What happened in this world?

flaja

Banned
Can anyone tell me what the icons representing the charter for each territory are supposed to do? I can click on them and the game will tell me what they are, but what are they used for?
 

flaja

Banned
I’ve never played with any faction other than the English and the first time I came close to conquering the whole map (excluding the islands which I didn’t know how to attack at the time) the game would seldom let me go a turn without having a rebellion in one of my provinces or having a long-dead faction be resurrected. Is the game supposed to do this? Does it do it with all factions controlled by a human player or just the English? Is it a bug in the program?
 
Games like this need a chain of command function so you can issue one set of general orders and have the game take care of the details. Once you have about half the map conquered, you have to worry every turn if you’ve missed a province that needed to have its orders updated.

Actually in M2TW you can do that. You can set it so that your A.I. advisor takes care of the building needs for each of your settlements. I don't really trust the A.I.s that much, after my first taste of bankruptcy as the English I prefered to manage everything by myself

The map also needs a zoom function. If you have too many units in a small province you spend too much time clicking on units you didn’t intend to activate because the units are too close together pick the exact one you want.


Are you talking about the original Medieval Total War or the second one? Asking, because in M2TW its impossible for that to happen.

I’ve never played with any faction other than the English and the first time I came close to conquering the whole map (excluding the islands which I didn’t know how to attack at the time)


Same here for the original game, thoughI haven't played it in a year or two. In M2TW, I lost twice before winning a long campaign as the Byzantine Empire and later on as Scicily

the game would seldom let me go a turn without having a rebellion in one of my provinces or having a long-dead faction be resurrected.


Keep sufficent troops in the province if your talking about MTW or settlement if your talking about M2TW. Peasents and militia may suck at fighting but using them as a cheap garrision to help raise the loyalty of the province/settlement is a great way to reduce rebellion. Also in M2TW build some buildings like churces, brothels, and others to raise loyalty.

 
You base this on what? How could a political mess have engineered Agincourt and a hereditary/marriage claim to the throne of France?

By virtue of good fortune. Henry V was a good general and his soldiers fought well. It doesn't change the fact that England was politically unstable and the roots of the war of the Roses were already there.

Richard II came to power too young, suffered the peasants revolt, then a series of political crisises and was eventually deposed in 1399.
Henry IV suffered a similar number of rebellions, perhaps most notably Glyndwr in Wales, and assassination attempts.
Henry V managed to win at Agincourt, but he was king for only nine years. Not a great length of time when administration is so dependent upon a stable monarchy.
Worse still you then had Henry VI become king while still a child and thats rarely good for a nation in this period either. Oh and he became increasingly mentally unstable as time went on. Anyway over the next thirty to forty years you have disputes bubbling away which would eventually lead to open civil war.
 
I know this might is a bit irrelevant to the thread, but does anyone here know more information on Empire : Total War beside the FAQ on the Total War website?
 

flaja

Banned
Actually in M2TW you can do that. You can set it so that your A.I. advisor takes care of the building needs for each of your settlements. I don't really trust the A.I.s that much, after my first taste of bankruptcy as the English I prefered to manage everything by myself

I’m not talking about any advisor because the computer can say you need one thing when you want something else. You need to be able to tell the computer what you want produced in every province without having to issue order to every single province.

Are you talking about the original Medieval Total War or the second one? Asking, because in M2TW its impossible for that to happen.

I’ve got the 2nd version. It’s hard to believe that the user interface in a 2nd version of a program actually gets worse.

Same here for the original game, thoughI haven't played it in a year or two. In M2TW, I lost twice before winning a long campaign as the
Byzantine Empire and later on as Scicily


Actually, I came this close to taking the whole map the first time I played a whole game. I played a few times before, but just to figure out how the game works. I’ve quite several games without finishing, but I’ve never lost a game in that I lost the provinces that I started with.

Keep sufficent troops in the province if your talking about MTW or settlement if your talking about M2TW. Peasents and militia may suck at fighting but using them as a cheap garrision to help raise the loyalty of the province/settlement is a great way to reduce rebellion. Also in M2TW build some buildings like churces, brothels, and others to raise loyalty.


This is one of the aspects about the game that I don’t like. The 2nd version of Civilization is the same way- too many options to keep tract of.
 

flaja

Banned
By virtue of good fortune. Henry V was a good general and his soldiers fought well.

It doesn’t take politics to keep a well-trained, well-paid, well-fed and well-lead army in the field?

As King, Henry V actively ran the government of England. He re-buried Richard II with honors and he took steps to reconcile England’s political factions and he restored the property and titles that his own father had taken from some of the Nobles. He maintained religious harmony of a sort by suppressing the Lollards even though his grandfather, John of Gaunt, had been Wycliffe’s protector.

Aside from the Southampton Plot, the rest of Henry V’s reign in England was calm.

So where are getting the idea English politics preceding Henry VI and the War of the Roses and the end of the Hundred Years War were in such turmoil?
 

Titus_Pullo

Banned
So where are getting the idea English politics preceding Henry VI and the War of the Roses and the end of the Hundred Years War were in such turmoil?

Christopher Thomas Allmand retired professor of Medieval History from the University of Liverpool, England. The Hundred Years War: England and France at War, c.1300-c.1450, Cambridge University Press, 1988

Braudel, Fernand The Perspective of the World, Vol III of Civilization and Capitalism 1984

And scores of other professional historians.

Where are you getting the idea that it wasn't?

Political and social instability was a prominent feature in both France and England at the time of the Hundred Years War and certainly in the era preceeding Henry VI and the War of the Roses to answer your question. Like the French peasant revolts of 1358, who carried the burden of the exorbitant taxes to help raise the ransom price of John II after Poitiers, the English peasant revolt thirty years later in 1381 was also aimed at the English aristocracy. Due to a population decrease, there was also labor shortage in England by the 1380s. In addition, the feudal aristocracy used their power to keep wages low. The English rebellion spread from Essex then in Kent and Canterbury. The target of their violence were the feudal lords and their properties.

In addition to the political turmoil going on in 14th century England and France, there was also the issue of plague, climate change, soil exhaustion, and agricultural decline. The agricultural production of the High Middle Ages began to exceed the limits of the agricultural economy and the onset of what is known as the Little Ice age cooled the climate which in turn shortened the growing season. Increase in rainfall also increased flooding hence agriculture was drastically affected especially in Northern Europe including England. The Hundred Years War only further excacerbated the agricultural decline.

Also, in terms of population, France was at 17 million, while England had 4 million at the beginning of the Hundred Years War. And despite the plague, and famine that took its toll on the population, France continued to have more population and thus more manpower than England. (Mc Evedy, Colin, and Richard Jones, Atlas of World Population History. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1978, pp. 41–43, 55–58. )
So in terms of manpower alone, England was at a disadvantage.

Finally, you keep harping on about the English not being defeated had Henry V still been in charge. That I'm afraid is a value judgement that's difficult if not impossible to prove, given the external factors beyond anyone's control taking place in Europe. In this respect, English loss in the Hundred Years War can also in large part be attributed to the natural catastrophe taking place in Europe at the time, (which I'm afraid not even Henry V) could have controlled. This again should not detract from the fact that the French also had home court advantage, learned from the folly of its bullheaded tactics of brute force, by now engaging the English in more fabian tactics, (wearing them out further), professionalization of the French army from a feudal one, as well as the fact that the Hundred Years War turned the French army into the best army in Europe. If the French army learned anything from this war, it was the inneficiency of the old feudal levy. The old warrior nobles couldn't be relied on too much on long campaigns. Many of them turned mercenary and to downright banditry during peacetime because they refused to disband until the sovereign has paid them in full. The French ordinances established the professionalization of the army by enabling the French monarch raise permanent units of Gendarme companies of 15 each with one hunded lances. These men signed a contract which established the amount of time they were to be kept in service. By 1534 the composition of these companies change to 40 heavy gendarmes and sixty mounted archers. With the advances of firearms technology, 50 arquebusier light cavalry was added to the companies. Sixteenth century warfare is epitomized by these Gendarme companies who were reknowned for their elan and reckless courage which as I said previously if propery used could turn an enemy to route. In this respect, the French army can be compared to the earlier Roman army who's humiliating losses at the hands of Hannibal made it possible for them to adapt. The French may have taken over a hundred years to adapt, but when they did they turned France into the most dominant country on the continent for until atleast the Napoleonic defeat.
 
Last edited:
What are you talking about it took me forever to beat M2TW with a single faction? Besides the time it takes for the management for all of your cities, the battles, spies, diplomacy, economy, war, and many other stuff takes quite a long time to do with more conquest it takes longer. At the begining of the game each turn takes me about a minute or less and at the end each turn takes me around 10-30minutes not including the battles. And besides do you know how long it takes for ships to reach the America's and the Aztecs got a ungodful advantage over the distance add to the fact that they fielded 2-3 full armies against my 500 troops I managed to deploy in the America's in my first wave. Also the hardest part of the game is money, war and armies takes a heavy beating on how much money you recieve.
Winning battles is so easy that a good general with a nice army can conquer a small faction early game or conquer a lot of a big faction. With all those extra income you can spam even more units in differend directions. I've never seen the timurid invasion because everytime i was tired of controlling half of europe, having war with 5 other factions and spamming units in 4 directions.

Apart from that I also dont like the unhistorically gameplay and the shit diplomacy.
 

flaja

Banned
Christopher Thomas Allmand retired professor of Medieval History from the University of Liverpool, England. The Hundred Years War:
England and France at War, c.1300-c.1450, Cambridge University Press, 1988

Braudel, Fernand The Perspective of the World, Vol III of Civilization and Capitalism 1984

And scores of other professional historians.

Where are you getting the idea that it wasn't?


Winston Churchill for a start.

the English peasant revolt thirty years later in 1381 was also aimed at the English aristocracy.

And was put down with little in the way of immediate consequences. For most of France’s history as a kingdom the crown governed little more than Paris. Since 1066 England seldom had any period when royal authority didn’t extend the length and width of England. Most political turmoil came as the English tried to extend their hegemony over Wales and Scotland or fight the French.

Due to a population decrease, there was also labor shortage in
England by the 1380s.


Which meant that feudalism had to give way to a market economy, which was beneficial in the long run.

In addition, the feudal aristocracy used their power to keep wages low.

Impossible with a falling population, i.e., a decrease in the labor supply.

In addition to the political turmoil going on in 14th century
England and France, there was also the issue of plague, climate change, soil exhaustion, and agricultural decline.


All of which were inter-related and beyond the ability of any government to control. Furthermore, these factors affected all of Europe, not just England. They did not lead to any country having an advantage over any other.

Also, in terms of population,
France was at 17 million, while England had 4 million at the beginning of the Hundred Years War.


How many of these 17,000,000 French were loyal to the French crown and not subject to or allied with the English? Remember, it was not the English that captured Joan of Arc, but rather the Burgundians.

Finally, you keep harping on about the English not being defeated had Henry V still been in charge.

Considering Henry V’s history, this is a fair claim.
 
Top