Why non-playable factions?

[Kraut]

There is a very basic question I have not a clue about:

In the TW games there are non-playable factions like Macedon or Numidia for example.

Now it is very easy to make them playable by copying them to the playable factions in desr.stats

This means, if I am correct, all the work has been done by CA which is necessary to play them like others. Now my questions is why have these factions been made "unplayable" under this circumstances?

Anybody who could enlight me?

[The White Knight]

There is a very basic question I have not a clue about:

In the TW games there are non-playable factions like Macedon or Numidia for example.

Now it is very easy to make them playable by copying them to the playable factions in desr.stats

This means, if I am correct, all the work has been done by CA which is necessary to play them like others. Now my questions is why have these factions been made "unplayable" under this circumstances?

Anybody who could enlight me?

No idea. A good question.

Was Macedon unplayable in the vanilla game? I thought it was unlockable, though I could be wrong.

[Lusted]

It was unplayable. CA obviously felt thast certian factions were better to play as then other, but it doens't matter as its really easy to unlock them yourself.

[gardibolt]

I think the main reason was that they didn't balance the game for the nonplayable factions; either they never meant to or they ran out of time, and left them nonplayable as a result. You can see that if you try to play factions like Numidia. And of course the Senate and Rebels are nonplayable for obvious reasons.

[Omnipotent-Q]

There is also cases of factions been very similiar, or in similar locations, making a campaign with them too similar to another for them to be included. For example, Armenia is too much like Parthia to be included. Macedon (Which may at one point in development been planned to be playable) is too close to the Greek Cities, so both campaigns would be essentially very similar and against the same enemies.

Another factor is some of these factions are simply rubbish and not fun to play. Take Numidia as an example. Their army is terrible and they can't compete with Carthage or The Scipii. Playing them would simply be annoying and frustrating. The same could be said of Dacia or Scythia.

[The White Knight]

There is also cases of factions been very similiar, or in similar locations, making a campaign with them too similar to another for them to be included. For example, Armenia is too much like Parthia to be included. Macedon (Which may at one point in development been planned to be playable) is too close to the Greek Cities, so both campaigns would be essentially very similar and against the same enemies.

Another factor is some of these factions are simply rubbish and not fun to play. Take Numidia as an example. Their army is terrible and they can't compete with Carthage or The Scipii. Playing them would simply be annoying and frustrating. The same could be said of Dacia or Scythia.

Myeah, I agree about Numidia, Scythia and Dacia. Macedon is imho however much more fun to play as than the Greek Cities and at least as detailed (in other words: not detailed, lol).

[Somethindarker]

nah i think spain woulda been alot of fun IMO but i think they probobly ran outta time with the entrance cutscenes and the victory cutscenes, maybe CA has been too busy with its other "important" projects. why would a game company invest so much time in its more "easier to play" games and completely faulter on its really interesting and thought provocking series anyway!

[Red Harvest]

I disagree with Q. Numidia is one of the most interesting to play because it is so challenging, and because it has skirmish style units so the player has to learn a different style in order to succeed. One of the things you realize quickly is that many of the "non-playables" are the most difficult to play. It makes you realize how many factions are set up as fall guys for the player's factions. Dacia is also very difficult as was Spain.

One thing you notice with the unplayables is that CA failed to follow through giving them the units they should have: Numidia is missing its elephants for example, never mind that they used them for and against the Romans frequently after the 2nd Punic war. And CA made many errors like failing to give Numidia access to all their intended units in the building queue in the original release...and did odd things like inverting archers and slingers in Numidia's build queue (so you get an "upgrade" to a unit with lower attack and shorter range...handy, that.) Another example is problems with the unit selections of Thrace in vanilla. Thrace's original falxmen and bastarnae lacked warcry, there were problems with the bodyguard upgrades, and there were problems with the build queue of some infantry as well. So a big thing you notice in the unplayables is how poorly tested they are.

Mainly I suspect the unplayables are that way because CA never fleshed them out with various videos, descriptions and "unique" content that characterize other factions. I think CA is missing out is in making them playable later in major patches as "bonus" features--sort of like IL-2 adding more flyable aircraft during patching.

[John I Tzimisces]

Not that Armenia being like Parthia is exactly accurate, but nevermind...

[guyyug]

Not that Armenia being like Parthia is exactly accurate, but nevermind...

:sign_stup armenia has better infantry in the form of heavy spearmen and armenian legionarries, also there are the cata archers

[tFighterPilot]

What's interesting, though, is that Gaul and Britannia are also very similar, yet they're both playable.

[hellheaven1987]

What's interesting, though, is that Gaul and Britannia are also very similar, yet they're both playable.

You know why? Because CA comes from UK! And Gaul was arch enemy of Rome, so CA had no choice but put these two factions playable.

[_GunneR_]

I'm surprised no one like Dacia i found them to be a challenge yet sitll enjoyable, taking on greek Hoplites with brute strength in fantry takes skill and careful planning. Macedon though is my favourite of all the non playable nations mainly because of it's superior cavalry and i like royal pikemen as well, i think they are fantastic

[Red Harvest]

Gaul and the Britons should be even closer alike in some respects. The head hurlers and wardogs need to go...and the chariots should be javelin type. Replace the head hurlers with skirmisher warband, wardogs with barb cav, and make chariot archers into chariot javs, then you have something more representative. Seems like I had to add an archery building to add the skirmisher warband (since head hurlers came from a temple.)

Realistically the Gauls could have some chariot javelinmen as well (perhaps as a before the reforms unit only) since their were chariots at Telamon, but because of the way chariots were originally implemented and their overpumped autocalc, not many folks would want to see them.

[Filippo the Great]

Most of the weaker factions are not playable. But as it was stated earlier you can play them easily.

[Fabolous]

There is a very basic question I have not a clue about:

In the TW games there are non-playable factions like Macedon or Numidia for example.

Now it is very easy to make them playable by copying them to the playable factions in desr.stats

This means, if I am correct, all the work has been done by CA which is necessary to play them like others. Now my questions is why have these factions been made "unplayable" under this circumstances?

Anybody who could enlight me?

In my time at RTR, I came to consider this a gameplay choice by CA. The non-playable factions don't have to be balanced for a player, and therefore can be setup to play a certain way to affect gameplay how CA wants it to. They make numidia too weak to conquer Carthage (normally) but strong enough to be a pain in the back of Carthage. Units and costs can be adjusted to help this. You will noticed numidia has weak unit variety and no overlypowerful units, this means they will be decent early, but fade late, against either Carthage or Rome, depending on who won that war. Numidia is just one example, but most non-playable factions were used like that in some way. :wink:

[Aemilianus]

I don't know....I have found that the "good early, fade late" principle can apply to playable factions as well. Gallic and British forces are decent, but the best units are chosen swordsmen...who can be rolled up like a carpet against the advanced infantry and cavalry. I've fought campaigns against both of them (with Rome) and if you allow the infantry to throw their spears at will you can rout half their army before they make contact with you. Conversely, I'll use the example of my playing as Gaul- I won a lot of battles outright against Rome, but NEVER in direct combat (I used engage and flank) but it was probably the biggest war of attrition I've ever fought. Rome's troops are better, they're more numerous, and they're turned out like a conveyor (especially the Brutii). Barbarian troops (with the exception of Germany) really aren't very good at dealing with it.

[eastsidehighrise]

Rome's troops are better, they're more numerous, and they're turned out like a conveyor (especially the Brutii). Barbarian troops (with the exception of Germany) really aren't very good at dealing with it.

Praise the undefiable killing machine that was the Roman Army.

I think CA would have gotten away with leaving numerous factions as unplayable if they had gone into detail with the star factions of the game: the Romans. Personally the transition between Pre and Post Marians is atrocious at best, and IMO there should be a second "marius-style event" - the transition from republic to empire. It would have been nice to gain control of the senate, appoint senate offices, have your faction leader become emperor, have the chance to build monuments in rome such as THE coliseum (not some duplicate i see all over italy), and professionalize the way the roman army works. right now the supposedly fine roman legions of rtw are organized and operated much in the same way as the most barbaric of gallic tribes.

[Aemilianus]

First, let it be said that I completely agree with you. Unfortunately, you'd then also have to have a kind of exchange, popularized in the HBO series Rome, where legions turn into bandits because they won't take retirement in Pannonia (or if you can't pay them) and your faction leader gets assassinated from time to time by his own Praetorians for money and power....nobody could play Rome correctly under such a system. It sucks that CA has to simplify (I would love to have seen more detail in all aspects of the game, but my computer is over two years old now, and thus totally obsolete, and is running out of memory, hahaha) but I guess I have to sadly kind of keep in the back of my mind that visions for what Rome should have been would probably create a 10 GB game most computers couldn't run for lack of RAM. Hopefully, when computer processors become more powerful, we'll see a game that incorporates suggestions in the TWC forum, and new material, historical material....there are so many things that could be done with this.

[Septimius Severus]

I think the factions were nonplayable because they were used as "placeholders," which were only supposed to hinder the progress of other nations. (The playable ones) CA probably thought that they would quickly be destroyed by the "main" factions, which would create a few huge empires as opposed to many tiny ones...but look at how often the nonplayable factions become powerful, there is a chance that anything can happen. But that's what makes this game great.