Muslim factions oversimplified?

[Eporedorix the Mighty]

I'm a Total War from the days of Shogun, and have played all the Total War Games (including very intensive MTW)

My concern is that the few Muslim factions were already simplified in MTW I, and I fear that this will go on in MTWII.

For instance, the Turks are viewed as one homogeneous entity, while in fact the Seljuk and the Ottoman dynasties are quite different, being from different tribal origins. The ottomans did not inherit the Seljuk empire as is, they had to battle for a long time before submitting other Turkish emirates in Anatolia.
Same goes with the Egyptians who are considered as a block, when the Fatimid, the Ayuubid (Saladin's dynasty) and the Mamluks (who at first were mainly Qiptchaks, hence Turks) were very different.

Besides when considering the Fatimid Dynasty (910-1171), it must be knwn that Egypt at the time was Shiia Muslim and not Sunni. So were the Hashishins (SP?). Egypt only returned to Sunnism after Saladin came to power.

Will this religious diversity be integrated in the game as it is for the Christian factions?
I think it would bring more interest to those factions if these elements were integrated somehow, enabling the turks to attack the Egyptians for example on accounts of heresy.

Does anyone know wether CA plans to incorporate these elements?
Anyone agree that this would make the gameplay more interesting?

[Tovi]

France is simplified too, there is Bretagne, Bourgogne who were independants nations.

[the_mango55]

No I don't think they will. That would take much more scripting and work than it seems like it's worth. Having a whole empire change religions?

The HRE is probably over simplified too though.

Plus spain is seen as a homogeonous entity when there were really multiple nations.

[Eporedorix the Mighty]

Plus spain is seen as a homogeonous entity when there were really multiple nations.

There won't be Castille and Aragon seperated as was the case in MTWI?
(or was that only in XL mode, I don't remember)

For the religion change, that could take place if eras were set up (Early, Middle and Late).
Besides Shiia Islam would be the equivalent in Muslim factions of Heresy in Christian Lands.

[Tovi]

Aragon is a rebel country

[Spart]

There were hundreds of "countries" and kingdoms in medieval europe, so no chance to fit them all in. Although I hope that at least Turkey and Spain were divided. Italy already is, which is a good thing. Don't know much about HRE, but it's fine to me this way.. But if AI behaves like in R:TW, smaller factions will be destroyed right at the start.

[dr_plaugexl]

all i can say is it can be modded to reflect more religious diversity in the levant. but deviding up the turks in the dosen or so tribes and lose affiliations isnt plausable unless someone is modding the levant on its own

[LoZz]

i like how it is, the game isnt build to with stand the many 100's of kingdoms and nations that came and went during the medieval time.

you cant go over anything in enough detail in games i find, and i think that game is more set in medieval europe then the middle east so its only natural they would do less on the islamic side

[PurpleScotch]

Shia and sunni are only political differences, no changes at all in religion..so i like the unified islam in M2TW..the difference between shia and sunni is just that shia think that Ali bin abi taleb (the prophet mohammed's cousin) should have been calipha after the prophet, while sunnis believe that the one who was voted (al mubaya'a was the process) should rule (which turned out to be Abu Bakr) .. everything else is the same..so i think Sunni and Shia should be more of a political thing in M2TW..maybe add it to oppose the caliphate in Baghdad (which was sunni)..but different religion isnt necessary.

[Gaius Baltar]

Shia and sunni are only political differences, no changes at all in religion..so i like the unified islam in M2TW..the difference between shia and sunni is just that shia think that Ali bin abi taleb (the prophet mohammed's cousin) should have been calipha after the prophet, while sunnis believe that the one who was voted (al mubaya'a was the process) should rule (which turned out to be Abu Bakr) .. everything else is the same..so i think Sunni and Shia should be more of a political thing in M2TW..maybe add it to oppose the caliphate in Baghdad (which was sunni)..but different religion isnt necessary.

This would make the basis for an extremy interesting Mod. I would look forward to it if it actually came to fruition.

[Tin Monkey]

All factions are simplified, that can't be helped.

[Hansa]

Its a game, all factions are oversimplified. Probably none more than the HRE, which wasn't moslem. From previews and screenshots it looks like the moslem factions will this time, unlike MTW1 (except for the Turks who had the best late units) get as large a variety of units as the western christian ones. This honsetly surprised positively me as I didn't expect this from CA, guess well have to wait until the game is released for confirmation though.

[Carach]

No. they are not oversimplified.

CA's job isnt historical accuracy, they have repeated this many times (as reasons for making a lot of the game inaccurate)

"gameplay before accuracy" is what they say.

So if they cant do it for the christian factions, there is no need for the muslim factions to be changed.

[legionari]

Is Bulgeria,serbia and the crusader states in
and the kingdom of jeruslalam it

[Carach]

No, the game starts just before the crusades.

[legionari]

they could be a emerging faction

[turtle]

Yes, of course they are oversimplified. And the European nations will be as well. But just wait until the mods start coming out. There will be much more diversity between the nations... just like it was with vanilla rtw.

[Ahiga]

Yes, of course they are oversimplified. And the European nations will be as well. But just wait until the mods start coming out. There will be much more diversity between the nations... just like it was with vanilla rtw.

Well personally, the european's are made to be a little more complex, but that's because this is a game using the Anglo-saxon theme of Medieval - with less respect paid to Eastern Europe or the Muslims. Although it's funny - I can't figure more people would prefer a non-land based powerhouse like Milan or venice to a more militaristic nation (like one of the Russians, maybe Ireland, aragorn, or another moorish/eastern faction) Without naval combat being revamped, a faction like Venice, which to the casual observer, seems like a naval superpower, seems like putting in the Mongols in a game where there are no horses.

[Ivniciix]

Without naval combat being revamped, a faction like Venice, which to the casual observer, seems like a naval superpower, seems like putting in the Mongols in a game where there are no horses.

As someone who wants to play Venice, I'm hoping that the Guild House scheme will allow the trading power of Venice to be better simulated. Hopefully, this will allow it to increase it's wealth enough to "keep pace" with nations that are conquering more turf. The only alternative is to simply capture the places where Venice historically dominated trade and "pretend" the conquest is purely economic.

It's not actual naval combat that requires a revamp (not that I would be against that) but rather the ability to have trade income influenced by fleet size or fleet location....or seperate trade fleets and combat fleets with more trade fleets in service creating more income. The only way for fleets to accomplish this in-game now would seem to be to via blockades and this requires a state of war. Ideally, a Venetian player ought to be able to put off large scale territorial conquest until quite late in the game and then simply to satisfy victory conditions...since that's the only way to "win".

In fact, the limited nature of the victory conditions in the game (control X number of provinces) takes a lot away from what the game could be...and, in my mind, for no good reason. Having side-by-side territorial, political and/or economic victory conditions would require little real change in the game and wouldn't preclude players from achieving victory on a purely military basis if they choose to. Territorial conquest on the scale required to win, was not a historic goal of any of the playable Nations...economic domination (through the control of trade) was.

I believe the closest "National imperative" for conquest on that scale would be the spreading of Islam and even this was largely a function of pre-emptive or retaliatory action to keep from losing the economic power they had through control of trade with the East. Religon was not the driving force of National aggression, trade was. Religion was merely a motivating factor used to legitimize it and attract participants. Even the hunger of nobles for lands/property would have been sated long before any nation conquered as much as we must in the game. NO ruler could have mustered enough trustworthy dukes, barons and lords to to hold such a huge amount of territory. The very fact of enriching so few of his fellow royalty so greatly and spreading them so thin would have created revolts and attempts to establish seperate kingdoms.

As for the use of Princesses by Islamic nations, while it's true they were used in political marriages, they did not create "rights of succession" in the same manner those in Europe did but merely cemented alliances. Those rights "flowed" only one way. In an Islamic state, succession would go to through a progression of male relatives on the princesses fathers side which was far to long to include in the game as characters. This could be further complicated by one's kinship to The Prophet. This is a difference between feudal and tribal ruling structures and Islamic and (generally) Roman Law. Europe was feudal...Islam was not. The clear exceptions would be when (if) an Islamic princesses family had specifically negotiated succession as part of the marriage agreement, the "leaderless" chose the husband to lead or he just ignored the law and took it. For the game to accurately portray this, players would need to be able to specifically arrange that the offspring of a marriage would eventually become the ruler of both nations. Not a bad idea but not in the game.

[Tovi]

As many others...


I think that you should just control one country and vassalize the conquered ones. Fight to be King or Emperor, not to own personnaly territories.