Over 30 factions?

[The Blind King of Bohemia]

I would like to see:

Serbs
Incas
Sweden
Lithuanians
Aragon
Bohemians
Crusader States
Khwarzimian Empire
Burgundians

I could go on all day if its over 30. Well done CA even if you do get it that high, anything over is a bonus.

[Ianofsmeg16]

I Would like the Welsh* to be represtented, maybe only in early and high eras though..MY main concern will be the emergence of America in the late game, a couple more european factions (lithuania and Wales) would be awesome, but i certainly hope that most of the slots will be filled with Native americans, to keep the Aztec player busy, and to make the colonisation of America pretty damn fun for us euros

*Here's Hoping for a Welsh-American Empire

[Just A Girl]

Lol i love the regular input of,
"thyle probably make them non playable. or a sid campaign"

I really dont see what would be the gain in that,

however thats how it looked like in RTW,

So i guess its a 50/50

[gardibolt]

I'd like to see Spain split into Castile and Aragon, unless it's harmful to game play, as someone suggested above.

Other than that, the Lithuanians/Livonians seem essential to me (and I'm not Lithuanian).

I can see the arguments for the Bulgarians and to a slightly lesser extent, Serbia.

I suppose one could make an interesting game out of having the Knight Hospitallers and the Templars being separate factions too.

[Sarmatian]

I'd like to see Spain split into Castile and Aragon, unless it's harmful to game play, as someone suggested above.

Other than that, the Lithuanians/Livonians seem essential to me (and I'm not Lithuanian).

I can see the arguments for the Bulgarians and to a slightly lesser extent, Serbia.

I suppose one could make an interesting game out of having the Knight Hospitallers and the Templars being separate factions too.

I don`t know. It`s a coin flip between Serbia and Bulgaria. After tzar Dusan of serbia defeated combined bulgarian and byzantium amies somewhere in the first half of the 14th century, and then securing lasting peace with the new bulgarian tzar by marrying his sister, his rule extended south until thesaloniki in todays greece. Dubrovnik accepted supreme rule of serbian kings long before that and paid special taxes to be autonomous. What serbs lacked to become a major power in mediterranean was the fleet. Also, don`t forget that bulgarians were asian barbaric horde when they first came to balkans, that is a couple of centuries before the start of the game. They conquered some serbian (slavic) tribes but eventually accepted serbian (slavic) language, culture and religion and that is why today they are considered to be south slavs. As a said, I think it`s a coin flip...

[player1]

I don`t know. It`s a coin flip between Serbia and Bulgaria. After tzar Dusan of serbia defeated combined bulgarian and byzantium amies somewhere in the first half of the 14th century, and then securing lasting peace with the new bulgarian tzar by marrying his sister, his rule extended south until thesaloniki in todays greece. Dubrovnik accepted supreme rule of serbian kings long before that and paid special taxes to be autonomous. What serbs lacked to become a major power in mediterranean was the fleet. Also, don`t forget that bulgarians were asian barbaric horde when they first came to balkans, that is a couple of centuries before the start of the game. They conquered some serbian (slavic) tribes but eventually accepted serbian (slavic) language, culture and religion and that is why today they are considered to be south slavs. As a said, I think it`s a coin flip...

If it's coint flip, it's good to now that at game start 1080, 3 years ago in 1077 Rashka and Duklja merged forming first what could be called Serbian kingdom. At that point there was no Bulgar state (conquered some time before).

Later, in next century after many Serbian raids, Byzantines with powerful emperor forced Serbia to become vassal state, but in near the end of 12th century due to rise of Nemanjic famliy Serbs become independent again (that's also a same era when Bulgars emerge again).


Of course, if there was 2 faction slots opened I would place Serbia at start of the game with two provinces Duklja and Rashka and I would made Bulgars emerge later if Byzantines get weakned by other factions.

[Prince Cobra]

I don`t know. It`s a coin flip between Serbia and Bulgaria. After tzar Dusan of serbia defeated combined bulgarian and byzantium amies somewhere in the first half of the 14th century, and then securing lasting peace with the new bulgarian tzar by marrying his sister, his rule extended south until thesaloniki in todays greece. Dubrovnik accepted supreme rule of serbian kings long before that and paid special taxes to be autonomous. What serbs lacked to become a major power in mediterranean was the fleet. Also, don`t forget that bulgarians were asian barbaric horde when they first came to balkans, that is a couple of centuries before the start of the game. They conquered some serbian (slavic) tribes but eventually accepted serbian (slavic) language, culture and religion and that is why today they are considered to be south slavs. As a said, I think it`s a coin flip...

You are near to the truth but you are not exactly right . In Vth century a lot of Slavic tribes started to live in Balkan peninsula (from Danube to the south parts of Greece). Some of them were romanized (later). Actually there is a slight difference between Serbian and Bulgarian slavs (they are two groups that are different but not very much- it is almost the same as the difference between Croatian and Serbian people). When the so called protobulgarians came (they are not the same as the bulgarians- they are semi-nomadic and later Bulgarian slavs and they formed the Bulgarian nationality) there were no other Slavic country in Europe (tothe exception with the state of Samo but it existed only some decades)- no Serbia, no Russia. After protobulgarians defeated Byzantines in 680 they allied with some of the Slavs from the Bulgarian group and put the foundation of Bulgaria in 681- that's true Bulgaria is the first permanent Slavic state (Because Slavs became more and more after the successful wars against Byzantium- only the slavic tribes in the southwestern parts of the Balkan peninsula refused to go under the power of Bulgarian khan- that was the Serbian and Croatian tribes (they formed their own state in IX century)). Of course the organisation of the Bulgarian state changed- it stopped being a federation and became a centerlised monarchy - the slavic chiefs lost their independence but they were included in royal court and some of them became a governors.
So in the middle of IX century Bulgaria was very interesting country- with two religions (two pagan religions -slavic and the official the Protobulgarian) which was a barrier between two groups (they were friendly to each other but they are two groups not one nationality). I don't agree that protobulgarians accepted the slavic religion. No, the protobulgarians and slavs were converted to the christianity by Boris I(852-889,+907) and then they became one nationality (slavic - the Slavs (that as I explained are not Serbs) were more than protobulgarians). The protobulgarians really accepted Slavic (which is similar to the Serbian but is not Serbian) but that happened when the 'students' of Kiril and Metodius (the same that pope John Pavel II declared to be patrons of Europe) came with the slavic letters in Bulgaria.
Conclusion the Bulgarians were close to the Serbs but are not Serbs ( neither they came from Serbian tribes; I pay attention to this there is a difference between serbian and Bulgarian Slavs). I hope I won't offend anybody but in the period betweenVII and XIV Bulgarians were better developed by the Serbs (earlier state, earlier converting to the Christianity, bigger territories) so they are not the same. It is the same as to say that Bulgarians and Russians are the same.
P.S. there were no combined armies of Byzantines and Bulgarians. One short story- the batlle of Velbyjd(the battle you talk about- Serbians and Bulgarians. The leaders of the two armies the Serbian king (father of Stefan Dusan) and the Bulgarian Michael III Shishman agreed to ' cease the fire' for pne day. The Bulgarian monarch made very big mistake trusted to the enemy. Then the Serbs attacked him and Bulgarian tsar was killed in the battle. Later the Bulgarian reinforcements stopped Serbians(that prevented bulgarians from losing many fortresses). The Bulgarian ally emperor Andronicus III saw that his allies lost their tsar- then A. III decided not to help to his allies but to conquer some bulgarian fortresses...Next - new war with Byzantium ...

[Sarmatian]

You are near to the truth but you are not exactly right . In Vth century a lot of Slavic tribes started to live in Balkan peninsula (from Danube to the south parts of Greece). Some of them were romanized (later). Actually there is a slight difference between Serbian and Bulgarian slavs (they are two groups that are different but not very much- it is almost the same as the difference between Croatian and Serbian people). When the so called protobulgarians came (they are not the same as the bulgarians- they are semi-nomadic and later Bulgarian slavs and they formed the Bulgarian nationality) there were no other Slavic country in Europe (tothe exception with the state of Samo but it existed only some decades)- no Serbia, no Russia. After protobulgarians defeated Byzantines in 680 they allied with some of the Slavs from the Bulgarian group and put the foundation of Bulgaria in 681- that's true Bulgaria is the first permanent Slavic state (Because Slavs became more and more after the successful wars against Byzantium- only the slavic tribes in the southwestern parts of the Balkan peninsula refused to go under the power of Bulgarian khan- that was the Serbian and Croatian tribes (they formed their own state in IX century)). Of course the organisation of the Bulgarian state changed- it stopped being a federation and became a centerlised monarchy - the slavic chiefs lost their independence but they were included in royal court and some of them became a governors.
So in the middle of IX century Bulgaria was very interesting country- with two religions (two pagan religions -slavic and the official the Protobulgarian) which was a barrier between two groups (they were friendly to each other but they are two groups not one nationality). I don't agree that protobulgarians accepted the slavic religion. No, the protobulgarians and slavs were converted to the christianity by Boris I(852-889,+907) and then they became one nationality (slavic - the Slavs (that as I explained are not Serbs) were more than protobulgarians). The protobulgarians really accepted Slavic (which is similar to the Serbian but is not Serbian) but that happened when the 'students' of Kiril and Metodius (the same that pope John Pavel II declared to be patrons of Europe) came with the slavic letters in Bulgaria.
Conclusion the Bulgarians were close to the Serbs but are not Serbs ( neither they came from Serbian tribes; I pay attention to this there is a difference between serbian and Bulgarian Slavs). I hope I won't offend anybody but in the period betweenVII and XIV Bulgarians were better developed by the Serbs (earlier state, earlier converting to the Christianity, bigger territories) so they are not the same. It is the same as to say that Bulgarians and Russians are the same.
P.S. there were no combined armies of Byzantines and Bulgarians. One short story- the batlle of Velbyjd(the battle you talk about- Serbians and Bulgarians. The leaders of the two armies the Serbian king (father of Stefan Dusan) and the Bulgarian Michael III Shishman agreed to ' cease the fire' for pne day. The Bulgarian monarch made very big mistake trusted to the enemy. Then the Serbs attacked him and Bulgarian tsar was killed in the battle. Later the Bulgarian reinforcements stopped Serbians(that prevented bulgarians from losing many fortresses). The Bulgarian ally emperor Andronicus III saw that his allies lost their tsar- then A. III decided not to help to his allies but to conquer some bulgarian fortresses...Next - new war with Byzantium ...

Thanks for an indepth response. I tried to explain it in simple terms for people from other parts of who aren`t familiar with the history of the balkans. I know that bulgarians don`t speak serbian, that`s why i put slavic in the brackets. I just wanted to say that the slavic tribe that most influenced bulgarians were serbs, as it was the tribe they were most in contact with. You are right about religion, though.
As the battle of velbujd is concerned, Stefan Dechanski, the father of Tsar Dusan held command but only formally. As for the betraying part, I can`t really say that I heard of that. Funny how history is told differently. I wonder which version is the truth. I`ll try to get more info on that subject.