Historical Accuracy????

[epicnerd]

Hi all, i have seen topics like this for vanila allready. Are the factions at the begining of both the early and late campaigns similar(in size,religion etc) to those that really existed at that time?

[Caesar Clivus]

For the most part yes. For example, the Byzantines dont start with Constantinople in the late era campaign because historically they didn't control it in 1220.

[Ichon]

It is not bad but it could be better of course but alot of it is due to limits of the engine. Sunni-Shia split can't be shown, difference in Catholic cultures is unimportant when historically just being Catholic didn't mean necessarily the same thing everywhere in 1100. Almost all of the smaller states aren't shown due to faction limits as well.

[Yoshimitsu]

one question to this, why the crusaders have Jerusalem in the late era in 1220?

[Basileus Antiochus]

Because its more balanced for the crusader states to have Jerusalem, otherwise they will be too weak (They are already weak)and Fatimids too strong.

[Hydra82]

Hey theres a big historial innaccuracy for one of your factions, The fatimid caliphate only existed from 909–1171 and so it shouldnt exist in the late campaign, it should be the Ayyubid dynasty which ruled from 1171–1341.

[TheP]

You make a good point, unfortunately the situation with that is similar to adding the Ottoman Empire as an emerging faction that takes the place of the Selujik Turks, it'd require an extra faction slot that they don't have.

[Waffen9999]

Well historical accuracy isn't a strong point. As I've said before, the Khwarezmian Empire shouldn't exist in the early era. That land was all owned by the Great Seljuk Empire.

[Ichon]

Portugal and Novgorod have questionable dates as well in the early campaign but they are close enough I guess.

[Kabeloko]

those are engine limitations...
focus on gameplay, and u will see the perfect mod this is...