Factions discussion...

[IrishArmenian]

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

[Riadach]

Now now now now now, we can't be saying things like that about our neighbour 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 :-)

[hoetje]

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.

[Mr. Longbowman]

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.

[Signor D'Juntule]

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..



P.S. Sorry for my bad english.

[Orb]

I want Makuria!

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

[Bakma]

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

[Bakma]

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.

[Bakma]

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

[GodWillsIt]

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.

[IrishArmenian]

Now now now now now, we can't be saying things like that about our neighbour 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.