The Pet Peeve thread

[Kobal2fr]

I have that, play a new campaing every day. Save to say i havent seen the aztecs yet.

*looks away*
I...I've never... I've never seen the Timurids....I'VE NEVER EVEN SEEN GUNPOWDER, DADDY !
*bursts into tears*

Yah, I've got grass-greener-on-other-faction's-soil-itis too

[HoreTore]

*looks away*
I...I've never... I've never seen the Timurids....I'VE NEVER EVEN SEEN GUNPOWDER, DADDY !
*bursts into tears*

Yah, I've got grass-greener-on-other-faction's-soil-itis too

The solution: Make gunpowder, both invasions and world is round event take place earlier. In my current game, I have gunpower at 30, mongols at 50 and world is round at 60. Can't remember when I put the timurids though.

I actually had high hopes of FINALLY seeing the aztecs, but then I noticed that Mount&Blade thread in the arena....

[Fußball]

I have never gotten to the world is round event yet either and I always purposely prolong my games. Maybe I will wait that long in my current game.
Tschüß!
Erich

[Didz]

I nearly forgot this one as I've become so used to it now that its almost a feature of the game.

I really. really, hate the auto-rerouting bug that kicks in when a unit can't move where you told it to.

You know the scenario.....your Crusading army is marching through Alpine Germany with all those awkward little passes to negotiate plus the usual merchant traffic jams to contend with. You click on your Crusade and it shows a clear green path all the way down the next valley, so you click on the point you want it to move to and instead of heading in that direction it marches back the way it just came because invisible to you there is a merchant or neutral army coming through the pass from the other direction blocking the route.

That is really annoying and causes damage to my keyboard when I thump it to try an hit the Backspace key as quickly as possible.

If you're too slow it also costs a fortune in replacement units when half your crusade desert because your heading in the wrong direction.

[John_Longarrow]

My pet peeve would have to be...

Iberian tourists

You know what I'm talking about. Those random stacks of Spanish troops that wander the French country side, eating and drinking with the locals. They don't attack anyone, they just roam the lands drinking all the good wines. And of course their cousins in white and blue who have a strong fettish for good beer and whiskey. At least that is the only reason I can see for Portgugal to invade IRELAND.

No, not a show stopper, but something I'd not expect when these factions are trying to take over their homelands from the Arabs.

[HoreTore]

No, not a show stopper, but something I'd not expect when these factions are trying to take over their homelands from the Arabs.

Well, spain did actually try to invade england a few times in the middle ages...

But as for the tourism, I completely agree, they should keep to their own lands when they're not gearing up for an invasion. That goes for all factions, really. They should have a big army when they're trying to invade someone, and they should stay clear of enemy/neutral lands when they're not invading(unless they're just passing through). In short, they should respect whether they have military access or not.

[Kraggenmor]

I really. really, hate the auto-rerouting bug that kicks in when a unit can't move where you told it to.

Now that you mention it..I'd really like it if we could see the route the unit was planning to take before it started moving on that route.

[DVX BELLORVM]

What bugs me is the composition of rebel armies. I don't consider myself to be an expert for medieval European history, but how often did the knights and other soldiers rebel? Not very often, I think. And yet, the rebel armies in M2TW consist mainly of those troops.
On the other hand, there were a lot of peasant uprisings, and it would be realistic if the rebel armies are mostly peasants. Wouldn't it be nice when we would be confronted with a full stack of peasants, revolting against their feudal lords?

Another thing, when a city revolts, you just find your troops out of it, and a province lost. How did the rebels manage to do it? Did they, in the middle of the night, carry your sleeping soldiers and their beds outside the city walls??
I would like to have a chance to defend my city...

And when you look at the rebel army that now holds the city, you'll see that they are mostly high quality troops. When did they came from? If you can train only 3 units per turn, how can they train 20?

[Whacker]

Flags surrounding the town square not changing to your faction's flag when you take control of it in a siege, and vica versa.

[Didz]

What bugs me is the composition of rebel armies. I don't consider myself to be an expert for medieval European history, but how often did the knights and other soldiers rebel? Not very often, I think. And yet, the rebel armies in M2TW consist mainly of those troops.

I think you'll find there were a lot of both, though I do think that the game should make a better distinction between the two.

As an example of the distinction take:

The Peasant Revolt 1381
http://www.britannia.com/history/art...ntsrevolt.html
and the revolt led by Sir Henry Percy (Hotspur) in 1403.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Percy

These two rebellions were very different in both nature, composition and threat and that isn't really highlighted in the game very well.

Also the third type of uprising which is implied by the game but not really handled very well is simple brigandry. e.g. bands of redundant soldiers, unemployed mercenaries and outlaws wandering about preying on the local population. e.g. Robin Hood and his associates. The number and strength of these bands ought to be directly related to number of military units disbanded in a given province over recent game turns and/or the number of battles fought in the area.

Another thing, when a city revolts, you just find your troops out of it, and a province lost. How did the rebels manage to do it? Did they, in the middle of the night, carry your sleeping soldiers and their beds outside the city walls??

Possibly.. although its more likely they were woken up and frog-marched out the gate after being given the chance to join the uprising.

Funnily enough I was watching 'Bloody Britain' last night on the TV and they were covering The Peasant Revolt which has some relevance to this discussion. Apparently, the peasants from Kent and the South-East initially massed around Southwark on the south bank of the Thames where they were addressed from a barge on the river by the 14 year old King Richard II. They demanded that the King hand over the corrupt cleric's and ministers who were on the barge with him so that they could be tried and given their just deserts and when the King refused they decided to go and get them themselves.

This involved crossing London Bridge, which at the time was a fortified part of Londons defences guarded by two gatehouses and a draw bridge. In theory, they had no chance of getting across as they had no seige weapons and were only armed with makeshift weapons. But they apparently magically made it, pouring into the city of London, burning palaces like the Savoy and murdering anyone they didn't like the look of, the assumption is that the guards on the bridge must have just lowered the draw bridge and let them in.

Still not satisfied that justice had been done the peasants decided they wanted to get their hands on the ringleaders amongst the corrupt government, namely the Lord Chancellor (Simon of Sudbury, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was particularly associated with the poll tax), and the Lord Treasurer (Robert de Hales, the Grand Prior of the Knights Hospitallers of England). These dignitaries were hidden away in The Tower of London under armed guard and the protection of the King, completely safe and beyond their grasp. That is until the peasants simply walked up to the guards said 'Lets us in mate, we want to kill your boss', at which point the guards simply opened the gates and let them into the Tower. They dragged out all the noblemen and their families hiding inside and proceeded to behead them all at Smithfield.

So, based on that real-life example I think your expecting a but much of your soldiery in such situations, in fact I would argue that the garrision of a settlement that revolts ought to join the rebels. Governments cannot rely upon the dumb loyalty of their national military in situations of civil revolt, thats why many nations retained foriegn mercenaries as bodyguard troops.