View Full Version : 7 Cultures
[EB]Demulon
11-11-2007, 21:45
7 cultures which I think were most noticable and should be included:
Roman (obviously in Italy) and will expand as the Republic grows
Phoenician - Carthage, Tyre and perhaps a minority along coastal towns to reflect trade enclaves?
Hellene - Greece, Macedon, Epirus, noticable minorities from Anatolia to Baktria, Persepolis, major cities of Ptolemy, Massilia, Sicilian towns, Taras, minority trader groups/mercenaries in throughout the Mediterranean?
Celt - maps show that they were abundant for Casse, Gallic factions, Iberia, southern Germany to modern Poland, Bulgaria. Galatia and minorities in other Anatolian towns?
Persian - old satraps: Anatolia to Baktria/Persepolis, minorities in Egypt?
Eastern Barbarian - represents any miscellaneous cultures east of the Bosphorus (steppe nomads, Arabians)
Western Barbarian - west of the Bosphorus (Iberians, Germans, Finnic tribes)
I just don't know where Africans would fit in this....
Any thoughts?
Aside from that, I think that EB could populate the map with these 7 cultures.:2thumbsup:
How many cultures can there be? 'Eastern/Western Barbarians' doesn't sound EB like at all.
Malik of Sindh
11-12-2007, 01:42
7 cultures maximum.
Well I'm sure the EB team will work something out that's presentable. They always do.
My best bet would be something like
Roman
Greek
Celt
Nomad
Phoenician
Iberian
German
Lets see... In no particular order
Romani - Roman
Epeiros - Greek
Koinon Hellenon - Greek
Makedonia - Greek
AS - Greek
Ptolemaioi - Greek
Karthadastim - Phoenician
Lusotannan - Iberian
Aedui - Celt
Casse - Celt
Arverni - Celt
Sweboz - German
Getai - Celt?
Pavlah - Greek/Nomad (depending on govt, I suppose)
Sauromatae - Nomad
Saka - Nomad
Saba - ?
Backtria - Greek
Pontos - Greek? Nomad? What?
Hayasdan - Nomad?
Of course there are cultures that are only used once that could be replaced with something else. German and Celt culture are close enough that they can share, and Iberian's are as well. I can also see a case for Persian or Armenian (Persian could be more inclusive than Armenian, perhaps). I don't know anything about the Saba other than glancing at it's info while choosing a campaign.
What's wrong with EB using the current system?
[EB]Demulon
11-12-2007, 22:44
EB currently does not use cultures, Dumbass. Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
So here's the situation. It seems we have 5 cultures that are likely to be used. Two more to reflect the hundred remaining cultures of Europe, Asia, and Africa. The Germans, I don't think, were much of a threat to the status quo prior to the end of the Roman Republic, and the chances of them imposing their culture on the neighbouring Celts. Likewise, I don't think Africans and Arabians were in a position to create a large empire as this time, like conquering and Africanizing Carthage for example.
Here's what I think will be the cultural makeups of certain regions...
Italian Peninsula - Celts in the northern regions, perhaps with a small Roman minority (5%) to reflect traders etc. This would also give the player, and hopefully, AI an incentive to bring these minorities into the 'rightful' faction.
Romans would represent a majority, perhaps with a miscellaneous culture to reflect the Samnites, Campanians, etc which in time would become Romanized. In the south and in Sicily, would be a Greek majority, say 90% Greek and the other 10% being Roman and Phoenician colonists.
Anatolia - Greek and Persian majority (that is, if the Greeks did not assimilate the Persians by 272BC). Some 30% Celt population in Thrace, some 80% in Galatia. Also, there could be a misc. culture to reflect the mountainous peoples who escaped Greek or Persian assimilation?
Bactria - mostly steppe nomads and Persians with a Greek minority. This would compel that faction to recruit fewer Greek units and rely more on native troops:2thumbsup:
Egypt - this one will be tricky. Obviously, the Greeks were in charge at this time, but what about the rest of the country? Sure, there were likely still some Persians, but what about the Africans, the Egyptians etc. Should they be all listed under Other?
As it stands, all cultures unfortunately cannot be represented so I think it would be best to focus on the cultures that had a likely chance at expanding into large empires:egypt:
I must have mis-read your last post Demulon. Cultures determine the general's portraits and GUI a faction uses, and likewise, determines what kind of portraits a rebel settlement will use, not the ethical make-up in a certain region. :inquisitive:
He is (I assume) talking about removing 'religion' and replacing it with 'culture' (as was done in Britannia).
IrishArmenian
11-13-2007, 02:11
Bellum, lose the 'Iberian' (they could be given a Celtic culture) and add... I don't like the word 'Persian' as so maybe Former Satrapy? Hayastan is not nomadic, we never were.
Ohhhh! I thought this was the culture, which seemed odd as you already had seven good ones for EB.
[EB]Demulon
11-13-2007, 03:46
:wall: I didn't know that cultures deal with portraits.
To stereotype ancient cultures based on modern popular cultures....
I would assume that Celts would be characterized though long red/blonde hair?
Nomads with long hair and several tattoos?
Greeks with togas and Corinthian helmets?
Arabians with darker skin complexion?
Romans - in classic EB1 attire.
Persians with darker hair, covered with jewelry
etc...
Um, is there going to be African negroes represented? I don't think they were too important in the development of Europe during this time, so to avoid having to make portraits for them I would contract the current map to the borders of Numidia and the northern Nile:egypt:
I can't wait to see how EB will represent cultures!
The EB team tries to fully represent factions geographically, at least at the start of the game. Making the map smaller would
1: Not change all that much as the Sahara isn't a usual region, and does serve a purpose
2: Remove the Saba from the game and greatly limit Ptolemy.
Pharnakes
11-13-2007, 14:09
Well, IDK but surely eb2 wil just use the 7 cultures we already have, and assign a religon to each culture.
Though I was thinking if you could somehow "Cross combine" the two methods, to give you 49 possibilties (7X7). Then each faction could have a unique culture. I haven't workes it through in any detail, though I beilive it something, could possibly be done.
Would be really cool if each faction could have a "unique" culture.
MarcusAureliusAntoninus
11-13-2007, 20:19
Cultures in EB2 will probably be the same as they are in EB1. However 'culture' as religion may be a different grouping. For example, if 'Hellenistic' is one of the groups then it would include the cultures 'Western Greek', 'Eastern Greek', and 'Roman'. Things like this would allow the culture settings and 'relgious' 'cultures' to be different from eachother.
The team hasn't really made any decisions about this, though.
CaesarAugustus
11-15-2007, 01:33
Culture as religion would be interesting, but how would the population be "converted"? Would there be a priest-like unit (bad idea). Or would it be affected by building your faction's buildings, or government type, or exterminating the population and then allow it to grow again with settlers?
I'm in favor of as slow a rate of change as possible, effected, of course, by traits and building's. Colonies, for instance, would noticeably increase rate of change, and having buildings of the same culture in general should also have some effect.
Hello I would like to ask: how will the EB team deal with familly member portraits in EB2? Will you import the ones from Rome Total war or some other option is on the table?
IrishArmenian
11-15-2007, 23:57
Maybe certain limits could be coded? Say there can only be a minimum of 30% of a native culture in an area, for example.
Pharnakes
11-16-2007, 00:53
In many cases, not really historicaly true, though. If it is even possible. And given how religon works, it would be all but impossible to conquer anywhere but your own culture.
gamegeek2
11-16-2007, 04:59
How about:
Iberian-Caucasian (language links; tentative) Iberi, Lusotanaan, etc.
Greco-Roman (they are very similar) - Romani, KH, Maks, etc.
Indo-Iranian - Baktria, Pahlava, Pontos, Hayasadan
Celtic - Casse, Arverni, Aedui, Belgae, Celtiberi, Norici, etc.
Germanic - Sweboz, Heruskoz, etc.
Afro-Asiatic/Semitic - Sab'yn, Ponnim, Feenikim, Aithiopkoi, etc.
Paleo-Balkan (includes Balto-Slavic, heritage links) Getai, Thraikioi, etc.
[EB]Demulon
11-16-2007, 05:11
yeah it was the Britain campaign that got me thinking about cultural conversion and the like. I played as the Irish and had expelled the English from Ireland, and noticed that the English majority in the north slowly began to become Irish.
Then I began to think of how this could be applied to my favorite mod.
I think that cultural conversion could take place in many forms.
exterminating the population would be the quickest way to remove undesirable cultures, but this would make your recent conquest unprofitable in the long run.
Making them slaves would help dilute the population, but expect mad unrest!
Simply occupying the settlement should play out much differently. If it could be implemented I would like it to take longer to subjugate larger settlements than smaller ones.
Building a lvl. 1 gov't should be the primary means of cultural conversion. That being said, it should take very long to build and should lead to much unrest. This would force you and the AI to keep large garrisons in these towns until the natives become complacent with your rule.
On the other side, a lvl. 4 puppet government should be quick to build and lead to minimal unrest. However, income should be much lower for this region, while the player will only be allowed to construct limited buildings. Only military buildings and those based on trade and should be allowed to be built ie. garrisons, roads. Cultural buildings like shrines and theaters should be restricted for lvl. 4 gov'ts. In essence, they will be a quick solution to invasion and any altercation in gov't, such as lvl. 2 and lvl. 3 gov'ts, should be met with increasing resistance, respectively.
lvl. 2 and lvl. 3 gov'ts should quicken cultural conversion rate.
I think building military settler and trade colonies should minimally alter the conversion rate.
Other buildings like wonders should affect culture as well. ie, keeping old Persian wonders will make it harder for a Greek power to enforce its culture in the east. Other starting wonders should continue to affect cultures well into the game, such as Alexander's tomb, which, if not destroyed, will continue to Hellenize Egypt. It would be a welcome bonus if destroying such structures would anger those it appeases. So destroying that massive temple of Zeus should still give you a lot of money, but will trigger a stack of pissed off Eleutheroi.
Overall, cultural conversion should take place at a slow rate (or fast depending on how much money you are willing to spend) so that raising a Roman majority in Cisalpine Gaul will take some 400 turns...that is, if you don't massacre the native Celts and set up a Roman majority in a land with virtually no people.
:thrasher:
Here you would have to find a balance between reality and balance. Social movement between peoples quite often leads to conflict. Things that happened a thousand years ago still have an effect on conflicts today, from global to local.
Having a province that you need to win the game and having to initiate multiple genocide programs to control is a problem we already have in some places, though, and no one likes that.
Iberian-Caucasian (language links; tentative) Iberi, Lusotanaan, etc.
WTF!? What has the Iberian peninsular got to do with the Caucasus other than the greeks called a small Kingdom by the same name as they called the peninsular in western europe. They have nothing to do with each other.
Foot
IrishArmenian
11-18-2007, 22:50
Thanks, foot. Was about to jump on that.
Pharnakes
11-19-2007, 00:28
What needs to be done, is wrk out a way to change the rate of cultual assimilation according to which goverment type you install.
Also maybe type 1 govs could "reform" and become avalible once a prov is say >90% your culture?
Dibran88
11-27-2007, 01:24
your missing the Illiriyan culture. although historians say illiriyans and hellens evolved from pelasgian, they still were seperate cultures at that time. why do you forget to incorporate this? illiriya played a big part at that time.
And you're forgetting the hardcodes. And, seeing as there's no faction in Illyria at the moment, they're not exactly going to get precedence.
Dibran88
11-27-2007, 02:02
Actually Iliriya was a faction, they controlled what today is Albania and Kosova, as well as part of Epiros. they never collapsed or assimilated, they were defeated by Alexander and joined his ranks. but an iliriya did exist, because if anything Alexander united the warring Iliriyan tribes. So YES it should be considered, as every mod ignores this faction, and if they acknowledge them. they are unplayable rebels. which is ridiculous. even m2tw mods base in the time of ottoman occupation leaves Albania out of playable factions, when they won independence and terribly hurt the ottoman empire. I find it quite ridiculous how lesser involved factions are incorporated into a game. when Iliriyan's even thought controlled by others were a faction. if this mod is trying to aim for historical accuracy, then they should incorporate it. because if i can step in as the Hellene faction and conquer all of Europe thats not necessarily historical accuracy. The team should widen there horizons, and incorporate factions that every European and medieval mod leaves out, if they have played an important role at that time which ILIRIYA undoubtedly did. I'm not here to create an argument. But i believe everyone deserves to see the Illiriyan faction in game. I have red some topics and a lot of people want to see Iliriya as a playable faction. And if your trying to satisfy the requests of your gamers. you should incorporate it. With all do respect all historians have mentioned Illiriya as a major role taker in European history. and with that being said. whether they were an empire or not they are important. and should not be unplayable rebels.
Firstly, Illyria wasn't united as a single power in this time period. Secondly, I was talking about there being no faction there in game. Thirdly, EB aren't going to consider an Illyrian tribe as a faction just because other mods don't. If you're desperate to play Illryia, then I think RTR has it.
Firstly, Illyria wasn't united as a single power in this time period. Secondly, I was talking about there being no faction there in game. Thirdly, EB aren't going to consider an Illyrian tribe as a faction just because other mods don't. If you're desperate to play Illryia, then I think RTR has it.
No, they are not united as a a single power but neither are the dacian/getae, germanic tribes and gallic tribes. You represent these people by the most powerful tribes (ie, for the Illyroi, the Ardiaei). There are 10 new factions in EB2, and I think Illyria should be top of the list.
Hence why I said about an Illyrian tribe being represented. :shrug:
cyberVIP
11-30-2007, 08:41
How about:
Iberian-Caucasian (language links; tentative) Iberi, Lusotanaan, etc.
Greco-Roman (they are very similar) - Romani, KH, Maks, etc.
Indo-Iranian - Baktria, Pahlava, Pontos, Hayasadan
Celtic - Casse, Arverni, Aedui, Belgae, Celtiberi, Norici, etc.
Germanic - Sweboz, Heruskoz, etc.
Afro-Asiatic/Semitic - Sab'yn, Ponnim, Feenikim, Aithiopkoi, etc.
Paleo-Balkan (includes Balto-Slavic, heritage links) Getai, Thraikioi, etc.
Hello, my 50 cent coin:
change Iberian-caucasus(what exectly do u meen i wonder) with NOMADIC, couse minimum 2 factions has it: Sarmatae and Saka (+emerging Yezhi). By the other hand there are almost no differences between CELTIC and IBERIAN `cultures` if you compare it with nomadic.
AND give Saba NOMADIC culture. This gives logical freedom to SEMITIC culture to spread out around mideterranium basin (ponnim colonies).
p.s. We are understand `way of life, menthality, way of worship` as `culture`, aren`t?
Strategos Alexandros
11-30-2007, 16:05
Saba are semitic already and IMO the team should keep the cultures as they are.
Mouzafphaerre
11-30-2007, 16:28
.
...and they weren't nomad anyway.
.
Perhaps religion could be used to represent political organisation?
We have 7 slots, which is more than enough.
You could have a number of systems represented:
Democracy (Certain Greek States)
Tribal (many babarian settlements and factions, early Pahlav)
Monarchic (Diadochi, perhaps Averni, late Rome)
Republic (Republican Rome)
Commercial Oligarchy (Carthage, maybe settlements like Rhodes)
Theocratic (no actual factions, but present in Egypt and maybe India)
Each faction could have a starting "religion" (=politcal organistation) but this could change: Rome was rent later in our period by oligarchic, democratic and monarchic tendencies. The Koinon Hellenion faction woukld be rent from the start by Oligarchic/Democractic clashes
There would be buildings that gave a conversion bonus to a particular system: tribal assembly gives 5% to tribal, tribal confederation gives 10% etc.
Theocratic cities could start with a "temple administration" building giving a huge happiness bonus to offset the religion penalty, but a massive conversion bionus: Egypt was notorious impervious to outside influences until the advent of christianity. however if you want to "politically convert" that population by destroying the theocracy then you will undergo massive upheaval.
Other buildings could skew a settlment toward a political inclination. Eg a stable building could give a 5% conversion rate to oligarchy: if you have equites, they get organised politically. A "grain dole" building might tend to democracy (as well as hapiness), as would a hoplite barracks (but not a phalanx training ground)
Camillan and Polybian barracks might give an oligarchic bonus, but Imperial barracks would give a monarchic bonus.
Certain buildings could give ancillaries witha political conversion bonus (demagogue, magistrate, tribal chief etc), faction leadership could give a conversion bonus etc.
I'm making this up as I go along, I'm guessing there's not enough buildings to make it work, but it occurs to me that its a way of getting some shades of political colour into the game. Gives a player a reason to massacre certain cities, whiuch was present historically (eg Alexander with Thebes, Rome with several enemies).
Aw, so close to what I have in mind.
Foot
I Am Herenow
12-06-2007, 08:59
I'm a bit confused about the theocracy bit, though - didn't everyone worship a god or gods?
Strategos Alexandros
12-06-2007, 10:03
It means they thought of their king as a god, like the Arverni and ancient Egyptians did. Aedui would possibly be a democracy as well.
The Aedui would be closer to a republic, though that isn't really totally it either; the upper government echelons would be a 'republic' (elected officials, magistrates, etc.), but they were organizational over local kings and other nobles. The Arverni would be closer to a monarchy than a theocracy structurally.
Mouzafphaerre
12-06-2007, 18:06
.
Perhaps religion could be used to represent political organisation?
We have 7 slots, which is more than enough.
You could have a number of systems represented:
Democracy (Certain Greek States)
Tribal (many babarian settlements and factions, early Pahlav)
Monarchic (Diadochi, perhaps Averni, late Rome)
Republic (Republican Rome)
Commercial Oligarchy (Carthage, maybe settlements like Rhodes)
Theocratic (no actual factions, but present in Egypt and maybe India)
Each faction could have a starting "religion" (=politcal organistation) but this could change: Rome was rent later in our period by oligarchic, democratic and monarchic tendencies. The Koinon Hellenion faction woukld be rent from the start by Oligarchic/Democractic clashes
There would be buildings that gave a conversion bonus to a particular system: tribal assembly gives 5% to tribal, tribal confederation gives 10% etc.
Theocratic cities could start with a "temple administration" building giving a huge happiness bonus to offset the religion penalty, but a massive conversion bionus: Egypt was notorious impervious to outside influences until the advent of christianity. however if you want to "politically convert" that population by destroying the theocracy then you will undergo massive upheaval.
Other buildings could skew a settlment toward a political inclination. Eg a stable building could give a 5% conversion rate to oligarchy: if you have equites, they get organised politically. A "grain dole" building might tend to democracy (as well as hapiness), as would a hoplite barracks (but not a phalanx training ground)
Camillan and Polybian barracks might give an oligarchic bonus, but Imperial barracks would give a monarchic bonus.
Certain buildings could give ancillaries witha political conversion bonus (demagogue, magistrate, tribal chief etc), faction leadership could give a conversion bonus etc.
I'm making this up as I go along, I'm guessing there's not enough buildings to make it work, but it occurs to me that its a way of getting some shades of political colour into the game. Gives a player a reason to massacre certain cities, whiuch was present historically (eg Alexander with Thebes, Rome with several enemies).
Aw, so close to what I have in mind.
Foot
Cyclops is blessed. :yes:
.
Thanks guys, but its all wind at the moment as I haven't thought it through and lack the modding skill to do anything about it.
It means they thought of their king as a god, like the Arverni and ancient Egyptians did. Aedui would possibly be a democracy as well.
Several monarchies had 'god-kings" but I'm thinking more of societies where the administration is in the hands of the priests, rather than the priesthoods in the hands of the administration.
Babylon or Minoan Crete prior to our period, Egypt and possibly parts of India had a society where big temples acted as administrative units, landlords, meted out justice etc.
In Rome or Athens leading men became priests and it was a source of prestige, but not a seat of power.
In order to represent the contrasting/conflicting political styles of Averni, Casse and Aedui you could have the British as tribal, the Aedui as a republic or an oligarchy, and the Averni as a monarchy. I know the Averni was an elective monarchy, but this is more about representing tendencies than absolute systems.
You'd need to pick and assign the styles appropriately. Its cute to have tension between Sparta and Athens, but silly if Athens revolts to the Carthaginians (for example).
Yitzhakofeir
12-11-2007, 10:05
Could there possibly be an emerging Judean faction to represent the Hasmonean revolt? Or is that just a stupid idea?
Yitzhakofeir
12-11-2007, 10:12
Could there possibly be an emerging Judean faction to represent the Hasmonean revolt? Or is that just a stupid idea?
Wait, sorry, posted this to the wrong thread. Ignore what I wrote.
DoomKaiser
12-14-2007, 18:51
Really GREAT idea but
1)the theocratic is promblematic: Egypt din't have thocracy until Cleopatra. All the other ptolemies spoke greek and had greek customs and Cleopatra adopted egyptian (:egypt:) customs. Of cource the greek 'pharaohs' had 'let' the egyptians to worship them but they din't care. So maybe monarchy fits better to egypt (until cleopatra).
2)The spread of these political forms maybe promblematic:
If the athenians(or koinon hellenon) take an african, iberian colony or something the locals will be crazy to adopt democracy! Also in koinon hellenon there were Democracy(athens), Commercial Oligarchy(corinth,corfu,thebes-i think) , Monarchy(sparta). So if Koinon hellenon is one it will be great promblem. (the one region will affect the other). So ways must be found to prevent the spreading sometimes.
I really find this idea great- i would never think of something like that if eb2modders solve this 2 promblems (the second mainly) then no way they don't put it in eb2
I Am Herenow
12-14-2007, 21:35
Well, actually, maybe having the KH being ripped apart by different "religions" and threatening to explode at any moment (for the player, at any rate) would be a good thing? It would be a way to model disunity, stop the KH from steamrolling right from the start and force the player to "expand inwards" and stop his faction from falling apart (RWE-style, BI players)?
antisocialmunky
12-15-2007, 15:22
But wouldn't it be weird to look at the settlement scroll and see 70% republican 29% Democrat 1% Naked and Fanatical? Though, I agree that it would be REALLY cool to have individuals be able to affect the government type in cities especially Rome.
DoomKaiser
12-17-2007, 15:47
Well, actually, maybe having the KH being ripped apart by different "religions" and threatening to explode at any moment (for the player, at any rate) would be a good thing? It would be a way to model disunity, stop the KH from steamrolling right from the start and force the player to "expand inwards" and stop his faction from falling apart (RWE-style, BI players)?
good idea; However it won't be easy to balance.
1)Athens generally must have a steady +democracy bonus. So that even if you (a monarchist) want , wont be easy for you to change their political views. In mtw with 2 priests is very easy to change in a region the faith they have. This is not good for the balance. Also, if in lets say cordoba(mtw2 talking) you had 1 priest and temple after 10-20 no muslims exist there! Now it would be crazy to conquer athens and make them monarchist so fast.
2)From the opposite side athens must never have 100% democracy. I mean always there were oligarchists,...
Generally the change must be more slow..
3)MOST IMPORTANT: in a city where meny republicans live must be more friendly to democrats than to monarchists for example. These 'religions'(political views) must not be completely independant but must have relations:
republic close to democracy(++)
monarchy to olligarchy(+)
republic to oligarchy(+)
So if rome conquers athens then athens must adopt more easily republic than monarchy.
antisocialmunky
12-17-2007, 16:17
Here's a thought. Could we link unit recruitment to this like in the Brittania campaign? It'd bring up some interesting possibilities such as RPing the KH to turn all of Greece into a Spartan military camp.
I Am Herenow
12-17-2007, 17:44
1)Athens generally must have a steady +democracy bonus. So that even if you (a monarchist) want , wont be easy for you to change their political views. In mtw with 2 priests is very easy to change in a region the faith they have. This is not good for the balance. Also, if in lets say cordoba(mtw2 talking) you had 1 priest and temple after 10-20 no muslims exist there! Now it would be crazy to conquer athens and make them monarchist so fast.
Why not just either remove priests (or sim.) or make their conversion power much weaker than that of a "temple"?
2)From the opposite side athens must never have 100% democracy. I mean always there were oligarchists,...
3)MOST IMPORTANT: in a city where meny republicans live must be more friendly to democrats than to monarchists for example. These 'religions'(political views) must not be completely independant but must have relations:
republic close to democracy(++)
monarchy to olligarchy(+)
republic to oligarchy(+)
So if rome conquers athens then athens must adopt more easily republic than monarchy.
That seems quite easy to solve (assuming the hardcode allows it): why not have "temples" to Democracy offer 25% Democracy, 10% Republic and 5% Oligarchy conversion, for example?
DoomKaiser
12-19-2007, 12:04
Why not just either remove priests (or sim.) or make their conversion power much weaker than that of a "temple"? That seems quite easy to solve (assuming the hardcode allows it): why not have "temples" to Democracy offer 25% Democracy, 10% Republic and 5% Oligarchy conversion, for example?
If you have 25% democracy and all the other lets say 20% in the end there will be 100% democracy i think.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.