Playable factions

[Martok]

While CA hasn't confirmed for sure that there will now be 12 playable factions in ETW, it does sound increasingly likely. So given that, which factions are you hoping will be playable?

Also, what faction (presuming that it is, in fact, playable) are you most looking forward to trying out first?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Note: Just a preemptive warning to keep discussion civil. I will not allow the thread to degenerate into a nationalistic ("my country is better than yours") pissing contest.

My list (in alphabetical order):

Austria
Dutch
England/Britain
France
Ottoman Empire
Poland-Lithuania
Portugal
Prussia
Russia
Spain
Sweden
United States*


* I'm not particularly eager to play my own country, but it's already confirmed as playable in the main campaign, so I might as well include it.

[Monk]

* I'm not particularly eager to play my own country, but it's already confirmed as playable in the main campaign, so I might as well include it.

I have to say I'm in the same boat with you there, Martok. I'm sure i'll get around to playing them, but they are very low on my priorities.

The total war series has somehow always lended itself to me playing as the English if the setting allowed for it, in MTW they were my first faction I ever beat the game with and with M2 they were my first choice as well (and still are). I just like the idea of an island nation and with the importance of sea-battles going up ten fold in Empire I'm sure playing as Britain will only be more fun.

After England/Britain then without a doubt Russia. No real reason here other then I think they're cool. That's not a lame reason is it?

[rajpoot]

I'll bet anything that they'll have one of the Indian factions as playable. The Mugals most likely, as they were the largest (atleast when the game begins).
ofcourse they might have Marathas or the Kingdom of mysore, but I'm dead sure that they'll have one native faction here.

[SaFe]

Well, Great Britain sounds interesting just for the reason i think they, along with the US (13 Colonies or however they name them) are most flashed out, but i'm not so keen on naval battles, so i like a thrilling european war. I fear though that Austria will not be included as playable faction, which will make no sense at all.
Prussia perhaps just to see how CA displays their military based government and naturally the French in no particular order.

Well, "my country" Baden is surely not playable and i'm almost sure it is also not included in the 50 nations.

[Quintus.JC]

I'll bet anything that they'll have one of the Indian factions as playable. The Mugals most likely, as they were the largest (atleast when the game begins).
ofcourse they might have Marathas or the Kingdom of mysore, but I'm dead sure that they'll have one native faction here.

Definity the Mugals, there's too many European factions as it is already.

My history around that period isn't great, but I think we should get at least one Italian faction to be Playable, Kingdom of Piedmont perhaps?

[Ferret]

What a coincidence, I've just been playing the Mughals in EU3, I'd never even heard of them before that, now they're everywhere!

But yeah, at least one native Indian nation should be playable, in fact I hope it will be like M2, where the ones they said were playable were just the ones that were unlocked at the beginning and actually most nations were playable.

[woad&fangs]

I'll probably play as Prussia first(in the distant future when I have a computer capable of playing E:TW) and then unlock or mod the game so I can play as the Barbary Coast Pirates. After that I'll play as one of the big colonial powerhouses(Portugal, Spain, France, England) and finally I'll get around to playing the Mughals or Iroquois.

[lars573]

Definity the Mugals, there's too many European factions as it is already.

My history around that period isn't great, but I think we should get at least one Italian faction to be Playable, Kingdom of Piedmont perhaps?

Dutchy of Savoy you mean. They didn't become a Kingdom till after they got Sardinia. But in 1700 Italian factions would be the republic of Venice, Dutchy of Savoy, the Papacy, Tuscany (which I doubt will be included), and the republic of Genoa. The kingdoms of Sardinia, Sicily, and Naples are Spainish. As is the Dutchy of Milan.

[andrewt]

* I'm not particularly eager to play my own country, but it's already confirmed as playable in the main campaign, so I might as well include it.

Ditto. The U.S. became a superpower long after the game ends. I'm not interested on playing crappy units with crappy provinces or units/provinces that are way more powerful than what they historically should be.

I always play factions with a unit roster that interests me. That and having a decent starting position. I think I'll go with one of the colonial powers, most probably Britain.

[Khazar_Dahvos]

I more than likely will probably play as the Dutch since I like the starting provinces that they start with!!!!! Or perhaps I will play as the Prussians and scrap my european provinces and sail somewhere and make a new home!!!!

[Martok]

Ditto. The U.S. became a superpower long after the game ends. I'm not interested on playing crappy units with crappy provinces or units/provinces that are way more powerful than what they historically should be..

Indeed. I just don't see the point of America being playable when it will --or at least should -- be grossly underpowered compared to the other major factions. (I don't think anyone took us seriously until the Mexican-American War at the very earliest, and most probably not til the Spanish-American War.) There's simply no way that the U.S. should be able to take on any European powers early on, and even later it should still be very difficult.

I always play factions with a unit roster that interests me. That and having a decent starting position. I think I'll go with one of the colonial powers, most probably Britain.

I'm thinking that I'll probably want to play as the British first, with Prussia, Sweden, France, and the Ottomans rounding out the top 5. I'll maybe play the U.S. when I'm bored with the rest.

[Gustav II Adolf]

I think it's fine that the US is a playable faction as long as no other important major faction is excluded. That means we need more playable factions because i don't want Portugal put behind the US. However we also need variation and different challenges. It would be a real challenge to start with a Weak US and change history by making it powerfull against all ods. I would'nt like though if it had super units of it's own.


G

[SaFe]

I think it's fine that the US is a playable faction as long as no other important major faction is excluded. That means we need more playable factions because i don't want Portugal put behind the US. However we also need variation and different challenges. It would be a real challenge to start with a Weak US and change history by making it powerfull against all ods. I would'nt like though if it had super units of it's own.


G

To be honest it seems they scrap Portugal or Austria as playable faction for the U.S.
marketing reasons, but very sad. I agree with Martok and others.
The 13 Colonies should definately be one of the 50 factions, unlockable perhaps, but definately not one of the starting 10-12 for obvious historical reasons. I'm not sure how they want to do it, but if the U.S. is playable from the start (1700) it would be laughable and if they playable from 1770 onwards it would be a bad decission to leave a important power like Austria or Portugal out for them who shaped Europe(Austria) and hold important colonies (Potugal) from the early beginning of the game.

[Sol Invictus]

I agree, while I would like to play the Thirteen Colonies in a historical context and attempt to gain idependence, I wouldn't want that opportunity to come only by excluding some of the major powers of the era; mainly Austria and Portugal. Since CA seems to be going for twelve factions now, that should leave room for everyone to be happy; both players and the marketing folks.

[Zenicetus]

Indeed. I just don't see the point of America being playable when it will --or at least should -- be grossly underpowered compared to the other major factions. (I don't think anyone took us seriously until the Mexican-American War at the very earliest, and most probably not til the Spanish-American War.) There's simply no way that the U.S. should be able to take on any European powers early on, and even later it should still be very difficult.

True, but a major strength of the U.S. faction would be (to quote a certain Python movie)... vast tracts of land! And therefore resources.

I wouldn't want to see the U.S. faction artificially overpowered at the start, but it could be interesting to play a race for resource development while holding off the established European powers with diplomacy. If you can generate enough early cash from trade, agriculture, mining, etc., then you could bribe your way to a degree of military power with alliances, until you had your own strong armies and navies (assuming diplomacy actually does work better than previous games... otherwise all bets are off). It could be the ultimate faction for people who like to turtle instead of blitzing the map.

Also, didn't I read somewhere in the previews that there might be more than just a military conquest goal for the campaign? If there's an "economic victory" condition of some kind, then the U.S. faction would be a strong contender, if it can defend its territory and maybe do just a little local expansion (Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean) instead of having to go for world domination.

[Martok]

I realize CA included the U.S. as a playable faction as a "hook" to further attract my fellow Americans to the game, but I agree that it'll be a pity if it's at the expense of a major European power not being playable. For that reason, I'm rather hoping that the U.S. is being excluded as one of the original 10-12 playable factions (since it's also one of the emerging factions).

The 13 Colonies should definately be one of the 50 factions, unlockable perhaps, but definately not one of the starting 10-12 for obvious historical reasons. I'm not sure how they want to do it, but if the U.S. is playable from the start (1700) it would be laughable

I don't think you have to worry about that at least. From what's been said so far, it sounds as if the U.S. will be an emerging faction, and will only appear under certain conditions. If they do appear, I believe you will then have the choice to either play as them or continue playing as the British.

True, but a major strength of the U.S. faction would be (to quote a certain Python movie)... vast tracts of land! And therefore resources.

I wouldn't want to see the U.S. faction artificially overpowered at the start, but it could be interesting to play a race for resource development while holding off the established European powers with diplomacy. If you can generate enough early cash from trade, agriculture, mining, etc., then you could bribe your way to a degree of military power with alliances, until you had your own strong armies and navies (assuming diplomacy actually does work better than previous games... otherwise all bets are off). It could be the ultimate faction for people who like to turtle instead of blitzing the map.

Also, didn't I read somewhere in the previews that there might be more than just a military conquest goal for the campaign? If there's an "economic victory" condition of some kind, then the U.S. faction would be a strong contender, if it can defend its territory and maybe do just a little local expansion (Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean) instead of having to go for world domination.

Some good points, Zenicetus. Winning via forming alliances and/or economic/prestiege victory may very well be possible. I hadn't really thought of that.

[Samurai Waki]

[QUOTE=Martok;2003937] I don't think you have to worry about that at least. From what's been said so far, it sounds as if the U.S. will be an emerging faction, and will only appear under certain conditions. If they do appear, I believe you will then have the choice to either play as them or continue playing as the British.[QUOTE]

I believe this would be the best course of action.

[Ishmael]

i feel an obscure urge to play as portugal. However, i would also like to play as Prussia (ie: germany) and launch the first world war two and a bit centuries early.

[SaFe]

i feel an obscure urge to play as portugal. However, i would also like to play as Prussia (ie: germany) and launch the first world war two and a bit centuries early.

If you want to play a First World War during this timeframe, the 7 years war fits almost perfectly, sadly with 1 year = 1 turn it will be over too soon.
Just think of all the factions that fought against each other during this war
I really hope for a expansion set for the 7 years-war and 1 turn = 1 month or perhaps 1 turn = 3 months at the maximum.

[Dodge_272]

Does it matter if factions are 'playable' or not?

In RTW there were 3 playable factions at the start. IN M2TW there were 5 playable factions at the start.

All you have to do is edit one text file and you can, and will, have every faction playable.

[SaFe]

Does it matter if factions are 'playable' or not?

In RTW there were 3 playable factions at the start. IN M2TW there were 5 playable factions at the start.

All you have to do is edit one text file and you can, and will, have every faction playable.

Yes, it matters.
Even CA stated that the 10-12 factions are definately more detailed and fleshed out than the others, which means you'll probably have rather boring units like typical german line infantry for the austrian faction instead of specialized austrian, hungarian or balkan units for example. I think you can imagine the same for other factions.
So in my opinion it is very important if a faction is playable or not.

[adembroski]

I find it ironic that people are degrading the United States at the time as a country incapable of taking on world powers when, in fact, that's precisely what it did in gaining, and then defending, its independence.

Note that after Valley Forge, it can be easily argued that Washington's northern Army was the equal of, if not better than, the English army... conventional wisdom's greatest army at the time. And that's including it's Hessian mercs.

There is something to be said for the moral strength of a man fighting for his freedom, and it's easy to illustrate that the American colonies produced it's fair share of the world's intellectual elite at the time. Perhaps the political savvy and industriousness of the American people can be the faction's strength. The freedom of the American people allowed them to explore avenues of development other nations never even thought of once the nation recovered from the Revolution.

Much of the United State's post-Revolution weakness was its own fault. Had a slightly different form of government (such as the one later established with the Constitution) been adopted right off the bat, the United States may have very soon established itself as a world power.

In all cases, regardless of who you play in this game, you have the benefit of hindsight. This includes the United States. I will, proudly, play my own country, and it's the primary reason I am buying this game... finally, the chance to play my own in a Total War game! If it leaves me at a distinct disadvantage, so much the better.

[KingKnudthebloodthirsty]

Why cant CA just make a map of the globe. All they left out was the Far East (China, Japan, Korea, Siam, Burma, and other SE asian lands.), and east russia and australia. How much will it take to add them in? They came so close but excludes that part of the world? Those territories were as equally important as the other parts. China was a powerful nation in the early 1700s. They only declined in the late 1700s. the spice islands (indonesia) were fought over for trade and obviously, spices. Russia expanded into Siberia and in 1788, England built colonies in Australia.

[pevergreen]

Because it means more work. If they included those areas, people would complain of no factions. Which means they would have to make many more factions, which then would be complained about because they arent 100% historically accurate.

I am sure there will be a mod to give the rest of the world a shot.

[Jolt]

Because it means more work. If they included those areas, people would complain of no factions. Which means they would have to make many more factions, which then would be complained about because they arent 100% historically accurate.

I am sure there will be a mod to give the rest of the world a shot.

They wouldn't have to make a lot more factions because there were few factions to start with.

China, Japan, Korea, Indochina (Or Annam, Cambodja, "Luang Prabang/Laos" and Burma), Tibet and Far Eastern and Central Asian Mongol-Turkish khanates (Dzungar, Khiva, Bukhara and Kazakh). And these are factions out of the Indian sphere in the Far East. Five factions who could be given generic Far Eastern troops, with some unique ones per faction.

[Ignoramus]

China, Japan, Korea, and Indochina didn't play a role in European colonialism until the 1800's. As Empire finishes around 1800, it doesn't need to include them.

[Sheogorath]

China, Japan, Korea, and Indochina didn't play a role in European colonialism until the 1800's. As Empire finishes around 1800, it doesn't need to include them.

Depends on which 'Europeans' you're talking about. The Russians had contact with the Chinese in the 17th century, Japan in the 1740's. The VOC was in Indonesia by the early 1600's. The Brits and Dutch were skirmishing in the Sea of Japan for a while as well.

[Lusitani]

China, Japan, Korea, and Indochina didn't play a role in European colonialism until the 1800's. As Empire finishes around 1800, it doesn't need to include them.

Actually South East Asia was a pain in the neck for the Portuguese since the early 1500's.

[Martok]

Stick to the topic, please.