What Factions would you like to see in Empire Total War

[Trax]

Bavaria! Bavaria! Bavaria!

Looking for a rebellious, constantly wrong-side choosing faction????

U found it!!!

Yeah, if they are a faction in ETW I will surely play them.
Screw Prussia, Bavaria will be the true power in Germany when I'm in charge.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I am all rather amazed at the wishlist: The Netherlands?! The Dutch were broke by 1700; the continuous Merc employment due to all the wars (with England, and with local powers in Indonesia most notably) coupled with the bankruptcy of the VOC had just killed Dutch economy.

And what do the Netherlands actually have:
1) Close to modern day The Netherlands. However, the province of Limburg was only partially under Dutch control and the southern border ran a bit differently.
2) Parts of Java were occupied by VOC garrisons. Only recently did the Dutch state take them over; the Staten Generaal assumed responsibility for the immense debt the VOC had built up.
3) Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao and parts of Suriname.

----------

Oh and:

4) Social Unrest on a major scale. By 1795, following a period of continuous riots and uprisings, a double coup d' etat ensured that the Batavian Republic was found. And even then, the social discomfort did not cease; struggles continued in earnest till 1848 (New consitution), and were finally settled in 1919. (Voting rights for women.)
Note that all sorts of social legislation only came into being very late; and that indeed the entire Industrial Revolution took very long to reach the Netherlands in earnest (in fact, it reached the Netherlands only after spying on the English) mostly due to the political, and social unrest fuelled by a crap economy. (1840-1848 are also known as the Black Years in Dutch, due to the successive failures to yield sufficient argricultural production.)
5) Being the political playground of all major European powers. England, France and Prussia all tried to influence the course of events as much as possible; going as far as to fund rebellious groups.

----------------------

Gah, and how is CA going to represent that in a TW game accurately; without sacrificing considerably on game-play?

EDIT: Oh and to clear things up:
The Dutch employed mostly foreigners (mercenaries from Hessia and Switzerland mostly) as their soldiers. However, due to the continuous poor economy - the Dutch started to field more and more Burgerwachten; basically a town miliitia. (Due to the insufficient maintainance of public order, the Patriotten (Patriots, but with a slightly different meaning in this context) started to field such guards. Not to think that it was much of show, really: when the Prussians invaded they more or less decided not to fight at all - allowing the Prussians to restore the Stadhouder into his position.

[Trax]

Hmm, the Dutch could fight bravely enough according to this description.

Away on the allied left the Prince of Orange began his attack at around 9.00 am. Riding at the head of his 30 Dutch, Swiss and Scottish battalions the prince's main effort was aimed at the French works along the edge of the Wood of Lanieres, defended by General d'Artagnan's regiments which included amongst them such illustrious names as Lorraine, Piémont, Royal Roussillon and the Gardes Francaise. At 90 meters the hidden French battery of twenty cannon that had been positioned in the re-entrant of the d'Artagnan's fieldworks, let fly with a tremendous belch and roar of flame, which swept away whole ranks, leaving the ground littered with mangled and torn bodies. Still the battalions pressed on, receiving yet another awful raking fire from the French guns, and now also the massed volleys of over three thousand muskets as the French front line erupted in a hail of fire. General Oxenstiern was killed, and over two thirds of the Prince of Orange's staff fell around their leader. Down went the prince's horse; shot through by a shower of missiles, but the gallant young man himself remained unharmed and advanced on foot. The ground became so choked with the bodies of the dead and writhing wounded that all attempts to form a coordinated firing line became impossible. Half an hour after starting their advance the Dutch, Swiss and Scottish battalions had suffered some 5,000 casualties. But even this did not prevent the prince from pulling back to reform his battle lines, and once again advancing into the hurricane of lead and iron. In a repeat performance of their previous courageous, but futile endeavours to close with their opponents the allied battalions melted away in the face of the massive concentration of French fire. The Dutch Blue Guards left over half their strength on the field together with Generals Spaar and Hamilton, and the attack petered out and retired, still in good order, leaving the ground carpeted with even more dead and wounded. The Farm of Blairon, which had been captured during the advance, had to be abandoned and was now once again in French hands.

[Tellos Athenaios]

True. The Dutch did have some really good soldiers. But not many. (They did not maintain entire armies of them, that is.)

Also, consider that this is about:
1) A strong leader - with a certain charisma.
2) People who (at least the Dutch under his command) didn't exactly agree with the French overlordship of the Netherlands. In fact, we are talking about the Orangists (Orangisten, named so after the family of which all Stadhouders (Sterwards) were descedants - Oranje) or Oranjeklanten. And those people were people who ended up in the army and navy (having no other way of earning money, being the lowest social class). Add to this that the Oranjes (the family) had the reputation of defenders of the masses (as opposed to the rich merchants who would exploit them).

So I would say that they had a rather strong incentive to fight for the Prince - and to keep fighting at all odds. Especially since the Netherlands were now officially under French overlordship - which hadn't exactly gone down well with the upper and middle classes either, even though their revolution had been supported by the French and they had relied on French foreign policies to remain in power since 1794. (Most notably because the Dutch had to pay taxes to finance the French military.) So there you are: 1) a feeling of having the opportunity to aid your country & fellows 2) a feeling of power by being united under the banner of a strong & determined leader.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

You are being overly hard on the Dutch there, Tellos.
When the game begins (1700) the Dutch are still quite powerful and the British only recently managed to catch up to them on the world stage. Yes, the Dutch were on their way down. But principally that was because they were at the centre of a European power struggle where they managed to hold their own for a long time before finally being exhausted. As such they were involved in just about every war in Western Europe. That merits them a seat at the ETW table, surely?
The Dutch didn't have a large standing army, true, but neither did Britain. Both managed to be major players on the European stage anyway, and major empire builders. As for the quality of that army: few nations had to fight so many large nations in their history for so long. You'd be hard pressed not to end up with some of the most experienced soldiery of Europe. The Dutch had some of the finest infantry and cavalry of the age, and the coin and good relations to acquire more as they desired. Certainly early on. It was only during the fourth Anglo-Dutch Wars (1780-1784) that the Dutch lost most of their power, with the final deathblow coming in 1794 with the French invasion. So for well over half of the time depicted in the game the Dutch were still a major world power.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Confirmed factions so far in Empire:

Britain
America
Sweden
United Provinces(Netherlands)
Poland-Lithuania
Russia
Prussia
Venice
Spain
France
Ottoman Empire

And there will be around 50 factions in Empire.

This sounds promising! Beer to CA!

[The Celt]

Here's my wishlist.(Just going to put up the 10 announced factions plus maybe 11 more.)

1.British Empire
2.Kingdom of France
3.Spanish Empire
4.Prussia
5.Austria(-Hungary?)
6.Poland-Lithuania
7.Russian Empire
8.Ottoman Empire
9.Republic Of Venice
10.United States of America
11.Kingdom of Portugal
12.Saxony
13.United Netherlands
14.Kingdom of Sweden
15.Iroquois Confederacy
16.Mughal Empire
17.Maharata Confederacy
18.Safavid Empire(Persia)
19.Kingdom of Mysore
20.Kingdom of Denmark
21.Afsharid Afghans(Nader Shah)
22.Moroccan Empire

Whew! Lots of big players there! If CA can include most of that list I'll be a happy camper!

[Tellos Athenaios]

You are being overly hard on the Dutch there, Tellos.
When the game begins (1700) the Dutch are still quite powerful and the British only recently managed to catch up to them on the world stage. Yes, the Dutch were on their way down. But principally that was because they were at the centre of a European power struggle where they managed to hold their own for a long time before finally being exhausted. As such they were involved in just about every war in Western Europe. That merits them a seat at the ETW table, surely?
The Dutch didn't have a large standing army, true, but neither did Britain. Both managed to be major players on the European stage anyway, and major empire builders. As for the quality of that army: few nations had to fight so many large nations in their history for so long. You'd be hard pressed not to end up with some of the most experienced soldiery of Europe. The Dutch had some of the finest infantry and cavalry of the age, and the coin and good relations to acquire more as they desired. Certainly early on. It was only during the fourth Anglo-Dutch Wars (1780-1784) that the Dutch lost most of their power, with the final deathblow coming in 1794 with the French invasion. So for well over half of the time depicted in the game the Dutch were still a major world power.

1794 actually stabalizes things considerably, and is way before the French invasion. It lays out the table for the next 20 years to come, so to speak. And from 1700 onwards the Dutch STATE did not have the money to finance significant armies. The period you're looking for is the Golden Age; about 1620 - 1670; a period in which the Dutch were dominant in all Europe-Asia trade, acquiring a monopoly on spices. And even then, the Dutch STATE did not finace the warfare: merchants did - assembled in what's probably the first real Multinational, and one of the most powerful ones at that: the VOC. (It had the right to do diplomacy, enforce treaties, do war, build forts, maintain armies...)

But by 1700 the VOC had just gone broke, and the debts were passed on to the State (the Staten Generaal assumed responsibility to pay for them). At that point the Dutch economy is virtually broke. It managed to revive itself a bit and did indeed see better days; however the lower classes never fully recovered during the period.

The only people who profited significantly from Dutch economy were the upper classes - both the Kleine Burgerij; and (most of all) the Regenten. This last group dictated everything, and financed everything - hence the Dutch involvement in anything as remote as the American Independence War. (Rich Dutch merchants provided the Americans with supplies (most notably weapons and ammunition) and money which amounted to a loan of some 16 milion guilders! Why do you think the English decided to go to war with the Dutch yet again? Their last conflict had been ended as far back as 1674! For close to a century, the Dutch interference with English policies & commerce had been little enough to allow for a 'peaceful' co-existence!)

Yes, the Dutch were involved in every major conflict - but then again, the major Dutch merchants had spread themselves all over the world some 80 - 50 years before the timeframe. The Dutch Regenten class was involved in all sorts of smuggling business; and couldn't be persecuted: they controlled the Dutch government, and remained at home most of the time.

Oh well, :
The Dutch state & economy in general wasn't of much significance; heck the English started the Industrial revolution during the timeframe! The Dutch would, just like the French continue to focus on farming & trading till about 1850. And even then did the revolution not progress as fast or as smoothly.

Something to keep in mind:
-big states (England, France etc.) 'invent' protectionism. It cripples Dutch economy; which is mostly depot work & agricultural export + fish. The former is what made the Dutch rich in the Golden Age (Gouden Eeuw); the latter is what the emphasis of Dutch economy had shifted too. Obviously, the new invention stings badly.
-the entire idea of Enlightment is starting to take shape. Great and all that; but the Kleine Burgerij (Civilians, middle class without voting rights) discovers that it wants a piece of the cake as well. And it doesn't get it. You may wonder why there are lot's of organisations in modern day Netherlands called "Maatschappij": well, that is because it refers to the Enlightment ideals of "together we can make something out of it". Community efforts and all that.
Anyway, this entire Enlightment project coupled to the declining economy leads the Kleine Burgerij to beleave they deserve better. And that they should take matters in their own hands. Social & Political discomfort (unrest) continues to exist for a long period. 1848 eases some of it; but it requires the economy to sort itself out first (by 1870) and then it requires the Schoolstrijd & Voting Rights to be settled on as well (by 1917 & 1919 respectively).

My opinion remains: the Dutch are not a faction a la TW to be considered. Dutch merchants did play a significant role; but the Dutch state became the political playground of the real Euorpean Powers (England, France, and Prussia) culminating in the insitution of the puppet state known by the name of The Batavian Republic in January 19 of 1795 after the revolts in 1794. And the Dutch did not fight any really significant wars in those ages: the fourth Anglo-Dutch war you speak of merely reaffirmed the position of the Dutch since about 1700.

[Lord Winter]

@ Tellos, yes I agree with you in saying that Dutch were in segnificant decline on the world stage and their power in the collonies is being threatened by england. But until the end of the War of Spanish Succesion, (1714) they were still able to play a fairly major part in european affairs.

There is also the fact that part of total war is about changing history not reliving it. Perhasp the dutch could have rose again given the right conditions.

[IsItStillThere]

I'm beginning to think the 1700's-1800's era might be a little too late.

How about 1650-1770?

That would let the Dutch in with a fighting chance, and eliminate the complications that would arise from the USA suddenly appearing in 1780-something (I still can't imagine how CA will handle that. I can think of a lot of very stupid ways to do it. I hope they find a clever one or avoid it altogether.)

[Tellos Athenaios]

Perhasp the dutch could have rose again given the right conditions.

I don't think so... that's my whole gripe with having the Dutch in as a faction. They never ever could have risen on their own again; and historically, they never did so on their own again. From 1870 onwards the Dutch experience a revival in global importance, but only by the mercy of the English. And of course the complex/tense political situation Bismarck had just put Europe in.

I do not think CA will incorporate diplomacy that complex that it'll be a tool the AI ever will use as the English historically did. And that is exactly what I would define as the right circumstances: other major powers - that is the AI - allowing you to rise to power. And remaining carefully peaceful with you whilst you have to seek every way of accomplishing your aims without hurting the AI too bad: otherwise they'll wipe your powerbase (colonies) off the face of the earth altogether.

Hence, I do think that "Empire: Total War" is a rather poor name for the time period it covers. "Empires" in conjunction with the Industrial Revolution and globe spanning politics (which is what the current sneak-peeks suggest this game is all about, as far as the strat-map goes) only came into being a good 70 years after this time frame... In fact, the only faction which experienced an Industrial Revolution during this time frame is 'England'.

[BadGenome]

I'm beginning to think the 1700's-1800's era might be a little too late.

How about 1650-1770?

That would let the Dutch in with a fighting chance, and eliminate the complications that would arise from the USA suddenly appearing in 1780-something (I still can't imagine how CA will handle that. I can think of a lot of very stupid ways to do it. I hope they find a clever one or avoid it altogether.)

The time frame they've chosen strikes me as odd, but I suppose they're too far along to change that now.

Re: American independence, I've been wondering how it can possibly be worked out. Maybe something similar to the Lithuanian choice between Paganism/Catholicism in the Teutonic campaign from Kingdoms? Declare independence and watch the British Empire go all Mongol/Timurid on you!

Er... but in exchange, you get access to the Minuteman super unit!

[IsItStillThere]

British Empire go all Mongol/Timurid on you!

Except in this case, the american rebels ARE the mongols/timurids!!

In other words, in a grand campaign from 1700 on, the americans would be rebel units that are not player controllable. This is the only way I see to do it. Otherwise, how does the american player jump into a grand campaign in the middle? The yanks would have to be a non playable faction.

[SaFe]

I fear they will include U.S. as playable faction for purely marketing reasons.
Same goes for Poland to give the east-europeans something to play with.

I welcome those nations as unplayable factions for sure, but to give them 2 of ten starting spots would be .

[Lorenzo_H]

The British being the dominant power by the end of the era are guaranteed. And with the British come the French and the Spanish. I would also assume we will see the Dutch, the Portuguese, one or more German factions such as Prussia, Russia, Austria and perhaps a few Italian nations.

[BadGenome]

Except in this case, the american rebels ARE the mongols/timurids!!

In other words, in a grand campaign from 1700 on, the americans would be rebel units that are not player controllable. This is the only way I see to do it. Otherwise, how does the american player jump into a grand campaign in the middle? The yanks would have to be a non playable faction.

Well, I agree that they should be an emergent non-playable faction, but I think SaFe is right that it's entirely for marketing purposes that they're going to be made playable. So I have to think the colonists start off weak and with some sort of vassalhood/protectorate agreement with the British, and then they will be able to break the deal when they feel strong enough. At the risk of incurring the Empire's wrath, of course.

[Shaka_Khan]

I'd like to see the pirates. I liked the Pirates of the Caribbean 1 movie.

[NagatsukaShumi]

I don't think so... that's my whole gripe with having the Dutch in as a faction. They never ever could have risen on their own again; and historically, they never did so on their own again. From 1870 onwards the Dutch experience a revival in global importance, but only by the mercy of the English. And of course the complex/tense political situation Bismarck had just put Europe in.

I do not think CA will incorporate diplomacy that complex that it'll be a tool the AI ever will use as the English historically did. And that is exactly what I would define as the right circumstances: other major powers - that is the AI - allowing you to rise to power. And remaining carefully peaceful with you whilst you have to seek every way of accomplishing your aims without hurting the AI too bad: otherwise they'll wipe your powerbase (colonies) off the face of the earth altogether.

Hence, I do think that "Empire: Total War" is a rather poor name for the time period it covers. "Empires" in conjunction with the Industrial Revolution and globe spanning politics (which is what the current sneak-peeks suggest this game is all about, as far as the strat-map goes) only came into being a good 70 years after this time frame... In fact, the only faction which experienced an Industrial Revolution during this time frame is 'England'.

Judging by the list thus far not all of them did make "Empires" TA, I think the name stems from the fact that some people didn't become massive outside of Europe doesn't mean they should be ommitted or we should remove Prussia for example.

I would imagine the Dutch are there for a reason, and to be frank, it's boring just playing the factions that made empires, it is nice to take a faction on the decline and turn it around, however a-historical this may prove to be dependant on how they do it, it still doesn't matter, TW's are about being a-historical, all games are, you do not follow history exactly.

Kingdoms rise and fall for all sorts of reason, there is nothing suggesting that with the right leader, the Dutch couldn't have turned things around, it may be unlikely and never happened but in games terms it is not impossible.

Of course I see your reasons for a bit of a questioning as to why they are there, but I do believe Lusted said somewhere there will be 50 factions in the game, so its not like they are taking up tons of space.

[Abokasee]

1: UK
2: France
3: Spain
3: Portugal
4: Russia
5: Dutch
6: Germany (or what ever they were called in this period of time)
7/6: Prussia (Was this germany)
7: Italy
8: USA (Emegent, will depend on time when game starts) *
9: Various African Tribes *
10: | read above
11: | read above
12: | read above
13: | read above
14: Denmark
15: Poland
16: Greeks
19: Ottaman Empire
20: India *
21: Chinese Dynastys *
22: Japan *
23: @ *
24: @ *
25: @ *
26: @ *
27: @ *
28: @ *
29: @ *
30: @ *
31: @ *
32: @ *

* Depends on if the campain map will be larger than just europe
@ Various Colonlian Emegent Factions, Like mexico, Peru, Columbia, etc

[Tellos Athenaios]

But I do think, frankly, that the faction will end up considerably "dumbed down". Otherwise the player is going to have more than just a hard time with them.

Anyway, I would want the Yuan Empire & The Shogunate in. They don't have to be playable; just want to see them in.

@Abokasee: it appears that at least the America's; Europe & Asia will make it into the game. Don't know how many provinces there will be; but still.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Judging by the list thus far not all of them did make "Empires" TA, I think the name stems from the fact that some people didn't become massive outside of Europe doesn't mean they should be ommitted or we should remove Prussia for example.

I would imagine the Dutch are there for a reason, and to be frank, it's boring just playing the factions that made empires, it is nice to take a faction on the decline and turn it around, however a-historical this may prove to be dependant on how they do it, it still doesn't matter, TW's are about being a-historical, all games are, you do not follow history exactly.

Kingdoms rise and fall for all sorts of reason, there is nothing suggesting that with the right leader, the Dutch couldn't have turned things around, it may be unlikely and never happened but in games terms it is not impossible.

Of course I see your reasons for a bit of a questioning as to why they are there, but I do believe Lusted said somewhere there will be 50 factions in the game, so its not like they are taking up tons of space.

Which, is one of the major issues: the Dutch lived in a Federation in which each member was like France in the EU. One leader? One?!

Oh really: only the army & foreign policy belonged under the Staaten Generaal. And that Staaten Generaal did do politics in pretty much the same way as the EU does today.

FYI: the USA Government was set up according to the Dutch template + some new Enlightment ideals. (Which coupled to the facts that Dutch merchants were the first to support the USA (financially, and through supplies) and that the Dutch were the first to recognise them as an independent state, is why the USA & the Netherlands always maintained more than just a political cordial relationship.)

[Zenicetus]

Judging by the list thus far not all of them did make "Empires" TA, I think the name stems from the fact that some people didn't become massive outside of Europe doesn't mean they should be ommitted or we should remove Prussia for example.

I would imagine the Dutch are there for a reason, and to be frank, it's boring just playing the factions that made empires, it is nice to take a faction on the decline and turn it around, however a-historical this may prove to be dependant on how they do it, it still doesn't matter, TW's are about being a-historical, all games are, you do not follow history exactly.

True, but I think it's a little more complicated now that we have naval combat. This will probably be a big focus of the game, as it was historically for the "Empire" powers. You'll probably need to project a very strong naval presence to win the game, unless you just ignore the western side of the map and stick to land combat in Europe.

I like the "sandbox game" idea of taking any of the 50 factions and seeing what you can do with it, but I'm not sure it makes sense that every faction should get the naval tech tree available to a historically strong sea power like Spain or Britain. Especially historically landlocked factions.

OTOH, domination by a few strong sea powers like Spain and Britain shouldn't be automatic either. I hope CA is striking a good balance between that, and giving all factions equal naval power, which might not feel very authentic. Sandbox-type games work best (IMO) when the conditions aren't too unbelievable.

[The Celt]

1: UK
2: France
3: Spain
3: Portugal
4: Russia
5: Dutch
6: Germany (or what ever they were called in this period of time)
7/6: Prussia (Was this germany)
7: Italy
8: USA (Emegent, will depend on time when game starts) *
9: Various African Tribes *
10: | read above
11: | read above
12: | read above
13: | read above
14: Denmark
15: Poland
16: Greeks
19: Ottaman Empire
20: India *
21: Chinese Dynastys *
22: Japan *
23: @ *
24: @ *
25: @ *
26: @ *
27: @ *
28: @ *
29: @ *
30: @ *
31: @ *
32: @ *

* Depends on if the campain map will be larger than just europe
@ Various Colonlian Emegent Factions, Like mexico, Peru, Columbia, etc

Ermm theirs a problem or two with that list.

Japan? I'm pretty sure CA would've mentioned Japan, same goes for China. If they had factions like that they would've put them on the 10 playable.
Germany doesn't exist yet.(Neither does Italy.)
The Greeks were conquered by the Ottomans.(1453 ring a bell?)
Also, CA hasn't made any sign that they're going to include enough of Africa to have 5 tribes. And even if they did, thats a bit too many tribes for an area they would likely put just a few big provinces in the middle of.(See Timbuktu in MTW2)
"@ Various Cololian Emegent Factions, Like mexico, Peru Columbia, etc"
Most of those nations didn't show up until quite some time after the end of the 18th century. And so far none of the press releases for Empire have stated that the game goes beyond that. Also, India was quite a few factions not just one.


PS:Where the hell is Persia on your list!?! (J/k)

[Zarky]

Personally i´d say every single nation that had leader should be made a faction (All German states, Finland :D :D and African tribes, India) until conquered, but that doesn´t mean they should be made playable.
Since they weren´t rebels, but a weak and overwhelmed nation.

[ninjahboy]

they should make Australia availiable :D its perfect timing smack bang in the middle of Empire's timeline but somehow i dont think that this will happen :(

For some reason i wont want to play as the US - not saying that they shouldnt be in there - they definitely should but i just think meh .
FOR KING AND COUNTRY!

[A Norseman]

I want Denmark/Norway.
Honestly, CA, you Shuld not include sweden and Not Denmark/Norway as those are natural enemies. Now i am comfident that denamrk/norway will be in on the 50 list. But i hope that you will also make it playable. The country had one of the best navies in the time period, and played our part in the great northern war, the Norwegian fleet making the life hard for both the Brittish and the Sweeds. A sugestion to a hero shuld be Admiral Peder Tordenskjold

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

I fear they will include U.S. as playable faction for purely marketing reasons.
Same goes for Poland to give the east-europeans something to play with.

I welcome those nations as unplayable factions for sure, but to give them 2 of ten starting spots would be .

I can't say how much I agree. I hope for at least Austria has to be playable. Everything else I'd consider a bad joke.

Bavaria and Saxony I want to see as well, at least as non-playable factions.

I wonder how they want to manage "America"? They just weren't around at 1700.

What about Personal Unions btw? E. g. England was in a Personal Union with Hannover, meaning the King of Hannover was the King of England. Iirc these type of reign was quite common in this era. How will they depict that? I guess they won't...

This game is already bought though.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I want Denmark/Norway.
Honestly, CA, you Shuld not include sweden and Not Denmark/Norway as those are natural enemies. Now i am comfident that denamrk/norway will be in on the 50 list. But i hope that you will also make it playable. The country had one of the best navies in the time period, and played our part in the great northern war, the Norwegian fleet making the life hard for both the Brittish and the Sweeds. A sugestion to a hero shuld be Admiral Peder Tordenskjold

I agree, Denmark-Norway, and Portugal, are the two most important of the factions that have not yet been added to the confirmed list.

I'd guess they're both certain to be included if there are 50 factions!

[Beefy187]

there better be some asian countries..
Im not gonan buy it unless theres some samurais in it

Soo far its looking great. Im looking foward to the naval battles

[Hooahguy]

i didnt really read through this thread, but i think there should be an arab faction, if not a confederation....