European or Middle-Eastern ( Asian) Factions?

[StalkAndStrike]

Who do YOU think is superior?

and WHY?:hmmm:

[Double A]

Islam because they don't have to stop killing eachother because someone in a funny hat says so.

[eggthief]

It doesnt make any sense, sure the islamic factions are carbon copies of each other, but the european faction have variation and therefore cant be classified with only one style of warfare.

[DeMolay]

It doesnt make any sense, sure the islamic factions are carbon copies of each other, but the european faction have variation and therefore cant be classified with only one style of warfare.

That's where Broken Crescent mod is really nice IMO , adds more diversity and a more realistic representation of these people's armies , i think it's a "must-try" mod along with Stainless steel

[Reynolds]

I prefer European as my tactical style is based on impregnable lines of heavy infantry with lots of archers behind that and factions like England and France suits my needs perfectly

Although i prefer the Eastern setting and i tend to migrate my entire empire to Outremer quite alot and then gift the "Homeland" to the Pope. The reason for this is it presents more of a challenge and i just love fighting the Mongols, however i rarely play long enough to see Timur the Lame and his hordes

Summation: Prefer European factions, prefer Middle-Eastern settlements and terrain

[Pink Beard]

I prefer european powers (I like rows of mighty knights in shining armour with archers in front etc.) but i think if we could play Genghis Khan or Timur the Lame i would vote for the Middle-Eastern (Asian) Factions...

[kkaana]

I prefer european powers (I like rows of mighty knights in shining armour with archers in front etc.) but i think if we could play Genghis Khan or Timur the Lame i would vote for the Middle-Eastern (Asian) Factions...

If you could play the Timurids or the Mongols and the Turks would come from out of nowhere with 11 full stack armies full of Janissaries and Horse archers, would you still be loving them?

[DeMolay]

It depends the terrain (desert or not , mountains or flat plain ) and the general (how you use the units ) . For example , Templars learned the hard way that heavy armoured troops are close to useless in hot desertic countries , what can be extremely effective on a battlefield in the Rhine or Burgundy can be close to useless when it's over 40°c in Egypt or Syria , when your men are exhausted very fast when facing a very mobile and an intelligent opponent doing everything to exhaust you , maximising his advantage in his strategy .

Middle-east armies had better/faster horses , at least as good heavy cavalry ( if not better , for example the Turco-Mongols from Uzbekistan , Mongolia etc.. (i mean that region of the world , armies of Mongols , Tamerlan , Khwarazmian etc.. probably had the best heavy cavalry ever , those guys were born on a horse almost and were heavily armoured with terrific charges ) , and overall ( if you except some English/Welsh professional units of longbowmen ) they had generally speaking better archers (composite bows ) than europeans , extremely skilled mounted archers , so more mobile armies , better squirmisher units IMHO .

Western European armies had far better infantry IMHO , better spearmen in the midle/late period of the Middle age ( pikemen) and overall , IMHO but that's just an opinion probably wrong , western european soldiers have more stamina and strength generally speaking and were more disciplined on the battlefield , but again , that's cause i do not know well the history of middle eastern armies that i say this , and the fact that many times (in fact almost systematically ) in the holy land , western crusaders were in numerical inferiority and managed to rout far more numerous foes , so i'm influenced by these stories

But basically i don't think either one is superior , in fact , i think that the Arabs in their best period between the 7th and 10th century (made conquest from India to Spain , Islam reached as far Indonesia ) , the Mongols later on under Gengis Khan who traumatized countless peoples and armies , the Timurids in the 14th century that submitted pretty much the whole middle east until India and even helped their allies to go as far as northen Russia and took Moscow ..) , the Ottomans afterwards who went until Vienna , were formidable forces that were a match to anything western European in their time , not only in number but also in term of quality of their armies IMHO (experienced and cunning generals , battle hardened troops , courageous soldiers is universal ) .

edit: damn i realize i'm off topic , you were speaking about the game , i posted quickly , lol , sorry , then i'd say in vanilla , western europeans are better overall (better heavy cav , better spears , better infantry ) although the Turks when "tech-ed up" in late period are among the very best , also the Russian faction is awesome in late period

[Conquistatore]

Europeans, definetly. Aside from the fact there are around 12 catholic factions versus only 3 islamic ones, the European units and style of warfare are much more preferable to me. I believe the Islamic factions have a weaker and more limited unit roster on most counts and that they have a much tougher time on the campaign map, being so close to the eastern invaders and all, and having to deal with crusades.

[Confederate Jeb]

Overal European for me, I don't like being completely reliant on cavalry.

[Sith_Lord]

European since they have the power to crusade, which calls many factions to war against one faction and gives them access to quite strong, very chewap units and also boosts their general a lot!

[Theseus1234]

i'm a heavy infantry with heavy cavalry and preferably heavy archers kind of guy, so europe for me
i do appreciate a change of pace playing as egypt, though

[Exia]

If I can vote, I'd go for European. I've never been a fan of horse archers, never could micromanage them effectively at least. I prefer a solid battle line of top-of-the-line spear/pikemen with heavy infantry and cavalry on the wings and missile units either in front or behind the line.

[Hetairoi]

A mix of both= the Byzantines. Good mounted (Vardariotai) archers, good foot (Trebizond/Guard Archers) archers, good calvary (Latinkon/Lancers/Kataphractoi), poor spearmen, good heavy infantry (dismounted Latinkon/Varangian Guard/Byzantine Infantry). And all of them are available from the begining.

[StalkAndStrike]

Perhaps I should have added Euro-Easter factions as a choice, such as Hungary, Russia, and Byzantine?

[Hetairoi]

Perhaps. The area was the confluence of not just trade between east and west, but also the military arts of both sides melded there too.

[DeMolay]

Russia and Byzantines are very good factions indeed , nice units and all that , especially with stainless steel mod , i use 4.1 version and it sort of done justice to Byzantines with a few added units and updated stats .

But the problem of Orthodox factions is that they can't go on Crusade , so they are kind of disadvantaged compared to Catholics ones IMHO , also Byzantine position is quite tricky although their land can become quite rich

[Voolma]

I prefer European factions just beacuse i am patriot of europe (exept russia)

[Owain Glyndŵr]

Orthodox factions are great; they can't Crusade or Jihad, but they are both well placed and have a good mix of infantry and cavalry.

[The Fishman]

Middle East!

1. You don't get bossed about by the Pope.
2. No inquisitors.
3. You can call a Jihad whenever you like, as opposed to having to beg the pope for one.
4. There are loads of rebels to expand into, giving you the best land in the game.
5. They have good horse archers, meaning that you can win battles with losses of around 0%.
6. Turks have great late-period heavy units as well.
7. You get to see 'interesting' things like Mongols and Timurids...

Just for fun, try migrating the Turk faction into western Europe and watch how you pwn everything in existence. Italian spear millita vs. Sipahi is quite a one-sided affair!