khelvan
01-08-2006, 10:21
Just because everyone needs to read this, so I don't have to keep repeating myself:
Sorry, but we don't include factions based on whether or not they invaded a particular area, or came into contact with a particular culture. Our team looks at the entire map, and cultures that affected the whole world, not just a Romano/Greek-centric view. Suffice to say they did expand, they were expansionist, and so people will say (they never left the island!) - well some of our factions took less land area than they did over the timeframe, but that does not make them less expansionistic. Others had less contact with cultures across the known world at the time, much less the huge impact they had on the Celts. The Casse were not a "collection of tribes," they were a single tribe that assimilated others. This is as much a strong nation-state as most others we are discussing.
There were numerous reasons and numerous deserving factions but three of our strongest criteria were: expansionistic and affecting many different people and cultures (and not solely in warfare), and not being able to be portrayed easily as rebels.
We consider factions based on the following criteria, foremost among many others:
- Expansionist
- Affect across the world (not just around the mediterranean) in the timeframe
- Inability to be presented as rebels (through unique units and unrest)
- Amount of work already done
- People willing to do work for the faction
Of course, positioning is a factor; for instance, we would have loved to have had an Indian faction, but as most of the Indian lands are out of our scope, so too would an Indian faction be. No Mauryans in EB. The Yuezhi will probably have to go because of positioning.
In the end, a faction like Numidia's contribution was felt to be significant, but able to be presented properly through rebels, unrest, and unique units available to certain factions. Since Numidia supplied aid to both Rome and Carthage during the Punic Wars, never seemed to be able to expand her borders (as an independent nation free from the protection of Rome or Carthage), and for the most part was generally under the heel of the Carthaginians (though posing a credible threat of rebellion) we felt that depicting them as rebels was the best way to show her contribution to the world scene.
Where the southern Britons did trade across the world, yes, giving them cross-culture impact, but primarily they were indeed expansionist, invading Hibernia more than once (though failing to take it), and by the time the war with Rome ended owning all but the northern part of Britain. This is an area about the size of Dacia at her height, for instance. We have evidence the Casse attempted to build a nation, conquered/acquired a large area of land, and throughout the timeline they became assimilators.
We did consider replacing them, but in the end we felt we couldn't depict the aggressiveness of the southern Britons in moving out of their area (as well as we could other factions, like Numidia) as rebels, not to mention the other factors we've discussed. There are many, many worthy factions for inclusion. I would love to see Nabataeans, or Sabaeans, Lugians, Belgae, and others. Some are expansionist, some are not. As you can imagine, since we had begun work on many of these factions long ago, where some factions were included in vanilla, made it much more difficult for us to remove them. The hard work we put into research and development of these factions makes it less likely for one of our existing factions to go.
In the end we could probably have felt comfortable removing and replacing a large group of the "minor" factions, replacing them with other "minor" factions with a nearly equal influence on the classical world. One of the primary things we are looking at now regarding these "minor" factions are the number of active, knowledgeable people around to actually write descriptions and do work for the faction. However, the primary reason for inclusion is impact, which encompasses a number of different factors, and the inability for the faction to be presented properly as rebels. The Casse exceed these factors more than most.
However, I have yet to hear an argument against the Casse, or southern Britons, that was not centered around their impact on the Greeks or Romans, or their impact on their lands. Because EB attempts to show the interaction in these areas with the view of how cultures other than just Greek and Roman affected the world, such arguments hold no water for us. I am still waiting for a solid argument to be made against the Casse when the premise of EB is accepted; that we attempt to show the impact of people across the known world among each other, not just their interaction with Rome and Greece. Rome and the Greek factions are included because of their impact on the known world as a whole; we don't use a double-standard for other factions.
Sorry, but we don't include factions based on whether or not they invaded a particular area, or came into contact with a particular culture. Our team looks at the entire map, and cultures that affected the whole world, not just a Romano/Greek-centric view. Suffice to say they did expand, they were expansionist, and so people will say (they never left the island!) - well some of our factions took less land area than they did over the timeframe, but that does not make them less expansionistic. Others had less contact with cultures across the known world at the time, much less the huge impact they had on the Celts. The Casse were not a "collection of tribes," they were a single tribe that assimilated others. This is as much a strong nation-state as most others we are discussing.
There were numerous reasons and numerous deserving factions but three of our strongest criteria were: expansionistic and affecting many different people and cultures (and not solely in warfare), and not being able to be portrayed easily as rebels.
We consider factions based on the following criteria, foremost among many others:
- Expansionist
- Affect across the world (not just around the mediterranean) in the timeframe
- Inability to be presented as rebels (through unique units and unrest)
- Amount of work already done
- People willing to do work for the faction
Of course, positioning is a factor; for instance, we would have loved to have had an Indian faction, but as most of the Indian lands are out of our scope, so too would an Indian faction be. No Mauryans in EB. The Yuezhi will probably have to go because of positioning.
In the end, a faction like Numidia's contribution was felt to be significant, but able to be presented properly through rebels, unrest, and unique units available to certain factions. Since Numidia supplied aid to both Rome and Carthage during the Punic Wars, never seemed to be able to expand her borders (as an independent nation free from the protection of Rome or Carthage), and for the most part was generally under the heel of the Carthaginians (though posing a credible threat of rebellion) we felt that depicting them as rebels was the best way to show her contribution to the world scene.
Where the southern Britons did trade across the world, yes, giving them cross-culture impact, but primarily they were indeed expansionist, invading Hibernia more than once (though failing to take it), and by the time the war with Rome ended owning all but the northern part of Britain. This is an area about the size of Dacia at her height, for instance. We have evidence the Casse attempted to build a nation, conquered/acquired a large area of land, and throughout the timeline they became assimilators.
We did consider replacing them, but in the end we felt we couldn't depict the aggressiveness of the southern Britons in moving out of their area (as well as we could other factions, like Numidia) as rebels, not to mention the other factors we've discussed. There are many, many worthy factions for inclusion. I would love to see Nabataeans, or Sabaeans, Lugians, Belgae, and others. Some are expansionist, some are not. As you can imagine, since we had begun work on many of these factions long ago, where some factions were included in vanilla, made it much more difficult for us to remove them. The hard work we put into research and development of these factions makes it less likely for one of our existing factions to go.
In the end we could probably have felt comfortable removing and replacing a large group of the "minor" factions, replacing them with other "minor" factions with a nearly equal influence on the classical world. One of the primary things we are looking at now regarding these "minor" factions are the number of active, knowledgeable people around to actually write descriptions and do work for the faction. However, the primary reason for inclusion is impact, which encompasses a number of different factors, and the inability for the faction to be presented properly as rebels. The Casse exceed these factors more than most.
However, I have yet to hear an argument against the Casse, or southern Britons, that was not centered around their impact on the Greeks or Romans, or their impact on their lands. Because EB attempts to show the interaction in these areas with the view of how cultures other than just Greek and Roman affected the world, such arguments hold no water for us. I am still waiting for a solid argument to be made against the Casse when the premise of EB is accepted; that we attempt to show the impact of people across the known world among each other, not just their interaction with Rome and Greece. Rome and the Greek factions are included because of their impact on the known world as a whole; we don't use a double-standard for other factions.