New Historical total war era - Total War: Three Kingdoms!

[PointOfViewGun]

I forgot about those... things However, I don’t think plausible reality was their motivating factor for the highly dubious decision to make Zheng Jiang a major starting faction.

If it was OK to have flaming pigs, or warrior ninjas, because these were vaguely mentioned in some book, what's different about this female bandit?

[zoner16]

If it was OK to have flaming pigs, or warrior ninjas, because these were vaguely mentioned in some book, what's different about this female bandit?

Well the argument here is less that she exists and more that she's taking the place of someone more relevant and better documented who could've filled the same gameplay/aesthetic niche.

[Seether]

A push to broaden appeal and pushing an agenda aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. I have zero issue with female soldiers, characters, and/or warlords, but CA shouldn’t treat us like we’re stupid. They can just be honest and say “We wanted to have a female warlord, for greater gender inclusivity and marketing to a wider audience, but all the available historical information didn’t support that. So when the obscure Zheng Jiang, who has literally almost no information, was found, we knew we found our in to get a major female warlord in the game, as we could literally mold this possibly fictional persona into exactly what we wanted.” I would rather get that from CA than the blatantly false reasonings they are throwing around on reddit.

If it was OK to have flaming pigs, or warrior ninjas, because these were vaguely mentioned in some book, what's different about this female bandit?

What zoner said above. Plus I personally don’t think either of your examples were OK to include.

[PointOfViewGun]

A push to broaden appeal and pushing an agenda aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. I have zero issue female soldiers, characters, and/or warlords, but CA shouldn’t treat us like we’re stupid. They can just be honest and say “We wanted to have a female warlord, for greater gender inclusivity and marketing to a wider audience, but all the available historical information didn’t support that. So when the obscure Zheng Jiang, who has literally almost no information, we knew we found our in to get a major female warlord in the game, as we could literally mold this possibly fictional persona into exactly what we wanted.” I would rather get that from CA than the blatantly false reasonings they are throwing around on reddit.

That doesn't really address what I said. Should CA avoid any plausible idea that might be criticized for being controversial? That's like a weird version of political correctness. You're basically framing a narrative that can only survive if stays within the limits you set up by ignoring a bunch of facts.

[zoner16]

A push to broaden appeal and pushing an agenda aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. I have zero issue with female soldiers, characters, and/or warlords, but CA shouldn’t treat us like we’re stupid. They can just be honest and say “We wanted to have a female warlord, for greater gender inclusivity and marketing to a wider audience, but all the available historical information didn’t support that. So when the obscure Zheng Jiang, who has literally almost no information, was found, we knew we found our in to get a major female warlord in the game, as we could literally mold this possibly fictional persona into exactly what we wanted.” I would rather get that from CA than the blatantly false reasonings they are throwing around on reddit.

I agree. I wish they were honest. I did appreciate when they flat out admitted they made up the leader of Sudreyar for Thrones because they couldn't find any records.

Their comments feel like they're trying not to break the illusion of her fake backstory to the uninformed so as to capitalize on the feeling of iconoclastic violence in comparison to the more measured, traditional trailers that preceded it. It is a very well made trailer for pushing that aesthetic, inaccuracy aside.

[Seether]

That doesn't really address what I said. Should CA avoid any plausible idea that might be criticized for being controversial? That's like a weird version of political correctness. You're basically framing a narrative that can only survive if stays within the limits you set up by ignoring a bunch of facts.

My post that you quoted was in response to zoner, not you, so of course it didn't address what you said. In the second part of my previous post, I only needed to address what you said by referring to zoner's response to your question. Your answer(s) are there.

I've already explained my position, quite thoroughly, so please read over my previous posts if you have any further questions. But I would ask kindly that you not try to twist what I have written, quite clearly and concisely, to fit whatever narrative you want me to have.

[zoner16]

Well now they're being a bit more honest:

Yeah exactly - admittedly, there's not a huge amount on her but we added her because we wanted the perspective of an "outsider" so to speak. We came across this fascinating quote about a bandit leader and checked with our historical advisor, who gave us more information and said it's totally plausible.

And apparently Rafe signed off on it.

[Seether]

What does it's mean they say Rafe stated "it's totally plausible"? CA's final product of Zheng Jiang? That she was a bandit leader? That a female could lead a bandit group? That a female bandit or two (named Zheng and Jiang) existed? And I believe Grace is misquoting the source; the quote doesn't say Zheng Jiang was a "bandit leader", it says a "woman bandit". Interesting since all over SGZ, and related sources, you can find bandit leaders being called a "bandit leader" and not just a "bandit".

Which brings me back to a question I posed earlier (and will expand upon): Is she (or they) only mentioned, ever so briefly, in historical sources simply because she (or they) were female bandit(s) and such was highly unusual for the time period and social/cultural environment of ancient China? Or, going deeper, if it was so unusual for women to be bandits, would there not be a bit more information on her if she was an actual bandit leader (which I can only assume would be even more of a rarity)?

[zoner16]

He's probably implying that the idea that she could've led a group of bandits is plausible. I doubt they would have bothered him with their full implementation, and her (or them) existing never seemed to be in contention.

[Seether]

I agree, despite it being highly unusual, that a woman named Zheng Jiang led a bandit group near Dongping in 210 CE is plausible. However, considering everything, including what the historical records say, it is far more plausible (and extremely likely) that a woman (or two women) were simply a part of a bandit group that operated near Dongping, which was so unusual in ancient China that it was noted, ever so briefly, in the historical record.

[PointOfViewGun]

My post that you quoted was in response to zoner, not you, so of course it didn't address what you said. In the second part of my previous post, I only needed to address what you said by referring to zoner's response to your question. Your answer(s) are there.

I've already explained my position, quite thoroughly, so please read over my previous posts if you have any further questions. But I would ask kindly that you not try to twist what I have written, quite clearly and concisely, to fit whatever narrative you want me to have.

What zoner16 argued is quite different from what you argued and his words have some merit. I didn't find any in yours. You accuse me of twisting what you have written but provide no substance to show what I actually twisted. zoner16's position is more of a preference and real estate space value in coding. On the other hand, your position was based on some sort of deception utilized to have a female warlord. That has no merit. Your argued that despite knowing that CA already has a female warlord in this game, namely Sun Ren.

The more likely scenario is that they wanted a faction that utilized the nomadic scourge tactics that we have seen in Atilla or other games and her campaign as vague and short-lived as it is fit that. Here is Grace's complete reasoning:

Two reasons - the first is that she adds new, varied gameplay design based on her background. If TW:WH2 has taught us anything, it’s that players want strong faction differentiation in Total War games. The Three Kingdoms period of history is one filled with myriad diverse and interesting characters, so once we’d settled on the major players of the period, we began to look at who else we could include to help deliver that variety.

Zheng Jiang’s uniqueness comes from the fact that her background is different to any other member of the main cast. She is the only character that is completely removed from the crumbling Han Dynasty, and wants to see that corrupt system burnt to the ground. Others are looking to exploit the remnants of this empire to further their own means. Even Zhang Yan, the closest comparison as a lesser-known soldier-of-fortune type, ultimately became integrated into the status quo when he partnered with Cao Cao, ‘General Who Pacifies the North’. Zheng Jiang is very much an outsider, an iconoclast and an anti-authoritarian, so we’ve designed her playstyle around that.


The second reason is that it allows players to take an incidental character and make them a superhero. The essence of Total War games is about giving players a feature-rich historical sandbox to explore, where they can ultimately rewrite history and cerate their own stories. Adding lesser-known playable characters gives people the opportunity to build them into superheroes of their own, and carve a unique path through the era. Playing as Zheng Jiang, the deck is stacked against you, as it was historically, but that only makes victory feel all the sweeter.

She's also mentioned in the biographical dictionary written by Rafe De Crespigny who we have worked very closely with on this game.

Yeah exactly - admittedly, there's not a huge amount on her but we added her because we wanted the perspective of an "outsider" so to speak. We came across this fascinating quote about a bandit leader and checked with our historical advisor, who gave us more information and said it's totally plausible.

Zheng Jiang has been an intriguing character to work with from a research perspective, as records differ as to whether a single person or two people carried the name. After reviewing the sources of information available with our historical consultant Dr. Rafe De Crespigny, we all felt that the strongest case is made for two individuals. So while Zheng Jiang is a Warlord and faction leader in her own right, a second character named Lue Zheng also appears within her faction, as her close friend and second-in-command.

Why would she be replaced? She existed historically - it's actually Romance of the Three Kingdoms that she's not in (the novel, not the game mode).

The idea that CA merely wanted to insert a female character is quite bogus. To portray that as if CA was using deception is even more ridiculous.

[Seether]

Yeah.. that’s all good and fine, except Sun Ren isn’t a warlord. Zheng Jiang leads a faction, which makes her a warlord, while Sun Ren is a “subordinate” of a faction, which makes her not a warlord. That means your point and everything you wrote is entirely moot.

Second, I never said you were twisting my words (present), I asked you not to (future).

Third, please read my posts again. I explain why Grace’s explanation is BS, on several different levels. If you can’t be bothered to read what I wrote or choose to ignore the points I make to refute Grace, which is looking like the case, then I don’t see a reason to respond to you anymore.

[PointOfViewGun]

Yeah.. that’s all good and fine, except Sun Ren isn’t a warlord. Zheng Jiang leads a faction, which makes her a warlord, while Sun Ren is a “subordinate” of a faction, which makes her not a warlord. That means your point and everything you wrote is entirely moot.
Second, I never said you were twisting my words (present), I asked you not to (future).
Third, please read my posts again. I explain why Grace’s explanation is BS, on several different levels. If you can’t be bothered to read what I wrote or choose to ignore the point I make to refute Grace, which is looking like the case, then I don’t see a reason to respond to you anymore.

Your argument that Sun Ren is a subordinate and not a warlord is a semantics play at best. She is a figure that commands forces and someone that you can play as as she is one of the unique heroes in the game. CA used her in their first gameplay video as well. They already had their female character. Saying that while she is one of the heroes in the game that can command armies she is no warlord is merely arguing for the sake of arguing. So, nothing there is moot. Your explanation on why what Grace said was BS is also pretty much BS in itself. You argued that Grace was misquoting the source. For starters, she's not quoting anything, and secondly she haven't provided which source she's talking about. So, if I'm not directly addressing everything you said about its likely because it's not exactly valuable criticism. If you sit on the table with the assumption that somehow CA is trying to screw you then you're likely to make such dubious arguments.

[Seether]

Your argument that Sun Ren is a subordinate and not a warlord is a semantics play at best. She is a figure that commands forces and someone that you can play as as she is one of the unique heroes in the game. CA used her in their first gameplay video as well. They already had their female character. Saying that while she is one of the heroes in the game that can command armies she is no warlord is merely arguing for the sake of arguing. So, nothing there is moot. Your explanation on why what Grace said was BS is also pretty much BS in itself. You argued that Grace was misquoting the source. For starters, she's not quoting anything, and secondly she haven't provided which source she's talking about. So, if I'm not directly addressing everything you said about its likely because it's not exactly valuable criticism. If you sit on the table with the assumption that somehow CA is trying to screw you then you're likely to make such dubious arguments.

Warlord = faction leader. CA even calls their videos/previews of the faction leaders "Warlord Legends". It's not semantics, it's the term CA uses for their faction leaders in their game. Being a faction leader/warlord (Zheng Jiang) and being a subordinate (Sun Ren) are two very different things. So, yes, your point is moot.

Yes, Grace did misquote. She said: "We came across this fascinating quote about a bandit leader..." There is literally only one source she could use, and that source doesn't say bandit leader, it says woman bandit.

[PointOfViewGun]

Warlord = faction leader. CA even calls their videos/previews of the faction leaders "Warlord Legends". It's not semantics, it's the term CA uses for their faction leaders in their game. Being a faction leader/warlord (Zheng Jiang) and being a subordinate (Sun Ren) are two very different things. So, yes, your point is moot.
Yes, Grace did misquote. She said: "We came across this fascinating quote about a bandit leader..." There is literally only one source she could use, and that source doesn't say bandit leader, it says woman bandit.

Within the context of what we're talking about arguing the difference between a faction leader or warlord with a subordinate is moot. It is moot for the reasons I have outlined earlier, the reasons you seem to have ignored. Also, misquoting requires first of all quoting. Someone can not misquote anything if they're not quoting anything as Grace have not. It's that simple.

[Seether]

Within the context of what we're talking about arguing the difference between a faction leader or warlord with a subordinate is moot. It is moot for the reasons I have outlined earlier, the reasons you seem to have ignored. Also, misquoting requires first of all quoting. Someone can not misquote anything if they're not quoting anything as Grace have not. It's that simple.

And... we're done. Have a great day.

[KamenLily]

The Zheng Jiang trailer was pretty cool.
And a campaign fueled by infamy? Sounds interesting. "Attack attack attack!!" The campaign!

[Daruwind]

I was watching rally point yesterday and caught a few details:
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/345001660

-You can capture Han Emperor by conquering his faction capitol and make him your vassal.
-No Realm Divide mechanics, but game usually develops into fight of 3 major Kingdoms. BUt it sounded more like random ones each campaign..

[zoner16]

It sounds like when someone gets to emperor status, the next two most powerful factions will also declare themselves emperor. I imagine the rest of the factions will continue on, but it does raise the question of if a non-emperor faction can then overthrow an emperor faction and take its place, like what historically happened.

While I like the way the Han empire crumbles WRE style and flaccidly serves whoever has Emperor Xian, it is disappointing that it doesn't sound like you can just restore the Han rather than taking over yourself. Would be interesting to play a loyalist run.

[Daruwind]

To me it sounds like mix between Shogun 2 and Fall of the Samurai. In Shogun 2 there were two ways to trigger Realm Divided, get big enough to triger it or capture Kyoto with Emperor (Ashikaga faction, doing nothing else whole game). Hopefully the faction will be little more interactive than Emperor in Shogun 2. In FotS triggering Realm Divided means the major opponent will become Imperial/Shogunate Vanguard and usually majority of factions falls behind that faction. But there is still option to declare republic supporting neither Emperor nor Shogunate and fight both Vanguards...for freedom?

Hopefully we will have similar options here. Main goal will be to grow enough, which will trigger another two major factions to be declared as ...whatever and then fight them either supporting Han Emperor like his "Vanguard" or becoming new Emperor. Except all this will be mostly hidden and not so artificial like the Realm Divided...