New factions?

[Cèsar de Quart]

And what are those troops? The mamelukes (the best troop in Aserai tree) came from turkey. The Mamluk sultanate was a medieval Egyptian kingdom. In general, the Aserai troops are reminiscent of Saladin's troops, they are not the Moroccan Arabs.

You're not really answering any comments I made. Does that mean that there can't be a Moroccan Berber faction? Are you saying that the Arabs were different, or that they were not?

Anyway, I think the basic problem is that you misidentify the era on which the game is based, it is not the s. VI-VII. They are rather the s. X-XI, I believe.

True, but I'm not misidentifying anything. I said "we could add a faction based on Persia", you said "no because they never coexisted with the Romans", I showed you that they did, albeit not in the XIth Century (obviously), but that said, why can't we have Persians in the game? There were plenty of other Persian dynasties during the 900-1200 period.

There were no Sassanids, and in any case when the Arabs arrived the Sassanids disappeared, there was no coexistence.

"There was no coexistance"? Both Romans and Sassanids used Arab troops extensively in their borders, to the point that the Arabian world was mostly divided into three main "factions", those tribes who supported the Romans (led by the Ghassanids), those who supported the Sassanid Persians (led by the Lakhmids) and the Southern Arabs which revolved around the arab realm of Himyar.

So yeah, Arabs and Sassanids coexisted as well. In the XIth Century? No, in the Vth, but is that relevant? Arabs and Persians were not the same thing then, and are not the same thing now.

Anyway, I've been reviewing the troops that a Sassanid army could present and yes, they are incredible. Because they had war elephants, cataphracts, elite archers, and light infantry. I think they are quite different troops. But - leaving aside that historically Arabs and Sassanids did not coexist - making a war elephant work ... that's more than a DLC. In fact, they don't even have camel troops among the Aserai, which would be very fitting and interesting.

Want to know my opinion on Bannerlord II Troop Trees? I think that they have not sufficiently differentiated each of the cultures, in the end they all have the same with one or another ornament. All cultures fight alike on the battlefield. They all have heavy infantry, good archers, horse archers, and heavy cavalry. The differences are just details.

I agree that we need a little bit more difference in the way factions fight. Vlandians and Khuzaits are the ones that feel the most different. But the supposed superiority of the Battanians in archery, I don't really see it, neither do I see a greater punch on the Sturgian foot troops.

 

[Hachaman]

You're not really answering any comments I made. Does that mean that there can't be a Moroccan Berber faction? Are you saying that the Arabs were different, or that they were not?

The Umayyad empire was in operation until the 8th century. Later, it separated into two, and the Abbasid Empire remained in the east, and several kingdoms to the West, such as the Umayyad dynasty in Al-Andalus. In the eastern part there was no a Persian kingdom with its own characteristics. They all came from the same Islamic culture, from the Umayyad Empire, the Arab Empire. I don't see enough material there to draw one own troop tree, with very different characteristics. Vikings is one thing, Western Europe (feudalism) another, Eastern Europe (Byzantium) another, the Picts (Battania) another, the Golden Horde another ... But two different Aserai?

True, but I'm not misidentifying anything. I said "we could add a faction based on Persia", you said "no because they never coexisted with the Romans", I showed you that they did, albeit not in the XIth Century (obviously), but that said, why can't we have Persians in the game? There were plenty of other Persian dynasties during the 900-1200 period.

If I said "they never coexisted with the Romans" was a mistake, I meant that "the Sassanids did not coexist with the Umayyad caliphate." In other words, the Umayyad caliphate conquered the Sassanids. Some arrived and the others finished, but they did not work in parallel.

"There was no coexistance"? Both Romans and Sassanids used Arab troops extensively in their borders, to the point that the Arabian world was mostly divided into three main "factions", those tribes who supported the Romans (led by the Ghassanids), those who supported the Sassanid Persians (led by the Lakhmids) and the Southern Arabs which revolved around the arab realm of Himyar.

So yeah, Arabs and Sassanids coexisted as well. In the XIth Century? No, in the Vth, but is that relevant? Arabs and Persians were not the same thing then, and are not the same thing now.

I think we must first agree on dates. Let's put s. VIII-XI, for weapons and cultures. I think this is the time of the game. We must forget about the Romans. The Romans are not in the equation. I believe that the "Imperial factions" in the game are a reminiscence of the interest of all the great medieval European states to become the "heirs of the Roman Empire". Thus, we have the Holy Roman-Germanic Empire, or the Byzantine Empire (the Eastern Roman Empire). Hence the references to recover the Empire in the lore of the game. But there are no more Romans there.

If we recreate the s. VI, to accommodate the Sassanids, then there was no Muhammad, or the Umayyads, or anything that is "Aserai", only berbers with camel in the desert who worshiped the Kaaba

However, the Sassanid tree troops are awesome, but very difficult (elephants) to do.

In short, I think that Arab culture does not work for two groups that are so different. If we go to the s. IX-XI, what difference is there between the troops of Abd-al-Rahman III and Saladin?

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

The Umayyad empire was in operation until the 8th century. Later, it separated into two, and the Abbasid Empire remained in the east, and several kingdoms to the West, such as the Umayyad dynasty in Al-Andalus. In the eastern part there was no a Persian kingdom with its own characteristics. They all came from the same Islamic culture, from the Umayyad Empire, the Arab Empire. I don't see enough material there to draw one own troop tree, with very different characteristics. Vikings is one thing, Western Europe (feudalism) another, Eastern Europe (Byzantium) another, the Picts (Battania) another, the Golden Horde another ... But two different Aserai?

The parallels are there for shorthand, but TW can do whatever they want with their factions, as long as the feel of them is right for the XIth Century.

The Battanians are already half-fantasy Celts, so... why not two different Aserai, one more bedouin and berber and another one more Syrian-Mesopotamian. You just need to determine their troop tree and their strength, and go.

If I said "they never coexisted with the Romans" was a mistake, I meant that "the Sassanids did not coexist with the Umayyad caliphate." In other words, the Umayyad caliphate conquered the Sassanids. Some arrived and the others finished, but they did not work in parallel.

Come on, if the Umayyads conquered the Sassanids, doesn't that mean that they coexisted? You also never specified Umayyads. You said Arabs.

In short, I think that Arab culture does not work for two groups that are so different. If we go to the s. IX-XI, what difference is there between the troops of Abd-al-Rahman III and Saladin?

A big difference. There are plenty of books on this, but I recommend

For one, Abd al-Rahman III relied heavily on local "trader guild" militias (no trader guild existed as such, but there were cooperative organisations to protect artisanry and trade), a mix of muslims and christians (mossarabs and muladis) heavily armoured and equipped with very similar gear to their northern neighbours. These militias can be considered very good heavy infantry, they had training and usually also experience, due to how common raids were at the border. He also relied on the excellent medium cavalry that the Berbers from Morocco provided. In short, you'd see an army composed mostly by a core of medium-to-heavy infantry and wings made of light-medium cavalry. Their tactics generally worked according to this as well, that's why, from the 11th Century onwards, the Andalusis lost to the Christians consistently. For one, their society was not as militarised as the Feudal society which had developed during the 10-11th Centuries in the North, but that also meant that the heavy cavalry of the Christian realms would usually outnumber their own, and their heavy infantry was prey to flanking and rear charges while the Christian light infantry had them pinned. This, and of course, the inner divisions which plagued the Muslim world. Christians were also disunited, but the Catholic Church could, if needed, provide motivation and unity in times of need (which is one of the determining factors of the Christian expansion in Iberia too).

While Saladin and his predecessors, Nur al-Din and Zangi, relied on light infantry from the Middle Eastern cities and swift, light cavalry coming from Turkish or Kudish stock. The Turkish and non-Arab leaders of this time didn't rely very often on the Arab population, and especially not on them as leaders, and they preferred to trust the protecton of their state and the offices of their government to foreigners who had no links to the land they oversaw. They were, after all, in the orbit of the Seljuk Sultan, and the Turks had changed the way things were done in the Middle East. This change never came to the West, where a local leader was as common as an Arab one (but, of course, leaders of Arab stock, qaisi or iemeni families, were more prestigious).

 

[Targyr Darksun]

I don't think we need any new Middle Eastern kingdom. The Aserai are good to represent for all of them. I don't think we need an Iberian culture either, because it's not unique enough. With that being said, I think Britannia, Northern Europe, and Continental Europe are all represented well enough. I think if anything, it would make sense to have some kind of (1) African/Nubian faction, and (2) another East Asian inspired faction. This would work well too, since the African-type faction could go under Aserai, and the East Asian faction could go to the east or southeast of the Khuzait faction. For the East Asian faction, I'd have it mostly an amalgamation of Chinese/Japanese/Korean. I wouldn't go for a faction whose main influence is Cambodian, Thai, or Viet, but maybe they could be reflected in some of the units as well.

 

[Hachaman]

The parallels are there for shorthand, but TW can do whatever they want with their factions, as long as the feel of them is right for the XIth Century.

The Battanians are already half-fantasy Celts, so... why not two different Aserai, one more bedouin and berber and another one more Syrian-Mesopotamian. You just need to determine their troop tree and their strength, and go.



Come on, if the Umayyads conquered the Sassanids, doesn't that mean that they coexisted? You also never specified Umayyads. You said Arabs.



A big difference. There are plenty of books on this, but I recommend

For one, Abd al-Rahman III relied heavily on local "trader guild" militias (no trader guild existed as such, but there were cooperative organisations to protect artisanry and trade), a mix of muslims and christians (mossarabs and muladis) heavily armoured and equipped with very similar gear to their northern neighbours. These militias can be considered very good heavy infantry, they had training and usually also experience, due to how common raids were at the border. He also relied on the excellent medium cavalry that the Berbers from Morocco provided. In short, you'd see an army composed mostly by a core of medium-to-heavy infantry and wings made of light-medium cavalry. Their tactics generally worked according to this as well, that's why, from the 11th Century onwards, the Andalusis lost to the Christians consistently. For one, their society was not as militarised as the Feudal society which had developed during the 10-11th Centuries in the North, but that also meant that the heavy cavalry of the Christian realms would usually outnumber their own, and their heavy infantry was prey to flanking and rear charges while the Christian light infantry had them pinned. This, and of course, the inner divisions which plagued the Muslim world. Christians were also disunited, but the Catholic Church could, if needed, provide motivation and unity in times of need (which is one of the determining factors of the Christian expansion in Iberia too).

While Saladin and his predecessors, Nur al-Din and Zangi, relied on light infantry from the Middle Eastern cities and swift, light cavalry coming from Turkish or Kudish stock. The Turkish and non-Arab leaders of this time didn't rely very often on the Arab population, and especially not on them as leaders, and they preferred to trust the protecton of their state and the offices of their government to foreigners who had no links to the land they oversaw. They were, after all, in the orbit of the Seljuk Sultan, and the Turks had changed the way things were done in the Middle East. This change never came to the West, where a local leader was as common as an Arab one (but, of course, leaders of Arab stock, qaisi or iemeni families, were more prestigious).

everything you say is very interesting, and would make sense in a historical mod like the 1257AD. But to put in the original lore of the game, it is very difficult to "caricature" that as two independent cultures. The first problem is that in the game there are no great practical differences between any of the cultures. In other words, they all have heavy infantry, horse archers, heavy cavalry and good archers. So the differences are rather cosmetic, and differentiating between an eastern Arabian influence and a western one based on a very recognizable armor design, and worthwhile because it greatly enriches the game ... I don't see it. In other words, the Aserai already have heavy but also light infantry, horse archers, also spear cavalry, archers ...

I think that in order to incorporate something into the original game, different Sassanids from the Aserai would make more sense, but for a western public, who are the ones who are really going to buy the game en masse, it would be confusing, because the game is reminiscent of the crusades, of the medieval, and the combat elephants or the Babylonian beards are not very medieval. And I think the most interesting thing about some Sassanids would be to see combat elephants, that would be the "claim", but it would be an investment in design and in hours and I think they will be more interested in naval combat, for sure. Buyers want "Vikings", I think, more than Eastern cultures.

 

[Hachaman]

I don't think we need any new Middle Eastern kingdom. The Aserai are good to represent for all of them. I don't think we need an Iberian culture either, because it's not unique enough. With that being said, I think Britannia, Northern Europe, and Continental Europe are all represented well enough. I think if anything, it would make sense to have some kind of (1) African/Nubian faction, and (2) another East Asian inspired faction. This would work well too, since the African-type faction could go under Aserai, and the East Asian faction could go to the east or southeast of the Khuzait faction. For the East Asian faction, I'd have it mostly an amalgamation of Chinese/Japanese/Korean. I wouldn't go for a faction whose main influence is Cambodian, Thai, or Viet, but maybe they could be reflected in some of the units as well.

But that has nothing to do with any meaningful historical interpretation. I believe that the developers, although they have created a fantastic world, in all their designs and in the characteristics of their cultures, have sought a recognizable historical basis. Putting samurai there or Nubian warriors would be like putting the Aztecs. It has nothing to do with the aesthetics of the game or with the lore. Although there will surely be mods for all tastes.

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

everything you say is very interesting, and would make sense in a historical mod like the 1257AD. But to put in the original lore of the game, it is very difficult to "caricature" that as two independent cultures.

I agree, in the end each culture needs to be visually distinct.

I think that in order to incorporate something into the original game, different Sassanids from the Aserai would make more sense, but for a western public, who are the ones who are really going to buy the game en masse, it would be confusing, because the game is reminiscent of the crusades, of the medieval, and the combat elephants or the Babylonian beards are not very medieval. And I think the most interesting thing about some Sassanids would be to see combat elephants, that would be the "claim", but it would be an investment in design and in hours and I think they will be more interested in naval combat, for sure. Buyers want "Vikings", I think, more than Eastern cultures.

I don't think most of the public would be confused by having Persian-curly-bearded men riding elephants. Most would go "whooo cewwwl" and say "Look at me, I'm Legolas!" at the streaming session after having killed one. Most people don't know lick about History. And don't care. We sure do, but not the majority.

And yes, there's a lot of clamor for a purely Nord faction, but I'm sure India and China are BIG markets for videogames. Total War Three Kingdoms is doing amazingly well thanks to China sales figures. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that India can also be a big sales pitch. Of course, I'm not a marketing guru, I don't really know.

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

I don't think we need any new Middle Eastern kingdom. The Aserai are good to represent for all of them. I don't think we need an Iberian culture either, because it's not unique enough. With that being said, I think Britannia, Northern Europe, and Continental Europe are all represented well enough. I think if anything, it would make sense to have some kind of (1) African/Nubian faction, and (2) another East Asian inspired faction. This would work well too, since the African-type faction could go under Aserai, and the East Asian faction could go to the east or southeast of the Khuzait faction. For the East Asian faction, I'd have it mostly an amalgamation of Chinese/Japanese/Korean. I wouldn't go for a faction whose main influence is Cambodian, Thai, or Viet, but maybe they could be reflected in some of the units as well.

Uniqueness comes from familiarity. To people in Kamchatka, Japan or Indonesia, most European historical cultures look the same. To most Westerners, Norse, Celtic and Byzantine are distinct because you're used to seeing their trademark elements represented. Middle Eastern cultures are very, very, very diverse, most people here just don't know it. They bundle together something that's very typically Berber with something very typically Syrian with something very typically Yemeni, and go "yup, arab!".

You yourself feel it's fine to amalgamate Chinese and Japanese, maybe even Viet, Thai and Cambodian, into the same faction. Had they done the same with Celts, Romans and Vlandians, would you feel it's "right"?

 

[Hachaman]

I agree, in the end each culture needs to be visually distinct.



I don't think most of the public would be confused by having Persian-curly-bearded men riding elephants. Most would go "whooo cewwwl" and say "Look at me, I'm Legolas!" at the streaming session after having killed one. Most people don't know lick about History. And don't care. We sure do, but not the majority.

And yes, there's a lot of clamor for a purely Nord faction, but I'm sure India and China are BIG markets for videogames. Total War Three Kingdoms is doing amazingly well thanks to China sales figures. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that India can also be a big sales pitch. Of course, I'm not a marketing guru, I don't really know.

All of this could be great, but I think for an expansion, with a new map and a different paradigm. Of course would be great, I also was thinking in Three Kingdoms, It has much more sales than the Warhammers, although as a game it is a potato, in comparison. But I think it will be another 7 years until we see something similar, at the moment I am waiting to be able to declare war and peace from the window of my Kingdom ... Something that could be easier is a Berber camel mercenary for the Aserai, and ships like in Viking Conquest. ButI delve into all the mechanics that the game still has half is the most necessary at the moment.

 

[VictorF]

I guess this game attempts to portray a single continent, and at that it does have (in my opinion) way to few factions for the map as it is. There should be more european, middle-eastern and central asian kingdoms instead of just those six factions spamming huge territories. Far eastern or central african factions on the other hand are out of it's scope and extending the map even further just to have those when the map is allready so massive sounds a bit silly to me. All of that just to get pathetic Samurai x Knights battles.
I just wanna point out that this is not Conqueror's Blade or For Honor (thank God).

 

[Targyr Darksun]

Uniqueness comes from familiarity. To people in Kamchatka, Japan or Indonesia, most European historical cultures look the same. To most Westerners, Norse, Celtic and Byzantine are distinct because you're used to seeing their trademark elements represented. Middle Eastern cultures are very, very, very diverse, most people here just don't know it. They bundle together something that's very typically Berber with something very typically Syrian with something very typically Yemeni, and go "yup, arab!".

You yourself feel it's fine to amalgamate Chinese and Japanese, maybe even Viet, Thai and Cambodian, into the same faction. Had they done the same with Celts, Romans and Vlandians, would you feel it's "right"?

I agree with your first paragraph, but if it's directed toward me as some kind of counter-argument, then it's a strawman.

I don't know what you mean by "right," as if the implication is that I believe there is some objectively correct answer. But to answer your question, yes, if they did the same with Celts, Romans, and Vlandians, that would be fine by me. However, because those factions are already in the game, it makes little sense to try and change that. The introduction of new factions, on the other hand, is something that could very well happen.

 

[Cèsar de Quart]

I don't know what you mean by "right," as if the implication is that I believe there is some objectively correct answer. But to answer your question, yes, if they did the same with Celts, Romans, and Vlandians, that would be fine by me. However, because those factions are already in the game, it makes little sense to try and change that. The introduction of new factions, on the other hand, is something that could very well happen.

Well, you did say "amalgamate Chinese and Japanese", where I think there's no need because both have very rich, unique aesthetic cultures of their own.

I wouldn't feel it's "right" to group Vlandians, Battanians and Romans in the same faction, because I recognise that there's room to develop each one into its own visually unique faction. Same with other Eastern cultures I'd like to see represented individually.

 

[Staal]

Ships will also add a lot to the AseraI/Empire front and the Sturgian/Vlandian Front. Sturgia can’t even properly protect their only supply of horses since it’s so isolated without ships being apart of the game

Am I missing a whole part of the game? Supply of horses? What are you talking about?

 

[Targyr Darksun]

Well, you did say "amalgamate Chinese and Japanese", where I think there's no need because both have very rich, unique aesthetic cultures of their own.

I wouldn't feel it's "right" to group Vlandians, Battanians and Romans in the same faction, because I recognise that there's room to develop each one into its own visually unique faction. Same with other Eastern cultures I'd like to see represented individually.

Yes, I said that. However, if any new factions are to be added to this game, it will probably only be one or two more (if any). So while I agree that both Chinese and Japanese cultures have "very rich, unique aesthetic cultures" of their own, they aren't as separate from each other as say, the Chinese and the Songhai Empire, or the Empire of Ghana. I am not suggesting that Chinese and Japanese cultures are not separate and distinct; I am rather suggesting that they aren't separate and distinct from each other as Chinese culture and one of those African cultures. This game isn't built like the Total War series, where many more cultures (fictional or not) can be represented. Therefore, a certain degree of generalization is warranted, in my mind. Given that "black" Africans aren't represented in this game AT ALL, it makes more sense to me to have one black African faction and one East Asian faction (or as someone else suggested, Meso-American or something like that), instead of two East Asian factions. It would be nice if we could represent Bulgarians and Armenians too, and a whole host of other cultures, but we can't (just due to how the game is setup). Something has got to give, as the saying goes.

This is, of course, my opinion; and there is no right or wrong answer per se -- especially when you're dealing in the realm of fantasy and fiction.

 

[Staal]

Uniqueness comes from familiarity. To people in Kamchatka, Japan or Indonesia, most European historical cultures look the same. To most Westerners, Norse, Celtic and Byzantine are distinct because you're used to seeing their trademark elements represented. Middle Eastern cultures are very, very, very diverse, most people here just don't know it. They bundle together something that's very typically Berber with something very typically Syrian with something very typically Yemeni, and go "yup, arab!".

You yourself feel it's fine to amalgamate Chinese and Japanese, maybe even Viet, Thai and Cambodian, into the same faction. Had they done the same with Celts, Romans and Vlandians, would you feel it's "right"?

I've always felt the starting point should be some level of language branch. Celt, Latin, German, Slav, Greek, Turk, Arab, Persian, Hindi would cover most of the Indo-European tree, excusing a few minor ones. Not sure if there is a similar reconstruction for Jomon, Han etc. No offense intended to the Baltics!

But really there needs to be more factions. Do they really have to be very distinct from each other?

For another thing, there should be able to be multiple kingdom for any given culture. Part of the dynastic RPG should be gaining overlordship of your culture, but it is not a given. Independent lords can call themselves king whether they are part of your culture or not. There should be a mechanic that determines when lords break free from a kingdom. Anti-snowballing mechanic.

 

[Geoarrge]

The Romans' main strategy against elephants was to use dense formations -- squares rather than shallow lines, and fire. That points to needing a couple of mechanics in place before introducing any faction that uses elephants:

1. Better collision mechanics. In order to give elephants their proper weight , they need to be able to break through formations that are able to stop horses.
2. More opportunities to use fire. Fire would be one of the major weaknesses for elephantry, since elephants are prone to panic when wounded or exposed to flames. Panicked elephants would become uncontrollable and dangerous to both sides.

 

[Earth Dragon]

The problem is that the Aserai cover a broad spectrum of North African and Arab sub-cultures. It is actually silly to have them on light side of troop selection when they need to be on the heavy side, with the deepest range of cavalry and camelry of all factions. As I’ve posted in another thread, they need a medium camel line and a javelin light Cav line. These are honestly glaring holes when it comes to historical source material of the Aserai.

 

[Hachaman]

The problem is that the Aserai cover a broad spectrum of North African and Arab sub-cultures. It is actually silly to have them on light side of troop selection when they need to be on the heavy side, with the deepest range of cavalry and camelry of all factions. As I’ve posted in another thread, they need a medium camel line and a javelin light Cav line. These are honestly glaring holes when it comes to historical source material of the Aserai.

Making a camel work and look like a camel, I mean, with a professional game quality finish, not just a mod, with motion capture, collisions suitable for camel combat, a totally different way of moving, a self-balancing on camera ...

1- Maybe his idea at first was to try it.
2- They probably realized that it would be a great investment of resources to obtain only a few units within the game.

My opinion, in general, is that the factions are not sufficiently differentiated. The Viking faction should have almost no mounted units, and they should be very weak, and should have no more than light archers, but should have particularly strong infantry and limit the use of javelins within the other factions. The Kuzhait faction shouldn't have heavy infantry, and neither should heavy archers, and I think their recruiting troops should be mounted from the start, perhaps more expensive to compensate. The other factions should also think of ways to make them more different when it comes to fighting. Because right now, if you have a tier 6 archer, or tier 6 infantry, you don't care what faction it is, they are similar, just change the outer appearance.

 

[mamastoast]

I'm surprised how much people seem to care about a fictional world being so accurate to their historical inspiration. Not saying you guys are wrong or crazy or anything.. but I'd much rather have interesting and diverse factions than rely on faction concepts having to have co-existing ect... Obviously you don't want modern elements in any faction.. but I frankly wouldn't care if we had a 15th inspired faction and a 9th century inspired faction co exist.. These are fictuinal cultures.. Aslong as a culture is internally consistent I think factions not being inspired by the same time period can easily be explained away in lore... I just want the world to be interesting

 

[High Risx]

Looks like a total war mod is coming hha