Faction pitch idea: To fill the gap in Carpathian basin

[Diodredai]

Hello there Europa Barbarorum II! First of all I would like to thank the mod creators for this incredible mod, that has kept me entertained for several years now, yet I have been compelled to create a user here on Totalwar.org.

Now to the matter at hand: I would like to ask first of all if development is in such a state, that adding a faction would be impossible, too much work/slot issues/ exct. If yes, then please do not regard the following paragraph, just point this out! Thank you.

Now back to matter at hand: the Carpathian basin is the forefront of Indo-European and Iranian migration into europe: 800 BC 'The Mezőcsát' culture/people (ancient Iranian people (their names are unkown), who became a part of the Cimmerians/Kimmerians (Greek: Κιμμέριοι), circa 500 BC, the so called "Alföldi" (southern plane) (Skythians who defeated the Cimmerians, and threw them across the river Danube) Sigynnae (researchers are debating to this day, are they Iranian tribe, or Thracian, one thing is certain they were part of the Iranian migration wave [subjects of the Agathyrsi (a people with a Skythian noble class, and ruling over mixed Thracian-Skythian people)], and in the 5th century BC the Illyrian Pannon people migrate to the eastern parts of transdanubia. Then from the 4th century BC all the way to circa 60-50 BC is marked by the Celtic period, the Scordisci, the Taurisci, and in 150 BC marks the arrival of the Boii people into the basin. In 55 BC, the Dacian ruler Burebista, king of an alliance of Dacian people, defeated the Celts, which allowed the creation of Dacian trading settlements found in modern day southern Slovakia. From 9 AD the Roman Empire conquers Pannonia Illyrica, and Pannonia which starts the Roman times, in which several uprisings are led by the Pannonians against the Romans, all being put down violently. During this period a vast number of settlements such as Aquinqum and Sophianae begin their rise as cultural and trading centers.

Briefly the paragraph above this text explains what happens in the Carpathian basin during this time, as you can see, we had a very colourful past. Now onto my proposal:

A new faction: the Pannon tribal alliance
Starting areas would be Pannonica Illyrica, with the home town of Segestica and in terms of expansion, the following provinces would be lvl 1 Homeland resources: Dalmatia Illyria Helenike, Epeiros, Pannonia Lvl 2 would be Dacian provinces, and eastern Celtic provinces. The goal would be to conquer the entire Carpathian basin and expand along the coastline towards Greece, thus creating an opponent for the Boii, the Getai and the Epirots.
The factions armed forces would include a mix of Illyrian light infantry and ranged troops, Celtic heavy infantry and perhaps even cavalry (evidence supports that the celts in this area did have horses, however these were more pony like not so suitable for riding as their steppe counterparts) , a small contigent of settled/semi nomadic Iranian (a few tribes of the settled Skythians and other Iranian peoples did remain) which would provide excellent foot archers (seeing as their migratory period had ended some two centuries ago for most of them, most likely they had abandoned the bow-horse warfare style) and Thracian forces (with a few Dacian forces), and along the coastline Greek milita forces aswell (capturing Dalmatia, the regional forces would most likely include Epeirot imitation Hoplites, aswell as light infantry and peltast who, according to the Romans fought quite well in a guerilla style warfare during the Illyrian wars). This would create a quite unique army, and would give additional depth to the already great EB experience in my point of view.

However I have presented but a fraction of the history of the Carpathian basin, in short, without sources and/or further materials such as pictures exct. I just wished to pitch the idea, and if the EB team agrees I would gladly research this subject, in the case that it would be impossible to insert a new faction, then I would gladly offer my services in creating at least recruitable mercenaries in this region, that would represent the Pannon people/and the Carpathian people;

I await your input;
Diodredai

[Arjos]

By 272 BC Pannonia was almost entirely Keltic, process that began around the end of the 4th century and culminated with the Balkans' invasion...
That said I think the Dalmatae or an Illyrian tribe would be interesting as their culture is pretty unique...

[Diodredai]

First of all to answer your question yes, some of the Pannons were celticized. However not all of them: in the 2nd century BC, consuls Lucius Aurelius Cotta and Cornelius (his surname is not known) fought against the Segestani, however they were defeated [this happens 72 years after the timeline starts]. Analogy: usually if a territory is conquered by an alien culture, it takes several decades even generations for them to fully be in this case celticized, and even then, the ruling elite might be of an alien origin, however the people inhabiting the area won't change that much in terms of genetics, true they might adopt another language however their customs will mostly be the same.

Please note that the proposed name is "Pannon tribal alliance" not Pannons. This implies, that other, non illyrian tribes may be part of the alliance. While it is true that most Upper Pannonia was conquered by Celtic peoples, however several historians including Publius Cornelius Tacitus, and Strabo clearly state that the Pannons live between the Illyr mountains and the Danube [although both of them lived +200 years after 272 BC], so let us presume that these territories were left untouched by the Celts. That means half of Pannonia. [to quote Strabo: ""On the other hand, almost the whole of Ardia is near the Adrias. But Paeonia is in the middle, and the whole of it too is high country. Paeonia is bounded on either side, first, towards the Thracian parts, by Rhodope, a mountain next in height to the Haemus, and secondly, on the other side, towards the north, by the Illyrian parts, both the country of the Autariatae and that of the Dardanians." "The tribes of the Pannonii are: the Breuci, the Andizetii, the Ditiones, the Peirustae, the Mazaei, and the Daesitiatae, whose leader is Bato, and also other small tribes of less significance which extend as far as Dalmatia and, as one goes south, almost as far as the land of the Ardiaei. "]

This pretty much says that if we go with the Pannons, then we represent not one but several Pannonian tribes, not to mention the fact that the inhabitants of Pannonia include late Skythian peoples (see "Alföldi Skythians" [they threw the Cimmerians out of the Danube area], the remnants of other Iranian migrations) therefore they would have a small, bow based cavalry support [which would be unique] beside Celtic heavy infantry [note Pannonians were influenced by them and vice versa], Illyrian spear levies with greek influenced peltasts, Pannonians adopting Thracian military practices (evidence shows that several Dacian ruled territories had Pannonian settlements) and I could go on and on. Point is: besides the Vlachs, and the Albanians, [both of which gained importance well after 11th century BC], the Pannonians are the only tribe that fit into this timeline, and have great importance (please note that many Emperors were later on elected by Pannonian legions/legions stationed in Pannonia!).

So just to be clear: the Pannons would represent the Illyrian culture. The Carpathian region this way will have a 4 way outcome: Sauromatae, Getai, Boii or Pannonian rule. Also if there is a strong Illyrian faction close to Rome, it can stop Romans landing and conquering the two provinces (Pannonia Illyrica/Dalmatae), thus playing as the Illyrians, one would have to defend against the immediate threat of the Boii, the Epirots, and later on in the game against Rome and the Getaii (which would be historically quite accurate).

[Arjos]

The Carpathian basin was by 272 Keltic in aristocracy and most of the population...
That by later years the urbanization of Bohemia and the roman advance made Keltoi retreat and focus to the north is another matter...
I'd like to see more Illyrian culture too and was suggesting that could be more accurate to have a dalmatian tribe for the EB's start date instead of a pannonian one...

[Diodredai]

It seems you skipped over a very important fact I stated: in the 2nd century BC the Segestani, a Pannon tribe clashed with the Romans. There is no mention whatsoever of other, non Pannon, Illyrian tribes showing any type of importance in the era, besides the Panonns. Not to mention: many important metal processing and mining areas were under their control.

Now let's look at the Illyrian tribes:


You can clearly see that southern Pannonia is inhabited by them. The Dalmatians would be however, inaccurate for this period as the Dalmatae didn't try to conquer, or invade other territories they mainly remained in a single area which was ultimatley conquered by the Romans in 76 BC (there were 3 Dalmatian wars from 156 BC - 76 BC). Plus having the Dalmatae represting Illyria would be again a bad idea because they would be too close to Macedon, Epeiros and the Getaii, thus would be destroyed early in the game, and without celtic/iranian support units they would be just a blend of Thracian, Greek and Illyrian forces.

However we could debate endlessly the question is, is there place in EB 2 for a Pannon/Illyrian faction, or are the slots already decided and closed?

[Arjos]

It seems you skipped over a very important fact I stated: in the 2nd century BC the Segestani, a Pannon tribe clashed with the Romans.

Is 2nd century BC still 200-101 BC for everyone or was changed?
In the end of the 3rd century BC that area was controlled and governed by Keltoi, having an independent pannonian tribe would be a fantasy, I suggested any tribe in dalmatia as that area was more or less independent...

[Diodredai]

Unless there was been a shift in the time-space continuum then no, it was not changed again let me reword the meaning behind this sentance: in the second century, a Pannonian subtribe defeated a Roman consular army that was headed by the two supreme generals of the Roman Empire. In my book, that is an incredible feat. Unfortunatley we do not know when Lucius Aurelius Cotta was born, only that he died (not in battle) in circa 144 BC [this is questionable, there are many Lucius Aurelius Cotta's, out of which at least two were consuls]. So I'll take the liberty of putting the battle between 180-170 BC. No other Illyrian tribe besides the Pannons could defeat the Romans, and every single revolt that errupted against Roman rule always started out on Pannon tribal territory. So the rise of the Pannon tribes can be placed in the EB timeline, whereas the rise of any other Illyrian peoples start some fifty to thirty years after 272.

[moonburn]

herm the way i see it it´s either teuta that crazy pirate queen or no faction in that area except for her and her tribe nobady else was important enough to face the kelts makedonians or dacians anyway

[Arjos]

I can't follow your logic in considering events a century later and using the criteria of "being able to defeat the Romani"...
Illyrians even helped Pyrrhus and his family not like they were an "inferior" or "unworthy" people not to even be considered for the game...

[Diodredai]

Arjos let me show you my interpretation of the events that occured in the questioned timeline: In 272 there is no major Illyrian faction however by 180-170-160 BC two events happened that place Illyria on the world map: The Pannon's resistance of the Romans being one, and Teuta's temporary alliance against the Romanii. So for this reason let's cut southern Illyria, or Dalmatia and Northern Illyria into two parts. We have three wars against Illyria: the reason: trade on the Adriatic was threatened by Illyrian pirates therefore the Romans start a series of campaigns, first in 229 BC against Teuta, the second against Demetrius of Pharos and the third against Gentius. This results in southern Illyria being conquered later on, whilst northern Illyria remaines independant for many years to come. Not to mention that Teuta's alliance was a temporary at best, whilst the Pannons gradually expanded throughout the decades bringing more tribes into their fold. Yes you are right the southern Illyrians of Apollonia helped Pyrrhus, and later on the Epeirot league. The Pannon's remained independant due to resisting Celtic influnces and the Romans, therefore they impacted events later on much more then their southern counterparts. In my book, they had a bigger role on the events to come, than the southern Illyrians.

Sir you misunderstood very much, and I consider the terms "inferior" and "unworthy" as terms that cannot be used when researching history, as history is written by the victors, therefore they decide on how future generations will precieve of other peoples. I am merely saying that the game engine is limited, and not all factions can be portrayed equally, therefore those factions that had a greater effect on the timeline are granted the playable slot, where as the others must be folded into the rebel faction.

I think I've stated my case, could we have some feedback on wether or not there will be an Illyrian faction? Either Pannon or non Pannon

[Arjos]

Ok with that I can agree...
But imo top criteria to include faction are these:

- Somewhat independent and relevant at the start date.
- Enough evidence to back it up properly.
- Expansionistic desire.

Now I don't know what the team uses, but including the Pannonias is comparable to the Eburones the way I see it, I think the suitable ones for the area are Skordiskoi or Illyrians...
Maybe we'll get few hints or a preview soon, who knows :P

[Diodredai]

- Somewhat independent and relevant at the start date.
- Enough evidence to back it up properly.
- Expansionistic desire.

And on that note I believe we have finished the discussion, yet again I shout out to our Europa Barbarorum II development overlords, is there a need for a unified Illyria?

[Cyclops]

Well good on you for having a stab at it, Illyria is certainly a significantr culture in the EB period and thats reflected in the AOR tropps (and in EB2 I imagine in the "culture" buildings in the appropriate provinces).

As the whether there's a coherent polity that could or did get imperial or even regional can be debated. But its worth a look and although it was rejected from EB, there's a bit more wiggle room in EB 2. There's even some "composite" factions reflecting broader and perhaps not-always-coherent entities that had enough recurrent influence to justify inclusion. I'm guess there wasn't a Kingdom of Lugia or Prytain, but there's a Lugian and a Prytanic faction in EB2 that reflect important cultures that're worth portraying as a persistent entity.

My guess is cultures in Iberia and the low countries (and maybe on the Garonne) will get a guernsey first but you never know.

[fomalhaut]

my input in game balancing terms as i am completely ignorant on this culture and region: great idea, fills in the power gap between Rome, Boii, Sweboz, Dacia and Epirus. I am also very interested in the Illyrian culture and EB is a great teaching tool for that.

from what i've read regarding the teams philosophy on this matter: filling in empty space isn't a strong case for justifying a faction. If a different culture or faction was more politically or economically relevant but its in a crowded place, it will greatly take precedent over something like this.

[NikosMaximilian]

One possible possitive aspect would be that those cities wouldn't rebel to the Aedui if the Pannon faction should happen to be from a different culture. I hate when Pannonia Illyrica or Scorcouw revolt and put the Aedui at war with Epeiros/Getai/Makedon, or whoever is holding those settlements.

[Arjos]

One possible possitive aspect would be that those cities wouldn't rebel to the Aedui if the Pannon faction should happen to be from a different culture. I hate when Pannonia Illyrica or Scorcouw revolt and put the Aedui at war with Epeiros/Getai/Makedon, or whoever is holding those settlements.

Remember reading that was due to the RTW's engine, pretty sure with M2TW it won't happen again...

[Diodredai]

my input in game balancing terms as i am completely ignorant on this culture and region: great idea, fills in the power gap between Rome, Boii, Sweboz, Dacia and Epirus. I am also very interested in the Illyrian culture and EB is a great teaching tool for that.

Exactly, because in my experience, the Aedui completley ignored the area, the Epirots were too busy fighting first the Mak's, then KH, the only faction that tried to seize the territory was the Getaii, and the Romanii much later on in the game, however with the Boii, after at least 10-15 years we would see a stalemate developing with the Boii and the Getaii, having the Illyrian territory neglected, whilst the Boii will either get steamrolled by the Swéboz, or the Romans much later on, in terms of game balancing, the Pannons would be excellent, creating a buffer state between Greek expansion along the coastline, preventing an easy Roman landing near the Epirots [provided you do not want to go to war with them] and transforming the Carpathian basin to an ongoing war zone such as Greece, or the Selecuids war with the vassal states.

However, in the starting period Illyria just doesn't seem to have that great an impact on the world, I could see them part of perhaps an emergent faction, not quite sure how that works in Kingdoms, im MTW2 you had two slots, one for the Timurids, one for the Mongols, thus creating a non playable Illyrian faction, that would emerge somewhere during 200 BC, however that destroys the dream of planting a Pannon banner on the Forum Romanum....

[Arjos]

I'm quite confident the gaming experience will be very different from EB I's: diplomatic standings, bigger map with better geography, somewhat different borders...
And yes it would be a pitty to have the Illyrian culture "lost" in few regional troops...

[Tanit]

A sneak peak of things to come.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Dalmatia---------------------------Pleuratus------------65------------Governor
Dalmatia---------------------------Argon------------16------------Wandering

[fomalhaut]

wandering general pretty much confirms this faction is a no go. :/

i'm totally fine with Syracuse not getting a faction compared to this, just because at least the culture group of Syracuse is ultimately Hellenic, as Hellenic as Hellenes get really. But Illyrian culture is so alien to me, just as Dacian, Celtic, Iberian, Germanic and Tin Island Celts, Sakae

[Arjos]

Either that or the Ardiaei are a new faction, Agron was Teuta's husband...

[Diodredai]

Much love Tanit, well then I guess that's it, I long for the day when EB finally comes to a version of Total War that will have unlimited faction slots, anyway thanks for the feedback, I await your newest, (and always magnificent) preview.

Btw: Arjos you are right, Pleuratus was the name of the Ardiaei's first king, and a number of later princes in the dynasty held his name. A short introduction on who they are exactly:

Ardiaei or Vardiaei (Greek,"Ἀρδιαῖοι" or "Οὐαρδαῖοι", Latin, "Vardiaei"), was an Illyrian tribe, residing inland, that eventually settled on the Adriatic coast.Polybius (203 BC–120 BC) writes that they were subdued by the Romans at events that occurred at 229 BC.Appian (95 – 165) writes that they were destroyed by the Autariatae and that in contrast to the Autariatae had maritime power.In the Epitome of Livy they are said to have been subdued by the consul Fulvius Flaccus.

The ancient geographer, Strabo, lists the Ardiaei as one of the three strongest Illyrian peoples - the other two being the Autariatae and the Dardani.

King Agron, son of Pleuratus who belonged to the ruling house of the Ardiaei, disposed of the most powerful force, both by land and sea, of any of the kings which had reigned in Illyria before him.

[Arjos]

Would be nice if they get a "piracy" income bonus, actually on the line of S2TW anyone things specific traits for factions are something too "videogamish"?

[fomalhaut]

If you conquer them, i'd think you'd NOT want a piracy bonus. You'd ideally want to pull a Rhodes and get some nice peaceful seas for trade. Unless you are the Sweboz coming south looking to wreak heavoc.

[Arjos]

I mean faction specific, in the piracy case available only to the Ardiaioi... Was just an idea, I don't even know if it's possible to add...

[fomalhaut]

Ancillary "Pirate Envoy"
Economic Resource "Piracy"

however, neither one of those would be increasing trade for you. seems gamey and unrealistic, even if Teuta was this great queen who controlled some pirates she didn't control all pirates. they would lower trade, not increase it.

[Arjos]

Understand that, but at the same time giving them slightly stronger fleets doesn't quite give credit to their pirate tradition imo...
But again they aren't confirmed yet and no idea if all of this is feasible...

[Cyclops]

Understand that, but at the same time giving them slightly stronger fleets doesn't quite give credit to their pirate tradition imo...
But again they aren't confirmed yet and no idea if all of this is feasible...

IIRC in EB there was a plundering trait that Sweboz (and possibly others) got, which amounted to some mnai for devastating non-friendly squares, was that right?

A "Piracy" bonus might work the same way for being at sea or in a coastal province, tro simulate the character sponsoring suiccesful priate raids. However I can't imagine the amount of scripting it would take to make that income be subtracted from othe peoples trade (which is after all where it would come from). So it'd be a "gamey" solution rather than an intergrated global feature AFAIK.

[Arjos]

I used the wrong word... Not a character/family member trait, but a faction unique feature, for example in their ports...

[Cyclops]

I wonder if you could have a building that built trade in your port and diminished it in other peoples. Maybe a building ("Pirate Hideout") that stopped trade (which might lower the trade value of adjacent ports, a nice real-world type effect) but gave a cash bonus like a mine?