I don't see the point of the controversy here over an Islamic conquest dlc. I mean, that's history. It happened. We can't start denying FACTS here. Islamic forces conquered their way up to France's doorstep before Charles Martel drove them back. So, people get butthurt over depictions of Mohammed. As my avatar likely explains my position on that (that is to say, get over it, freedom of expression is more important than some ancient tradition), I really don't care if someone gets offended. However, I do recognize this whole debate can be easily avoided by simply not putting Mohammed in there. Do a timeline of after his death. He didn't live THAT long. Don't follow the man on his jolly adventures around Mecca, follow instead those who conquered in his name afterwards. There's way less controversy that way. Back in Medieval 2, the game handled the whole Muslims vs Christians thing pretty tastefully. There was no "Islam is bad" or "Islam is good". You just picked a faction and killed the other guys because it was a fun video game about medieval war. You didn't celebrate Christ, or Mohammed, or whatever faith figure struck your particular fancy, you just picked a country and learned a little about how they fought and maybe some the people who fought for them. You could Crusade, Jihad, preserve the waning glory of Rome, or whatever, but nobody had to argue.
It's not like CA has ever tried to make Jesus Christ:Total War or its hit add-on Buddha Invasion. They don't have a track record of putting important or controversial religious figures in their games. Moses is not going to be walking around doing a "Parting the Red Sea" fatality on some Egyptian soldiers here.
Heh.
"Let my people go!"
FATALITY
JEW WIN
FLAWLESS EXODUS