Emerging and Re-Emerging Factions

[VaeVictis]

I did a search but didn't find anyone talking about this topic.

Will MTW 2 have emerging and re-emerging factions?

I would think that the Meso-American factions would have to be emergent since that part of the world be be unaccessible at the start of the game.

Thats why I am thinking that they will be non-playable.

Or will all 21 factions all be present at the start of the game?

I think that is one of the reasons that the MTW campaign map seemed more dynamic was because defeated factions had a chance to re-emerge after they were defeated.

I also liked the fact that the Mongols appeared out of no where in the east at random.

It seems CA tried to remedy the RTW situation with BI, which made the campaign a little more interesting.

So, what say you?

[Beiss]

Factions should emerge, re-emerge, and disappear. Medieval Europe was absolute chaos as far as nations were concerned, with unions and split nations every other day or so. I think new factions should appear, destroyed factions re-appear like they did in MTW, and large nations split up and have civil wars and stuff, too. The two inheriting princes of a recently deceased king fighing for power over each other's lands, etc. In RTW, everyone was just a big happy family, except in BI, where the WRE and ERE sometimes suffered from organized rebellions.

[iKossu]

Factions should emerge, re-emerge, and disappear.

I agree. I don't understand why RTW doesn't have these features.

[Fuji]

Well in MTW1 the re-emerging was really annoying ... Germans re-emerging in Arabia, we've all seen it...

[Beiss]

Well in MTW1 the re-emerging was really annoying ... Germans re-emerging in Arabia, we've all seen it...

Bummer. Of course factions should re-emerge in sensible places on the map.

[iKossu]

Of course factions should re-emerge in sensible places on the map.

Why on earth? It's cool when incidents in the campaign aren't 100% like the ones in real world.

[Shadow_Imperator]

Why on earth? It's cool when incidents in the campaign aren't 100% like the ones in real world.

True, but within rational reason of course, what is so fun about the Italian re-emerging in Finland or the Germans in Edessa?

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

Well I liked the re-emerging factions in MTW1.
It is a very realistic approach. I mean if you are the lost heir to the royal family wouldn't you rise up against the oppressors and claim your throne ??
I think so.
The golden horde will be a emerging faction and probably the timuruids(spelling).
I think the american factions will be there from the start so they will grow.

[Ewan]

I aloso loved the re-emegin factions in ME1:tw. i found medieval to be alot more indepth then rome ( and the more i play it the more indepth i find it ) but sadly i think like so many games companys and consols, gamesplay will be sacrified for graphics so i hear all te great things that made me1:tw will be lost

[Hansa]

Since CA has stated that the Timurids are in, I am pretty sure we will at least see emerging factions, if not it will be pretty odd to have a faction named after a guy (Timur Lenk/Tamerlane), who was'nt borne at the start of the game. As for reemerging factions, I haven't got a clue.

[hsimoorb]

Well in MTW1 the re-emerging was really annoying ... Germans re-emerging in Arabia, we've all seen it...

Eh? No I haven't? Germans emerging in Arabia...never saw it...

[John I Tzimisces]

Well, I've seen Italians re-emerging in Scandinavia. It could be kind of random...faction re-emerging in territories they never held. Although usually, it was in a territory they had held at one point or another...like mongols re-emerging in Anatolia after they had conquered it, been annihilated, and then unrest causing the revolt...

[Ahiga]

I would rather have that sort of screwup where factions re-emerge in incorrect spots, than not have it at all. Our modders can likely fix the issue, and it would be better to see CA attempt something they might not do right but allow us to fix, than not attempt it at all.

Re-emerging would drastically help, I think. We all know how when you had an empire in RTW, your fate was sealed, but if we have a campaign where the enemy is more dynamic in attacking and taking land (More than just skirmishing the border), and where we have to suffer serious rebellion and strife in recently conquered lands, it will be avery spice meatball.

That being said, I don't wish to see it so lame as the civil war's in RTW - For one, if we have those in MTWII, it would hopefully be a complete and utter schism of your empire if it was between the two possible heirs to the throne. Territories and characters would choose which side to take, and you'd have a serious civil war -

Not the sort of 'oh look, all the provinces that rebel in the game are now allied, even though one is in Anatolia and another is off in Scandnavia.

[VaeVictis]

That being said, I don't wish to see it so lame as the civil war's in RTW - For one, if we have those in MTWII, it would hopefully be a complete and utter schism of your empire if it was between the two possible heirs to the throne. Territories and characters would choose which side to take, and you'd have a serious civil war -

Not the sort of 'oh look, all the provinces that rebel in the game are now allied, even though one is in Anatolia and another is off in Scandnavia.

I agree.

The civil wars in RTW:BI were a little too frequent.

I think they were that way so the larger Roman empires would fragment right away and give the barbarian factions more time to grow.

However, it would have been more logical to have a rebellion happening only if two or more adjacent provinces are revolting.

I am sure if they use MTW1's model, then I am sure civil wars will be less frequent and more interesting.

[Beiss]

I too agree that the rebellions were to hap-hazard and unlikely in BI, but at least there were organized rebellions and civil war. In RTW, all you saw were that peasant rabble in the middle of the country side.

[Peter]

Just think of 2x egypt in RTW, rome total nightmare . Anyway i agree that it adds to the atmosphere and carries a little variation in the campaign.

[Chuffy]

Well in MTW1 the re-emerging was really annoying ... Germans re-emerging in Arabia, we've all seen it...

No...that never happened.

You might be thinking of the French...but thats because the French started off with the levant in the high period. If they ever got destroyed there was a good chance they would re-emerge down that way.

[Charok]

No...that never happened.

You might be thinking of the French...but thats because the French started off with the levant in the high period. If they ever got destroyed there was a good chance they would re-emerge down that way.

I don't understand what either of you are saying, haha. Maybe he actually means the Gaul territory that was around Turkey.

[John I Tzimisces]

I don't understand what either of you are saying, haha. Maybe he actually means the Gaul territory that was around Turkey.

In MTW if a faction was destroyed, often it would re-emerge years later in a province or provinces it once held. France has control of some parts of the holy land if you start in the High Period, therefore, if the french faction was eliminated, they might re-emerge there. he doesn't mean Galatia which is the area around Ankara.

[hsimoorb]

Well i hope this feature makes its way into MTW2.
In RTW, once you have over 20 provs and are making about 10,000 a year you are undefeatable, your fate is sealed. Not even the bigger factions can topple you. But if half of your generals rebelled, and then another faction invaded then you could easily get destroyed. You would have to fight for survival. But CA seem to be following the modern trend for better graphics. They are boasting about new combat animations and how good the soldier s look, but have remained silent about the actual gameplay, like how trade works and rebellions.

Agreed. I find it highly irritating that CA claims that "clone soldiers" were THE WORST thing about RTW.