Your factions deciding factor

[Darth Nihilus]

Whats the most important factor for you when you chose a faction to play as? Mine would probably be good units. Especially good late units so I have somthing to work towards late in the game.

*Good generals was probably more applicable to the original MTW, but I guess we'll see. Remember when the Byzantines in early would breed nothing but 7 & 8 star generals? Of course that was a different system that had the command rating based on heriditary lines rather than winning battles.

[hoetje]

good units are important,but also how much you are interested in a faction is an important point.If you don't like the positions/enemies/history of a certain faction,you will most likely not play it :P

[Monarch]

Good units - I'm a multiplayer :)

[Martinaz]

Good positions of course.
Think about it:
In BI, the western empire has a very bad place to be. In rome, the decians are like serrounded.

[Darth Nihilus]

Yeah, I love the HRE, but thier starting position is just terrible. They're not my favorite faction, but thier horrendous positions plays a part in that.

[Drake]

Economics, particularly a strong trading position. Constantinople, Venice, Egypt, Genoa, major trading locations through which you can generate the monetary support necessary to build armies, agents and fund wars. Many times in M:TW I would build up a huge treasury, once as the French I saved up to 500,000 before attacking my biggest rival, (Egypt if I recall) and spent it all on bribes and mercenaries.

[Darth Nihilus]

Yeah that is fun. One time as Italy I had over 4 million florins so I made legions of Gothic Knights and assains. Playing with the economic powerhouses are a lot of fun.

[Sun of Chersonesos]

I like Darth Nihilus' Polls lol

I voted for the defensive position, because you're not surrounded and until you expand you can concentrate on one faction.

However, I think that the good generals needn't be an option because how are you supposed to know what generals come your way? you get different ones every time you play (except for the starting ones), and consequently you would not be able to say that one faction has better generals than the other.

Sun

[Furious Mental]

Like most I went for the units, not so much because I think they would make it easier to win but because I like to play as a faction with an interesting variety of soldier types.

[Derfal Cadarn]

Ok I've gone for good defensive position for the following reasons

1) I'm not that good a player, dont have enough time to play any of the games due to other commitments, hence I only know basics to get me through, so therefore I want to be in a position whereby I can slowly build my forces, knowing that I will have a fairly solid defence whilst doing so.

2) Good Units. What is meant by good units, those in early or those developed late in the game. If its early then given my nature of play I'm not looking to expand to fast anyways, and hence I can find a reasonable defensive force with most of the standard units. If its in late period, then I have found that nine times out of ten I havent bothered building many of top level units of whatever faction I'm playing, as normally by then, I've virtually won the game (or else drastically lost ) that these units arnt likely to make that much difference, and I build one or two of each just to see what they look like.

3)Trade - from what I've found or can remember, those factions with decent starting trade, either came under attack pretty quickly or else had loads of unrest. Again due to my lack of time/skill, I don't want to be under pressure straight away and always seem to find that this is the case with these type of startup situations. PS I am old and my memory aint what it should be, so please forgive if I have this completely wrong :-)

4) good generals - never noticed that much difference between good and bad, that it affected my game.

Appreciate that this is very subjective, but I have cast my vote just on what I know and my own playing ability :-)

[Orda Khan]

Like most I went for the units, not so much because I think they would make it easier to win but because I like to play as a faction with an interesting variety of soldier types.

None of the above.
Believability, interest and an 'against the odds' sense of fun.
Hopefully MTW II will do away with 'uber' units or at least limit their use due to cost

........Orda

[Darth Nihilus]

Yeah, I only threw up the good generals on the fat chance that some fations may start with very good ruling families like some did in the original MTW. I probably shouldn't have put it up as an option.....but oh well.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

i generally play a few custom battles to check out who has got what etc. but usually i choose a faction that appeals to me historically, for example on RTW i usually played as a faction that fights the Romans early on and historically lost but i did'nt like the barbarian units (so generally carthage, macedon or greece)

[Martok]

Hey! Where's the "GAH!" option?? No Org poll is complete without it!

But seriously, for me it's a combination of everything. Position, troop types, historical enemies, how challenging they are.... There truly is no one thing I can pinpoint as a deciding factor in which factions I find the most interesting and/or fun to play.

an 'against the odds' sense of fun

Welsh in VI =

Myrddraal, I hadn't taken you for a masochist. Seems I'll have to revise my opinion of you in that regard. (I was all about the Mercians and the Irish.)

[Woozie]

I pick on how badass the faction is to me.

I will probably play Danes just because they are badasses, everybody loves vikings.

[JR-]

good defensive position.

[Orb]

Unique Campaign - Carthaginians and Gauls in RTW, Byzantine Late in MTW, etc.

[Vlad Tzepes]

Money-money-money! Always go for the money, war is not about weapons, really, but about financing it. IMHO.

[Orb]

actually, I'd prefer to say a bad defensive position

The more I'm forced to expand or turtle initially, the better. If it looks like a death-trap, I'm in for it.

[Guillaume le Batard]

The more I'm forced to expand or turtle initially, the better. If it looks like a death-trap, I'm in for it.

I salute your spirit! While not actually sharing the same perspective! I am really bad at mananging economics and have to play the superpower factions in order to survive.

I voted for good units -- but I actually meant historically accurate units (or at least something approaching accurate) -- not that I'm an expert. It just isn't terribly fun for me playing a faction with a large number of (what I think of as) fantasy units.

Guillaume

[Polemists]

I personally like a non defensive position. Thus i am picking the holy roman empire. I dislike only my later units fighting. I look forward to my opponents starting a few wars at start, and only one will survive. Then turning my eyes to some of the greater challenges. I mean if I can survive as HRE I can easily play the other factions.

[Zimfan40]

I generally go for factions that interest me historically, followed by an interesting unit roster.

My plan is to revel in the most likely fairly historical Venetian unit roster, creating a vast trade empire, then over run the world with the Scot's BraveHeart knockoffs.

[CrackerJap]

A strong defensive position is essential for me. I tend to be overly aggressive in the beginning and if I send out an army that gets annihilated I want to be able to use whatever I have left to be able to defend, or at the very least stall, any counter-attack.

[Orb]

A strong defensive position is essential for me. I tend to be overly aggressive in the beginning and if I send out an army that gets annihilated I want to be able to use whatever I have left to be able to defend, or at the very least stall, any counter-attack.

Same cause; different requirements, I'm a lunatic who refuses to accept that I might somehow actually lose a battle. Situation Excellent, I am advancing! - as are so many people using GHC's Mafia game.

Head over to the gameroom people and sign up, for the simple brilliance of the Mafia games!

*places only available before 11.00 PM today (GMT)*

That's my marketing done

[Lord Godfrey]

I always enjoyed playing England in the original MTW because I knew the history and characters. I tried to mimic the 100 Year War or the Crusades, and treated historical allies and enemies as such - Nothing was better than rampaging thru France.

[IrishArmenian]

There shood be a history/nashunality opshun.

[timsemand]

You can't say that denmark got a good defensive position. They are well protected from invasion from land but they can be invaded from sea all over the country.

[Akka]

None of the choices you provided.
I primarily chose my faction because of prestige and history.
I want to play Byzantium simply because they ARE Byzantium, heirs of the Roman Empire and infinitely cultured people.

You also forgot to offer the simple "out of nationalism" answer, which is probably THE most important reason on the whole.

[DukeofSerbia]

None of the above.

[Kourutsu]

Position!

MTW-Denmark
RTW-Brittania
MTW 2-Scotland (Once I conquer that northern province)

Oh, and when I wasn't taking my Prosac, color. Yep, color was a deciding factor for me for a while. Never played HRE. Black and yellow, just not menacing or cool. Also never played the Byzantines. Purple! The only reason I have ever played Poland in MTW, is because of the color, and cool flag.