basis. I don't think Norway had an impressive army in the middle-ages I think, I've never really seen them mentioned by others, and if someone comes talking about Vikings as a basis for a good army then that is rubbish as the vikings were just pirates. Some fit other patterns: Sicily was conquered in the 13th century, the Cuman nation was destroyed by the Mongols, and so on and so on.

Let's just see how it turns out, who knows maybe the team will change it's mind?

---

well it has nothing to say that you never heard something about the volga bulgars or transoxania. Or that you weren't teached in school about them. Here in germany for example they don't talk something about turkic history in schools that doesn't make them "unimportant".

Quote:

---

well it has nothing to say that you never heard something about the volga bulgars or transoxania. Or that you weren't teached in school about them. Here in germany for example they don't talk something about turkic history in schools that doesn't make them "unimportant".

---

I haven't said anything against the inclusion of these two factions actually. I'm pretty excited actually to see how they turn out, decidedly more so for Transoxania than for the Volga-Bulgars though.

Burgundy and Genoa were far more famous in the world than some Transoxiana and Volga Bulgaria. they had more influence and better army. And thats what Im talkin about.

How do we define importance? Let me see....That's right, anything that is recorded in western European history.
Come, come gentlemen, surely we should realise a World existed beyond European boundaries.
Similarly, for every call for Burgundy or Genoa there could just as easily be a call for Wales and Ireland and others too.

Transoxiana (currently a generic term)
The Qara-Khanid (oddly enough another misnomer that has been accepted) state was established by an offshoot of the Qarluk Turks and Uighurs who migrated there. They adopted Islam in the 10th Century and though considered vassals of the Seljuks, they were free to administer without interferance, the Seljuks were looking in another direction. Their Capital was Bukhara and they enjoyed the wealth brought via the 'silk road'.
They did later on become vassals of the Qara-Khitai (western Liao - Khitan refugees) who set up their own state but generally resided to the north east. Note that Khwarazm was also a vassal of Qara-Khitai (it had by this time shaken off the grip of the Seljuks though maintained an army which was mostly Turkic). Shah Muhammad took advantage of internal strife amongst Qara-Khitai to establish his own 'Empire' and with the fall of Qara-Khitai to Jebe and his Turfan Uighur allies, Muhammad was able to gain the land of 'Transoxiana' between the Oxus and Jaxartes (Amu Darya and Syr Daria) and establish his new Capital at Samarqand.

Volga Bulgars.
Retreated north under pressure from the Khazars and established themselves around the Bulgar/Kama area. Some remained under Khazar rule and others migrated west to found Bulgaria. They began as a mixed people Altaic, Turkic, Finn, Ugrian and Slav and formed a strong link with Baghdad. Their Capital, Bulgar was THE trade centre of the time, making major European cities look insignificant by comparison.
In 1223, after the annihilation of Russian and Qipchaq troops at Kalka and after rendezvousing with Jochi and reinforcements, Jebe and Subedei were forced to withdraw by a Volga Bulgar army. Later in 1236, an army of 30,000 Mongols under Batu's brother Suntai were driven back. They were defeated by Batu and the invasion force that went on into Russia and Hungary and were finally subjugated six years later.
Anything but another 'horse archer' faction (and there are plenty of HA in eastern European armies in vanilla M2TW), their armies were influenced by Russia and Byzantium as well as the Turks.

Now please accept the faction list has been decided and realise that threads like this will have no influence over it

.......Orda

This is a game of medieval times mainly in Europe, who cares about some far eastern factions.... I like Russia, Turks, Egyptians, Bizantines.... they r specific and interesting. But some Volga Bulgars or transoxiana? ---> OK, lets make it straight to China.... ( i think, that Europe was most interesting part in medieval history, not some sub-mongolish type territories, that were captured by first stronger rival that arrived there......its only because of filling in free space on the map..nothing else.....they have no meaning in history.

Quote:

---

Burgundy and Genoa were far more famous in the world than some Transoxiana and Volga Bulgaria. they had more influence and better army. And thats what Im talkin about.

---

How do you know that they had better armies than them yet thev never fought against each other, nor was there are an enemy both of them fought?

burgundy had their part in hundred years war. They were main rivals of France
(and they were supported by HRE). Burgundy was strong economicaly and culturaly. They meant something......and they have the best wine ;-D

genoa fought against venice (nearly conquered them) and turks.. their generals also lead a defence in constantinople against turks....
have you some facts about those nomads from the far east?

than you mayhem, you have my summed upentire point.
burgundy did in fact for a short time have the most powerful and best-trained army in the world between 1453-1477, though its a short amount of time its like saying athens was not important because it was only really powerful for fifty-years. also, other greek states that were considered "barbarian by southern greeks" would have to be added to fill in the north. then so, according to these modders points of view athens would not be in a classical greek mod. people might not agree but these modders are so anti-western its ridiculous.

Note: this is just a comparison as there is no greek mod that i no of

Quote:

---

people might not agree but these modders are so anti-western its ridiculous.

---

Half the factions are western... I don't know were you've got the fact that we're anti-western, we're just not anti-eastern/muslim.
Anyway you could just mod the mod, adding another Catholic faction would mainly involve some new skins and flags, and disclude all the 'barbarian' factions not to your liking ~:)

at the end i tend to agree with the modding group for the sake of gameplay regarding how MTW2 works even if i think that boemia , poland , hre , hungary so compressed will be an half disaster while Russia will continue to get bigger and dominate as it usually do in my games ( until i arrive of course ... )

and what is worse on that? ----> ill tell you.....fighting for a piece of worthless land of steppes, where is one city in region that is 5000km big. Its the same for russians to capture Volga Bulgaria as for Egyptians to capture a big poor land of desert under Tunis ( dunno the name exactly ), the soldiers will be 20 y older before they arrive there. In Europe its different.... the provinces r smaller, wealthier, stronger, better defendable and civilised ! So its better to have smaller states in smaller area, than big states which r spread over half map and have 4 provinces ;-).....so its better to stay in Europe, than expand the map eastward

(Oh, and Genoa had a very strong navy)

whats the difference? russia ( over half a map ) with 5 regions or poland smaller but with 5 regions too :balloon2: ...and the mongol problems... i think russians will stay where they r.

i just say what happen in my games ( ive completed the game 3 times )... countries with the back covered like Denmark and Russia usually dominate the game between AI factions ..... so i would have liked to see a teutonic empire to give problems to them both :idea2: ...

hmm i completed it twice, but earlier....those danes r terrible.....they were weak...they never expand. its a little bit mistake with this one

after the viking period ofcourse :) :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayhem87

and what is worse on that? ----> ill tell you.....fighting for a piece of worthless land of steppes, where is one city in region that is 5000km big. Its the same for russians to capture Volga Bulgaria as for Egyptians to capture a big poor land of desert under Tunis ( dunno the name exactly ), the soldiers will be 20 y older before they arrive there. In Europe its different.... the provinces r smaller, wealthier, stronger, better defendable and civilised ! So its better to have smaller states in smaller area, than big states which r spread over half map and have 4 provinces ;-).....so its better to stay in Europe, than expand the map eastward

---

A common misconception...

I consulted some of my history books.
The Volga-Bulgars at first successfully resisted the mongols. Impressive.
I thought Aragon was superfluous but it seems it was quite active militarily.

If anything, the Italo-Normans, I guess 'Sicily' lost power to the HRE, France and Aragon. If you want another European power, replace this one with it.

i no that sicily was not that strong but in the beginning of the game it had major impacts on italy and narth africa, then it became the capital of the hre under frederick II.

at this point i think everyone whos commented here has agreed that transoxiana needs to go. who wants to play a relaism mod with a non-existant nation? however, i just need a modder to openly support my cause then the major issue can be resolved. i would like volga-bulgaria removed but at least it existed!

Originally Posted by mayhem87
and what is worse on that? ----> ill tell you.....fighting for a piece of worthless land of steppes, where is one city in region that is 5000km big. Its the same for russians to capture Volga Bulgaria as for Egyptians to capture a big poor land of desert under Tunis ( dunno the name exactly ), the soldiers will be 20 y older before they arrive there. In Europe its different.... the provinces r smaller, wealthier, stronger, better defendable and civilised ! So its better to have smaller states in smaller area, than big states which r spread over half map and have 4 provinces ;-).....so its better to stay in Europe, than expand the map eastward

posted by Sarmatian : A common misconception...

posted by Mayhem87 : what an interesting argument :-X :skull: , something more to offer?

No I think a Transoxanian faction is a good addition. Perhaps the modders have to work on the name. I may have seemed negative in previous posts but I meant to lump the Timurids into this generic faction.

why dont the modders get rid of transoxiana and then mix in some of their units with the timurids because historically timurs powerbase and capital were in transoxiana. also many of his soldiers were from the area so the transoxianan units would be identical to those of the timurids.

How do we define importance? Let me see....That's right, anything that is recorded in western European history.
Come, come gentlemen, surely we should realise a World existed beyond European boundaries.
Similarly, for every call for Burgundy or Genoa there could just as easily be a call for Wales and Ireland and others too.

Transoxiana (currently a generic term)
The Qara-Khanid (oddly enough another misnomer that has been accepted) state was established by an offshoot of the Qarluk Turks and Uighurs who migrated there. They adopted Islam in the 10th Century and though considered vassals of the Seljuks, they were free to administer without interferance, the Seljuks were looking in another direction. Their Capital was Bukhara and they enjoyed the wealth brought via the 'silk road'.
They did later on become vassals of the Qara-Khitai (western Liao - Khitan refugees) who set up their own state but generally resided to the north east. Note that Khwarazm was also a vassal of Qara-Khitai (it had by this time shaken off the grip of the Seljuks though maintained an army which was mostly Turkic). Shah Muhammad took advantage of internal strife amongst Qara-Khitai to establish his own 'Empire' and with the fall of Qara-Khitai to Jebe and his Turfan Uighur allies, Muhammad was able to gain the land of 'Transoxiana' between the Oxus and Jaxartes (Amu Darya and Syr Daria) and establish his new Capital at Samarqand.

Volga Bulgars.
Retreated north under pressure from the Khazars and established themselves around the Bulgar/Kama area. Some remained under Khazar rule and others migrated west to found Bulgaria. They began as a mixed people Altaic, Turkic, Finn, Ugrian and Slav and formed a strong link with Baghdad. Their Capital, Bulgar was THE trade centre of the time, making major European cities look insignificant by comparison.
In 1223, after the annihilation of Russian and Qipchaq troops at Kalka and after rendezvousing with Jochi and reinforcements, Jebe and Subedei were forced to withdraw by a Volga Bulgar army. Later in 1236, an army of 30,000 Mongols under Batu's brother Suntai were driven back. They were defeated by Batu and the invasion force that went on into Russia and Hungary and were finally subjugated six years later.
Anything but another 'horse archer' faction (and there are plenty of HA in eastern European armies in vanilla M2TW), their armies were influenced by Russia and Byzantium as well as the Turks.

Now please accept the faction list has been decided and realise that threads like this will have no influence over it

.......Orda


the ilkhanate must also be in it in this mod because they were very big and good.

( Hülegü Khan, Abaka Khan, Arghun Khan, Ghazan Mahmud Khan and Muhammed Olcay-to Khan and his son Great and Last Khan: Ebü Sa'id Bahadir Khan )

the ilkhanate must also be in it in this mod because they were very big and good.

( Hülegü Khan, Abaka Khan, Arghun Khan, Ghazan Mahmud Khan and Muhammed Olcay-to Khan and his son Great and Last Khan: Ebü Sa'id Bahadir Khan )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mayhem87

Originally Posted by mayhem87
and what is worse on that? ----> ill tell you.....fighting for a piece of worthless land of steppes, where is one city in region that is 5000km big. Its the same for russians to capture Volga Bulgaria as for Egyptians to capture a big poor land of desert under Tunis ( dunno the name exactly ), the soldiers will be 20 y older before they arrive there. In Europe its different.... the provinces r smaller, wealthier, stronger, better defendable and civilised ! So its better to have smaller states in smaller area, than big states which r spread over half map and have 4 provinces ;-).....so its better to stay in Europe, than expand the map eastward

posted by Sarmatian : A common misconception...

posted by Mayhem87 : what an interesting argument :-X :skull: , something more to offer?

---

A lot. Bear with me...

First, economy. Europe, in the middle ages, was not rich. Certain provinces were rich (like italian city states), but they make only a small percentage of europe. Richer cities were generaly those on the coast of the mediteranean, and they were highly dependable on resources from asia minor, middle east and north africa. And even though, only a certain percentege of people living in these cities were rich. Conclusion, only a really, really small number of people were rich. People of europe were generaly poor.
All major cereals were imported into Europe from Asia, Africa and America. In fact, of all vegetables and cereals you eat today, only cabbage is originaly from europe. Although agriculture in europe started to recover in the 12th century, it was barely able to feed 20-25 million people, which was tho whole population of europe at the time. Bad harvest, and famine is guaranteed. After 12th century, new advances and knowledges were implemented in agriculture and the population started to rise, but it was still higly depended on good harvest. Famine was a constant danger up until 17th, 18th century when europeans started to grow potatoes and maze in larger quantities. The fact that eastern roman empire was by far the richer part of the roman world, and it's influence was generally limited to balkans, asia minor and middle east, tells enough on its own. A citizen of medieval london or paris or vienna would probably stare in awe at the wealth of bokhara or samarqand. Not to mention some chinese cities.

Second, civility. Well, history is written by winners. Vandals sacked rome and today we use the term vandalism to describe barbaric behavior. Romans destroyed carthage, and yet they are considered cultured. Spaniards in the 16th century destroyed magnificent civilizations of Aztecs and Incas because of their gold and silver. Ottoman sacking of constantinople is considered barbaric, while the city in fact was damaged more by the "civilized" crusaders. Most of european nobility in the middle ages, were in fact so civilized, that they didn't want to disrupt their civility by bathing.

The period where europe starts advancing is after the age of discovery and rennesaince, and mostly by exploating the riches of africa, america and asia. After the industrial revolution europe becomes the center of the world politicaly, economicaly and scientificaly.

So, middle ages are certainly not a period where europe was dominant in any way. Some exceptions exist, mostly in italy and byzantium, but that was only a small part european population...

parts of europe were much poorer and less cultured then the east. however, certain areas were more advanced.
e.g. northern italy, constantinople(the rest of the empire was left to decay),burgundy, al-andalus, and germany.

france,the british isles, iberia(catholic),the balkans,scandanavia, and russia were far behind the east.

HOWEVER, people tend to think of the east as a land full of exotic cities filled with golden and ivory buildings and entire populations that were clad in silk. WRONG!

the exotic cities were rare(samarkand,buqhara, and a few more) most cities in the east were slums filled with murderers, prostitutes,bugs,rats,plague and dysentary. though europe had its fair share of slums none were as bad as the ones in the east. there were no golden buildings outside of samarkand and even there western accounts of wealth are questionable. the east is not samarkand and buqhara it is is also the dumps from where the bubonic plague started(yes the cultured, beautiful, utopia called the east was home to that and many more) so the next time someone says the east was more important and more cultured then the west think again. oh and the supposed anti-east schooling that i received never told about the real east. i found that out on my own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arfrisco

parts of europe were much poorer and less cultured then the east. however, certain areas were more advanced.
e.g. northern italy, constantinople(the rest of the empire was left to decay),burgundy, al-andalus, and germany.

france,the british isles, iberia(catholic),the balkans,scandanavia, and russia were far behind the east.

HOWEVER, people tend to think of the east as a land full of exotic cities filled with golden and ivory buildings and entire populations that were clad in silk. WRONG!

the exotic cities were rare(samarkand,buqhara, and a few more) most cities in the east were slums filled with murderers, prostitutes,bugs,rats,plague and dysentary. though europe had its fair share of slums none were as bad as the ones in the east. there were no golden buildings outside of samarkand and even there western accounts of wealth are questionable. the east is not samarkand and buqhara it is is also the dumps from where the bubonic plague started(yes the cultured, beautiful, utopia called the east was home to that and many more) so the next time someone says the east was more important and more cultured then the west think again. oh and the supposed anti-east schooling that i received never told about the real east. i found that out on my own.

---

Really? There were prostitutes, murderers, rats and bugs in the east? No, you're kidding, that can't be true...

Sarcasm aside, all those things you've mentioned existed in europe and in much greater quantity. The plague originated in the east but it spread through europe like wildfire, because hygiene was not practiced very much. Oh, and then civilized europeans started to kill jews because they believed jews were responsible for the plague...

And there are a hell of a lot more beautiful and rich cities in the east than just samarkand and bokhara...

Orda instead of whining because the people complain about the faction list be happy because the people are talking of history on this forum that was otherwise dead .

Quote:

---

and germany.

---

How was Germany so advanced? I think Italy and Byzantium were far ahead of Germany as far as being advanced goes. Atleast politically the Holy Roman Empire was a mess, the Emperor was hardly able to excersize control over his vassals. Also, I don't think Burgundy was more advanced or cleaner than the rest of France.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrantzITA

Orda instead of whining because the people complain about the faction list be happy because the people are talking of history on this forum that was otherwise dead .

---

When the list has been posted and the fact that it is not about to be changed, "get rid of 'X' because I like 'Y' more" posted over and over is hardly something to be happy about. The list is not going to change

.......Orda

NO MORE, PLEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEE, I CANT TAKE IT ANY MORE;
Enough with complainments!!!! Map and factions are REALISTIC and substituting factions would make only trouble!!!!!!!


:furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3: :furious3:

complaints are a part of democracy ... we can live with transonnoxia in :inquisitive:

Democracy??? What does that have to do with a Mod?? You mean that one or two people harping on and on about their favourite faction and trying to discredit others is going to 'win over' the development team, make them realise the terrible mistake they have made in their list and cause them to change it?

There is NO democracy. The MTR Team decide on what their Mod contains and if that just happens to leave out your favourite faction it's just tough luck, as has been the case with TW mods since STW.

Feel free to talk about history but realise that arfrisco has spammed the MTR faction list thread at TWC over and over and has decided to do the same here. It is not conducive to repeat this stuff all the time when the answer was given ages ago. Being beligerant because the answer does not suit you and trying to belittle other factions or the Team is not my idea of discussion.

Transoxiana is simply a name applied to a region and mentioning Timur when talking about Samarqand really means nothing since he does not appear there until much, much later in the game.
Khwarazmian Empire was founded in the late 12th Century. Originally under Seljuk control (11th - 12th C) this had become nominal by the time of Ala al-Din Atsiz who at one point revolted, taking full advantage of Seljuk problems with the new Qara-Khitan Empire. Taj al-Dunya wa'l Din Il-Arslan succeeded in expanding boundaries into Khurasan. This expansion was halted under his feuding successors as Khwarazm was divided in two. Muhammad II reunited the Empire and took advantage when the Mongols brought about the end of Qara-Khitaid power in 1211, expanding his Empire further.
Under Seljuk rule, the area had been heavily Turkicised and much of the military remained Turkic right up until the Mongols conquered the area, a fact that was despised by the 'Persian' populace.
Established much earlier was the Qara-Khanid state who were independant of Seljuk control by the campaign start date.

Sarmatian has already mentioned the importance of the 'east' with regards the 'west' and this area and its wealth has been highly sought after throughout the ages. Likewise, Volga Bulgaria with its confluence of trade routes and its ideal location to take full advantage of this. They may initially have been pressed north by Khazar expansion but that expansion was checked and halted. With the adoption of Islam their culture flourished and easily outshone the major factions in Europe. Influenced by Rus, Byzantine and Islamic sources, they were powerful enough to prevent Qipchaq expansion into their territory, the Qipchaqs found it much easier to concentrate their efforts against the Rus. Whatever battles were fought amongst these three factions, ALL were independant at the campaign start date.

Forget what the Mongols did and how long it took them. They did this to everyone they met, Qara-Khitai, Khwarazm, Qangli, Qipchaq, Volga Bulgar, Rus, Pole, Hungarian and Bulgarian

.......Orda

i dont check other forums so i dont know what happened elsewhere ... btw yours is a poor marketing strategy ...let the people talk , we all know that is who make the work that have the right to put in whatever they want ( even gnomes and elves ... ) but keep in mind everyone that arrive here is interested in the mod and will download it ... if peoples cant make observations , questions , giving thoughts bcause "you already know that and you will decide everything anyway because history is a perfect science for you " they will go away like happened "elsewhere" ....

First I am accused of whining then of poor marketing strategy, for pointing out that the faction list is finalised? I see no point arguing personal opinions for the inclusion any faction when the list is final and will not be changed

......Orda

Like they have said: the faction list is not going to change before 1.0 out, probably not even then. So why give your opinions out now? It's not going to change anything at the moment. Wait until 1.0 and you get to play it.

Instead of focusing our energy and time on this useless babble we should think about other aspects of the game. What about units and mercenaries, economy, governing, religion? Debating over those issues could actually give them some ideas and make the mod better for all of us. As I see it, people are going to whine about the factions until 1.0 is out, after that they switch to whining about everything else. All that just because they didn't make themselfs heard when the time was right.

Dont worry the Mod team wont change their mind about the factions list wich is 83,3634%* realistic... So you can talk about history as much as you want, but there will be 0.00000000000004 x 0 changes... so I think complainting is useless (like "democracy").


*Calculated by nano-precision

Im quite satisfied with the faction list....and about those units ---> I asked some questions about some units and nobody responded from the team.
Thats the same like about factions. They wont talk about anything
I think they wanna surprise us with units, but dont wanna discuss about em.

they also show some raw pictures, but thats all......

ive made some threads talking about other aspect ... but no response either ( just the pathetic auto-interview of the faq ) so i say who cares of what they are doing , i will return here in one year and i will surely download it to give it a try .

the reason why people arent repsonding is that they would rather criticize people with suggestions for the mod then actually add their own ideas to it.

What you were doing can not be called "suggesting". In the worse case it can be considered spamming, and in the best - lobbying.

In all your posts you constantly repeat that the mod is eastcentric, that burgundy should be added in favour of some other factions.

compared to other peoples "lobbying" i think i been reasonably nice. i havent bashed the mod or modders unlike everyone else. also i have facts to back me up so its like im bsing. however, i must admit ive been very agressive in my posts.

Let's be patient. Mods take time and there is an enormous amount of work involved, from the initial ideas, research, compilation of data, modelling and much more. As things begin to take shape there will be more information, at present the factions and map have been posted and I am sure there will be more to come

.....Orda

I wonder, Afrisco, and Mayhem, are you the same person? Because you sound damn similar.

LoL, no, Im not Afrisco... :))).... I am normal ordinary MTR fan who sometimes share the same wishes with the others.

I know people have posted questions, if I don't respond its not because I don't want to, but because I have other things to do as well. Please accept my apologies if my eye does not catch the questions you put forward. I would like to provide all the answers if I can but usually when I happen upon it by chance. I usually post some info at TWC forums.

I'm hoping to have a screenie of our new map (YES, i MEAN A CAMPAIGN MAP FROM THE MODDED MTW2~~~~~!!!!!!!!)

I was about to post my support for the idea of taking away transoxania and volga bulgaria, and adding Burgundy and Genoa, when I saw it said that the list has been definitively decided, and that there is no chance of it being changed. I'm new here, so I'd be interested to know if this is really certain. When was the list decided? Also I've heard the mod won't be out for months yet. Can the faction list really be set in stone already? Please don't stomp on me for asking though; I'm just curious...

High! I think what has happened here is perhaps an overestimation of the current TW engine. TW is not big on the subtlties of state-running, perhaps a major oversight on an increasingly more historicly informed core fanbase, but hey, those are the facts. Thus the model of Feudalism, cannot be truly re-created, thus, small Dukedoms and Republics are not accepted as part of a greater Feudal being, perhaps with too much ambition, but outright rivals, thus the idea od the HRE empire i laughable, especially without rebellions, the same can be said for the French nobles in Aquatain and Anjou. Thus the inclusion of these states would be detrimental to their proposed purpose, re-creation of the Feudal state. Therfore it is logical to leave most of them out and simply have larger more nationalised factions in Europe. I agree that this does make the MOD seem rather anti Eurpean, and simply wanting to include an Balkan or Muslim faction possible, for no reason at all. It is probably just smart balancing on the teams part. And yes there most definatley needs to be more powersharing in the east and more variety.

However the Feudal system can be reconciled to some degree for all you Euro fans, if the team uses something akin to EB's government and recruitment model.

But please, just take time to consider the reality of the TW engine.:shame:

I do feel there are too few eastern factions, but on another note why cant we just not have anymore Mongol types of factions. They do enough damage, what about a viking faction that emerges into Europe by sea and threatens coastlines all over Europe and the Mediterranean? If anything, in the East add more Sultanate style factions, less Khanate style (two is enough). Perhaps we could add the crusader states, like the the Kingdom of Jerusalem or the Principality of Antioch. Granted they were short lived, but they were very important bits of history and adding them would be better than adding more Khanate style factions. Instead of expanding the map eastward, why not westward? This game already builds up to the discovery of the new world. Adding more tracts of land to fight over in the new world would be more relevant to this game's context. Forget about all these eastern strongman factions. They are only in the game to begin with because of their relative importance to the development of of Europe, which is after all the entire basis of this game! So yes include Sultanates and Khanates of the east but don't forget they are only important to the degree that they influenced western factions historically. People aren't playing this game in Iran and Uzbekistan and that in part has something to do with the fact with the fact this game is about Medieval Europe not Persia or Transcaucasia. if any of these obscure factions are to be in the game, ask what their importance is, relative to the Europeans. So I say that people should be arguing about the best way to go west.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bleda

I do feel there are too few eastern factions, but on another note why cant we just not have anymore Mongol types of factions. They do enough damage, what about a viking faction that emerges into Europe by sea and threatens coastlines all over Europe and the Mediterranean? If anything, in the East add more Sultanate style factions, less Khanate style (two is enough). Perhaps we could add the crusader states, like the the Kingdom of Jerusalem or the Principality of Antioch. Granted they were short lived, but they were very important bits of history and adding them would be better than adding more Khanate style factions. Instead of expanding the map eastward, why not westward? This game already builds up to the discovery of the new world. Adding more tracts of land to fight over in the new world would be more relevant to this game's context. Forget about all these eastern strongman factions. They are only in the game to begin with because of their relative importance to the development of of Europe, which is after all the entire basis of this game! So yes include Sultanates and Khanates of the east but don't forget they are only important to the degree that they influenced western factions historically. People aren't playing this game in Iran and Uzbekistan and that in part has something to do with the fact with the fact this game is about Medieval Europe not Persia or Transcaucasia. if any of these obscure factions are to be in the game, ask what their importance is, relative to the Europeans. So I say that people should be arguing about the best way to go west.

---

I agree whith you as i allready said in another topic khwresmid empire (transoxiana) was a super power of the time the mod begins,famous for it's heavy cavalry and militia garisons that kept the silk road open...:book:
It would be wise for realism sake to remove "iran's"provinces from the turks and add to khwresmid empire(transoxiana?)...

Are you kidding me? In the Battle of Samara Bend the Volga Bulgars defeated the Mongols and that battle is the first major battle that the mongols lost.
The Volga Bulgars were very skilled warriors and tacticians. Just like the Danubian Bulgarians.

what a battle field, nice :knight: :duel: :viking: :pirate2:

You have heard the MTR team: no changes. I also think that some complaints are justified in here, but it's their mod, which has to be respected.