Junior Member
Member
It was too long since one of this post, it had to happen.
This subject was one of the most discussed subject in the forum, there is a few post about it, and some of them have good arguments on why for example Spartans would not fit the game style, but there is some Factions that would.
Anyway, I don't think that no one expects more factions in release, and since there is a Lore, I don't know how it would work to implement a new faction later, all depends on how the Lore is developed.
Senior Member
Just going to copy/paste what I said over HERE and will probably do so from now on if new threads pop up, since it expresses my thoughts the most succinctly and has links to more detailed arguments, and it's easier than typing everything all over again (unless an actual new argument is presented).
All of this expresses my thoughts, but that bolded bit is the biggest reason I don't think it's really a good idea to make entirely new factions. The proposal to have new warriors added to existing factions is something I brought up over HERE, and I think that would be the best option for adding cultures; and if not as mercenaries, then as the result of alliances, even if they're shaky.Originally Posted by Shuai8297 Go to original post
This would be the major exception. I think anything dealing with indigenous American cultures would work better as a standalone and completely separate expansion---similar to Battlefield Bad Company 2's Vietnam expansion---both because, from a realism standpoint, there's no way warriors wearing, at most, wooden breastplates and animal hides would be able to stand toe-to-toe with one in full plate, and, because you could get really in depth with the cultures---Maya, Aztec, Sioux, Apache, Blackfoot, etc. etc. (probably combining some, through an alliance system, or grouping them via geography [plains, plateau, jungle])---and avoid the vague stereotypes we usually get in media.Originally Posted by Beas7ie Go to original post
Junior Member
I agree on some level that not all legendary historical warriors are super diverse, but i would disagree on some note, particularly that a spartan type faction shouldn't exist. I think that is the most logical next step actually.
In another thread i posted how diverse a faction based in the mediterranean could be. This isn't a historically accurate game, its historically inspired. The three main factions were chosen because they are cool warrior cultures and make a statement about values. (Watch the "vision" trailer)
The Gladiator, Troy, 300, and Spartacus shows/movies show just how much culture is built into those. Its a big one.
Why not combine gladiators, with legionnaires, with spartan hoplites, with Myrmidon into a diverse faction? Some have shields, some spears, some swords, some pike and net, etc. Lots to choose from. Lots of demand to be a gladiator running in to fight a samurai. I'm salivating just thinking of it.
Moreover, they all come with similar but different values. You think of any of those cultures and you think glory and legendary. Performing in the arena, winning favor with the greek gods, distinguishing yourself in the roman legion, going down in a blaze of glory at thermopylae...
It's not like combining hasn't already happened. The knights are based off multiple culture's medieval knights (though strongly favoring germanic ones). Even more so, the samurai and ninja have been combined despite usually being enemies of each other with different combat styles & weapons.
Senior Member
While it isn't historically accurate in the sense that Knights, Vikings, and Samurai never met in combat, it is historically accurate in the sense that they all existed within a time-frame that they could have---that is, it seems to take place within a vaguely medieval period (4th or 5th-15th or 16th centuries) from an aesthetic and technological perspective---and is therefore fairly easy to accept it as a probable reality if Eurasian circumstances were just a tad different (i.e. Samurai travelling to Europe and/or Viking age lasting another couple hundred years).Originally Posted by guest-r22Cs27m Go to original post
What you're suggesting is placing Pre-Roman (or explicitly Roman) societies in a Post-Roman era, which would be fairly difficult to justify from a contextual perspective. Unless there's time travel, or a bunch of Carthaginians were secluded somewhere for a few centuries and suddenly decided to join the fray, it's hard to believe. The only way something like that would be feasible is if it were the Celts---who I suggested could be an added class (or two?) for the Warborn over here, from the small bit of context from the main site that the Warborn are trying to reclaim their ancestor's homeland---but not anything Mediterranean.
Aside from the story perspective, which I'm certain some people won't care about anyway, what it also means is pitting Bronze Age societies against societies that had access to steel, which would be an unmitigated disaster for anyone wielding a bronze weapon or hoping to protect themselves with a bronze shield, which would chip, dent, blunt, and break before the battle's done. That's not to say, of course, a Knight in plate armour or a Samurai could not be killed by a Spartan, but by the time the Spartan does so, his weapon and/or shield would, in all likelihood, be ruined and all but unusable simply by bashing a sword or spear against a breastplate, vambrace, greave, or anything else. They might do better against Vikings, who generally had leather armour (except their helmets, of course) and wooden shields, but even then, I don't know how well they'd do in full scale war, considering differing battle tactics and the fact that their shields wouldn't protect them very well against a steel axe beyond a few blows.
And speaking of tactics, that is also something to consider, because Roman and pre-Roman Mediterranean warfare emphasised phalanx formations and ranged combat (bows, javelins and spears) even more than post-Roman European warfare---except maybe ancient Egypt, and their armies adopted these after Alexander the Great conquered the region---and less on individual skill. Of course, no plan survives first contact with the enemy, so everyone had clubs, swords, axes and whatnot, so you could easily adopt the Art of Battle to them, but that combat would likely be even less authentic than what we've seen of the Knights and Samurai (which, for the record, isn't necessarily a problem, just that people will be critical of it).
What I think would do a greater service to the cultures would be a similar case as the Native American proposal above, and do a Bronze Age expansion. You could have the Greeks, the Chinese (Shang/Zhou dynasties), the Sumerians, or ancient Persians, or Egyptians, or even Celts. You could even do what you've proposed is happening in the current game and combine cultures---Greeks are as you've said Knights are currently, combination of Spartans, Atheneans, etc; Persians and Sumerians could be combined to be the Mesopotamians; Chinese are just that; Celts could include Nordic Bronze elements; and so on depending on what story would be built around the conflict.
Ninja were really just samurai that specialised in espionage, having some relation to spies to modern governments or special forces in modern militaries, and served a similar function. They had additional training, such as with poison or disguise, and had tools that samurai would never really have use for, like blow-guns or shuriken, but the idea that samurai had a rivalry with ninja beyond a samurai protecting his daimyo from assassination isn't really accurate in the way I'm reading that statement---which is as the idea that there were ninja clans that had wars with samurai clans, or something else derived from anime or something.Even more so, the samurai and ninja have been combined despite usually being enemies of each other with different combat styles & weapons.
If that's not how you meant it, I appologise, but that's how I took it.
