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

Why cant CA make Araby....

13»

Comments

  • CanuoveaCanuovea Posts: 13,130Registered Users, Moderators
    Please refocus the discussion away from real world politics and such or the thread will be closed.
    -Forum Terms and Conditions: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/172193/forum-terms-and-conditions#latest
    -Using all caps is the equivalent of shouting. Please don't.
    -The "Spam" flag is not a "disagree" flag. Have a care.
    -...No, no the "Abuse" flag isn't a "disagree" flag either!
    -5.7 Summon a moderator if someone seems to be out of line, or use the report button. Do NOT become another party to misbehaviour
  • ZelnikZelnik Posts: 374Registered Users
    Here is the simple reason why:

    Because GW said so.


    Thank you and have a good night.
  • WojmirVonCarsteinWojmirVonCarstein Posts: 699Registered Users
    For me the reason is probably that Araby is not an interesting faction in the Warhamer world speaking relative to other potential (sub) factions that can be put into the game.

    I would much rather flesh out certain factions now rather than add something with as little lore as Araby.

    Plus I would prefer not have get another human kingdom.
  • AmonkhetAmonkhet Posts: 1,362Registered Users
    edited September 17

    For me the reason is probably that Araby is not an interesting faction in the Warhamer world speaking relative to other potential (sub) factions that can be put into the game.

    I would much rather flesh out certain factions now rather than add something with as little lore as Araby.

    Plus I would prefer not have get another human kingdom.

    Which subfactions would those be?

    Theres only Empire and Bretonnia for humans. Elves and Undead have three each. Chaos has two.
  • CrossilCrossil Posts: 4,530Registered Users
    edited September 17
    Top 10 questions science still can't answer.



    People say GW is the scapegoat but when exactly did CA not make an Arabic or older middle eastern factions when they had a chance? How difficult would it be to adapt some more stupid elements of Araby to make a respectable faction?

    Of course it's GW.
    UNLEASH THE EVERCHARIOT
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Posts: 10,220Registered Users
    Crossil said:

    Top 10 questions science still can't answer.



    People say GW is the scapegoat but when exactly did CA not make an Arabic or older middle eastern factions when they had a chance? How difficult would it be to adapt some more stupid elements of Araby to make a respectable faction?

    Of course it's GW.

    that a weird logic.

    Do you really think that a new race in WH is the same as lets say Parthia in Rome 2?
    Really?
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • CrossilCrossil Posts: 4,530Registered Users
    SiWI said:

    Crossil said:

    Top 10 questions science still can't answer.



    People say GW is the scapegoat but when exactly did CA not make an Arabic or older middle eastern factions when they had a chance? How difficult would it be to adapt some more stupid elements of Araby to make a respectable faction?

    Of course it's GW.

    that a weird logic.

    Do you really think that a new race in WH is the same as lets say Parthia in Rome 2?
    Really?
    They brought back Rome 2 DLC just to make some desert factions.

    I mean, sure, Araby would be harder to make but harder than what they already made in Warhammer? People here say that Araby wouldn't sell because apparently you need to be into some kind of aesthetic to enjoy another Warhammer faction but I think people will buy most stuff they made for this game. Elemental Djinns especially would've been cool on their own so the main centerpiece can stand on its own. I don't see that they are a hard sell.
    UNLEASH THE EVERCHARIOT
  • AbmongAbmong Posts: 1,016Registered Users
    Crossil said:

    Top 10 questions science still can't answer.



    People say GW is the scapegoat but when exactly did CA not make an Arabic or older middle eastern factions when they had a chance? How difficult would it be to adapt some more stupid elements of Araby to make a respectable faction?

    Of course it's GW.

    I'm still hoping Araby will be added in a round about way. If DoW is added there's a chance CA will end up doing Midas the Mean and Al Mukhtar's Desert Dogs. So that's a few Araby models in game. CA could easily expand that to include Arabyan Swordsmen, Spearmen and Archers. It wont be a full playable faction but would be like the Savage Orcs limited roster NPCs, but instead representing the desert tribes that pops up every now and then. I want the same thing for Amazons and Albions. It's at least give more flavour to those regions than fighting rogue armies with lore breaking stack compositions...
    Total War: Warhammer IV - Cathay, Ind, Nippon, Khuresh (+ Lost Vampire Bloodlines, Monkey kingdom DLC) :#
  • Shomy9342Shomy9342 Posts: 340Registered Users
    One thing that I just noticed looking at warmaster army list and looking at DoW's Al Muktar desert dogs is that most of the soldiers in that list look the same as Al Muktar dogs ( turbans with skulls only red with some feathers, same shields and black clothes). Modder can easily take Al Muktars men and create all Araby infantry out of that.(After all most of Empire state troops and zombie pirates infantry and gunnery mob look the same)
    horses are there as well and so is roc that will soon be part of sky cuter. The only thing that is needed is camels, flying carpets, genies(only thing elemental that looks close to them is kdaai of chaos dwarfs) and elephants(who will just need a remodel from norscan mammoths).

    To be honest if CA wants to add them at some point it doesn't seam to look that complicated.
    Abmong said:

    Crossil said:

    Top 10 questions science still can't answer.



    People say GW is the scapegoat but when exactly did CA not make an Arabic or older middle eastern factions when they had a chance? How difficult would it be to adapt some more stupid elements of Araby to make a respectable faction?

    Of course it's GW.

    I'm still hoping Araby will be added in a round about way. If DoW is added there's a chance CA will end up doing Midas the Mean and Al Mukhtar's Desert Dogs. So that's a few Araby models in game. CA could easily expand that to include Arabyan Swordsmen, Spearmen and Archers. It wont be a full playable faction but would be like the Savage Orcs limited roster NPCs, but instead representing the desert tribes that pops up every now and then. I want the same thing for Amazons and Albions. It's at least give more flavour to those regions than fighting rogue armies with lore breaking stack compositions...
  • WojmirVonCarsteinWojmirVonCarstein Posts: 699Registered Users
    Amonkhet said:

    For me the reason is probably that Araby is not an interesting faction in the Warhamer world speaking relative to other potential (sub) factions that can be put into the game.

    I would much rather flesh out certain factions now rather than add something with as little lore as Araby.

    Plus I would prefer not have get another human kingdom.

    Which subfactions would those be?

    Theres only Empire and Bretonnia for humans. Elves and Undead have three each. Chaos has two.
    I mean subfactions as in: Avelorn, Mousillion, follower of nagash, pirates of sartosa.

    Basically a faction that comes from some parent faction already in the game but has some unique units and / or units from other factions. This makes it easy for CA to do and still can shake up the gameplay and make it more varied and interesting.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,432Registered Users
    We simply don't know why CA decided against Araby. It could be a case of them simply choosing not to.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • HisShadowBGHisShadowBG Posts: 2,420Registered Users
    edited September 17
    Btw Cylostra is an example why GW should not give CA too much creative freedom since she is a really really bad character
    Post edited by HisShadowBG on
  • DaGangsterDaGangster Junior Member Posts: 894Registered Users
    I want Kislev and DoW before Araby, at least they are Bret crusades instead of yet another empire clone. I long for the day their are no clones left, Brets did crusade against tomb kings so ill allow them. but Kislev and Southern realms would really fill out the rest of the world.

    Team Vampire Counts

    "Many players cannot help approaching a game as an optimization puzzle. What gives the most reward for the least risk? What strategy provides the highest chance – or even a guaranteed chance – of success? Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game."

    - Soren Johnson
  • warhammerwarlordwarhammerwarlord Posts: 165Registered Users
    Sometimes I feel like half of the warhammer fan-base are 12 year olds.

    When will requesting gimmick factions like Araby with flying carpets and halfings with soup cannons etc. stop?

    They were added into the "lore" just because someone was bored, out of content or as a humor relief.

    Do we really want Warhammer Total war game series turn into a Disneyland? Let's just mix all the crap we can find online about warhhamer, yes-yes!
  • RazmirthRazmirth Posts: 2,167Registered Users
    edited September 17
    It’s been said in here and I won’t beat a dead horse much more.

    But I also feel it’s just a bad idea for CA to make a faction in game that heavily stereotypes and contains pretty much every trope imaginable for a real world race of people. Who have had extremists in the UK go to companies and murder people who have offended them or their religion/society in recent times. I know I wouldn’t want anything to do with that if it were my business.

    Which is too bad. I think Araby would be a cool DLC. But I also am just as happy to see old world factions updated and some more units/lords thrown in until game 3.
  • theedge634theedge634 Senior Member Posts: 1,768Registered Users
    Razmirth said:

    It’s been said in here and I won’t beat a dead horse much more.

    But I also feel it’s just a bad idea for CA to make a faction in game that heavily stereotypes and contains pretty much every trope imaginable for a real world race of people. Who have had extremists in the UK go to companies and murder people who have offended them or their religion/society in recent times. I know I wouldn’t want anything to do with that if it were my business.

    Which is too bad. I think Araby would be a cool DLC. But I also am just as happy to see old world factions updated and some more units/lords thrown in until game 3.

    Nonsense. If this was an issue, than the recent Aladdin movie would be causing outrage.... it isn't. This weird reactionary movement of people afraid to depict historical and mythological themes from the middle-east is weird, and sad.
  • RazmirthRazmirth Posts: 2,167Registered Users
    edited September 17

    Razmirth said:

    It’s been said in here and I won’t beat a dead horse much more.

    But I also feel it’s just a bad idea for CA to make a faction in game that heavily stereotypes and contains pretty much every trope imaginable for a real world race of people. Who have had extremists in the UK go to companies and murder people who have offended them or their religion/society in recent times. I know I wouldn’t want anything to do with that if it were my business.

    Which is too bad. I think Araby would be a cool DLC. But I also am just as happy to see old world factions updated and some more units/lords thrown in until game 3.

    This weird reactionary movement of people afraid to depict historical and mythological themes from the middle-east is weird, and sad.
    Maybe that’s because if you read the other part of What I said, there’s been recent cases (last 3 years or so) where extremists have gone to news companies/entertainment companies in the UK and murdered People for making light of their beliefs or culture.

    which is a shame. I personally like the middle eastern history/culture and feel the more it is represented in various forms of media the faster it will dispel any fear of including it in a game/movie. I’m just saying there has been some pretty tragic deaths associated with those who have not been careful in recent times to Censor what they write/create.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Posts: 10,220Registered Users
    Crossil said:

    SiWI said:

    Crossil said:

    Top 10 questions science still can't answer.



    People say GW is the scapegoat but when exactly did CA not make an Arabic or older middle eastern factions when they had a chance? How difficult would it be to adapt some more stupid elements of Araby to make a respectable faction?

    Of course it's GW.

    that a weird logic.

    Do you really think that a new race in WH is the same as lets say Parthia in Rome 2?
    Really?
    They brought back Rome 2 DLC just to make some desert factions.

    I mean, sure, Araby would be harder to make but harder than what they already made in Warhammer? People here say that Araby wouldn't sell because apparently you need to be into some kind of aesthetic to enjoy another Warhammer faction but I think people will buy most stuff they made for this game. Elemental Djinns especially would've been cool on their own so the main centerpiece can stand on its own. I don't see that they are a hard sell.
    Yeah and when did they made that DLC? Years after the game was expected?
    By that logic CA maybe will decided in 5 years to make araby or 10.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • Warlord_Lu_BuWarlord_Lu_Bu Posts: 1,997Registered Users
    There is NO reason for CA to leave Araby out.

    Except by demands of Games Workshop.

    It would be incredibly stupid not to include Araby, especially since CA has ALWAYS allowed at ONE North African/Middle Eastern Faction in the majority of it's games.

    My true guess for Araby... is that maybe it's in the works as we speak... or maybe they want to finish Game 2... then begin Game 3 and finish that... then when all of the "Major" factions are created... they will then work on the minor factions like Kislev, Southern Realms and Araby.

    But... why did they allow Norska and go through so much effort (even dealing with the massive Coding Issues for Game 2) to fix it and make it playable again... but suddenly by cba with Araby, Kislev or Southern Realms?

    It matters not I suppose, time will tell if CA will do it... and honestly, I think we can count on CA to get it done... they have ALWAYS managed to give us "ohh ****!" moments with factions or things we weren't expecting... and I think they will at some point, grant us Araby, Kislev AND the Southern Realms.
    "I am the punishment of Tengri, if you had not sinned, he would not have sent me against you." - Chenghis Khan Temujin
  • CrossilCrossil Posts: 4,530Registered Users
    SiWI said:

    Crossil said:

    SiWI said:

    Crossil said:

    Top 10 questions science still can't answer.



    People say GW is the scapegoat but when exactly did CA not make an Arabic or older middle eastern factions when they had a chance? How difficult would it be to adapt some more stupid elements of Araby to make a respectable faction?

    Of course it's GW.

    that a weird logic.

    Do you really think that a new race in WH is the same as lets say Parthia in Rome 2?
    Really?
    They brought back Rome 2 DLC just to make some desert factions.

    I mean, sure, Araby would be harder to make but harder than what they already made in Warhammer? People here say that Araby wouldn't sell because apparently you need to be into some kind of aesthetic to enjoy another Warhammer faction but I think people will buy most stuff they made for this game. Elemental Djinns especially would've been cool on their own so the main centerpiece can stand on its own. I don't see that they are a hard sell.
    Yeah and when did they made that DLC? Years after the game was expected?
    By that logic CA maybe will decided in 5 years to make araby or 10.
    Look, what I'm saying is that there's quite little reason I see as to why CA would actually ignore a race and you haven't offered one either. GW however has perfect reason to do that. In fact you could consider it their standard operating behavior.

    Meaning that it has to be GW.
    UNLEASH THE EVERCHARIOT
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 18,657Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    Over two pages of what has basically turned into a business discussion.

    Moved to TW Chat since it is still Total War related.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
  • Sir_GodspeedSir_Godspeed Posts: 1,587Registered Users

    Btw Cylostra is an example why GW should not give CA too much creative freedom since she is a really really bad character

    Compared to such brilliant examples of characters as Ghorst? C'mon. GW made plenty of generic duds themselves. There are entire White Dwarfs, Citadel Journals and campaign supplements littered with them.
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,947Registered Users

    Btw Cylostra is an example why GW should not give CA too much creative freedom since she is a really really bad character

    Compared to such brilliant examples of characters as Ghorst? C'mon. GW made plenty of generic duds themselves. There are entire White Dwarfs, Citadel Journals and campaign supplements littered with them.
    Ghorst isn't bad, he just has very little lore. A guy loses his family and becomes a crazy necromancer. Very simple, stereotypical fantasy story. Cylostra is actively bad.
  • GunKingGunKing Posts: 578Registered Users

    I read a lot of Warhammer Fantasy lore (Vampire Wars, Felix and Gortrex novels, Dwarf lore, series of books about Ulrika etc) and I played TT since 6th ed and I don't recall any reference to Araby.

    Brunner the bounty hunter is said to have hunted down a target who was deep within an Arabyan sheikh's court. Whenever there is a rich/noble character of the Empire in any of the novels, one of them is sure to have a carpet from Araby, I remember that distinctly from the Van Horstmann novel.

    There are plenty of references to Araby.

  • SerkeletSerkelet Member Posts: 351Registered Users

    For me the reason is probably that Araby is not an interesting faction in the Warhamer world speaking relative to other potential (sub) factions that can be put into the game.

    I would much rather flesh out certain factions now rather than add something with as little lore as Araby.

    Plus I would prefer not have get another human kingdom.

    These are your personal impressions and opinions on the matter and it may or may not have anything to do with the actual reason CA/GW decided not to include them.
  • jamreal18jamreal18 Senior Member Posts: 8,589Registered Users
    Cylostra - no one expects and requested

    Araby - many people are waiting

    ------------

    CA has freedom to make their own lore (Cylostra) but why can't they make Araby which is requested by people?
  • Deep_echo_soundDeep_echo_sound Posts: 447Registered Users
    jamreal18 said:

    Cylostra - no one expects and requested

    Araby - many people are waiting

    ------------

    CA has freedom to make their own lore (Cylostra) but why can't they make Araby which is requested by people?

    True!
    Cylostra is very bad! Fat old ghost as legendary lord is just an awful game design.

    Araby is interesting and popular.
  • Cortes31Cortes31 Posts: 697Registered Users
    edited September 18
    https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/d523if/dear_player_experience_manager_a_message_from_our/f0o89yf/?context=3

    Araby is dead for sure.

    Ares354 said:

    Cortes31 said:

    Ares354 said:

    I go with political reason.

    This or GW saying no because they can't remake it for use in AoS.

    didint LM go into space and are not AoS race ? Same goes for V.Coast who are not part of AoS race ?

    LM are renamed but playable in AoS, no?

    As for V.Coast, people were begging GW to make them for AoS, which led to this:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/ageofsigmar/comments/9m7r5e/so_gw_responded_to_my_request_for_vampire_coast/

    I can see Coast making it into AoS but Araby? Kislev? Not so much.
    "In brightest day, in blackest night,
    No faction shall escape my sight.
    Let those who think deniers are right
    Beware my power--Faction Lantern's light!"

    Everythime a faction/race is excluded from the trilogy, these games become smaller. RIP Araby and others.
  • NyxilisNyxilis Posts: 3,008Registered Users
    Xenos7 said:

    Btw Cylostra is an example why GW should not give CA too much creative freedom since she is a really really bad character

    Compared to such brilliant examples of characters as Ghorst? C'mon. GW made plenty of generic duds themselves. There are entire White Dwarfs, Citadel Journals and campaign supplements littered with them.
    Ghorst isn't bad, he just has very little lore. A guy loses his family and becomes a crazy necromancer. Very simple, stereotypical fantasy story. Cylostra is actively bad.
    I don't agree and I'm a detractor. There were existing characters. That's what the majority were miffed about. Cylostra as stand alone is fine when compared to gw standard which can be at times generic or yes even bad.
Sign In or Register to comment.