Which is the most powerefull Faction and why?

[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

[McDoogle]

they havent realised a offical list. And alot of the factions from the original medieval total war, you watch wont be included! they wont have a large collection of factions, they will be focusing on europian factions due to the big focus on the papal states and the pope. personally im gonna turn pagan and slaughter the christians! anyone know when its going to be released in Australia? i hope they remake the viknig invasion! would LOVE to see viking with proper graphics!

[Furious Mental]

16 November supposedly. Treasonable in my opinion!

[JR-]

is going heretic/pagan a real choice, or just the preulude to a civil war that destroys your state?

[Roman_Man#3]

Because of "Sir Ulrich von Lichtenstein"? :)

well im not sure if someone mentioned this before, but their is a tiny european country/kingdom, im not sure which, called lichtenstein. IIRC, it was destroyed in world war 2 or something, but it has dissappeared otherwise.

[Orb]

The Byzantines should, by all accounts, be one of the weaker factions. Their military was outdated, their position weak, they were suffering repercussions from the lunatic Diogenes and also the invasions of Guiscard, which had circumstantially resulted in Alexios draining his treasury to tie up the Normans.

The Seljuqs should be powerful, as should the French, I think.

Egypt was too problematic, after Shahanshah died, the place disintegrated for a while.

[Don Jacopo Caldora]

It truly is hard to say who will be the most powerful faction, at least until the game is finally released.

But ultimatly, the most powerful comes from being the faction that can best manage their economy and also must gain control of strategic territories that will aid in their defense.

The value of the money is self explanatory, can't afford an army worth anything without being able to pay for it, whether self built, or hired out as mercenaries.

The strategic territory will come from 1: location, an easy to defend point, or able to send troops to aid provinces/armies in trouble with ease. and 2: Providing unique resource/economic advantages to the owner that allow for more $$ or better armor/weapons.

Whoever can gain control of the $$ and the proper provinces will have the advantage when seeking to control the world.

[Gampie]

Scotland gets edinburgh and Inverness

Scotland only gets Edinburgh. Inverness is rebel ( https://img281.imageshack.us/my.php?image=m2tw2ir0.jpg and http://www.g4mers.com/images/previews/shot_71_499.jpg )

[ProudNerd]

Isn't it a bit early for such a general question? And basilios, how do you know what units the Egyptians will have (and their stats)? Was there a faction preview I missed?

all you need to know is that they have longbows kinghts and deadly billmen. Man they owned in mtw.

[Faenaris]

well im not sure if someone mentioned this before, but their is a tiny european country/kingdom, im not sure which, called lichtenstein. IIRC, it was destroyed in world war 2 or something, but it has dissappeared otherwise.

Indeed, there was a small kingdom of Lichtenstein. It still exists though (it is called Liechtenstein), a small country squeezed between Austria and Switzerland. It's a bit like Monaco: small, but lots of rich people. :)

I was referring to "Sir Ulrich von Liechtenstein" because I had seen "A Knight's Tale" the night before and I was still smiling about it. A very funny movie and I had hoped some of you had recognised my reference.

[azraeltheFallen]

I would defiantly say the Danes, they have some easy conquerable lands up north(sweden, norway) and then they have some superb infantry in the beginning and they really only have to worry about HRE in the beginning, whitch already got enough problems with other factions...DANES!!

[Burakius]

The English are made the strongest without a doubt but we all know why. Hystorically this would be correct. also I think the Islam factions should be made strong since they were ahead of Europe at that time.

[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 :)

[JR-]

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 :)

agreed

[Darth Nihilus]

I told myself that I wouldn't reply to a thread like this until the game had been out for at least a week or so, but I couldn't resist. So without having played the game it would appear to me that the English look to be the most powerful closely being followed by the Egyptians. Both factions have solid units and have excellent starting spots. Of course I'm sure there will be several more "which faction is the most powerful" threads after the game comes out.

[Kavhan Isbul]

Looking at the starting strategic map, the Egyptians (should be called Fatimids, really), and the Seljuks have superb starting positions - plenty of rebels and easily defensible territories. Add to that the Moors. For the rest of the factions it all depends on who will be in the best position to grab more rebel lands in the hectic scramble for these, which will characterize the beginning of each game. It may turn out that there is a hidden favorite in this race, such as the Poles, the Danes or the Milanese.

[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.

[ProudNerd]

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.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/victories.html

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html

[ProudNerd]

(Article by Gary Brecher)

Uh napoleon's Russian invasion was a failure.Even the old guard was crushed. And joan? She was a mentally disturbed szihoferic. And in the last paragraph you mentioned yourself they kicked ass against conscripted peasants and mercs. Not professional armies. And I'm not amercain. im Australian. Those websites aren't meant to be taken seriously.

[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.

[Faenaris]

This topic is a de-railing fast and I suggest a new thread is opened to continue this discussion. I also want to add that "the French are suckers" or "the French woop your behind" are both extremely polarised oppinions. France won battles and it lost battles. Every nation has. So, before describing a whole nation as cowards, be sure to check your sources and before you go off on a rant, also take a look at your nation's own history.

This was a post directed at nobody in particular.

Now, to get back on track: While England seems to be a definite winner, I would not rule out Novgorod. If the lands aren't dirt-poor, they can become a force to be reckoned with. It's gonna be fun to build up a "Rus" Empire.

[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.