Which is the most powerefull Faction and why?

[Kavhan Isbul]

Back to the topic - I still have a problem understanding the question which started this topic. Is it asking for:
A) The most powerful faction in M2TW we anticipate based on limited and incomplete information
B) The most powerful faction from MTW
C) What should be the most powerfulf action from a historical point of view

On A) I really cannot comment - before the release of the game anything is more or less a wild guess.

On B) - That would depend very much on the starting period and the game version. Overall, the Almohads, Byzantines (in early only though), the Turks, and the Egyptians were in a better starting position than the rest of the factions, and from the rest the English and the Spanish had a really strong starting position.

On C) - I completely disagree that the Eastern Roman Empire should be very powerful. At the end of the 11th century, it had just suffered a huge defeat from the Seljuks (not the battle itself as its consequences, which ultimately lead to the death of the Empire), the rift with the west after the Great Schism was in place (ultimately leading to the IVth Crusade), and the decline of the military system was just starting, leading to the Empire's increased reliance on mercenaries, such as the Variangian Guard. It also needs to be noted that The Eastern Roman Empire was prone to civil wars and rebellions in a manner similar to that of the HRE. Therefore I do not think that the "Byzantines" should be the most powerful faction for the start of the game - they ahd too many problems.
Actually, at about A.D. 1080 there probably was not a faction that was noticeably more powerful than the rest of the factions in the old world. The Seljuks come close, with their Great Seljuk Empire, and then the Ottomans most deffinitely became a super power, but that happened only as early as the late 14th century. The Fatimids were powerful, and the Mameluks even more powerful, but the Mameluks of course came later. The Almohads and the Almoravids - I guess if you lump them together, like the game tends to do, they should be really powerful (and indeed they were in MTW before VI). The rise of Venice was spectacular, but it too happened later. The Sicilian Normans are interesting, and I think that as far as the starting period is concerned, they most deffinitely should be one of the more powerful factions - after all the 11th and 12th centuries were their greatest period. The Spanish - Castilians and Aragonese should also be powerful, but not early in the game. The Kievans should be powerful, but so should be their closest adversaries, the Cumans, which unfortunately are not even in the game. The Poles should be a super power, but again, very late in the game.
Again, I am coming to the conclusion that the absence of periods and different starting dates takes a lot away from the game. Hopefully I am going to be proven wrong soon.

[blahblahblah]

Depends on the user.

[Lord of the Isles]

Which is the most powerful Faction and why?


SEGA.

The "why" left as an exercise for the reader.

[JR-]

how many provinces does England start with?

[anders]

Back to topic, the russians should be mighty with their safe flanks, lots of rebel easy pickings and some nice cavalry units.

of course, when the tartars show up they will be anything but mighty for a while..

[Horatius]

England

We happened to be the only faction to have had nobles working with and encouraging the merchant instead of despising them, we had semi-proffessional armies of longbowmen and billmen commanded by dismounted knights instead of just a mass of cavalry and infantry, in Wales we built some of the finest castles in the world, our great kings like Richard the Lionheart and Henry V are names that still resonate to todays audience while who ever heard of Philip Augustus? We even burned the symbol of France Joan of Arc because not even she could stand English spear and bow for very long.

Paris itself fell to the might and right of England.

[Kavhan Isbul]

What exactly is so great about Richard the Lionheart - he led an unsuccessful crusade and was ransomed on his way back, overall spending very little time in his own kingdom?
England was great, just not in the Middle Ages.

[TheImp]

England

We happened to be the only faction to have had nobles working with and encouraging the merchant instead of despising them, we had semi-proffessional armies of longbowmen and billmen commanded by dismounted knights instead of just a mass of cavalry and infantry, in Wales we built some of the finest castles in the world, our great kings like Richard the Lionheart and Henry V are names that still resonate to todays audience while who ever heard of Philip Augustus? We even burned the symbol of France Joan of Arc because not even she could stand English spear and bow for very long.

Paris itself fell to the might and right of England.

Very restrictive point of view really, as i said before: irrelevant. U seem to only compare england to france in your statement, but their were countries far much more powerfull than england in the world at this time.

If u look at this map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...pe_in_1470.PNG
English kingdom is a tiny thing really and is like a fly that could be easily smashed by muslims and eastern empires.

Oh, by the way, london itself fell to the might of France in 1066. So even your analysis of France vs England wars is biased by patriotism.

[hoetje]

3 : Caen,nottingham,london

[JR-]

crazy, how many provinces are in the British Isles including Ireland?

[hoetje]

7 I believe : London,Nottingham,York,Dublin,Caernarvon,Edinburgh,Inverness(top north).Scotland gets edinburgh and Inverness,England gets Nottingham and London,York and Dublin are rebel

[TheImp]

I found an interesting site showing the progress of each faction during middle age era. http://www.medievalmap.net/

I don't see why england should be the most powerfull faction. Considering the course of history, this statement is irrelevant.

I think it is mostly the case in MTW2 cause it is developped by native english speakers and their objectivity can be highly criticized on the matter. Religion focusing on catholism is as well a striking example of their lack of neutrality.

So for my part, i would say that the most powerfull faction is the one u manage to conquer the entire map with.

[Burakius]

I found an interesting site showing the progress of each faction during middle age era. http://www.medievalmap.net/

I don't see why england should be the most powerfull faction. Considering the course of history, this statement is irrelevant.

I think it is mostly the case in MTW2 cause it is developped by native english speakers and their objectivity can be highly criticized on the matter. Religion focusing on catholism is as well a striking example of their lack of neutrality.

So for my part, i would say that the most powerfull faction is the one u manage to conquer the entire map with.

Of course the strongest faction is the one u control. But if they were all cpu England would be the strongest since the makers of the game are biased. If we would look historically whole Europe would be pwned by Mongols etc.

Also the religion thing bugs me too.. too many catholic factions. They should've put Asia in their too. Add some nice Pagan countries from Asia wich convert to Islam in mid-age. That would give some nice strat. Especially that ur goal could be to convert them before they become Islamic and join your side. Also of course there should be Orthodox factions :)

[ProudNerd]

That said france stills owns the us. :P Iraq taught everyone that. They couldn't conquer a backyard.

[CrownOfSwords]

Lol I can't believe I just read that whole post, but I agree with a couple things but also disagree with most of it. Its easy to make one side look good when you point out all the victories and none of the losses. But saying the British were cowards for leaving the French in WW2 is obsurd. The Germans made a stupid mistake which gave the British their chance to go back to their own country, but they also made another stupid mistake by allowing the battle of britain to happen. I dislike how some people give the French so much credit for the surrender of Cornwalis also, yes they came to help us win the battle of yorktown , but it was the americans themselves that turned the war around without any french help. And if you really want to go as far back as the Franks why not mention Gaul also who were totally obliterated by Julius Caesar?

Yet I agree the French did their share of military victories in their time, but I dont care about the past now only the present and the French are a buncha pussies as far as I have to say right now. Their country is being overrun by muslims they mightve beaten them back in the Dark Ages but they may be outbreeded before for too long lol.

[ProudNerd]

That said i shouldn't be talking Australia hardly has a military history :p anyway:

[Kavhan Isbul]

Tours, 732 AD: The Muslims had already taken Spain and were well on their way to taking the rest of Europe. The only power with a chance of stopping them was the French army under Charles "the Hammer" Martel, King of the Franks (French), who answered to the really cool nickname "the Hammer of God." It was the French who saved the continent's ass. All the smart money was on the Muslims: there were 60,000 of them, crazy Jihadis whose cavalry was faster and deadlier than any in Europe. The French army was heavily outnumbered and had no cavalry. Fighting in phalanxes, they held against dozens of cavalry charges and after at least two days of hand-to-hand combat, finally managed to hack their way to the Muslim center and kill their commander. The Muslims retreated to Spain, and Europe developed as an independent civilization.

Before the moderators purge the topic, which has gone way off hand, may I respectfully disagree with the myth about the so called saviour of Europe by the Franks (not the French, there is a difference). It was not a jihad, but for all practical purposes a raid, and I wonder about the credibility of your sources, as 60,000 seems greatly exaggerated - take one 0 off and you may be right. The real battles that determined the faith of Europe were the unsuccessful Arab siege of Constantinople in 717 and then the siege of Vienna in 1528. The skirmish of Martel's men with the Arabs hardly deserves the glory it is so often bestolen in the West.

I am by no means stating that the Franks did not have a powerful army - the Empire they built is a proof to the contrary. But the reasons for the Arabs to stop after conquering the Iberian peninsula are not in one small skirmish, but much deeper - unfacorable geography and climate, remoteness from their center of authority, etc. If someone should take the credit for stopping the Arabs, it is not the Franks, but the Eastern Roman Empire. Anything else is a Eurocentric myth.

[TheImp]

I don't know what's wrong with u and france, ProudNerd, but it seems to be very fierce and not rationnal. If u look at the post u quoted, and the articles u gave as links, don't u see there is no real semantic link between them?

In my post, i just say that it's very restrictive to compare english warfare only with france, and that in Europe there are other countries more powerfull than england at the time. And i remind the original poster that in 1066, london lost against french armies centuries before paris.

Apart from that, i didn't bash english warfare at all. So if it pleases u to bash french history, fine, but for my part, i respect english history as much i respect my own country's history. So before overreacting like that, take a breath and try to give constructive answers to the posts, thanks.