Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Distinguishing between factions

MarkroxMarkrox Registered Users Posts: 207
edited November 2017 in General Discussion
Far too hyped about the announcement right now, it's been a long time since the Viking Invasion expansion for med1.

I don't know how far along you are in making this, but I wondered how much flavour each faction will have, how distinguishable will a viking faction be from a Gaelic one for instance?

I understand you can't talk in specifics but I wondered, if you took Atilla as a base point for comparison are we looking at something similar, or more detailed? I personally would love to see small differences in music, UI, events ect - not just unit differences.

cheers

Comments

  • DemonHunter50DemonHunter50 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 16
    I would love to see aesthetical differences as well
  • KrilralKrilral Member Registered Users Posts: 910
    Since we are talking about a full-scale, standalone game I would expect them to differentiate the different factions more than they were in Atilla. Atilla could get away with having the Britannic factions be very similar to each other because there were many more cultures to choose from, but that is obviously not going to be an option here.

    Thematically I can already see a whole bunch of influences from "Vikings", so they'll probably go that route in the "feel" of the factions. I.e. the vikings will be the invading savages with lots of axes and two-handed weapons (would be in line with Atilla as well), while the Anglo-Saxons (correct, yes?) will be cast as a more "civilized" people with a traditional swords/spears/cavalry playstyle. I imagine the Gaelic peoples will be more focused on ambushes and light units, though I don't really have anything historical to back that up. It's just a hunch based on Atilla and what would make sense gameplay-wise.
  • KrunchKrunch Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,181
    There shouldn't be a single faction with any large acess to Cavalry. Saxons should have access to the best cavalry and it should be medium cav at best.

    I certainly hope it isn't based off Vikings as I want atleast plausibility. I understand that there will be overlap in fans but still, it should go for history and theming off expanding and overexagerrating that, not theming based on the show. Personally this is how I want to see it:

    Anglo-Saxons: Anglos are focussed on "Making" the Shield Wall. They have the best Shield Walls in the game and their tactics revolve around holding the enemy with said wall and either simply killing the enemy through atrittion and pushing(Which I hope will be a feature, as it should) or using Non-shieldwall infantry to collapse on the enemies flanks.

    Danes: Danes should focuss on "Breaking" the Shieldwall. Danes should have many shieldwall units but they should not be as good as the Anglo equivalents, and more be designed to survive against them while mainly using non shieldwall or more manouverable shieldwall infantry to support your shieldwall. They would have almost no access to cavalry however would have Axe and Shield infantry which would have slightly lower base stats than swordsman of the same tier and price but have a bonus against shieldwalls, aswell as more AP damage, 2h Dane Axe units which are meant to counter heavily armored Anglo units aswell as having a massive bonus against shieldwalls, and considering Heavily armored Anglo units ARE Shieldwall units, basically they should counter Anglo-Saxon shieldwalls. They would also have berserkers which would ofc. counter everything but also be super squishy to ranged attacks and have poor surviveability, if the poor bastard on the other end of their charge can get a hit in that is :p

    And of course, the Dane's archery prowess could not be understated and so I feel they should access to the best Armored archers outside of Wales.

    Irish: The Irish would focuss largely on light, medium, and perhaps a few heavy non shieldwall infantry units aswell as good skirmishers and light cav and would be a bit more flexible due to a lack of a shieldwall weighing them down, however as such they would also have less holding power.

    Picts: Picts would be focussed on light infantry guerilla tactics simmilar to their predecessors in Atilla, vanguard deployment and on the other hand also have a focuss on more sturdy spear units and Pictish Pikemen. Could be an interesting dynamic.

    Welsh(When they come) and presumably Cornish: Archer focuss. Honestly they were probably not that different from say, the Gaels at this point but just to be interesting taking something from later in history and making them a mix of devestating Archers and light infantry would be cool.

    It doesn't have to stop there though. One of the factions I predict will be in the game at launch is the Kingdom of Dublin. Currently a Dane power through and through, the Danes at Dublin would over time integrate heavily into Irish society and would become known as Norse-Gaells. As such, I think the best course of action for them is giving them a unique roster that starts out as the same Dane roster that the Danes on the mainland start out with, but in mid and late game it evolves and starts to feature unique Norse-Gaell units.

    Two other factions I think are likely, the Kingdom of the Isles and the Orkney Islands, I would also do similarly though not to as great an extent. For Orkney I would maybe give them slightly different units to show they come from Norway and not Denmark, aswell as make them look a teeny bit different, and would also give them access to pictish units like Spearmen and Pikemen, and maybe slightly better cav if possible while for the KotI I would give them basically the same, scratching the cav and instead getting other units from regions that surround them like Gaell units and Welsh Longbowmen, though I wouldn't seek to outright mutate the roster like with the Kingdom of Dublin, just change it up a bit. the KotI and Orkney could also maybe get some Norse spear and pike units late game in exchange for units like high tier Great Axes to show them adapting to the different enemies they would have to fight aswell as the influence the cultures they conquer has on them.

    At the very least I would like the overall Saxon, Irish, Pict, Welsh, and Dane ideas implemented, the hybrid factions would be sweet though.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,286
    What factions do you think we will see?

    For me,

    -England
    -Ireland
    -Scotland
    -Wales
    -Anglo-Saxon
    -Viking
    ????

    How about dlc factions?
  • SvithinatorSvithinator Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 95
    jamreal18 said:

    What factions do you think we will see?

    For me,

    -England
    -Ireland
    -Scotland
    -Wales
    -Anglo-Saxon
    -Viking
    ????

    How about dlc factions?

    I think it will be based on the actual kingdoms/tribes. So it will not be England it will be Wessex, Northumbria, Mercia, Denmark, Norway and so forth. While i think the tribes in Wales, Scotland and Ireland might be portrayed as unified or split in two to either provide larger resistance to the other factions or split in two to give and initial "unify your people" mission before taking on the bigger organized powers.
  • MooncakeMooncake Registered Users Posts: 605
    My guess for the ten playable factions is Wessex, Danelaw, Dublin, Strathclyde, Scotland, Gwynedd, Kingdom of the Isles, Mercia, Meath and Munster. Not so sure about Ireland honestly, but the others seem pretty likely.
  • mcar110mcar110 Member United KingdomRegistered Users Posts: 439
    Kingdom of Wessex, Kingdom of Mercia, Danelaw, Kingdom of Northumberland, Kingdom of Dublin, Kingdom of Gwynedd and Kingdom of Strathclyde (Alt Cult) are in my opinion, almost certainly going to appear as playable factions.
    Beyond that I don’t know.

    Because the timeline extends to 1066, it could be (possibly) that the end game threat will be the Norman Invasion so it could be that part of Northern France is included on the campaign map
  • natethegreat1112natethegreat1112 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 292
    Really want the kingdom of the isles
    Fear is wisdom in the face of danger.
  • jimmy44jimmy44 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 351
    Krunch said:


    Anglo-Saxons: Anglos are focussed on "Making" the Shield Wall. They have the best Shield Walls in the game and their tactics revolve around holding the enemy with said wall and either simply killing the enemy through atrittion and pushing(Which I hope will be a feature, as it should) or using Non-shieldwall infantry to collapse on the enemies flanks.

    Danes: Danes should focuss on "Breaking" the Shieldwall. Danes should have many shieldwall units but they should not be as good as the Anglo equivalents, and more be designed to survive against them while mainly using non shieldwall or more manouverable shieldwall infantry to support your shieldwall. They would have almost no access to cavalry however would have Axe and Shield infantry which would have slightly lower base stats than swordsman of the same tier and price but have a bonus against shieldwalls, aswell as more AP damage, 2h Dane Axe units which are meant to counter heavily armored Anglo units aswell as having a massive bonus against shieldwalls, and considering Heavily armored Anglo units ARE Shieldwall units, basically they should counter Anglo-Saxon shieldwalls. They would also have berserkers which would ofc. counter everything but also be super squishy to ranged attacks and have poor surviveability, if the poor bastard on the other end of their charge can get a hit in that is :p

    Mmmm. Maybe Ive watched too much of the last kingdom, but I thought it was the Danes that invented the shield wall and it was the Saxons trying to knock it down!

  • KrunchKrunch Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,181
    jimmy44 said:

    Krunch said:


    Anglo-Saxons: Anglos are focussed on "Making" the Shield Wall. They have the best Shield Walls in the game and their tactics revolve around holding the enemy with said wall and either simply killing the enemy through atrittion and pushing(Which I hope will be a feature, as it should) or using Non-shieldwall infantry to collapse on the enemies flanks.

    Danes: Danes should focuss on "Breaking" the Shieldwall. Danes should have many shieldwall units but they should not be as good as the Anglo equivalents, and more be designed to survive against them while mainly using non shieldwall or more manouverable shieldwall infantry to support your shieldwall. They would have almost no access to cavalry however would have Axe and Shield infantry which would have slightly lower base stats than swordsman of the same tier and price but have a bonus against shieldwalls, aswell as more AP damage, 2h Dane Axe units which are meant to counter heavily armored Anglo units aswell as having a massive bonus against shieldwalls, and considering Heavily armored Anglo units ARE Shieldwall units, basically they should counter Anglo-Saxon shieldwalls. They would also have berserkers which would ofc. counter everything but also be super squishy to ranged attacks and have poor surviveability, if the poor bastard on the other end of their charge can get a hit in that is :p

    Mmmm. Maybe Ive watched too much of the last kingdom, but I thought it was the Danes that invented the shield wall and it was the Saxons trying to knock it down!

    Nope, Saxons and Danes both had the shieldwall and unlike TLK it should be noted that both had large round shields.
  • TheGuardianOfMetalTheGuardianOfMetal Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,664
    jimmy44 said:

    Krunch said:


    Anglo-Saxons: Anglos are focussed on "Making" the Shield Wall. They have the best Shield Walls in the game and their tactics revolve around holding the enemy with said wall and either simply killing the enemy through atrittion and pushing(Which I hope will be a feature, as it should) or using Non-shieldwall infantry to collapse on the enemies flanks.

    Danes: Danes should focuss on "Breaking" the Shieldwall. Danes should have many shieldwall units but they should not be as good as the Anglo equivalents, and more be designed to survive against them while mainly using non shieldwall or more manouverable shieldwall infantry to support your shieldwall. They would have almost no access to cavalry however would have Axe and Shield infantry which would have slightly lower base stats than swordsman of the same tier and price but have a bonus against shieldwalls, aswell as more AP damage, 2h Dane Axe units which are meant to counter heavily armored Anglo units aswell as having a massive bonus against shieldwalls, and considering Heavily armored Anglo units ARE Shieldwall units, basically they should counter Anglo-Saxon shieldwalls. They would also have berserkers which would ofc. counter everything but also be super squishy to ranged attacks and have poor surviveability, if the poor bastard on the other end of their charge can get a hit in that is :p

    Mmmm. Maybe Ive watched too much of the last kingdom, but I thought it was the Danes that invented the shield wall and it was the Saxons trying to knock it down!

    Danes "Invented the Shield Wall"? What was the Greek Hoplite Phalanx if not a Shield Wall? The Shield Wall is probably one of the most ancient formations of warfare.

    Also, this is fromt he Wikipedia article about Alfred the Great:

    "Wessex's history of failures preceding his success in 878 emphasised to Alfred that the traditional system of battle he had inherited played to the Danes' advantage. While both the Anglo-Saxons and the Danes attacked settlements to seize wealth and other resources, they employed very different strategies. In their raids the Anglo-Saxons traditionally preferred to attack head-on by assembling their forces in a shield wall, advancing against their target and overcoming the oncoming wall marshaled against them in defence.[47]

    In contrast the Danes preferred to choose easy targets, mapping cautious forays designed to avoid risking all their accumulated plunder with high-stake attacks for more. Alfred determined their strategy was to launch smaller scaled attacks from a secure and reinforced defensible base to which they could retreat should their raiders meet strong resistance.[47]

    These bases were prepared in advance, often by capturing an estate and augmenting its defences with surrounding ditches, ramparts and palisades. Once inside the fortification, Alfred realised, the Danes enjoyed the advantage, better situated to outlast their opponents or crush them with a counter-attack as the provisions and stamina of the besieging forces waned.[47]

    The means by which the Anglo-Saxons marshaled forces to defend against marauders also left them vulnerable to the Vikings. It was the responsibility of the shire fyrd to deal with local raids. The king could call up the national militia to defend the kingdom but, in the case of the Viking hit-and-run raids, problems with communication, and raising supplies meant that the national militia could not be mustered quickly enough. It was only after the raids were underway that a call went out to landowners to gather their men for battle. Large regions could be devastated before the fyrd could assemble and arrive. And although the landowners were obliged to the king to supply these men when called, during the attacks in 878 many of them opportunistically abandoned their king and collaborated with Guthrum.[48][49]"
    Every wrong is recorded. Every slight against us, page after page, ETCHED IN BLOOD! Clan Gunnisson! Karak Eight Peaks! JOSEF BUGMAN! TOTAL WAR TROY FOR ONE YEAR EXCLUSIVELY ON THE EPIC GAMES STORE!"

    The Empire still hasn't gotten their FLC LL. We need Marius Leitdorf of Averland!

    Where is Boris Todbringer? Have you seen him? For a Middenland DLC with Boris and the Ar-Ulric!

    Queek could smell their hatred, ratcheted to a degree that even he could not evoke in their simple hearts. He stepped over the old orange-fur’s body, eager to see for himself what it was they saw. But he heard it first.
    'Waaaaaaaggh! Gorfang!'
  • kinjokinjo Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,610
    edited November 2017
    Krunch said:

    There shouldn't be a single faction with any large acess to Cavalry. Saxons should have access to the best cavalry and it should be medium cav at best.

    I think a lot of people would disagree with that, the sources are so scarce about Saxon cavalry that it is mostly unknown. I know their are a few stones that have some depictions but they are pretty early period and are probably Picts fighting Northumbrians, most of the battle accounts it is clear they mostly fought on foot or dismounted to fight. If anything I think the Picts should have the best cavalry with their mounted Toisech (nobles).

    As far as making the factions unique I would like to see something like this for the following cultures:

    Saxons - They would have the best defensive spear shieldwalls with limited archery and cavalry support (Hunters and Mounted scouts). Maybe the Northumbrians would have a little better cavalry as a counter to the Picts. The Southern Saxons would favor the heavy defensive infantry.

    Irish - This would be the throw **** at you faction with most of the units having darts, javelins, and heavy throwing spears. They would be mostly light infantry with the nobles fighting on foot as heavy infantry. They would have some cavalry but I would keep them light horse boys mostly. Their infantry could be pretty interesting though with their small shields, short swords, axes, and a mix of medium length spears. With the fiann kind of like the poster boy for the army.

    Picts - It really depends on how CA portrays this faction or if there are any Pictish Kingdoms still around by the start date. I would honestly give the Picts the best cavalry with them having the only mounted bodyguard unit in the game. Their infantry would offer a mix of defensive long spears and aggressive axe men with unique Pictish square shields. They would also have some pretty unique archers with slingers and the only faction to use crude crossbows. They would also have some pretty decent light cavalry and maybe some of their clansmen infantry could have vanguard deployment, I just hope CA doesn't give EVERY unit vanguard deployment which is so stupid. Their long spears should be the closes thing to a pike unit in the game, maybe they can be a two handed spear unit that has a formation closer to the yari wall in shogun 2. The Aberlemo Battle Stone shows them with a long two handed spear.

    Norse - They would be the shieldwall crushers with their own attacking shieldwall and boar's snout for some of the elite units. They would of course have lots of spears, but their strength will be their axe units with units like their Berserkers and Huskarls making them stand out from other factions. They would not have any cavalry and they would have an interesting mix of archers. They would have scouts/hunters that can vanguard, but it would be their warrior archers in armor and with shields that could be some of the best archers in the game. For gameplay I would make them a hybrid unit that can fight in melee and are great at archery.

    Welsh - This would be the archery faction with them having the best longbows in the game, I would also give their general's skills in their skill trees that supports their archer strength. Their infantry would be mostly light spears with the Teulu (bodyguard) and Uchelwr (nobles) being the only heavy armored infantry units. They would have some decent light cavalry and their archers could for gameplay purposes be superior to most factions.

    Scots - This could be a hybrid faction with a mixture of Pictish and Gael warfare ideals. Maybe they could have their own longspear unit, but carry small round shields instead of the square pict style shields. The clansmen would be the backbone of the army with slingers and maybe some light archery hunters to make them a bit different from the Picts and Irish. The Nobles/bodyguard would fight on foot as heavy infantry and they would have some light cavalry. Maybe they could have a special mountain brigand unit that can use vanguard deployment.

    As far as aesthetic go shield type/shape, shield patterns, cultural apparel, and cultural unit standards will go a long way in setting factions apart in this period. For example if you put a draco standard bearer in a unit of Welsh bodyguard and a Raven banner in a unit of Norse Bodyguard it will give the units a different look that is distinct to the culture.
    Post edited by kinjo on
  • tak22tak22 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,386
    Not sure where you get Picts being a cavalry faction ...
  • kinjokinjo Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,610
    edited November 2017
    You could start with Pictish Warrior Ad 297-841 or look at any number of stones that depicts the picts at war like Sueno's Stone, Aberlemo Battle Stone, Dupplin Cross, and apparently they even practiced a form of horse whispering according to Paul Wagner & Wayne Reynolds of said book. The Pictish Centaur appears on lot of stones as well during this period which in some cultures symbolizes a warrior on a horse.


    Post edited by kinjo on
Sign In or Register to comment.