View Full Version : Casse Rivals- A proposition
Dear All,
Normally I would post this in the possible factions thread but i have noticed that such propositions usually dissapear beneath a tide of posts dismissing such ideas and once again shouting "Pergamon for a faction" or "Syracuse should be included" so I have posted it here.
In the past I have suggested the inclusion of another British tribe to make the Casse campaign slightly less monotonous (constant battles against the Eleutheroi can become tiring) and prompt the Casse to expand when being played by the AI. Usually such suggestions are dismissed by people saying there is not enough evidence for another British tribe (until the Roman invasion of 43AD we hear almost nothing of the British isles and thus have little information on the society of the Brigantes, Caledones or other large tribal confederations). I have also noticed that few people seem to believe that a Belgae faction could be included again because of lack of information.
I propose the inclusion of the Atrebates as a faction. Now before people start ripping this thread apart here are my reasons for proposing the Atrebates:
1. The Atrebates would requrie little further research as both they and the Casse belonged to the Ayesford-Swarling culture (A Belgic or Belgic influenced form of La Tene culture found in South East Britain).
2. Based on late Numismatic evidence we know that rough extent of Atrebatian territory (although this would neccesitate the creation of a new province to represent this territory).
3. Historically we know that the Casse and Atrebates were often at war, thus prompting an AI Atrebates or Casse faction to start expanding.
4. Two individuals, Diviacus of the Suessiones (c. 100BC) and Commius of the Atrebates (52BC) both ruled the Atrebates and parts of Belgica. Thus the Atrebates could be a trans-channel faction, this would make an Atrebatian campaign both interesting and prevent an Atrebates faction from becoming simply a carbon copy of the Casse.
Please let me know what the rest of you think.
anubis88
01-21-2010, 11:01
I'm sorry, but this seems to me like an extreme longshot. I do believe that other factions deserve the spot, more than another british tribe.
Also, there has been a lot of debate about the Casse being in the game in the first place, so i really don't see another faction up there
The atrebates indeed appear to have ruled land on both sides of the english channel. However it seems that the Belgae were still on their way to Belgica at our startdate, they didn't yet settle in the lands they'd live in during Caesars time.
ziegenpeter
01-21-2010, 13:17
And this rivalry would be very quickly over since two one-settlement factions starting next to each others would lead to a soon death of one of these factions, I guess
seienchin
01-21-2010, 15:14
Having the Casse in the Game is in my opinion quite far stretched so why not having another faction in britain? :book:
As long as it is no goidilic faction with only heavy armoured elite units. :juggle2:
Having the Casse in the Game is in my opinion quite far stretched so why not having another faction in britain? :book:
Mainly because there are numerous other potential factions that are better candidates.
Kudos to Brennus for researching an alternative Briton faction, rather than throwing out the Caledonians again.
I am not convinced, though. "Stopping the expansions of another faction" is a poor reason for spending a faction slot. There's other ways of doing that. Also, if they start out at war, you are most likely merely delaying the problem until one of them beats the other. Lastly, faction expansion is probably going to be different in EB2 because the A.I. is programmed differently.
oudysseos
01-21-2010, 16:09
Not a bad thought, but the major problem is that the game starts in 272 BCE, and there is no evidence of the Atrebates being in Britain that early. The Aylesford-Swarling Culture probably begins around 75 BCE, and some have suggested that the situation that Caesar found in southern Britain was of very recent origin, and may in fact have been greatly influenced by previous events in Gaul. That makes it hard to talk about what a British faction might have looked like had there not been a Roman Hegemony.
Kudos to Brennus for researching an alternative Briton faction, rather than throwing out the Caledonians again.
I am not convinced, though. "Stopping the expansions of another faction" is a poor reason for spending a faction slot. There's other ways of doing that. Also, if they start out at war, you are most likely merely delaying the problem until one of them beats the other. Lastly, faction expansion is probably going to be different in EB2 because the A.I. is programmed differently.
Thank you for the kudus. I suggested the Atrebates not to prevent the Casse from expanding but to do the very opposite, to prompt them to expand. I have noticed in my non-Casse games that the neutrality that exists between the Casse and Eleutheroi at the start of the game oftens prevents the AI Casse from expanding.
I agree with what people have been saying about the 170 year gap or so that exists between the start of the game and the currently accepted date for the Ayelsfor-Swarling culture beginning. What about the Arras culture of the Parisi in Yorkshire? Does anyone know how early that culture is? Again that would be relatively easy to research as the Parisi of Gaul would have had a culture very similar to the Averni and Aedui already present. The only problem is that, unlike the Casse, the Parisi were not major political players in Iron Age Briton (at least according to the few hisotrical records we have).
I sympathise with people who think another British faction is a waste of time, I am just Celt mad.
I also agree with people who argue against a Goidelic faction, although personally I would love to see a Goidelic faction, the archaeological evidence for this period in Ireland is very limited and the historical records (mostly derived from legends and the Annals of Ulster) would not provide accurate information.
Clearly not a lot of popular support around here for another faction in northwest Europe, but I personally agree with Brennus's sentiments. The Atrebates position seems interesting, though if it came down to picking one and only one additional faction for the region, I'd probably prefer to have the Brigantes.
The main draw to Atrebates (to me) would be the possibility of starting with territories on both sides of the English channel. However, it would seem that given the way the current campaign map is in EB1, their holdings on the north side would be synonymous with Cassemorg, which is Casse's only starting province. So unless the EB2 team decides to squeeze another province into Britain (which would mean cutting one from somewhere else, a very unlikely scenario), the Atrebates would realistically be starting with one of the two Belgic provinces. And then you're left with the question, "If we're going to include a Belgic tribe as playable, why the Atrebates when there are other good (and probably better) contenders to represent a Belgic faction?"
I think a Belgic faction would be great, and I strongly suspect that one will be included in EB2, but if we're debating a best choice for a new faction with a British presence, then I think Brigantes are your best choice. I think the main reason to include a "rival" for the Casse is that they're boring to play. I haven't been playing EB very long (maybe a year) and have only been visiting these forums a couple months, but I suspect most players never bother with the Casse, and those that due probably find themselves establishing a hegemony over the British Isles before looking toward Continental Europe, where the real action (and challenge) is. The Casse are not threatened by any other factions for a long time and, besides financial difficulties, there's nothing to prevent them from slowly (or quickly) conquering Great Britain and Ireland. Adding the Brigantes in their titular province would change things a great deal, though admittedly I don't see it making campaigns more interesting for players of other factions.
I know there are candidates for playable factions with much higher priority in terms of historical significance (and information), but if I understand correctly there will be room for at least nine additional factions in EB2, and the only three are confirmed so far, leaving at least six more slots. By the time the team gets down to selecting that final faction or two, I think the Brigantes look pretty good in comparison to the remaining choices.
Excellent points by B Ray, and you are right about Cassemorg. The only problem is finding the evidence for the Brigantes.
I agree with you though the Brigantes would probably be the best option for a rival tribe (after the Atrebates, politically speaking, geographically speaking the Brigantes are a much more sound choice) other major tribes and confederations in Britain appear to have either been ad hoc groups created to resist Rome (the Caledonians) or were subject to the Casse in some form (Silures, Iceni and Catti).
But with the Adrebates, it would be necessary to represent their cultural evolution due to a Belgian migration (between second century BC and the first century BC).
For a Britannic faction, I prefer the Brigantes. A war between the Brigantes (natives) and the Casses (Belgian foreigner) represent better the cultural evolution of the Britain.
Invader versus native Britons? I smell an AAR.
Bucefalo
01-21-2010, 21:42
I think it is a pretty hard decision, considering the faction limit. Ideally one would want as much representation as possible from the different tribes, but then this is not possible with the engine. I trust the EB team criteria to decide which factions to include, as they have proven in the past. In my mind, besides historical accuracy which is the trademark of the mod, i think each faction should have some sort of flavour around it, in the army composition/gameplay or other way.
For example the one faction which i don´t like much is the aeudui-avernii, not because i dislike celts, but because they´re too similar to each other. I understand the necessity of having both of them represented to show a more accurate gallia thought. But in my opinion having them with so similar rosters and very similar in everything make me feel like a wasted faction slot. In EBII i would love to see some more differences between them, in both army composition (maybe one faction have more access to cavalry units, or the other have access to swords earlier) and playability (for example in the campaign map, the arvernii with their god-king could be quite different that the aeduii, perhaps different buildings and ways to conquer, or more loyal generals in one system than the other one.)
As for the british isles i think it is worth having a native faction at the very least, and the Casse seems to be indeed the best choice as the most powerful tribe, and one of the most involved in trade that we know of. I think there is no need to add more factions in britain as imho the Casse represents well enough a possible emergent power in britain. Perhaps what could be done is to add many regional units representing different tribes (much like the sweboz have) so that you feel that the rebels you fight are actually other tribes and not just a endless mass of grey enemies.
I would much rather see more variation in the barbarian factions in iberia, where there is only the lusotannan present at the moment, i think adding a celtiberian and a iberian tribe (possibly the arevaci/vasci as the celtiberian and the illerget as the iberian). With that said i recognise the difficult job the team must have deciding among so many tribes (very difficult to have a good representation of all of them) but in the end i trust the EB team to make the right decisions. :)
WinsingtonIII
01-21-2010, 22:13
I would also like to remind everyone that though naval invasions are practically non-existent with the RTW AI, they are not uncommon with the M2TW AI. Now, I love the culture of the British Isles in this period, and another faction there would be wonderful if we didn't have a faction limit, but I think that with the faction limit the team would be better served to place a faction in another, less isolated area of the map that we also have more knowledge about. I do think we will see a new Belgae faction in EB2, however, I believe they will be a mainland faction. Even so, I think this will help balance out Northwest Europe a bit more, especially since naval invasions will no longer be unheard of.
When playing England or Scotland in M2TW vanilla, it was not uncommon to see a Danish (or sometimes Portuguese) naval invasion of the British Isles even within the first few turns of the game, at least on harder difficulties. So, keeping that in mind, I think that even a mainland Belgae tribe could help balance out the Casse in Britain, and even if the Casse come out on top, I think we will start seeing more attempts by the Casse AI to launch naval invasions of the mainland. Which would certainly be nice.
oudysseos
01-21-2010, 23:36
What about the Arras culture of the Parisi in Yorkshire? Does anyone know how early that culture is? Again that would be relatively easy to research as the Parisi of Gaul would have had a culture very similar to the Averni and Aedui already present. The only problem is that, unlike the Casse, the Parisi were not major political players in Iron Age Briton (at least according to the few hisotrical records we have).
That's it in a nutshell: the Parisoi and other tribes in the Northumberland/Vale of Pickering area had a distinct archaeological culture from at least 400 BCE: but there is no evidence that they became a major regional power. This makes them somewhat less attractive prospects as factions. The Brigantes were a major regional power, but this seems likely to have happened only after the Roman invasion- there is not much in the record that we can tie to the Brigantes in the 3rd century BCE.
That's the major challenge with British factions: there is a lot of information from the Middle Iron Age but no history: the earliest British individual known to us is Cassivellaunus in the 50s BCE, more than 200 years after our start date. A lot happened in that time, but we don't know the exact details.
Look, if there were no faction limit (and more importantly, no province limit), I'm pretty sure that we'd end up with two native British factions. As it is, I'm not going to give out any hints, but there is a lot of work that has gone into Britain, and I can't wait to show it to everyone. Patience! We are working away at EB2. If you can skin and/or model, we need you!
BTW, the bible for this subject is Iron Age Communities in Britain by Barry Cunliffe. A less expensive alternative is An Imperial Possession by Mattingly or The Britons by Christopher Snyder. It is a fascinating subject with a lot of very good literature.
Macilrille
01-21-2010, 23:58
I would also like to remind everyone that though naval invasions are practically non-existent with the RTW AI, they are not uncommon with the M2TW AI. Now, I love the culture of the British Isles in this period, and another faction there would be wonderful if we didn't have a faction limit, but I think that with the faction limit the team would be better served to place a faction in another, less isolated area of the map that we also have more knowledge about. I do think we will see a new Belgae faction in EB2, however, I believe they will be a mainland faction. Even so, I think this will help balance out Northwest Europe a bit more, especially since naval invasions will no longer be unheard of.
When playing England or Scotland in M2TW vanilla, it was not uncommon to see a Danish (or sometimes Portuguese) naval invasion of the British Isles even within the first few turns of the game, at least on harder difficulties. So, keeping that in mind, I think that even a mainland Belgae tribe could help balance out the Casse in Britain, and even if the Casse come out on top, I think we will start seeing more attempts by the Casse AI to launch naval invasions of the mainland. Which would certainly be nice.
Vanilla RTW also saw lots of naval invasions. The Scipii always invaded Carthage while the Brutii crossed over to Greece (and if you sent a diplomat you could bribe them while on the boats and have the Brutii fleet sail your new army with its super general over to conquer...). fx...
WinsingtonIII
01-22-2010, 00:12
Vanilla RTW also saw lots of naval invasions. The Scipii always invaded Carthage while the Brutii crossed over to Greece (and if you sent a diplomat you could bribe them while on the boats and have the Brutii fleet sail your new army with its super general over to conquer...). fx...
But other than those two major invasions, which may have been scripted considering they happened every time (not sure on that), I simply don't recall seeing it happen very often. Maybe it's just that I've played vanilla M2TW more recently than vanilla RTW, but when I first got M2TW one of the major things that I remember noticing was a big increase in naval invasions.
Of course, the extremely high price of ships in EB2 will undoubtedly reduce the frequency of naval invasions from vanilla.
from a gameplay exclusive point of view, i alway prefer if new factions slots are used to fill in the power vacuums and as dumper zones for uncotrolled expansion (like that of Roma and Ptolemais). so IF there is to be a second faction on the isles (which are pretty small to beggin with) i'd like to see it as distant as possible from Casse, like in Ireland or Scotland. but i'd like much more to see a second Iberian faction, a new central europen faction like the Boii, the Belgae....
seienchin
01-22-2010, 09:09
But other than those two major invasions, which may have been scripted considering they happened every time (not sure on that), I simply don't recall seeing it happen very often. Maybe it's just that I've played vanilla M2TW more recently than vanilla RTW, but when I first got M2TW one of the major things that I remember noticing was a big increase in naval invasions.
Of course, the extremely high price of ships in EB2 will undoubtedly reduce the frequency of naval invasions from vanilla.
Sorry, but RTW Vanilla has lots of Naval invasions, also with the Greeks, carthago and even the spains.
Anyway Is there any evidence of the casse in 272bc? Just asking because I never read anything credible in that way.:book:
I suggested the Atrebates not to prevent the Casse from expanding but to do the very opposite, to prompt them to expand. I have noticed in my non-Casse games that the neutrality that exists between the Casse and Eleutheroi at the start of the game oftens prevents the AI Casse from expanding.
Since most players complain that the Casse can too easily gain control of the islands, I am not sure whether that's a good idea.
Anyway Is there any evidence of the casse in 272bc? Just asking because I never read anything credible in that way.:book:
As Odysseus writes, the history of the British Isles only starts when Caesar arrives there. Before that we have to go with the archaeological record.
Macilrille
01-22-2010, 12:19
I was but stating obvious examples. As Seinchein says there are many more. You are right, however, the price is likely the limiting factor.
I seem to recall someone mentioning that him lowering the price of ships increased the frequency of naval invasions.
oudysseos
01-22-2010, 14:09
As Odysseus writes, the history of the British Isles only starts when Caesar arrives there. Before that we have to go with the archaeological record.
Which is tremendous. There is an extraordinary amount of data: the problem is synthesizing it into something meaningful.
WinsingtonIII
01-22-2010, 17:23
Sorry, but RTW Vanilla has lots of Naval invasions, also with the Greeks, carthago and even the spains.
I guess I just haven't played vanilla in years then, because I don't remember this.
Macilrille
01-22-2010, 17:54
I guess I just haven't played vanilla in years then, because I don't remember this.
Lately I have considered going back to it for just one campaign to see how fast I can beat everyone. After EB I suspect very fast ;-)
Sorry, but RTW Vanilla has lots of Naval invasions, also with the Greeks, carthago and even the spains.
In all my playing of EB, I have only ever seen one AI Naval invasion, and I practically set that up for the Carthaginians.
Anyway Is there any evidence of the casse in 272bc? Just asking because I never read anything credible in that way.:book:
I remember a thread about a year or two ago where some guy claimed that the majority of stuff in the Casse leader's Biography trait was rubbish :shrug:
Look, if there were no faction limit (and more importantly, no province limit), I'm pretty sure that we'd end up with two native British factions. As it is, I'm not going to give out any hints, but there is a lot of work that has gone into Britain, and I can't wait to show it to everyone. Patience! We are working away at EB2.
Ooooooh I'm as giddy as a schoolgirl:dizzy2:
I remember a thread about a year or two ago where some guy claimed that the majority of stuff in the Casse leader's Biography trait was rubbish :shrug:
A lot of the Casse and British stuff in general was based on sources that the EB team no longer has access to, so with no way to check these things we are likely to see some big changes in the way the British isles and their inhabitants are portrayed.
I think this was the reason some of the Irish units were taken out in the recent versions of EB.
oudysseos
01-22-2010, 21:21
A lot of the Casse and British stuff in general was based on sources that the EB team no longer has access to,
Not quite- we have at least as much if not much much more source material than the team did back in '04/'05 when the Casse was first concepted. What is changing, perhaps, is the approach. There are a lot of blanks to fill in for an EB faction- family trees (there are no identifiable British individuals before the 50s BCE), names of settlements and regions (no records from the 3rd century BCE) and all kinds of stuff that we can only speculate on. To fill some of these blanks for the Casse, EB1 looked to material like Gildas, Nennius and the Welsh Annals. Modern scholarship does not view these sources as accurate history, but they were taught as fact for maybe 1,000 years, so there is a lot of inertia behind them. The thing is, whatever scenario we come up with has to be speculative to some degree, and the best we can aim for is for our speculation to be as plausible as possible.
We are likely to see some big changes in the way the British isles and their inhabitants are portrayed.
Maybe...
antisocialmunky
01-23-2010, 02:41
In all my playing of EB, I have only ever seen one AI Naval invasion, and I practically set that up for the Carthaginians.
I fought a 20 year war over Sicily with Carthago as Rome with EB Alex and some house rules(max high taxes unless enemy in Italy, 12 unit armies).
Quite competent at keeping armies in the field and ever over seas... as in whole 20 unit stacks + reinforcements + elephants. :skull:
Guys stop talking about EB Naval invasions unless you have some historical or archaeological information to add about Celtic shippping. No offence intended but this how threads go off track.
I fought a 20 year war over Sicily with Carthago as Rome with EB Alex and some house rules(max high taxes unless enemy in Italy, 12 unit armies).
Quite competent at keeping armies in the field and ever over seas... as in whole 20 unit stacks + reinforcements + elephants. :skull:
Ha, nice. But then, I don't use .alex.
Guys stop talking about EB Naval invasions unless you have some historical or archaeological information to add about Celtic shippping. No offence intended but this how threads go off track.
Celtic Shipping (http://www.bures-online.co.uk/coracles/coracles2008%20002.jpg)
Celtic Shipping (http://www.bures-online.co.uk/coracles/coracles2008%20002.jpg)
lol Thats gotta take some skill to operate.
Macilrille
01-23-2010, 22:02
Ha, nice. But then, I don't use .alex.
Celtic Shipping (http://www.bures-online.co.uk/coracles/coracles2008%20002.jpg)
Ha ha ha, yet they seem to have reached Iceland in the 7th-8th centuries in such contraptions... The Vikings found monks there when they arrived, Vestmannaeyer is named for them if I recall correctly. Of course they proceeded to cut them down or enslave them.
One must surmise that their patron saints were watching over them on those trips across the N Atlantic ;-)
WinsingtonIII
01-23-2010, 23:10
Guys stop talking about EB Naval invasions unless you have some historical or archaeological information to add about Celtic shippping. No offence intended but this how threads go off track.
Sorry Brennus, I never meant to hijack the thread, I was just misremembering what RTW vanilla was actually like.
In actuality, I would love to see another faction in the British Isles, but I think with the faction limit there are just too many other factions that should be given preference, unfortunately.
In actuality, I would love to see another faction in the British Isles, but I think with the faction limit there are just too many other factions that should be given preference, unfortunately.
Yep, I agree. I prefer a Belgian or a Boiian faction than a new brythonic faction.
Celtic Shipping
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Corucos re-enacted:
http://www.les-ambiani.com/2009/Savonnieres/DSC04360.jpg (http://www.les-ambiani.com/2009/savonnieres.php)
WinsingtonIII
01-23-2010, 23:39
Yep, I agree. I prefer a Belgian or a Boiian faction than a new brythonic faction.
Definitely, and ideally both a Belgae tribe and the Boii could make it in I think. I would be surprised if we do not see at least the Boii in EB2, although I have no information on the matter so I may look very stupid when it comes out and they are not in it.
Ha ha ha, yet they seem to have reached Iceland in the 7th-8th centuries in such contraptions... Atlantic ;-)
Surely a coracle wouldn't survive such a trip. A curragh would, although considering the very shallow draft of a coracle they could have simply risen above waves rather than sail through them although i think the logistics would have prevented a human from travelling that far in a coracle.
Yes I agree it does look like the Boii or continental Belgae would make a more likely addition to the faction roster (i personally see no point in the Saba... prove me wrong guys), i think we are all in agreement that there is no chance of a Goidelic faction.
antisocialmunky
01-24-2010, 15:59
It is fun to learn something everyday. Now I want to make one...
[/stuff]
For my two cents I think a continental faction would work better gameplay wise. Having a faction stuck on an island is somewhat of a waste from a gameplay standpoint.
Curraghs and coracles are really just for pottering around and fishing. It's like saying the Romans and Greeks had nothing better than fishing boats.
Boats are rare however, so the nearest I can find you is a Bronze age boat.
http://www.dover.gov.uk/museum/bronze_age_boat.aspx
(i personally see no point in the Saba... prove me wrong guys)
You better hope Moros doesn't read that:clown:
But seriously the Saba are a stronger faction choice than the Casse, we know far more about them for one thing and they were more powerful. The criticism usually put against them is that they are "too isolated" which I never understand as they are always pretty active on the map in my games (constantly fighting the Ptolemaioi and even attacking the Baktrians at Persis in a few campaigns) which is more than could be said for the Casse (who I have seen only once capture a city in the continent) .
I'm not suggesting either be dropped as I love playing them both I just think its a little unfair that people pick on the Saba so often.
Back on topic: I think a Belgae tribe such as the Suessiones or Atrebates would be the best choice for a rival to the Casse as they historically showed considerable intrest in Britain and we know about them more than other British tribes.
Curraghs and coracles are really just for pottering around and fishing
IIRC someone sailed a Currach across the atlantic so they were perfectly seaworthy, although one would imagine for longer journeys they would use bigger ships, these could still have been Currachs mind you.
antisocialmunky
01-24-2010, 19:26
It would probably be more accurate to say non-ideal. After all Thor Heyerdah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Heyerdahl) has pretty much shown that its not that hard to sail ancient vessels not thought to be able to do ocean crossings across oceans if you have skill, a whole lot of guts, and the weather on your side.
WinsingtonIII
01-24-2010, 19:32
(i personally see no point in the Saba... prove me wrong guys)
I think anyone who says there is no point in the Saba should really try playing a campaign as them. It is a very fun, very unique campaign experience that is both challenging and provides great roleplaying opportunities. The same can be said for anyone who says the Casse are useless. I have found that due to their isolated starting positions and generally unique units, they both have a very interesting feel to them in campaign that cannot be replicated by any other faction, and for me that alone is reason enough to keep them (although of course historical accuracy is paramount). So, I guess my answer to you is, play a campaign as the Saba, and that will prove to you that they have a point.
I'm not trying to change the direction of this thread, I just have noticed that every time we start talking about either the Casse or the Saba, inevitably the suggestion is thrown out there that they should be dropped as factions (which the team has said they won't do anyways if I remember correctly), and I'm just putting my two cents in on that subject.
(i personally see no point in the Saba... prove me wrong guys).
well, if was going to change your mind by myself, I'd have to resort to illegal means (like burning your house or throwing a dead horse on you bed).:clown:
besides, Saba is awesome; what is better in EB than trying to take on to world-class empires, the ptolemioi and seleukids, using a motly band of light infantry?:smash:
it has a star wars quality to it, come to think about it.
athanaric
01-24-2010, 21:03
@EB team, please can you make a sticky saying something like "Saba will NOT be removed" (unless you guys decide to of course)?
The request for removing Saba has become more frequent and annoying than the one for the inclusion of LS.
Elmetiacos
01-25-2010, 01:26
There seems to be more continuity in Central Britain/Northern England than in the South; Sutton Bank hill fort dates from around 400BC, and Almondbury was apparently burned down shortly before that, as if [warning: conjecture follows] there had been an unknown ruling group prior to that date, succeeded by new rulers centred further North, who can be identified with the Brigantes. After that things seem to have stayed fairly stable, with the proto-Brigantes extending their rule over a large part of the region until we arrive at the situation of Cartimandua vs. Venutius in Roman times. In the South, things seem to have been less stable. Most of the major centres are much younger. Aylesford and Swarling have been mentioned and opinions are always changing, but the tendency seems to be to move dates later: where once there was a conjectural "Belgic Empire" in the Southeast opinion now seems to be shifting towards the view that changes in material culture are largely due to direct Roman influence from Gaul. In EBI's version of history, Caesar's Cassi are associated (per Ó hÓgain) with the Gaulish tribes whose names ended in -casses and made a major power, but that's only one man's view in the end. What was really going on there is anyone's guess...
Noone start dissin' my sabaean homies okay?
Power2the1
01-26-2010, 19:26
Noone start dissin' my sabaean homies okay?
Word, yo. Dats straight up, dog.
Horatius
01-27-2010, 01:55
As long as we are throwing out ideas for a new faction why not do the obvious ones that I think are not in and add in Galatians, Massaliots, and Belgica?
Celtic_Punk
01-27-2010, 02:05
Look, if there were no faction limit (and more importantly, no province limit), I'm pretty sure that we'd end up with two native British factions. As it is, I'm not going to give out any hints, but there is a lot of work that has gone into Britain, and I can't wait to show it to everyone. Patience! We are working away at EB2.
You can show it all to me. I won't tell! You can trust a fellow Irishman! :yes:
Someone had a thread going a little while ago expressing a desire for EB2 to have a bigger map, and I expressed my opposite opinion that the mod would be more profited by a reduced map (mainly by not going so far south, which would consequently eliminate the Saba), and it was not well received.
:hide:
Anyway, somewhat more related to the original topic, there's obviously a popular notion that there exist(ed) too many other deserving factions to include another British one. I'm no history buff of the relevant time period, so I'm not going to argue against this notion, but I will play devil's advocate and ask just what factions do deserve inclusion over, say, the Brigantes?
As it stands, to my knowledge, there are 7 factions as yet unannounced for EB2. The original 20 are definitely in, as well as Pergamon, the Bosporan Kingdom, and Massylia which have been announced. Again, I'm not as familiar with the time period as most here seem to be, so my opinions are based largely upon the desire to see gaps in the campaign map filled, but I'd say that there should definitely be an eastern Iberian faction, a Belgic faction, a northern Arabic faction, and at least one faction located somewhere west of the Getai but east of Gaul. Clearly I'm not very concerned about the far eastern portion of the map, but then I never really intend to play Bactria, Saka, or Selekuids anyway, so I'm biased. So in my mind, there's room for Brigantes.
But what about you guys? If there's no room for another British faction, then who's more important? It's easy to say there's too many other deserving factions, and list a couple, but with 7 slots to be filled, I'd really like to see a list of at least 7 factions with more historical credibility. :duel:
WinsingtonIII
01-27-2010, 03:28
But what about you guys? If there's no room for another British faction, then who's more important? It's easy to say there's too many other deserving factions, and list a couple, but with 7 slots to be filled, I'd really like to see a list of at least 7 factions with more historical credibility. :duel:
I mean "important" is a very relative word, but I think there are probably 7 other factions that beat out the Brigantes. Keep in mind that though historical accuracy is extremely important in EB, team members have stated that some factions will not or have not made it in due to gameplay purposes. I think Kyrene (sp?) was mentioned specifically, as the faction would never survive in the hands of the AI (sandwiched between the Ptolies and Kart-Hadast, as it were).
This is just my list, and it's very similar to one bobbin and I were discussing in the potential factions thread. It's obviously not "correct" or even necessarily a great prediction of which factions will be in EB2, but I think it works out.
So, we already know:
1. Pergamon
2. Massylians
3. Bosporan Kingdom
And, partially based on that, here's who I personally think we may see:
4. Massaesylians - With the way the EB team were referencing these guys as a major rival of the Massylians during the Massylian preview, I think they're in. Let's just say it would be very strange to put in the Massylians but leave out their major and quite powerful rival in Numidia.
5. Boii - They're historically powerful and they fit a good area gameplay wise.
6. Kartli - Historically quite important, and gameplay wise they will provide and interesting dynamic as it may be an early fight for survival in the Caucasus between the Hai and Kartli, or perhaps they could team up against the AS, which would be interesting (not sure what the historical scenario would be, I should look that up).
7. A continental Belgae tribe - Not sure who it would be, but again I believe they fill both a historical and gameplay vacuum that previously existed in the game.
8. A celtiberian tribe (Arevaci maybe?) - Some sort of Eastern Iberian faction will be in most likely, as you say.
These final two are where it gets a bit hard, bobbin gives the Scordiscii, Kappadoika, Galatia/Bythinia, Atropatene, Helvetii, and the Kambojas as options and after some research I think they all sound possible. I'm not going to hazard a definitive guess towards the last two as I think it's too much of a toss up. However, given how many of the factions on the previous list are concentrated in the West, and EB does attempt to provide a focus that balances across all areas of the map, it's quite possible that the last two could be Atropatene and the Kambojas. That would certainly spice up the East more.
Truthfully, another tribe on the British Isles would be great, but I think that once you combine the necessary historical and gameplay requirements, the factions listed make better choices than the Brigantes. Sorry for the length.
Ok a must confess I do take guilty pleasure by playing the Saba in custom battles, so there you are Arabophiles. Whats the addiction with the Sweboz?
Aylesford and Swarling have been mentioned and opinions are always changing, but the tendency seems to be to move dates later: where once there was a conjectural "Belgic Empire" in the Southeast opinion now seems to be shifting towards the view that changes in material culture are largely due to direct Roman influence from Gaul. In EBI's version of history, Caesar's Cassi are associated (per Ó hÓgain) with the Gaulish tribes whose names ended in -casses and made a major power, but that's only one man's view in the end. What was really going on there is anyone's guess...
Precisely.
The key problem that has been raised (correctly) by many people here is the fact that the Belgae migrations (if they did even occur, Cunliffe claims that the Aylesford-Swarling culture is the result of trade not migration, i don't agree) cannot be dated any earlier than 130BC at the very very earliest (based on Allen's numismatic evidence). However an insular Belgic tribe could be included if it can be proven that the Casse (Catuvellauni) can be proven to be Belgic and not Marnian Gauls, as Harding suggests. We know the Casse were present in Britain by 272BC as Ó hÓgain points out, now if they were Gauls then there is no case for Belgae in Britain at this time, if however they were Belgae then it is feasible that another tribe (Possibly the Trinovantes) could be included as Belgae rivals. Once again we have the problem of a lack of evidence with no coinage in Britain till 130BC (Gallo-Belgic A stater) and no named Belgae individuals till either Diviacus c.100BC or Commios 54BC, and certainly no Belgic pottery till c.60BC.
If the Casse are Belgic then there are grounds for a proto-Atrebates or other such tribe, if they are Gallic then once again we are stuck with the first Belgae arriving in the 1st Century BC. It all depends on your interpretation of Caesar's commentary on Britain and whether the continental Casse (the Catalauni) were Belgae or Gauls from the Marne region.
Sorry if that bored everyone, im gonna go an build a mini curragh and test it in the bath.
oudysseos
01-27-2010, 17:30
There seems to be more continuity in Central Britain/Northern England than in the South; Sutton Bank hill fort dates from around 400BC, and Almondbury was apparently burned down shortly before that, as if [warning: conjecture follows] there had been an unknown ruling group prior to that date, succeeded by new rulers centred further North, who can be identified with the Brigantes. After that things seem to have stayed fairly stable, with the proto-Brigantes extending their rule over a large part of the region until we arrive at the situation of Cartimandua vs. Venutius in Roman times. In the South, things seem to have been less stable. Most of the major centres are much younger. Aylesford and Swarling have been mentioned and opinions are always changing, but the tendency seems to be to move dates later: where once there was a conjectural "Belgic Empire" in the Southeast opinion now seems to be shifting towards the view that changes in material culture are largely due to direct Roman influence from Gaul. In EBI's version of history, Caesar's Cassi are associated (per Ó hÓgain) with the Gaulish tribes whose names ended in -casses and made a major power, but that's only one man's view in the end. What was really going on there is anyone's guess...
Not quite: the major centres that the Romans found were much younger- Camolodunum, Sorviodunum, etc. There are plenty of 3rd century BCE and earlier sites in the South; Maiden Castle, Uffington Castle, Old Oswestry, The Wrekin, the Bigbury-on-Stour hillfort close to Durovernon- and many many smaller sites, mostly unexcavated. Some of these are late Hallstatt-era foundations that seem to have been continued into the Middle Iron Age, and some might have been late 4th/early 3r4d century sites. There seems to be a general pattern (with regional variations) of the smaller hillforts falling out of use in favour a few, bigger sites, until the 1st century BCE (give or take 50 years) when a whole crop of new sites spring up and the older hillforts close down. It is hard not to associate these late pre-Roman sites with some kind of Belgic migration, but there are pefectly plausible alternative scenarios.
Ó hÓgain might believe that the Cassi were in Britain and known by that name as early as 272 BCE, but he can't prove it, for as Brennus points out the earliest numismatic evidence is much later. Given that all but one or two of the tribes reported by Caesar had disappeared by the time of Claudius, it is possible that tribal identities were more changeable than is often assumed- and in fact, we have to consider the possibility that tribal names themselves, as an idea, were not universal in the 3rd BCE: the large number of smaller sites certainly is suggestive of smaller political and ethnic identities, similar to our notions of clans or families. The very notion of a tribe might only have been forming in the 3rd century.
athanaric
01-27-2010, 17:55
but I will play devil's advocate and ask just what factions do deserve inclusion over, say, the Brigantes?
I'm all for the inclusion of the Brigantes. The problem is, can you (or the EB team) accumulate enough material evidence for this faction?
Ok a must confess I do take guilty pleasure by playing the Saba in custom battles, so there you are Arabophiles. Whats the addiction with the Sweboz?
The Swêboz units look extremely good even for EB standards. Not to mention their great reliability in melee engagements.
Apart from that, they're the only "Germanic" faction in the game, thereby representing a culture that played a major role in Europe from the EB timeframe onwards.
Both Swêboz and Saba are "underdog" factions that are outclassed by their neighbours, either in technology or in terms of armour and manpower.
ziegenpeter
01-27-2010, 18:01
Well, the sweboz are a bit cheated into the game right? The team claims, that there must be enough evidences for a faction's activity around 272bc, but afaik we don't get much information about germanic tribes until the 2nd bc and most only from the 1st bc... Or am I wrong?
EDIT: But you are right, sweboz are the developing country of the antiquity, even more than saba. The latter had at least this great dam. Something a germanic wouldn't even dream about.
seienchin
01-28-2010, 00:45
Ó hÓgain might believe that the Cassi were in Britain and known by that name as early as 272 BCE, but he can't prove it, for as Brennus points out the earliest numismatic evidence is much later. Given that all but one or two of the tribes reported by Caesar had disappeared by the time of Claudius, it is possible that tribal identities were more changeable than is often assumed- and in fact, we have to consider the possibility that tribal names themselves, as an idea, were not universal in the 3rd BCE: the large number of smaller sites certainly is suggestive of smaller political and ethnic identities, similar to our notions of clans or families. The very notion of a tribe might only have been forming in the 3rd century.
That is the point. 272bc is a maybe not the best starting year for historical accurate mod, because we have little to no knowlede about the barbarian tribes. Having the sweboz, casse and the aedui and averni in their current form is far stretched and the sauromatae as an united kingdom seems unlikely too. :juggle2:
So I think judging the relevance of the barbaric factions by historical facts is quite difficult and a belgian-britain faction would imo be great for balancing the game. :book:
oudysseos
01-28-2010, 16:02
You can show it all to me. I won't tell! You can trust a fellow Irishman! :yes:
Aren't you from Cork? Hardly inspires trust in a Dublin man.:laugh4:
Seienchin, it's true that many of the "Barbarian" factions would have more written sources were the game to start later, but the later we start, the more entrenched Roman supremacy would already be- and many of the Hellenistic factions would fade out. It's all about balance, and 272 BCE is one of the latest dates that we can posit a plausible alternate history. The death of Pyrrhus ended any chance of a Hellenistic Kingdom expanding into the Western Medd.
oudysseos
01-29-2010, 05:28
Check this (http://knol.google.com/k/pre-dark-age-britain#) out.
moonburn
01-29-2010, 13:45
and before the brigantes there´s still alot to be discussed around sicily and massilia since we can now subdivide regions to express that there might a leading city but she wasn´t totally in control of the region wich ofc gives the western greeks a fair chance to show up and fight their regional power batles
also the chatti haven´t been rulled out yet and i still believe that a belgic faction if represented will authomatically clash with the casse (i sure hope so or else the aedui are going in for some serious troubles being caught beteween the arverni and the belgiums wich ofc can be aplyed for the arverni if they are caught beteween the chatti and the aedui or if an alpine faction shows up )
putting in the brigantes imho is giving 2 much importance to a part of the map that won´t bring much into the game
oudysseos
01-29-2010, 15:11
Punctuation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuation): it's not just for That (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_that_is_is_that_that_is_not_is_not_is_that_it_it_is).
and before the brigantes there´s still alot to be discussed around sicily and massilia since we can now subdivide regions to express that there might a leading city but she wasn´t totally in control of the region wich ofc gives the western greeks a fair chance to show up and fight their regional power batles
Massalia was ruled out by the team a very long time ago.
Macilrille
01-31-2010, 20:53
Unfortunately. I would really- really like to see Massilia in.
Massalia was ruled out by the team a very long time ago.
Was it? I thought they merely ruled out a KH-style alliance between Massalia and its colonies Emporion and Saguntum, on the grounds that the ties between them were never that strong.
Horatius Flaccus
01-31-2010, 22:20
Well, according to this (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?122883-An-Occultus-Faction-possibly-worked-out&p=2386975&viewfull=1#post2386975) post (83), it was.
Well, according to this (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?122883-An-Occultus-Faction-possibly-worked-out&p=2386975&viewfull=1#post2386975) post (83), it was.
well, maybe they will unrule it out now? :clown:
oudysseos
02-01-2010, 14:41
The problem with Massalia is that, in game terms, it starts out with the same amount of territory that historically it achieved- it never really showed a propensity to expand. The TW engine is not well suited to showing the kind of economic influence that Massalia exerted, so it's hard to see it as a stand-alone faction, although it is high on our list of things we would do if only there were no hard coded limits.
Well, according to this (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?122883-An-Occultus-Faction-possibly-worked-out&p=2386975&viewfull=1#post2386975) post (83), it was.
I stand corrected.
:bow:
moonburn
02-03-2010, 16:38
sorry for the way i barged in it might have been too enthusiastic/agressive
i think that if the western greeks have a fair chance at the game they should start with sicily and then have an objective like conquering the entire sicilian homelands and then going for sardinia and corsica when the sicilians do this the massilians would join them in a kinf of western greek confederation but only if the siracusians/sicilians proved to be able to defend the western greeks from the poeni by conquering sicily and sardinia/corsica
once the western greeks managed to conquer the baleares the wester greeks in iberia could maybe join the union as a type 3 group
or then if the sicilians conquer sicily the massilians would join them in a type 3 alliance if they conquered corsica a type 2 union and if they conquered sardinia and the baleares (or kick out the poeni from the med islands) they would gain the suport of the iberian greeks since they would be perceived as strong enough to "suport" the greek colonies of iberia and their merchant interests against the poeni
a secondary goal to be to defend magna grecia from the romans by liberating southern italy
it´s like the getae trying to gather all the thracians together
ofc this is just me day dreaming but could make a siracuse campaign the best gaming experience ever imho with the siracuse hoplites holding the center the massilians cutting off the flanks and the greek noble cavalry pressing home for the victory while the balearic slingers range havoc from a distance
oudysseos
02-03-2010, 23:09
Whew!
Moonburn, there is something to what you say, but there was never any kind of Western Greek Confederation of the sort that you mention, nor, as far as I am concerned, any indication that such a confederation was ever possible. Just because the people of Agathe Tyche and Locri Epizephyrii both spoke Greek doesn't mean that they had any political common ground. Quite the opposite, I'm afraid.
moonburn
02-07-2010, 23:33
i know odysseus you explained it to me in an all too painfull detail but for instance the fall of tarentum happened out of their arrogance by sinking a roman fleet and then they runned to phyrrus for suport (had syracuse been the stronger greeks around they would probably have runned to syracuse for suport)
when corsica alalia (?) fall to the poeni the massillians wanted to intervene but they weren´t strong enough thus the reason why i say "if syracuse and the sicilian greeks managed to be strong enough to defend the other western med greeks" they would all eventually ask for suport from them and would ofc in the nice greek tradition be forced to join in a new league (athens did it spartha did it and so did thebes so why wouldn´t the syracusans do it ?)
as far as i can recall tarentum was an extremly wealthy city so rich that they hired mercenaries to fight for them instead of recruiting and "forcing" their citizens to fight, syracuse was a pearl amongst greek city´s and thats how it managed to fend off the poeni time after time after time and they even burned alot of poeni 6 store high buildings in retaliation in the 4th century (?), one can argue that had they been smarter when dealing with the marmentines and the bruttians and more politically united they might have been able to flush out the poeni out of sicily instead of going to italy to fight wars against other greek city´s in the times of agatocles or hiero the 1st (and there was another one i can´t recall that was a tiran)
just because the western mediterranean greeks weren´t very united that doesn´t mean we can´t rewritte history and a strong greek ruller in the western mediterranean can´t win their wars against the poeni instead of having to resort to roman influence time after time after time until the greeks are all tied up by what rome says
we know that the mediterranean was always an hub for trading wars (as far back as the trojan wars) we can deduce that there was some sort of cold war beteween the greeks and the poeni over trade
we also know that syracuse if they manage to gain control of the entire sicily and sardinia and corsica will be trapped beteween rome and carthage but a few of us wouldn´t mind the challange expecially if we get to win over massilia or emporion or arse in the process of kicking the chartaginians and roman butts and become the great western soter \o and be able to scream "no more will roman boots trample and humilliate the greeks for zeus and mars onward to liberate Tarentum" <--- herm got a litle bit carried away on this part
ofc i´m going on a very long stretch to compare the way tarentum acted and compare the leagues of greece proper to what might have happened if the syracusans had managed to be "smarter" but in the end it would all come down to how well a player could act if the player is not advanced enough in all arts then syracuse would never survive past the 1st 40 turns but the trufh is that a single language is a way to be closer to someone and thus easyer to ask for suport because some iberian tribe or some celtiberian tribe is threatning you if you don´t pay them more for the metals they offer you
A Very Super Market
02-09-2010, 08:09
You don't seem to be getting the point. Yes, certain greek cities were indeed quite powerful. But they never did join together to create a confederation, as history demonstrates.
moonburn
02-09-2010, 14:40
You don't seem to be getting the point. Yes, certain greek cities were indeed quite powerful. But they never did join together to create a confederation, as history demonstrates.
and thus i wanna gave it a try on the what if they did i mean they where greeks afterall they couldn´t be oblivion to the concept of league alliances and since most of their primary concerns where around trade routes (at least the smaller more isolate places i don´t mean places as tarentum or syracuse who had a developed farming and pretty sophisticated societal bonds ) one can´t ignore that a powerfull combined navy and a strong numerous army did help to open new trade routes or close them to their enemies
one must remember that the poeni closed the strait to the greeks or took alalia because they where united and strong
damm i even have an aar on my head with nice letters from the syracusan greeks to emporion or arse explaining that they need their armies and war navies once every 5 years and when they do they don´t provide the desired results but if they accept to join the alliance their army and navy will be part of a great powerfull force that will help protect other greeks open trade routes give them bigger profits and when that time comes once every 5 years that they need their army or navy they will be there 10 times more numerous then if they stood alone and kicking ass in the name of emporion
after 272 everything goes in terms of politics wars and who gets to live on and who gets to die
But if you are going to use a faction slot to create a hypothetical Western Greek league which, aside from never existing in 272, never existed in reality, then you may as well give weight to confederecies and alliances that existed after 272 but never the less existed, the Caledonians, the Brigantes, the Aetolians, or even (to bring this thread in one big loop) give a faction slot to a group we definately know existed but whose year of origin is debateable ie the Atrebates.
and thus i wanna gave it a try on the what if they did i mean they where greeks afterall they couldn´t be oblivion to the concept of league alliances.....
Please use punctuation, it makes reading posts much easier on the eye and brain.
The point is that they never had or showed any inclination to form such alliances during their history. This makes any what if ? scenario for a western greek alliance completely divorced from the prevoius history, not to mention that the EB team like to keep clear of what if scenarios all together.
At the end of the day it has been stated that such a faction will not be included so we are going to have to live with that, you could always make a minimod when EB2 gets released.
And if I may say with the announcement of the Bosporan kingdom and the high likelyhood of Pergamon being included there is a danger of EBII becoming too Hellono-centric, do'nt get me wrong the Seleukids are one of my favourite factions and i really like Epirus and Macedon but i would much rather see some new "barbarian" factions than more Hellenes.
Pergamon has already been confirmed, it was the first faction to be revealed.
Given the time it is set in EB was always going to be fairly Helleno-centric but I think we have reached or are near the natural limit for hellenic factions, only Kyrene and Syrakousai could be conceivably added to their number.
And thus with the addition of Pergamon the Arche Seleukia difficulty moves from "very challenging" to "nigh impossible".
WinsingtonIII
02-09-2010, 17:46
With all due respect, moonburn, keep in mind that if you really want to play as a Western Mediterranean Greek state, you can always start a KH campaign where you migrate them to Syracuse or Massalia at the beginning of the game, and then go into the edu (or whatever it's called) and change the faction name and color. It seems that in this situation you would get access to most of the units you would probably be able to recruit if a Syracuse faction was included anyways. I think it's a pretty easy solution, the only downside being that the KH will not exist in your campaign, but frankly I rarely see them expand much anyways. If you want more, then try to drum up support for a minimod. If the Galatians are not included, I think you will certainly be able to find support for creating a minimod that adds the Galatians and a Western Greek league of some sort.
Also, I agree with Brennus, although any mod focusing on the Hellenistic Era will certainly be Helleno-centric to some extent, I think we've got enough Hellenic factions as it is. Nine is quite a bunch.
I'll harp in and express my agreement with the notion that there are plenty of Hellenic factions at this point. The name of the mod, after all, is Europa Barbarorum. And if I count correct, there are only 7 European barbarian factions represented (and presently confirmed) in EB2. So I'd consider it false advertising if we didn't get at least twice that many. :wink3:
(That's a joke, though I'd personally think it awesome)
oudysseos
02-09-2010, 23:18
Not so: the Greeks wrote that the Romans were ignorant uncultured barbarians; the Romans wrote that the Greeks were effete barbarians; seeing as how Phoenician culture in the Western Mediterranean was older than either of them, I bet that the Carthaginians thought that both the Romans and Greeks were noveau-barbarians; the Romans definitely thought that the Carthaginians were barbarians; the Macedonian Successor Kingdoms were barbarians anyway according to "real" Greeks; the oldest of all world civilizations in Egypt and Mesopotamia surely regarded their Macedonian overlords as inconvenient barbarians; gods know that the various peoples of northwestern Europe were all barbarians to the literate cultures of the Mediterranean, and what they thought of the Romans etc. is largely unrecorded but I bet that "barbarian" was high on the list; and the various horse peoples of the Eurasian steppes largely thought that anyone else was barely even human.
Every single faction in Europa Barbarorum is in fact a Barbarian faction, depending on who you ask. That's the point of the name, eh?
Dubliners are barbarians, not like us good civilised people in Belfast. lol.
oudysseos
02-10-2010, 02:45
Dubliners are barbarians, not like us good civilised people in Belfast. lol.
I know I didn't just read that.:shocked::stunned::laugh:
Dubliners are barbarians, not like us good civilised people in Belfast. lol.
Too right :smash:
Well I figured it was obvious I was using the term "barbarian" in the modern sense. Guess that's what happens when you assume.
Horatius
02-10-2010, 22:25
Well about Massilia it did have a major part in our timeframe besides economic, the Alliance between Massilia and it's allies with Rome is the reason Rome sided with Suguntum, causing the Second Punic War. It's colonies in Spain, and the allies of those colonies fell under Roman protection, so perhaps Massilia could start out in a way that makes it permanently submissive to Rome, and it's goal is to Colonize the Iberian Penninsula?
If even that is hardcoded against I apologize for yet another suggestion into the obvious.
oudysseos
02-11-2010, 15:10
Look, in real-world terms, many of these suggestions are perfectly reasonable: but Total War is not a model of the real world. It is an engine whose primary function is to generate battles, and whose only goal is to conquer territory. Many real, historically important entities (like Massalia) simply do not fit well into that paradigm, and it is very difficult to make economic or cultural dominance significant in the game. So yes, Massalia was part of the process that brought Rome and Carthage into conflict- but how do we realistically introduce something like that into the game? How can there be a faction that starts with one territory and always stays that way? Would anyone really play that faction for more than a few turns?
I'm afraid we're up against the limit of the engine, here: it was not intended or designed for these things. You might as well complain that your Dodge mini-van can't win a Grand Prix. It's just not what it's for.
EDIT: Completely OT, but Horatius, with all due respect, I'm a little tired of the kind of sentiments you expressed in your sig. I certainly am not in favour of bombing soft targets for political purposes- but that standard has to apply to everyone, not just Hezbollah or Al Qaeda. Why is it wrong for the 7/7 or 9/11 bombers to attack civilians (and it is wrong), but not wrong for Israel, the United States and Great Britain to do exactly the same kind of thing but on a much larger and more terrible scale? Do you even know how many totally innocent Iraqi and Afghani civilians have been killed by us? Is it impossible to conceive that the peoples from whom Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda draw their ranks might just have some legitimate grievances, and that Great Britain and the US just might bear some responsibility? A moral standard that you don't apply to yourself (and that has to include the nation to which you belong) is worthless and hypocritical rubbish.
EDIT: Completely OT, but Horatius, with all due respect, I'm a little tired of the kind of sentiments you expressed in your sig. I certainly am not in favour of bombing soft targets for political purposes- but that standard has to apply to everyone, not just Hezbollah or Al Qaeda. Why is it wrong for the 7/7 or 9/11 bombers to attack civilians (and it is wrong), but not wrong for Israel, the United States and Great Britain to do exactly the same kind of thing but on a much larger and more terrible scale? Do you even know how many totally innocent Iraqi and Afghani civilians have been killed by us? Is it impossible to conceive that the peoples from whom Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda draw their ranks might just have some legitimate grievances, and that Great Britain and the US just might bear some responsibility? A moral standard that you don't apply to yourself (and that has to include the nation to which you belong) is worthless and hypocritical rubbish.
Where on earth did that come from?
Oh wait I just read his signature, now I understand. You spelt Britannia wrong.
Each one at home and that will be much better.
ziegenpeter
02-11-2010, 18:56
Each one at home and that will be much better.
Dunno, as a historical interested person, you should know that foreigners can contribute a lot to their hosting culture. Imho great cultures developed alway there, where two cultures met...
@Mods: Could you please delete Horatius' sig? I find it quite offending ("Britain not Londonistan"), and or also because its way to political for such a forum.
Dunno, as a historical interested person, you should know that foreigners can contribute a lot to their hosting culture. Imho great cultures developed alway there, where two cultures met...
I answer you by PM. I don't want spam this thread.
I answer you by PM. I don't want spam this thread.
:yes:
Current politics do not belong in this forum.
Take those to PM, or to the backroom.
Political signatures are something of a grey area in the .Org rules. I'll check with the other moderators. If you feel a signature is offensive, don't hesitate to contact me.
MataNiall
02-11-2010, 21:58
Hey first post on this forum lol so i thought i'd add my penny worth to it. Aside from the obvious Caledonian or Pict answer to it could you not add a Faction if you were going to add a faction into the Isles area add it in Ireland. Since there is a good bit of information on the tribes and people of Ireland from that time and much earlier. I for one can see my Family line goes all the way back to 1800 BC lol. Also it'd be better than sticking a tribe next to the Casse and then both of them battering each other till one dies. Where as if a faction is put into Ireland it keeps them away from each and will hopefully make them expand Casse over Southern Britain and Ireland Northern Britain. This is just my penny's worth though i'm not wanting my Head bitten off lol
NOBODY BITE HIS HEAD OFF! We don't want a repeat of what happened to Richard III earlier this week.
Hello MataNiall and welcome to the Guild. Although an Irish (or Goidelic tribe as they are more commonly reffered to in the forum) faction is a sensible idea it is unfortunatly not feasible. Personally I would love to see a tribe in Ireland but sadly the archaeological record does not support a faction of this type. The Irish Iron Age is very poorly know, for reasons that we cannot yet be sure about, there is very little information availiable about the material culture of Ireland during this period. Skinning and designing units would be based too much on theory and conjecture rather than fact. Although we do have literary accounts like the Ulster Cycle these accounts were mostly written about 1000 years after the starting period of EB.
Another point to remember is this, Ireland's location. Now I doubt you would find anyone in this forum who would support another British faction as much as me (prove me wrong guys) but the fact that most of the action in EB is focused on continental Europe and the Near East means that Ireland and Britian do not present good locations to place a faction that would add to the gameplay.
One final point to make is this, mnai would not be applicable to Ireland during this period (although in truth it isn't really to the Casse until c. 100BC) no coinage is present in circulation in Ireland until the Vikings (hoards of Roman coin do exist but it is unlikely they were ever used as tender) in Ireland during the late Iron age there is only one curreny, cattle.
Sorry. And once again welcome.
Horatius
02-12-2010, 02:33
Dunno, as a historical interested person, you should know that foreigners can contribute a lot to their hosting culture. Imho great cultures developed alway there, where two cultures met...
@Mods: Could you please delete Horatius' sig? I find it quite offending ("Britain not Londonistan"), and or also because its way to political for such a forum.
Sorry that your offended, but I work with honest immigrants every day, and know for a fact that muslims, christians, hindus and people of all other religions who desperately want a better life, have no problems with any type of group including Jews, and who are ready and eager to accept British values are rejected by immigration and sent home everyday simply because the quota is full.
I'm sorry if you believe that we should be keeping the scum I very often have to work with who believe the 9-11 terrorists are heroes, my personal opinion is those people are horrible and should be deported for lying on their immigration applications in order to free up quota space for those who belong here.
We have literally sent political dissidents who were eager to move here, couldn't prove things, i.e. that the fate of other dissidents would happen to them if they were sent back to their country of birth, simply because quotas are full. Don't get me wrong I am 100% in favor of immigration, Englishmen and Women are all descendants of immigrants, I just think we should be favoring people who love us over people who hate us.
Horatius
02-12-2010, 03:08
Look, in real-world terms, many of these suggestions are perfectly reasonable: but Total War is not a model of the real world. It is an engine whose primary function is to generate battles, and whose only goal is to conquer territory. Many real, historically important entities (like Massalia) simply do not fit well into that paradigm, and it is very difficult to make economic or cultural dominance significant in the game. So yes, Massalia was part of the process that brought Rome and Carthage into conflict- but how do we realistically introduce something like that into the game? How can there be a faction that starts with one territory and always stays that way? Would anyone really play that faction for more than a few turns?
I'm afraid we're up against the limit of the engine, here: it was not intended or designed for these things. You might as well complain that your Dodge mini-van can't win a Grand Prix. It's just not what it's for.
EDIT: Completely OT, but Horatius, with all due respect, I'm a little tired of the kind of sentiments you expressed in your sig. I certainly am not in favour of bombing soft targets for political purposes- but that standard has to apply to everyone, not just Hezbollah or Al Qaeda. Why is it wrong for the 7/7 or 9/11 bombers to attack civilians (and it is wrong), but not wrong for Israel, the United States and Great Britain to do exactly the same kind of thing but on a much larger and more terrible scale? Do you even know how many totally innocent Iraqi and Afghani civilians have been killed by us? Is it impossible to conceive that the peoples from whom Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda draw their ranks might just have some legitimate grievances, and that Great Britain and the US just might bear some responsibility? A moral standard that you don't apply to yourself (and that has to include the nation to which you belong) is worthless and hypocritical rubbish.
First off a matter of chronology proves you are very innacurate. I will try to avoid beign offensive, even though you oppened by calling me a hypocrite.
NOBODY in the ranks of Al Queda or Hezbollah joined because of legitimate greivance. They started at a time when British and American Forces had JUST stopped a genocide attempted by Serbian Christians against Bosnian Muslims. Those poor Serbs we bombed into submission have not responded by strapping on bomb vests or holding a plane hostage. Do you ever stop to wonder if it is a horrible situation that Muslims from the Middle East often get indoctrinated into Terrorist garbage in Britain? There are plenty of BBC interviews with a lot of families who state clearly the indoctrination did not happen at home, which means it happened elsewere. It really is not a coincidence that 9-11 happened before the Afghan War, I didn't support the Iraq War, but it really has nothing to do with Al Queeda, Saddam Hussein was an enemy of Al Queeda infact and the terrorists are very happy he is gone. I am to, but for different reasons (Anfal Genocide). Britain has also handled the Iraq War very humanely and the men and women on the ground have performed exceptionally well. I would be careful before trying to compare men and women who selflessly volunteered for a hard life so you could devote yourself to study, to fanatical men working to destroy everyone and bring a new Dark Age.
As I just stated also every single Al Queda supporter we allow into Britain means someone who does not support a new Dark Age does not get in.
http://www.womenforwomen.org/global-initiatives-helping-women/support-women-afghanistan-update.php
She is the type of person immigration can’t allow in because of full quotas.
What I am suggesting is common sense, not rascism, and I would have already removed the sig if I wasn't already called a rascist, and not only that even if everything you said is true, it isn't hypocrisy or rascism to want to prefer people who don't support enemies of your country as immigrants.
My politics are simple, on the Middle East withdraw from Iraq once we repair the damage we made, give what help we could in Afghanistan, Middle East Wise Israel should withdraw from what it calls territories and abolish it's settlements and negotiate which parts of Jerusalem goes to who, and the terrorists and their supporters have no place in Great Britain. But I guess in the modern world that is defined as rascism.
Megas Methuselah
02-12-2010, 04:15
Blah blah blah you can't deny immigrants when your own breed took over my entire continent. I'll keep calling you a hypocrite until your people swim on back to Europe.
Islamic fundamentalist terrorist acts are small fry (notable exception being September 11) compared to Northern Ireland's recent (very disgraceful) past
Politics do not belong here. End of discussion.
I don't have time to deal with this now, so this thread is temporarily closed.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.