About The TURKS

[Spark]

If you look at the european factions, almost every one of them has some sort of unique traits/buildings/units/etc that aren't accurately reflected / not reflected at all in-game, so while you're right in most of your analysis of the turks, I'm afraid one could write up a similar article on every faction and request that it be made more unique. I'm sure CA have their limitations ;)

One thing I don't agree on is the analysis of turkish troops. I think they're quite close to being balanced relative to other factions. The thing with quoting historic events is that there are a lot of variables and you can very easily spin the details in your favor. I personally think the balance with european heavy infantry+cavalry superiority and eastern horse archer superiority is pretty good.

[noodles]

heh :) played the turks and let me tell u the mobility and versatility of the HA really wipes the floor with most europeean powers - also turks have the Janissary Heavy Infantry which is also one of the best units in the Game..

i think people expect too much historical accuracy from this (And other games) - try realism mods for closer depictions of the times

- what i think the game does is provide a valueble incentive for people to learn more about their past - CAs games and the modding community had the superb effect of getting me to read a lot of History Books over the years and games that stimulate this kind of curiosity should be held to high esteem (doesnt mean CA should leave so many bugs in tho )

[IPoseTheQuestionYouReturnTheAnswer]

History is not a selling point.

History is not a selling point.

History is not a selling point.

Say it a couple more times. Got it? Good. Wait, no? Say it once more. There we go. Now you're ready to accept that no game will ever be 100% historically accurate, because the development would take a decade, it would cost too much, and it wouldn't make any money.

[Spark]

History is not a selling point.

History is not a selling point.

History is not a selling point.

Say it a couple more times. Got it? Good. Wait, no? Say it once more. There we go. Now you're ready to accept that no game will ever be 100% historically accurate, because the development would take a decade, it would cost too much, and it wouldn't make any money.

Historical accuracy was never one of CA's strong points.

Of course history is a major selling point, kind of hard to argue that about a game titled "Medieval Total War"

[PaulTa]

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but you can tell that some of the voice acting and piecing together for the Turks was rushed a bit. When you actually decide to fight a battle on the battle map, the army that you have selected says something. In some cases, the little one liners are too long for the "zoom in" which takes you to the battlemap, so you can't hear the whole thing.

[Nasreddin]

Hi, folks.

I just finished my Turkish campaign and I do not consider the Turks to be a weak faction. For sure the game is historically inaccurate. But I think its bearable.

For the Tursk themselves. I think they are the strongest Muslim faction in the game. At the beginning you have two good options with Sipahi-all-cav-Armies or an Army based on Ottoman Infantry with additional cav and some spears.

Later in the game you can rely on your Janissaries. An Army based on Janissary Musketmen supported by some spears and cav has proved to be deadly against all european factions in my campaign. It's really funny watching Heavy Knights being gunned down, while they try to rush into your lines.

What I am more sad about is that the Arab factions are really weak. I both tried the Moors and the Egyptians but stopped the game frustrated because of their meagre units.

[The Wizard]

Say it a couple more times. Got it? Good. Wait, no? Say it once more. There we go. Now you're ready to accept that no game will ever be 100% historically accurate, because the development would take a decade, it would cost too much, and it wouldn't make any money.

Eh?

It took EB -- a development team made out of volunteers without pay -- about one and a half to two years to make a historically accurate game. We're talking modders, not professionally educated, spending their free time to make stuff. Sure, they started with an existing foundation, but that one was so ill-suited we had to throw tons out.

Compare that to the (well-)paid, professional, 9-to-5 Creative Assembly developers. Surely they could pump out something historically accurate and fun to play (which EB is, infinitely more so than RTW) within the deadlines demanded in the software manufacturing market if a bunch of amateurs could do it?

And also, Timur was not a Turk, he was an ethnic Mongol living in traditional turkic region conquered by Mongols (proven by scientific analysis of Timur's skull in Samarkand), but pretty sure a lot of his troops were turkic.

Timur was a Turk, or at least a Turcoman -- he spoke a Turkic language and had a very shaky connection to Chinggis Khan indeed. Phrenology, I hope, isn't an argument to anybody with some measure of grey matter in between his shoulders.

P.S. What the man says is correct. Numbers are insignificant and of lesser value than the truth they serve. What that means? That you should stop number crunching and start listening to what he has to say, which is not to be disputed.

[econ21]

No bickering please. I am going to edit out any material I find unpleasant, unfriendly or off-topic from this point on.

[dopp]

Muslim heavy cavalry is already much improved from MTW, where they didn't even have barded horses and got shot up rather easily. Once you get a decent general and some experience for them, they will easily beat Catholic knights.

600,000 crusaders is definitely inaccurate. All military accounts exaggerate troop strengths and casualties, even today. Ever notice how in England vs France military history, France consistently loses 30% more men even when they win the battle? Medieval accounts are defintely unreliable unless proven otherwise. History is written by the victors, and accounts from different sides will disagree greatly. The Turks claim to have defeated 600,000 Crusaders, but the French claim to have slaughtered 200,000 'Moors' in Spain, the English to have beaten 200,000 French knights at Agincourt, the Greeks (Macedonians really) to have annihilated 2 million Persians at Issus, and so on. It's ridiculous, to say the least.

600,000 fighting men in Medieval Europe? That is more men than the entire Imperial Roman army under Augustus, auxuiliaries included. Logistically, they could have won simply by eating up the whole Middle East. A more reasonable estimate would be 100,000, including a large percentage of camp followers and other non-combatants. Opposing them were 20,000-30,000 Turkish fighting men at most. Feudal armies could be very large, but only a tiny fraction of them would actually be hardened soldiers (knights, men-at-arms, mercenaries like longbowmen). The rest just scream and run around a lot when the fighting men are defeated.

[Ar7]

From my experience with Total War games CA always divides the factions into certain groups that have a similar base (animations, units, graphics etc) it makes it easier to develop the game. In M2TW the factions were divided by religion, so we have muslims, catholics and orthodox nations, the last actually include some catholic one. They have their unique aspects, but are still largely similar. Due to this fact each nation has a lot of inaccuracies and while they are certainly important, like it was pointed out in the original post, they are still too numerous to correct when one looks at all the factions.

PS. The sentance below was very amusing

Feudal armies could be very large, but only a tiny fraction of them would actually be hardened soldiers (knights, men-at-arms, mercenaries like longbowmen). The rest just scream and run around a lot when the fighting men are defeated.

[noodles]

way offtopic: Dont forget to mention a large contingent of professional feudal coconut clappers for dismounted knights in need of self esteem.